Don't go pinning all this on the Village Idiot. He had help. 98 Senators, in fact - including the two "ultra-liberals" running the Loyal Opposition Ticket. Bollocks.
I personally think the risk of going broke and living without healthcare is worth the ability to make yourself rich by your own accopmplishments and ambition.
You know, this quote intrigued me. So much so, in fact, that I went to your blog to check you out. I had to scroll down a good long bit to get at something that might help me understand you a little better, and to understand your quote a little better.
I will say, though, that I thank you for illuminating a point that I wish was brought up more often; namely that most Americans wish that the poor and infim of this country would just fucking die. I sure wish they would, too. After all, people like us have more in common with the nouveau riche than Billy Talks Funny and can't get a better job than turning screws at a factory. Fuck him.
I wish more people would stand up for the rights and benefits that our corporate leaders need, especially in this free market economy that allows our businesses to operate, unfettered by government intervention - unless it is too subsidize or otherwise assist them when it is obvious that the Little Man no longer can or will. Maybe because all the little people's jobs went overseas to help those little people.
It's hard to begrudge those hard-working third-worlders much. They are helping us live the American Dream, where we can watch corporate CEOs live high on the hog without any white Americans even having to break a sweat.
Oh, it makes sense all right. What it does not make is a good argument for even *having* an internet.
Ten years ago, we'd have all shit ourselves to get streaming video from overseas or the ability to send it overseas. Now, we have so much corporate nonsense in the pipes that almost all meaningful content is restricted by this kind of crap.
Yes, I know, I'm being unrealistic to what's going on in the Real World. But, then again, wasn't the Internet supposed to change the Real World?
Instead, the World is now changing the Net. And not for the better.
I'm not sure if anyone else has posted this idea yet, 'cause I'm way too lazy and tired to read the whole discussion, so I'm just throwing this out there....
It seems kind of sad and pathetic that we need something that "checks incoming mail against the address books of your friends" in an effort to get rid of email from complete strangers....
The internet was supposed to, among a thousand other things that are now long forgotten, get strangers together who shared common bonds of interest or study. Hobbies, ideas, whatever...
With the excessive corporate sponsorship(okay that never stopped), the banning of non-sponsored products, the excessive surveillance, the silly Draconian laws enacted over what city takes place in, blah blah blah.......honestly, screw the Olympics.
Oh. Ha-ha. I thought you were talking about the National Conventions here in the United States. Silly me!
You didn't get the latest interweb memo? Blogs are the New Media, baby.
Get with the program. We don't need stodgy, fact-checked, well-written stories anymore. All we need are quick-witted, off-the-cuff pieces based on the news.
It's a new century and news is changing, yea! Get on board the train or be left at the station, man.
I had the pleasure of working with the authors of this book for over a year as a research assistant.
This admission does not allow you to review the book. This is kind of like letting a priest sell you a bible, or a politician tell you how great his party is doing. It's a little *too* close to conflict of interest.
Although customers won't get any cash or rebates for bringing in dated electronics, Rubin said the company is looking into adopting such an incentive scheme in the future.
In other words, "Let's get as much of this crap as we can, right now, and then offer incentives on the small portions still out there."
This is your daily cynicism. You may now return to happiness.
You all make some fairly good points. And, I will admit, that it really isn't anyone's business what a person reads, sees, etc.
But I still find the paranoia about what you read and see is a wee-bit melodramatic.
I don't know. I've been called a strange fucker before, nothing different. I'm just trying to present a different viewpoint on this issue. And I appreciate all of you who wrote on this, especially since (from the looks of it) one-hundred percent of it is a legitimate, thoughtful response.
"This power infringes on the freedom to think. Do you want to research Vietnam's alternate theories, the ones that Uncle Sam says are bogus? Would you still do so under public scrutiny?"
Are you suggesting that the freedom to think must exist in a vacuum without anyone else knowing about it? What about the authors of these books you want to read under yr blankets at night? It doesn't look like they were bothered one bit by the thought of being seen as "crazies," "perverts," or "anarchists hell-bent on destroying our way of life."
The notion of anonymity in one's reading habits reeks of someone who is too afraid of their peer group, and not the government. For my part, I want my peers, my community, and the government to know what I read, and what I think. Only then can they know how strong the opposition to their criminal power really is.
Private thinking is what becomes the basis of one's public thinking. And most citizens are smart enough to know that just because a candidate read "Das Kapital," or "Mein Kampf," it does not logically follow that they are going to become the next Stalin or Hitler once in office.
How exactly do you blame the Bush administration for 5 judges who weren't appointed by him upholding a state law last amended in 1995?
I don't recall saying that I blamed Senor Bush for anything. But, I think that most people do blame Bush for creating an environment in which the three branches feel a little more capable of loosening up civil liberties.
And those people are more than eager to replace Bush with Kerry, who hasn't exactly impressed me as much different on any of the issues.
Not that it bothers me a bit what the Court says or what the Bush Admins want, but I think that this conversation strayed badly off course early on.
The phrase, "public anonymity," in the headline, is vaguely misleading. Anonymity is usually associated with someone actually doing something and not wanting to be known - whether for good or bad deeds.
What this court ruling really means is that the police no longer need to have a reason to "see some ID," and that protestations of innocence or proclamation of rights are likely to get you put in them pretty bracelets and hauled downtown.
So, if all you well-meaning Civil Libertarians and Progressives here on slashdot want to change this country, then I urge you to Vote Bush this year. Make your fellow countrymen so sick of what that moron has done to this country that they are willing to discuss real progressive policies.
Besides, Acts of God can also sometimes be covered under insurance - after all, what's the point of wasting all that damn money on insurance if they can just turn on you and say, "Nope, that tree falling on your house last night during the freak ice storm was an Act of God" ?
So, for those too lazy to click the link above, meteors are covered the same as airplanes under home insurance, "objects falling from the sky." Now, the reason this is covered is precisely because it doesn't happen very often. Just as people on the coast pay extra for hurricane damage insurance and folks in the midwest pay extra for tornado insurance, if there were an area where meteors were common, there'd be extra clauses for meteor damage.
Insurance is, largely, a racket.
Best one I've gotten yet
on
Spam as Poetry
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
X-UIDL:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-Path:
Received: from mxsf30.cluster1.xxxxx.net ([10.20.201.230])
by mtao01.xxxxxxx.net
(InterMail vM.6.00.05.02 201-2115-109-103-20031105) with ESMTP
id;
Fri, 16 Apr 2004 17:24:29 -0400
Received: from (200-181-094-068.bsace705.dsl.brasiltelecom.net.br [200.181.94.68])
by mxsf30.cluster1.xxxxxxx.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id i3GLF5Fw053380;
Fri, 16 Apr 2004 17:15:08 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID:
From: "Thom15"
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 18:18:55 -0300
To:
Subject: With CD Cheap you are the Winner! yesterday bunnies
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Answers:
1) Yes.
2) Are you that fuckin' stupid?
3) No.
4) That's what the story says.
Yea, I know. Not horribly illuminating. But, I can add more to number 3. No, dead people (naturally), have no rights. That's part of being dead. But, the families of the dead often do have certain rights, whether legal or just societal.
Also, suicide itself is not a felony. Attempted suicide is, though, since you are still around to be prosecuted. So, the moral there is: If you are going to try to kill yourself, be fucking well sure you do it right, or you are going to do jail time.
"so we may end up seeing a wave of malware trying to monkey with a users DNS settings so that their sponsor's regisitry becomes the first one consulted."
Whatever, bro. I had a fairly legit question. I didn't get it - I can admit that. I needed some of you to tell me how bad it is. I don't deal with mail servers or multiple accounts, or commerce or what not.
Now, if you are serious about your job offer, I'll think about it. I figure ten dollars an hour to process your mail is about right. Just email me your username and password and I'll get right to it.
We can work out the contract and payments later. I won't even hold the "troll" bullshit against you.
alright, i guess i grasp it a little better now. i suppose i would have already a better idea if i were running a commerce site, or at least a moderately well travelled site of any kind.
thank the good god of traffic i'm obscure.
now, here's another fun question. why, if this problem has been boiling up for five years now (and it has, hasn't it?) has some group not already tried to quash it?
Still won't get it. I can hit delete faster than I can get annoyed at doing it. That NOSPAM is there 'cause I'm relatively lazy and didn't uncheck the box.
Seriously. Are you people really getting so much spam every day that the "delete" button just doesn't do it for you?
Really, now, junk mail is just not that pressing an issue to me. And I can't see why/how it's such a huge issue for anyone else. So, can someone please give me a few rational replies to this question?
Oh, and to get back on topic, I don't think that anything coming from AOL will work properly - and if it does it's only a matter of time before someone hacks it.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't go pinning all this on the Village Idiot. He had help. 98 Senators, in fact - including the two "ultra-liberals" running the Loyal Opposition Ticket. Bollocks.
Funny. It was voting what put these people in charge. You propose that anyone running today will fix these problems? I don't think so.
You know, this quote intrigued me. So much so, in fact, that I went to your blog to check you out. I had to scroll down a good long bit to get at something that might help me understand you a little better, and to understand your quote a little better.
And the silly outsourcing fable did just the trick! I won't get into that here, though.
I will say, though, that I thank you for illuminating a point that I wish was brought up more often; namely that most Americans wish that the poor and infim of this country would just fucking die. I sure wish they would, too. After all, people like us have more in common with the nouveau riche than Billy Talks Funny and can't get a better job than turning screws at a factory. Fuck him.
I wish more people would stand up for the rights and benefits that our corporate leaders need, especially in this free market economy that allows our businesses to operate, unfettered by government intervention - unless it is too subsidize or otherwise assist them when it is obvious that the Little Man no longer can or will. Maybe because all the little people's jobs went overseas to help those little people.
It's hard to begrudge those hard-working third-worlders much. They are helping us live the American Dream, where we can watch corporate CEOs live high on the hog without any white Americans even having to break a sweat.
God Bless the USA and capital. And no one else.
Oh, it makes sense all right. What it does not make is a good argument for even *having* an internet.
Ten years ago, we'd have all shit ourselves to get streaming video from overseas or the ability to send it overseas. Now, we have so much corporate nonsense in the pipes that almost all meaningful content is restricted by this kind of crap.
Yes, I know, I'm being unrealistic to what's going on in the Real World. But, then again, wasn't the Internet supposed to change the Real World?
Instead, the World is now changing the Net. And not for the better.
I'm not sure if anyone else has posted this idea yet, 'cause I'm way too lazy and tired to read the whole discussion, so I'm just throwing this out there....
It seems kind of sad and pathetic that we need something that "checks incoming mail against the address books of your friends" in an effort to get rid of email from complete strangers....
The internet was supposed to, among a thousand other things that are now long forgotten, get strangers together who shared common bonds of interest or study. Hobbies, ideas, whatever...
Oh. Ha-ha. I thought you were talking about the National Conventions here in the United States. Silly me!
You didn't get the latest interweb memo? Blogs are the New Media, baby.
Get with the program. We don't need stodgy, fact-checked, well-written stories anymore. All we need are quick-witted, off-the-cuff pieces based on the news.
It's a new century and news is changing, yea! Get on board the train or be left at the station, man.
This admission does not allow you to review the book. This is kind of like letting a priest sell you a bible, or a politician tell you how great his party is doing. It's a little *too* close to conflict of interest.
In other words, "Let's get as much of this crap as we can, right now, and then offer incentives on the small portions still out there."
This is your daily cynicism. You may now return to happiness.
You all make some fairly good points. And, I will admit, that it really isn't anyone's business what a person reads, sees, etc.
But I still find the paranoia about what you read and see is a wee-bit melodramatic.
I don't know. I've been called a strange fucker before, nothing different. I'm just trying to present a different viewpoint on this issue. And I appreciate all of you who wrote on this, especially since (from the looks of it) one-hundred percent of it is a legitimate, thoughtful response.
Are you suggesting that the freedom to think must exist in a vacuum without anyone else knowing about it? What about the authors of these books you want to read under yr blankets at night? It doesn't look like they were bothered one bit by the thought of being seen as "crazies," "perverts," or "anarchists hell-bent on destroying our way of life."
The notion of anonymity in one's reading habits reeks of someone who is too afraid of their peer group, and not the government. For my part, I want my peers, my community, and the government to know what I read, and what I think. Only then can they know how strong the opposition to their criminal power really is.
Private thinking is what becomes the basis of one's public thinking. And most citizens are smart enough to know that just because a candidate read "Das Kapital," or "Mein Kampf," it does not logically follow that they are going to become the next Stalin or Hitler once in office.
I'll bet you pay attention to this message on websites:
don't you?The site is netrual, it's the uses that are irresponsible. And a silly disclaimer doesn't change that.
I don't recall saying that I blamed Senor Bush for anything. But, I think that most people do blame Bush for creating an environment in which the three branches feel a little more capable of loosening up civil liberties.
And those people are more than eager to replace Bush with Kerry, who hasn't exactly impressed me as much different on any of the issues.
Which is par for the course in American Politics.
Not that it bothers me a bit what the Court says or what the Bush Admins want, but I think that this conversation strayed badly off course early on.
The phrase, "public anonymity," in the headline, is vaguely misleading. Anonymity is usually associated with someone actually doing something and not wanting to be known - whether for good or bad deeds.
What this court ruling really means is that the police no longer need to have a reason to "see some ID," and that protestations of innocence or proclamation of rights are likely to get you put in them pretty bracelets and hauled downtown.
So, if all you well-meaning Civil Libertarians and Progressives here on slashdot want to change this country, then I urge you to Vote Bush this year. Make your fellow countrymen so sick of what that moron has done to this country that they are willing to discuss real progressive policies.
You would be surprised what is and is not covered under some insurance policies.
Besides, Acts of God can also sometimes be covered under insurance - after all, what's the point of wasting all that damn money on insurance if they can just turn on you and say, "Nope, that tree falling on your house last night during the freak ice storm was an Act of God" ?
So, for those too lazy to click the link above, meteors are covered the same as airplanes under home insurance, "objects falling from the sky." Now, the reason this is covered is precisely because it doesn't happen very often. Just as people on the coast pay extra for hurricane damage insurance and folks in the midwest pay extra for tornado insurance, if there were an area where meteors were common, there'd be extra clauses for meteor damage.
Insurance is, largely, a racket.
X-UIDL: ;r [200.181.94.68])
stubble relent standardly scrolls reverselyX-Mozilla-Status: 0001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-Path:
Received: from mxsf30.cluster1.xxxxx.net ([10.20.201.230]) by mtao01.xxxxxxx.net (InterMail vM.6.00.05.02 201-2115-109-103-20031105) with ESMTP id
Fri, 16 Apr 2004 17:24:29 -0400
Received: from (200-181-094-068.bsace705.dsl.brasiltelecom.net.b
by mxsf30.cluster1.xxxxxxx.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id i3GLF5Fw053380;
Fri, 16 Apr 2004 17:15:08 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID:
From: "Thom15"
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 18:18:55 -0300
To:
Subject: With CD Cheap you are the Winner! yesterday bunnies
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
warrant prosecutor Richey units cousin
temperate rectums concubine novel tinniness
Valerie obedience disparity carbonate audiogram
incubated propounds carters mightiest Wyandotte
Melanesia reloads Tories paraffin brazing
Ple@se review our today's great offer elevated parrot honorarium urgings outvoting
denseness damsel attracted coarse supersedes
relabel Millie endurance carves asphyxia
packaged avidly block recurring Sutton
tinniest validation veers vagrantly addresses
shudder Stirling fragments munitions together
tracings diplomas deadness Sigmund graspingly
ensured wheel blackest eminently sagebrush
Answers:
1) Yes.
2) Are you that fuckin' stupid?
3) No.
4) That's what the story says.
Yea, I know. Not horribly illuminating. But, I can add more to number 3. No, dead people (naturally), have no rights. That's part of being dead. But, the families of the dead often do have certain rights, whether legal or just societal.
Also, suicide itself is not a felony. Attempted suicide is, though, since you are still around to be prosecuted. So, the moral there is: If you are going to try to kill yourself, be fucking well sure you do it right, or you are going to do jail time.
"so we may end up seeing a wave of malware trying to monkey with a users DNS settings so that their sponsor's regisitry becomes the first one consulted."
Funny, I thought new.net was malware.
Fuck, bro. All you need to do is send this post to the patent office. Apparently, they'll stamp damn near anything.
And remember, I told you this, so cut me in on the cash, alright?
Thanks, call me black clod, for the help. I'll let ya know how it turns out.
Yawn. Troll.
Whatever, bro. I had a fairly legit question. I didn't get it - I can admit that. I needed some of you to tell me how bad it is. I don't deal with mail servers or multiple accounts, or commerce or what not.
Now, if you are serious about your job offer, I'll think about it. I figure ten dollars an hour to process your mail is about right. Just email me your username and password and I'll get right to it.
We can work out the contract and payments later. I won't even hold the "troll" bullshit against you.
alright, i guess i grasp it a little better now. i suppose i would have already a better idea if i were running a commerce site, or at least a moderately well travelled site of any kind. thank the good god of traffic i'm obscure.
now, here's another fun question. why, if this problem has been boiling up for five years now (and it has, hasn't it?) has some group not already tried to quash it?
Still won't get it. I can hit delete faster than I can get annoyed at doing it. That NOSPAM is there 'cause I'm relatively lazy and didn't uncheck the box.
Well, I guess I'll just go on being the only person who must not get spam.
And, I reckon I'll not post any more honest questions in a /. forum. Bastids.
Seriously. Are you people really getting so much spam every day that the "delete" button just doesn't do it for you?
Really, now, junk mail is just not that pressing an issue to me. And I can't see why/how it's such a huge issue for anyone else. So, can someone please give me a few rational replies to this question?
Oh, and to get back on topic, I don't think that anything coming from AOL will work properly - and if it does it's only a matter of time before someone hacks it.