I'd rather see someone sue the LAWS that are bad rather than take advantage of other bad laws to try to fix the system in their favor.
I consider the process of turning the bad laws back against their perpetrators every bit as important to the process of getting those laws stricken, modified, or differently interpretted as e.g. civil disobedience. This is the part where the whole scenario may start to develop some entertainment value - watching MPAA squirm - maybe just a little bit, this time, but there will be more. They wanted the Midas Touch - they will find out why no one else did.
I find depriving a student of his 1st ammendment rights or his education not in his "best interest."
I'm finding more and more that denying a student the Rights embodied in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is actually considered part of his education. They [the schools] just sometimes get the order of the curriculum screwed up and the student finds out about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights before they get to the "taking away rights" part of the course.
The PDFs I create are correctly readable by everything but the Acrobat Reader for Pocket PC (which just seems to hate everything).
There is still something not quite right w/ PDF - I've been getting HR types telling me that the PDF I create from OpenOffice "doesn't open". I got that once, even, from the OO version of MS.DOC, but that wasn't too shocking - it was the apparent PDF incompatibility that got my attention. Does Adobe have a GUID embedded in the format somewhere, or something?
Big guys named Guido and Luigi showed up at the reception desk and asked politely that they pressure ICANN?
Well, given the history and reputation of the fundie militias, it was probably more of a "weasely little guys in camo with burnt cork rubbed on their faces and sniper rifles" kind of thing...
I can't speak to suitabilty for firewalling (perhaps the Chinese govt could help, there;)), but I have found this list - http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space - to be quite useful in a couple instances of trying to determine where a give class A block is registered.
If I understand this,
RIPE == Europe
APNIC == Asia/Pacific
AfriNIC == Africa
ARIN == US
There is probably more to that, but I leave that as an exercise for those enquiring minds that want to know...
I think this quote bears repeating, although I don't know who started it:
The only two market sectors to refer to their customers as "users" are the software busines and the illicit drug business.
Like any pusher, Microsoft has been doing its best for some years now to create and retain addicts - they have the infrastructure in place to keep those addicts coming back, and this is just another way to a) increase margins on what amounts to virtual crack, and b) ensure that your junkies don't go up to the next corner for something without as much strychnine.
The fact that they'll have every convenience store in the country turning over rocks for them [increasing the scope of the network] is gravy. It's a profitable idea if they can get the users to smoke that shit.
I'm seeing that in the future, I will not be buying anymore PCs - once these kinds of measures become pervasive to the point where the only [mod'd] hardware only allows the pre-paid software - well, at that point I'm going to have to be working on whatever machine was the last one I had before they took the old chips off the market, so I hope I have the source code.
Until there's a more consistent and pervasive culture (come on Microsoft, help out with this...
I was actually bitterly amused by this - Microsoft has no financial incentive to support this culture of non-root users you speak of - nor does Microsoft have any particular incentive to make their OS more secure. In fact, they continue to get paid pretty much no matter what they do. How many Windoze users are actually going to quit using Microsoft products because of problems like this? I know, I know, there will no doubt be a chorus of "I did", but the fact remains that the number of people giving up MS and Windows for any reason, let alone security problems, is vanishingly small. MS built their business on this crap, and they are still working the formula.
where users have non-administrative logins, there's little to be done.
I remember back... i don't know when it was - early versions of NT, I think - when I realized that it wasn't possible to create an "ordinary user" account on the MS office network that didn't have god access to things like c:/windows/ and c:/program files/ and still have that account usable for much of anything. It's reasons like that I don't run Windows at home. And from what I've heard, MS hasn't really improved anything on the user and resource partitioning front since then (NT 3.5).
Now as then, though, the fact that the sercretarial pool can over-write the system directory on their [shared] workstation doesn't seem to bother management enough to stir them to get a secretary who's e.g. willing to learn/use OpenOffice under non-Windows...
I still see people on older machines where they haven't even bothered to configure users for their older Windows machines... and don't have the slightest concept of partitioned separate logins for distinct different users.
Many people have no particular need for multiple login accounts - it's not the lack of accounts that's the problem, it's that the accounts are dysfunctional unless they have admin privs. If the normal user accounts didn't require system privs to accomplish everyday work, it would pretty trivial to set up a default user w/ normal privs and keep the root account out of sight [not logged in] until/unless needed. Sort of like e.g. a SuSE Linux install configured with a default user...
another government idea that will hurt everyone but the people it's targeted against.
Well, I guess that depends on who you think it is targetted against. Clearly, the summary and what I scanned of TFA implies that the law is targetted towards making criminals out of regular people. That is: This law apparently makes [yet another] very ordinary human behaviour a "crime". Specifically, the natural tendency of humans not to turn over their encryption keys for storage in an insecure govt-run database is being labelled a criminal behaviour.
Moreover - since they have now created a crime which can neither be proven nor disproven - they have - in effect - created what might be termed "the 'ADHD' of jurisprudence".
Goddamnit, please don't resort to making up words in the midst of an otherwise readable post. It impacts your credibility more than you (apparently) realize...
I suspect that you're trolling, but in doing so (or not) you really come across as one sick mutherfukker, so...
The "I'm too busy to care about personal hygiene and appearance" pose...
Here're you're labelling individuals who (arguably) are as successful in pursuing their chosen goals as you - perhaps more so (you're claiming the best high you can get is from a pair of shoes, after all - sounds like you might get along in law enforcement or the military, but amongst real people, that's just kinda freaky) - and you call their chose presentation(s) of themselves a "pose". Right off you're showing your own lack of depth, here...
We're not talking about wearing a suit and obsessing over your nostril hairs.
Actually, we were, but you apparently didn't like the direction the conversation was going?
Nobody expects a geek to be a metro.
That's just an ignorant statement. You obviously either a) don't get out much, or b) have never been a geek. Microsoft corporation is still labelled "geeks" by the mainstream (the non-geeks) and the dumbasses (apparently including you) still expect geeks to be able to conform to some portion of the socialist regimen imposed by yourselves on non-geeks. It is two different societies, and I have not known anyone, ever to be able to move back and forth between the two. If you really think it's possible to exist simultaneously in both, it just means you don't.
There are many who have tried to establish a liason to geek society - including Bill Gates, himself - and they have had varying degrees of success, but in the end they all fail - using the same sorts of arguments you present here.
But would it kill you to get your haircut every six weeks, or wear a shirt with a collar? The answer is, no, it wouldn't kill you.
You insensitive dirtbag - what do you care if the next person cuts their hair or wears a shirt with a collar? Why don't you mind your own business, do your own job, and leave people who actually know what they're doing alone?
Clearly any one stupid or weak enough to have fallen for the training they were give as a child - "cut your hair", "shine your shoes" - is just rotely following orders and cannot possibly be capabale of having a real life.
That's where this dressing like a slob and not getting your haircut leads you to, in case you didn't know. Drug addiction, insanity, and no date on a Friday night.
Sounds to me like you're addicted to your car (and everything that implies) and your shoe polish. Prohably can't get laid without them... Give me drugs and insanity any time - but you forgot the "firearms" part (I think there's a Hunter S Thompson quote in there somewhere, but my drug-fogged, dateless brain can't quite pull it out, right now)
I swear to God that there's nothing that beats the feeling of having shiny shoes.
Really? How about a tattoo? Or maybe getting yourself pierced? Or just plain old sex? In know, I know, your mom told you that if your shoes were shiny you could get sex... whatever - I think barefoot is better.
In short, you need to learn something about Individualism and why it is a Good Thing even if the Society in question leans towards Socialism, in which everyone looks the same and talks shit about how other people look and act - like you're doing.
Okay, well, it would have taken that to get my attention, yes. The Rolling Stone version is easier to read - narrower column widths make long text passages easier to absorb. Rolling Stone adds credibility, too - to the point of view, if not the re-post action itself.
I guess my point with this is that I'm not playing to an audience for approval - I'm not trying to convert anyone to a POV - I'm simply typing (in this instance) about a small group of individuals who are both directly to blame themselves for a number of the issues I'm addressing AND they are symbolic of a greater set of issues, which (I think) is what you are talking about. I have no problem at all "bush bashing" or "clinton bashing" or whatever - mostly because the only people who whine about "bashing" are the supporters of the one being bashed who just don't have any plausible explanation about why the person shouldn't be bashed. I see conscession to these sorts of politicially-correct ideas (shouldn't "bush bash" etc) as very simply an agreement not to dissent. Bashing is dissent, and I'm by god dissenting - I see no reason to couch it in other terms, cause I really don't care if the supporters of e.g. Dubya agree with me or not - I actually expect that they will not, since if they agree with me, then they will (obviously) not be who I am "bashing".
In other words, I'm sticking to saying what I mean and meaning what I say.
Four years ago i would asuume you ment Bush but he won the last election without any questions.
The above statement is crap, and gives lie to everything else you've said. Only a completely deluded or criminally mis-informed individual could possibly believe that. If you really believe that, I strongly encourage you to look more closely at what happened in 2004 in the context of e.g. the 2002 congressional elections, etc. Find out why John Kerry (you said you voted for him) rolled over like a bitch despite a) overwhelming evidence vote fraud and b) sufficient campaign warchest funds to pursuse the issue (of vote fraud) realisitically, and you'll have the first couple edge peices of that particular puzzle...
Again, i'm not sure we are on the same page. If you are talking about those behind the scenes, I would totaly agree.
I don't see any reason to delay going after anyone about the things I mentioned - Dubya/Cheney profess that they are culpable - openly. Take them down, and use their convictions to ferret out the information you're looking for (those behind the scenes). As long as you're speaking in vague terms about "there is someone behind the scenes" the situation will continue to worsen, and nothing will be done. That simple reality is a big part of the confidence the Regime has in its own power - they simply say "you can't prove it" and continue on - I say there is already enough evidence in the public sphere to convict these bastards of henious crimes - furthermore, if you feel there are un-named co-conspiritors -well, then, it's pretty well established that amongst criminal (and they *are* criminals), one of the most effective ways to get to the info on the big boss is to prosecute the underlings and get them to talk - I have not said the prosecution should *end* with the Regime, simply that it needs to begin - and SOON.
This sometime makes it apear one sided.
In reality, it is pretty one-sided - and getting more so. I have not heard - in 10 years now - a reasonable, reasoned, realistic, or even plausble defense for any of the more henious crimes of this Regime. That means that, as far as I'm concerned, there is no other side. Simply pointing out - as you have done - that these bastards are just tools of a greater Evil doesn't change that.
who the heck will be writing compatible drivers for this sort of system for us geeks to add video cards to, connect MP3 players to
I would expect video card drivers to be produced for this platform as video cards get into the same pricing bracket w.r.t. video cards that this machine is w.r.t. PCs generally - I would expect this to be true not just for video cards, but any sort of add on devices that require drivers.
As far as MP3 players go, most of those I've run across (not many, perhaps, but the ones I have seen) don't require drivers - the simply map as a USB drive and files can be copied back and forth. Some of the USB cameras behave the same way. If the device is made to those kinds of standards, there's no real need for a driver.
I don't know if you're being facetious or not - I'm guessing you are, since you iterate some of my basis below...
Outside of a covert spying program that they belive they had the legal right to do, everythign else imposed has been approved by congress itself.
I don't give a fat rats ass what those treasonous thugs "believe they have a right to do" - what they do and do not have the Right to do is defined and parameterized by the same documents that enumerate evey one elses Rights. This is not a "grey area", and those mutherfukkers are no more above the Law than anyone else.
If congress was so infallible, there would be no need for Dubya to stack the Supreme Court in his favor - as he has done - to keep himself (and his cronies) from being hanged as the treasonous collaborator / deserter / foreign spy that he is.
It seems like maybe the people behind the sceenes might still be in power but the leaders are changing
So you see at least part of my point? Note that it is the figureheads that will be changed, not the actual leaders - the figureheads aren't actual leaders, they're just actors - the leaders are the ones you don't notice as leaders, since they are the ones who are trained for the job, and know how to avoid notice as leaders (since leaders of despotic regimes often wind up as targets for people oppose despotic regimes).
the people behind the sceenes are the same as those in power for the last fifty or more years
Again you'll get no argument from me on this point - I'm not sure of the exact number of years, but I'm tracing it back to the late 1930's at least - probably goes back further, but I don't have sufficient information to say for sure. I find the idea that it spans more than one human lifetime - much less a generation - is extremely disturbing - it speaks to a cohesive Evil force in the world at large that aligns rather nicely with Christian dogma - so the idea is both plausible and scarifying for simple reasons.
I guess the important thing to do might be "not blaming this on one person because of thier religious tone"
I don't agree that this "not blaming" is important - I think what's important is to identify the root causes and the future outcomes and assign those to whomever represents the ideology in the present time - in reality, Dubya and company really are crooks and thugs, and they really are running a Theocracy under color of "Freedom" and "Democracy". They are wholly dependent on propaganda and "spin doctors" - strategies thought out in far greater detail by persons far more capable than those buffoons who are in the public eye, of course - for the appearance of legitimacy. Furthermore, these thugs and buffoons claim, proclaim, and prozelytize the ideology designed by their Masters without remorse or apology.
They have allowed themselves to be made figureheads and be called "leaders" - they should, imho, be futher made to take responsiblity first for the things they claim are their own actions, then for the things that can be proven in Courts of Law.
So no, I don't think there's any particular value in not assigning blame.
You will find if you look hard enough, It is the result of the majority of politicians over the past several decades.
True enough. I simply choose to focus on the ones who are still following the path outlined for them by whomever/whatever is controlling them. It would be a bit pointless, imo, to berate politicians who are now out of power - certainly we need to know what they did, and they need to be punished for it, but typically the sense of immediacy and urgency is greater when dealing with a sitting despot than with a deposed minion of a despot. To be clear: Just becaus
The Democratic party is FAR more threatened by the Greens than the Republican party is.
Uhm, yeah - I saw that same Fox News "analysis" - you know, the one repeated across the board by the "liberal" media once it had been advanced by the Right - it struck me then, and it continues to impress me now, as a rather shallow piece of rationalization...
Republican compaigns have been known to aid Green party campaigns in races where the Democratic and Republican candidates are neck and neck because when someone leaves one of the two major parties to vote for a Green Party candidate, it's almost never a Republican.
If you call Republicans impersonating Greens in order to split the opposition vote "help" for the Greens, then I suppose your argument holds together semantically, but but I don't call that help, and I am more prone to looking to the spirit of the thing than the simple mechanics of it. The fact is, the Republicans have far more to fear from a Green showing than the Democracts - specifically, the Republicans could lose power, since their power derives from the Totalitarian nature of their ideology, whereas the Democracts could trivially form coalitions with Greens without compromising their standing in the Old Boy network - and that's just a trivial example.
The reason the Republicans laughed at the Greens was because they knew the fix was in (having implemented it themselves), and the enjoyed stirring dissent between Dems and Greens - two groups which might otherwise have combined to break the neo-con hegemony.
Someone switching to Green is a loss for the Democrats and a gain for the Republicans. The Democrats feel the same way about the Libertarian Party, but I've not known them to stoop to helping that group.
Again: this is just the "party line" designed by Rove'n'Company - it doesn't take much thought to see the fallacy of it. And as for Dems worrying about Libertarians- well, that might qualify as a Libertarian fantasy, but since those calling themselves Libertarians invariably vote Republican (in my experience), I don't worry too much about making any distinction between Libertarians and Republicans. The Libertarians, after all, are just the group of college kids recruited by the early efforts of Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh, then handed over en toto to the neo-con meat grinder during the Clinton administration.... in short, "Libertarians" are simply dupes for the "moderate" line of the neo-con propaganda machine. Remeber, it was this same machine that used to talk about "tax and spend Democrats", "small govenment", and the "liberal media" - all things that have been shown to be simple marketting hype for the neo-con agenda since the beginning of the Dubya term...
The Republicans have nothing to fear from aiding the Green Party, as it's not like that party has any honest chance of gaining -real- support.
It is my current position that we will now never know just what would or would not have been supported by American citizens in a Free Election. It's all moot- no party stands an honest chance at this point. The neo-cons will not yeild power without bloodshed, imo. The historical precedents for this situation are overwhelming.
They have agendas that are a little too left-wing for the average American to agree with.
Only if you imagine that the "average american" agrees with the crap being perpetrated by the present Regime - they don't, but for some reason that is yet to be accepted as the fact that it is.
So no, the Republicans aren't against the Green Party, just the opposite.
In fact they are. The Republicans are against anything that isn't Republican - and preferably WASP. To imagine otherwise is the very height of folly, imo. The Republicans have been
the past few years we have been dealing with an increasingly aggressive leadership only interested in helping big businesses, christian morals, and themselves.
Go ahead and say it: The past few years we have been dealing with a Totalitarian Regime that aspires to be a dictatorship - and they are winning, mostly (imo) because no one will say it out loud. The fact it's a dictatorship that calls itself "Christian" (instead of "Islamist") doesn't make it any less a dictatorship, and doesn't make it less Wrong.
The "Kingdom of Heaven" ("Kingdom of God"/whatever) may be paradise, but it's still monarchy - not a democracy, or even a Republic - so what do your Christian ideals tell you about Democracy - that it's Evil, or that it's good enough until Jesus gets back?
Me too, but unfortunately for the voting population, the fact that it's annoying doesn't quite invalidate it entire.
if the candidates percentage of the vote is 1% one year, then 1.2%, then 3%, etc, the major parties will notice that & attempt to make their policies closer to the libertarian (or whatever) ideal.
.... or at least, that's one theory of how it could go. There are others, including, say, the Regime that takes power makes it illegal, immoral, or fattening to belong to another party, or socially unnacceptable not to belong to the ruling party. The Suppression of Dissent is the basis for most of what the current Regime has done, and they show no signs of slacking off on it. There will be no "third parties" in 2008 - assuming we even have an election - it would be trivial for the Dubya Regime to advance their terrorist agenda suffiently over the next 2 years that they will be able to openly admit the fact that they are suspending the democratic process - after all, they've already done it - admitting it will just require another couple major "terrorist strikes". Think they wouldn't?
A case in point: The Nader/LaDuke/Green ticket got a percentage of the vote in 2000 (e.g. 3% in Iowa); in 2004, conditions for third parties were so much worse there was no noticeable Green presence *anywhere*. Looked like (to me) that the uptick in 3rd party voters in 2000 scared the Republicrats sufficiently that they took steps to make sure it didn't happen again.
Like so much of the spew that the current US Regime continues to produce, this is clearly another case of "distract them while we slip it to them". I am actually surprised that out of the 40-some-odd posts I've read here about this resurrection of Tipper's late abortive attempt at protecting the Internet from Children, only one of them has even mentioned the real thrust of this legislation - which unsurprisingly has nothing at all to with pr0n or protection of netizens from it.
Gonzales also warned that Internet service providers must begin to retain records of their customers' activities to aid in future criminal prosecutions -TFA
This is wrong on a number of levels, and Gonzales' attempt to exploit minors as "victims" of the Internet and its alleged pr0n is just that: Another Republicrat attempt to exploit children as a means of manipulating their parents.
Furthermore, fuck Gonzales and his repeated and ongoing assertions that use of the Internet is de facto evidence of some "criminal activity". He is at the heart of what is arguably the most criminal Regime ever to control the US - the crimes of his mentors in this administration start with treason and continue down thru spousal abuse and criminal malfeasance. How can it not be obvious that this pathetic smokescreen is simply backing for his attempts to force ISPs to aid in government efforts to regulate and control political Speech?
A headline has been running for several days now concerning Yahoo's apparent liability in the imprisonment of a Chinese national for political speech in China. How much longer before we see reports that ATT, Google, Yahoo, or MSN have supplied information leading to the political imprisonment of US citizens? Careful, that's a trick question - if that Chinese fellow had been in the US, he would have been labelled a terrorist, and there would have been no reports, since there is no longer any requirement that the govt announce the fact once they have imprisoned a citizen for this new class of "crimes"....
I can't say that I've *ever* seen PHP or Perl or ASP code that looked like someone put some thought into it.
You obviously haven't seen any of my PHP and Perl code (I've never written ASP). Of course, it may be that you haven't seen my web applications code because I'm not a "web designer" - can't get a job in that industry, which speaks to the truth of your assertions concerning who companies hire to create web applications.
Slashdot Mirror
I consider the process of turning the bad laws back against their perpetrators every bit as important to the process of getting those laws stricken, modified, or differently interpretted as e.g. civil disobedience. This is the part where the whole scenario may start to develop some entertainment value - watching MPAA squirm - maybe just a little bit, this time, but there will be more. They wanted the Midas Touch - they will find out why no one else did.
I'm finding more and more that denying a student the Rights embodied in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is actually considered part of his education. They [the schools] just sometimes get the order of the curriculum screwed up and the student finds out about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights before they get to the "taking away rights" part of the course.
There is still something not quite right w/ PDF - I've been getting HR types telling me that the PDF I create from OpenOffice "doesn't open". I got that once, even, from the OO version of MS .DOC, but that wasn't too shocking - it was the apparent PDF incompatibility that got my attention. Does Adobe have a GUID embedded in the format somewhere, or something?
Well, given the history and reputation of the fundie militias, it was probably more of a "weasely little guys in camo with burnt cork rubbed on their faces and sniper rifles" kind of thing...
I can't speak to suitabilty for firewalling (perhaps the Chinese govt could help, there;)), but I have found this list - http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space - to be quite useful in a couple instances of trying to determine where a give class A block is registered.
If I understand this,
RIPE == Europe
APNIC == Asia/Pacific
AfriNIC == Africa
ARIN == US
There is probably more to that, but I leave that as an exercise for those enquiring minds that want to know...
I think this quote bears repeating, although I don't know who started it:
Like any pusher, Microsoft has been doing its best for some years now to create and retain addicts - they have the infrastructure in place to keep those addicts coming back, and this is just another way to a) increase margins on what amounts to virtual crack, and b) ensure that your junkies don't go up to the next corner for something without as much strychnine.
The fact that they'll have every convenience store in the country turning over rocks for them [increasing the scope of the network] is gravy. It's a profitable idea if they can get the users to smoke that shit.
I'm seeing that in the future, I will not be buying anymore PCs - once these kinds of measures become pervasive to the point where the only [mod'd] hardware only allows the pre-paid software - well, at that point I'm going to have to be working on whatever machine was the last one I had before they took the old chips off the market, so I hope I have the source code.
Microsoft customers. Never under-estimate the power of "marketting" ... or is it "stupid people in large groups" ...
I was actually bitterly amused by this - Microsoft has no financial incentive to support this culture of non-root users you speak of - nor does Microsoft have any particular incentive to make their OS more secure. In fact, they continue to get paid pretty much no matter what they do. How many Windoze users are actually going to quit using Microsoft products because of problems like this? I know, I know, there will no doubt be a chorus of "I did", but the fact remains that the number of people giving up MS and Windows for any reason, let alone security problems, is vanishingly small. MS built their business on this crap, and they are still working the formula.
I remember back ... i don't know when it was - early versions of NT, I think - when I realized that it wasn't possible to create an "ordinary user" account on the MS office network that didn't have god access to things like c:/windows/ and c:/program files/ and still have that account usable for much of anything. It's reasons like that I don't run Windows at home. And from what I've heard, MS hasn't really improved anything on the user and resource partitioning front since then (NT 3.5).
Now as then, though, the fact that the sercretarial pool can over-write the system directory on their [shared] workstation doesn't seem to bother management enough to stir them to get a secretary who's e.g. willing to learn/use OpenOffice under non-Windows...
Many people have no particular need for multiple login accounts - it's not the lack of accounts that's the problem, it's that the accounts are dysfunctional unless they have admin privs. If the normal user accounts didn't require system privs to accomplish everyday work, it would pretty trivial to set up a default user w/ normal privs and keep the root account out of sight [not logged in] until/unless needed. Sort of like e.g. a SuSE Linux install configured with a default user...
Well, I guess that depends on who you think it is targetted against. Clearly, the summary and what I scanned of TFA implies that the law is targetted towards making criminals out of regular people. That is: This law apparently makes [yet another] very ordinary human behaviour a "crime". Specifically, the natural tendency of humans not to turn over their encryption keys for storage in an insecure govt-run database is being labelled a criminal behaviour.
Moreover - since they have now created a crime which can neither be proven nor disproven - they have - in effect - created what might be termed "the 'ADHD' of jurisprudence".
Damn. And me without mod points. You sir, are brilliant. Somebody mod this shit (the paerent) ^up^
Goddamnit, please don't resort to making up words in the midst of an otherwise readable post. It impacts your credibility more than you (apparently) realize...
Unsurprising. Conforming to the dictates of a sick society would make one, by definition, sick...
I suspect that you're trolling, but in doing so (or not) you really come across as one sick mutherfukker, so ...
Here're you're labelling individuals who (arguably) are as successful in pursuing their chosen goals as you - perhaps more so (you're claiming the best high you can get is from a pair of shoes, after all - sounds like you might get along in law enforcement or the military, but amongst real people, that's just kinda freaky) - and you call their chose presentation(s) of themselves a "pose". Right off you're showing your own lack of depth, here...
Actually, we were, but you apparently didn't like the direction the conversation was going?
That's just an ignorant statement. You obviously either a) don't get out much, or b) have never been a geek. Microsoft corporation is still labelled "geeks" by the mainstream (the non-geeks) and the dumbasses (apparently including you) still expect geeks to be able to conform to some portion of the socialist regimen imposed by yourselves on non-geeks. It is two different societies, and I have not known anyone, ever to be able to move back and forth between the two. If you really think it's possible to exist simultaneously in both, it just means you don't.
There are many who have tried to establish a liason to geek society - including Bill Gates, himself - and they have had varying degrees of success, but in the end they all fail - using the same sorts of arguments you present here.
You insensitive dirtbag - what do you care if the next person cuts their hair or wears a shirt with a collar? Why don't you mind your own business, do your own job, and leave people who actually know what they're doing alone?
Clearly any one stupid or weak enough to have fallen for the training they were give as a child - "cut your hair", "shine your shoes" - is just rotely following orders and cannot possibly be capabale of having a real life.
That's where this dressing like a slob and not getting your haircut leads you to, in case you didn't know. Drug addiction, insanity, and no date on a Friday night.Sounds to me like you're addicted to your car (and everything that implies) and your shoe polish. Prohably can't get laid without them... Give me drugs and insanity any time - but you forgot the "firearms" part (I think there's a Hunter S Thompson quote in there somewhere, but my drug-fogged, dateless brain can't quite pull it out, right now)
Really? How about a tattoo? Or maybe getting yourself pierced? Or just plain old sex? In know, I know, your mom told you that if your shoes were shiny you could get sex... whatever - I think barefoot is better.
In short, you need to learn something about Individualism and why it is a Good Thing even if the Society in question leans towards Socialism, in which everyone looks the same and talks shit about how other people look and act - like you're doing.
... "socially acceptable" depends heavily on the society concerned, as well.
... there was no cost as long as you downloaded the autograph onto your own media? Was he also charging for copies of his public key?
Okay, well, it would have taken that to get my attention, yes. The Rolling Stone version is easier to read - narrower column widths make long text passages easier to absorb. Rolling Stone adds credibility, too - to the point of view, if not the re-post action itself.
I guess my point with this is that I'm not playing to an audience for approval - I'm not trying to convert anyone to a POV - I'm simply typing (in this instance) about a small group of individuals who are both directly to blame themselves for a number of the issues I'm addressing AND they are symbolic of a greater set of issues, which (I think) is what you are talking about. I have no problem at all "bush bashing" or "clinton bashing" or whatever - mostly because the only people who whine about "bashing" are the supporters of the one being bashed who just don't have any plausible explanation about why the person shouldn't be bashed. I see conscession to these sorts of politicially-correct ideas (shouldn't "bush bash" etc) as very simply an agreement not to dissent. Bashing is dissent, and I'm by god dissenting - I see no reason to couch it in other terms, cause I really don't care if the supporters of e.g. Dubya agree with me or not - I actually expect that they will not, since if they agree with me, then they will (obviously) not be who I am "bashing".
In other words, I'm sticking to saying what I mean and meaning what I say.
The above statement is crap, and gives lie to everything else you've said. Only a completely deluded or criminally mis-informed individual could possibly believe that. If you really believe that, I strongly encourage you to look more closely at what happened in 2004 in the context of e.g. the 2002 congressional elections, etc. Find out why John Kerry (you said you voted for him) rolled over like a bitch despite a) overwhelming evidence vote fraud and b) sufficient campaign warchest funds to pursuse the issue (of vote fraud) realisitically, and you'll have the first couple edge peices of that particular puzzle...
I don't see any reason to delay going after anyone about the things I mentioned - Dubya/Cheney profess that they are culpable - openly. Take them down, and use their convictions to ferret out the information you're looking for (those behind the scenes). As long as you're speaking in vague terms about "there is someone behind the scenes" the situation will continue to worsen, and nothing will be done. That simple reality is a big part of the confidence the Regime has in its own power - they simply say "you can't prove it" and continue on - I say there is already enough evidence in the public sphere to convict these bastards of henious crimes - furthermore, if you feel there are un-named co-conspiritors -well, then, it's pretty well established that amongst criminal (and they *are* criminals), one of the most effective ways to get to the info on the big boss is to prosecute the underlings and get them to talk - I have not said the prosecution should *end* with the Regime, simply that it needs to begin - and SOON.
In reality, it is pretty one-sided - and getting more so. I have not heard - in 10 years now - a reasonable, reasoned, realistic, or even plausble defense for any of the more henious crimes of this Regime. That means that, as far as I'm concerned, there is no other side. Simply pointing out - as you have done - that these bastards are just tools of a greater Evil doesn't change that.
I have to go - sorry...
I would expect video card drivers to be produced for this platform as video cards get into the same pricing bracket w.r.t. video cards that this machine is w.r.t. PCs generally - I would expect this to be true not just for video cards, but any sort of add on devices that require drivers.
As far as MP3 players go, most of those I've run across (not many, perhaps, but the ones I have seen) don't require drivers - the simply map as a USB drive and files can be copied back and forth. Some of the USB cameras behave the same way. If the device is made to those kinds of standards, there's no real need for a driver.
I don't know if you're being facetious or not - I'm guessing you are, since you iterate some of my basis below...
So you see at least part of my point? Note that it is the figureheads that will be changed, not the actual leaders - the figureheads aren't actual leaders, they're just actors - the leaders are the ones you don't notice as leaders, since they are the ones who are trained for the job, and know how to avoid notice as leaders (since leaders of despotic regimes often wind up as targets for people oppose despotic regimes).
Again you'll get no argument from me on this point - I'm not sure of the exact number of years, but I'm tracing it back to the late 1930's at least - probably goes back further, but I don't have sufficient information to say for sure. I find the idea that it spans more than one human lifetime - much less a generation - is extremely disturbing - it speaks to a cohesive Evil force in the world at large that aligns rather nicely with Christian dogma - so the idea is both plausible and scarifying for simple reasons.
I don't agree that this "not blaming" is important - I think what's important is to identify the root causes and the future outcomes and assign those to whomever represents the ideology in the present time - in reality, Dubya and company really are crooks and thugs, and they really are running a Theocracy under color of "Freedom" and "Democracy". They are wholly dependent on propaganda and "spin doctors" - strategies thought out in far greater detail by persons far more capable than those buffoons who are in the public eye, of course - for the appearance of legitimacy. Furthermore, these thugs and buffoons claim, proclaim, and prozelytize the ideology designed by their Masters without remorse or apology.
They have allowed themselves to be made figureheads and be called "leaders" - they should, imho, be futher made to take responsiblity first for the things they claim are their own actions, then for the things that can be proven in Courts of Law.
So no, I don't think there's any particular value in not assigning blame.
True enough. I simply choose to focus on the ones who are still following the path outlined for them by whomever/whatever is controlling them. It would be a bit pointless, imo, to berate politicians who are now out of power - certainly we need to know what they did, and they need to be punished for it, but typically the sense of immediacy and urgency is greater when dealing with a sitting despot than with a deposed minion of a despot. To be clear: Just becaus
Uhm, yeah - I saw that same Fox News "analysis" - you know, the one repeated across the board by the "liberal" media once it had been advanced by the Right - it struck me then, and it continues to impress me now, as a rather shallow piece of rationalization...
If you call Republicans impersonating Greens in order to split the opposition vote "help" for the Greens, then I suppose your argument holds together semantically, but but I don't call that help, and I am more prone to looking to the spirit of the thing than the simple mechanics of it. The fact is, the Republicans have far more to fear from a Green showing than the Democracts - specifically, the Republicans could lose power, since their power derives from the Totalitarian nature of their ideology, whereas the Democracts could trivially form coalitions with Greens without compromising their standing in the Old Boy network - and that's just a trivial example.
The reason the Republicans laughed at the Greens was because they knew the fix was in (having implemented it themselves), and the enjoyed stirring dissent between Dems and Greens - two groups which might otherwise have combined to break the neo-con hegemony.
Again: this is just the "party line" designed by Rove'n'Company - it doesn't take much thought to see the fallacy of it. And as for Dems worrying about Libertarians- well, that might qualify as a Libertarian fantasy, but since those calling themselves Libertarians invariably vote Republican (in my experience), I don't worry too much about making any distinction between Libertarians and Republicans. The Libertarians, after all, are just the group of college kids recruited by the early efforts of Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh, then handed over en toto to the neo-con meat grinder during the Clinton administration.... in short, "Libertarians" are simply dupes for the "moderate" line of the neo-con propaganda machine. Remeber, it was this same machine that used to talk about "tax and spend Democrats", "small govenment", and the "liberal media" - all things that have been shown to be simple marketting hype for the neo-con agenda since the beginning of the Dubya term...
It is my current position that we will now never know just what would or would not have been supported by American citizens in a Free Election. It's all moot- no party stands an honest chance at this point. The neo-cons will not yeild power without bloodshed, imo. The historical precedents for this situation are overwhelming.
Only if you imagine that the "average american" agrees with the crap being perpetrated by the present Regime - they don't, but for some reason that is yet to be accepted as the fact that it is.
In fact they are. The Republicans are against anything that isn't Republican - and preferably WASP. To imagine otherwise is the very height of folly, imo. The Republicans have been
Bingo. Got it on the first try. You get a cookie ;)
Go ahead and say it: The past few years we have been dealing with a Totalitarian Regime that aspires to be a dictatorship - and they are winning, mostly (imo) because no one will say it out loud. The fact it's a dictatorship that calls itself "Christian" (instead of "Islamist") doesn't make it any less a dictatorship, and doesn't make it less Wrong.
The "Kingdom of Heaven" ("Kingdom of God"/whatever) may be paradise, but it's still monarchy - not a democracy, or even a Republic - so what do your Christian ideals tell you about Democracy - that it's Evil, or that it's good enough until Jesus gets back?
Me too, but unfortunately for the voting population, the fact that it's annoying doesn't quite invalidate it entire.
.... or at least, that's one theory of how it could go. There are others, including, say, the Regime that takes power makes it illegal, immoral, or fattening to belong to another party, or socially unnacceptable not to belong to the ruling party. The Suppression of Dissent is the basis for most of what the current Regime has done, and they show no signs of slacking off on it. There will be no "third parties" in 2008 - assuming we even have an election - it would be trivial for the Dubya Regime to advance their terrorist agenda suffiently over the next 2 years that they will be able to openly admit the fact that they are suspending the democratic process - after all, they've already done it - admitting it will just require another couple major "terrorist strikes". Think they wouldn't?
A case in point: The Nader/LaDuke/Green ticket got a percentage of the vote in 2000 (e.g. 3% in Iowa); in 2004, conditions for third parties were so much worse there was no noticeable Green presence *anywhere*. Looked like (to me) that the uptick in 3rd party voters in 2000 scared the Republicrats sufficiently that they took steps to make sure it didn't happen again.
Like so much of the spew that the current US Regime continues to produce, this is clearly another case of "distract them while we slip it to them". I am actually surprised that out of the 40-some-odd posts I've read here about this resurrection of Tipper's late abortive attempt at protecting the Internet from Children, only one of them has even mentioned the real thrust of this legislation - which unsurprisingly has nothing at all to with pr0n or protection of netizens from it.
This is wrong on a number of levels, and Gonzales' attempt to exploit minors as "victims" of the Internet and its alleged pr0n is just that: Another Republicrat attempt to exploit children as a means of manipulating their parents.
Furthermore, fuck Gonzales and his repeated and ongoing assertions that use of the Internet is de facto evidence of some "criminal activity". He is at the heart of what is arguably the most criminal Regime ever to control the US - the crimes of his mentors in this administration start with treason and continue down thru spousal abuse and criminal malfeasance. How can it not be obvious that this pathetic smokescreen is simply backing for his attempts to force ISPs to aid in government efforts to regulate and control political Speech?
A headline has been running for several days now concerning Yahoo's apparent liability in the imprisonment of a Chinese national for political speech in China. How much longer before we see reports that ATT, Google, Yahoo, or MSN have supplied information leading to the political imprisonment of US citizens? Careful, that's a trick question - if that Chinese fellow had been in the US, he would have been labelled a terrorist, and there would have been no reports, since there is no longer any requirement that the govt announce the fact once they have imprisoned a citizen for this new class of "crimes"....
"You might be gang-related..."You obviously haven't seen any of my PHP and Perl code (I've never written ASP). Of course, it may be that you haven't seen my web applications code because I'm not a "web designer" - can't get a job in that industry, which speaks to the truth of your assertions concerning who companies hire to create web applications.