It seems like YouTube is getting throttled a lot lately. To be fair though, I haven't checked for the deadly RST packet. Shouldn't be too hard. I just need to set Wireshark to filter everything but RST packets. Of course, that won't really let me know that it was Comcast that sent it. I'd say that a RST followed by the next packet in the expected sequence would be a giveaway, since the TCB at YouTube's server wouldn't send the next packet in sequence if it had sent the RST. Of course, if what Comcast is using to do this is stateful and smart, it'll block that next packet too. So. There is no way to tell, barring YouTube actually logging instances of having sent the RST itself, and letting us access that log. Feel free to point out any flaws in this analysis. I just typed it out in 5 minutes.
The bottom line though, is that YouTube is choppy lately.
It'd be nice if Adobe fixed flash so that it would double the buffering time whenever it got stuck. In other words, if it waits 5 seconds to buffer and then gets stuck again, it should wait 10 seconds the next time before trying to resume the stream. If it gets stuck again, it should wait 20 seconds. And so on, until, if necessary, it buffers the entire vid before playing.
Of course Adobe is not the underlying problem; but they could be more robust given the current environment.
...easy-to-use backups, and/or the government tracking down the payments and busting the guy who receives it.
Of course, if you are just backing up to the hard drive, the virus will make sure to trash your backups. Better back up to a non re-writeable CD. Most people's unique data isn't that large. If it is, you should be doing nightly offsite backups anyway.
This is just all part of McCain's (and the now fallen Republican party's) disrespect for the Constitution. Some of the campaign finance stuff he proposed was very chilling--bloggers would have had to jump through hoops as if they were lobbying orgs, or they wouldn't be able to post political stuff. That struck at the very heart of the 1st ammendment. Then there's the flag burning issue. I swear, if McCain gets in, I'll burn a flag that very day. That he would be in favor of warrantless wiretaps is no surprise.
I hope Obama et. al. will take up the cause of the Constitution, and use it in their campaign ads. OTOH, a campaigning style that purports to educate people might not be well received. Obama is already being painted as an "intellectual elitist", which sounds GOOD to me; but unfortunately it doesn't sound good to the electorate at large. Just do the right thing this time, guys, and don't figure out how to lose like you did the last two times.
You know you're going to have trouble viewing when downloading a JPEG actually takes a noticeable ammount of time over broadband. IE, MSPaint, Firefox, and a trusty little shareware image editor I use--they all choked on the first hi-res image. The surprise winner? The Windows Picture and Fax viewer that comes with XP. I was even able to zoom in several times, but it too eventually choked.
The failure of Firefox is a bit of a disappointment here. The Picture and Fax win is surprising since other MS apps identified the image as being in an "unsupported format". The shareware app thought it was "damaged". This is probably just an effort on the part of those apps to protect themselves from what's usualy a nonsensical dimension.
Well, that's the Windows XP side of this. How are people viewing these images on other OSs? Are you able to view it with anything that "just comes with the OS", or are you having to go out of your way?
Communism on paper was never about putting antifreeze in toothpaste or lead in child toy's paint
And yet somehow, it always seems to end up that way.
Point taken about how China is not communist, however. It seems more fascist to me. The nice thing about the USSR was that you could always count on them to cling closely to their attempt at communism, right up until it all fell apart. Not so with the Chinese. They achieved what many suspect Gorbachev wanted, and failed to achieve: the harnessing of market economics to further the objectives of the existing power structure.
In doing so, they've set up a system that would make any 19th century robber baron proud. I like to say, "If the Chinese aren't careful, they're going to have a communist revolution on their hands".
True story. Parents weekend, 1987. Beer drinking in one room, parents in suite. Beer in fridge of other room. Turns out, two 12-oz cans fit perfectly in one empty Pringles can. Play it cool while walking across suite, hope nobody wants Pringles. It worked.
I doubt they're actually looking for software development in line with what you'd find on SourceForge. According to the 83% of people who make up statistics on the spot, 90% of all software is custom. There wouldn't be much point in having it on SourceForge.
This aspect is what's really interesting. There probably aren't enough data points yet, and we are plainly in a transition period for music distribution technology. The intersting thing to study is to rate artist's approaches to the 'net based on one or more criteria, and attempt to correlate them to success or failure.
I think it would be difficult, if not impossible to come up with any real answer though. First, art is not a commodity so you can't compare Prince as a producer of "1000 barrels of music per day" vs. Radio Head as "1000 barrels of music per day". Secondly, the overall economic climate for musicians may be in decline, and the falling tide may be sinking all the yachts, whether they play on the 'net or not. Whether this decline is due to the the 'net or not is a separate issue that's really rather moot: the cat's out of the bag. The more practical quetion, from the PoV of the musician, is "do I have more to gain by participating in the old model or the new". The answer (pure speculation on my part) probably depends a lot on how you got started. Artists who's careers span the pre-Internet era might be well served by sticking with the old model, whereas new artists might be better off paying less attention to the old model, or maybe even ignoring it totally.
Once we enter a stage where all the currently performing artists started their careers post-Napster, the picture should be more clear.
What kind of un-patched Windows crap...
on
China's Cyber-Militia
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
What kind of un-patched Windows crap is running the power grid?
Of course the attackers are guilty; but that doesn't excuse foolish security practices. Nevermind bad security on the end-point, or in the software. It seems like the power company, with all its rights-of-way, shouldn't even have to route over the public network. Routing over a private network would provide physical security. Breaking into that requires putting your actual body at the point of attack. Since the power company came before the Internet, I would have thought they had a private network of some kind in place already, or close cooperation with telcos. I guess not.
Sigh... most of your post sounds like more of the usual, like you just don't get it; because you don't want to get it.
Then, you provide one little glimmer of hope at the end--you admit that infringement is wrong. You just don't admit that it's wrong in a manner that's an awful lot like stealing. Enough to be, for all intents and purposes, the same bloody thing!
From my PoV, it's like *you*, and other proliferators of the "copyright violation is not theft" meme, are reading the words and not understanding them!
We'll have to just "agree to disagree" on the equivalence of the arguments. Thanks for the "care's" suggestion. I'm looking for a way to work in the abuse of "its" vs. "it's" too.
It's really very simple. Whether you lose money due to "embezzelment" or "theft", you are out the money. The effect is the same. Whether you lose money due to "theft of IP" or "copyright infringement", you are out the same ammount of money. (note, whether or not loss due to infringement is measurable is a separate topic).
As for my.sig, it's an attempt to push the most grammar-nazi hot-buttons in the smallest space. Using the common corruption of "intents and purposes", and my intentionally improper use of "begs the question" while harpooning "whom" as antiquated speech are all a bash on "prescriptive linguistics". There wasn't room for the phrase "does anybody other than a prescriptive linguist care?"
Humbug. You choose your wording to imply someone was robbed; that is not the case. Nothing was 'taken', something was copied. That is a huge difference. If you have something and I take it, you do not have it anymore. If you have something and I copy it, we both have it. In fact: you have more, because you also gained my respect and awe. There is no bullying involved.
This runs contrary to my experience, and the experience of many others. The smart kids in school generally do not get "respect and awe". However, in many tribal societies the "shaman" or "medicine man" is respected, although often only at the cost of giving up a more conventional life (e.g., they may be celibate). Hmmm... not too different from a geek, eh? So perhaps you have a point. Tribes that were indifferent to the capabilities of their "special" members may have been at a disadvantage, and died off.
At any rate, there was a social contract here that benefited both parties. No presumption of excessive rights on either side. That brings us full circle. The solution is a social contract that both sides agree is fair. It's just that the way I see it, "you should feel happy because I took your idea and ran with it", doesn't meet that criterion.
What's taken is "esteem for creative, hard-working people". If superior people don't get anything extra, if they are held in the same esteem as regular people, this tends to make them leave and go someplace else where they are more appreciated.
And yes, some people are just plain better than others. Deal with it.
Those who take from the creative without feeling even the simple need to ask, they are just bullies.
A note about the food thing--I didn't mean to imply that anyone should starve. I'm assuming that in primitive societies vegetables and insects were available daily, and that a large game animal was a treat. AFAIK, everybody got a piece of a large kill, but I bet the more highly esteemed members got choice cuts. Don't you think the guy who makes it cook-able for the first time should get the steak and not the giblets?
Should I, A: construct each post in such a manner that the logic is absolutely air-tight, and able to withstand the slings and arrows of even the most rabid pedant with too much time on his hands, taking a considerable ammount of time to do so, and carefully explaining what most people would simply infer or B: spend a reasonable ammount of time on each post, knowing that most people will get the general idea, and that those who are pedantic and/or hell-bent on their position will always find a flaw no matter what you say.
No. My caveman analogy was chosen because it's often used by the anti-IP camp. They contend that the lighting of one fire from another takes nothing from the original fire. What's being ignored in *their* telling of the cave-man story is the effort required to invent fire-making techniques, and/or the effort required to start a fire using primitive techniques. What's being taken from the first cave-man is obviously his TIME and EFFORT. The more subtle aspect of what's being taken from him is his RESPECT and DIGNITY. Those who would light from his fire don't even presume they should ask.
A better analogy might be the nerd in school who is forced by a bully to allow copying his homework. Would you argue in that case, that nothing is being taken from the nerd because his answers are still there? This disregard for any form of IP rights among so many Slashdotters has always been one of the most perplexing things about Slashdot for me. If you advocate abolition of all IP, you dramaticly reduce the worth of creative, intelligent people in society--precisely the kind of people who are supposedly here.
Returning to the cave-man analogy, you seem to feel that only 2nd cave-man has rights, and that he should only give what HE feels is appropriate. Wouldn't it be more fair if they negotiated and arrived at a fair settlement? Anything else is unfair to either party. And that's what's needed in our modern system: a fair balance. Asserting that one side has no intrinsic rights does nothing to provide such a balance.
Yeah, that's it for me. No more BIOS or boot-loader. From now on, I'm copying in those bits by hand with a specially built system of toggle switches and LEDs that interfaces directly to the MoBo. You can be d***ed sure you have to enter the root password before you can access that system. Then I can go to work on trading in the lock on my front door for something that requires root, or better yet, 3 factor auth with an RSA key fob.
Many Slashdotters are adamant in their assertion that intellectual property is not a valid right or concept. They often cite legal history, and technicly they are correct. However, it seems they are doing this more for rhetorical purposes, as opposed to actually caring about how the law is constructed. The argument usually goes something like, "IP theft isn't stealing, it's copyright infringement". I always like to counter this with something like, "would you rather I steal $50,000 from you or embezzle it?". It is readily apparent that the effect is the same.
Therefore, I personally DO recognize IP as a valid concept and right. If I'm the first cave-man to discover fire after rubbing sticks together for months, and you light your fire from mine without rewarding me, you do indeed take something from me. The fire-maker deservers to be fed from the next kill, lest the wheel-maker observes that the fire-maker starved, and decides to give up on his endeavor.
OTOH, when the fire-maker stomps out fires and demands a portion of the meat in perpetuity, he shouldn't be surprised when he gets clubbed on the head.
In other words--common sense.
Therefore, software patents -- get rid of 'em. They dont't incentivise. They just make software developers worry. Everybody knows it.
*AA enforcement? None on low-quality encodings that get radio airplay. Why? because you can already time-shift broadcast radio. Pulling it off digitally is really just the same thing, format-shifted. Same deal for music vids, which you could have legitimately recorded off MTV 25 years ago with your VHS (in fact, WB and some other studios are putting up their own YouTube channels with classic MTV vids, perhaps they finally are realizing it's actually good for their PR and not taking away from new sales). High-quality encodings and/or lossless recording should be more restricted. The penalty should be ordinary restitution: steal 100 CDs worth of music, pay 200 CD equivalent penalty. None of this $30,000 business for downloading one song.
IP in the music/vid business can be a *good* thing. Bits don't go to landfill. Availability of high-quality recordings in a manner that ensures payment will help that.
Abandoned works should lapse into the public domain, but registration shouldn't be required for copyright on each work. I could go on and on...
The short answer though, is common sense. Isn't it always? Unfortunately, it always seems to be in short supply. The laws are written by lawyers who are paid by businesses. Hence, all the legal hang-ups.
If you read the entire article, it provides a decent summary of the ebb and flow of labor union power in the US. I favor the balance that was struck here in the US, as opposed to total Communism or total Fascism. I think most people in the US do too.
The first time was nimdA. It was an exploit that affected Outlook Express. AFAIK, it was one of those rare occasions when you didn't have to be looking at HTML mail, or execute an attachment. I don't use OE anymore. The other times have been before I got agressive with the Internet Explorer security settings. Now that I've clamped down, so far so good. So. It's a learning process, true; but I like it better than learning which AV products are good and bad.
Point taken--I still pay an AV penalty; but at least I don't pay it to cops who have an inherent conflict of interest in solving the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
So. Even when it's built, it'll still just be fantasy.
It seems like YouTube is getting throttled a lot lately. To be fair though, I haven't checked for the deadly RST packet. Shouldn't be too hard. I just need to set Wireshark to filter everything but RST packets. Of course, that won't really let me know that it was Comcast that sent it. I'd say that a RST followed by the next packet in the expected sequence would be a giveaway, since the TCB at YouTube's server wouldn't send the next packet in sequence if it had sent the RST. Of course, if what Comcast is using to do this is stateful and smart, it'll block that next packet too. So. There is no way to tell, barring YouTube actually logging instances of having sent the RST itself, and letting us access that log. Feel free to point out any flaws in this analysis. I just typed it out in 5 minutes.
The bottom line though, is that YouTube is choppy lately.
It'd be nice if Adobe fixed flash so that it would double the buffering time whenever it got stuck. In other words, if it waits 5 seconds to buffer and then gets stuck again, it should wait 10 seconds the next time before trying to resume the stream. If it gets stuck again, it should wait 20 seconds. And so on, until, if necessary, it buffers the entire vid before playing.
Of course Adobe is not the underlying problem; but they could be more robust given the current environment.
...easy-to-use backups, and/or the government tracking down the payments and busting the guy who receives it.
Of course, if you are just backing up to the hard drive, the virus will make sure to trash your backups. Better back up to a non re-writeable CD. Most people's unique data isn't that large. If it is, you should be doing nightly offsite backups anyway.
This is just all part of McCain's (and the now fallen Republican party's) disrespect for the Constitution. Some of the campaign finance stuff he proposed was very chilling--bloggers would have had to jump through hoops as if they were lobbying orgs, or they wouldn't be able to post political stuff. That struck at the very heart of the 1st ammendment. Then there's the flag burning issue. I swear, if McCain gets in, I'll burn a flag that very day. That he would be in favor of warrantless wiretaps is no surprise.
I hope Obama et. al. will take up the cause of the Constitution, and use it in their campaign ads. OTOH, a campaigning style that purports to educate people might not be well received. Obama is already being painted as an "intellectual elitist", which sounds GOOD to me; but unfortunately it doesn't sound good to the electorate at large. Just do the right thing this time, guys, and don't figure out how to lose like you did the last two times.
You know you're going to have trouble viewing when downloading a JPEG actually takes a noticeable ammount of time over broadband. IE, MSPaint, Firefox, and a trusty little shareware image editor I use--they all choked on the first hi-res image. The surprise winner? The Windows Picture and Fax viewer that comes with XP. I was even able to zoom in several times, but it too eventually choked.
The failure of Firefox is a bit of a disappointment here. The Picture and Fax win is surprising since other MS apps identified the image as being in an "unsupported format". The shareware app thought it was "damaged". This is probably just an effort on the part of those apps to protect themselves from what's usualy a nonsensical dimension.
Well, that's the Windows XP side of this. How are people viewing these images on other OSs? Are you able to view it with anything that "just comes with the OS", or are you having to go out of your way?
Communism on paper was never about putting antifreeze in toothpaste or lead in child toy's paint
And yet somehow, it always seems to end up that way.
Point taken about how China is not communist, however. It seems more fascist to me. The nice thing about the USSR was that you could always count on them to cling closely to their attempt at communism, right up until it all fell apart. Not so with the Chinese. They achieved what many suspect Gorbachev wanted, and failed to achieve: the harnessing of market economics to further the objectives of the existing power structure.
In doing so, they've set up a system that would make any 19th century robber baron proud. I like to say, "If the Chinese aren't careful, they're going to have a communist revolution on their hands".
True story. Parents weekend, 1987. Beer drinking in one room, parents in suite. Beer in fridge of other room. Turns out, two 12-oz cans fit perfectly in one empty Pringles can. Play it cool while walking across suite, hope nobody wants Pringles. It worked.
I doubt they're actually looking for software development in line with what you'd find on SourceForge. According to the 83% of people who make up statistics on the spot, 90% of all software is custom. There wouldn't be much point in having it on SourceForge.
With a name like "Frosty Piss" you should have no trouble recognizing a good Karma-whoring when you see it.
This aspect is what's really interesting. There probably aren't enough data points yet, and we are plainly in a transition period for music distribution technology. The intersting thing to study is to rate artist's approaches to the 'net based on one or more criteria, and attempt to correlate them to success or failure.
I think it would be difficult, if not impossible to come up with any real answer though. First, art is not a commodity so you can't compare Prince as a producer of "1000 barrels of music per day" vs. Radio Head as "1000 barrels of music per day". Secondly, the overall economic climate for musicians may be in decline, and the falling tide may be sinking all the yachts, whether they play on the 'net or not. Whether this decline is due to the the 'net or not is a separate issue that's really rather moot: the cat's out of the bag. The more practical quetion, from the PoV of the musician, is "do I have more to gain by participating in the old model or the new". The answer (pure speculation on my part) probably depends a lot on how you got started. Artists who's careers span the pre-Internet era might be well served by sticking with the old model, whereas new artists might be better off paying less attention to the old model, or maybe even ignoring it totally.
Once we enter a stage where all the currently performing artists started their careers post-Napster, the picture should be more clear.
What kind of un-patched Windows crap is running the power grid?
Of course the attackers are guilty; but that doesn't excuse foolish security practices. Nevermind bad security on the end-point, or in the software. It seems like the power company, with all its rights-of-way, shouldn't even have to route over the public network. Routing over a private network would provide physical security. Breaking into that requires putting your actual body at the point of attack. Since the power company came before the Internet, I would have thought they had a private network of some kind in place already, or close cooperation with telcos. I guess not.
Scott Adams said everything I wanted to say.
Sigh... most of your post sounds like more of the usual, like you just don't get it; because you don't want to get it.
Then, you provide one little glimmer of hope at the end--you admit that infringement is wrong. You just don't admit that it's wrong in a manner that's an awful lot like stealing. Enough to be, for all intents and purposes, the same bloody thing!
From my PoV, it's like *you*, and other proliferators of the "copyright violation is not theft" meme, are reading the words and not understanding them!
We'll have to just "agree to disagree" on the equivalence of the arguments. Thanks for the "care's" suggestion. I'm looking for a way to work in the abuse of "its" vs. "it's" too.
It's really very simple. Whether you lose money due to "embezzelment" or "theft", you are out the money. The effect is the same. Whether you lose money due to "theft of IP" or "copyright infringement", you are out the same ammount of money. (note, whether or not loss due to infringement is measurable is a separate topic).
As for my .sig, it's an attempt to push the most grammar-nazi hot-buttons in the smallest space. Using the common corruption of "intents and purposes", and my intentionally improper use of "begs the question" while harpooning "whom" as antiquated speech are all a bash on "prescriptive linguistics". There wasn't room for the phrase "does anybody other than a prescriptive linguist care?"
Humbug. You choose your wording to imply someone was robbed; that is not the case. Nothing was 'taken', something was copied. That is a huge difference. If you have something and I take it, you do not have it anymore. If you have something and I copy it, we both have it. In fact: you have more, because you also gained my respect and awe. There is no bullying involved.
This runs contrary to my experience, and the experience of many others. The smart kids in school generally do not get "respect and awe". However, in many tribal societies the "shaman" or "medicine man" is respected, although often only at the cost of giving up a more conventional life (e.g., they may be celibate). Hmmm... not too different from a geek, eh? So perhaps you have a point. Tribes that were indifferent to the capabilities of their "special" members may have been at a disadvantage, and died off.
At any rate, there was a social contract here that benefited both parties. No presumption of excessive rights on either side. That brings us full circle. The solution is a social contract that both sides agree is fair. It's just that the way I see it, "you should feel happy because I took your idea and ran with it", doesn't meet that criterion.
What's taken is "esteem for creative, hard-working people". If superior people don't get anything extra, if they are held in the same esteem as regular people, this tends to make them leave and go someplace else where they are more appreciated.
And yes, some people are just plain better than others. Deal with it.
Those who take from the creative without feeling even the simple need to ask, they are just bullies.
A note about the food thing--I didn't mean to imply that anyone should starve. I'm assuming that in primitive societies vegetables and insects were available daily, and that a large game animal was a treat. AFAIK, everybody got a piece of a large kill, but I bet the more highly esteemed members got choice cuts. Don't you think the guy who makes it cook-able for the first time should get the steak and not the giblets?
Should I, A: construct each post in such a manner that the logic is absolutely air-tight, and able to withstand the slings and arrows of even the most rabid pedant with too much time on his hands, taking a considerable ammount of time to do so, and carefully explaining what most people would simply infer or B: spend a reasonable ammount of time on each post, knowing that most people will get the general idea, and that those who are pedantic and/or hell-bent on their position will always find a flaw no matter what you say.
Guess how I tend to resolve that dilemma.
No. My caveman analogy was chosen because it's often used by the anti-IP camp. They contend that the lighting of one fire from another takes nothing from the original fire. What's being ignored in *their* telling of the cave-man story is the effort required to invent fire-making techniques, and/or the effort required to start a fire using primitive techniques. What's being taken from the first cave-man is obviously his TIME and EFFORT. The more subtle aspect of what's being taken from him is his RESPECT and DIGNITY. Those who would light from his fire don't even presume they should ask.
A better analogy might be the nerd in school who is forced by a bully to allow copying his homework. Would you argue in that case, that nothing is being taken from the nerd because his answers are still there? This disregard for any form of IP rights among so many Slashdotters has always been one of the most perplexing things about Slashdot for me. If you advocate abolition of all IP, you dramaticly reduce the worth of creative, intelligent people in society--precisely the kind of people who are supposedly here.
Returning to the cave-man analogy, you seem to feel that only 2nd cave-man has rights, and that he should only give what HE feels is appropriate. Wouldn't it be more fair if they negotiated and arrived at a fair settlement? Anything else is unfair to either party. And that's what's needed in our modern system: a fair balance. Asserting that one side has no intrinsic rights does nothing to provide such a balance.
Yeah, that's it for me. No more BIOS or boot-loader. From now on, I'm copying in those bits by hand with a specially built system of toggle switches and LEDs that interfaces directly to the MoBo. You can be d***ed sure you have to enter the root password before you can access that system. Then I can go to work on trading in the lock on my front door for something that requires root, or better yet, 3 factor auth with an RSA key fob.
Many Slashdotters are adamant in their assertion that intellectual property is not a valid right or concept. They often cite legal history, and technicly they are correct. However, it seems they are doing this more for rhetorical purposes, as opposed to actually caring about how the law is constructed. The argument usually goes something like, "IP theft isn't stealing, it's copyright infringement". I always like to counter this with something like, "would you rather I steal $50,000 from you or embezzle it?". It is readily apparent that the effect is the same.
Therefore, I personally DO recognize IP as a valid concept and right. If I'm the first cave-man to discover fire after rubbing sticks together for months, and you light your fire from mine without rewarding me, you do indeed take something from me. The fire-maker deservers to be fed from the next kill, lest the wheel-maker observes that the fire-maker starved, and decides to give up on his endeavor.
OTOH, when the fire-maker stomps out fires and demands a portion of the meat in perpetuity, he shouldn't be surprised when he gets clubbed on the head.
In other words--common sense.
Therefore, software patents -- get rid of 'em. They dont't incentivise. They just make software developers worry. Everybody knows it.
*AA enforcement? None on low-quality encodings that get radio airplay. Why? because you can already time-shift broadcast radio. Pulling it off digitally is really just the same thing, format-shifted. Same deal for music vids, which you could have legitimately recorded off MTV 25 years ago with your VHS (in fact, WB and some other studios are putting up their own YouTube channels with classic MTV vids, perhaps they finally are realizing it's actually good for their PR and not taking away from new sales). High-quality encodings and/or lossless recording should be more restricted. The penalty should be ordinary restitution: steal 100 CDs worth of music, pay 200 CD equivalent penalty. None of this $30,000 business for downloading one song.
IP in the music/vid business can be a *good* thing. Bits don't go to landfill. Availability of high-quality recordings in a manner that ensures payment will help that.
Abandoned works should lapse into the public domain, but registration shouldn't be required for copyright on each work. I could go on and on...
The short answer though, is common sense. Isn't it always? Unfortunately, it always seems to be in short supply. The laws are written by lawyers who are paid by businesses. Hence, all the legal hang-ups.
OMG! We can't let people have free speech. They might say things!
...breaking the Feminine code?
If you read the entire article, it provides a decent summary of the ebb and flow of labor union power in the US. I favor the balance that was struck here in the US, as opposed to total Communism or total Fascism. I think most people in the US do too.
Something you are doing isn't working
The first time was nimdA. It was an exploit that affected Outlook Express. AFAIK, it was one of those rare occasions when you didn't have to be looking at HTML mail, or execute an attachment. I don't use OE anymore. The other times have been before I got agressive with the Internet Explorer security settings. Now that I've clamped down, so far so good. So. It's a learning process, true; but I like it better than learning which AV products are good and bad.
Point taken--I still pay an AV penalty; but at least I don't pay it to cops who have an inherent conflict of interest in solving the problem.