Block access to any company that doesn't comply with local laws. China has shown a willingness, as well as a reasonably degree of success, at doing this.
Keep in mind that these companies are wanting to do business in China, so they must comply with local laws, which itself is pretty reasonable. If they don't like it, they don't have to do biz in China. They don't have a right to sell to China or any other foreign country simply by the virtue of being a business.
I have a novel idea: How about we stay the fuck out. The last thing the US needs is to get involved in "nation building" where we weren't invited. Our track record over the last several decades isn't that good when it comes to nation building anyway. Just not our forte.
Oh, don't get me wrong, when you need people killed or stuff broken, our American military is seriously second to none. Perhaps that is what we should stick to, when it is appropriate.
At this point, it would seem the Egyptian citizens have taken responsibility for their own destinies, and unless we are clearly and unambiguously invited, we should stay out. And even if invited, if we can't help them according their own wished, for any reason, then we still stay out. The LAST thing we need is sticking our noses in the middle east when it isn't wanted. From what I can tell, what the citizens want from the US is only VERBAL support anyway. They don't want us there, for good reasons.
Again, this is from a vet, so is a son of a retired Korea/Vietnam vet. If you have no experience in the military or have no family members to risk, you are welcome to disagree.
If you are religious, then you would believe in heaven, so when you die, you go to the great picnic in the sky. Nothing the fear.
However, I have noticed religious people ARE afraid of death. So this means either they are afraid of potato salad, or they don't really believe what they they say they believe, no matter how hard and often they tell themselves.
I'm assuming the gene doesn't actually make you "religious", it just predisposes you to being suggestible and superstitious, which is pretty much the foundation of any religion. ie: People with that gene are less skeptical in general. Just my take on it.
I think the reason it worked in Germany and Japan is that the citizens of those countries were (for the most part) completely behind their governments, so when their governments were removed, they had to have something put in its place. The mistake we made in Iraq (among many) is removing most of the people in government: military, police, bureaucracy, etc . We didn't do this in Japan and Germany to this degree. It means everyone that is inserted into any position is starting from zero, which is tough to do with that many positions.
In the middle east, the citizens are NOT behind the governments as much as people think. They have simply tolerated them, until now. Our government keeps pushing for stability, but in doing so, they are supporting the very oppression that is leading to the riots. This is why the powers that will take control will end up being anti-US, just like it happened in Iran during the 70s revolution. That is what is so frustrating: We KNOW this will happen, but our policies continue to be short sighted, after all these many decades.
The Iranians will have real elections again, we just slowed down their progress.
That is the point that is lost of our government. At some point, the US govt. (MY govt) needs to learn when to get the fuck out of the business of trying to run other countries, and let the citizens figure it out on their own. I may take a couple of lifetimes, but our history is flooded with us interfering with other countries, and it always backfiring.
And no, I'm not an idealistic kid. I'm in my 40s, ex military, and the son of retired military. It would also be nice if our military was used for defense, instead of nation building after we destroy the country to begin with.
His link looks nothing like a Google cache, and I can't see that it is. If I had seen the word "cache" in the link, I would have assumed it was such. I appreciate, but I don't think that answers the question.
After more inspection, it appears he hovered over the address in a Google page search, right clicked and "copy link address" and just pasted that, instead of going to the page and copying the address. IE: was citing a search result, not an actual page, which is kinda lazy because it isn't confirming the contents of the citation. Again, not a good way to provide a link, as thinks often get broke that way, and you haven't confirmed the content of the page you are linking.
I would agree, except you are wrong. To date, there is no moderate Muslim state. You are talking about individuals, he is talking about institutions.
This isn't a slam against Islam, it is a slam against the governments that profess to follow Islam. He is correct, there is no progressive Muslim state. You only have two kinds of Muslim states in todays world: Oppressive, and Very Oppressive. As soon as the people start speaking out in any way, they ratchet up the oppression, like every other Muslim state. The problem isn't the religion, it is using the religion as a basis for a government.
And before someone says "Turkey", they aren't a Muslim state, they are a secular state with a predominantly Muslim population.
Sorry, but you aren't nearly as funny as a few hurried moderators think you are.
I haven't tried using the stock telnet client until just now. I use Putty on winboxes anyway, but it is pretty stupid to delete the telnet client in the OS. MS has a habit of deleting features that are handy. Like their cardfile.exe from Win3.1 that got dropped in 95, etc., as well as NOT providing symbolic links/shortcuts for old programs that have been superseded.
The telnet server doesn't have issues. If all you need is a completely insecure way to connect to a machine, you can't beat telnet. It has been around forever, every OS has a client, completely open standard, and it is very fast and easy to use. Even better than ssh.
If you are foolish enough to setup a telnet server that faces the INTERNET, well then, the problem isn't the daemon, it is the administrator. Point being that there are still some uses where telnet might be appropriate and perfectly functional, as long as the boxen are facing in, and not out toward the real world.
And I don't think I've ever in my life seen a monitor that can run at 1920x1080 natively.
I own several. As a matter of fact, MOST of my monitors run it natively. Two are Vizio 42" TVs that I use for monitors, the rest are 24" monitors at home and work. 1920x1080 is not even remotely a big deal. Most newer 37" TVs do that, and many 32" TVs are starting to.
And 1280x1024 is a 4:3 aspect ratio, unlike 1920x1080, which is 16:9, so obviously your 4:3 monitors aren't running HD natively, and since most new monitors are 16:9, it sounds like you are talking about monitors over 2 years old. Not a good guide for how common "new" stuff is.
You do know that by the time a DVD is produced and ripped, the film has already been pirated a million times or more, right?
And to everyone else, while it is TECHNICALLY possible to use special glasses to film, or do other tricks, the fact remains that it generally ISN'T being done, and 3D movies ONE AVERAGE are released into the scene later than 2D only movies, which means it works for the studios. Jeez....
Do they not open the damn files as they come down? If only for a cursory glance to confirm.
It would appear not. Some people are actually "document" hoarders (for varying definitions of "document"). They want a copy of everything even if they aren't going to use it immediately, or ever. Even "trusted" torrents are often bogus. I think this might be a weak attempt to prevent piracy, which of course, doesn't work that well. After all, the price for a "document" is the same if you have to download one version or six versions, for most people: $0.
I can't read your post because your lack of capitalization makes me angry.
Seriously, what is it about some people that can't stand informality in an informal forum? You are really incapable of considering someone's opinion or facts simply because of the informal method they use to describe it? Should/. reject all submissions that have sentence fragments, poor punctuation or flawed grammar as well? I am simply sick of all the grammar spelling nazis whose only contribution to the conversation is to nitpick about the way someone else presented their ideas. Leave if it is that difficult to comprehend, or at least stfu about it.
You know why studios love 3D? Because it is impossible to pirate while it is in the theatre. It gives them a larger window of exclusivity. It is an incidental form of DRM.
Oh come on. A good chunk of the US still seems to practically define itself through resentment at the North over the civil war.
Maybe 30 years ago, but you really don't see much of that now. You DO see southerners who don't like yankees, not because of the Civil War, but because their culture makes them come off as assholes to southerners. It isn't hard to tell who isn't "from around here" by simply talking to someone. Northerners tend to be more pushy and aggressive in their speaking. Many northerners assume southerners are dumb redneck hillbillies. It isn't about the Civil War, its about the differences in culture. I live in one of the least progressive counties in North Carolina, where whites will still complain about blacks (not in public, like 20 years ago), but you rarely see confederate flags any more, as an example. The rhetoric is very different than when I was 20 (I'm mid 40s now).
I've lived all over the USA, in both metro and rural areas, and the Civil War isn't even a topic of conversation anymore. Your less educated and more racist element still thinks all blacks are lazy and on welfare, but again, no one even mentions the Civil War. They don't question civil rights. Their attitude is simply "you stay in your neighborhood, and I will stay in mine". And to be fair, not all undereducated people feel that way. They rag about Latinos mainly, because they are taking the jobs that no one wants, but even that is muted compared to just a couple decades ago.
Like Iran? Iraq? They might be "new" countries, but their culture goes back even before Islam. The Ottoman Empire ended 100 years ago, which is the source of many of those countries, before Britain and others carved them up. You have people in the middle east still pissed off about the Spanish Inquisition.
I thought maybe isolate both sides for 100 years or so. Give them time to cool off.
Yeah, because it's not like the Jews or Muslim to carry a grudge for hundreds of years, right?
I'm guessing you are a fellow American. We tend to underestimate the longevity of a grudge in the rest of the world. The beginning of the US seems like a long time ago to us, but to the rest of the world, we are still kids. Then again, we haven't gone that far out of our way to prove them wrong.
Father in law was the same way, we started him with AOL many years ago, got him to get cable a few years later, spent a couple years with both because we couldn't convince him. Finally he got it and quit aol, but only after spending hundreds in unneeded service. Some (many) older people are just hardheaded as they claimed their kids to be 50 years earlier. They just won't change out of fear of loss.
I think the problem is that with a cyber attack, you don't know if the computer attacking you is the actual person, a proxy, and pwned box or what. In a physical attack, yeah, I say pick up a 2x4 and pop them in the head. In a cyber attack, it is pretty easy to attack the wrong target, maybe bogging up some routers along the way causing inconvenience to innocent bystanders as well. I personally would like to see mass spammers and other cyber criminals get a firing squad on public television, as a deterrent, but not sure going vigilante is the right answer.
Slashdot Mirror
Block access to any company that doesn't comply with local laws. China has shown a willingness, as well as a reasonably degree of success, at doing this.
Keep in mind that these companies are wanting to do business in China, so they must comply with local laws, which itself is pretty reasonable. If they don't like it, they don't have to do biz in China. They don't have a right to sell to China or any other foreign country simply by the virtue of being a business.
It's a trap!
I have a novel idea: How about we stay the fuck out. The last thing the US needs is to get involved in "nation building" where we weren't invited. Our track record over the last several decades isn't that good when it comes to nation building anyway. Just not our forte.
Oh, don't get me wrong, when you need people killed or stuff broken, our American military is seriously second to none. Perhaps that is what we should stick to, when it is appropriate.
At this point, it would seem the Egyptian citizens have taken responsibility for their own destinies, and unless we are clearly and unambiguously invited, we should stay out. And even if invited, if we can't help them according their own wished, for any reason, then we still stay out. The LAST thing we need is sticking our noses in the middle east when it isn't wanted. From what I can tell, what the citizens want from the US is only VERBAL support anyway. They don't want us there, for good reasons.
Again, this is from a vet, so is a son of a retired Korea/Vietnam vet. If you have no experience in the military or have no family members to risk, you are welcome to disagree.
Aren't the majority of nuclear bombs of the Teller-Ulam design?
I guess it depends on the isotope.
If you are religious, then you would believe in heaven, so when you die, you go to the great picnic in the sky. Nothing the fear.
However, I have noticed religious people ARE afraid of death. So this means either they are afraid of potato salad, or they don't really believe what they they say they believe, no matter how hard and often they tell themselves.
I'm assuming the gene doesn't actually make you "religious", it just predisposes you to being suggestible and superstitious, which is pretty much the foundation of any religion. ie: People with that gene are less skeptical in general. Just my take on it.
I think the reason it worked in Germany and Japan is that the citizens of those countries were (for the most part) completely behind their governments, so when their governments were removed, they had to have something put in its place. The mistake we made in Iraq (among many) is removing most of the people in government: military, police, bureaucracy, etc . We didn't do this in Japan and Germany to this degree. It means everyone that is inserted into any position is starting from zero, which is tough to do with that many positions.
In the middle east, the citizens are NOT behind the governments as much as people think. They have simply tolerated them, until now. Our government keeps pushing for stability, but in doing so, they are supporting the very oppression that is leading to the riots. This is why the powers that will take control will end up being anti-US, just like it happened in Iran during the 70s revolution. That is what is so frustrating: We KNOW this will happen, but our policies continue to be short sighted, after all these many decades.
The Iranians will have real elections again, we just slowed down their progress.
That is the point that is lost of our government. At some point, the US govt. (MY govt) needs to learn when to get the fuck out of the business of trying to run other countries, and let the citizens figure it out on their own. I may take a couple of lifetimes, but our history is flooded with us interfering with other countries, and it always backfiring.
And no, I'm not an idealistic kid. I'm in my 40s, ex military, and the son of retired military. It would also be nice if our military was used for defense, instead of nation building after we destroy the country to begin with.
Except a google cache link normally looks like this:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:aMP7SIVhyggJ:www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/wickard.html+http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/wickard.html&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com
His link looks nothing like a Google cache, and I can't see that it is. If I had seen the word "cache" in the link, I would have assumed it was such. I appreciate, but I don't think that answers the question.
After more inspection, it appears he hovered over the address in a Google page search, right clicked and "copy link address" and just pasted that, instead of going to the page and copying the address. IE: was citing a search result, not an actual page, which is kinda lazy because it isn't confirming the contents of the citation. Again, not a good way to provide a link, as thinks often get broke that way, and you haven't confirmed the content of the page you are linking.
I would agree, except you are wrong. To date, there is no moderate Muslim state. You are talking about individuals, he is talking about institutions.
This isn't a slam against Islam, it is a slam against the governments that profess to follow Islam. He is correct, there is no progressive Muslim state. You only have two kinds of Muslim states in todays world: Oppressive, and Very Oppressive. As soon as the people start speaking out in any way, they ratchet up the oppression, like every other Muslim state. The problem isn't the religion, it is using the religion as a basis for a government.
And before someone says "Turkey", they aren't a Muslim state, they are a secular state with a predominantly Muslim population.
Sorry, but you aren't nearly as funny as a few hurried moderators think you are.
I haven't tried using the stock telnet client until just now. I use Putty on winboxes anyway, but it is pretty stupid to delete the telnet client in the OS. MS has a habit of deleting features that are handy. Like their cardfile.exe from Win3.1 that got dropped in 95, etc., as well as NOT providing symbolic links/shortcuts for old programs that have been superseded.
Why would you give such a convoluted address like
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CB4QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.law.umkc.edu%2Ffaculty%2Fprojects%2Fftrials%2Fconlaw%2Fwickard.html&rct=j&q=%22interstate%20commerce%22%20wheat%20quota&ei=b_ZBTdzgPIX4gAfj_umxAQ&usg=AFQjCNF7d9isNCMMNeYeQ__i98uHFPon2A&cad=rja
When you could have given the direct url of http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/wickard.html, or the better link at Wikipedia, which explains the case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
I'm too lazy to see if there is revenue sharing in that, but it is doesn't seem be to a good way to link.
The telnet server doesn't have issues. If all you need is a completely insecure way to connect to a machine, you can't beat telnet. It has been around forever, every OS has a client, completely open standard, and it is very fast and easy to use. Even better than ssh.
If you are foolish enough to setup a telnet server that faces the INTERNET, well then, the problem isn't the daemon, it is the administrator. Point being that there are still some uses where telnet might be appropriate and perfectly functional, as long as the boxen are facing in, and not out toward the real world.
Well if tobacco warnings are anything to go on, I would also expect to see "Warning: Video games can make you blind"
You're thinking of porn, not video games.
I'm on a mediocre box, XP/32, Core 2 E7500, 3gb. Chrome is using 50MB & 0-2% CPU. Must be an OS-X/Chrome thing.
And I don't think I've ever in my life seen a monitor that can run at 1920x1080 natively.
I own several. As a matter of fact, MOST of my monitors run it natively. Two are Vizio 42" TVs that I use for monitors, the rest are 24" monitors at home and work. 1920x1080 is not even remotely a big deal. Most newer 37" TVs do that, and many 32" TVs are starting to.
And 1280x1024 is a 4:3 aspect ratio, unlike 1920x1080, which is 16:9, so obviously your 4:3 monitors aren't running HD natively, and since most new monitors are 16:9, it sounds like you are talking about monitors over 2 years old. Not a good guide for how common "new" stuff is.
You do know that by the time a DVD is produced and ripped, the film has already been pirated a million times or more, right?
And to everyone else, while it is TECHNICALLY possible to use special glasses to film, or do other tricks, the fact remains that it generally ISN'T being done, and 3D movies ONE AVERAGE are released into the scene later than 2D only movies, which means it works for the studios. Jeez....
Do they not open the damn files as they come down? If only for a cursory glance to confirm.
It would appear not. Some people are actually "document" hoarders (for varying definitions of "document"). They want a copy of everything even if they aren't going to use it immediately, or ever. Even "trusted" torrents are often bogus. I think this might be a weak attempt to prevent piracy, which of course, doesn't work that well. After all, the price for a "document" is the same if you have to download one version or six versions, for most people: $0.
I can't read your post because your lack of capitalization makes me angry.
Seriously, what is it about some people that can't stand informality in an informal forum? You are really incapable of considering someone's opinion or facts simply because of the informal method they use to describe it? Should /. reject all submissions that have sentence fragments, poor punctuation or flawed grammar as well? I am simply sick of all the grammar spelling nazis whose only contribution to the conversation is to nitpick about the way someone else presented their ideas. Leave if it is that difficult to comprehend, or at least stfu about it.
You know why studios love 3D? Because it is impossible to pirate while it is in the theatre. It gives them a larger window of exclusivity. It is an incidental form of DRM.
Oh come on. A good chunk of the US still seems to practically define itself through resentment at the North over the civil war.
Maybe 30 years ago, but you really don't see much of that now. You DO see southerners who don't like yankees, not because of the Civil War, but because their culture makes them come off as assholes to southerners. It isn't hard to tell who isn't "from around here" by simply talking to someone. Northerners tend to be more pushy and aggressive in their speaking. Many northerners assume southerners are dumb redneck hillbillies. It isn't about the Civil War, its about the differences in culture. I live in one of the least progressive counties in North Carolina, where whites will still complain about blacks (not in public, like 20 years ago), but you rarely see confederate flags any more, as an example. The rhetoric is very different than when I was 20 (I'm mid 40s now).
I've lived all over the USA, in both metro and rural areas, and the Civil War isn't even a topic of conversation anymore. Your less educated and more racist element still thinks all blacks are lazy and on welfare, but again, no one even mentions the Civil War. They don't question civil rights. Their attitude is simply "you stay in your neighborhood, and I will stay in mine". And to be fair, not all undereducated people feel that way. They rag about Latinos mainly, because they are taking the jobs that no one wants, but even that is muted compared to just a couple decades ago.
Like Iran? Iraq? They might be "new" countries, but their culture goes back even before Islam. The Ottoman Empire ended 100 years ago, which is the source of many of those countries, before Britain and others carved them up. You have people in the middle east still pissed off about the Spanish Inquisition.
I thought maybe isolate both sides for 100 years or so. Give them time to cool off.
Yeah, because it's not like the Jews or Muslim to carry a grudge for hundreds of years, right?
I'm guessing you are a fellow American. We tend to underestimate the longevity of a grudge in the rest of the world. The beginning of the US seems like a long time ago to us, but to the rest of the world, we are still kids. Then again, we haven't gone that far out of our way to prove them wrong.
Father in law was the same way, we started him with AOL many years ago, got him to get cable a few years later, spent a couple years with both because we couldn't convince him. Finally he got it and quit aol, but only after spending hundreds in unneeded service. Some (many) older people are just hardheaded as they claimed their kids to be 50 years earlier. They just won't change out of fear of loss.
I think the problem is that with a cyber attack, you don't know if the computer attacking you is the actual person, a proxy, and pwned box or what. In a physical attack, yeah, I say pick up a 2x4 and pop them in the head. In a cyber attack, it is pretty easy to attack the wrong target, maybe bogging up some routers along the way causing inconvenience to innocent bystanders as well. I personally would like to see mass spammers and other cyber criminals get a firing squad on public television, as a deterrent, but not sure going vigilante is the right answer.