And again, I defy anyone to define "astroturfing" in a neutral way that everyone can agree on.
You're joking, right? As a Republican linux user, I haven't heard too many alternative definitions. Seems pretty clear to me...
Astroturfing: fake grass-roots activity. If you're trying to look like you're just a part of the "noisy populace" but you're being paid to maintain your position by the side you apparently agree with, then you're astroturfing.
That's one definition of astroturfing, but I'm sure that politicians may have another definition. Like, "any irritating deluge of calls from those pesky citizens" (who may really be concerned citizens being urged by an interest group that shares their interests to contact politicians on something they really, genuinely care about).
Be careful, because who is going to be applying the standard? It may seem clear to you, but laws often get applied far differently than their writers intended.
It's quite telling that groups across the spectrum, from the ACLU to various family advocacy groups, were against this portion of the bill. It quite literally puts a greater burden on organizations that want to keep the public educated about what their elected representatives may be doing.
The actual grass-roots bloggers (and whatever their criticism of whoever they wanted to criticize) were never in jeopardy. But the Republicans and some Democrats made sure that astroturfers aren't in jeopardy either. Most of the Democrats were on the ethical side on this one. Sadly, they couldn't get a majority today.
Sorry, how were the actual grass-roots bloggers not going to be affected by this?
And again, I defy anyone to define "astroturfing" in a neutral way that everyone can agree on.
Furthermore, what is ethical about placing bureaucratic red tape around free speech? The only purpose of this section of the bill was to get people off the politicians' backs. They don't like it when we express our opinions, and they don't like it when someone alerts us to problems we should know about.
This is not about getting rid of "astroturfing," but about letting the politicians do what they like without being held accountable by the citizenry.
First, I defy anyone to nail down a definition of "astroturfing" in a neutral non-political way. One man's astroturfing (probably the politician's) is another man's grassroots. When you are on the receiving end of it (as the politicians are) you don't like it. But when you are one of the outraged citizens who were alerted to something the politicians are about to do, and you take matters up with them, it is a genuine expression of concern.
People are too busy to read every bill that comes up-- come on, get real. So they subscribe to interest groups or go to blogs that share their interests and views, and have the time to analyze the things that go on in Washington. And the only way that these groups and blogs can devote that much time to this is by receiving funding in one form or another. It's not just corporations that provide funding: many groups are funded by the citizenry directly by subscription fees, membership dues, donations and the like. And it's not just conservative groups, but also liberal groups, that would be affected.
It should not surprise anyone that the politicians want to shut this down. But it's shameful that the vote was so split by party lines.
"You have a First Amendment right to contact your congressperson and you have a First Amendment right to tell others to do so," said Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "Now they're saying you have to report to the federal government if you're going to engage in this First Amendment-protected activity."
The controversial requirement lies in Section 220 of the massive bill, which supporters of the legislation say is intended to curb the practice of lobbyists setting up "astroturf" groups. But in a conference call on Thursday, a broad range of groups including the ACLU, the Free Speech Coalition, the Traditional Values Coalition and National Right To Life said it would hurt their own groups' abilities to influence Congress and place unreasonable restrictions on Internet politicking.
You're wrong. NK admitted in 2002 that they had a nuclear program, which had actually started in 1998 or even earlier. At any rate, regardless of the time frame, it was Clinton who made the naive deal with NK that gave them what they needed to go nuclear. Right now, the whole Clinton ex-administration is in CYA mode, trying to spin this like it was all Bush's fault just because it became public in the second year of his administration. Your talkingpointsmemo reference is quite the laugh.
Long-term observers of NK know that they have used the strategy of blackmailing the West and particularly the U.S. into making concessions. Then they lay low for a while, only to come back later to blackmail us again. This is how they became the No. 1 recipient of U.S. foreign aid in Asia.
Bush is trying not to let this happen again, but there is not much he can do to stop them from continuing to make noise-- first with their missile launches earlier this year, now with their nuclear testing. Aside from capitulating to their demands yet again-- which has been shown not to work-- what else can be done? It's a hard problem.
The only real solution I see is for the North Korean people to throw Kim Jung-Il out. I'm not holding my breath, however.
If you see any other realistic solution, I'd love to hear it, and I'm not being sarcastic. Although, this conversation is definitely getting off-topic.
Even in a job that you enjoy, try not to let it totally consume your life. There is life beyond work. I advise you to retain enough time for yourself to be able to strike up and nurture relationships with other people.
So let me ask you something....what do you do if you don't have ANY time during the week because of work, and your weekend is dominated by rest and chores that piled up from the week? How do you have time for relationships....or more importantly, the energy!?
The simple answer lies in the section you quoted: "Retain enough time for yourself..." in other words, don't let your job take up all your time during the week. In order to have a life outside of work, if I were in a job that required more than 50 hours a week as the normal state of affairs, whether I liked the work or not, I would start looking elsewhere. Think about it. At 50 hours a week, that's at least 2 extra hours out of each and every workday! What could you do if you had that time back?
The tough reality, however, is that it is not always easy, especially in certain industries, to find an employer that respects your off-work time. In the tug-of-war between employers and employees, it seems the trend is toward employees losing more of their personal time. It fluctuates with the job market: the last few years have favored the employers, pushing expected working time on average up quite a bit. But the market is swinging back toward the employees; it's up to us to ask for what we want. If market forces fail and current trends continue, as much as I hate government intervention, there may eventually need to be some changes in workers' rights legislation.
As for weekends, chores, etc. I totally hear you. It is frustrating and there never seems to be enough time for the relationships and hobbies you want. The only thing I can say is you have to prioritize the important things in your life, and sacrifice some things that don't make the cut. It all comes back to... "what are your goals in life?" Is it to play every great video game that comes out? Is it to have an immaculate, sparkling clean model home? (Good luck with that one if you have a family... give it up now!) Is it to have meaningful relationships? I'm not here to say "you can do it all." It might sound trite but it's totally true that you can't have everything. Those people that seem to have it all together, often only appear to on the surface.
I'm discovering this every day in my life. I am struggling so hard to finish my master's degree and still keep a sane work and family life. I had to sacrifice some things I liked, such as video games. My house is not the newest, biggest, or cleanest house among those in my social circle. I have unfinished projects right and left. But I'm happy with the choices so far because I know what I want out of my life. And my family life, even though it is not all perfect, is still worth everything I've given up for it. Nothing beats the feeling of having a wife and two cute kids to come home to, and spending at least some time with them, even if they are a lot of work most of the rest of the time.;-)
All of this is pretty common sense stuff, but it's amazing how many times we have to remind ourselves of it. Sit down and evaluate what you want in your life, and that will help you find the job that accomodates those goals.
Depends on your goals and state in life. If you are married and have kids (like me) you might want to stick with the higher-paying, more stable job. A job at a startup sounds like too much risk even without the pay cut.
However, if you are still relatively unattached, go for your dreams and what makes you happy at work. If you enjoy what you do, you will be more likely in the long run to find a job that does pay well and is fun at the same time. Consider the startup job to be a stepping stone along the way. Rather than let your skills get rusty and find yourself losing your edge later, keep them sharp and keep your motivation and enthusiasm up.
If you are unhappy with your current job but are still averse to the riskiness of a startup, don't take this opportunity but go ahead and look around for other jobs. There may still be a better place for you that doesn't have as much risk or as much of a pay cut. The economy is doing fairly well so don't be timid!
One more note. I know this is Slashdot and I also know the industry we are in, so the following advice may seem out of place. Nevertheless, here goes. Even in a job that you enjoy, try not to let it totally consume your life. There is life beyond work. I advise you to retain enough time for yourself to be able to strike up and nurture relationships with other people. If you have a family, spend time with them. If you are single, don't hesitate too long to find that special someone! The trend in our society is toward marrying and starting a family in your 30s or even later. First of all, that makes it harder to get used to each other when you do find someone. Second, it increases the risk of unhealthy children (birth defects, etc.). Third, despite the stereotypes, family life really is a lot more fun and enjoyable than the single life-- study after study claims this, and my own experience confirms it. When you look back on your life, will it matter more that you had a stellar, enjoyable career, or that you had a good family life and have relatives around you in your old age?
Again, I guess it really does boil down to what your goals are in life. They're not the same for everyone, but I do recommend sitting down and thinking honestly about your own goals and making sure they are the right ones for you-- that you aren't just following whatever everyone else is doing because you don't have your own clear path in mind.
Most of the countries that have signed onto Kyoto are either hyper-environmental (Europe) or third-world countries which are exempt from many of its provisions (China and others). I don't doubt the environmental sincerity of many of the signing countries. However, it would not be inaccurate to say that the vast majority did not have to sacrifice much themselves, and thus may see it as one way to "reign in" the "big bad polluters" like the U.S. and Russia at little cost to themselves. This is the flaw in Kyoto: allowing developing countries to pollute more than developed countries and thus make the developed countries (the worst polluters? Look at China) hesitant to sign.
This is why the Senate did vote 95-0 against the Kyoto accord under the Clinton administration, which is definitely not a myth.
There have been numerous intelligence reports suggesting a link between Saddam and 9/11. They have not been strong enough for the President to rely upon (and wisely so).
However, here is the latest, which really does seem to incriminate Saddam with direct involvement in the training of Mohammed Atta, the leader of the 9/11 team:
The mastermind of the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States, Mohammed Atta, was trained in Baghdad by Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal at the instance of deposed Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, a media report said on Sunday.
Atta visited Baghdad just weeks before 9/11, The Sunday Telegraph reported.
The details of the visit are in a secret memo written to Hussein by the former head of the Iraqi intelligence service Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, it said.
The handwritten memo, a copy of which has been obtained by the daily, is dated July 1, 2001, and provides a short resume of a three-day programme Atta had undertaken at Nidal's base in Baghdad.
In the memo, Habbush reports that Atta "displayed extraordinary effort" and demonstrated his ability to lead the team that would be "responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy".
The second part of the memo, which is headed 'Niger Shipment', contains a report about an unspecified shipment -- believed to be uranium -- that was transported to Iraq via Libya and Syria.
Although Iraqi officials refused to disclose how and where they had obtained the document, Ayad Allawi, a member of Iraq's ruling seven-member Presidential Committee, said the document was genuine.
"We are uncovering evidence all the time of Saddam's involvement with Al Qaeda," Allawi told the paper. "But this is the most compelling piece of evidence that we have found so far. It shows that not only did Saddam have contacts with the Al Qaeda, he had contact with those responsible for the September 11 attacks."
Although Atta is believed to have been in Florida in the summer of 2001, he is known to have used more than a dozen aliases, and intelligence experts believe he could easily have slipped out of the US to visit Iraq.
Nidal, who tried to kill the Israeli ambassador to London in 1982, was based in Baghdad for more than two decades, the report said.
The mastermind of the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States, Mohammed Atta, was trained in Baghdad by Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal at the instance of deposed Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, a media report said on Sunday.
Atta visited Baghdad just weeks before 9/11, The Sunday Telegraph reported.
The details of the visit are in a secret memo written to Hussein by the former head of the Iraqi intelligence service Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, it said.
The handwritten memo, a copy of which has been obtained by the daily, is dated July 1, 2001, and provides a short resume of a three-day programme Atta had undertaken at Nidal's base in Baghdad.
In the memo, Habbush reports that Atta "displayed extraordinary effort" and demonstrated his ability to lead the team that would be "responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy".
The second part of the memo, which is headed 'Niger Shipment', contains a report about an unspecified shipment -- believed to be uranium -- that was transported to Iraq via Libya and Syria.
Although Iraqi officials refused to disclose how and where they had obtained the document, Ayad Allawi, a member of Iraq's ruling seven-member Presidential Committee, said the document was genuine.
"We are uncovering evidence all the time of Saddam's involvement with Al Qaeda," Allawi told the paper. "But this is the most compelling piece of evidence that we have found so far. It shows that not only did Saddam have contacts with the Al Qaeda, he had contact with those responsible for the September 11 attacks."
Although Atta is believed to have been in Florida in the summer of 2001, he is known to have used more than a dozen aliases, and intelligence experts believe he could easily have slipped out of the US to visit Iraq.
Nidal, who tried to kill the Israeli ambassador to London in 1982, was based in Baghdad for more than two decades, the report said.
Native people fighting against an occupying force are known as freedom fighters, not terrorists.
Cool. Which conflict are you talking about now?
Certainly not Iraq. Many of the fighters are NOT native, and a significant number of their attacks have NOT been directly against the American occupying force. These terrorists are terrorists because of their methods and targets. Just look at how they kill "collaborators" and neutral Red Cross volunteers.
1. Remnants of the Fedayeen Saddam who have everything to (re)gain if Saddam got back in power, or
2. FOREIGN fighters trying to destabilize Iraq for their OWN selfish interests.
Most of the normal Iraqi citizens, especially the oppressed Shiite MAJORITY, appreciate being freed from the tyranny of Saddam. If anything, the Americans are the freedom fighters.
I did some research on a similar idea in 1999 and 2000 as part of my CS degree. It is currently going through the patent process right now. Don't worry, I'm a techie like most of you and don't intend to send out "cease-and-desist" letters to anyone with anything remotely resembling my process. My main motivation is to have something nice-looking on my resume, and perhaps to profit if I can sell the patent to a company at some point in the future. It was also very educational to go through the whole patent process on my own with no lawyers...
Re:Stop the anti-MS BS all the damned time
on
Hijacking .NET
·
· Score: 1
Yes, if you have that much access to the system, you can do all that. In fact, if you have that much access to the system, you can do pretty much anything you want.
However, your average applet or application running under the security model does not have this kind of permission. Moreover, the JVM restricts you from running core Java library classes (java.*, javax.*) that you yourself compiled. And the core libraries are the ones where the security matters most.
The reality is that Java has a very secure model for executing untrusted code, whereas.NET has been shown here to have a serious security flaw that Java does not.
Why can you not accept that a company whose priority is catering to the lowest common denominator of users would have trouble in general with security issues? Microsoft's record with security is abysmal. That is not to say that other companies (i.e. Sun) do not ever have security lapses, but in general they make a much more genuine, well-thought out effort to create secure software. Most of their security lapses are small mistakes that are easily patched, whereas Microsoft's security problems usually stem from a flawed model from the get-go, which is much harder to fix. Have you been paying attention to Windows Update these days? It seems that every week there is a new security patch that you absolutely MUST download!
Add it all together, and to most of us it is not surprising to hear of this fundamental flaw in.NET's security.
Instead of trying to state why he is wrong, you simply attack him by association to others who you imply are also the epitome of evil (but again, no evidence or proof-- you just puke away to make your un-point).
Funny how people who have no intellectual response always resort to name-calling and similar tactics...
Instead of answering his very excellent points, you sidestep them and go on a classic liberal attack of the messenger.
Next, you'll attack me.
If you've got anything against his article, state what it is and why you disagree. Oh, I forgot. Slashdot is not the place for such intelligent discussion. I guess I'm wasting my time.
I agree, I have used WordPerfect for many years, up to version 8.0, but I eventually had to switch to Word (well, obviously because of compatibility issues with the rest of the world) but also for me largely because WordPerfect has no Unicode support and I write a lot in Asian languages.
I keep hoping they can change that... have they added Unicode since version 8.0?
Here's what I did. I took my girlfriend to several jewelry shops and let her point out to me the rings she liked. The whole thing was great fun for her, trying on rings and viewing how they looked on her hand. Meanwhile, I memorized the looks of the rings she liked best.
Then, I designed a ring that had the best features of all of them (basically I just drew up my ideas freehand). I sent the designs to my brother, who is an apprentice jeweler, and had him make the ring out of platinum. For the stones, I chose a large natural Yogo sapphire. These are very rare natural sapphires found only in Montana, and are deemed to be among the most beautiful sapphires in the world due to their perfect color. The one I chose was almost as expensive as a diamond of equal size (around $3k) and will hold its value much better. On each side of the sapphire I had him mount a small diamond (about 0.2 carat) which really accented the look.
Let me tell you, she loved the ring! Not only was it different and beautiful because of the sapphire, it was custom-designed by me. She proudly showed it off to all her friends, who had nothing to say once they saw it and heard that I had designed it myself. In fact, some of them even turned to their boyfriends/husbands and impishly asked them why they couldn't do something that sweet. Just like girls!
As guys, sometimes we may feel oppressed by what we view as the irrational requirements of our beloved better halves. But if you take to it with a good attitude and do something really original, it can be fun for you too. It certainly was for me!
Here's what I did. I took my girlfriend to several jewelry shops and let her point out to me the rings she liked. The whole thing was great fun for her, trying on rings and viewing how they looked on her hand. Meanwhile, I memorized the looks of the rings she liked best.
Then, I designed a ring that had the best features of all of them (basically I just drew up my ideas freehand). I sent the designs to my brother, who is an apprentice jeweler, and had him make the ring out of platinum. For the stones, I chose a large natural Yogo sapphire. These are very rare natural sapphires found only in Montana, and are deemed to be among the most beautiful sapphires in the world due to their perfect color. The one I chose was almost as expensive as a diamond of equal size (around $3k) and will hold its value much better. On each side of the sapphire I had him mount a small diamond (about 0.2 carat) which really accented the look.
Let me tell you, she loved the ring! Not only was it different and beautiful because of the sapphire, it was custom-designed by me. She proudly showed it off to all her friends, who had nothing to say once they saw it and heard that I had designed it myself. In fact, some of them even turned to their boyfriends/husbands and impishly asked them why they couldn't do something that sweet. Just like girls!
As guys, sometimes we may feel oppressed by what we view as the irrational requirements of our beloved better halves. But if you take to it with a good attitude and do something really original, it can be fun for you too. It certainly was for me!
I don't know much about the JCE, but when downloading the beta version of JDK 1.4, I saw a page to download "unlimited strength jurisdiction policy files". Does this mean I can use keys of any bit length?
How can we solve/prevent problems like this? Here are some suggestions:
1. Require every airplane to have a secure remote override feature, and some way to alert HQ of aberrant behavior or flight patterns.
2. Anti-aircraft installations in major metropolitan areas? Sounds extreme, but the technology is evolving (in fact, much faster than the aircraft technology to avoid it).
3. Other suggestions?
What a load of clich�d bull...
on
Mob Software
·
· Score: 1, Troll
This article is full of trash. I read incredulously until I saw the word "duende" and at that point I could not endure it any longer.
We need practical solutions, not philosophical soliloquies.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, how were the actual grass-roots bloggers not going to be affected by this?
And again, I defy anyone to define "astroturfing" in a neutral way that everyone can agree on.
Furthermore, what is ethical about placing bureaucratic red tape around free speech? The only purpose of this section of the bill was to get people off the politicians' backs. They don't like it when we express our opinions, and they don't like it when someone alerts us to problems we should know about.
First, I defy anyone to nail down a definition of "astroturfing" in a neutral non-political way. One man's astroturfing (probably the politician's) is another man's grassroots. When you are on the receiving end of it (as the politicians are) you don't like it. But when you are one of the outraged citizens who were alerted to something the politicians are about to do, and you take matters up with them, it is a genuine expression of concern.
People are too busy to read every bill that comes up-- come on, get real. So they subscribe to interest groups or go to blogs that share their interests and views, and have the time to analyze the things that go on in Washington. And the only way that these groups and blogs can devote that much time to this is by receiving funding in one form or another. It's not just corporations that provide funding: many groups are funded by the citizenry directly by subscription fees, membership dues, donations and the like. And it's not just conservative groups, but also liberal groups, that would be affected.
It should not surprise anyone that the politicians want to shut this down. But it's shameful that the vote was so split by party lines.
Here are some interesting paragraphs from the CNet article on the topic:
You're wrong. NK admitted in 2002 that they had a nuclear program, which had actually started in 1998 or even earlier. At any rate, regardless of the time frame, it was Clinton who made the naive deal with NK that gave them what they needed to go nuclear. Right now, the whole Clinton ex-administration is in CYA mode, trying to spin this like it was all Bush's fault just because it became public in the second year of his administration. Your talkingpointsmemo reference is quite the laugh.
Long-term observers of NK know that they have used the strategy of blackmailing the West and particularly the U.S. into making concessions. Then they lay low for a while, only to come back later to blackmail us again. This is how they became the No. 1 recipient of U.S. foreign aid in Asia.
Bush is trying not to let this happen again, but there is not much he can do to stop them from continuing to make noise-- first with their missile launches earlier this year, now with their nuclear testing. Aside from capitulating to their demands yet again-- which has been shown not to work-- what else can be done? It's a hard problem.
The only real solution I see is for the North Korean people to throw Kim Jung-Il out. I'm not holding my breath, however.
If you see any other realistic solution, I'd love to hear it, and I'm not being sarcastic. Although, this conversation is definitely getting off-topic.
Even in a job that you enjoy, try not to let it totally consume your life. There is life beyond work. I advise you to retain enough time for yourself to be able to strike up and nurture relationships with other people.
;-)
So let me ask you something....what do you do if you don't have ANY time during the week because of work, and your weekend is dominated by rest and chores that piled up from the week? How do you have time for relationships....or more importantly, the energy!?
The simple answer lies in the section you quoted: "Retain enough time for yourself..." in other words, don't let your job take up all your time during the week. In order to have a life outside of work, if I were in a job that required more than 50 hours a week as the normal state of affairs, whether I liked the work or not, I would start looking elsewhere. Think about it. At 50 hours a week, that's at least 2 extra hours out of each and every workday! What could you do if you had that time back?
The tough reality, however, is that it is not always easy, especially in certain industries, to find an employer that respects your off-work time. In the tug-of-war between employers and employees, it seems the trend is toward employees losing more of their personal time. It fluctuates with the job market: the last few years have favored the employers, pushing expected working time on average up quite a bit. But the market is swinging back toward the employees; it's up to us to ask for what we want. If market forces fail and current trends continue, as much as I hate government intervention, there may eventually need to be some changes in workers' rights legislation.
As for weekends, chores, etc. I totally hear you. It is frustrating and there never seems to be enough time for the relationships and hobbies you want. The only thing I can say is you have to prioritize the important things in your life, and sacrifice some things that don't make the cut. It all comes back to... "what are your goals in life?" Is it to play every great video game that comes out? Is it to have an immaculate, sparkling clean model home? (Good luck with that one if you have a family... give it up now!) Is it to have meaningful relationships? I'm not here to say "you can do it all." It might sound trite but it's totally true that you can't have everything. Those people that seem to have it all together, often only appear to on the surface.
I'm discovering this every day in my life. I am struggling so hard to finish my master's degree and still keep a sane work and family life. I had to sacrifice some things I liked, such as video games. My house is not the newest, biggest, or cleanest house among those in my social circle. I have unfinished projects right and left. But I'm happy with the choices so far because I know what I want out of my life. And my family life, even though it is not all perfect, is still worth everything I've given up for it. Nothing beats the feeling of having a wife and two cute kids to come home to, and spending at least some time with them, even if they are a lot of work most of the rest of the time.
All of this is pretty common sense stuff, but it's amazing how many times we have to remind ourselves of it. Sit down and evaluate what you want in your life, and that will help you find the job that accomodates those goals.
Depends on your goals and state in life. If you are married and have kids (like me) you might want to stick with the higher-paying, more stable job. A job at a startup sounds like too much risk even without the pay cut.
However, if you are still relatively unattached, go for your dreams and what makes you happy at work. If you enjoy what you do, you will be more likely in the long run to find a job that does pay well and is fun at the same time. Consider the startup job to be a stepping stone along the way. Rather than let your skills get rusty and find yourself losing your edge later, keep them sharp and keep your motivation and enthusiasm up.
If you are unhappy with your current job but are still averse to the riskiness of a startup, don't take this opportunity but go ahead and look around for other jobs. There may still be a better place for you that doesn't have as much risk or as much of a pay cut. The economy is doing fairly well so don't be timid!
One more note. I know this is Slashdot and I also know the industry we are in, so the following advice may seem out of place. Nevertheless, here goes. Even in a job that you enjoy, try not to let it totally consume your life. There is life beyond work. I advise you to retain enough time for yourself to be able to strike up and nurture relationships with other people. If you have a family, spend time with them. If you are single, don't hesitate too long to find that special someone! The trend in our society is toward marrying and starting a family in your 30s or even later. First of all, that makes it harder to get used to each other when you do find someone. Second, it increases the risk of unhealthy children (birth defects, etc.). Third, despite the stereotypes, family life really is a lot more fun and enjoyable than the single life-- study after study claims this, and my own experience confirms it. When you look back on your life, will it matter more that you had a stellar, enjoyable career, or that you had a good family life and have relatives around you in your old age?
Again, I guess it really does boil down to what your goals are in life. They're not the same for everyone, but I do recommend sitting down and thinking honestly about your own goals and making sure they are the right ones for you-- that you aren't just following whatever everyone else is doing because you don't have your own clear path in mind.
This is why the Senate did vote 95-0 against the Kyoto accord under the Clinton administration, which is definitely not a myth.
Take a look at http://www.sepp.org/pressrel/petition.html for more.
Mohd Atta trained in Baghdad: Report
There have been numerous intelligence reports suggesting a link between Saddam and 9/11. They have not been strong enough for the President to rely upon (and wisely so).
However, here is the latest, which really does seem to incriminate Saddam with direct involvement in the training of Mohammed Atta, the leader of the 9/11 team:
http://us.rediff.com/news/2003/dec/14atta.htm
Check out http://us.rediff.com/news/2003/dec/14atta.htm, which basically says Saddam directly backed Mohammed Atta, the leader of the 9/11 team...
[Source: http://us.rediff.com/news/2003/dec/14atta.htm]
Mohd Atta trained in Baghdad: Report
December 14, 2003 15:10 IST
The mastermind of the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States, Mohammed Atta, was trained in Baghdad by Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal at the instance of deposed Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, a media report said on Sunday.
Atta visited Baghdad just weeks before 9/11, The Sunday Telegraph reported.
The details of the visit are in a secret memo written to Hussein by the former head of the Iraqi intelligence service Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, it said.
The handwritten memo, a copy of which has been obtained by the daily, is dated July 1, 2001, and provides a short resume of a three-day programme Atta had undertaken at Nidal's base in Baghdad.
In the memo, Habbush reports that Atta "displayed extraordinary effort" and demonstrated his ability to lead the team that would be "responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy".
The second part of the memo, which is headed 'Niger Shipment', contains a report about an unspecified shipment -- believed to be uranium -- that was transported to Iraq via Libya and Syria.
Although Iraqi officials refused to disclose how and where they had obtained the document, Ayad Allawi, a member of Iraq's ruling seven-member Presidential Committee, said the document was genuine.
"We are uncovering evidence all the time of Saddam's involvement with Al Qaeda," Allawi told the paper. "But this is the most compelling piece of evidence that we have found so far. It shows that not only did Saddam have contacts with the Al Qaeda, he had contact with those responsible for the September 11 attacks."
Although Atta is believed to have been in Florida in the summer of 2001, he is known to have used more than a dozen aliases, and intelligence experts believe he could easily have slipped out of the US to visit Iraq.
Nidal, who tried to kill the Israeli ambassador to London in 1982, was based in Baghdad for more than two decades, the report said.
[Source: http://us.rediff.com/news/2003/dec/14atta.htm]
Mohd Atta trained in Baghdad: Report
December 14, 2003 15:10 IST
The mastermind of the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States, Mohammed Atta, was trained in Baghdad by Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal at the instance of deposed Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, a media report said on Sunday.
Atta visited Baghdad just weeks before 9/11, The Sunday Telegraph reported.
The details of the visit are in a secret memo written to Hussein by the former head of the Iraqi intelligence service Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, it said.
The handwritten memo, a copy of which has been obtained by the daily, is dated July 1, 2001, and provides a short resume of a three-day programme Atta had undertaken at Nidal's base in Baghdad.
In the memo, Habbush reports that Atta "displayed extraordinary effort" and demonstrated his ability to lead the team that would be "responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy".
The second part of the memo, which is headed 'Niger Shipment', contains a report about an unspecified shipment -- believed to be uranium -- that was transported to Iraq via Libya and Syria.
Although Iraqi officials refused to disclose how and where they had obtained the document, Ayad Allawi, a member of Iraq's ruling seven-member Presidential Committee, said the document was genuine.
"We are uncovering evidence all the time of Saddam's involvement with Al Qaeda," Allawi told the paper. "But this is the most compelling piece of evidence that we have found so far. It shows that not only did Saddam have contacts with the Al Qaeda, he had contact with those responsible for the September 11 attacks."
Although Atta is believed to have been in Florida in the summer of 2001, he is known to have used more than a dozen aliases, and intelligence experts believe he could easily have slipped out of the US to visit Iraq.
Nidal, who tried to kill the Israeli ambassador to London in 1982, was based in Baghdad for more than two decades, the report said.
Maybe that's just what the management at SCO has been hoping for-- that someone would buy the company.
Native people fighting against an occupying force are known as freedom fighters, not terrorists.
Cool. Which conflict are you talking about now?
Certainly not Iraq. Many of the fighters are NOT native, and a significant number of their attacks have NOT been directly against the American occupying force. These terrorists are terrorists because of their methods and targets. Just look at how they kill "collaborators" and neutral Red Cross volunteers.
Most of the attacks to date have been either
1. Remnants of the Fedayeen Saddam who have everything to (re)gain if Saddam got back in power, or
2. FOREIGN fighters trying to destabilize Iraq for their OWN selfish interests.
Most of the normal Iraqi citizens, especially the oppressed Shiite MAJORITY, appreciate being freed from the tyranny of Saddam. If anything, the Americans are the freedom fighters.
I did some research on a similar idea in 1999 and 2000 as part of my CS degree. It is currently going through the patent process right now. Don't worry, I'm a techie like most of you and don't intend to send out "cease-and-desist" letters to anyone with anything remotely resembling my process. My main motivation is to have something nice-looking on my resume, and perhaps to profit if I can sell the patent to a company at some point in the future. It was also very educational to go through the whole patent process on my own with no lawyers...
Yes, if you have that much access to the system, you can do all that. In fact, if you have that much access to the system, you can do pretty much anything you want.
.NET has been shown here to have a serious security flaw that Java does not.
.NET's security.
However, your average applet or application running under the security model does not have this kind of permission. Moreover, the JVM restricts you from running core Java library classes (java.*, javax.*) that you yourself compiled. And the core libraries are the ones where the security matters most.
The reality is that Java has a very secure model for executing untrusted code, whereas
Why can you not accept that a company whose priority is catering to the lowest common denominator of users would have trouble in general with security issues? Microsoft's record with security is abysmal. That is not to say that other companies (i.e. Sun) do not ever have security lapses, but in general they make a much more genuine, well-thought out effort to create secure software. Most of their security lapses are small mistakes that are easily patched, whereas Microsoft's security problems usually stem from a flawed model from the get-go, which is much harder to fix. Have you been paying attention to Windows Update these days? It seems that every week there is a new security patch that you absolutely MUST download!
Add it all together, and to most of us it is not surprising to hear of this fundamental flaw in
Instead of trying to state why he is wrong, you simply attack him by association to others who you imply are also the epitome of evil (but again, no evidence or proof-- you just puke away to make your un-point).
Funny how people who have no intellectual response always resort to name-calling and similar tactics...
Instead of answering his very excellent points, you sidestep them and go on a classic liberal attack of the messenger.
Next, you'll attack me.
If you've got anything against his article, state what it is and why you disagree. Oh, I forgot. Slashdot is not the place for such intelligent discussion. I guess I'm wasting my time.
I agree, I have used WordPerfect for many years, up to version 8.0, but I eventually had to switch to Word (well, obviously because of compatibility issues with the rest of the world) but also for me largely because WordPerfect has no Unicode support and I write a lot in Asian languages.
I keep hoping they can change that... have they added Unicode since version 8.0?
Here's what I did. I took my girlfriend to several jewelry shops and let her point out to me the rings she liked. The whole thing was great fun for her, trying on rings and viewing how they looked on her hand. Meanwhile, I memorized the looks of the rings she liked best.
Then, I designed a ring that had the best features of all of them (basically I just drew up my ideas freehand). I sent the designs to my brother, who is an apprentice jeweler, and had him make the ring out of platinum. For the stones, I chose a large natural Yogo sapphire. These are very rare natural sapphires found only in Montana, and are deemed to be among the most beautiful sapphires in the world due to their perfect color. The one I chose was almost as expensive as a diamond of equal size (around $3k) and will hold its value much better. On each side of the sapphire I had him mount a small diamond (about 0.2 carat) which really accented the look.
Let me tell you, she loved the ring! Not only was it different and beautiful because of the sapphire, it was custom-designed by me. She proudly showed it off to all her friends, who had nothing to say once they saw it and heard that I had designed it myself. In fact, some of them even turned to their boyfriends/husbands and impishly asked them why they couldn't do something that sweet. Just like girls!
As guys, sometimes we may feel oppressed by what we view as the irrational requirements of our beloved better halves. But if you take to it with a good attitude and do something really original, it can be fun for you too. It certainly was for me!
You can check out pictures of the ring here.
Here's what I did. I took my girlfriend to several jewelry shops and let her point out to me the rings she liked. The whole thing was great fun for her, trying on rings and viewing how they looked on her hand. Meanwhile, I memorized the looks of the rings she liked best.
Then, I designed a ring that had the best features of all of them (basically I just drew up my ideas freehand). I sent the designs to my brother, who is an apprentice jeweler, and had him make the ring out of platinum. For the stones, I chose a large natural Yogo sapphire. These are very rare natural sapphires found only in Montana, and are deemed to be among the most beautiful sapphires in the world due to their perfect color. The one I chose was almost as expensive as a diamond of equal size (around $3k) and will hold its value much better. On each side of the sapphire I had him mount a small diamond (about 0.2 carat) which really accented the look.
Let me tell you, she loved the ring! Not only was it different and beautiful because of the sapphire, it was custom-designed by me. She proudly showed it off to all her friends, who had nothing to say once they saw it and heard that I had designed it myself. In fact, some of them even turned to their boyfriends/husbands and impishly asked them why they couldn't do something that sweet. Just like girls!
As guys, sometimes we may feel oppressed by what we view as the irrational requirements of our beloved better halves. But if you take to it with a good attitude and do something really original, it can be fun for you too. It certainly was for me!
You can check out pictures of the ring here.
I don't know much about the JCE, but when downloading the beta version of JDK 1.4, I saw a page to download "unlimited strength jurisdiction policy files". Does this mean I can use keys of any bit length?
How can we solve/prevent problems like this? Here are some suggestions:
1. Require every airplane to have a secure remote override feature, and some way to alert HQ of aberrant behavior or flight patterns.
2. Anti-aircraft installations in major metropolitan areas? Sounds extreme, but the technology is evolving (in fact, much faster than the aircraft technology to avoid it).
3. Other suggestions?
This article is full of trash. I read incredulously until I saw the word "duende" and at that point I could not endure it any longer.
We need practical solutions, not philosophical soliloquies.