I'm glad you think so. You'd make an excellent stooge for our program that is intended to debunk the myth that writing P2P applications are legal. Because as everyone knows, P2P is "hijacking" someone else's computer and connection.
Even better, is that his quote makes it seem like he's an honorable expert in the area of IT employment across the nation when he's 18 and probably still living in his parent's house.
I know what you mean, but you'd be surprised how much better some of these "hackers" really are at spelling and grammar than their peers.
If you need any proof, go to Yahoo pool or any of the sk8r chat rooms. You'll actually find the 15-year-old hacker is much more bearable. Then again, you might have already went to those rooms before and don't see much of a difference.
Here's two samples:
hacker
hi boys, are possible to disable the command echo?
"C:\>echo is not recognized as an internal or external command, operable program or batch file."
as I am able it disables king the command echo?
sk8r
hey u look alrite, how old r ya nd i giv ya abwt an 8. av ya got a gf if not e-mail me
xxx
I'm ashamed of what I've done in the past too. But the thing is, I don't *advertise* it. This kid uses "got raided by the FBI" as a plank on his resume. It's quite clear that he only wants a certain type of employer. And he's probably exactly the kind of bright underestimated kid I'd employ if I wanted someone that I knew didn't care about business morals and ethics.
Meanwhile, the rest of us sit here and condemn the kid: jealous that he gets to be honest with his employer about his past, while we have to hide the fact that we are responsible for hacking baby bells and causing over $100,000 in lost software and damages. For example, of course. Not that we really did that much. Even though they claimed we did. Wait, are we still talking about spam?
If you read the article, it's clear this kid has crossed the line.
Actually, I'm a little surprised you would say such a thing. It's *far* from clear. What line did he cross?
He wrote DDoS code. That's it. He was raided by the FBI for source code. You cannot tell me in one breath that source code is free speech and then say that the FBI was justified for the raid.
He wrote spam software. Big deal. I wrote spam software for my employer, only I'm supposedly using it for "legitimate purposes" because my employer is a public institution. Give me a break!
Maybe we can't catch and prosecute the phishers overseas, but we can catch and prosecute the punks helping them out from the U.S.
For what, releasing source code? I fear the world you expect me to live in. You cannot say that the people who implement a law punishing this kid for his source code aren't going to simply turn around and likewise punish developers of DVD decoding software. Or worse, creators of tools like nmap, tcpdump, and more.
Why? Because if there is anything that History 101 should have taught you, it's that it's the nature of the government to gain, and the people to lose. Security over liberty. Protection over rights. I'm sorry, I'd rather live in a world where my biggest fear is a Windows virus than a world where coding in "that hacker OS *nix" is forbidden save for those "authorized" to do so.
"Because of outsourcing [of software and system administration jobs], it's one of the only ways a hacker can make money," says Kittridge.
Okay, let's get a few things straight here. No offense, but you are 18. You haven't been in the "job market", and I hope to god you've been doing well in school. I imagine you've gotten great grades.
That said: have you looked at college? They aren't going to judge you as much there, and you can most likely go. You can also meet some really cool people your age and work with a lot of bright professors.
Don't get me wrong, I've done my fair share of "black hat" activity, most of which I keep quiet about now, but 15 to 18 is when you're allowed to do exactly that. Now is your chance to really shine and excel in information security classes at a university.
You can still hang out with some of your old IRC friends. I did till I was about 23. Then you realize you quit actually being interested in the same hacks and you start to think that all the new "kids" don't really know what they are doing. Then you start overusing the term "script kiddie".
Don't get me wrong, a lot of people erroneously call younger (and often brighter) hackers "script kiddies" simply because you might develop and use tools that require no thought. What you don't know is they were all using tutorials and very few of them actually coded their own exploits as well. In essence, the stuff they complain about you doing is stuff they would have done at the same age.
But that doesn't mean that you're heading in the right direction. Getting caught at age 15 is stupid. What is worse is the fact you are still in "the biz". I would highly suggest moving on with your life and applying outside of just a few places where you lead with, "I'm a hacker" for an interview.
The only reason why people aren't hiring you is because you still revel in your actions.
Or it's like hearing me rant on about the right to own nuclear weapons. Everyone thinks I'm insane, and there was a point when I would have thought so too, but I always think to a future time when nuclear devices may be essential to mining asteroids. It's in science fiction that a lot of stuff that seem ludicrous now is actually quite sane.
Asteroid miners of 2095 might look back at bans on nuclear technology (which by the way, we don't actually have. You can technically *own* a nuke and there's no law against it right now) the same way we look back at laws requiring automobile drivers to shoot flares up every 5 minutes and laugh.
(Oh, and by the way, I forget which state it is, but that's actually still a law in one of them.:)
Trust me, the laughs I have regarding the claims Greens make on global warming, pollution, and the whole irony of failing to see that the EPA sells licenses to pollute, keep me going for far longer than any Libertarian explaining his position.
I read the article and actually see nothing he covered that is anything different than patents now. I'm not a patent lawyer though. I suppose copyright law doesn't require an open source version, but patent law usually requires a working prototype of whatever it is that you are going to patent. It's the reason why I don't own the patent on the windowed refrigerator, even though I originally came up with the idea in class when I was 7. I knew it'd be possible one day, but I didn't know how.
To get straight to the point, though, I don't like this suggestion at all. The copyright and patent system is inherently flawed and stifles competition far more than it dulls innovation. Innovation is driven by *need*. By patenting a pair of pants, you can get down to the very atomic makeup and they are actually quit different from each other. The only difference is, what we "see" is two pairs of the same kind of pants, so when the two owners of said jeans come in and complain about each other stealing the others idea, we somehow came to the conclusion that the "first guy" is the one that owns the patent.
It's easy for us, as programmers and scripters, to know why software patents are horrible. It's because we will run into software on a regular basis that is something that we *can* make and indeed *could* have. If people were patenting and copyrighting these ideas, they'd be basically getting the government thugs to route out competition.
What kind of an environment is the US government promoting when it can't see that it's being "used" to enforce anti-competitive policies?
Wow. We've gone from viruses pretending to be porn in order to do funny things to your computer to viruses pretending to be something funny that give you porn.
I agree, the REAL problem isn't the price though, it's the controls. Keyboards (or keypads) and mice should come default. Why the hell would I, as a computer gamer of umpteen years, want to start aiming with an extremely sensitive thumbstick when a mouse/keyboard combination should easily cost the same?
I agree on the small things. They can see the changes that turning off the lights saves power. They can't see how fitting a filter to the end of a smokestack is going to save/benefit them.
Way to miss the analogy, Spock. If you don't vote in an election, do you just not get a President? Nope, you still get one.
I didn't miss it. Are you saying that they are giving me a pop for "free"? I think perhaps your analogy was bad in the first place.
Yeah, which usually means either lying to you or marginalizing you./agree. But I can read a liar. A liar is Bush eyes when he complains about the programs Kerry plans on implementing will cost too much, knowing full well that his own record on spending is horrible.
Libertarians take a virtue pair (liberty and property rights) and elevate it above all others (like life, safety, comfort, prosperity).
Life, Liberty, and Property. There is none higher. The right to live doesn't mean someone is going to hand you your life on a platter. The right to liberty doesn't mean that you're not responsible for your actions. The right to property does not mean that you will be given a house or car. They are negative rights. No one has to sacrifice anything to give them to you. And seriously, how the hell are you going to guarantee me propsperity? I want to live in your world. The one where the government hands out 15 minutes of fame to each and every person. Maybe I can have a national "Sheepdot" day where I get free advertising for my online handle.
The end result of the Libertarian Party is anarchy. Completely fucking stupid.
No, it's state and personal responsiblity. The Federal government, contrary to popular opinion is not the solution for everything. Decentralization is better than Centralization. There is no argument otherwise. Police exist to "Protect and Serve". It's been their motto and creed since their inception, and yet they are busting down doors to houses based upon who someone has sex with or what kind of smoke they are inhaling.
It doesn't make sense that an entity designed to protect us from each other and this "anarchy" you speak of, is making judgement calls on how we run our lives. Granted, it's not the cops making the decisions, they are just doing their jobs, but since when do we need permission "to" do something rather than always having the right ahead of time?
Out of anarchy comes gangsters, comes dictators, comes the need to fight all over again for freedom and democracy.
Here again, it is not an anarchy, though I imagine it could be considered a "confederacy" for what I'm calling for. I could also ask you to name one instance in history where a "dictator" arose from a confederacy, but it'd be pointless. Dictators and brtual warlords arose from virtually any form of government. They just needed an issue to fix. The point I'm trying to make is that centralization is not the key. Libertarians are not anarchists. In fact, in my state, in order to join the party I had to vow that I wasn't an anarchist. There are a great deal of people out there that say that Anarchy is too extreme, and Centeralization is too extreme, but the "happy middle" is *ANYTHING* but Libertarianism. You're one of those people.
Have you ever wondered what might happen if we, say, gave it a chance? Why not try legalizing drugs? Countries/cities in Europe did so and it's not like they blew up overnight. It's not like I'd start smoking up, either.
One of the biggest reasons why global warmning proponents have had issues in third world countries is not because their facts are inherently in err, but because the developers cannot understand why "Americans want us to make them a building" and "Other Americans want us to make it the 'wrong way'". They know how to make a building, the same way they always have, yet some foreigner comes in and says they are doing it 'wrong'. It's like telling them, "You're not doing it the way God wants you to".
You can't tell someone that the world is dying when it is right in front of them, unchanged for years. They are trying to make a living, they get offered an opportunity to improve their environment, and don't change. Yet for some reason, even with *this* atmospheric data you can see who the "big offenders" supposedly are.
Why then, do global warmning advocates expend so much time and effort making third world countries try to adhere to restrictions even the US and China don't want to?
There is so much on this rock that is yet unknown and unexplored, while we continue to destroy the planet recklessly.
(I'm killing my karma, but I don't post to/. just so I can moderate or whatever karma gives you, so I don't mind)
It's amazing how that no matter how many people continually debunk junk science, it is still accepted as fact that we are destroying our planet. Our effects are minimal compared to what other bodies, such as the sun, the moon, and the earth itself, are doing to the planet. Even worse, the people that blindly believe the global warmning theocracy in the US don't know anything about the urban heat island effect, climatology, or global warmning in general.
A climatologist I talked to once likened it to technical support. He said, "You ever had someone come up to you, start talking about something you know, start telling you about something related that's 'new' you heard about, and describing it all horribly wrong? It's like that."
Several instances immediately came to mind over the course of helping people with technical issues. No offense, but the same people telling me they use AOL because of their new "anti-hacker software puts up one of those hardware firewalls made by Dell" are the same people who claim that we are having massive hurricanes because of global warming. They say both with a straight face and work in retail, marketing, or accounting and I'm supposed to take these people's word on the environment?
Heaven forbid if you ever call them on it, cause hell, you don't know any more than they do. Even though your freaking job revolves around it. Or, in the case of the environment, you've at least *looked* at the points that the opposing side raises. I used to care about the environment till I started looking into it. Now I realize what a freaking waste of time it is to hear people debate about it. Which is why I only write about it once a year. And this is that time of the year.:)
I guess my point is: I don't tell you how to do your job, I don't make assumptions about how Enron is responsible for all these new accounting jobs/regulations/rules. I don't repeat verbatim what I hear in the news, nor do I talk as fact what I "perceive". I know my field, you know yours. Neither of us knows climatology, so you'll have to excuse me if I have to say that your assumptions remind me a tad bit of someone who subscribes to a religion instead of someone who actually knows and cares about the subject, rather than just using it as a sounding board for their latest rant.
No offense, but I'd consider the comparision of the campus lab monitors to be far more accurate than the comparision made by a journalist. Even if he is from the WSJ.
Yes, After reading all the insightful-modded comments about how Macs are no longer more expensive and slow I just have a few points:
1) I don't measure cost in just initial purchase price. I also measure it in upgradability price. Specifically when I go to upgrade, oh, say a motherboard or cpu. Additionally when I go to add on a feature like water cooling or maybe just a better power supply.
2) I don't measure speed in just cpu speed of mathematical computations. I measure it in speed of doing things that I actually do, like play games, edit AVIs, load webpages, and Photoshop. All at the same time.
I mean seriously, let's put things in perspective. Everyone here can use Pricewatch and/or NewEgg to design a top-of-the-line computer for under 600 bucks (if want to sacrifice a little processor performance, you can also get a dvd burner instead of a combo drive). If you are really dying for that flat panel add about another 200. Contrary to whatever geek-chic you've been fed, you do NOT have to buy an Alienware computer to be equivalent to the "coolness" of the Apple. There are still a lot of us out that that value performance and functionality over looks. For the love of God, we're talking about a computer, not a kitchen appliance.
Where is this mythical Apple computer that can play HalfLife, Doom3, and Star Wars Galaxies for under 800 bucks? For that matter, where do I buy the new G5 processor and new motherboard for my old iMac?
When the guy behind the counter asks you, "Coke or Pepsi", and you reply "Jolt Cola, please," you just have to sit back and take what you get.
No see, I don't, because if they say they don't have it, I can say, then I don't want either of those two. I'm out a pop, but they are out my money.
If you want to act like an asshole about (essentially) not voting, then don't be surprised in being treated like one.
I haven't spoken with any federal representatives, but I have spoken with state reps, and a great deal of the Republicans have had some really interesting things to say regarding my position. A lot of them say, "You're right, we need to quit promising this stuff, because it costs money, and that money isn't just going to come from nowhere or some magical pot."
If you want to talk about the third party vote tipping the scales, the non-voter is even more effective. If everyone in the US voted, the world would be a better place today.
The non-voter doesn't vote. Many don't even register. I take the time to register, I take the time to vote. And it must piss the living hell out of the Republicrats that it is never a vote for them. Either that, or it makes them wonder what they *could* do to get me to vote for them.
Voting should be mandatory in the US. If you don't vote, you are ineligible for any public/government services.
That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I'm a Libertarian, I want to GET RID OF those government services.
Name your favorite federal program and I'll tell you what is wrong with it.
Its kind of like ordering a hamburger at Friendlies "How do you want it cooked?" "Medium rare" "Oh we only do medium well or well" (yes I was actually given that "choice" once)
I was too. And you know what I did? I ate somewhere else. Yes, believe it or not, I'm the kind of customer that will walk out, not just because a line is long, but also because they aren't serving what I want.
Voting for a third party is turning and leaving. It's the ONLY option that makes the business/government consider possibly catering to your needs. If enough people start to do it, it will have drastic effect. If only a handful do it, it will still make them question the only two options I'm presented.
Abstaining from a vote is like ordering in or eating at home. If you don't go there, they aren't going to try to cater to you, save with marketing directed at the only two options they have. It's like knowing what is being offered and still refusing to dine there.
You will NEVER convince me I'm not making a point when I refuse to select from what they perceive as my only two options.
"Yes, the Commission made the wrong decision, and demonstrated that it is only interested in serving the narrow interests of its Republican and Democratic bosses," he said. "But, no, a lawsuit is not the solution."
In Perot's lawsuit -- which will be heard in appeal on Thursday -- the billionaire candidate argued that the Commission on Presidential Debates used subjective criteria for inclusion in the debates, while the Federal Election Commission (FEC) mandates objective criteria.
"That's another reason I didn't file a lawsuit," said Browne. "It would be hypocritical for a Libertarian to sue to enforce the laws of an agency we want to abolish. Through its regulations, the FEC has stifled political speech and systematically suppressed the growth of third parties. Libertarians would never go to court to argue that FEC regulations need to be enforced more strictly."
I disagreed with Browne. Mainly because the Replicrats recieve matching funds. Because of this, the "joint venture" of the CPD *is* essentially a government-funded entity.
Well, you have to realize that "matching funds" that the Republicans and Democrats get every year for this crap essentially means that there is no way they are a "private corporation", even if they claim they used "private monies" to make it. The fact is, they are subsized by the government. Thus any smaller "joint ventures" are funded by the federal government.
However, as a presidential candidate under the Libertarian party, I would not have done it. I think it was primarily done for media exposure. And the ploy worked. Doesn't change my opinion of either of the two main candidates, and certainly doesn't change my opinion of the Libertarian and Green party candidates.
Someone told me the other day my vote on a 3rd party candidate was wasted. Au contraire! It is precisely the 3rd party vote that caused Gore to lose and may very well determine the election this year. How is a vote that *didn't* go to one of the two major candidates a wasted vote when it's precisely the votes they pay attention to the most?
Actually, for all intensive purposes the floppy *is* dead. Think of how often you use it. For the longest time, the only reason to have a floppy was for booting off of into Linux or DOS, but with the advent of Knoppix and WinPE, even that has went to the wayside. Apply has been away from the floppy for about 6 years now and despite the horror of such a "risk" at the time, it has been largely uneventful.
The only real reason why the floppy is still around is because they add a whopping 3 bucks of value to the computer. Manufacturers offer them for free. Most computers (sans laptops) still have serial and parallel ports too, but it's not that big of a deal.
Zip drives were supposed to take over, but a combination of the click-of-death, and lackluster iomega support seemingly killed that idea. I still have a copy of slackware on a zip drive that I will probably never lose. I think it is pretty safe to say that USB pen drives (jumpdrives or whatever) are fast replacing what little use is left in the floppy.
Slashdot Mirror
There's nothing that says the phone company cannot have a case against the person marketing with an autodialer.
Just as there is nothing that says the ISP cannot have a case against the person marketing with a spammer. Or, tool like the one this individual made.
Lawsuits are better than broad definitions of "legal" and "illegal".
I'm glad you think so. You'd make an excellent stooge for our program that is intended to debunk the myth that writing P2P applications are legal. Because as everyone knows, P2P is "hijacking" someone else's computer and connection.
Even better, is that his quote makes it seem like he's an honorable expert in the area of IT employment across the nation when he's 18 and probably still living in his parent's house .
If you need any proof, go to Yahoo pool or any of the sk8r chat rooms. You'll actually find the 15-year-old hacker is much more bearable. Then again, you might have already went to those rooms before and don't see much of a difference.
Here's two samples:
hacker
sk8r
I'm ashamed of what I've done in the past too. But the thing is, I don't *advertise* it. This kid uses "got raided by the FBI" as a plank on his resume. It's quite clear that he only wants a certain type of employer. And he's probably exactly the kind of bright underestimated kid I'd employ if I wanted someone that I knew didn't care about business morals and ethics.
Meanwhile, the rest of us sit here and condemn the kid: jealous that he gets to be honest with his employer about his past, while we have to hide the fact that we are responsible for hacking baby bells and causing over $100,000 in lost software and damages. For example, of course. Not that we really did that much. Even though they claimed we did. Wait, are we still talking about spam?
If you read the article, it's clear this kid has crossed the line.
Actually, I'm a little surprised you would say such a thing. It's *far* from clear. What line did he cross?
He wrote DDoS code. That's it. He was raided by the FBI for source code. You cannot tell me in one breath that source code is free speech and then say that the FBI was justified for the raid.
He wrote spam software. Big deal. I wrote spam software for my employer, only I'm supposedly using it for "legitimate purposes" because my employer is a public institution. Give me a break!
Maybe we can't catch and prosecute the phishers overseas, but we can catch and prosecute the punks helping them out from the U.S.
For what, releasing source code? I fear the world you expect me to live in. You cannot say that the people who implement a law punishing this kid for his source code aren't going to simply turn around and likewise punish developers of DVD decoding software. Or worse, creators of tools like nmap, tcpdump, and more.
Why? Because if there is anything that History 101 should have taught you, it's that it's the nature of the government to gain, and the people to lose. Security over liberty. Protection over rights. I'm sorry, I'd rather live in a world where my biggest fear is a Windows virus than a world where coding in "that hacker OS *nix" is forbidden save for those "authorized" to do so.
"Because of outsourcing [of software and system administration jobs], it's one of the only ways a hacker can make money," says Kittridge.
Okay, let's get a few things straight here. No offense, but you are 18. You haven't been in the "job market", and I hope to god you've been doing well in school. I imagine you've gotten great grades.
That said: have you looked at college? They aren't going to judge you as much there, and you can most likely go. You can also meet some really cool people your age and work with a lot of bright professors.
Don't get me wrong, I've done my fair share of "black hat" activity, most of which I keep quiet about now, but 15 to 18 is when you're allowed to do exactly that. Now is your chance to really shine and excel in information security classes at a university.
You can still hang out with some of your old IRC friends. I did till I was about 23. Then you realize you quit actually being interested in the same hacks and you start to think that all the new "kids" don't really know what they are doing. Then you start overusing the term "script kiddie".
Don't get me wrong, a lot of people erroneously call younger (and often brighter) hackers "script kiddies" simply because you might develop and use tools that require no thought. What you don't know is they were all using tutorials and very few of them actually coded their own exploits as well. In essence, the stuff they complain about you doing is stuff they would have done at the same age.
But that doesn't mean that you're heading in the right direction. Getting caught at age 15 is stupid. What is worse is the fact you are still in "the biz". I would highly suggest moving on with your life and applying outside of just a few places where you lead with, "I'm a hacker" for an interview.
The only reason why people aren't hiring you is because you still revel in your actions.
Or it's like hearing me rant on about the right to own nuclear weapons. Everyone thinks I'm insane, and there was a point when I would have thought so too, but I always think to a future time when nuclear devices may be essential to mining asteroids. It's in science fiction that a lot of stuff that seem ludicrous now is actually quite sane.
:)
Asteroid miners of 2095 might look back at bans on nuclear technology (which by the way, we don't actually have. You can technically *own* a nuke and there's no law against it right now) the same way we look back at laws requiring automobile drivers to shoot flares up every 5 minutes and laugh.
(Oh, and by the way, I forget which state it is, but that's actually still a law in one of them.
Trust me, the laughs I have regarding the claims Greens make on global warming, pollution, and the whole irony of failing to see that the EPA sells licenses to pollute, keep me going for far longer than any Libertarian explaining his position.
I read the article and actually see nothing he covered that is anything different than patents now. I'm not a patent lawyer though. I suppose copyright law doesn't require an open source version, but patent law usually requires a working prototype of whatever it is that you are going to patent. It's the reason why I don't own the patent on the windowed refrigerator, even though I originally came up with the idea in class when I was 7. I knew it'd be possible one day, but I didn't know how.
To get straight to the point, though, I don't like this suggestion at all. The copyright and patent system is inherently flawed and stifles competition far more than it dulls innovation. Innovation is driven by *need*. By patenting a pair of pants, you can get down to the very atomic makeup and they are actually quit different from each other. The only difference is, what we "see" is two pairs of the same kind of pants, so when the two owners of said jeans come in and complain about each other stealing the others idea, we somehow came to the conclusion that the "first guy" is the one that owns the patent.
It's easy for us, as programmers and scripters, to know why software patents are horrible. It's because we will run into software on a regular basis that is something that we *can* make and indeed *could* have. If people were patenting and copyrighting these ideas, they'd be basically getting the government thugs to route out competition.
What kind of an environment is the US government promoting when it can't see that it's being "used" to enforce anti-competitive policies?
Wow. We've gone from viruses pretending to be porn in order to do funny things to your computer to viruses pretending to be something funny that give you porn.
I agree, the REAL problem isn't the price though, it's the controls. Keyboards (or keypads) and mice should come default. Why the hell would I, as a computer gamer of umpteen years, want to start aiming with an extremely sensitive thumbstick when a mouse/keyboard combination should easily cost the same?
No of course I don't agree with this article, I love my job.
BTW, did I ever tell you that one of my coworkers (who I don't get along with) audits the logs of all employee posts to websites?
I agree on the small things. They can see the changes that turning off the lights saves power. They can't see how fitting a filter to the end of a smokestack is going to save/benefit them.
Way to miss the analogy, Spock. If you don't vote in an election, do you just not get a President? Nope, you still get one.
/agree. But I can read a liar. A liar is Bush eyes when he complains about the programs Kerry plans on implementing will cost too much, knowing full well that his own record on spending is horrible.
I didn't miss it. Are you saying that they are giving me a pop for "free"? I think perhaps your analogy was bad in the first place.
Yeah, which usually means either lying to you or marginalizing you.
Libertarians take a virtue pair (liberty and property rights) and elevate it above all others (like life, safety, comfort, prosperity).
Life, Liberty, and Property. There is none higher. The right to live doesn't mean someone is going to hand you your life on a platter. The right to liberty doesn't mean that you're not responsible for your actions. The right to property does not mean that you will be given a house or car. They are negative rights. No one has to sacrifice anything to give them to you. And seriously, how the hell are you going to guarantee me propsperity? I want to live in your world. The one where the government hands out 15 minutes of fame to each and every person. Maybe I can have a national "Sheepdot" day where I get free advertising for my online handle.
The end result of the Libertarian Party is anarchy. Completely fucking stupid.
No, it's state and personal responsiblity. The Federal government, contrary to popular opinion is not the solution for everything. Decentralization is better than Centralization. There is no argument otherwise. Police exist to "Protect and Serve". It's been their motto and creed since their inception, and yet they are busting down doors to houses based upon who someone has sex with or what kind of smoke they are inhaling.
It doesn't make sense that an entity designed to protect us from each other and this "anarchy" you speak of, is making judgement calls on how we run our lives. Granted, it's not the cops making the decisions, they are just doing their jobs, but since when do we need permission "to" do something rather than always having the right ahead of time?
Out of anarchy comes gangsters, comes dictators, comes the need to fight all over again for freedom and democracy.
Here again, it is not an anarchy, though I imagine it could be considered a "confederacy" for what I'm calling for. I could also ask you to name one instance in history where a "dictator" arose from a confederacy, but it'd be pointless. Dictators and brtual warlords arose from virtually any form of government. They just needed an issue to fix. The point I'm trying to make is that centralization is not the key. Libertarians are not anarchists. In fact, in my state, in order to join the party I had to vow that I wasn't an anarchist. There are a great deal of people out there that say that Anarchy is too extreme, and Centeralization is too extreme, but the "happy middle" is *ANYTHING* but Libertarianism. You're one of those people.
Have you ever wondered what might happen if we, say, gave it a chance? Why not try legalizing drugs? Countries/cities in Europe did so and it's not like they blew up overnight. It's not like I'd start smoking up, either.
One of the biggest reasons why global warmning proponents have had issues in third world countries is not because their facts are inherently in err, but because the developers cannot understand why "Americans want us to make them a building" and "Other Americans want us to make it the 'wrong way'". They know how to make a building, the same way they always have, yet some foreigner comes in and says they are doing it 'wrong'. It's like telling them, "You're not doing it the way God wants you to".
You can't tell someone that the world is dying when it is right in front of them, unchanged for years. They are trying to make a living, they get offered an opportunity to improve their environment, and don't change. Yet for some reason, even with *this* atmospheric data you can see who the "big offenders" supposedly are.
Why then, do global warmning advocates expend so much time and effort making third world countries try to adhere to restrictions even the US and China don't want to?
There is so much on this rock that is yet unknown and unexplored, while we continue to destroy the planet recklessly.
/. just so I can moderate or whatever karma gives you, so I don't mind)
:)
(I'm killing my karma, but I don't post to
It's amazing how that no matter how many people continually debunk junk science, it is still accepted as fact that we are destroying our planet. Our effects are minimal compared to what other bodies, such as the sun, the moon, and the earth itself, are doing to the planet. Even worse, the people that blindly believe the global warmning theocracy in the US don't know anything about the urban heat island effect, climatology, or global warmning in general.
A climatologist I talked to once likened it to technical support. He said, "You ever had someone come up to you, start talking about something you know, start telling you about something related that's 'new' you heard about, and describing it all horribly wrong? It's like that."
Several instances immediately came to mind over the course of helping people with technical issues. No offense, but the same people telling me they use AOL because of their new "anti-hacker software puts up one of those hardware firewalls made by Dell" are the same people who claim that we are having massive hurricanes because of global warming. They say both with a straight face and work in retail, marketing, or accounting and I'm supposed to take these people's word on the environment?
Heaven forbid if you ever call them on it, cause hell, you don't know any more than they do. Even though your freaking job revolves around it. Or, in the case of the environment, you've at least *looked* at the points that the opposing side raises. I used to care about the environment till I started looking into it. Now I realize what a freaking waste of time it is to hear people debate about it. Which is why I only write about it once a year. And this is that time of the year.
I guess my point is: I don't tell you how to do your job, I don't make assumptions about how Enron is responsible for all these new accounting jobs/regulations/rules. I don't repeat verbatim what I hear in the news, nor do I talk as fact what I "perceive". I know my field, you know yours. Neither of us knows climatology, so you'll have to excuse me if I have to say that your assumptions remind me a tad bit of someone who subscribes to a religion instead of someone who actually knows and cares about the subject, rather than just using it as a sounding board for their latest rant.
No offense, but I'd consider the comparision of the campus lab monitors to be far more accurate than the comparision made by a journalist. Even if he is from the WSJ.
Yes, After reading all the insightful-modded comments about how Macs are no longer more expensive and slow I just have a few points:
1) I don't measure cost in just initial purchase price. I also measure it in upgradability price. Specifically when I go to upgrade, oh, say a motherboard or cpu. Additionally when I go to add on a feature like water cooling or maybe just a better power supply.
2) I don't measure speed in just cpu speed of mathematical computations. I measure it in speed of doing things that I actually do, like play games, edit AVIs, load webpages, and Photoshop. All at the same time.
I mean seriously, let's put things in perspective. Everyone here can use Pricewatch and/or NewEgg to design a top-of-the-line computer for under 600 bucks (if want to sacrifice a little processor performance, you can also get a dvd burner instead of a combo drive). If you are really dying for that flat panel add about another 200. Contrary to whatever geek-chic you've been fed, you do NOT have to buy an Alienware computer to be equivalent to the "coolness" of the Apple. There are still a lot of us out that that value performance and functionality over looks. For the love of God, we're talking about a computer, not a kitchen appliance.
Where is this mythical Apple computer that can play HalfLife, Doom3, and Star Wars Galaxies for under 800 bucks? For that matter, where do I buy the new G5 processor and new motherboard for my old iMac?
When the guy behind the counter asks you, "Coke or Pepsi", and you reply "Jolt Cola, please," you just have to sit back and take what you get.
No see, I don't, because if they say they don't have it, I can say, then I don't want either of those two. I'm out a pop, but they are out my money.
If you want to act like an asshole about (essentially) not voting, then don't be surprised in being treated like one.
I haven't spoken with any federal representatives, but I have spoken with state reps, and a great deal of the Republicans have had some really interesting things to say regarding my position. A lot of them say, "You're right, we need to quit promising this stuff, because it costs money, and that money isn't just going to come from nowhere or some magical pot."
If you want to talk about the third party vote tipping the scales, the non-voter is even more effective. If everyone in the US voted, the world would be a better place today.
The non-voter doesn't vote. Many don't even register. I take the time to register, I take the time to vote. And it must piss the living hell out of the Republicrats that it is never a vote for them. Either that, or it makes them wonder what they *could* do to get me to vote for them.
Voting should be mandatory in the US. If you don't vote, you are ineligible for any public/government services.
That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I'm a Libertarian, I want to GET RID OF those government services.
Name your favorite federal program and I'll tell you what is wrong with it.
Its kind of like ordering a hamburger at Friendlies
"How do you want it cooked?"
"Medium rare"
"Oh we only do medium well or well"
(yes I was actually given that "choice" once)
I was too. And you know what I did? I ate somewhere else. Yes, believe it or not, I'm the kind of customer that will walk out, not just because a line is long, but also because they aren't serving what I want.
Voting for a third party is turning and leaving. It's the ONLY option that makes the business/government consider possibly catering to your needs. If enough people start to do it, it will have drastic effect. If only a handful do it, it will still make them question the only two options I'm presented.
Abstaining from a vote is like ordering in or eating at home. If you don't go there, they aren't going to try to cater to you, save with marketing directed at the only two options they have. It's like knowing what is being offered and still refusing to dine there.
You will NEVER convince me I'm not making a point when I refuse to select from what they perceive as my only two options.
"Yes, the Commission made the wrong decision, and demonstrated that it is only interested in serving the narrow interests of its Republican and Democratic bosses," he said. "But, no, a lawsuit is not the solution."
In Perot's lawsuit -- which will be heard in appeal on Thursday -- the billionaire candidate argued that the Commission on Presidential Debates used subjective criteria for inclusion in the debates, while the Federal Election Commission (FEC) mandates objective criteria.
"That's another reason I didn't file a lawsuit," said Browne. "It would be hypocritical for a Libertarian to sue to enforce the laws of an agency we want to abolish. Through its regulations, the FEC has stifled political speech and systematically suppressed the growth of third parties. Libertarians would never go to court to argue that FEC regulations need to be enforced more strictly."
I disagreed with Browne. Mainly because the Replicrats recieve matching funds. Because of this, the "joint venture" of the CPD *is* essentially a government-funded entity.
Well, you have to realize that "matching funds" that the Republicans and Democrats get every year for this crap essentially means that there is no way they are a "private corporation", even if they claim they used "private monies" to make it. The fact is, they are subsized by the government. Thus any smaller "joint ventures" are funded by the federal government.
However, as a presidential candidate under the Libertarian party, I would not have done it. I think it was primarily done for media exposure. And the ploy worked. Doesn't change my opinion of either of the two main candidates, and certainly doesn't change my opinion of the Libertarian and Green party candidates.
Someone told me the other day my vote on a 3rd party candidate was wasted. Au contraire! It is precisely the 3rd party vote that caused Gore to lose and may very well determine the election this year. How is a vote that *didn't* go to one of the two major candidates a wasted vote when it's precisely the votes they pay attention to the most?
Actually, for all intensive purposes the floppy *is* dead. Think of how often you use it. For the longest time, the only reason to have a floppy was for booting off of into Linux or DOS, but with the advent of Knoppix and WinPE, even that has went to the wayside. Apply has been away from the floppy for about 6 years now and despite the horror of such a "risk" at the time, it has been largely uneventful.
The only real reason why the floppy is still around is because they add a whopping 3 bucks of value to the computer. Manufacturers offer them for free. Most computers (sans laptops) still have serial and parallel ports too, but it's not that big of a deal.
Zip drives were supposed to take over, but a combination of the click-of-death, and lackluster iomega support seemingly killed that idea. I still have a copy of slackware on a zip drive that I will probably never lose. I think it is pretty safe to say that USB pen drives (jumpdrives or whatever) are fast replacing what little use is left in the floppy.
Also of note, Administrative login is available here:i n/logon .aspx?ReturnUrl=%2fWADAAdmin%2findex.aspx
https://www.digitalarchives.wa.gov/WADAAdm
It appears to not be succeptible to a common IIS/ASP script injection bug: ' or 0=0 --
Good work.