And more. So what if Yahoo! is not peddling "herbal viagra"? They are still spamming -- oh, yes, you can always unsubscribe -- but since I never subscribed in the first place, I don't see why I should be unsubscribing.
I keep a Yahoo! mailbox around -- just in case, and clean it up every once in a while. Yahoo!'s spamguard is a useful tool to keep the outside spam out, but Yahoo!'s partner Motley Fool always gets into my mailbox despite me classifying it as spam several times already.
If the "icons" like Yahoo! are spamming shamelessly, what's the point of going after the darker hats? Spam should be an outrageous incident, then there'd be hope.
As for honey-potting, the simple technique is to use a unique address each time you give your address out. Like mi+ebuyer@aldan.algebra.com (sendmail users don't even need to change anything on their servers for this). Once the address starts getting spam, you know, who squealed.
I have seen more recent bunkers -- Syrian
on
A New Elena Story
·
· Score: 1
captured by Israel.
And I have photos too -- can I get to frontpage now?
True, the track maintainance crews and builders will not mind, but the train drivers and dispatchers, whose job is going to be obsoleted, will give the cities a major pain...
I can't wait for us to return to being one of the pack so to speak. Then maybe our leaders wouldn't feel like it's necessary to station troops all over the planet.
This led (and continues to make) me to believe, you want to see US weaken (just relatively or indeed absolutely -- you don't care) as means to achieve the change of mind of our leaders -- the ends that you desire.
Why, in most ages past and even in most places present this kind of opinion would be considered Treasonous... But in our age and place, this view is a sure way to get one a '4 Insightful'. How much better a place do you want US to be?
For your other points, let me be quick. I disagree, that Taiwan is part of China. I wish them the best of luck in their quest for independence and am willing, nay, eager to see US help them at that. Especially since they can and do pay handsomely for the weapons, they are forced to purchase by the unyielding China.
Countries should be able to defend themselves, but facing off the hostile superpowers like ex-USSR or the future China requires the help of a friendly superpower like America.
We need to project might into Middle East to defend all our allies over there (Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Israel) and to prevent them from going at each other. Iraq tried to break the balance, got spanked, but kept contemptuously reneging on its cease-fire obligations, so we had to finish off its regime. Having done that a year ago, we are now trying to establish a Democracy over there because, left ungoverned, Iraq may continue to require invasions often, while Democracy is the sort of government we like and naturally select -- having to start from scratch anyway.
Yes, all we want from Middle East is the ability to buy oil, but -- as the 1970ies crisis has shown -- it is possible for the sellers to agree to stop selling it -- at any price. Our ability to project might into the region helps ensure, that no a-holes with delusions of grandeur will again threaten the world economy to advance a petty cause of theirs.
Last time the cause was the fate of Palestinians, next time it may be France's ban on scarves, Dutch filmmaking, or Germans' pork-ladden (thus un-Islamic) cuisine...
The trouble with your (already insightful) thinking is that -- by your own discourse -- our removing of military bases from parts of the world will happen only as a result of the relative weakening of our might.
If we can not afford to keep the bases, yes, we will withdraw them, but then there would be no money to "better spend elsewhere".
Your true motivation -- conscient or sub- such -- however, appears to be more about the "inflammatory" aspect of these bases, rather than their budgetary costs. In other words, your true concern is about the feelings of the foreigners, rather than the needs of the United States. You may be right in that the interests of both are aligned, but do get your priorities straight.
As far as the "need", well, you are right to question the decisions of the generals who -- honest and loyal as they are -- will never voluntarily decide to reduce their domain. But I tend to agree with them. Japan may or may not be able to defend itself, but Taiwan will certainly have a hard time facing off China. 17,600 US Marines in Okinawa present a good counterweight. In Europe, yes, the threat of USSR is gone for now, but Middle East is much closer to Germany, than to Virginia and even if the Iraq war is the last shooting one over there, the cold war with Iran and Syria is not ending soon... The matter with North Korea is also far from over...
Of the places you listed, only the base on the now-Japanese Okinawa causes tensions of any significance. Both South Koreans and Germans are quite content with US military presence despite occasional incidents involving US troops.
The news you should be welcoming, is that we are reducing our presence at those bases without visible deterioration of the might -- much to the chagrin of the hundreds of locals employed by bases.
I can't wait for us to return to being one of the pack so to speak.
So, do you want your country to become weaker, or its competitors (friendly and otherwise) to become stronger?
Then maybe our leaders wouldn't feel like it's necessary to station troops all over the planet.
It is never necessary, but often desirable. As long as it is possible, we'll keep doing it. As Romans did, BTW -- our relationship with Europe is not unlike that of Romans and Greeks.
Like some decent replacement for Democracy? This is not a flamebait -- Democracy has serious flaws, as was famously pointed out by Winston Churchill.
When playing Civilization, I prefer Corporate Republic (I guess, this is what we have in US now) to everything else, but am forced to switch to Virtual Democracy at the end, since C.R. is not suitable for too big an empire...
Right now having an airplain that can go at Mach 10 is somewhat useless because we can already out fly our enemies planes which most were build during the cold war times.
First, we sill can not outfly some of the enemy's missiles and have to outmaneuver and/or outsmart them. Second, the faster we can go the farther we can fly on time. For example, the planes can be based on the comfortable island but still be able to timely reach some of the theaters, where expensive and uncomfortable carriers have to be used now.
Lastly, using the technology for our missiles would be great too -- for example, once information comes in where a thug can be hit, this missile can reach his bunker in 20-30 minutes, rather than 2 hours. Not to mention the potential of replacing the "old-and-boring" ICBMs.
I've been thinking about this and can't stop myself from airing the idea on a remotely related forum.
Although Bayesian method(s) are primarily used for fishing out spam, why not use them for general purpose mail-sorting? The databases can be trained and each message checked for user-specific categories: "Family", "BSD", "Support", "Online-Orders",..., and -- of course -- "Spam". Messages, that don't fit into anything will continue to arrive into the main mailbox.
The money Congress stole is going to have to be repaid or else people are going to wake up and realize it's all been a big Ponzi scheme. You think Bush's Billionare Buddies are going to let him raise *their* taxes?
Why even mention the BBBs, if Congressmen looted the fund? I don't think, there is a single billionare among them... It may even appear -- to a less-than-vigilant reader -- that you blame the BBBs for the looting done by the middle-class elected Representatives.
He was a crackpot and drove soviet science into the ground
His being a crackpot and his running down Soviet biology and agriculture (not the whole of Soviet science) are only remotely related things.
A truly talented scientist could do the same easily having the oppression apparatus of the USSR at his disposal. Isaac Newton (as depicted by Stephenson, anyway) comes to mind.
Hence my point -- bringing up "Lysenkoism" in a country, where scientists (neither crackpots nor real) can not send other scientists to jail, is a red-herring.
And it is a disgrace to the memory of brilliant minds, who suffered from real Lysenko.
take your Godwins law crap or whatever simplification to annoy others instead.
Sorry to have annoyed you, but you were and remain wrong. May I suggest a less annoying web-site, perhaps?
I -- and the foreign policy of all subsequent presidents since Taiwan's open rebellion -- disagree with you. Probably, because we all prefer Democracy and Capitalism of modern Taiwan to the Communist Evil Empire, that China remains.
China's growth of Capitalism and of Democratic institutions helps her, but it has a long way to go and is not, unfortunately, moving very fast.
It is great of you to be able to "see the other side", but beware of the folly of ignoring your own...
do you honestly believe we've "promptly won" it [war]?
We control virtually all territory, we've detained virtually all enemy leaders (including the top one), and the enemy's army is disbanded. If all of these does not make for a victory, I don't know, what will.
No, I'm not going to debate it on this forum. And yes, you are right that the.sig should be changed now:-)
If that does not denote militarization of space, I don't know what does. seems to me that this is just another part of the "fuck the world opinion" attitude displayed by the Bush administration.
I'm not sure, Guardian is correct saying, that fulfilling the plan will violate the 1967 treaty, but you are quite sure, apparently. Would you, please, cite the article and verse being violated? Thank you!
Slashdot Mirror
And more. So what if Yahoo! is not peddling "herbal viagra"? They are still spamming -- oh, yes, you can always unsubscribe -- but since I never subscribed in the first place, I don't see why I should be unsubscribing.
I keep a Yahoo! mailbox around -- just in case, and clean it up every once in a while. Yahoo!'s spamguard is a useful tool to keep the outside spam out, but Yahoo!'s partner Motley Fool always gets into my mailbox despite me classifying it as spam several times already.
If the "icons" like Yahoo! are spamming shamelessly, what's the point of going after the darker hats? Spam should be an outrageous incident, then there'd be hope.
As for honey-potting, the simple technique is to use a unique address each time you give your address out. Like mi+ebuyer@aldan.algebra.com (sendmail users don't even need to change anything on their servers for this). Once the address starts getting spam, you know, who squealed.
And I have photos too -- can I get to frontpage now?
So, the use of machines by a partisan-headed maker, who's side won, duly arose suspicions among partisans, who's side lost. Some news...
True, the track maintainance crews and builders will not mind, but the train drivers and dispatchers, whose job is going to be obsoleted, will give the cities a major pain...
Well, you started this subthread with:
This led (and continues to make) me to believe, you want to see US weaken (just relatively or indeed absolutely -- you don't care) as means to achieve the change of mind of our leaders -- the ends that you desire.
Why, in most ages past and even in most places present this kind of opinion would be considered Treasonous... But in our age and place, this view is a sure way to get one a '4 Insightful'. How much better a place do you want US to be?
For your other points, let me be quick. I disagree, that Taiwan is part of China. I wish them the best of luck in their quest for independence and am willing, nay, eager to see US help them at that. Especially since they can and do pay handsomely for the weapons, they are forced to purchase by the unyielding China.
Countries should be able to defend themselves, but facing off the hostile superpowers like ex-USSR or the future China requires the help of a friendly superpower like America.
We need to project might into Middle East to defend all our allies over there (Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Israel) and to prevent them from going at each other. Iraq tried to break the balance, got spanked, but kept contemptuously reneging on its cease-fire obligations, so we had to finish off its regime. Having done that a year ago, we are now trying to establish a Democracy over there because, left ungoverned, Iraq may continue to require invasions often, while Democracy is the sort of government we like and naturally select -- having to start from scratch anyway.
Yes, all we want from Middle East is the ability to buy oil, but -- as the 1970ies crisis has shown -- it is possible for the sellers to agree to stop selling it -- at any price. Our ability to project might into the region helps ensure, that no a-holes with delusions of grandeur will again threaten the world economy to advance a petty cause of theirs.
Last time the cause was the fate of Palestinians, next time it may be France's ban on scarves, Dutch filmmaking, or Germans' pork-ladden (thus un-Islamic) cuisine...
If we can not afford to keep the bases, yes, we will withdraw them, but then there would be no money to "better spend elsewhere".
Your true motivation -- conscient or sub- such -- however, appears to be more about the "inflammatory" aspect of these bases, rather than their budgetary costs. In other words, your true concern is about the feelings of the foreigners, rather than the needs of the United States. You may be right in that the interests of both are aligned, but do get your priorities straight.
As far as the "need", well, you are right to question the decisions of the generals who -- honest and loyal as they are -- will never voluntarily decide to reduce their domain. But I tend to agree with them. Japan may or may not be able to defend itself, but Taiwan will certainly have a hard time facing off China. 17,600 US Marines in Okinawa present a good counterweight. In Europe, yes, the threat of USSR is gone for now, but Middle East is much closer to Germany, than to Virginia and even if the Iraq war is the last shooting one over there, the cold war with Iran and Syria is not ending soon... The matter with North Korea is also far from over...
Of the places you listed, only the base on the now-Japanese Okinawa causes tensions of any significance. Both South Koreans and Germans are quite content with US military presence despite occasional incidents involving US troops.
The news you should be welcoming, is that we are reducing our presence at those bases without visible deterioration of the might -- much to the chagrin of the hundreds of locals employed by bases.
So, do you want your country to become weaker, or its competitors (friendly and otherwise) to become stronger?
It is never necessary, but often desirable. As long as it is possible, we'll keep doing it. As Romans did, BTW -- our relationship with Europe is not unlike that of Romans and Greeks.
When playing Civilization, I prefer Corporate Republic (I guess, this is what we have in US now) to everything else, but am forced to switch to Virtual Democracy at the end, since C.R. is not suitable for too big an empire...
First, we sill can not outfly some of the enemy's missiles and have to outmaneuver and/or outsmart them. Second, the faster we can go the farther we can fly on time. For example, the planes can be based on the comfortable island but still be able to timely reach some of the theaters, where expensive and uncomfortable carriers have to be used now.
Lastly, using the technology for our missiles would be great too -- for example, once information comes in where a thug can be hit, this missile can reach his bunker in 20-30 minutes, rather than 2 hours. Not to mention the potential of replacing the "old-and-boring" ICBMs.
Khmm, yes, pretty much. Now I just need to hack it to work on stdin/stdout instead of POP3. Thanks.
Although Bayesian method(s) are primarily used for fishing out spam, why not use them for general purpose mail-sorting? The databases can be trained and each message checked for user-specific categories: "Family", "BSD", "Support", "Online-Orders", ..., and -- of course -- "Spam". Messages, that don't fit into anything will continue to arrive into the main mailbox.
I'm working on it. Watch this space...
If being a spammer meant a 95% chance of 1-3 years in prison, there'd be less spam, than with a 0.001% chance of death penalty.
Why even mention the BBBs, if Congressmen looted the fund? I don't think, there is a single billionare among them... It may even appear -- to a less-than-vigilant reader -- that you blame the BBBs for the looting done by the middle-class elected Representatives.
I had little inclination to argue the beaten up point before. To argue it with a greatly disturbed person seems even less appealing.
The page in my sig offers a link with explanations and reasons, that make perfect sense to me. If you read it and continue to wonder, then so be it...
His being a crackpot and his running down Soviet biology and agriculture (not the whole of Soviet science) are only remotely related things.
A truly talented scientist could do the same easily having the oppression apparatus of the USSR at his disposal. Isaac Newton (as depicted by Stephenson, anyway) comes to mind.
Hence my point -- bringing up "Lysenkoism" in a country, where scientists (neither crackpots nor real) can not send other scientists to jail, is a red-herring.
And it is a disgrace to the memory of brilliant minds, who suffered from real Lysenko.
Sorry to have annoyed you, but you were and remain wrong. May I suggest a less annoying web-site, perhaps?
China's growth of Capitalism and of Democratic institutions helps her, but it has a long way to go and is not, unfortunately, moving very fast.
It is great of you to be able to "see the other side", but beware of the folly of ignoring your own...
We control virtually all territory, we've detained virtually all enemy leaders (including the top one), and the enemy's army is disbanded. If all of these does not make for a victory, I don't know, what will.
No, I'm not going to debate it on this forum. And yes, you are right that the .sig should be changed now :-)
Your side wins.
I'm not sure, Guardian is correct saying, that fulfilling the plan will violate the 1967 treaty, but you are quite sure, apparently. Would you, please, cite the article and verse being violated? Thank you!
Not US, just Taiwan -- over 600 missiles are pointed at the island from China, plus lots of other weaponry.
And Taiwan is America's ally. So, there...
The whole point of my response was that the analogy was false. Thus taking it away was a good thing.