Where is the problem in making a final layer of paint finish on the tin circuitry?
Lead on the cirquit boards is a huge sleeping environmental problem and those who are tempted to shout 'tree higger' now might want to inform themselves on the potential lead hazards first.
How can you say that Apple, Dell, and Amazon haven't made a donation?
I can very simply turn your point around: What makes you think they have? They have linked to donation sites from their front pages. But did they themselves click that very link and donate? I doubt it very much....and nothing but your hatred of America as evidence.
Anti-Americanism is growing. You and I know that not all of the 256 million USA citizens are ignorant assholes. I have friends and family in the states. Still whenever I talk to Americans I can not believe how indoctrinated even those are who you would expect to be sort of on the same track as yourself. We can privately email on this point of you'd like to. I think it is way off topic for this thread.
Perhaps you should attack Japan instead.
Yes, any globally operating Japanese company with the same behaviour should face the same argument. Any global player should have global responsibility.
This is a mayor part of an economic and political problem we have. Companies can act globally whilst governments can only act regionally. Usually these companies threaten to build new factories in another country and/or move production somewhere else if their demands are not met. They are playing with peoples existential fears and governments become their bitches. (BTW big German companies do the same.)
Obviously they end up with money at the end of the day but the law requires that most of that has to go back into the business or to the shareholders.
You mean laws made by their bitches?
Sorry if I become a bit cynic here, but as I mentioned before, it is the sacred cow shareholder value.
Shareholder rights vs. companies social responsibility.
Just to point out something else: US scientists tried to warn the flooded countries. This is good and sad at the same time, because these countries have no early warning system.
3000+ have died 9/11 which is terrible, no doubt (and I seriously mean that), and look at the vast amount of money going into homeland security in this silly (yes, silly!) war against terrorism.
Now 50000+ have died, do you think any money will go into building a warning system?
In Africa 40000+ are dying each year from malaria but scientists have severe problems founding their research on finding a cure. Meanwhile the pharma industry is spending big money into research on 'how not to grow fat' pills.
Earth has a lot of upcoming problems and anything I always hear is 'shareholder value'.
I think that are good news and that is the right way.
Setting up a link to a donation sites is something the weblog community should take care of. Those who have little money but a lot of web site hits to offer. Those who have the money or the goods should rather donate that directly.
I DO agree that charity should not be a publicity stunt, but I am pretty much sure that neither Apple nor Dell nor Amazon nor any other major player in the market made a quick and direct donation to help the victims of the flood.
I disagree on the point that charity should be local. These companies are global players. They thrive on the globalization effects. Thus their donations on charity should also be global. Right now USA companies make big money on all markets, on all peoples, on all societies, but only the american people benefit from the charity donations. That might be nice for you if you are a USA citizen, but ROW is ignored once again.
Yes of course, they can absolutely spend their money in any way they choose. But this is exactly the kind of behaviour that make other peoples hate you. You may call it envy or greed, I'd call it comprehensible. No one likes to be dominated, no one likes to be ripped off.
I also disagree with the 'Microsofts not liquid cash' argument. First of all I never even mentioned Microsoft, I was talking about those companies who put up links to donation sites on their front page. These companies are in the consumer market. They have liquid cash income. You don't pay your book at Amazon with hedge fonts options or real estate. You pay them with money. Per definition this money is liqid. It has flown to them just a few days ago.
And one afterthought to that marketing stunt argument. If for example BP would donate one months profit (~ 1 billion $) to the flood victims instead of shoving it to the share holders, then I would happily fill my car up at their station the next time.
Modifying their front page to link to donation sites does not cost them a single penny.
Why are the big companies not offering financial aid? Amazon made record braking money with the X-mas business and Apple reportedly had a good year. BP for example had almost four billion (!) dollars profit (!) last quarter.
Would it hurt to spend a couple of bucks for aid?
But oh wait, this would reduce the sacred shareholder value.
Bah! Since there is no free will, you'll only need enough space to very precisely save the beginning state when you're born. All the rest can be calculated from then.
Somehow I must have misunderstood what BlogTorrent does. I briefly tried it and found, that the file is not uploaded to the BlogTorrent site.
The BlogTorrent itself is not seeding. So I have to keep my local machine running.
BT developers, please consider BT to store the file on the server and seed it automatically.
Yes of course, then you have to have lots of webspace and others might swamp your precious space, but then you can blog and turn your local machine off. Make it optional...
BTW, I remember hearing something about a techniqe to immobilize plutonium-based radioactive waste in glass beads, supposedly rendering it less harmful. Does anyone remember anything about that?
It is a common concept, not only for radiactive waste, but for other toxic waste too. The goal ist to prevent the substance from being washed into the ground.
Obviously you need a fair amount of energy to melt the waste into something and you have to take care that evaporated substances do not escape during the process.
The "danger" stigmatism that is attached to it is rediculous
Even if you were right (and I disagree), there are stil the points of
Unsolved waste problem
Centralization of energy production
You can only operate a nuclear plant if you are Big Corp., This puts all the power of a very essential need, the one or energy, into very few private hands. Renewable energies OTOH have the effect of decentralization.
Regarding the safety of nuclear plants I wish I had your faith.
We use these types of records to aid in redirecting resolvers to nearby Coral proxies
I am not a network expert, but AFAIK geographical 'nearby' does not neccessarily mean 'short latency'. For instance when I access a server which is located in the same street where I live, traffic is routed through another city. Aren't routing protocols designed to choose 'nearby' paths in terms of fast transfer and low latency regardless of location?
For once you see what it feels like if another countries law is enforced in your country. The US does that all the time. And you wonder why everybody hates America?
You should see the original Tarkowski Version from the 70ies. It is really close to the original script by Stanislaw Lem and makes the Clooney Version utter blasphemy.
I always wanted to have a personal search engine which indexes the pages I visited. But why not make a proxy with these features? Keeps the browser lean and mean and allows other http based programs to also use these features.
-silence
PS: I'd also like to have a periodical check of selected bookmarked pages (like Omniweb).
If we know who is sending the mails, then why can't we block them or sue them?
Ah. So you're not talking about replacing SMTP at all, what you're arguing for is an international identity verification system
No, YOU said that the problem is not that we don't know who is sending the spam mail, but that we do not want them.
I said: If we know who they are, then why don't we block or sue them? I was not asking for an international identification system. YOU implied that there already is such a thing.
I think it would already be a gain if the protocol verifies that the sender on the mail IS the sender of the mail. Technically, not in person. It should be possible to make it much harder to forge the sender address (via the NS&SMT-protocol).
So sender peter@hell.com actually means that there is an account peter on the domain hell.com. Then we can go to the domain holder and complain about Peter (account). Peter (account) is either victim of the spammer or the spammer himself. If there is no person behind Peter (account) then we can ask hell.com domain holder: "What about your Peter (account)?". If hell.com domain holder replies with 'fuck off and die', we can say: 'jolly good hell.com domain holder, your domain will be blocked until further notice'. There will be no further notice.
My original posting complained about verbal expression of violence.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, I meant to write 'hugger', but with your 'to' instead of 'two' lets just call it even.
-s
Where is the problem in making a final layer of paint finish on the tin circuitry?
Lead on the cirquit boards is a huge sleeping environmental problem and those who are tempted to shout 'tree higger' now might want to inform themselves on the potential lead hazards first.
-silence
At first glance I read buyos and wondered how that would track ships.
-silence
How can you say that Apple, Dell, and Amazon haven't made a donation?
...and nothing but your hatred of America as evidence.
I can very simply turn your point around: What makes you think they have? They have linked to donation sites from their front pages. But did they themselves click that very link and donate? I doubt it very much.
Anti-Americanism is growing. You and I know that not all of the 256 million USA citizens are ignorant assholes. I have friends and family in the states.
Still whenever I talk to Americans I can not believe how indoctrinated even those are who you would expect to be sort of on the same track as yourself. We can privately email on this point of you'd like to. I think it is way off topic for this thread.
Perhaps you should attack Japan instead.
Yes, any globally operating Japanese company with the same behaviour should face the same argument.
Any global player should have global responsibility.
This is a mayor part of an economic and political problem we have. Companies can act globally whilst governments can only act regionally. Usually these companies threaten to build new factories in another country and/or move production somewhere else if their demands are not met. They are playing with peoples existential fears and governments become their bitches.
(BTW big German companies do the same.)
Obviously they end up with money at the end of the day but the law requires that most of that has to go back into the business or to the shareholders.
You mean laws made by their bitches?
Sorry if I become a bit cynic here, but as I mentioned before, it is the sacred cow shareholder value.
Shareholder rights vs. companies social responsibility.
Just to point out something else: US scientists tried to warn the flooded countries. This is good and sad at the same time, because these countries have no early warning system.
3000+ have died 9/11 which is terrible, no doubt (and I seriously mean that), and look at the vast amount of money going into homeland security in this silly (yes, silly!) war against terrorism.
Now 50000+ have died, do you think any money will go into building a warning system?
In Africa 40000+ are dying each year from malaria but scientists have severe problems founding their research on finding a cure. Meanwhile the pharma industry is spending big money into research on 'how not to grow fat' pills.
Earth has a lot of upcoming problems and anything I always hear is 'shareholder value'.
-silence
Cool!
I think that are good news and that is the right way.
Setting up a link to a donation sites is something the weblog community should take care of. Those who have little money but a lot of web site hits to offer. Those who have the money or the goods should rather donate that directly.
-silence
Sorry, but I have to disagree in two points.
I DO agree that charity should not be a publicity stunt, but I am pretty much sure that neither Apple nor Dell nor Amazon nor any other major player in the market made a quick and direct donation to help the victims of the flood.
I disagree on the point that charity should be local. These companies are global players. They thrive on the globalization effects. Thus their donations on charity should also be global.
Right now USA companies make big money on all markets, on all peoples, on all societies, but only the american people benefit from the charity donations. That might be nice for you if you are a USA citizen, but ROW is ignored once again.
Yes of course, they can absolutely spend their money in any way they choose. But this is exactly the kind of behaviour that make other peoples hate you. You may call it envy or greed, I'd call it comprehensible. No one likes to be dominated, no one likes to be ripped off.
I also disagree with the 'Microsofts not liquid cash' argument. First of all I never even mentioned Microsoft, I was talking about those companies who put up links to donation sites on their front page. These companies are in the consumer market. They have liquid cash income. You don't pay your book at Amazon with hedge fonts options or real estate. You pay them with money. Per definition this money is liqid. It has flown to them just a few days ago.
And one afterthought to that marketing stunt argument. If for example BP would donate one months profit (~ 1 billion $) to the flood victims instead of shoving it to the share holders, then I would happily fill my car up at their station the next time.
-silence
You mean the money people pay their DVDs, books, petrol and iPods with is not real cash cash? Money cash?
Four billion dollars PROFIT per quarter and not a dime left liquide for helping out? C'mon!
Granted, companies do spend some money on charity, but that is usually transferred to local charity organizations.
-silence
Modifying their front page to link to donation sites does not cost them a single penny.
Why are the big companies not offering financial aid? Amazon made record braking money with the X-mas business and Apple reportedly had a good year. BP for example had almost four billion (!) dollars profit (!) last quarter.
Would it hurt to spend a couple of bucks for aid?
But oh wait, this would reduce the sacred shareholder value.
Under certain viewpoints capitalizm sucks.
-silence
Bah! Since there is no free will, you'll only need enough space to very precisely save the beginning state when you're born. All the rest can be calculated from then.
And for your answer: I knew you'd say that!
-silence
Somehow I must have misunderstood what BlogTorrent does. I briefly tried it and found, that the file is not uploaded to the BlogTorrent site.
The BlogTorrent itself is not seeding.
So I have to keep my local machine running.
BT developers, please consider BT to store the file on the server and seed it automatically.
Yes of course, then you have to have lots of webspace and others might swamp your precious space, but then you can blog and turn your local machine off.
Make it optional...
-silence
but dosen't sound NOT travel through a vacuum?
Of course it does, otherwise we could not hear the Tie-Fighters screech past.
Europeans always present themselves as high and mighty, knowing the right thing for America to do, but they don't do it themselves.
Sorry, Europe is not invading other countries for bogus reasons.
You have no POWER, no SPIRIT, no YOUTH, no CONVICTION.
*Ahem*, ever been here?
But I think China is going to beat you to it.
A very American point of view and method: Declare it a competition and then spread fear.
Scuse me french, but you not only suck, but you're also stupid.
-jsl
She planned to show the other tit on the second half time show.
Oh, wait...
-jsl
It is already built in. Only hast to be activated per Server.
- about:config
- filter for ntlm
- enter comma separated list for network.automatic-ntlm-auth.trusted-uris
Voila!
-jsl
It is called NTML authentication.
-jsl
In similar situations I observed a kind of "Ok, but when something breaks THEN ITS YOUR FAULT!" reaction.
You easily shift yourself in a position where you become responsible for about anything than can possibly go wrong.
-silence
BTW, I remember hearing something about a techniqe to immobilize plutonium-based radioactive waste in glass beads, supposedly rendering it less harmful. Does anyone remember anything about that?
It is a common concept, not only for radiactive waste, but for other toxic waste too. The goal ist to prevent the substance from being washed into the ground.
Obviously you need a fair amount of energy to melt the waste into something and you have to take care that evaporated substances do not escape during the process.
-silence
Even if you were right (and I disagree), there are stil the points of
You can only operate a nuclear plant if you are Big Corp., This puts all the power of a very essential need, the one or energy, into very few private hands.
Renewable energies OTOH have the effect of decentralization.
Regarding the safety of nuclear plants I wish I had your faith.
-silence
We use these types of records to aid in redirecting resolvers to nearby Coral proxies
I am not a network expert, but AFAIK geographical 'nearby' does not neccessarily mean 'short latency'. For instance when I access a server which is located in the same street where I live, traffic is routed through another city.
Aren't routing protocols designed to choose 'nearby' paths in terms of fast transfer and low latency regardless of location?
Cool project nonetheless. Kudos.
-silence
For once you see what it feels like if another countries law is enforced in your country. The US does that all the time. And you wonder why everybody hates America?
-silence
You should see the original Tarkowski Version from the 70ies. It is really close to the original script by Stanislaw Lem and makes the Clooney Version utter blasphemy.
-silence
secretly crack PGP-keys.... oh, wait.
and I thought: Wow! But how do they keep the people there?
-silence
yes, Yes, YES!!
I always wanted to have a personal search engine which indexes the pages I visited. But why not make a proxy with these features? Keeps the browser lean and mean and allows other http based programs to also use these features.
-silence
PS: I'd also like to have a periodical check of selected bookmarked pages (like Omniweb).
If we know who is sending the mails, then why can't we block them or sue them?
Ah. So you're not talking about replacing SMTP at all, what you're arguing for is an international identity verification system
No, YOU said that the problem is not that we don't know who is sending the spam mail, but that we do not want them.
I said: If we know who they are, then why don't we block or sue them? I was not asking for an international identification system. YOU implied that there already is such a thing.
I think it would already be a gain if the protocol verifies that the sender on the mail IS the sender of the mail. Technically, not in person. It should be possible to make it much harder to forge the sender address (via the NS&SMT-protocol).
So sender peter@hell.com actually means that there is an account peter on the domain hell.com. Then we can go to the domain holder and complain about Peter (account). Peter (account) is either victim of the spammer or the spammer himself. If there is no person behind Peter (account) then we can ask hell.com domain holder: "What about your Peter (account)?". If hell.com domain holder replies with 'fuck off and die', we can say: 'jolly good hell.com domain holder, your domain will be blocked until further notice'. There will be no further notice.
My original posting complained about verbal expression of violence.
-silence
PS: Please forgive me peter@hell.com.