Yup! Good point. I share your view.I figure anybody (or any goverment) that ignores the K.I.S.S. principle is a bit puffed up. All this stuff costs time and money as well and that does'nt earn them any credibility in my book. What happened to simple yet elegant proposals? Not a bit of art in the lot of them. Best, JS
Ha! Well done. You got a point there.I'll have to ask him what happened to the sherrif. Ah well, the "golden rule" Thems that got the gold makes the rules. Though I can't help thinking that they are as prone to the murphy factor as the rest of us. It seems a shame that that we will be the only species that becomes extinct through greed. I hear cockroachs are communal (sp?) Maybe they'll make less of a cockup of this beautiful world than we did. Best wishes, Jim
So I read it. the whole thing. Looks like it will:
A-Keep a zillion or so int. lawyers off food stamps for the foreseeable future.
B-Reassure the int. fat cats that the "problem has been adequately addressed"
C-Set a new world record for obscufatory( I think that means unclear, sometimes contradictory and in view of the mass of existing law on the issue somewhat pointless) rhetoric.
D-Scare the pants off every cracker in the known world.( Man! I could hear all those plugs coming out of wall sockets all the way over here!)
E-Prove to the world that these guys(and gals and any others of the 8 or 9 known sexes involved) know what they are talking about and have banded together to do something about it!
As i sometimes do, I went to one of my old fart buddies and got his opinion (I'm 52 so these guys are really ancient). I explained it rather well I thought and when he stopped laughing he had this to say.
"Well it sorta reminds me of the Volstead act. (Booze prohibition in the 20's) We'd come out of those logging camps with a hell of a thirst and there was nary a drop to be had. We bought our booze from the local sherrif because he would'nt throw us in the pokie if we bought it from him. I don't remember that it changed much of anything at all except who got our wages. But you know that pretty much convinced us all that when it comes right down to it each man has pretty much got to make his own rules. You know what I mean?"
Yeah, guess I do. Well thaks for taking the time to read this. Jim Sofra, Queen Charlotte Island,"The trailing edge of technology"
So how do we contact somebody in Afghanistan?
on
Message from Kabul
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
It seems for all this talk about the information age we still can't get in contact with people in a war zone like Afghanistan to get at least their opinion of the situation. I've been wanting to talk with the Afghani "man in the street(rubble?)since 911. In a situation like this how do you go about it? Was anybody able to get in touch with any Afghani Geeks?
Most peoples minds don't see that possibility. I had'nt considered that option till you brought it up. Old thinking being countered with new thinking, is'nt that what this whole conflict is all about? Given the skills and money I'd be exploring the problem in new ways.I believe understanding what we call human nature is the key. All this inferes a more hypocracy free global society. That would certainly ease the load.
Dear nephew,
We're all fine despite every thing and all, although your aunt Alices arthritis flares up every time the radiation blows over from the accident site up state. How are you?
Whats this I heard about you all in Washinton tryin to get a bill launched that would put them kids thats learning about them computers in jail for life? Is that true? Are you really trying to irritate all those American voter mothers that got to pay them lawyer fees, not to mention all them computer people?
Are'nt they the only ones who know how to fix them things?
Not that I'm critisizen now, but are'nt you boys bitin off an awful lot to chew lately, you know with them muslims and all? Who woulda thought that there was that many of em?
If you really get them computer kids riled they'll probably move to Canada or one of them other foreign countries and you know your aunt Alice an me got most of our retirement money in that computer stock you told us about.
I heard that the canadian president up there was offering lifetime pizza's and waiving the immagration fee to anyone that could keep one of them damn things runnin for longer then a month.
I thought you wanted to represent us for a few more years, don't you like washinton anymore?
Um, now I aint tellin you your business at all but why don't you ask em for help instead?
Just askin is all.
So I guess you won't be able to take that little vacation we was plannin with all them emergency sessions and the rioting and all. Too bad I was lookin forward to it, it being a record year for bigmouths at the lake. Well get some rest. I heard you was workin till the wee hours every night an havin to skip breakfast in the mornin to catch up. Now you know that ain't good for you.
You send us a letter on how it all turns out now because your phone ain't workin that well any more and when Jimmy went back to school we could'nt get that email thing to work at all, even when the lines were open.
So be good now,and be sure to write. Your uncle Zack
Ah, man that was a beauty. Needed a chuckle,precious little humor going around lately. Hey uh i reccomend "a pen warmed up in hell" by mark Twain. His ability to show the ridiculous disarmed many a would be tyrant. That was a scathing,short, deft stroke there sirrah and i salute you! Please keep blasting away and don't hide your light under a bushel basket as samuel would of said. Get out ther and kick some ass.
JS
I offer this to you all as an example of free speech. IMHO this is a really gutsy guy who's opinion is a valuble contribution to the situation. To those interested in alternative middle eastern-american views i reccomend the
Most magicians would admit that it's all done with smoke and mirrors. A few words for slash dot. Damn fine forums and reporting.
The Iranian
* Editorial policy
Truman's legacy
Presidents become president when they have their war
By KayArash Serri
September 21, 2001
The Iranian
Few people in the world are not aware that at 8:45 a.m. local time on
11th of September 2001, a passenger liner, which had been had been
previously
hijacked, crashed into one of New York City's World Trade Centre Twin
Towers.
Eighteen minutes later another hijacked plane crashed into the Southern
Tower; subsequently both towers collapsed. The Pentagon was attacked an
hour later in the same manner. Camp David just missed total destruction.
The world caught its breath and watched. American airspace was closed.
The U.S. armed forces were put to high alert just short of war status.
There
were reports of more hijacked planes, unconfirmed reports of attacks
against
the State Department and the Congress were coming in. It seemed as if the
mighty U.S. was unable to stop these terrorists from attacking wherever
they wanted to, whenever they wanted to.
It was the perfect doomsday scenario Hollywood films were trying to
portray
over the years, and the world watched on, mesmerized, while casualty
estimates
ran well into four figures at the least, a fact that distresses every
human
being.
Instantly all fingers of accusation were pointed at Osama Bin Laden,
the exiled Saudi millionaire who's living in Afghanistan. But
interesting
enough this mastermind of the 1998 attack on U.S. embassies in Africa, who
always proclaimed his feats loud and wide, denied any involvement --
though
he praised the attacks.
As the drama ended and the shock subsided, questions started to form
in the minds of people everywhere across the world. Questions such as
how,
in spite of mobile phones from passengers in the planes to the outside
world
informing them of their plight and the fact that all four planes had
changed
course and all radio contact had been broken, there was no leak of the
hijackings
until the first one crashed into the Northern Tower? There were
reservations
on how, all of a sudden, at least four planes, and according to some
accounts
eight planes, were hijacked at one go with no hitches?
Hardly 24 hours had passed before FBI officials stated that they had
caught a number of Arab suspects with many more identified and that a
hired
car supposedly used by the hijackers had been found with an Arabic
manual
for flying in it. Which itself raises the question that how was it
possible
that four groups of hijackers evaded the vast and efficient American
security
services successfully for who knows how long and then they leave behind
such incriminating evidence and that their accomplices are being rounded
up
in such a short time.
American officials are saying nothing on how these terrorists evaded
their security and intelligence forces for so long, but all of them,
right
up to President Bush, believe that this was not act of terror but an act
of war, a war the likes of which the world has never seen. In their
opinion
the whole civilized and democratic world faces an adversary that hides
in
the dark and strikes when you are least prepared. A new kind of warfare
indeed, but then the Americans are used to ingenuity in warfare methods
as the Cold War bears out.
On August 17th 1945, just three days after the announcement of Japan's
surrender, Harry S. Truman, the then U.S. president, declared that he
would
ask Congress to approve a program of universal military training for all
healthy American youth. As he explained a few days later: "If we are
to maintain leadership among other nations, we must continue to be
strong
in a military way." A statement that rang with an interventionist
policy.
But the American people were traditionally against interventionist
policies,
so much so that Congress resoundingly defeated Truman's call for
universal
military training. An end to U.S. internationalist policies? Not so.
Louis J. Halle was one of the new breed of thinkers in the State
Department
in 1945. In Halle's view, which can be taken to represent the State
Department's
non-ideological, "realist" approach to foreign affairs, international
relations deal with "such a distribution of power among a number of
centres
as prevents the acquisition by any one of enough power to make itself
masters of the rest.". Obviously for the American statesmen at least
no one centre should be more powerful than the U.S.
"The American people," Halle writes, "shaped by their
long tradition, could not accept considerations of power politics as
reasons
for going to war," either in 1945 or at any other time. Nor Halle nor
any other American statesman, whose career has been devoted to
international
politics, would assume that the American people could possibly be right
in having such non-interventionist perceptions. Thus, says Halle, since
the American people would not accept what members of the State
Department
felt was a realist's explanation of the need for interventionism, the
people
had to be given some other explanation. And so, for example, the World
War
I was advocated as a "war to make the world safe for democracy".
Interestingly even Halle believes that there is "a sort of fatality
about these matters. If the American people had been told the truth in
1917,
if they had fed on the reality instead of on dreams, then" -- so Halle
asserts -- "'they would not have fought, and the war would have been
lost, and anarchy" -- open to debate -- "'would have triumphed
and would have prevailed over the world. So the American people were
told
the opposite of the truth, and they fought for it, and the war was won."
Deception, Halle believes, is not a lamentable by-product of foreign
relations, but rather an essential precondition of having any foreign
relations
at all; only thus will an ignorant people allow their leaders a free
reign
to pursue a "realistic" interventionist foreign policy.
This from the nation that claims it stands for truth and democracy.
In whatever light one considers interventionism, there is a fatality
to Halle's way of thought, too: having laid the foundations of foreign
policy
on deceptions, it is difficult -- perhaps impossible -- to avoid
becoming
the captive of a policy that is untrue and unrealistic. However, Halle's
basic perception of post-World War II America was nonetheless true. The
President and his men in the State Department were interventionists; the
rest of the country was anti-interventionist. The situation looked bleak
for the statesmen indeed.
Fate intervened. On Friday afternoon, February 21st, 1947 a member of
the British embassy in Washington, First Secretary H. M. Sichel arrived
at the State Department with two notes for General George C. Marshall,
secretary
of State. What the two notes reported in essence was the final end of the
Pax
Britannica. Rule Britannica existed no more. The
Empire had, as Hitler intended, bled to death. This was the chance all
American
statesmen had waited for, a chance to take over Britain's imperial role.
On February 27th, Truman met with Congressional leaders in the White
House. Dean Acheson, the then undersecretary of state, was called upon
to
deliver a speech for taking up Britain's role, the undersecretary's
oration
left the congressmen stunned and silent. At last Senator Vandenberg
spoke
up. He had been much impressed by Acheson's speech, he said, but, if the
president really wanted to sell this program to the American people, he
would have to "scare hell out of the country."
The Truman Administration had long ago commenced to do just that, and
their first step had been to invite Winston Churchill -- then leader of
the opposition party in Great Britain -- to deliver his famous "Iron
Curtain" speech in Fulton, Missouri on March 5th, 1946. Stalin,
unwittingly,
helped advance Truman's plans even further with his desire for more
power
and complete domination over Eastern Europe.
With the world beginning to realize that the end of World War II would
not bring peace and tranquillity, President Truman addressed a joint
session
of Congress on March 12th, 1947, his speech later became known as the
Truman
Doctrine: "I believe that it must be the policy of the United States
to support free people... If we falter in our leadership, we may
endanger
the peace of the world -- and we surely endanger the welfare of our own
nation."
The Cold War, with the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as its
prologue, had started. Truman had his war at last and with the full
backing
of the Congress and feeble resistance of a frightened nation, he was
free
to pursue his interventionist policies as he deemed fit. According to
Lyndon
Johnson, war, whether hot or cold, is what enables a President to assume
maximum amount of power. "Roosevelt," said Johnson, "was never President
until the war came along." Similarly, Truman was never
president until he had his war.
Four decades later, after the end of the Cold War, the U.S. faced the
same predicament, but was saved by Operation Desert Storm, the conquest
of Iraq, whose invasion of Kuwait was effected only after they thought
they
got an encouraging nod from the American Ambassador in Baghdad. With the
break-up of the Soviet Union and the subduing of the Middle East, it
seemed
as if there were no more excuses for an internationalist policy for
American
statesmen.
Until September 11th, 2001, which was interestingly described by another
congressman as "Pearl Harbor II", whether he also meant to "scare
the hell" out of the country is purely an academic question, since the
instigator of these attacks has succeeded in that aspect at the least.
This attack also managed to create the perfect public tone for the
pursuance
of interventionist policies. With President Bush stating that this, the
first war of the third millennium, is a crusade that will continue for
many
years and with the fact that campaigns against terrorism are a
never-ending
battle as several thousand years of experience has shown, it seems that
the events of September 11th are, for the American statesmen even if for
no one else, a godsend.
If one takes a look at that Machiavellian principle of the end
justifying
the means, which has been the basis of diplomacy for all governments,
specially
Western ones, since conception, one must take into account that the
definition
of "means" is not only what we use or do, but also what we refrain
from using or doing.
Even if hard fact evidence is procured showing that Bin Laden or some
other extremist group was the main mastermind behind these events, the
question
still remains, Why were the American security and intelligence services,
which are the most capable in the world and who have shown their
competence
in the last week to the full, so dormant in the weeks and months leading
up to this atrocious episode?
Comment for The Iranian letters
section
Comment to the writer KayArash Serri
The Iranian
* Editorial policy
Truman's legacy
Presidents become president when they have their war
By KayArash Serri
September 21, 2001
The Iranian
Few people in the world are not aware that at 8:45 a.m. local time on
11th of September 2001, a passenger liner, which had been had been
previously
hijacked, crashed into one of New York City's World Trade Centre Twin
Towers.
Eighteen minutes later another hijacked plane crashed into the Southern
Tower; subsequently both towers collapsed. The Pentagon was attacked an
hour later in the same manner. Camp David just missed total destruction.
The world caught its breath and watched. American airspace was closed.
The U.S. armed forces were put to high alert just short of war status.
There
were reports of more hijacked planes, unconfirmed reports of attacks
against
the State Department and the Congress were coming in. It seemed as if the
mighty U.S. was unable to stop these terrorists from attacking wherever
they wanted to, whenever they wanted to.
It was the perfect doomsday scenario Hollywood films were trying to
portray
over the years, and the world watched on, mesmerized, while casualty
estimates
ran well into four figures at the least, a fact that distresses every
human
being.
Instantly all fingers of accusation were pointed at Osama Bin Laden,
the exiled Saudi millionaire who's living in Afghanistan. But
interesting
enough this mastermind of the 1998 attack on U.S. embassies in Africa, who
always proclaimed his feats loud and wide, denied any involvement --
though
he praised the attacks.
As the drama ended and the shock subsided, questions started to form
in the minds of people everywhere across the world. Questions such as
how,
in spite of mobile phones from passengers in the planes to the outside
world
informing them of their plight and the fact that all four planes had
changed
course and all radio contact had been broken, there was no leak of the
hijackings
until the first one crashed into the Northern Tower? There were
reservations
on how, all of a sudden, at least four planes, and according to some
accounts
eight planes, were hijacked at one go with no hitches?
Hardly 24 hours had passed before FBI officials stated that they had
caught a number of Arab suspects with many more identified and that a
hired
car supposedly used by the hijackers had been found with an Arabic
manual
for flying in it. Which itself raises the question that how was it
possible
that four groups of hijackers evaded the vast and efficient American
security
services successfully for who knows how long and then they leave behind
such incriminating evidence and that their accomplices are being rounded
up
in such a short time.
American officials are saying nothing on how these terrorists evaded
their security and intelligence forces for so long, but all of them,
right
up to President Bush, believe that this was not act of terror but an act
of war, a war the likes of which the world has never seen. In their
opinion
the whole civilized and democratic world faces an adversary that hides
in
the dark and strikes when you are least prepared. A new kind of warfare
indeed, but then the Americans are used to ingenuity in warfare methods
as the Cold War bears out.
On August 17th 1945, just three days after the announcement of Japan's
surrender, Harry S. Truman, the then U.S. president, declared that he
would
ask Congress to approve a program of universal military training for all
healthy American youth. As he explained a few days later: "If we are
to maintain leadership among other nations, we must continue to be
strong
in a military way." A statement that rang with an interventionist
policy.
But the American people were traditionally against interventionist
policies,
so much so that Congress resoundingly defeated Truman's call for
universal
military training. An end to U.S. internationalist policies? Not so.
Louis J. Halle was one of the new breed of thinkers in the State
Department
in 1945. In Halle's view, which can be taken to represent the State
Department's
non-ideological, "realist" approach to foreign affairs, international
relations deal with "such a distribution of power among a number of
centres
as prevents the acquisition by any one of enough power to make itself
masters of the rest.". Obviously for the American statesmen at least
no one centre should be more powerful than the U.S.
"The American people," Halle writes, "shaped by their
long tradition, could not accept considerations of power politics as
reasons
for going to war," either in 1945 or at any other time. Nor Halle nor
any other American statesman, whose career has been devoted to
international
politics, would assume that the American people could possibly be right
in having such non-interventionist perceptions. Thus, says Halle, since
the American people would not accept what members of the State
Department
felt was a realist's explanation of the need for interventionism, the
people
had to be given some other explanation. And so, for example, the World
War
I was advocated as a "war to make the world safe for democracy".
Interestingly even Halle believes that there is "a sort of fatality
about these matters. If the American people had been told the truth in
1917,
if they had fed on the reality instead of on dreams, then" -- so Halle
asserts -- "'they would not have fought, and the war would have been
lost, and anarchy" -- open to debate -- "'would have triumphed
and would have prevailed over the world. So the American people were
told
the opposite of the truth, and they fought for it, and the war was won."
Deception, Halle believes, is not a lamentable by-product of foreign
relations, but rather an essential precondition of having any foreign
relations
at all; only thus will an ignorant people allow their leaders a free
reign
to pursue a "realistic" interventionist foreign policy.
This from the nation that claims it stands for truth and democracy.
In whatever light one considers interventionism, there is a fatality
to Halle's way of thought, too: having laid the foundations of foreign
policy
on deceptions, it is difficult -- perhaps impossible -- to avoid
becoming
the captive of a policy that is untrue and unrealistic. However, Halle's
basic perception of post-World War II America was nonetheless true. The
President and his men in the State Department were interventionists; the
rest of the country was anti-interventionist. The situation looked bleak
for the statesmen indeed.
Fate intervened. On Friday afternoon, February 21st, 1947 a member of
the British embassy in Washington, First Secretary H. M. Sichel arrived
at the State Department with two notes for General George C. Marshall,
secretary
of State. What the two notes reported in essence was the final end of the
Pax
Britannica. Rule Britannica existed no more. The
Empire had, as Hitler intended, bled to death. This was the chance all
American
statesmen had waited for, a chance to take over Britain's imperial role.
On February 27th, Truman met with Congressional leaders in the White
House. Dean Acheson, the then undersecretary of state, was called upon
to
deliver a speech for taking up Britain's role, the undersecretary's
oration
left the congressmen stunned and silent. At last Senator Vandenberg
spoke
up. He had been much impressed by Acheson's speech, he said, but, if the
president really wanted to sell this program to the American people, he
would have to "scare hell out of the country."
The Truman Administration had long ago commenced to do just that, and
their first step had been to invite Winston Churchill -- then leader of
the opposition party in Great Britain -- to deliver his famous "Iron
Curtain" speech in Fulton, Missouri on March 5th, 1946. Stalin,
unwittingly,
helped advance Truman's plans even further with his desire for more
power
and complete domination over Eastern Europe.
With the world beginning to realize that the end of World War II would
not bring peace and tranquillity, President Truman addressed a joint
session
of Congress on March 12th, 1947, his speech later became known as the
Truman
Doctrine: "I believe that it must be the policy of the United States
to support free people... If we falter in our leadership, we may
endanger
the peace of the world -- and we surely endanger the welfare of our own
nation."
The Cold War, with the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as its
prologue, had started. Truman had his war at last and with the full
backing
of the Congress and feeble resistance of a frightened nation, he was
free
to pursue his interventionist policies as he deemed fit. According to
Lyndon
Johnson, war, whether hot or cold, is what enables a President to assume
maximum amount of power. "Roosevelt," said Johnson, "was never President
until the war came along." Similarly, Truman was never
president until he had his war.
Four decades later, after the end of the Cold War, the U.S. faced the
same predicament, but was saved by Operation Desert Storm, the conquest
of Iraq, whose invasion of Kuwait was effected only after they thought
they
got an encouraging nod from the American Ambassador in Baghdad. With the
break-up of the Soviet Union and the subduing of the Middle East, it
seemed
as if there were no more excuses for an internationalist policy for
American
statesmen.
Until September 11th, 2001, which was interestingly described by another
congressman as "Pearl Harbor II", whether he also meant to "scare
the hell" out of the country is purely an academic question, since the
instigator of these attacks has succeeded in that aspect at the least.
This attack also managed to create the perfect public tone for the
pursuance
of interventionist policies. With President Bush stating that this, the
first war of the third millennium, is a crusade that will continue for
many
years and with the fact that campaigns against terrorism are a
never-ending
battle as several thousand years of experience has shown, it seems that
the events of September 11th are, for the American statesmen even if for
no one else, a godsend.
If one takes a look at that Machiavellian principle of the end
justifying
the means, which has been the basis of diplomacy for all governments,
specially
Western ones, since conception, one must take into account that the
definition
of "means" is not only what we use or do, but also what we refrain
from using or doing.
Even if hard fact evidence is procured showing that Bin Laden or some
other extremist group was the main mastermind behind these events, the
question
still remains, Why were the American security and intelligence services,
which are the most capable in the world and who have shown their
competence
in the last week to the full, so dormant in the weeks and months leading
up to this atrocious episode?
Comment for The Iranian letters
section
Comment to the writer KayArash Serri
Nice review. Thanks for the research and info, really been a long time since I thought about things "Tolkienesque" (love that word). needed a break any way. May the gods of middle earth smile on you;-)
Just logged on,I'm in between a tune up and painting a toyota fender. Amazing job folks in keeping the lines of communication open. I live on a canadian island off the west coast of British Columbia, a very remote community. With your help I was able to stay in touch with am huge community of concerned intelligent people. The speed, veracity, and detail of information distributed was very important to me. I was amazed by how little the mainline talking heads passed on to their audiences. I don't think TV is enough anymore.
Really appreciate your efforts. Jim Sofra, Queen Charlotte islands, BC
I see a lot of "nuke em" going around(pick a country). Seems to me instead of nukin anybody maybe we should peace corp em. Think about it.
I was trying to think about it from the point of view of some one in (pick a country), and I'm pretty sure that when they think about their american "enemies" they are'nt thinking about most of the americans I know and love. My dad would start building a water line, my mom would want to feed every one in sight and get relly pissed off at all the needless pain. Aunt Angie would want to haul off the nearest mess and get things cleaned up. My neighbor Bob knows about the refugee camps so he does'nt waste food or anything else as a result, he'concerned about lifeboat earth,as am I.
None of the above gives a rats ass what color, religion, or language any one else is. But they all get mad at stupid needless pain and suffering.
Not many people I talked with today really know anything about the situation of poor people in any of these places. They they were amazed by the conditions most of the terrorist pool grew up in. (I only know one kid who had a auto rifle in his hands by 8 and he was from nam)
What would happen if you took 50 or so workin stiffs and plunked em down in all the refuge camps and beat up cities in country x and asked them to see if they could help out and make a list of the things that were needed. In a week they get $50,000 each to help whoever they can, no black market, no three letter agency BS, no top heavy beaurocracy, just your average american free (!) to help and get to know these people. Do you think everybody would learn something?
(what do you mean too much money? How about the rounds (Buck a round?) per enemy we are willing to spend? You got any idea how much yesterday cost?)
They would probably find out that not many americans like the way the fat cats run the show either.
Might make the difference. They don't know the states the way we know it.
We for the most part have never experienced what they go thru every day.
I don't underestimate anybody, and I certainly would'nt underestimate the ability or willingness of americans to set things right if they were given the chance.
Think about it...............
"All you need is love" John Lennon.....
Hope nothing else goes down,Grab some sleep if you can. Tomorrow I'm gonna finish this old farmers truck so he can get groceries. I'll have a wake for all those poor souls when it's time and I'm gonna go back to work and help a few people keep it together. I'm not going to give up one day to fear or hate. God bless the US
I think it might be fun to decorate your sweeties hardware.Roses of any kind in a nice computer garland or chain might be just the thing. You could follow that up with a bit of nice software later in the evening as well. I once made a turquoise cap for my sweeties on/off button, it still makes her smile every time she touches it.
If your sweetie is in need of a smile I reccomend a gift from Seattles Archie McPheee, Where else can you get a Voodoo computer doll and x ray glasses! I think a nice screen border of rubber frogs or glow in the dark stars might be neat.
You can find photomount spay at camera shops. If you give the bottom of whatever a spritz with it you can stick stuff to a smooth surface without leaving any stickum when you peel it off later. Its great for photos, hand made cards, gemstones, and anything with flat surfaces. You can re position them as many times as you like to getyour best arrangement.
Have fun and the best to you & your sweetie, I' d like to hear how it goes with every body else as well.
Really enjoyed your story. A newbie like me needs all the help he can get. Whoever sent in that glossary site really helped, I've been searching for some key to the terms and slang I've been finding. By all means publish,but you should include the comments from the other folks as well as thats what really made it an interesting read. What a shame that a guy with as much juice as your hacker is out of the loop. We yacked about the series today and two questions came up. Are most of the new viruses sent out by insecure employees of antivirus software companies as a job security hedge? And is there a project "X" at the NSA that keeps all the hackers that they catch in a basement bashing away like the thousand monkeys? Best Wishes, Biker Jim E Pluribus Unix
Slashdot Mirror
Yup! Good point. I share your view.I figure anybody (or any goverment) that ignores the K.I.S.S. principle is a bit puffed up. All this stuff costs time and money as well and that does'nt earn them any credibility in my book. What happened to simple yet elegant proposals? Not a bit of art in the lot of them. Best, JS
Ha! Well done. You got a point there.I'll have to ask him what happened to the sherrif. Ah well, the "golden rule" Thems that got the gold makes the rules. Though I can't help thinking that they are as prone to the murphy factor as the rest of us. It seems a shame that that we will be the only species that becomes extinct through greed. I hear cockroachs are communal (sp?) Maybe they'll make less of a cockup of this beautiful world than we did. Best wishes, Jim
So I read it. the whole thing. Looks like it will:
A-Keep a zillion or so int. lawyers off food stamps for the foreseeable future.
B-Reassure the int. fat cats that the "problem has been adequately addressed"
C-Set a new world record for obscufatory( I think that means unclear, sometimes contradictory and in view of the mass of existing law on the issue somewhat pointless) rhetoric.
D-Scare the pants off every cracker in the known world.( Man! I could hear all those plugs coming out of wall sockets all the way over here!)
E-Prove to the world that these guys(and gals and any others of the 8 or 9 known sexes involved) know what they are talking about and have banded together to do something about it!
As i sometimes do, I went to one of my old fart buddies and got his opinion (I'm 52 so these guys are really ancient). I explained it rather well I thought and when he stopped laughing he had this to say.
"Well it sorta reminds me of the Volstead act. (Booze prohibition in the 20's) We'd come out of those logging camps with a hell of a thirst and there was nary a drop to be had. We bought our booze from the local sherrif because he would'nt throw us in the pokie if we bought it from him. I don't remember that it changed much of anything at all except who got our wages. But you know that pretty much convinced us all that when it comes right down to it each man has pretty much got to make his own rules. You know what I mean?"
Yeah, guess I do. Well thaks for taking the time to read this. Jim Sofra, Queen Charlotte Island,"The trailing edge of technology"
It seems for all this talk about the information age we still can't get in contact with people in a war zone like Afghanistan to get at least their opinion of the situation. I've been wanting to talk with the Afghani "man in the street(rubble?)since 911. In a situation like this how do you go about it? Was anybody able to get in touch with any Afghani Geeks?
Most peoples minds don't see that possibility. I had'nt considered that option till you brought it up. Old thinking being countered with new thinking, is'nt that what this whole conflict is all about? Given the skills and money I'd be exploring the problem in new ways.I believe understanding what we call human nature is the key. All this inferes a more hypocracy free global society. That would certainly ease the load.
Dear nephew,
We're all fine despite every thing and all, although your aunt Alices arthritis flares up every time the radiation blows over from the accident site up state. How are you?
Whats this I heard about you all in Washinton tryin to get a bill launched that would put them kids thats learning about them computers in jail for life? Is that true? Are you really trying to irritate all those American voter mothers that got to pay them lawyer fees, not to mention all them computer people?
Are'nt they the only ones who know how to fix them things?
Not that I'm critisizen now, but are'nt you boys bitin off an awful lot to chew lately, you know with them muslims and all? Who woulda thought that there was that many of em?
If you really get them computer kids riled they'll probably move to Canada or one of them other foreign countries and you know your aunt Alice an me got most of our retirement money in that computer stock you told us about.
I heard that the canadian president up there was offering lifetime pizza's and waiving the immagration fee to anyone that could keep one of them damn things runnin for longer then a month.
I thought you wanted to represent us for a few more years, don't you like washinton anymore?
Um, now I aint tellin you your business at all but why don't you ask em for help instead?
Just askin is all.
So I guess you won't be able to take that little vacation we was plannin with all them emergency sessions and the rioting and all. Too bad I was lookin forward to it, it being a record year for bigmouths at the lake. Well get some rest. I heard you was workin till the wee hours every night an havin to skip breakfast in the mornin to catch up. Now you know that ain't good for you.
You send us a letter on how it all turns out now because your phone ain't workin that well any more and when Jimmy went back to school we could'nt get that email thing to work at all, even when the lines were open.
So be good now,and be sure to write. Your uncle Zack
That whole generation gets off on boris carloff movies with brains in glass jars. "Then the brains took over"
JS
Ah, man that was a beauty. Needed a chuckle,precious little humor going around lately. Hey uh i reccomend "a pen warmed up in hell" by mark Twain. His ability to show the ridiculous disarmed many a would be tyrant. That was a scathing,short, deft stroke there sirrah and i salute you! Please keep blasting away and don't hide your light under a bushel basket as samuel would of said. Get out ther and kick some ass.
JS
I offer this to you all as an example of free speech. IMHO this is a really gutsy guy who's opinion is a valuble contribution to the situation. To those interested in alternative middle eastern-american views i reccomend the
Most magicians would admit that it's all done with smoke and mirrors. A few words for slash dot. Damn fine forums and reporting.
The Iranian
* Editorial policy
Truman's legacy
Presidents become president when they have their war
By KayArash Serri
September 21, 2001
The Iranian
Few people in the world are not aware that at 8:45 a.m. local time on
11th of September 2001, a passenger liner, which had been had been
previously
hijacked, crashed into one of New York City's World Trade Centre Twin
Towers.
Eighteen minutes later another hijacked plane crashed into the Southern
Tower; subsequently both towers collapsed. The Pentagon was attacked an
hour later in the same manner. Camp David just missed total destruction.
The world caught its breath and watched. American airspace was closed.
The U.S. armed forces were put to high alert just short of war status.
There
were reports of more hijacked planes, unconfirmed reports of attacks
against
the State Department and the Congress were coming in. It seemed as if the
mighty U.S. was unable to stop these terrorists from attacking wherever
they wanted to, whenever they wanted to.
It was the perfect doomsday scenario Hollywood films were trying to
portray
over the years, and the world watched on, mesmerized, while casualty
estimates
ran well into four figures at the least, a fact that distresses every
human
being.
Instantly all fingers of accusation were pointed at Osama Bin Laden,
the exiled Saudi millionaire who's living in Afghanistan. But
interesting
enough this mastermind of the 1998 attack on U.S. embassies in Africa, who
always proclaimed his feats loud and wide, denied any involvement --
though
he praised the attacks.
As the drama ended and the shock subsided, questions started to form
in the minds of people everywhere across the world. Questions such as
how,
in spite of mobile phones from passengers in the planes to the outside
world
informing them of their plight and the fact that all four planes had
changed
course and all radio contact had been broken, there was no leak of the
hijackings
until the first one crashed into the Northern Tower? There were
reservations
on how, all of a sudden, at least four planes, and according to some
accounts
eight planes, were hijacked at one go with no hitches?
Hardly 24 hours had passed before FBI officials stated that they had
caught a number of Arab suspects with many more identified and that a
hired
car supposedly used by the hijackers had been found with an Arabic
manual
for flying in it. Which itself raises the question that how was it
possible
that four groups of hijackers evaded the vast and efficient American
security
services successfully for who knows how long and then they leave behind
such incriminating evidence and that their accomplices are being rounded
up
in such a short time.
American officials are saying nothing on how these terrorists evaded
their security and intelligence forces for so long, but all of them,
right
up to President Bush, believe that this was not act of terror but an act
of war, a war the likes of which the world has never seen. In their
opinion
the whole civilized and democratic world faces an adversary that hides
in
the dark and strikes when you are least prepared. A new kind of warfare
indeed, but then the Americans are used to ingenuity in warfare methods
as the Cold War bears out.
On August 17th 1945, just three days after the announcement of Japan's
surrender, Harry S. Truman, the then U.S. president, declared that he
would
ask Congress to approve a program of universal military training for all
healthy American youth. As he explained a few days later: "If we are
to maintain leadership among other nations, we must continue to be
strong
in a military way." A statement that rang with an interventionist
policy.
But the American people were traditionally against interventionist
policies,
so much so that Congress resoundingly defeated Truman's call for
universal
military training. An end to U.S. internationalist policies? Not so.
Louis J. Halle was one of the new breed of thinkers in the State
Department
in 1945. In Halle's view, which can be taken to represent the State
Department's
non-ideological, "realist" approach to foreign affairs, international
relations deal with "such a distribution of power among a number of
centres
as prevents the acquisition by any one of enough power to make itself
masters of the rest.". Obviously for the American statesmen at least
no one centre should be more powerful than the U.S.
"The American people," Halle writes, "shaped by their
long tradition, could not accept considerations of power politics as
reasons
for going to war," either in 1945 or at any other time. Nor Halle nor
any other American statesman, whose career has been devoted to
international
politics, would assume that the American people could possibly be right
in having such non-interventionist perceptions. Thus, says Halle, since
the American people would not accept what members of the State
Department
felt was a realist's explanation of the need for interventionism, the
people
had to be given some other explanation. And so, for example, the World
War
I was advocated as a "war to make the world safe for democracy".
Interestingly even Halle believes that there is "a sort of fatality
about these matters. If the American people had been told the truth in
1917,
if they had fed on the reality instead of on dreams, then" -- so Halle
asserts -- "'they would not have fought, and the war would have been
lost, and anarchy" -- open to debate -- "'would have triumphed
and would have prevailed over the world. So the American people were
told
the opposite of the truth, and they fought for it, and the war was won."
Deception, Halle believes, is not a lamentable by-product of foreign
relations, but rather an essential precondition of having any foreign
relations
at all; only thus will an ignorant people allow their leaders a free
reign
to pursue a "realistic" interventionist foreign policy.
This from the nation that claims it stands for truth and democracy.
In whatever light one considers interventionism, there is a fatality
to Halle's way of thought, too: having laid the foundations of foreign
policy
on deceptions, it is difficult -- perhaps impossible -- to avoid
becoming
the captive of a policy that is untrue and unrealistic. However, Halle's
basic perception of post-World War II America was nonetheless true. The
President and his men in the State Department were interventionists; the
rest of the country was anti-interventionist. The situation looked bleak
for the statesmen indeed.
Fate intervened. On Friday afternoon, February 21st, 1947 a member of
the British embassy in Washington, First Secretary H. M. Sichel arrived
at the State Department with two notes for General George C. Marshall,
secretary
of State. What the two notes reported in essence was the final end of the
Pax
Britannica. Rule Britannica existed no more. The
Empire had, as Hitler intended, bled to death. This was the chance all
American
statesmen had waited for, a chance to take over Britain's imperial role.
On February 27th, Truman met with Congressional leaders in the White
House. Dean Acheson, the then undersecretary of state, was called upon
to
deliver a speech for taking up Britain's role, the undersecretary's
oration
left the congressmen stunned and silent. At last Senator Vandenberg
spoke
up. He had been much impressed by Acheson's speech, he said, but, if the
president really wanted to sell this program to the American people, he
would have to "scare hell out of the country."
The Truman Administration had long ago commenced to do just that, and
their first step had been to invite Winston Churchill -- then leader of
the opposition party in Great Britain -- to deliver his famous "Iron
Curtain" speech in Fulton, Missouri on March 5th, 1946. Stalin,
unwittingly,
helped advance Truman's plans even further with his desire for more
power
and complete domination over Eastern Europe.
With the world beginning to realize that the end of World War II would
not bring peace and tranquillity, President Truman addressed a joint
session
of Congress on March 12th, 1947, his speech later became known as the
Truman
Doctrine: "I believe that it must be the policy of the United States
to support free people... If we falter in our leadership, we may
endanger
the peace of the world -- and we surely endanger the welfare of our own
nation."
The Cold War, with the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as its
prologue, had started. Truman had his war at last and with the full
backing
of the Congress and feeble resistance of a frightened nation, he was
free
to pursue his interventionist policies as he deemed fit. According to
Lyndon
Johnson, war, whether hot or cold, is what enables a President to assume
maximum amount of power. "Roosevelt," said Johnson, "was never President
until the war came along." Similarly, Truman was never
president until he had his war.
Four decades later, after the end of the Cold War, the U.S. faced the
same predicament, but was saved by Operation Desert Storm, the conquest
of Iraq, whose invasion of Kuwait was effected only after they thought
they
got an encouraging nod from the American Ambassador in Baghdad. With the
break-up of the Soviet Union and the subduing of the Middle East, it
seemed
as if there were no more excuses for an internationalist policy for
American
statesmen.
Until September 11th, 2001, which was interestingly described by another
congressman as "Pearl Harbor II", whether he also meant to "scare
the hell" out of the country is purely an academic question, since the
instigator of these attacks has succeeded in that aspect at the least.
This attack also managed to create the perfect public tone for the
pursuance
of interventionist policies. With President Bush stating that this, the
first war of the third millennium, is a crusade that will continue for
many
years and with the fact that campaigns against terrorism are a
never-ending
battle as several thousand years of experience has shown, it seems that
the events of September 11th are, for the American statesmen even if for
no one else, a godsend.
If one takes a look at that Machiavellian principle of the end
justifying
the means, which has been the basis of diplomacy for all governments,
specially
Western ones, since conception, one must take into account that the
definition
of "means" is not only what we use or do, but also what we refrain
from using or doing.
Even if hard fact evidence is procured showing that Bin Laden or some
other extremist group was the main mastermind behind these events, the
question
still remains, Why were the American security and intelligence services,
which are the most capable in the world and who have shown their
competence
in the last week to the full, so dormant in the weeks and months leading
up to this atrocious episode?
Comment for The Iranian letters
section
Comment to the writer KayArash Serri
The Iranian
* Editorial policy
Truman's legacy
Presidents become president when they have their war
By KayArash Serri
September 21, 2001
The Iranian
Few people in the world are not aware that at 8:45 a.m. local time on
11th of September 2001, a passenger liner, which had been had been
previously
hijacked, crashed into one of New York City's World Trade Centre Twin
Towers.
Eighteen minutes later another hijacked plane crashed into the Southern
Tower; subsequently both towers collapsed. The Pentagon was attacked an
hour later in the same manner. Camp David just missed total destruction.
The world caught its breath and watched. American airspace was closed.
The U.S. armed forces were put to high alert just short of war status.
There
were reports of more hijacked planes, unconfirmed reports of attacks
against
the State Department and the Congress were coming in. It seemed as if the
mighty U.S. was unable to stop these terrorists from attacking wherever
they wanted to, whenever they wanted to.
It was the perfect doomsday scenario Hollywood films were trying to
portray
over the years, and the world watched on, mesmerized, while casualty
estimates
ran well into four figures at the least, a fact that distresses every
human
being.
Instantly all fingers of accusation were pointed at Osama Bin Laden,
the exiled Saudi millionaire who's living in Afghanistan. But
interesting
enough this mastermind of the 1998 attack on U.S. embassies in Africa, who
always proclaimed his feats loud and wide, denied any involvement --
though
he praised the attacks.
As the drama ended and the shock subsided, questions started to form
in the minds of people everywhere across the world. Questions such as
how,
in spite of mobile phones from passengers in the planes to the outside
world
informing them of their plight and the fact that all four planes had
changed
course and all radio contact had been broken, there was no leak of the
hijackings
until the first one crashed into the Northern Tower? There were
reservations
on how, all of a sudden, at least four planes, and according to some
accounts
eight planes, were hijacked at one go with no hitches?
Hardly 24 hours had passed before FBI officials stated that they had
caught a number of Arab suspects with many more identified and that a
hired
car supposedly used by the hijackers had been found with an Arabic
manual
for flying in it. Which itself raises the question that how was it
possible
that four groups of hijackers evaded the vast and efficient American
security
services successfully for who knows how long and then they leave behind
such incriminating evidence and that their accomplices are being rounded
up
in such a short time.
American officials are saying nothing on how these terrorists evaded
their security and intelligence forces for so long, but all of them,
right
up to President Bush, believe that this was not act of terror but an act
of war, a war the likes of which the world has never seen. In their
opinion
the whole civilized and democratic world faces an adversary that hides
in
the dark and strikes when you are least prepared. A new kind of warfare
indeed, but then the Americans are used to ingenuity in warfare methods
as the Cold War bears out.
On August 17th 1945, just three days after the announcement of Japan's
surrender, Harry S. Truman, the then U.S. president, declared that he
would
ask Congress to approve a program of universal military training for all
healthy American youth. As he explained a few days later: "If we are
to maintain leadership among other nations, we must continue to be
strong
in a military way." A statement that rang with an interventionist
policy.
But the American people were traditionally against interventionist
policies,
so much so that Congress resoundingly defeated Truman's call for
universal
military training. An end to U.S. internationalist policies? Not so.
Louis J. Halle was one of the new breed of thinkers in the State
Department
in 1945. In Halle's view, which can be taken to represent the State
Department's
non-ideological, "realist" approach to foreign affairs, international
relations deal with "such a distribution of power among a number of
centres
as prevents the acquisition by any one of enough power to make itself
masters of the rest.". Obviously for the American statesmen at least
no one centre should be more powerful than the U.S.
"The American people," Halle writes, "shaped by their
long tradition, could not accept considerations of power politics as
reasons
for going to war," either in 1945 or at any other time. Nor Halle nor
any other American statesman, whose career has been devoted to
international
politics, would assume that the American people could possibly be right
in having such non-interventionist perceptions. Thus, says Halle, since
the American people would not accept what members of the State
Department
felt was a realist's explanation of the need for interventionism, the
people
had to be given some other explanation. And so, for example, the World
War
I was advocated as a "war to make the world safe for democracy".
Interestingly even Halle believes that there is "a sort of fatality
about these matters. If the American people had been told the truth in
1917,
if they had fed on the reality instead of on dreams, then" -- so Halle
asserts -- "'they would not have fought, and the war would have been
lost, and anarchy" -- open to debate -- "'would have triumphed
and would have prevailed over the world. So the American people were
told
the opposite of the truth, and they fought for it, and the war was won."
Deception, Halle believes, is not a lamentable by-product of foreign
relations, but rather an essential precondition of having any foreign
relations
at all; only thus will an ignorant people allow their leaders a free
reign
to pursue a "realistic" interventionist foreign policy.
This from the nation that claims it stands for truth and democracy.
In whatever light one considers interventionism, there is a fatality
to Halle's way of thought, too: having laid the foundations of foreign
policy
on deceptions, it is difficult -- perhaps impossible -- to avoid
becoming
the captive of a policy that is untrue and unrealistic. However, Halle's
basic perception of post-World War II America was nonetheless true. The
President and his men in the State Department were interventionists; the
rest of the country was anti-interventionist. The situation looked bleak
for the statesmen indeed.
Fate intervened. On Friday afternoon, February 21st, 1947 a member of
the British embassy in Washington, First Secretary H. M. Sichel arrived
at the State Department with two notes for General George C. Marshall,
secretary
of State. What the two notes reported in essence was the final end of the
Pax
Britannica. Rule Britannica existed no more. The
Empire had, as Hitler intended, bled to death. This was the chance all
American
statesmen had waited for, a chance to take over Britain's imperial role.
On February 27th, Truman met with Congressional leaders in the White
House. Dean Acheson, the then undersecretary of state, was called upon
to
deliver a speech for taking up Britain's role, the undersecretary's
oration
left the congressmen stunned and silent. At last Senator Vandenberg
spoke
up. He had been much impressed by Acheson's speech, he said, but, if the
president really wanted to sell this program to the American people, he
would have to "scare hell out of the country."
The Truman Administration had long ago commenced to do just that, and
their first step had been to invite Winston Churchill -- then leader of
the opposition party in Great Britain -- to deliver his famous "Iron
Curtain" speech in Fulton, Missouri on March 5th, 1946. Stalin,
unwittingly,
helped advance Truman's plans even further with his desire for more
power
and complete domination over Eastern Europe.
With the world beginning to realize that the end of World War II would
not bring peace and tranquillity, President Truman addressed a joint
session
of Congress on March 12th, 1947, his speech later became known as the
Truman
Doctrine: "I believe that it must be the policy of the United States
to support free people... If we falter in our leadership, we may
endanger
the peace of the world -- and we surely endanger the welfare of our own
nation."
The Cold War, with the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as its
prologue, had started. Truman had his war at last and with the full
backing
of the Congress and feeble resistance of a frightened nation, he was
free
to pursue his interventionist policies as he deemed fit. According to
Lyndon
Johnson, war, whether hot or cold, is what enables a President to assume
maximum amount of power. "Roosevelt," said Johnson, "was never President
until the war came along." Similarly, Truman was never
president until he had his war.
Four decades later, after the end of the Cold War, the U.S. faced the
same predicament, but was saved by Operation Desert Storm, the conquest
of Iraq, whose invasion of Kuwait was effected only after they thought
they
got an encouraging nod from the American Ambassador in Baghdad. With the
break-up of the Soviet Union and the subduing of the Middle East, it
seemed
as if there were no more excuses for an internationalist policy for
American
statesmen.
Until September 11th, 2001, which was interestingly described by another
congressman as "Pearl Harbor II", whether he also meant to "scare
the hell" out of the country is purely an academic question, since the
instigator of these attacks has succeeded in that aspect at the least.
This attack also managed to create the perfect public tone for the
pursuance
of interventionist policies. With President Bush stating that this, the
first war of the third millennium, is a crusade that will continue for
many
years and with the fact that campaigns against terrorism are a
never-ending
battle as several thousand years of experience has shown, it seems that
the events of September 11th are, for the American statesmen even if for
no one else, a godsend.
If one takes a look at that Machiavellian principle of the end
justifying
the means, which has been the basis of diplomacy for all governments,
specially
Western ones, since conception, one must take into account that the
definition
of "means" is not only what we use or do, but also what we refrain
from using or doing.
Even if hard fact evidence is procured showing that Bin Laden or some
other extremist group was the main mastermind behind these events, the
question
still remains, Why were the American security and intelligence services,
which are the most capable in the world and who have shown their
competence
in the last week to the full, so dormant in the weeks and months leading
up to this atrocious episode?
Comment for The Iranian letters
section
Comment to the writer KayArash Serri
Nice review. Thanks for the research and info, really been a long time since I thought about things "Tolkienesque" (love that word). needed a break any way. May the gods of middle earth smile on you ;-)
Just logged on,I'm in between a tune up and painting a toyota fender. Amazing job folks in keeping the lines of communication open. I live on a canadian island off the west coast of British Columbia, a very remote community. With your help I was able to stay in touch with am huge community of concerned intelligent people. The speed, veracity, and detail of information distributed was very important to me. I was amazed by how little the mainline talking heads passed on to their audiences. I don't think TV is enough anymore.
Really appreciate your efforts. Jim Sofra, Queen Charlotte islands, BC
I see a lot of "nuke em" going around(pick a country). Seems to me instead of nukin anybody maybe we should peace corp em. Think about it.
I was trying to think about it from the point of view of some one in (pick a country), and I'm pretty sure that when they think about their american "enemies" they are'nt thinking about most of the americans I know and love. My dad would start building a water line, my mom would want to feed every one in sight and get relly pissed off at all the needless pain. Aunt Angie would want to haul off the nearest mess and get things cleaned up. My neighbor Bob knows about the refugee camps so he does'nt waste food or anything else as a result, he'concerned about lifeboat earth,as am I.
None of the above gives a rats ass what color, religion, or language any one else is. But they all get mad at stupid needless pain and suffering.
Not many people I talked with today really know anything about the situation of poor people in any of these places. They they were amazed by the conditions most of the terrorist pool grew up in. (I only know one kid who had a auto rifle in his hands by 8 and he was from nam)
What would happen if you took 50 or so workin stiffs and plunked em down in all the refuge camps and beat up cities in country x and asked them to see if they could help out and make a list of the things that were needed. In a week they get $50,000 each to help whoever they can, no black market, no three letter agency BS, no top heavy beaurocracy, just your average american free (!) to help and get to know these people. Do you think everybody would learn something?
(what do you mean too much money? How about the rounds (Buck a round?) per enemy we are willing to spend? You got any idea how much yesterday cost?)
They would probably find out that not many americans like the way the fat cats run the show either.
Might make the difference. They don't know the states the way we know it.
We for the most part have never experienced what they go thru every day.
I don't underestimate anybody, and I certainly would'nt underestimate the ability or willingness of americans to set things right if they were given the chance.
Think about it...............
"All you need is love" John Lennon.....
/. really kept the lines open!
Hope nothing else goes down,Grab some sleep if you can. Tomorrow I'm gonna finish this old farmers truck so he can get groceries. I'll have a wake for all those poor souls when it's time and I'm gonna go back to work and help a few people keep it together. I'm not going to give up one day to fear or hate. God bless the US
Right on
I think it might be fun to decorate your sweeties hardware.Roses of any kind in a nice computer garland or chain might be just the thing. You could follow that up with a bit of nice software later in the evening as well. I once made a turquoise cap for my sweeties on/off button, it still makes her smile every time she touches it.
If your sweetie is in need of a smile I reccomend a gift from Seattles Archie McPheee, Where else can you get a Voodoo computer doll and x ray glasses! I think a nice screen border of rubber frogs or glow in the dark stars might be neat.
You can find photomount spay at camera shops. If you give the bottom of whatever a spritz with it you can stick stuff to a smooth surface without leaving any stickum when you peel it off later. Its great for photos, hand made cards, gemstones, and anything with flat surfaces. You can re position them as many times as you like to getyour best arrangement.
Have fun and the best to you & your sweetie, I' d like to hear how it goes with every body else as well.
Maybe we could get Bill to play Mr Burns?
Really enjoyed your story. A newbie like me needs all the help he can get. Whoever sent in that glossary site really helped, I've been searching for some key to the terms and slang I've been finding. By all means publish ,but you should include the comments from the other folks as well as thats what really made it an interesting read. What a shame that a guy with as much juice as your hacker is out of the loop. We yacked about the series today and two questions came up. Are most of the new viruses sent out by insecure employees of antivirus software companies as a job security hedge? And is there a project "X" at the NSA that keeps all the hackers that they catch in a basement bashing away like the thousand monkeys? Best Wishes, Biker Jim E Pluribus Unix