In one sentence, efficiency in government is at odds with the preservation of civil liberties.
No system designed to speed things up or make things cheaper is going to be as fair and secure as a more formal system that takes longer and costs more. The e-voting machines take the problems of the punch-card ballots and make them even worse; there is a higher margin of error, and even less accountability.
This is true not just in voting, but in everything. Slow-moving government gives people time to learn about the issues so that we can make informed decisions.
Recently, people took to the streets to protest and/or support the Iraq war. But they did it so quickly that both sides ended up sounding like idiots, because neither took the time to inform themselves adequately. Then, each side used the stupidity of the other to say, "See how wrong they are? We must be right!"
Meanwhile, it's too late to go back and do anything differently anyway. It always was too late, because government moved so quickly and efficiently.
Next time you hear about gridlock in government, thank your lucky stars: It's giving you time to become a well-informed citizen, so that you can be certain that your rights are preserved.
"In most cases the insurance company will participate actively in any court cases, and will have the final decision about things like appeal and settlement. No insurance company in its right mind would allow their insurees to decide not to appeal a verdict because they're insured."
Good point and my mistake. The key thing is that the insurance company's lawyers are there to defend the insurance company, not to defend the client. Some folks forget that.:)
"You can get in a lot of legal hot water selling improper insurance. If they know they can't meet the policy obligations, that's pretty much straight-forward fraud, no?"
It would be if they didn't have the reinsurance companies backing them up. The reinsurance companies allow the company to cover whatever their customers need. Few single companies can cover the entire expense of insuring, for example, a five-star hotel. That's why the risk is spread across multiple insurers in this way.
RTFA shows that they're shopping around for reinsurance companies.
Do you know what reinsurance is?
What happens is that OSRM will insure FooCo for, say, $10 billion. Of that, OSRM only covers up to $1M. Most claims are going to be in that small range. Small claims are covered by FooCo, who has a $5k deductible on their policy. (FooCo will have very high premiums with such a low deductible.)
OSRM sells the rest of the liability off to reinsurance companies in various tiers. Reinsurance A covers the next $19M. Reinsurance B covers the next $80M. Reinsurance C covers the last $9 billion.
Let's say FooCo loses a liability lawsuit to SCO. (Won't happen, but we're in la-la land even talking about liability for Linux, so play along.) The judgment is for $25 million, and FooCo decides not to appeal, because they're covered!
Out of the check FooCo writes to SCO, $5k comes from FooCo themselves, and the other $24,995,000 comes from OSRM.
But before OSRM writes that check, they get a check from Reinsurance A for $19 million dollars. OSRM also gets a check from Reinsurance B for $4,995,000. OSRM covers the remaining $1M themselves -- that's OSRM's deductible. The judgment has to be for over $1 billion before Reinsurance C even gets involved; it wasn't in this imaginary wet dream stolen from Darl's happiest hour, so Reinsurance C does nothing.
So OSRM is only out $1M, minus the premiums they paid to Reinsurance A, B, and C.
So that's how it works. OSRM's little press release today is to help attract reinsurance companies -- to show them how safe their investment is. ("Hey, it's FREE MONEY!") OSRM will still get customers, no matter how safe Linux is, because most businesses live by the motto "Cover Your Posterior."
Of course, the pollutants and resulting fire probably killed in that one instance more animal life than will every be killed by thirteen Hummer dealerships' worth of cars being driven off-road.
The ELF has done things like this before. They burned down an apartment complex being built near my home to protest "urban sprawl." Say what?
1. The apartment complex was being built in the middle of the city, nowhere near the city limits.
2. The smoke and ash from the fire poisoned the air in a 2-mile radius for the next two days.
3. Any wildlife that had been living near the construction was killed by the heat from a 4-story all-wood bonfire. We could feel the heat from half a mile away as if we were right next to our fireplace; windows on that side of our apartment complex melted from the heat. You think any nearby animals survived the blaze?
4. What do you think the owner of the property did? Do you think he saw the error of his ways? He ordered more wood. More dead trees. What else could he do? (The families you say that are now "safe in their midsize sedans" did not reconsider their purchases. They went to other dealers, or waited longer. They didn't change their behavior because of some arsonist's rationalization.)
5. There had been coyotes, rabbits and rattlesnakes living there before construction began. They were still there after construction began. They weren't there after the fire.
6. I hated the construction of that apartment complex for the noise, dirt, and turning a nice desert hillside between me and the interstate into one of urban construction. Once the ELF burned down the apartment complex, however, I felt sympathy for the people building it. I now cheer on the construction. This is significant; the ELF's actions not only have considerable harm on the environment, they turn hearts and minds AGAINST the environmental cause, and towards supporting developers. Besides, there are no more animals there; the ELF saw to that.
The ELF does more to harm the environment and environmental policy than the very people they seek to harm. What's more, their acts of arson turn people's hearts against the environmental cause. Given that, I find it difficult to believe that the ELF really believes in the cause they claim to promote.
The ELF needs to admit that they just like burning things, and stop the pseudo-environmental posing. That is the best thing they can do for the environment at this point.
I think this question needs to be asked: A lot of the people who are claiming outsourcing work were originally in the USA on H1B visas, and were shipped back home jobless when the dot-com bubble burst a few years back. I want to know how many of the Indians working on outsourcing projects now were victims of this. I suspect that the number is rather high.
Robert Patrick made a very convincing terminator even when he wasn't morphing.. it was the way he moved and the way he acted that added the real menace and made you think "there's something not quite human about that guy.." (something I think the evil terminator in T3 really lacked).
I agree; I remember that it was his acting, even more than the special effects, that made him such a great Terminator. He was better than both the gorgeous blonde in T3 and Arnold in the first Terminator; Arnold is just too darn likable to make a believable bad guy.
The kind of acting it takes to make a believable Terminator is even harder to find than the money for effects and the director's skill. Look at all of the horrid action movies that litter the aisles of your local Blockbuster, compared to the few that are really good.
Porn is no more likely to find truly great acting talent than Hollywood. Which is why I say that "if [the rape] looks real, it probably is."
No one deserves to die like your friend Amy. Nor do they deserve to be hacked to death with machetes, or murdered and dumped at El Playon because the voted for the wrong party. Don't pretend that the US government condoning the latter has nothing to do with the former. Until you realize that, expect a lot more 9/11-type attacks in your future.
Why then does the world protest when we actually DO act to depose a dictator, like with Saddam Hussein?
If it were about morality as you claim, then why weren't France and Germany lining up behind the US to help us out?
Because it's not about morality. Most people are offended by actions taken by one country within another one's borders, no matter how good the reason is. Few question the morality of our actions in Yugoslavia; yet I know people (Chinese) who were offended because in their view, we invaded a sovereign nation.
We're damned if we do (Iraq) and damned if we don't (Rwanda). Given that, we might as well do what everyone else does: Do what's in our own best interests, within our power to solve. And if you're going to judge us, pick a side and stick with it!
"Desperation, exploitation, and people trading their self-respect for cash? That I'll believe. Industry-wide conspiracy, I don't. Of course, if you have any evidence to the contrary, other than having been convinced by bad plots and marketing, please present it to us... or better yet your local law enforcement officer."
Who said anything about industry-wide conspiracy? I did not make the arguments you addressed.
In particular I said: "Most of what I see is fine, if filthy. But there's a large portion I see where the subjects are clearly not volunteers." Let me clarify: Greater than at least 90% of what I see is fine.
There are plenty of examples where the participants are not volunteers -- and I'm not talking about "rape porn" necessarily. I'm talking about more ordinary porn, where "amateurs" are filmed without their knowledge, or are forced to be filmed. It may not be sold as "rape porn," but it's a form of rape.
The "Hidden Video" stuff in particular is suspect. I'm not saying we should oust voyeur stuff entirely; it's perfectly possible to do voyeurism legally and with people who are volunteers. But how many of these sites involve hidden cameras where people don't know they're being filmed? That's illegal, wrong, and shouldn't be available.
I should add that I don't see this with most major American sites; it's the small, amateurish operations -- especially those in Asia or based out of the Caribbean -- that seem to have problems.
"So you see a large amount of this stuff, then call other people names because of it?"
Like I said, the stuff where the people aren't volunteers isn't necessarily "rape porn." It IS rape, but it's not advertised as such. For example, lots of the amateur porn is actually done without the subjects' consent -- "hidden video" and that sort of thing. I see this stuff listed on the porn sites, but I don't care to watch it.
Can you respond with something other than, "reread what I wrote?" I just re-read it three times, and for the life of me I can't see the relevance of what you posted to my original post.
You're contrasting the USA's acceptance of violence with its Puritanical rejection of sexuality, right?
I'm talking about girls in porn who have no business being in it, because they are underage or are forced to participate.
The main reason pornographers are scared and panicking is because they've been burned before by young girls who lied about their age -- see Traci Lords.
These are the cases that will be brought to trial. This is a GOOD thing.
Oh, so you can make someone look like a believable (emphasis on believable) Terminator using a small camcorder and no editing equipment? Riiiiiiiight. That'd be a nice trick.
I'm not talking about staged rape porn. The directors and actresses won't be winning Oscars any time soon; you can tell staged from real pretty easily.
It's not even limited to the "rape" porn; the porn itself may be mundane, like a simple nude photograph, but the subject is NOT there because she wants to be. She is a kidnapping victim, the sister of a loan shark's debtor, or a "product" of the booming child slavery trade.
I understand your objection, but here's something for you to consider: I've seen murder in movies, but it doesn't mean that actual people died in their filming. All of the things you refer to (particularly the rape porn) could have been staged by the porn company to get customers who want, well, rape porn. Sick, I know - but hardly *bad* if the whole thing was staged and the filmee was willing.
Sure. And when it's staged, it usually looks staged. We're talking about porn actresses here, not Dame Judi Bench. If it looks like real rape, it probably is.
I enjoy porn as much as the next red-blooded male, provided the next red-blooded male is currently spanking the monkey underneath a trenchcoat in a slimy XXX-rated film house, or skipping work to order yet another lap dance from a stripper. Maybe I enjoy porn more than the next red-blooded male.
Either way, this move is overdue.
Most of what I see is fine, if filthy. But there's a large portion I see where the subjects are clearly not volunteers.
Rape porn. "Hidden cameras." Girls under 18. "Amateurs" who don't look willing. You may not see a gun in the picture, but the girl keeps nervously looking at someone off-camera, instead of enjoying her hot dog.
It takes the fun out of wanking. I want to objectify women who want to be objectified, thank you very much.
It's past time for a crackdown. The government has my blessing.
Salting the message with random words thwarted Bayesian filtering.
It did? Apple's Mail.app uses a Bayesian filter, right? Salting messages with random words haven't thwarted its filter at all. I might see a couple or three spam every week, but considering that's out of hundreds filtered per week with no false positives, I can live with that.
He also makes the following curious claim:
Reasons why content analysis can fail to control spam include:
(1) Ultimately, only a message recipient can decide, based on content alone, whether or not a message is desired.
Is this really a problem? I'd say this is one of Bayesian filtering's advantages.
So far, Bayesian filtering has worked wonderfully for me. I don't see that it's been defeated -- or will ever likely be truly defeated -- at all.
GNU/Linux (the OS) does everything Windows (the OS) does, and then some. Most GNU/Linux distributions include tons of applications that Windows users have to pay hundreds of dollars for, such as Word Processing. GNU/Linux has support for dozens of filesystems, not just its own. GNU/Linux has built-in security and productivity features that have either only recently appeared in Windows, or are architecturally impossible to include. And new versions of GNU/Linux Operating Systems, with better functionality, arrive every year.
Access to source code makes my time-to-market faster, because I can fix problems now rather than wait for vendors to respond. I have access to dozens of office applications, browsers, and e-mail programs, rather than being locked into just one or two. There are no restrictive licenses preventing me from changing how things work or spreading things around.
I can download, install, and use GNU/Linux for free. I only have to pay for support if I want it; if I do, GNU/Linux's higher uptime, greater stability and security over Windows means I will be spending less money keeping my system working and make more money doing my business.
This is not just the state of the art; GNU/Linux has an army of developers that dwarfs Microsoft's staff. GNU/Linux is improving more rapidly than Windows is, and in every aspect. GNU/Linux can afford to waste thousands of man-years on failed projects and branches because they have so many resources to spare, whereas any single company has to keep development costs in check to ensure profitability.
Nobody can compete with more features, more freedom, and lower cost over an extended period of time -- not even a company as large and successful Microsoft. In the long term, Microsoft will have to do what IBM has done -- adopt GNU/Linux and a service-based model. Otherwise, Microsoft won't survive.
Fifteen years from now, everything will be GNU/Linux.
...since the web was largely used as a grass-roots effort in the United States to OPPOSE the toppling of Saddam's regime, this is not surprising at all.
In that case, if anything, the dictator got a leg up on freedom.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with you.
In one sentence, efficiency in government is at odds with the preservation of civil liberties.
No system designed to speed things up or make things cheaper is going to be as fair and secure as a more formal system that takes longer and costs more. The e-voting machines take the problems of the punch-card ballots and make them even worse; there is a higher margin of error, and even less accountability.
This is true not just in voting, but in everything. Slow-moving government gives people time to learn about the issues so that we can make informed decisions.
Recently, people took to the streets to protest and/or support the Iraq war. But they did it so quickly that both sides ended up sounding like idiots, because neither took the time to inform themselves adequately. Then, each side used the stupidity of the other to say, "See how wrong they are? We must be right!"
Meanwhile, it's too late to go back and do anything differently anyway. It always was too late, because government moved so quickly and efficiently.
Next time you hear about gridlock in government, thank your lucky stars: It's giving you time to become a well-informed citizen, so that you can be certain that your rights are preserved.
"In most cases the insurance company will participate actively in any court cases, and will have the final decision about things like appeal and settlement. No insurance company in its right mind would allow their insurees to decide not to appeal a verdict because they're insured."
:)
Good point and my mistake. The key thing is that the insurance company's lawyers are there to defend the insurance company, not to defend the client. Some folks forget that.
"You can get in a lot of legal hot water selling improper insurance. If they know they can't meet the policy obligations, that's pretty much straight-forward fraud, no?"
It would be if they didn't have the reinsurance companies backing them up. The reinsurance companies allow the company to cover whatever their customers need. Few single companies can cover the entire expense of insuring, for example, a five-star hotel. That's why the risk is spread across multiple insurers in this way.
"Which means they don't yet have one."
It only matters if one of their customers loses a lawsuit.
RTFA shows that they're shopping around for reinsurance companies.
Do you know what reinsurance is?
What happens is that OSRM will insure FooCo for, say, $10 billion. Of that, OSRM only covers up to $1M. Most claims are going to be in that small range. Small claims are covered by FooCo, who has a $5k deductible on their policy. (FooCo will have very high premiums with such a low deductible.)
OSRM sells the rest of the liability off to reinsurance companies in various tiers. Reinsurance A covers the next $19M. Reinsurance B covers the next $80M. Reinsurance C covers the last $9 billion.
Let's say FooCo loses a liability lawsuit to SCO. (Won't happen, but we're in la-la land even talking about liability for Linux, so play along.) The judgment is for $25 million, and FooCo decides not to appeal, because they're covered!
Out of the check FooCo writes to SCO, $5k comes from FooCo themselves, and the other $24,995,000 comes from OSRM.
But before OSRM writes that check, they get a check from Reinsurance A for $19 million dollars. OSRM also gets a check from Reinsurance B for $4,995,000. OSRM covers the remaining $1M themselves -- that's OSRM's deductible. The judgment has to be for over $1 billion before Reinsurance C even gets involved; it wasn't in this imaginary wet dream stolen from Darl's happiest hour, so Reinsurance C does nothing.
So OSRM is only out $1M, minus the premiums they paid to Reinsurance A, B, and C.
So that's how it works. OSRM's little press release today is to help attract reinsurance companies -- to show them how safe their investment is. ("Hey, it's FREE MONEY!") OSRM will still get customers, no matter how safe Linux is, because most businesses live by the motto "Cover Your Posterior."
Of course, the pollutants and resulting fire probably killed in that one instance more animal life than will every be killed by thirteen Hummer dealerships' worth of cars being driven off-road.
The ELF has done things like this before. They burned down an apartment complex being built near my home to protest "urban sprawl." Say what?
1. The apartment complex was being built in the middle of the city, nowhere near the city limits.
2. The smoke and ash from the fire poisoned the air in a 2-mile radius for the next two days.
3. Any wildlife that had been living near the construction was killed by the heat from a 4-story all-wood bonfire. We could feel the heat from half a mile away as if we were right next to our fireplace; windows on that side of our apartment complex melted from the heat. You think any nearby animals survived the blaze?
4. What do you think the owner of the property did? Do you think he saw the error of his ways? He ordered more wood. More dead trees. What else could he do? (The families you say that are now "safe in their midsize sedans" did not reconsider their purchases. They went to other dealers, or waited longer. They didn't change their behavior because of some arsonist's rationalization.)
5. There had been coyotes, rabbits and rattlesnakes living there before construction began. They were still there after construction began. They weren't there after the fire.
6. I hated the construction of that apartment complex for the noise, dirt, and turning a nice desert hillside between me and the interstate into one of urban construction. Once the ELF burned down the apartment complex, however, I felt sympathy for the people building it. I now cheer on the construction. This is significant; the ELF's actions not only have considerable harm on the environment, they turn hearts and minds AGAINST the environmental cause, and towards supporting developers. Besides, there are no more animals there; the ELF saw to that.
The ELF does more to harm the environment and environmental policy than the very people they seek to harm. What's more, their acts of arson turn people's hearts against the environmental cause. Given that, I find it difficult to believe that the ELF really believes in the cause they claim to promote.
The ELF needs to admit that they just like burning things, and stop the pseudo-environmental posing. That is the best thing they can do for the environment at this point.
He should listen to my songs and send me money.
I think this question needs to be asked: A lot of the people who are claiming outsourcing work were originally in the USA on H1B visas, and were shipped back home jobless when the dot-com bubble burst a few years back. I want to know how many of the Indians working on outsourcing projects now were victims of this. I suspect that the number is rather high.
I agree; I remember that it was his acting, even more than the special effects, that made him such a great Terminator. He was better than both the gorgeous blonde in T3 and Arnold in the first Terminator; Arnold is just too darn likable to make a believable bad guy.
The kind of acting it takes to make a believable Terminator is even harder to find than the money for effects and the director's skill. Look at all of the horrid action movies that litter the aisles of your local Blockbuster, compared to the few that are really good.
Porn is no more likely to find truly great acting talent than Hollywood. Which is why I say that "if [the rape] looks real, it probably is."
Here Endeth the Lesson.
Why then does the world protest when we actually DO act to depose a dictator, like with Saddam Hussein?
If it were about morality as you claim, then why weren't France and Germany lining up behind the US to help us out?
Because it's not about morality. Most people are offended by actions taken by one country within another one's borders, no matter how good the reason is. Few question the morality of our actions in Yugoslavia; yet I know people (Chinese) who were offended because in their view, we invaded a sovereign nation.
We're damned if we do (Iraq) and damned if we don't (Rwanda). Given that, we might as well do what everyone else does: Do what's in our own best interests, within our power to solve. And if you're going to judge us, pick a side and stick with it!
"Desperation, exploitation, and people trading their self-respect for cash? That I'll believe. Industry-wide conspiracy, I don't. Of course, if you have any evidence to the contrary, other than having been convinced by bad plots and marketing, please present it to us ... or better yet your local law enforcement officer."
Who said anything about industry-wide conspiracy? I did not make the arguments you addressed.
In particular I said: "Most of what I see is fine, if filthy. But there's a large portion I see where the subjects are clearly not volunteers." Let me clarify: Greater than at least 90% of what I see is fine.
There are plenty of examples where the participants are not volunteers -- and I'm not talking about "rape porn" necessarily. I'm talking about more ordinary porn, where "amateurs" are filmed without their knowledge, or are forced to be filmed. It may not be sold as "rape porn," but it's a form of rape.
The "Hidden Video" stuff in particular is suspect. I'm not saying we should oust voyeur stuff entirely; it's perfectly possible to do voyeurism legally and with people who are volunteers. But how many of these sites involve hidden cameras where people don't know they're being filmed? That's illegal, wrong, and shouldn't be available.
I should add that I don't see this with most major American sites; it's the small, amateurish operations -- especially those in Asia or based out of the Caribbean -- that seem to have problems.
"So you see a large amount of this stuff, then call other people names because of it?"
Like I said, the stuff where the people aren't volunteers isn't necessarily "rape porn." It IS rape, but it's not advertised as such. For example, lots of the amateur porn is actually done without the subjects' consent -- "hidden video" and that sort of thing. I see this stuff listed on the porn sites, but I don't care to watch it.
Hasn't worked on mine. *shrug* I guess my e-mails don't look like newspaper stories and books.
Can you respond with something other than, "reread what I wrote?" I just re-read it three times, and for the life of me I can't see the relevance of what you posted to my original post.
You're contrasting the USA's acceptance of violence with its Puritanical rejection of sexuality, right?
I'm talking about girls in porn who have no business being in it, because they are underage or are forced to participate.
The main reason pornographers are scared and panicking is because they've been burned before by young girls who lied about their age -- see Traci Lords.
These are the cases that will be brought to trial. This is a GOOD thing.
Ironic that you say that, considering that Microsoft sponsored the Forrester report the group is protesting against.
Besides, uh... on what planet is Slashdot impartial? Duh.
Oh, so you can make someone look like a believable (emphasis on believable) Terminator using a small camcorder and no editing equipment? Riiiiiiiight. That'd be a nice trick.
The formation of a union is a sign of bad management.
Bad management kills more profits and companies than anything else.
Let the companies mismanage themselves into oblivion. It's easy to start a new company. That's capitalism for you.
Off-topic.
I'm not talking about staged rape porn. The directors and actresses won't be winning Oscars any time soon; you can tell staged from real pretty easily.
It's not even limited to the "rape" porn; the porn itself may be mundane, like a simple nude photograph, but the subject is NOT there because she wants to be. She is a kidnapping victim, the sister of a loan shark's debtor, or a "product" of the booming child slavery trade.
Japan is a good place to start if you're into that sort of thing, you deranged cunt pustule.
Sure. And when it's staged, it usually looks staged. We're talking about porn actresses here, not Dame Judi Bench. If it looks like real rape, it probably is.
I enjoy porn as much as the next red-blooded male, provided the next red-blooded male is currently spanking the monkey underneath a trenchcoat in a slimy XXX-rated film house, or skipping work to order yet another lap dance from a stripper. Maybe I enjoy porn more than the next red-blooded male.
Either way, this move is overdue.
Most of what I see is fine, if filthy. But there's a large portion I see where the subjects are clearly not volunteers.
Rape porn. "Hidden cameras." Girls under 18. "Amateurs" who don't look willing. You may not see a gun in the picture, but the girl keeps nervously looking at someone off-camera, instead of enjoying her hot dog.
It takes the fun out of wanking. I want to objectify women who want to be objectified, thank you very much.
It's past time for a crackdown. The government has my blessing.
It did? Apple's Mail.app uses a Bayesian filter, right? Salting messages with random words haven't thwarted its filter at all. I might see a couple or three spam every week, but considering that's out of hundreds filtered per week with no false positives, I can live with that.
He also makes the following curious claim:
Is this really a problem? I'd say this is one of Bayesian filtering's advantages.
So far, Bayesian filtering has worked wonderfully for me. I don't see that it's been defeated -- or will ever likely be truly defeated -- at all.
GNU/Linux (the OS) does everything Windows (the OS) does, and then some. Most GNU/Linux distributions include tons of applications that Windows users have to pay hundreds of dollars for, such as Word Processing. GNU/Linux has support for dozens of filesystems, not just its own. GNU/Linux has built-in security and productivity features that have either only recently appeared in Windows, or are architecturally impossible to include. And new versions of GNU/Linux Operating Systems, with better functionality, arrive every year.
Access to source code makes my time-to-market faster, because I can fix problems now rather than wait for vendors to respond. I have access to dozens of office applications, browsers, and e-mail programs, rather than being locked into just one or two. There are no restrictive licenses preventing me from changing how things work or spreading things around.
I can download, install, and use GNU/Linux for free. I only have to pay for support if I want it; if I do, GNU/Linux's higher uptime, greater stability and security over Windows means I will be spending less money keeping my system working and make more money doing my business.
This is not just the state of the art; GNU/Linux has an army of developers that dwarfs Microsoft's staff. GNU/Linux is improving more rapidly than Windows is, and in every aspect. GNU/Linux can afford to waste thousands of man-years on failed projects and branches because they have so many resources to spare, whereas any single company has to keep development costs in check to ensure profitability.
Nobody can compete with more features, more freedom, and lower cost over an extended period of time -- not even a company as large and successful Microsoft. In the long term, Microsoft will have to do what IBM has done -- adopt GNU/Linux and a service-based model. Otherwise, Microsoft won't survive.
Fifteen years from now, everything will be GNU/Linux.
...since the web was largely used as a grass-roots effort in the United States to OPPOSE the toppling of Saddam's regime, this is not surprising at all.
In that case, if anything, the dictator got a leg up on freedom.
You didn't read the whole paragraph before you responded, did you?