I'm going to have to disagree - I don't think this is all that unreasonable. New Orleans announced they were going to break state law, a law that exhists to (arguably) help keep telecom companies profitable. Now, whether you agree with that law or not, the fact of the matter is that by breaking it, New Orleans is likely going to cost Bell South a lot of money.
I work for a large pharma company who got told by a foreign company that unless we dropped our prices significantly this year (prices that are already discounted heavily for this and other 3rd-world countries), they were going to break our patent and make generic copies of our drug. We gave in, unfortunately, but I can promise that our humanitarian aid to this country will decrease significantly next year.
I see this as much the same thing. Remember that first and foremost a corporation exists to make money. Social responsibility is only a recent theme in corporate politics, and certainly a secondary one. If a government attacks a company's bottom line, then there are going to be consequences.
My opinion, anyway. I'll give ten to one odds that it doesn't jive with most of the Slashdot crew.:)
There is no reason why any one country should run a single point of failure for a resource vital to communications and commerce throughout the world, especially when most of the gear it is running on, paid for by, and resides in those other countries.
Except for the fact that we already do run it. What possible motivation do we have to give it up?
And it's couldn't care less. You sound like a fucking idiot when you get it wrong.
Inserting cuss words into an otherwise almost logical argument makes you sound every bit as much of an idiot.
Are you one of those liberal guys the OP was referring to who makes wild claims about CNN being great and Fox being bad without providing a single example of either?;-)
It looks like you fear the power of a spellchecker even more than the government... to make the same error ("centerally") three times really calls into question the veracity of your claims and the quality of thought behind them!
Don't fool yourself. Canada isn't a big enough market to notice.;-)
Ok, I'll play nice from now on. Boycotting our products until/unless we change our laws is perfectly within your right and one of the joys of living in a free society. More power to you!
Just some advice for people further down the line...
Yeah, the Patriot act gives some legitimate cause for concern to people (although I personally don't feel threatened by it). However, Slashdot comments (and some of the editors) are famous for seeing the worst case only and getting so worked up that no one will take them seriously. For example: No offense to Timothy, but I stopped reading his articles a long time ago, since I know exactly what his opinion will be on any given topic (oh, no, government is horrible!).
Many of the posts I've seen above made it sound like the PATRIOT act is the end of the world. One claimed that we now live in an Orwellian 1984-style society. We don't. Sure, mistakes will be made along the way, but it happens all the time. Even with the judicial process, innocent people get tossed in jail from time to time. It happens.
But increasing the government's power (while not something I'm in favor of) is not really a cause of that. The people that work for the government are still just regular joes like you and me who will try their best to be good and do their jobs well. Even if you're one of those left-wing wackos who believes that President Bush is the antichrist, remember that the hundreds of thousands of people who work for him will make their own decisions about right and wrong.
Too many people on Slash see the government (or corporations, for that matter) as big, faceless entities whose sole goal is power and the opression of the little people's rights. Believe it or not, that's not really the goal. So just take it easy with your comments here. Try to reason things out before you post so that we can have intelligent debates instead of spreading FUD about American laws.
And just for my 2 cents on topic, tough luck Canada.:) If you do business that crosses into our country, you need to be held accountable by our laws, whatever they may be. The same holds true in reverse - if we're doing business with your country, then once we, our product, or our communication crosses the border, it's susceptible to whatever laws you have up there.
Indeed. Which major networks showed the RNC again? And which ones showed the DNC? I'd do a little research on that - if you don't get cable, you didn't see the RNC!
Actually, if you'll look, you'll find that most media outlets are biased to the left - choosing to pick on Fox because of their right-wing leaning (which I think is fairly moderate, not as excessive as you imply) is unfair. Of course, in fairness I need to point out that I do tend to have conservative/libertarian leanings myself, so my viewpoint is likely skewed. Total objectivity, IMHO, is impossible for anyone.
And while people such as Sean Hannity are admittedly right-wing, Fox does attempt to balance that by putting him together with Colmes. O'Reilly... while I like watching his show, I don't think he's biased so much as blind (perhaps overzealous?). He sees what he sees and doesn't really consider other possibilities, but some of what he sees is much more liberal than it is conservative. Rush... there's no excuse, and I apologize for him.
I no longer vote on issues so much as I do character. I won't vote for a liar, even if he claims to support my view - how would you know for sure? On the other hand, if someone believes in something I don't, but (so far as I can tell) honestly believes it's the right thing to do (ie isn't doing it just to gain the minority vote or the protestant vote or whatever) then I may wind up voting him into office, because a man trying to do the right thing is infinitely better than a man who will say anything to get elected. Which (if any) candidate that is, well, we'll see.
I find it amusing that Zel Miller went from ardent Clinton support to ardent Kerry hater. Personally, I don't like either one, but if one of the Dem's boys is speaking up at the RNC, y'all have got a problem.
Oh, do we? Thanks for sharing that. I don't, I wasn't there. Hell, I wasn't even born. All I have to go on is the word of people that were there, most of whom disagree with Kerry's stated "facts".
My personal favorite Kerryism was when Nixon ordered him to Cambodia over Christmas on a secret mission.... almost a month before Nixon actually took office. How'd that work?
Aside from his obvious temper problem, I gotta agree with this guy. Too many people are against "the corporation" just because it is a corporation. And while I frequent all sorts of coffee shops, the chains are the only ones where I can count on getting a fairly quick cup of coffee without waiting on the barista to finish his homework...
Either that, or you've been fooled by how Gevalia is supposed to taste. I know people that got used to Hills Bros or McDonalds coffee and don't like Starbucks because it's different from what they're used to.
I for one HAVE drank Gevalia (along with many many others) and I prefer Starbucks. It's a matter of taste, not a matter of fact.:)
I'm sure this has probably been mentioned, but since I'm too lazy to read the comments....
Thankfully, I host my own SMTP server (admittedly in violation of my ISPs rules). Since the ruling covers stored e-mail, not transmitted, I should be safe - although it passes over their wire, the ISP doesn't store it anywhere. Indeed, it never goes near their servers but is simply routed to me across their networking gear.
It actually is implemented rather frequently, as it's one of the easy-to-enable options in MS Windows. However, it results in a HUGE load to your local helpdesk (numlock, capslock, typos, etc cause quick lockouts) and a lot of companies don't want to deal with that.
Agreed. This wasn't exactly news to me, but then, I actually read a little history for my classes back in 6th grade. I don't want to flame (this time), but if you're gonna submit an article like that, try to do so without the dose of paranoia about censorship.;-)
No offense, but if you want people to take you seriously, you need to present your argument clearly, and preferably with relatively few cusswords.
That aside, SIGALARM was right. IE is, in essence, its own standard. What matter if 6.0 supports different features (or the same features differently) than 5.5? Guess you'd better upgrade your browser by purchasing a new computer and getting the latest MS OS.
I'm sorry, but MS really does dictate the market standards at this point. Trust me, I work for a fortune 100 company, and I can tell you that our websites are designed around IE. Our internal sites contain code to prevent viewing in any other browser in an attempt to minimize incompatibility. Nobody (at least, I think nobody) is arguing that IE is pretty horrible browser implementation; however, it's also the standard to which one must comply. Such is life.
Actually, they sort of already do. They've added their own addresses to the MAPS DULS list, so any admin who implements said list (which I think a very bad idea) prevents their system from receiving my mail. I've had problems with only a handful of companies, but it's almost more of a pain having Comcast do it that way then it would before them to block all outbound SMTP except to their servers.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm going to have to disagree - I don't think this is all that unreasonable. New Orleans announced they were going to break state law, a law that exhists to (arguably) help keep telecom companies profitable. Now, whether you agree with that law or not, the fact of the matter is that by breaking it, New Orleans is likely going to cost Bell South a lot of money.
:)
I work for a large pharma company who got told by a foreign company that unless we dropped our prices significantly this year (prices that are already discounted heavily for this and other 3rd-world countries), they were going to break our patent and make generic copies of our drug. We gave in, unfortunately, but I can promise that our humanitarian aid to this country will decrease significantly next year.
I see this as much the same thing. Remember that first and foremost a corporation exists to make money. Social responsibility is only a recent theme in corporate politics, and certainly a secondary one. If a government attacks a company's bottom line, then there are going to be consequences.
My opinion, anyway. I'll give ten to one odds that it doesn't jive with most of the Slashdot crew.
Except for the fact that we already do run it. What possible motivation do we have to give it up?
And it's couldn't care less. You sound like a fucking idiot when you get it wrong. Inserting cuss words into an otherwise almost logical argument makes you sound every bit as much of an idiot.
Are you one of those liberal guys the OP was referring to who makes wild claims about CNN being great and Fox being bad without providing a single example of either? ;-)
Ah, the last bastion of the unskilled debater.
Works for me. Quick and easy. Just got to make sure we nuke the other nuke-capable countries first!
It looks like you fear the power of a spellchecker even more than the government... to make the same error ("centerally") three times really calls into question the veracity of your claims and the quality of thought behind them!
Yeah, I figured there wasn't much chance I'd be the first person to point this out. :) Web != Internet.
This argument is pretty poor, IMHO.
First, most people *don't* look at the source anyway - they trust the OS community to do so.
Second, why is the opinion of someone I hired any more valid than the opinion of some company I hired?
Don't fool yourself. Canada isn't a big enough market to notice. ;-)
Ok, I'll play nice from now on. Boycotting our products until/unless we change our laws is perfectly within your right and one of the joys of living in a free society. More power to you!
Just some advice for people further down the line...
:) If you do business that crosses into our country, you need to be held accountable by our laws, whatever they may be. The same holds true in reverse - if we're doing business with your country, then once we, our product, or our communication crosses the border, it's susceptible to whatever laws you have up there.
Yeah, the Patriot act gives some legitimate cause for concern to people (although I personally don't feel threatened by it). However, Slashdot comments (and some of the editors) are famous for seeing the worst case only and getting so worked up that no one will take them seriously. For example: No offense to Timothy, but I stopped reading his articles a long time ago, since I know exactly what his opinion will be on any given topic (oh, no, government is horrible!).
Many of the posts I've seen above made it sound like the PATRIOT act is the end of the world. One claimed that we now live in an Orwellian 1984-style society. We don't. Sure, mistakes will be made along the way, but it happens all the time. Even with the judicial process, innocent people get tossed in jail from time to time. It happens.
But increasing the government's power (while not something I'm in favor of) is not really a cause of that. The people that work for the government are still just regular joes like you and me who will try their best to be good and do their jobs well. Even if you're one of those left-wing wackos who believes that President Bush is the antichrist, remember that the hundreds of thousands of people who work for him will make their own decisions about right and wrong.
Too many people on Slash see the government (or corporations, for that matter) as big, faceless entities whose sole goal is power and the opression of the little people's rights. Believe it or not, that's not really the goal. So just take it easy with your comments here. Try to reason things out before you post so that we can have intelligent debates instead of spreading FUD about American laws.
And just for my 2 cents on topic, tough luck Canada.
The law explicitly states that the Feds can monitor U.S. citizens. Isn't Canadia just the northernmost state in the union?
Indeed. Which major networks showed the RNC again? And which ones showed the DNC? I'd do a little research on that - if you don't get cable, you didn't see the RNC!
Actually, if you'll look, you'll find that most media outlets are biased to the left - choosing to pick on Fox because of their right-wing leaning (which I think is fairly moderate, not as excessive as you imply) is unfair. Of course, in fairness I need to point out that I do tend to have conservative/libertarian leanings myself, so my viewpoint is likely skewed. Total objectivity, IMHO, is impossible for anyone.
And while people such as Sean Hannity are admittedly right-wing, Fox does attempt to balance that by putting him together with Colmes. O'Reilly... while I like watching his show, I don't think he's biased so much as blind (perhaps overzealous?). He sees what he sees and doesn't really consider other possibilities, but some of what he sees is much more liberal than it is conservative. Rush... there's no excuse, and I apologize for him.
I no longer vote on issues so much as I do character. I won't vote for a liar, even if he claims to support my view - how would you know for sure? On the other hand, if someone believes in something I don't, but (so far as I can tell) honestly believes it's the right thing to do (ie isn't doing it just to gain the minority vote or the protestant vote or whatever) then I may wind up voting him into office, because a man trying to do the right thing is infinitely better than a man who will say anything to get elected. Which (if any) candidate that is, well, we'll see.
I find it amusing that Zel Miller went from ardent Clinton support to ardent Kerry hater. Personally, I don't like either one, but if one of the Dem's boys is speaking up at the RNC, y'all have got a problem.
We all know god damned well that it did happen
Oh, do we? Thanks for sharing that. I don't, I wasn't there. Hell, I wasn't even born. All I have to go on is the word of people that were there, most of whom disagree with Kerry's stated "facts".
My personal favorite Kerryism was when Nixon ordered him to Cambodia over Christmas on a secret mission.... almost a month before Nixon actually took office. How'd that work?
Facts are facts, unless they're not.
Aside from his obvious temper problem, I gotta agree with this guy. Too many people are against "the corporation" just because it is a corporation. And while I frequent all sorts of coffee shops, the chains are the only ones where I can count on getting a fairly quick cup of coffee without waiting on the barista to finish his homework...
For the record, I don't think he's paying. He seems to be asking for free cups of coffee. Not that I disagree that it's pathetic....
And volunteering for a non-profit organization, while noble, is hardly different - it's all the rage among college organizations and many many others.
Finally, I see volunteers on the news all the time, although not very often on CNN. Don't be so quick to dis!
Either that, or you've been fooled by how Gevalia is supposed to taste. I know people that got used to Hills Bros or McDonalds coffee and don't like Starbucks because it's different from what they're used to.
:)
I for one HAVE drank Gevalia (along with many many others) and I prefer Starbucks. It's a matter of taste, not a matter of fact.
I'm sure this has probably been mentioned, but since I'm too lazy to read the comments....
Thankfully, I host my own SMTP server (admittedly in violation of my ISPs rules). Since the ruling covers stored e-mail, not transmitted, I should be safe - although it passes over their wire, the ISP doesn't store it anywhere. Indeed, it never goes near their servers but is simply routed to me across their networking gear.
It actually is implemented rather frequently, as it's one of the easy-to-enable options in MS Windows. However, it results in a HUGE load to your local helpdesk (numlock, capslock, typos, etc cause quick lockouts) and a lot of companies don't want to deal with that.
Agreed. This wasn't exactly news to me, but then, I actually read a little history for my classes back in 6th grade. I don't want to flame (this time), but if you're gonna submit an article like that, try to do so without the dose of paranoia about censorship. ;-)
No offense, but if you want people to take you seriously, you need to present your argument clearly, and preferably with relatively few cusswords.
.8)
That aside, SIGALARM was right. IE is, in essence, its own standard. What matter if 6.0 supports different features (or the same features differently) than 5.5? Guess you'd better upgrade your browser by purchasing a new computer and getting the latest MS OS.
I'm sorry, but MS really does dictate the market standards at this point. Trust me, I work for a fortune 100 company, and I can tell you that our websites are designed around IE. Our internal sites contain code to prevent viewing in any other browser in an attempt to minimize incompatibility. Nobody (at least, I think nobody) is arguing that IE is pretty horrible browser implementation; however, it's also the standard to which one must comply. Such is life.
(Yes, I run FireFox
Simple. I want to send mail with a return address of @lancemcgrath.com, which is my domain.
Comcast's mail servers won't let me "forge" the headers like that.
Reason found.
Actually, they sort of already do. They've added their own addresses to the MAPS DULS list, so any admin who implements said list (which I think a very bad idea) prevents their system from receiving my mail. I've had problems with only a handful of companies, but it's almost more of a pain having Comcast do it that way then it would before them to block all outbound SMTP except to their servers.
Corbets