This is not a total webmail service like Yahoo! or Hotmail, but it's an incredibly useful tool if you're on vacation away from your computer.
Check any POP mail account from mail2web.com. Free! No registration required! Just enter your e-mail address and POP password. Access your e-mail from the web, and you can keep the messages on the mail server so you can download them later into your e-mail program. It does require trust to submit your POP password, but I've been using it for over a year and have seen no signs of abuse.
To answer the actual question, I use Netscape webmail.
What is all this ranting for? I'm talking about individuals making choices.
The first two incidents you listed would never happen if people chose to follow the advice in my post. Addressing the first: Whether as a forcible perpetrator, consensual partaker, or needle stabber, man or woman, somebody would have had to engage in risky behavior for a baby to be born with AIDS. (Yes, wiping out AIDS this way will require a few generations' time.) Even if the mother had been born with AIDS, the fact is, eventually up the family tree, somebody was not born with it. Somebody screwed up. Maybe it was a rapist who broke the clean chain; who gave someone AIDS by having sex outside of marriage. Maybe it was intentional risky behavior. Somebody fornicated. Transmission of AIDS by other means is comparatively rare, especially in the U.S., which is what my post was addressing.
The third incident you listed is yet another example of choosing to put oneself at risk. What if some guy shoots himself in the head? We can't protect people from their self-destruction.
My primary point was just that an increase in unsafe sex (which includes condom use; see my other replies) is probably a larger factor in the rise of AIDS in America than the suspension of smallpox vaccinations. I haven't a clue what the Crusades have to do with this.
"Creator" is another name for God. (Note the capitalization.) God is the Creator because He created the whole universe. He created you, me, our parents, and the very institution of marriage itself.
Your theory only supports the americas and other places heavily influenced by american media.
American media penetrates most of the world. You can get Fox and CNN in the Middle East. American movies are popular the world over. Let me give you a clue. Iraq has several movie theaters. There is no big name movie studio in the Arab world. Besides, I said within the American "sphere of influence." That includes United Nations programs and probably a lot of other things I can't think of right now.
What about africa?
Great question. African Christian pastors are fighting AIDS by teaching abstinence. The youth are receptive to the message. Correspondents report that it's been effective in slowing the spread of HIV in their localities.
Africans' main problem has been ignorance of the nature of diseases. The officials now know, but the masses are still in a process of coming to understanding. First world countries don't have this excuse. We understand what viruses are and how they spread. For the most part, we choose to put ourselves at risk.
perhaps this virus spread because people are having UNSAFE sex. Use a condom.
Only 85% safe from HIV. And there is NO proof that condoms provide ANY protection from gonorrhea, chlamydia, trichomoniasis, chancroid, syphilis, genital herpes, or human papillomavirus.
The prescription for truly safe sex is sex only within a lifelong monogomous marital relationship. It protects you not only physically but emotionally and socially. Every other kind of sex is unsafe in every way.
Condoms decrease STD risk somewhat, but they increase risks of guilt, social conflict, and related forms of corruption, which lead to further personal devastation. It leads to more damage of families, and in the long run, the whole of society.
I would appreciate it if you would devote more diligence to understanding what I wrote before you try to evaluate its rightness or wrongness.
I didn't say anything about the government (or anybody) imposing prohibition on any action. I'm talking about individuals choosing abstinence, which is neither illogical nor impractical. True, people have to want to live that lifestyle. It may appear impractical on a large scale today only because the entertainment media and the public education system are working to promote risky sexual behaviors and dangerous attitudes toward sex and relationships. They are largely responsible for the rise of AIDS within the sphere of influence of American culture. The suspension of smallpox vaccinations couldn't be more than a marginal factor in comparison.
All this effort to fight AIDS medically is like straining gnats while swallowing a camel. It's ignoring the elephant in the room. AIDS is a social problem, not a medical problem. It is thought to have started from beastiality, and it has propagated through acts of sodomy and fornication involving multiple sexual partners. If everybody would pair up with one sexual partner for life, the problem would be solved. We should be doing everything we can to promote this kind of relationship, which is uniquely both healthful and ultimately fulfilling.
Oh, but we don't want to be "prudes." Fine, have it your way. Long live AIDS.
Various news stories have... also commented on the rise of AIDS in the years after smallpox... was no longer given as a matter of course."
That's possibly a factor causing the rise of AIDS, but I don't think we need to look so hard for clues. The simple fact is that an increase in risky behavior causes an increase in the number of infections. The institutions in our society that promote risky behavior are among the major culprits of the spread of HIV.
We have witnessed the rise of AIDS during the years since movies, TV shows, pop music, and youth magazines essentially started encouraging people to have as much sex as possible with as many people as possible through their glamorization of casual sexual relationships and sullying of the perception of marriage. AIDS spreads because virginal singleness and monogomous marriage, the only STD-safe relational states, are mocked and ridiculed in our culture.
Smallpox Vaccine Could Prevent AIDS
We already have the perfect preventative solution to AIDS. Here it is: Sex is only for marriage. Marriage is a covenant between one man and one woman and their Creator. Marriage is for life.
This is the behavioral "vaccine." It's free with infinite supply (public domain, no patents), and it's always as close as your nearest brain cell (assuming you haven't incapacitated your brain cells with alcohol or other drugs). Refuse the vaccine, and you pay the consequences.
All of this AIDS research is happening mostly because our society doesn't want to take the simple, obvious preventative measures right in front of our face. The first step is to say: Is this person my spouse? No? No sex (vaginal, oral, anal). No AIDS. Simple. Cut and dried. You don't need a brain surgeon to figure this out. You just need some principle and discipline.
Microsoft's chief security strategist made the surprising statement that the company is about one-third of the way to its goals for Trustworthy Computing. I guess there's a lot more going on internally than we're aware of.
The article also says, "Microsoft's short-term strategy will shift from patch management to what the company calls 'securing the perimeter.'" What this means is that they're working more closely with firewall companies.
I can download a 3-hour stream of talk radio and hear it in about 1:20 when I speed it up and skip commercials and one or two uninteresting parts. I have to constantly monitor the speed because some callers have a motormouth, and certain topics are too deep to be listened to quickly. The only problem is I can't find a free stream ripper for which you can set automatic start and stop times.
Many web development applications have HTML Tidy built in. One I use is HTML Builder XP. Don't let the name fool you. It's more than an HTML editor. It comes with functions for creating CSS, ASP, and PHP (4.x integrated!) and customizable DHTML scripts. It has tabbed preview windows to check your rendered code in as many browsers as you have.
HTML Builder XP is created by one of the two developers of the now-defunct 1st Page 2000 by Evrsoft. Evrsoft is now just the one remaining developer who has essentially abandoned the app. The vaporous "1st Page v. 3.0" is like the Duke Nukem Forever of web dev apps. If you happen to be among the thousands of web monkeys who have been waiting for the next version of 1st Page 2000, HTML Builder XP is what you're looking for.
With remarkable speed and near unanimity, Congress on Thursday passed legislation...
President Bush said he looked forward to signing the measure.
But its immediate future was in doubt after U.S. District Court Judge... Even after Bush signs the legislation, the FTC must win its appeal to reverse West's decision or have him reconsider based on the new law.
Here we have, figuratively speaking, the President, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and tens of millions of citizens held hostage by the men in black. We sit at the mercy of the Almighty Court. Since Roe v. Wade, there has been a trend of the Courts becoming more and more powerful. Whether or not this particular legislation is good, it really irks me that the courts can trump the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch, and the apparent will of the people. Court judges have become like dictators, trumping the Constitution itself. What is the check on the courts' power? I think they can be impeached. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) I am not advocating it in this case, but we ought to consider such a measure from time to time.
But the exemptions, once created, can only be expanded.
You're exactly right. This could end up like the Tax Code--loopholes everywhere. Eventually, people working at both businesses and non-profit organizations might have to hire a lawyer everytime they need to make a phone call so they'll know if it's legal.
I couldn't read the article either, but I think Greenspun is probably trying to say that Java is so easy to code in that 50% of Americans are currently Java programmers. And a third of them are soccer moms. Then he probably points out, sadly, that Java's resource usage efficiency is roughly equivalent to the SUV's 40 rods to the hogshead (10.4 feet per gallon).
As I was scanning the comments, I saw the phrase "ignoring the intellectual faculties given you by the Creator," and assumed that you were responding to an evolutionist. I'm constantly astounded at how deeply some people have bought into evolutionism. Evolution is taught in the schools, but most people don't actually believe it. You behave as if evolution were a fact or at least a plausible, cohesive theory, when most of it is nothing more than glorified conjecture and sophistry revived from the ancient Greek pagan philosophers.
Government, religion, education, science, philosophy, literature, music, art, food, clothing, architecture, and more in every society have been influenced by a belief in a supreme Creator. It is inseparable from the human experience. Everyone has a theistic orientation, whether it's a/mono/pan/poly-theistic or avowed agnosticism. As the Rush song goes, even if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. Now please don't give the obligatory troll response of "what about a tooth fairy orientation?" Nobody believes in that. It was created as fiction from the beginning. It was never intended to be believed and plays no fundamental part (by a long shot) in the human experience.
God is axiomatic. Most people are born into the world and just know it. Theism is natural. Atheism must be taught.
(If evolution has determined that theism is important to humans, then you are choosing to devolve your posterity. Your descendents can look forward to welcoming their evolutionary superior theistic overlords.;-)
Pure science would be objective, but everyone has philosophic bias. A denial of bias blinds a scientist to the nature of his own being and the skewed inclinations of his own presuppositions. Philosophy influences not just the interpretation of experiments, but the very construction of experiments and the choice of which experiments to conduct. Like in the media, a bias is revealed as much by what is not included than by what is included.
There is nothing in or of the Earth that contradicts the Bible; the Bible and the Earth are complementary. They were created by the same Omniscient Being. Why does "science" seem to contradict the Bible? As the Wahabis have hijacked the religion of Islam, so have the militant Atheists hijacked the practice of science. Science was first practiced in order to have greater understanding of the Creator's handiwork.
Science is worship. It used to be worship of the One who created the objects of study. We sought knowledge of creation so that we would have more to thank God for; so that we would see manifestations of His majesty and glory; so that we might gain some insight into the character of the Lord of the Universe. Now, scientists worship the knowledge itself of the created things, while denying the One who made it all. Thus, they blind themselves to the greater realizations and appreciations that science is meant to seek out. Those who are agnostic (a-gnostic; Greek for no knowledge), have chosen to remain know-nothings -- ignorant of the knowledge of God.
There is only one account of creation in the Bible. It is the chronological account in chapter one. This narrative of the creative stages ends at the conclusion of chapter one. Chapter two mentions creation, but, in fact, moves on to a completely different subject. After the sixth day (i.e., after the last verse of the chapter), creation has been completed, and God takes a day off to reflect upon His creation. This chapter puts the focus on God's relationship with man. The transition is in Gen. 2:1-3 where God provides man with his first Sabbath. This is part of the God-man relationship, because Jesus said, "The Sabbath was made on account and for the sake of man, not man for the Sabbath." (Mark 2:27, Amplified Bible) Keeping the Sabbath holy is the Fourth Commandment (Exodus 20:8-11) and an integral part of God's covenant with man.
Chapter two complements chapter one. It backtracks and shows how t
Okay, fighting terrorism is good. But is he doing an effective job?
Yes. Quite a few terrorist plots in the U.S. have been thwarted. No terrorist attack has been successful in the U.S. since 9-11-01. The Taliban is gone. Much of Al-Qaeda's leadership has been taken out. Terrorists are confronting our military in Iraq, and they're being gunned down. The terrorists wanted to attack civilians on American soil. Bush has effectively moved the war to their soil, and they are facing the wrath of our military instead slaughtering our civilians. Yes, troops are dying in the desert, but they volunteered and are prepared to fight. That is better than accountants and janitors burning alive in American buildings.
And who is benefiting?
You and me. The whole free world. The new and improved Iraq.
Take the Iraq war -- we were told that we had proof that Iraq had WMD, and it turns out that that was false, and the Bush administration knew it.
We were told that we had proof by former U.N. weapons inspectors, Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Tom Daschle, George W. Bush, Colin Powell, the CIA, Tony Blair, European intelligence, Israeli intelligence, and numerous Congressmen, both Democrat and Republican. Oh yes, and Saddam Hussein admitted to having WMD. The weapons may still be there. Iraq is a huge desert. If they are there, it could take many years to find them. Another possibility is that they were transported to Syria or another ally.
So we are spending US$4 billion dollars a month for a war that hasn't increased security.
I feel more secure than I did on 9/11. I haven't heard of any homocide bombings or anthrax attacks here in a long time.
(see cost of war)
What was the cost of NOT going to war? What is the cost of appeasement? To see the answer, just look at Israel: continued and worsening terrorism. A little Rummy-style Shock & Awe over there would bring peace within hours.
Can you really put a price on the continued freedom and tranquility within America? What is the price of liberation from tyranny for Iraqis? We have brought liberty to a nation in the Middle East! Think about that! Iraq has the potential to become a refuge for Arabs in a sea of tyrannies.
It has been months since any fresh corpses of Iraqi dissidents have been dumped into Saddam's mass graves. The machinery of the plastic/body shredders has gone silent. The light of liberty shines into Saddam's torture chambers and exposes the horror to which George W. Bush has put an end. The blood on the walls is old and crusty. It's a new era for a liberated people. Long dormant hospitals have opened up. The people have been celebrating in the streets. Iraq now has dozens of independent newspapers. They are openly discussing political and religious differences, something unthinkable during Saddam's regime. They have formed an indigenous, multi-ethnic/religious government that represents all the people. There is an Iraqi Congress! WMDs or not, we have done a very wonderful thing.
And who is making money from the war? Just Cheney's former company, who he is still being paid by. (see Cheney paid by Pentagon contractor).
First of all, Dick Cheney sold all his assets and severed all his ties to Halliburton during the 2000 election. He has nothing to gain from helping Halliburton. I know you'll never believe this, but Cheney has said outright that he had nothing to do with Halliburton receiving a government contract to do work in Iraq.
Second point: Revenue != Profit. Do you have any idea how expensive it is for an American company to do that kind of work in Iraq? It isn't cheap. This is not exactly a boondoggle.
And, by the way, terrorists tried to murder government officials (Democrats) and media with anthrax. The administration doesn't seem to be making any progress in tracking these people down, now, have they?
The anthrax disseminators haven't struck again, have they? I think that says som
The current administration supports big business over all else, and the preservation of their assets and ability to make money is paramount.
What does the president's administration have to do with corporate privacy policies? Except in the rare case of a national security concern, they are mostly separate issues. If you insist on tying tech politics to presidential politics, I'll remind you that spam and spyware came to be major problems during the Clinton administration. Of course, this is all Al Gore's fault for inventing the Internet in the first place.:-)
I keep hearing this charge over and over on Slashdot of Bush being consumed with trying to enrich his business buddies. Where do you get this? I look at what the president does, and I just don't see it. The war on terrorism protects everybody, the tax cuts and rebates were for everybody (even people who don't pay taxes), the faith based initiative benefits the downtrodden, etc. I can't think of one instance in which the president supported "big business over all else" or that indicated that the "preservation of their assets and ability to make money is paramount." That's just crazy. George W. Bush isn't that kind of person.
Certainly the president does want business to thrive; that creates jobs and improves the economy. But what proof do you have that he's trying to enrich a particular group of people? You should watch his speeches, which are always in streaming media at whitehouse.gov (both live and later recorded). Get the whole message. Moreover, look at what he does. Evaluate Bush by his actions, not by what op-eds and blogs say about him. Those people have agendas. Like any good hacker, go to the source.
you do realize (don't you?) that Rush Limbaugh is just a silly popular entertainer with an extremely narrow demographic of followers who like to be told what they want to hear?
Extremely narrow demographic? Democrats disagree. That's why they're scrambling to make a liberal version of his program. Bill Clinton, Tom Daschle, and many other Democrats have been publicly whining about Rush for years. He calls them on their lies and shenanigans, and they just can't stand the truth coming out. The "silly popular entertainer," in your words, has been called "the most dangerous man in America" by prominent leftists. Howard Dean is acting as if he would be running against Rush for president in 2004, judging from his statements at rallies. Yeah, silly entertainer, right?
Narrow demographic, you say? I guess that's why ESPN made the business decision to hire Rush to be a football commentator. The fact is, he has the biggest media audience in the history of media. Prime time CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, and FOX combined have significantly fewer viewers than Rush's EIB Network.
NPR gets only 2% federal funding? You're right on that point. I didn't know that, but it did use to be a lot more. I think the listeners were galvanized into giving more money when Congress threatened to cut NPR's funding a few years ago.
Much of the contributions come from corporations (like the Ford Foundation which gave over $3,000,000 in 2000) and personal "charitable" foundations. Even foreign individuals and companies contribute. This is actually legal, but an important distinction in comparing NPR to Rush as to sources of revenue.
NPR wouldn't be sustainable in solely American markets (no outside money) where it would have to earn its place on each and every one of hundreds of radio stations across all major regional demographics and do so through advertising revenue. Rush started from nothing and has done that due to consumer demand for the once-scarce product of non-liberal biased news. His show is on 600 radio stations, and no one else in the world has ever been able to attain such a massive audience without the stations being a government-run media monopoly in a big country.
In its financial statements, NPR brags about how foreigners love to listen to the audio streams of its programs. No doubt, they get contributions from overseas. It has come out that some of NPR's stories are actually seeded propaganda from other governments, kind of like Google's "Sponsored Links," except NPR doesn't separate sponsored stories from regular ones. The line is pretty blurred since all of its programming is anti-American.
This is ironic. An earlier poster went on and on about how the opposition to the FCC changes was a "bipartisan orgy" and that nearly all Americans are against it. Now, who is it that symbolizes the so-called conservative so-called dominance of Clear Channel? Rush Limbaugh. And yet his opinion is the very one that no one here seems to have heard!
For all of Clear Channel's alleged nefarious, powerful influence feared by liberals, it has not had any visible effect on the people or Congress as it relates to this issue. Egads! Maybe, just maybe, on all those other issues the majority of Americans are actually forming their own opinions that coincide with those of the conservative talk show hosts! And maybe they (i.e., the market) choose to listen to those hosts. The liberals certainly aren't off the AM air for lack of trying.
Clear Channel, like any other corporation, just wants to make money, and radio consumers reject liberal talkers time and time again. Note that the only liberal stations (that I know of) are part of NPR, which has to be subsidized by taxpayers to stay alive. They exist in spite of consumer demand. That's a good use of the people's money, eh? Funding radio programming that cannot be sustained in any market (i.e., the people do not want it!).
Michael, do you realize that this is September 11? What a sick gift to the terrorists. Yes, I'm a [neo-]conservative, and whoever supports the hatemongering lies on that site is a neo-Nazi. Was one Holocaust not good enough for you Jew-haters? We need to end the Arab occupation of Jewish land. Can't the Jews have a measly 20k kilometers on this huge planet? You don't you see anything wrong with Arab imperialism. The Islamists are out to conquer the world. It's no secret, but that is the truly under-reported story in the West.
God bless America! Am Yisrael chai! Come, Lord Jesus!
One thing that scares me about these systems is the potential for spying on people.
What scares me is having money fly out of my wallet while I'm driving along happily minding my own business. Why do we need tolls when we have taxes? Since we're going to have tolls for public services, some kind of tax ought to be reduced. (I know the story is about Europe, but the U.S., in which I live, has them too.)
The government knows it's much easier to impose taxes/tolls/fees if the people don't have to physically hand over the cash or write out the $$ amount on a check. They just make it so you never see it. That's how income taxes are taken. No gain, no loss, right? If people actually received their gross pay, and then had to fork over the tax money, I think taxes would be a lot lower. People would revolt. The same goes for tolls.
There's an ISP based in Atlanta called Joi Internet. It claims speeds of up to 5x 56k and a lot of other cool features (see below), but it's all in the modem - the v.92/v.44 protocols. (I nor anybody I know has used its services.) From the linked page:
Modem on Hold allows you to put your internet connection on hold while you take or make a telephone call. Modem on Hold enables "broadband-like" voice and data services over the same telephone lines, at a much more reasonable dial-up price.
Quick Connect shortens the length of time it takes your modem to negotiate its connection to your ISP by about half.
v.44 compression allows you to get greater effective transmission rates than without v.44 even though the electrical connection remains the same. In tests comparing v.42bis - the current compression protocol - and v.44 in normal web-browsing conditions, v.44 out-performed v.42 by up to 60%. This extra compression allows you to achieve greater data throughput even though your connection speed remains the same.
PCM Upstream allows "56K"-like uploads as well. Using v.90, the maximum upload speed is 31.2Kbps; under v.92 it is possible to
upload at speeds up to 48Kbps. This is important to users who send email, audio, and other applications that depend on transmitting data.
They charge less than $10/month for the "Express" v.92 speed, and $5/month for regular dial-up service. I think it's available only the southeastern U.S. right now. They are expanding though, so check for service in your area at the site.
A little warning about their web site: Don't click on a link that leads to services/index.html. That page is totally hosed; it will keep trying to download stuff for a long time and never show you anything. I think it has recursive frames.
You know why Americans can't find Iraq on a map? Because the public education system has been run (into the ground) by liberals for the last 50 years. They're too busy indoctrinating kids with the leftist agenda: condoms, homosexuality, multiculturalism, post-modernism, enviro-communism, evolution, lies, lies, and more lies. Students are graduating from high school not knowing how to read, but they "know" that the founders were racists, bigots, and homophobes, they "know" that they have no chance in life because the big, bad corporations are keeping them down, they "know" that the environment will become unlivable unless we kill the rich and destroy the capitalist system.
There is an inverse relationship between the school system's refutation of God and its embrace of evolution, and the decline of education in America. The liberal agenda has replaced the traditional, fundamental school subjects (civics, economics, writing, math, history, etc.) and dumbed down the public. If schools would teach the truth about our origin and our identity on earth, many of our problems would dissolve. Fifty years ago, teachers complained that the biggest discipline problem was students chewing gum in school. Now it's assault, murder, rape, cocaine, suicide, gangs, etc.
Thank you, Darwin, for promoting the LIE that we evolved from primordial slime. Your philosophy/mythology of evolution has dehumanized all of humankind, because it teaches that we are no more important than rats and dogs and rocks. To you, there are no inalienable, natural rights; and man, not God, is the bestower of rights and liberties. You're setting the stage for despotism.
People, hear the TRUTH! The one and only living God - the Creator of every human and beast, of every planet and star in the heavens, of the entire universe - has bestowed immeasurable worth upon YOU and every human being! He has a purpose and a will for your life if only you would accept it.
The naturalists spread the LIE that we are random accidents in the cosmos with nothing to do but take advantage of anyone and anything during this fleeting, aimless period of life that has inexplicably come upon the conglomerations of carbon-based molecules that comprise the material of our bodies. With the breath of life, they voice their dissent against the One who breathed life into their lifeless nostrils. With vigorous gesticulations of their meticulously designed bodies, they argue against the Intelligent Designer who engineered and miraculously formed them from the elements of the earth. With the consciousness of their souls, they deny the existence of souls. Blind fools! These are the people you want to teach science? The study of truth? They don't even know who they are!
Liberals complain about corrupt government, evil corporations, and a lousy education system. The problem is their stupid atheism! Those who believe in lies become liars. Disbelief in God and His teachings is rotting our country, and Europe is well on the way to being totally rotten. Europe's leaders won't even mention God in the EU's constitution, but I say that's for good reason. It is appropriate that a Godless people have a Godless government. You have not welcomed God in your society. Your biggest churches are museums and tourist attractions. The buildings stand beautiful and strong, but the Spirit is long gone. God has few servants there to do His work - to spread the truth, which sets people free from evil. It's no wonder Europeans can't understand America's heartland.
No one's telling you what you can or can't believe.
That's not completely true. The education establishment (Dept. of Education bureaucrats, teacher unions, elitist/socialist academics) allow only Darwin's dogma to be taught in public schools. Polls indicate that a clear majority of U.S. tax-payers do not believe in evolution. It is being shoved down our throats by the atheist liberal bureaucrats and psuedo-intellectuals who control the education system and most of Big Media in this country.
Scientists and educators who disbelieve in evolution often face discrimination and sorts of black-listing from the evolutionist "good ole boy" networks in academia and scientific circles. If a person doesn't fall in line with the evolutionist orthodoxy, they risk major damage to their career and professional reputation and sometimes personal reputation through smearing tactics and other dirty politics.
And what have you got against atheism and licentiousness? Tried either one lately? They're both a blast.
It is wise to learn from your mistakes. It is wiser to learn from the mistakes of others. So I live.
Your sig: Like Daddy always said: if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit.
Who's your Daddy? Nietzsche?;-)
"Those who know that they are profound strive for clarity. Those who would like to seem profound strive for obscurity." - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
Slashdot Mirror
Check any POP mail account from mail2web.com. Free! No registration required! Just enter your e-mail address and POP password. Access your e-mail from the web, and you can keep the messages on the mail server so you can download them later into your e-mail program. It does require trust to submit your POP password, but I've been using it for over a year and have seen no signs of abuse.
To answer the actual question, I use Netscape webmail.
The first two incidents you listed would never happen if people chose to follow the advice in my post. Addressing the first: Whether as a forcible perpetrator, consensual partaker, or needle stabber, man or woman, somebody would have had to engage in risky behavior for a baby to be born with AIDS. (Yes, wiping out AIDS this way will require a few generations' time.) Even if the mother had been born with AIDS, the fact is, eventually up the family tree, somebody was not born with it. Somebody screwed up. Maybe it was a rapist who broke the clean chain; who gave someone AIDS by having sex outside of marriage. Maybe it was intentional risky behavior. Somebody fornicated. Transmission of AIDS by other means is comparatively rare, especially in the U.S., which is what my post was addressing.
The third incident you listed is yet another example of choosing to put oneself at risk. What if some guy shoots himself in the head? We can't protect people from their self-destruction.
My primary point was just that an increase in unsafe sex (which includes condom use; see my other replies) is probably a larger factor in the rise of AIDS in America than the suspension of smallpox vaccinations. I haven't a clue what the Crusades have to do with this.
Be careful. That's a double-edged razor; it cuts both ways.
"Creator" is another name for God. (Note the capitalization.) God is the Creator because He created the whole universe. He created you, me, our parents, and the very institution of marriage itself.
American media penetrates most of the world. You can get Fox and CNN in the Middle East. American movies are popular the world over. Let me give you a clue. Iraq has several movie theaters. There is no big name movie studio in the Arab world. Besides, I said within the American "sphere of influence." That includes United Nations programs and probably a lot of other things I can't think of right now.
What about africa?
Great question. African Christian pastors are fighting AIDS by teaching abstinence. The youth are receptive to the message. Correspondents report that it's been effective in slowing the spread of HIV in their localities.
Africans' main problem has been ignorance of the nature of diseases. The officials now know, but the masses are still in a process of coming to understanding. First world countries don't have this excuse. We understand what viruses are and how they spread. For the most part, we choose to put ourselves at risk.
perhaps this virus spread because people are having UNSAFE sex. Use a condom.
Only 85% safe from HIV. And there is NO proof that condoms provide ANY protection from gonorrhea, chlamydia, trichomoniasis, chancroid, syphilis, genital herpes, or human papillomavirus.
Scientific Evidence on Condom [ In ]Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Prevention
The prescription for truly safe sex is sex only within a lifelong monogomous marital relationship. It protects you not only physically but emotionally and socially. Every other kind of sex is unsafe in every way.
Condoms decrease STD risk somewhat, but they increase risks of guilt, social conflict, and related forms of corruption, which lead to further personal devastation. It leads to more damage of families, and in the long run, the whole of society.
I didn't say anything about the government (or anybody) imposing prohibition on any action. I'm talking about individuals choosing abstinence, which is neither illogical nor impractical. True, people have to want to live that lifestyle. It may appear impractical on a large scale today only because the entertainment media and the public education system are working to promote risky sexual behaviors and dangerous attitudes toward sex and relationships. They are largely responsible for the rise of AIDS within the sphere of influence of American culture. The suspension of smallpox vaccinations couldn't be more than a marginal factor in comparison.
All this effort to fight AIDS medically is like straining gnats while swallowing a camel. It's ignoring the elephant in the room. AIDS is a social problem, not a medical problem. It is thought to have started from beastiality, and it has propagated through acts of sodomy and fornication involving multiple sexual partners. If everybody would pair up with one sexual partner for life, the problem would be solved. We should be doing everything we can to promote this kind of relationship, which is uniquely both healthful and ultimately fulfilling.
Oh, but we don't want to be "prudes." Fine, have it your way. Long live AIDS.
That's possibly a factor causing the rise of AIDS, but I don't think we need to look so hard for clues. The simple fact is that an increase in risky behavior causes an increase in the number of infections. The institutions in our society that promote risky behavior are among the major culprits of the spread of HIV.
We have witnessed the rise of AIDS during the years since movies, TV shows, pop music, and youth magazines essentially started encouraging people to have as much sex as possible with as many people as possible through their glamorization of casual sexual relationships and sullying of the perception of marriage. AIDS spreads because virginal singleness and monogomous marriage, the only STD-safe relational states, are mocked and ridiculed in our culture.
Smallpox Vaccine Could Prevent AIDS
We already have the perfect preventative solution to AIDS. Here it is: Sex is only for marriage. Marriage is a covenant between one man and one woman and their Creator. Marriage is for life.
This is the behavioral "vaccine." It's free with infinite supply (public domain, no patents), and it's always as close as your nearest brain cell (assuming you haven't incapacitated your brain cells with alcohol or other drugs). Refuse the vaccine, and you pay the consequences.
All of this AIDS research is happening mostly because our society doesn't want to take the simple, obvious preventative measures right in front of our face. The first step is to say: Is this person my spouse? No? No sex (vaginal, oral, anal). No AIDS. Simple. Cut and dried. You don't need a brain surgeon to figure this out. You just need some principle and discipline.
Microsoft's chief security strategist made the surprising statement that the company is about one-third of the way to its goals for Trustworthy Computing. I guess there's a lot more going on internally than we're aware of.
The article also says, "Microsoft's short-term strategy will shift from patch management to what the company calls 'securing the perimeter.'" What this means is that they're working more closely with firewall companies.
I can download a 3-hour stream of talk radio and hear it in about 1:20 when I speed it up and skip commercials and one or two uninteresting parts. I have to constantly monitor the speed because some callers have a motormouth, and certain topics are too deep to be listened to quickly. The only problem is I can't find a free stream ripper for which you can set automatic start and stop times.
HTML Builder XP is created by one of the two developers of the now-defunct 1st Page 2000 by Evrsoft. Evrsoft is now just the one remaining developer who has essentially abandoned the app. The vaporous "1st Page v. 3.0" is like the Duke Nukem Forever of web dev apps. If you happen to be among the thousands of web monkeys who have been waiting for the next version of 1st Page 2000, HTML Builder XP is what you're looking for.
President Bush said he looked forward to signing the measure.
But its immediate future was in doubt after U.S. District Court Judge... Even after Bush signs the legislation, the FTC must win its appeal to reverse West's decision or have him reconsider based on the new law.
Here we have, figuratively speaking, the President, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and tens of millions of citizens held hostage by the men in black. We sit at the mercy of the Almighty Court. Since Roe v. Wade, there has been a trend of the Courts becoming more and more powerful. Whether or not this particular legislation is good, it really irks me that the courts can trump the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch, and the apparent will of the people. Court judges have become like dictators, trumping the Constitution itself. What is the check on the courts' power? I think they can be impeached. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) I am not advocating it in this case, but we ought to consider such a measure from time to time.
You're exactly right. This could end up like the Tax Code--loopholes everywhere. Eventually, people working at both businesses and non-profit organizations might have to hire a lawyer everytime they need to make a phone call so they'll know if it's legal.
I couldn't read the article either, but I think Greenspun is probably trying to say that Java is so easy to code in that 50% of Americans are currently Java programmers. And a third of them are soccer moms. Then he probably points out, sadly, that Java's resource usage efficiency is roughly equivalent to the SUV's 40 rods to the hogshead (10.4 feet per gallon).
Government, religion, education, science, philosophy, literature, music, art, food, clothing, architecture, and more in every society have been influenced by a belief in a supreme Creator. It is inseparable from the human experience. Everyone has a theistic orientation, whether it's a/mono/pan/poly-theistic or avowed agnosticism. As the Rush song goes, even if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. Now please don't give the obligatory troll response of "what about a tooth fairy orientation?" Nobody believes in that. It was created as fiction from the beginning. It was never intended to be believed and plays no fundamental part (by a long shot) in the human experience.
God is axiomatic. Most people are born into the world and just know it. Theism is natural. Atheism must be taught.
(If evolution has determined that theism is important to humans, then you are choosing to devolve your posterity. Your descendents can look forward to welcoming their evolutionary superior theistic overlords. ;-)
Pure science would be objective, but everyone has philosophic bias. A denial of bias blinds a scientist to the nature of his own being and the skewed inclinations of his own presuppositions. Philosophy influences not just the interpretation of experiments, but the very construction of experiments and the choice of which experiments to conduct. Like in the media, a bias is revealed as much by what is not included than by what is included.
There is nothing in or of the Earth that contradicts the Bible; the Bible and the Earth are complementary. They were created by the same Omniscient Being. Why does "science" seem to contradict the Bible? As the Wahabis have hijacked the religion of Islam, so have the militant Atheists hijacked the practice of science. Science was first practiced in order to have greater understanding of the Creator's handiwork.
Science is worship. It used to be worship of the One who created the objects of study. We sought knowledge of creation so that we would have more to thank God for; so that we would see manifestations of His majesty and glory; so that we might gain some insight into the character of the Lord of the Universe. Now, scientists worship the knowledge itself of the created things, while denying the One who made it all. Thus, they blind themselves to the greater realizations and appreciations that science is meant to seek out. Those who are agnostic (a-gnostic; Greek for no knowledge), have chosen to remain know-nothings -- ignorant of the knowledge of God.
There is only one account of creation in the Bible. It is the chronological account in chapter one. This narrative of the creative stages ends at the conclusion of chapter one. Chapter two mentions creation, but, in fact, moves on to a completely different subject. After the sixth day (i.e., after the last verse of the chapter), creation has been completed, and God takes a day off to reflect upon His creation. This chapter puts the focus on God's relationship with man. The transition is in Gen. 2:1-3 where God provides man with his first Sabbath. This is part of the God-man relationship, because Jesus said, "The Sabbath was made on account and for the sake of man, not man for the Sabbath." (Mark 2:27, Amplified Bible) Keeping the Sabbath holy is the Fourth Commandment (Exodus 20:8-11) and an integral part of God's covenant with man.
Chapter two complements chapter one. It backtracks and shows how t
I didn't mean "people like yourself" as in you personally. I meant it generically, as in, "people like oneself." No offense intended!
Yes. Quite a few terrorist plots in the U.S. have been thwarted. No terrorist attack has been successful in the U.S. since 9-11-01. The Taliban is gone. Much of Al-Qaeda's leadership has been taken out. Terrorists are confronting our military in Iraq, and they're being gunned down. The terrorists wanted to attack civilians on American soil. Bush has effectively moved the war to their soil, and they are facing the wrath of our military instead slaughtering our civilians. Yes, troops are dying in the desert, but they volunteered and are prepared to fight. That is better than accountants and janitors burning alive in American buildings.
And who is benefiting?
You and me. The whole free world. The new and improved Iraq.
Take the Iraq war -- we were told that we had proof that Iraq had WMD, and it turns out that that was false, and the Bush administration knew it.
We were told that we had proof by former U.N. weapons inspectors, Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Tom Daschle, George W. Bush, Colin Powell, the CIA, Tony Blair, European intelligence, Israeli intelligence, and numerous Congressmen, both Democrat and Republican. Oh yes, and Saddam Hussein admitted to having WMD. The weapons may still be there. Iraq is a huge desert. If they are there, it could take many years to find them. Another possibility is that they were transported to Syria or another ally.
So we are spending US$4 billion dollars a month for a war that hasn't increased security.
I feel more secure than I did on 9/11. I haven't heard of any homocide bombings or anthrax attacks here in a long time.
(see cost of war)
What was the cost of NOT going to war? What is the cost of appeasement? To see the answer, just look at Israel: continued and worsening terrorism. A little Rummy-style Shock & Awe over there would bring peace within hours.
Can you really put a price on the continued freedom and tranquility within America? What is the price of liberation from tyranny for Iraqis? We have brought liberty to a nation in the Middle East! Think about that! Iraq has the potential to become a refuge for Arabs in a sea of tyrannies.
It has been months since any fresh corpses of Iraqi dissidents have been dumped into Saddam's mass graves. The machinery of the plastic/body shredders has gone silent. The light of liberty shines into Saddam's torture chambers and exposes the horror to which George W. Bush has put an end. The blood on the walls is old and crusty. It's a new era for a liberated people. Long dormant hospitals have opened up. The people have been celebrating in the streets. Iraq now has dozens of independent newspapers. They are openly discussing political and religious differences, something unthinkable during Saddam's regime. They have formed an indigenous, multi-ethnic/religious government that represents all the people. There is an Iraqi Congress! WMDs or not, we have done a very wonderful thing.
And who is making money from the war? Just Cheney's former company, who he is still being paid by. (see Cheney paid by Pentagon contractor).
First of all, Dick Cheney sold all his assets and severed all his ties to Halliburton during the 2000 election. He has nothing to gain from helping Halliburton. I know you'll never believe this, but Cheney has said outright that he had nothing to do with Halliburton receiving a government contract to do work in Iraq.
Second point: Revenue != Profit. Do you have any idea how expensive it is for an American company to do that kind of work in Iraq? It isn't cheap. This is not exactly a boondoggle.
And, by the way, terrorists tried to murder government officials (Democrats) and media with anthrax. The administration doesn't seem to be making any progress in tracking these people down, now, have they?
The anthrax disseminators haven't struck again, have they? I think that says som
What does the president's administration have to do with corporate privacy policies? Except in the rare case of a national security concern, they are mostly separate issues. If you insist on tying tech politics to presidential politics, I'll remind you that spam and spyware came to be major problems during the Clinton administration. Of course, this is all Al Gore's fault for inventing the Internet in the first place. :-)
I keep hearing this charge over and over on Slashdot of Bush being consumed with trying to enrich his business buddies. Where do you get this? I look at what the president does, and I just don't see it. The war on terrorism protects everybody, the tax cuts and rebates were for everybody (even people who don't pay taxes), the faith based initiative benefits the downtrodden, etc. I can't think of one instance in which the president supported "big business over all else" or that indicated that the "preservation of their assets and ability to make money is paramount." That's just crazy. George W. Bush isn't that kind of person.
Certainly the president does want business to thrive; that creates jobs and improves the economy. But what proof do you have that he's trying to enrich a particular group of people? You should watch his speeches, which are always in streaming media at whitehouse.gov (both live and later recorded). Get the whole message. Moreover, look at what he does. Evaluate Bush by his actions, not by what op-eds and blogs say about him. Those people have agendas. Like any good hacker, go to the source.
Extremely narrow demographic? Democrats disagree. That's why they're scrambling to make a liberal version of his program. Bill Clinton, Tom Daschle, and many other Democrats have been publicly whining about Rush for years. He calls them on their lies and shenanigans, and they just can't stand the truth coming out. The "silly popular entertainer," in your words, has been called "the most dangerous man in America" by prominent leftists. Howard Dean is acting as if he would be running against Rush for president in 2004, judging from his statements at rallies. Yeah, silly entertainer, right?
Narrow demographic, you say? I guess that's why ESPN made the business decision to hire Rush to be a football commentator. The fact is, he has the biggest media audience in the history of media. Prime time CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, and FOX combined have significantly fewer viewers than Rush's EIB Network.
NPR gets only 2% federal funding? You're right on that point. I didn't know that, but it did use to be a lot more. I think the listeners were galvanized into giving more money when Congress threatened to cut NPR's funding a few years ago.
Much of the contributions come from corporations (like the Ford Foundation which gave over $3,000,000 in 2000) and personal "charitable" foundations. Even foreign individuals and companies contribute. This is actually legal, but an important distinction in comparing NPR to Rush as to sources of revenue.
NPR wouldn't be sustainable in solely American markets (no outside money) where it would have to earn its place on each and every one of hundreds of radio stations across all major regional demographics and do so through advertising revenue. Rush started from nothing and has done that due to consumer demand for the once-scarce product of non-liberal biased news. His show is on 600 radio stations, and no one else in the world has ever been able to attain such a massive audience without the stations being a government-run media monopoly in a big country.
In its financial statements, NPR brags about how foreigners love to listen to the audio streams of its programs. No doubt, they get contributions from overseas. It has come out that some of NPR's stories are actually seeded propaganda from other governments, kind of like Google's "Sponsored Links," except NPR doesn't separate sponsored stories from regular ones. The line is pretty blurred since all of its programming is anti-American.
For all of Clear Channel's alleged nefarious, powerful influence feared by liberals, it has not had any visible effect on the people or Congress as it relates to this issue. Egads! Maybe, just maybe, on all those other issues the majority of Americans are actually forming their own opinions that coincide with those of the conservative talk show hosts! And maybe they (i.e., the market) choose to listen to those hosts. The liberals certainly aren't off the AM air for lack of trying.
Clear Channel, like any other corporation, just wants to make money, and radio consumers reject liberal talkers time and time again. Note that the only liberal stations (that I know of) are part of NPR, which has to be subsidized by taxpayers to stay alive. They exist in spite of consumer demand. That's a good use of the people's money, eh? Funding radio programming that cannot be sustained in any market (i.e., the people do not want it!).
I think Slashdot needs more diversity of views.
Background on Fairness Doctrine
Elites Don't Like Choices You Make
futility, psychological torture, political quagmire
Michael, do you realize that this is September 11? What a sick gift to the terrorists. Yes, I'm a [neo-]conservative, and whoever supports the hatemongering lies on that site is a neo-Nazi. Was one Holocaust not good enough for you Jew-haters? We need to end the Arab occupation of Jewish land. Can't the Jews have a measly 20k kilometers on this huge planet? You don't you see anything wrong with Arab imperialism. The Islamists are out to conquer the world. It's no secret, but that is the truly under-reported story in the West.
God bless America! Am Yisrael chai! Come, Lord Jesus!
What scares me is having money fly out of my wallet while I'm driving along happily minding my own business. Why do we need tolls when we have taxes? Since we're going to have tolls for public services, some kind of tax ought to be reduced. (I know the story is about Europe, but the U.S., in which I live, has them too.)
The government knows it's much easier to impose taxes/tolls/fees if the people don't have to physically hand over the cash or write out the $$ amount on a check. They just make it so you never see it. That's how income taxes are taken. No gain, no loss, right? If people actually received their gross pay, and then had to fork over the tax money, I think taxes would be a lot lower. People would revolt. The same goes for tolls.
- Modem on Hold allows you to put your internet connection on hold while you take or make a telephone call. Modem on Hold enables "broadband-like" voice and data services over the same telephone lines, at a much more reasonable dial-up price.
- Quick Connect shortens the length of time it takes your modem to negotiate its connection to your ISP by about half.
- v.44 compression allows you to get greater effective transmission rates than without v.44 even though the electrical connection remains the same. In tests comparing v.42bis - the current compression protocol - and v.44 in normal web-browsing conditions, v.44 out-performed v.42 by up to 60%. This extra compression allows you to achieve greater data throughput even though your connection speed remains the same.
- PCM Upstream allows "56K"-like uploads as well. Using v.90, the maximum upload speed is 31.2Kbps; under v.92 it is possible to
upload at speeds up to 48Kbps. This is important to users who send email, audio, and other applications that depend on transmitting data.
They charge less than $10/month for the "Express" v.92 speed, and $5/month for regular dial-up service. I think it's available only the southeastern U.S. right now. They are expanding though, so check for service in your area at the site.A little warning about their web site: Don't click on a link that leads to services/index.html. That page is totally hosed; it will keep trying to download stuff for a long time and never show you anything. I think it has recursive frames.
There is an inverse relationship between the school system's refutation of God and its embrace of evolution, and the decline of education in America. The liberal agenda has replaced the traditional, fundamental school subjects (civics, economics, writing, math, history, etc.) and dumbed down the public. If schools would teach the truth about our origin and our identity on earth, many of our problems would dissolve. Fifty years ago, teachers complained that the biggest discipline problem was students chewing gum in school. Now it's assault, murder, rape, cocaine, suicide, gangs, etc.
Thank you, Darwin, for promoting the LIE that we evolved from primordial slime. Your philosophy/mythology of evolution has dehumanized all of humankind, because it teaches that we are no more important than rats and dogs and rocks. To you, there are no inalienable, natural rights; and man, not God, is the bestower of rights and liberties. You're setting the stage for despotism.
People, hear the TRUTH! The one and only living God - the Creator of every human and beast, of every planet and star in the heavens, of the entire universe - has bestowed immeasurable worth upon YOU and every human being! He has a purpose and a will for your life if only you would accept it.
The naturalists spread the LIE that we are random accidents in the cosmos with nothing to do but take advantage of anyone and anything during this fleeting, aimless period of life that has inexplicably come upon the conglomerations of carbon-based molecules that comprise the material of our bodies. With the breath of life, they voice their dissent against the One who breathed life into their lifeless nostrils. With vigorous gesticulations of their meticulously designed bodies, they argue against the Intelligent Designer who engineered and miraculously formed them from the elements of the earth. With the consciousness of their souls, they deny the existence of souls. Blind fools! These are the people you want to teach science? The study of truth? They don't even know who they are!
Liberals complain about corrupt government, evil corporations, and a lousy education system. The problem is their stupid atheism! Those who believe in lies become liars. Disbelief in God and His teachings is rotting our country, and Europe is well on the way to being totally rotten. Europe's leaders won't even mention God in the EU's constitution, but I say that's for good reason. It is appropriate that a Godless people have a Godless government. You have not welcomed God in your society. Your biggest churches are museums and tourist attractions. The buildings stand beautiful and strong, but the Spirit is long gone. God has few servants there to do His work - to spread the truth, which sets people free from evil. It's no wonder Europeans can't understand America's heartland.
That's not completely true. The education establishment (Dept. of Education bureaucrats, teacher unions, elitist/socialist academics) allow only Darwin's dogma to be taught in public schools. Polls indicate that a clear majority of U.S. tax-payers do not believe in evolution. It is being shoved down our throats by the atheist liberal bureaucrats and psuedo-intellectuals who control the education system and most of Big Media in this country.
Scientists and educators who disbelieve in evolution often face discrimination and sorts of black-listing from the evolutionist "good ole boy" networks in academia and scientific circles. If a person doesn't fall in line with the evolutionist orthodoxy, they risk major damage to their career and professional reputation and sometimes personal reputation through smearing tactics and other dirty politics.
And what have you got against atheism and licentiousness? Tried either one lately? They're both a blast.
It is wise to learn from your mistakes. It is wiser to learn from the mistakes of others. So I live.
Your sig: Like Daddy always said: if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit.
Who's your Daddy? Nietzsche? ;-)