Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
YES, feminism has ruined our country. If you'd like to see the evidence of things like feminism and political correctness gone wrong, read "The New Thought Police" by Tammy Bruce. If you want to know how feminist ideals have been used to cause serious damage to generations of boys, read "The Way Against Boys" by Christina Hoff Sommers, it's facinating and at the same time quite disturbing.
As for other things you can't say, here are some that I'm going to say...
Blacks are more racist than whites - There are blacks who make their living doing nothing but turning everything into a race issue (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc)
Homosexuality IS NOT NORMAL - That's why the work "queer" was used to describe it, becuase it's not normal. I'm not saying that I hate homosexuals or anything (that's not true). Just that it's not normal. Which leads us to...
Kids are best parrented by a mom and a dad - Not two moms, not two dads, not one of either, not a daycare, not a nanny, A MOM AND A DAD.
"Tolerace" means tolerate - It does NOT mean that I must accept your weird way of thinking as correct, it just means I will put up with you.
Prayer is schools is harmless - We had it for years and years, but now because we must "tolerate" one or two crackpot parents, we can't do this, despite the good it does.
The Democratic party hates Blacks - Despite what they say, they don't like Blacks. They are nothing more than a group they can ask for votes from. The first "Black President" had very few Black people around him and appointed very few minorities, but Bush has appointed tons. Dems are always saying they'll "look out for Blacks", but after 50 years, what's changed for them?
Black is not a racial slurr - African-american is offensive to me, because you think that you're BLACK first, then American when you say that. It should be the other way around, as with everything. I can understand things like the N* word, but this is rediciulous. Read "The New Throught Police".
I'm sure I could think a TONS more if I had the time. There are many things that you just can't say (despite the fact that they are true).
Time to reach 1000 ports: 30 Months Time to reach 2000 ports: 18 Months Time to reach 3000 ports: 12 Months Time to reach 4000 ports: 10 Months Time to reach 5000 ports: 6 Months Time to reach 6000 ports: 6 Months Time to reach 7000 ports: 6 Months Time to reach 8000 ports: 6 Months Time to reach 9000 ports: 6 Months Time to reach 10000 ports: 6 Months
Seems development has been rather steady for a while now. I predict 11,000 ports in... 6 months.
I wasn't suggesting that, although I do like the idea of just sending an absentee ballot to every registered voter and forgetting polling places all together. There are some good resaons to do this (doens't clog up places like school which causes all sorts of problems, increases voter "turnout"), but also has it's problems (icreases voter "turnout", so more idiots who know nothing and would never vote would). I think there is somewhere in the US that does this, maybe Oregan?
That may be why the uninformed are affraid (can you blame them?), but that's no reason to not trust e-voting.
E-voting is a reason not to trust e-voting. Slashdot just has story after story of how these big "trust us, our stuff is fair" e-voting companies have problem after problem after problem. Things are bad now, but imagine the kind of stuff that might come up if it was legislated that the 2004 Presidential Election had to be done on these systems. What happened in Florida (which was largly the fault of people who were too desperate to not loose to care about anything else, since the recounts and recounts didn't change anything) would look like a cakewalk compared to finding people who got to vote in 12 districts, those who's votes were counted 10,002 times, and the fact that anyone with a "A" or an "E" in their last name (BUT NOT BOTH) could only vote during odd numbered minutes of even numbered hours in districts that are prime numbers or some other rediculous things that at this rate seems it could easily turn up.
I'm all for MS bashing when they deserve it, and they may be the number one reason people don't trust e-voting (allbeit indirectly); but there are REAL reasons why people shouldn't trust it, and if it were to get reported more, then people still wouldn't trust the things, it would just be for the "right" reason.
Am I the only one who is ready to never trust e-voting ever again? I was a little worried before I knew anything about it. The more I learn, the more terrified I get. With everything that goes on in the computer world, e-voting is SCARRY.
Let's ignore hacking and break-ins. Those are too easy. Vendor bugs are bad enough. There have been bugs that cause automatic medicine dosers in hospitals to give out too much medice and almost (or completely) kill a paitent. I'll go vote for candidate Ham Sandwich, but how do I know some bug won't cause every vote for his oppoent, Mr. Mayor, to be counted 100 times? These things just seem to happen more and more.
So what WILL have me trust it? Let's set it up like a slot machine is set up. It has it's software burned into some ROM. It should be thouroughly tested by independant labs, the code should be available for me to look at, and I should be able to read the ROM chip after the elections are done so I know that it's got what it's supposed to on it (not that many people would do this, but it should be an option). When I'm done voting, it should print out a paper punch ballot that I can look at to see that it voted the way I told it to. The voting commisions can use the electronic results, but a random 5% of all districts every election should check the electronic counts against the paper ballots to make sure nothing weird is going on there. And most importantly of all (and like a slot machine), YOU SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO CHEAT. Shock it with 10,000,000 volts to make sure it doesn't mess up and let me vote twice. Punch it and kick it and do anything possible (and then some) to make sure it still functions correctly, just like a slot machine. Slot machines go through all that because they might be responsible for millions of dollars. My vote should be worth more than that, and there for should have TOUGHER standards behind it.
In short, I don't trust e-voting. The only way I'd LIKE to see e-voting is that you choose your candidates on the computer, then it prints out a punched ballot (with names and all, so I can see it did things right) that I turn in, and THAT'S my ballot; the machine is nothing more than a ballot punching tool and holds no results of it's own. I should be able to do it all by hand if I want. This is the only way I'd like to see e-voting, and the description above is the only way that I'll accept it.
I'm with you. There is no way you could just strap a camera on and run the wires down.
What you'd need to do is get a tiny camera from somewhere (like this or this one). Then you'd attach it to a strong tini transmitter (like this one) and hook it all up to a battery. Instant spy kite. Not that a kite above a compeditor's company all day every day with no one flying it would ever look suspicous. Still might be too heavy though.
If you read the letter, it says that not only is it going towards a new server. It's also going to upgrade the old ones, get some spare parts so that when something dies, everything else doesn't come crashing down from the new load (as that's apparently what's happening now, and what happened in the big blackout earlier this year as a matter of fact).
The letter (on the server and mirrored in a comment in this thread) explians where the $20k figure comes from and where things are going.
The Konami one works very well, but they are unable to know what you're saying, so you could just go "La La La" through every song and it would take it and tell you your doing great. While this means you could sing parodies and such, it also means you could "cheat" by "La La"ing through tough parts.
Sorry, not origional. I will say that it's a great game (although I haven't played your specific verison). I first played it back on the Nintendo 64 when it was called "Wetrix" and I have a verison for the PS sitting in front of my called Aqua Aqua. They are all the same games. But it's not origional. Sorry.
That said, while your copy isn't origional, I'll agree that the origional game WAS quite origional (innovative?) and is a great game (help! I need a theusoarus, and apparently a spell check). But obviously it's not from this year (the origional).
As for the rest of your comment, everything I've seen has speculated the OTHER WAY, saying that TiVo will get MORE attention now, as in some ways it's been "abandonded" by DirecTV (according to some. Example: we STILL don't have version 4, and all software updates and such are up to DirecTV, not TiVo). I have heard GOOD THINGS about what's going to happen. And why would he ditch TiVo? DirecTV has been having a hard time keeping them in stock and keeping up with demand. you think he'll replace that with some unproven thing that he makes (again: I've never heard of the DVR your talking about, but I'm not too informed in that area). If he DID try to introduce his, I would expect it to be like DirecTV used to offer UltimateTV. They would give users a CHOICE, and the winner would be kept if they were to ditch one.
Do you have any evidence? Because if you don't what you're doing is just FUDing (and I'm ANTI-FUDing to a large degree), and Slashdot has enough FUD already.
PS: I'm guessing you're just saying that because you hate Murdoch (as proved by "being squished by Murdoch's mega conglomerate"). Just because you don't seem to like him doesn't mean that he's evil and will ruin TiVo for everyone.
I'm sure there will be quite a few "big brother" privacy claims posted, but frankly I HOPE that this happens. I have no qualms what so ever.
Now, if California wanted to make the database for every single citizen, I would object. If it was for anyone convicted of anything (parking tickets included), I would object. But it's not...
It's FELLONS. These are not jaywalkers, they are murderers, rapists, duggies (dealers, trafficers, etc), and more. I don't mind this segment of the population losing a little bit of their rights, because they chose to give them up when they decided to commit a crime. I don't mind this just like I don't think felons should be allowed to have guns (I am otherwise very supportive of right to bear arms). They are FELLONS, we shouldn't be crying for them.
Now that said, there are bound to be false convictions, and this is the one caviat that I have. When a false conviction is found, that person's DNA needs to be removed from the database IMMEDIATLY and any convictions/etc based on the DNA that was collected because they were a fellon (fruit of the poisonous tree). But ONLY THAT DNA. If the person submitted their DNA during the investigation, that obviously gets to stay in the database, it's only DNA collected after they were convicted that should be "tossed" in such a case. If this part is held, I have no qualms what so ever.
I understand your point, I'm just saying that while it may hold 400 128kbps songs, it could hold my collection (~3x as much) easily since it's VBR.
I too only have an MP3 CD player, so I'd love one of these things too (unless I get a iPod in two days). I'm just saying that it can hold MORE than 400 songs. Four gigs really is a lot of space (unless everything you have is 384kbps CBR files).
Yeah, someone else pointed that out. I do have quite a few short songs, but most are 2 minutes or more. They are recorded at 64-386kbps (or something like that). I'm amazed they are so small too, but they sound fantastic and they're tiny, so I'm not complaining.
I'd just like to point out that if you want, you can fit WAY more than 400 songs onto a 2 gig player. I have ripped a large part of my CD collection into iTunes (I use Windows for what it's worth). They are all in VBR MP3s, and average ~200 kbps acording to Windows XP.
That said, I have 1286 songs (totaling 2.2 days) and it only occupies about 1.5 gigs. It may seem like nothing compared to a 40 gig iPod, but you can hold a TON of music on a 2 gig player.
I'd like to add that I have watched Terminator 3, which I also liked, along with The Animatrix which was fantastic (if you count it as a movie). I guess that means that I've see 6 movies from the last year that I liked, I didn't see any that I didn't like (but I haven't watched Seabuscit yet, so I guess that could change).
What am I waiting for? LotR:RotK (almost a palendrome!) and The Matrix: Revolutions (I'm going to rent it even if it is supposed to be terrible). I also think Kill Bill Vol. 1 sounds interesting. I also think that new Big Fish movie sounds interesting. I'm straying close to off topic here, so I'll quit while I'm ahead.
OK, so I never saw it, but I'd like to nominate a movie from January 17th. That instant horror classic (the horror being what you expiriance at even having to watch the commercials for it)...
Best movie? Pirates of the Carabian was good, I haven't watched Seabiscuit yet (I've got it on DVD near me right now), I liked X-2, and I thought that The Matrix: Reloaded was entertaining, Nemo was fantastic, I loved A Mighty Wind, and those are the only 2k3 movies that I've seen (that I can think of) as I only watch DVDs.
Does Chicago count? It came out Dec 25th of last year, so that's within the last year (not last calender year though).
software to stop 'these unwanted and illegal pop-up messages forever with the click of a button'
OK. Let's all read this. Now this is either true or untrue. Let's take a look.
Option 1: the statement is true. That means that pop-ups are illegal, and hence the company is knowingly and willfuly violating the law. If this is the situation, they are in trouble.
Option 2: the statement is false. That means that pop-ups are NOT illegal. Hence the company is lying to extort money through practicing false advertising (along with probably being in violation of some of those new anti-spam laws).
Seems to me they have managed to write themselves into a corner. Now if we add to that some of the other charges that we might be able to make stick, they're in deeeeeeeeeeeeep trouble. Let's see what else we can come up with, shall we?
Harassment - Isn't sending the same ad to someone and interupting what they are doing every 10 minutes harassment?
Junk Fax - I suppose you could argue this one if spam e-mail counts
Spam Laws - Mentioned above, this is spamming isn't it?
Anti-hacker laws - Aren't there laws that make it illegal to use someone else's computer without their permission? Well surly forcing a computer to display something against the user's will would count.
Violating TOS - Surly what these guys are doing is in violation of the terms of service of their ISP. Sue the ISP to get them shut off, and they'll be droped like a brick. Contine ad-infinitum, or the spammers get a clue, which ever comes first (take a guess).
Of course, spamming the spammer (and their lawyer) with these pop-up messages might finally do it. Am I the only one who thinks that someone who's stupid enough to do this in the first place probably isn't using their own software?
> And the alternative would be that the > US lost its veto (along with the others > in the security council). I'm sure that > would encourage even more cooperation > from the US in UN.
I'm just saying that the 1 in 9 thing doesn't make sense. You should need a majority to stop things (5 out of 9), or even a decent minority (3 out of 9). But one 1 out of 9 is rediculous. Especially when countries are allowed to vote on things that directly effect them. For example, if the UN were to talk about military action against Germany, it can never happen because Germany can use their 1 vote to veto it and stop anything. It makes no sense.
> Any country that objects to anothers > ill-doings is free to punish the bad > guy (if so, you had 9/11 coming), or > all countries try to resolve the > issues peacefully?
No, I agree that things should be resolved peacefully. You said that in response to my human rights violations example. I like to resolve things peacefully, but look at the examples I gave. Again, it's just nonsensical to put a country like Iraq in charge of the human rights counsel. I have no problem with there being a human rights counsel, I just think that it should be lead by a country that has a good human rights record (the US (although you'll probably argue that, take that as "the US at least compared to many other places")), or a county that isn't that bad. Instead it was going to be headed by a country whose leader filled mass graves and used biological weapons on his own people.
The idea of the UN is good. The execution currently has MAJOR problems. Today's UN is ineffective and needs to be replaced/overhauled.
Now let me ask you something. By your logic as long as there is a hair of good in something, we should keep it. So if every car on the road had a 50% chance of exploding on any given day, but they got 100 mpg, should every one drive one because they get you where you need to go and are good for the planet? It's hyperboly, but that's what your logic was saying.
> I suppose it's easy to say "ditch the UN" > when you live in the worlds most powerful > country, but if you have the ability, put > yourself in the shoes of someone living > somewhere else in the world and think > about that for a while.
Someone like an Iraqi who the UN flat out abandoned for more than a decade or two? The UN was supposed to keep Saddam from getting and using biological weapons and other things, but the UN kept apeasing him or ignoring him or say "Stop doing that or else" over and over without any "or else" ever happening. They let him use the "Oil for Food" program to develop MORE weapons and not feed his people. The result? He got richer, more powerful, and more deadly. The Iraqis got poorer, their lives got worse (if they weren't outright killed), and they lived under a facious dictator. Yeah, the UN served they real well.
MBCook - Arguing with Liberals for over 20 years (although obviously not on/. the whole time).
The UN has alot of problems, many of which seem to defy logic. For example, where but in the UN security counsel is 1 person out of 9 a majority that can stop ANYTHING that's going on?
Where but the UN can countries with tons of human rights violations be on and chair commities to end human rights violations? (Iraq was going to be on it or chair it soon before we removed Saddam from power). Maybe the US should follow their leadership and put serial killers incharge of the courts and molesters in charge of counseling sex-abuse victims.
And I won't go into how the members of the UN aren't elected and are appointed and aren't out to better the world but (usually) to their country. This has already been pointed out by other posters.
Really we shouldn't even WORRY about the UN taking over the internet. If how they handeled Iraq is any indication, then we can just ignore whatever rules they invent forever and unless another country decides to enforce things, nothing will every happen to us.
The League of Nations (doesn't that sound like it's from a comic book?) was destroyed becaused it didn't prevent Hitler from taking power and causing things like WWII (which it was supposed to). The UN failed to stop Saddam from all the things he did to his people and others, and with the rest of their oddball rules and complaints of useless things and hipocritical actions, I don't think they'll be around for long either (or at least they will lose what little power they have left). Instead they charge us dues and tons of money to do next to nothing but waste it on burocracy. And then what happenes when their building is old and needs to be replaced or fixed? They demand that the US builds them a new one FOR FREE, because all that money they collect is needed to swim in (or something). Personally, I hope the UN building is declared unfit for occupancy and they are forced to move to some other country (France, Germany, you guys have any openings?).
PS: I'm sure you get it by now, but I'm a bit of a critic of the UN.
PPS: If by some miracle the UN DOES take over the 'net, I would support building a NEW internet that was controlled by someone else (private institutions like Universities or even the US Government) so the UN can't decide to take it over and we can do things like we do now (or better! Ham radio type licenses to use the new 'net or at least to post to it).
Yeah. It's not like there has ever been violence or shootings after football, soccer, baseball, lacross, (insert sport here) games; especially when there is a monetary prize involved (like here). It's only VIDEO games that cause a few nut-jobs to become violent. It's couldn't possibly be the violent PERSON'S fault.
It's pathetically sad that your statement is true.
Slashdot Mirror
As for other things you can't say, here are some that I'm going to say...
I'm sure I could think a TONS more if I had the time. There are many things that you just can't say (despite the fact that they are true).
Or how 'bout a little boot on a pendulum thing to kick it on the side? He he he, I've got a million of 'em.
With all the instruments packed on board, did they remember the bent paperclip to poke in the "Reset" hole when we the rover finds the Begal 2?
Seems development has been rather steady for a while now. I predict 11,000 ports in... 6 months.
I wasn't suggesting that, although I do like the idea of just sending an absentee ballot to every registered voter and forgetting polling places all together. There are some good resaons to do this (doens't clog up places like school which causes all sorts of problems, increases voter "turnout"), but also has it's problems (icreases voter "turnout", so more idiots who know nothing and would never vote would). I think there is somewhere in the US that does this, maybe Oregan?
E-voting is a reason not to trust e-voting. Slashdot just has story after story of how these big "trust us, our stuff is fair" e-voting companies have problem after problem after problem. Things are bad now, but imagine the kind of stuff that might come up if it was legislated that the 2004 Presidential Election had to be done on these systems. What happened in Florida (which was largly the fault of people who were too desperate to not loose to care about anything else, since the recounts and recounts didn't change anything) would look like a cakewalk compared to finding people who got to vote in 12 districts, those who's votes were counted 10,002 times, and the fact that anyone with a "A" or an "E" in their last name (BUT NOT BOTH) could only vote during odd numbered minutes of even numbered hours in districts that are prime numbers or some other rediculous things that at this rate seems it could easily turn up.
I'm all for MS bashing when they deserve it, and they may be the number one reason people don't trust e-voting (allbeit indirectly); but there are REAL reasons why people shouldn't trust it, and if it were to get reported more, then people still wouldn't trust the things, it would just be for the "right" reason.
Let's ignore hacking and break-ins. Those are too easy. Vendor bugs are bad enough. There have been bugs that cause automatic medicine dosers in hospitals to give out too much medice and almost (or completely) kill a paitent. I'll go vote for candidate Ham Sandwich, but how do I know some bug won't cause every vote for his oppoent, Mr. Mayor, to be counted 100 times? These things just seem to happen more and more.
So what WILL have me trust it? Let's set it up like a slot machine is set up. It has it's software burned into some ROM. It should be thouroughly tested by independant labs, the code should be available for me to look at, and I should be able to read the ROM chip after the elections are done so I know that it's got what it's supposed to on it (not that many people would do this, but it should be an option). When I'm done voting, it should print out a paper punch ballot that I can look at to see that it voted the way I told it to. The voting commisions can use the electronic results, but a random 5% of all districts every election should check the electronic counts against the paper ballots to make sure nothing weird is going on there. And most importantly of all (and like a slot machine), YOU SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO CHEAT. Shock it with 10,000,000 volts to make sure it doesn't mess up and let me vote twice. Punch it and kick it and do anything possible (and then some) to make sure it still functions correctly, just like a slot machine. Slot machines go through all that because they might be responsible for millions of dollars. My vote should be worth more than that, and there for should have TOUGHER standards behind it.
In short, I don't trust e-voting. The only way I'd LIKE to see e-voting is that you choose your candidates on the computer, then it prints out a punched ballot (with names and all, so I can see it did things right) that I turn in, and THAT'S my ballot; the machine is nothing more than a ballot punching tool and holds no results of it's own. I should be able to do it all by hand if I want. This is the only way I'd like to see e-voting, and the description above is the only way that I'll accept it.
"Do you know where I am now?... GOOD!"
Of course you might get in trouble but oh well ;)
PS: For the humor impared... DON'T DO THIS
What you'd need to do is get a tiny camera from somewhere (like this or this one). Then you'd attach it to a strong tini transmitter (like this one) and hook it all up to a battery. Instant spy kite. Not that a kite above a compeditor's company all day every day with no one flying it would ever look suspicous. Still might be too heavy though.
The letter (on the server and mirrored in a comment in this thread) explians where the $20k figure comes from and where things are going.
The Konami one works very well, but they are unable to know what you're saying, so you could just go "La La La" through every song and it would take it and tell you your doing great. While this means you could sing parodies and such, it also means you could "cheat" by "La La"ing through tough parts.
OK, it's not wetrix. Now I have to find a way to get my brother to let me use his Mac so I can try that game. This has been a bad week for me on /. ;)
That said, while your copy isn't origional, I'll agree that the origional game WAS quite origional (innovative?) and is a great game (help! I need a theusoarus, and apparently a spell check). But obviously it's not from this year (the origional).
As for the rest of your comment, everything I've seen has speculated the OTHER WAY, saying that TiVo will get MORE attention now, as in some ways it's been "abandonded" by DirecTV (according to some. Example: we STILL don't have version 4, and all software updates and such are up to DirecTV, not TiVo). I have heard GOOD THINGS about what's going to happen. And why would he ditch TiVo? DirecTV has been having a hard time keeping them in stock and keeping up with demand. you think he'll replace that with some unproven thing that he makes (again: I've never heard of the DVR your talking about, but I'm not too informed in that area). If he DID try to introduce his, I would expect it to be like DirecTV used to offer UltimateTV. They would give users a CHOICE, and the winner would be kept if they were to ditch one.
Do you have any evidence? Because if you don't what you're doing is just FUDing (and I'm ANTI-FUDing to a large degree), and Slashdot has enough FUD already.
PS: I'm guessing you're just saying that because you hate Murdoch (as proved by "being squished by Murdoch's mega conglomerate"). Just because you don't seem to like him doesn't mean that he's evil and will ruin TiVo for everyone.
But then again, it's Slashdot. What do you expect ;)
Now, if California wanted to make the database for every single citizen, I would object. If it was for anyone convicted of anything (parking tickets included), I would object. But it's not...
It's FELLONS. These are not jaywalkers, they are murderers, rapists, duggies (dealers, trafficers, etc), and more. I don't mind this segment of the population losing a little bit of their rights, because they chose to give them up when they decided to commit a crime. I don't mind this just like I don't think felons should be allowed to have guns (I am otherwise very supportive of right to bear arms). They are FELLONS, we shouldn't be crying for them.
Now that said, there are bound to be false convictions, and this is the one caviat that I have. When a false conviction is found, that person's DNA needs to be removed from the database IMMEDIATLY and any convictions/etc based on the DNA that was collected because they were a fellon (fruit of the poisonous tree). But ONLY THAT DNA. If the person submitted their DNA during the investigation, that obviously gets to stay in the database, it's only DNA collected after they were convicted that should be "tossed" in such a case. If this part is held, I have no qualms what so ever.
Bring on the database.
I too only have an MP3 CD player, so I'd love one of these things too (unless I get a iPod in two days). I'm just saying that it can hold MORE than 400 songs. Four gigs really is a lot of space (unless everything you have is 384kbps CBR files).
Yeah, someone else pointed that out. I do have quite a few short songs, but most are 2 minutes or more. They are recorded at 64-386kbps (or something like that). I'm amazed they are so small too, but they sound fantastic and they're tiny, so I'm not complaining.
That said, I have 1286 songs (totaling 2.2 days) and it only occupies about 1.5 gigs. It may seem like nothing compared to a 40 gig iPod, but you can hold a TON of music on a 2 gig player.
What am I waiting for? LotR:RotK (almost a palendrome!) and The Matrix: Revolutions (I'm going to rent it even if it is supposed to be terrible). I also think Kill Bill Vol. 1 sounds interesting. I also think that new Big Fish movie sounds interesting. I'm straying close to off topic here, so I'll quit while I'm ahead.
Kangaroo Jack
Best movie? Pirates of the Carabian was good, I haven't watched Seabiscuit yet (I've got it on DVD near me right now), I liked X-2, and I thought that The Matrix: Reloaded was entertaining, Nemo was fantastic, I loved A Mighty Wind, and those are the only 2k3 movies that I've seen (that I can think of) as I only watch DVDs.
Does Chicago count? It came out Dec 25th of last year, so that's within the last year (not last calender year though).
OK. Let's all read this. Now this is either true or untrue. Let's take a look.
Option 1: the statement is true. That means that pop-ups are illegal, and hence the company is knowingly and willfuly violating the law. If this is the situation, they are in trouble.
Option 2: the statement is false. That means that pop-ups are NOT illegal. Hence the company is lying to extort money through practicing false advertising (along with probably being in violation of some of those new anti-spam laws).
Seems to me they have managed to write themselves into a corner. Now if we add to that some of the other charges that we might be able to make stick, they're in deeeeeeeeeeeeep trouble. Let's see what else we can come up with, shall we?
Of course, spamming the spammer (and their lawyer) with these pop-up messages might finally do it. Am I the only one who thinks that someone who's stupid enough to do this in the first place probably isn't using their own software?
> And the alternative would be that the
/. the whole time).
> US lost its veto (along with the others
> in the security council). I'm sure that
> would encourage even more cooperation
> from the US in UN.
I'm just saying that the 1 in 9 thing doesn't make sense. You should need a majority to stop things (5 out of 9), or even a decent minority (3 out of 9). But one 1 out of 9 is rediculous. Especially when countries are allowed to vote on things that directly effect them. For example, if the UN were to talk about military action against Germany, it can never happen because Germany can use their 1 vote to veto it and stop anything. It makes no sense.
> Any country that objects to anothers
> ill-doings is free to punish the bad
> guy (if so, you had 9/11 coming), or
> all countries try to resolve the
> issues peacefully?
No, I agree that things should be resolved peacefully. You said that in response to my human rights violations example. I like to resolve things peacefully, but look at the examples I gave. Again, it's just nonsensical to put a country like Iraq in charge of the human rights counsel. I have no problem with there being a human rights counsel, I just think that it should be lead by a country that has a good human rights record (the US (although you'll probably argue that, take that as "the US at least compared to many other places")), or a county that isn't that bad. Instead it was going to be headed by a country whose leader filled mass graves and used biological weapons on his own people.
The idea of the UN is good. The execution currently has MAJOR problems. Today's UN is ineffective and needs to be replaced/overhauled.
Now let me ask you something. By your logic as long as there is a hair of good in something, we should keep it. So if every car on the road had a 50% chance of exploding on any given day, but they got 100 mpg, should every one drive one because they get you where you need to go and are good for the planet? It's hyperboly, but that's what your logic was saying.
> I suppose it's easy to say "ditch the UN"
> when you live in the worlds most powerful
> country, but if you have the ability, put
> yourself in the shoes of someone living
> somewhere else in the world and think
> about that for a while.
Someone like an Iraqi who the UN flat out abandoned for more than a decade or two? The UN was supposed to keep Saddam from getting and using biological weapons and other things, but the UN kept apeasing him or ignoring him or say "Stop doing that or else" over and over without any "or else" ever happening. They let him use the "Oil for Food" program to develop MORE weapons and not feed his people. The result? He got richer, more powerful, and more deadly. The Iraqis got poorer, their lives got worse (if they weren't outright killed), and they lived under a facious dictator. Yeah, the UN served they real well.
MBCook - Arguing with Liberals for over 20 years (although obviously not on
Where but the UN can countries with tons of human rights violations be on and chair commities to end human rights violations? (Iraq was going to be on it or chair it soon before we removed Saddam from power). Maybe the US should follow their leadership and put serial killers incharge of the courts and molesters in charge of counseling sex-abuse victims.
And I won't go into how the members of the UN aren't elected and are appointed and aren't out to better the world but (usually) to their country. This has already been pointed out by other posters.
Really we shouldn't even WORRY about the UN taking over the internet. If how they handeled Iraq is any indication, then we can just ignore whatever rules they invent forever and unless another country decides to enforce things, nothing will every happen to us.
The League of Nations (doesn't that sound like it's from a comic book?) was destroyed becaused it didn't prevent Hitler from taking power and causing things like WWII (which it was supposed to). The UN failed to stop Saddam from all the things he did to his people and others, and with the rest of their oddball rules and complaints of useless things and hipocritical actions, I don't think they'll be around for long either (or at least they will lose what little power they have left). Instead they charge us dues and tons of money to do next to nothing but waste it on burocracy. And then what happenes when their building is old and needs to be replaced or fixed? They demand that the US builds them a new one FOR FREE, because all that money they collect is needed to swim in (or something). Personally, I hope the UN building is declared unfit for occupancy and they are forced to move to some other country (France, Germany, you guys have any openings?).
PS: I'm sure you get it by now, but I'm a bit of a critic of the UN.
PPS: If by some miracle the UN DOES take over the 'net, I would support building a NEW internet that was controlled by someone else (private institutions like Universities or even the US Government) so the UN can't decide to take it over and we can do things like we do now (or better! Ham radio type licenses to use the new 'net or at least to post to it).
PPPS: I'm out of PSes. :)
It's pathetically sad that your statement is true.