How about starting a new campaign? I personally have been on this campaign for a while now due to the insanity that is known as the music industry
Campaign title: I choose piracy!!
I have been refusing to buy Major Label albums for years now, trouble is even most of the indies are being fuXored by the majors and the RIAA through distribution and legislation deals that are wrought in the favor of business and not art.
Later on as more facts came in, I began refusing to buy any albums/cds/tapes at all. The advent of p2p and all sorts of wonderful little corners where I find the music I want (usually hard to find) has made living the reality of no support to the industry at all pretty easy.
But what of the artists you say? Well, here's how I do it. I download like mad, but pay the artist directly. Here's an example:
Sonic Youth released a new album on Geffen, I download it as well as another Geffen SY album I was missing from my collection. As payment I goto sonic youths website, click the link for their own label SYR and purchase a copy of one of their own CD's directly from them. Later in the year, sonic youth rolls through town, I buy a t-shirt, a book of poetry and a canvas shopping bag from the stand outside the show- cos that stuff is theirs and they make the most profit from it.
Granted, if we were talking Creed here, the stuff for sale outside the show does not have the same level of intimacy that it does at a Sonic Youth gig. But, we are not talking about Creed. If for some strange reason I liked any of the output from that band, I would have no problem stealing a cd or two from them because everything about that band has been manufactured from start to finish. I don't get the guilt that drives me to the edge of the stage to hand the guys from Modest Mouse a 10 dollar bill, while telling them I downloaded their latest album off of the internet, so here's ten bucks. With Creed, you just simply can't do that, unless you win the "wow man, rockin" contest from the local Alternative market (read: radio station). The same contest that if you had any scruples would require a few showers to wash off all the dirty feelings you got from the payola scams going down left and right around you. The contest that would make you feel like you needed to be a woman so you could get your tits signed backstage by the lead singer. But wait.. I digress.
And why are we talking about Creed anyway? If you stop squinting Creed has nothing to do with alternative anything. We should be talking about Negativeland and the fact that they have made a career out of challenging the record industry about copyright issues. You should too.
AFI actually has some credibilty. I hate award shows, but the american film institute is one org you can blame for some quality film as art stuff in Hollywood.
I watched a bit of it last night, and I have to say, as far as award shows went, the whole thing was very humble, as would be expected from AFI.
I was looking at my watch from about the halfway point in this movie.
You best be working on that attention span there buddy.
Were you the guy who was talking to himself next to me and had his backpack on from right after the first half hour, on the edge of his seat, ready to leave the whole time.
Sucks when you can't click a mouse and move on to another story.
Buddhist meditation works wonders for getting things balanced again. You might wanna try it. Modern life destroys normal thinking. Messed up ain't it?
Re:Volunteer work would be great if you got paid..
on
Volunteer Work Abroad?
·
· Score: 1
You really need to get out and see the world. I did, and it was the best experience of my life. Next up, I want to go and do work over there so I can make a difference, and have a rewarding existance. Sorry but the dot-bomb stuff that happened (while I was over in Asia for a year) made me realize more than a few things. Its interesting to juxtapose village life in Nepal with the strange avenues we tend to persue.
See if you go through life thinking its a bunch of hippies who are going over there and doing such a thing, then like the other responder said, you are doomed to a shallow and useless life.
Getting up off your ass and doing it is so easy once you realize it is, and far more rewarding than the worker/slave mentality this country promotes as the answer to all of your ills.
It just makes you ill. Here's to hoping you go and see your world.
Re:doctors won't really help in these cases either
on
Volunteer Work Abroad?
·
· Score: 1
Interesting. When I was in Nepal I heard from Peace Corps workers that the CIA were involved with certain aspects. I forgot about that, but you saying you had never heard of it before. So I did a little checking:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/18/spies.journalists/
and here:
The CIA's use of journalists, clergy, and Peace Corps
Notes from July 17, 1996 hearing of the Senate Intelligence
Committee. Not verbatim, the gist.
Witnesses:
Sen. Paul Coverdell, R-Ga., former Peace Corps director
John M. Deutch, director of central intelligence
Public witnesses:
Terry Anderson
Ken Adelman
Morton Zuckerman
Ted Koppel
National Association of Evangelicals
Maryknoll Sisters
Church World Service
Senators present at beginning of hearing: Arlen Specter (R-Pa..,
chairman), Bob Kerrey (D- Neb.), and John Glenn (D-Ohio)
Senator Specter:
The CIA's use of journalists has been a collateral issue in the recent
commission reports on U.S. intelligence. The House voted in its
intelligence authorization bill that there must be a presidential
waiver before the intelligence agencies might use journalists, clergy
or Peace Corps. The Senate has not yet voted. The issue is before
Congress.
Among the suggestions before Congress:
Let the president decide, as he must now for covert action.
Let the director of the CIA decide.
Limit the exemption to a specific period of time.
A national-security waiver.
I am concerned that this discussion gives publicity to the issue.
Our first witness will be Senator Paul Coverdell, a former director
of the Peace Corps. I asked the Peace Corps to send a witness but
they are not coming.
Senator Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.): We are uncomfortable discussing
publicly sources and methods of intelligence. In any event, I don't
see why any professor, any American patriot should be prohibited
from working for their country.
Senator John Glenn (D-Ohio): In some situations, you can't send a
satellite, you need human intelligence. I see that as an individual
choice. I wouldn't rule it in or out.
Testimony of Senator Coverdell:
The committee should put the Peace Corps aside. It should not be
used for intelligence.
It is dangerous for volunteers to be in the context of the CIA. The
former CIA was not allowed to use them.
I was director of the Peace Corps during the Bush administration.
We entered Eastern Europe. Solidarity asked, Are the volunteers
CIA?
It would raise doubts across the entire Corps. It would put the
volunteers at risk. We lost a volunteer in Bolivia because they said
he was DEA. We need to ratify an exemption for the safety of the
Corps. It should be a separate facility.
By letter dated April 2, 1984 the permanent ineligibility of
volunteers to join the CIA is established. They are ineligible to join
any other intelligence agency for ten years after the end of their
service. This can be greater than ten years, if the general counsel so
determines.
Senator Specter said that Mr. Deutch was in favor of the exception
from the blanket ban if:
1. It could save the lives of hostages
2. There was a terrorist threat
Senator Coverdell said there could be no exceptions because it
would undermine the whole thing. Given the large size of the
existing intelligence community, exceptions were not necessary.
Senator Specter asked whether the prohibition worked to protect
the volunteers.
Senator Coverdell replied that it did. Their safety has been a
concern since the inception of the Peace Corps. They are without
assets. If you violate their exemption from intelligence involvement
at any one point, you have done it across the board.
Written testimony of John M. Deutch, director of central
intelligence. [His oral statement was similar.]
Mr. Chairman, I appear this morning at your request to explain the
policy of the Central Intelligence Agency concerning possible use
of American journalists, American clergy or the Peace Corps.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, I am uneasy discussing potential
intelligence sources in public session, even in general fashion, but I
can make a general statement on this very sensitive issue.
Simply put, CIA's policy is not to use journalists accredited to
American news organizations, their parent organizations, American
clergy or the Peace Corps for intelligence purposes. This includes
any use of such organizations for cover.
This policy has been in place for 20 years. Recently at the request
of this Committee, I reviewed the policy to determine whether it
was both appropriate and sufficiently circumscribed.
As I told the Committee when this issue was raised with me, my
sympathy is on the side of no intelligence use of American
journalists or clergy. I strongly believe in the independence of our
free press and in the division between government and the church.
That is why I have stated publicly that I have no intention of using
either American journalists or clergy for intelligence purposes.
Further, as this Committee knows, I have found no circumstances
while Director of Central Intelligence that would cause me to do
either.
But, Mr. Chairman, as the Director of Central Intelligence I must
be in a position to assure the President and the members of his
National Security Council that there will never come a time when
the United States cannot ask a witting citizen to assist in combating
an extreme threat to the nation. So, I, like my predecessors, have
arrived at the conclusion that the Agency should not be prohibited
from considering the use of American journalists or clergy. I am
able to imagine circumstances, Mr. Chairman, in which the lives of
American hostages depended upon particular knowledge only a
journalist might have or obtain. I can foresee the possibility of a
terrorist group attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction in a
crowded urban area where both the President and the nation would
look to the Agency to use all possible means to detect and deter
such an event. Under either of those scenarios, I believe it
unreasonable to foreclose the witting use of any likely source of
information.
Now critics of this decision might well say that these are far-
fetched examples in which the possible confluence of highly
improbable circumstances is fanciful at best. Unfortunately recent
history has shown us that the threat in these scenarios is real. I do
not believe that as Director of Central Intelligence I can gamble that
future sources of critical information will come only from
predictable sources. Nothing in my 14 months in this job supports
that kind of a judgment.
Having decided that I should allow the possibility of exceptional
waivers, I looked carefully at the guidelines which governed such
waivers. I found them restrictive but nonspecific. I therefore issued
new policy guidelines which set out several specific tests that must
be satisfied before the Director or Deputy Director may consider a
waiver. Those guidelines have been made available to both
intelligence committees. They are classified and I am available to
discuss them in any detail the Committee may desire in closed
session, but I want to state that the guidelines require prompt as
well as periodic notification of the intelligence committees.
Let me repeat. These guidelines allow for the possibility of a
waiver, but they do not compel or encourage such waivers. I have
not changed my view that it would take extremely rare, indeed
highly improbable circumstances to change my predilection against
any waiver of our policy not to use journalists or clergy for
intelligence purposes.
There is one other aspect of this question that deserves comment in
this public session, which is who ought to be the official entrusted
with the responsibility of deciding whether to waive this policy. I
considered whether the President ought to be the decision maker. In
the end, we decided such decisions should remain with the
Director. The Director is the official entrusted with running
intelligence operations. The Director ought to be responsible for
this operational, albeit extremely important decision in the rare
situation where it might be contemplated. If the Director fails to
give the matter proper attention or judgment, the Director can be
overruled or even fired by his boss, the President.
Let me return to the Peace Corps. Here too, our policy is not to use
Peace Corps personnel for intelligence purposes. This has not
changed, and here any waiver could occur under even more
circumscribed circumstances.
Lastly, I would like to close by commenting on the Richardson
amendment adopted by the House. The Richardson amendment
requires that the President decide any waiver on the intelligence use
of an American journaiist. As I have said, I believe that this
decision ought to rest with the Director. The Richardson
amendment also excludes cases of voluntary cooperation between
the Agency and a particular journalist. This is important because
we would never contempiate a relationship without the witting and
willing cooperation of the individual involved.
Mr. Chairman, that completes my statement. I am happy to answer
any questions you may have that are appropriate for this public
hearing, and, of course, I will be pleased to provide any details you
require in closed session.
Q and A
Senator Specter said that the committee could pursue the issue of
the guidelines in closed session.
Senator Specter noted that the House by a vote of 417-6 provided
that intelligence agencies not use accredited journalists or those
officially recognized by the host government as U.S. journalists.
The president may waive this prohibition if there is a presidential
certification to the intelligence committees.
This would not prohibit voluntary cooperation.
The Senate has not yet considered this issue.
You propose that it be the director of central intelligence who
makes this decision?
Mr. Deutch: The director or the deputy director. No one below.
Senator Specter: This would include the Peace Corps?
Mr. Deutch: The criteria are neaarly the same. As mentioned in my
testimony, there is no case of using the Peace Corps.
Senator Specter: So you say you have not used anyone in any of
these categories?
The presumption is that it just isn't done. Why not then elevate it to
the level of a finding for covert operations? A presidential
certification, in writing, with notification of the intelligence
committees.
In light of the sensitivity of the issue and its infrequent use, this
would not be difficult for the president to do.
Mr. Deutch: First, the director of central intelligence should be
responsible for human intelligence. If the president has any doubt
in the DCI's judgment, replace him/her.
Second, leave room between the decision of the director and the
president. It is not a day-to-day involvement.
Senator Spector: It is hardly a question of day-to-day involvement
of the president. This type of use would be infrequent,
extraordinary. Isn't that added protection?
Mr. Deutch: The president should have confidence in his/her
appointee, the president can oversee, you should not have the
White House involved in intelligence activities, leave it to their
professional judgment. There would still be immediate notification
to the president and the intelligence committees.
Senator Specter: If there are sufficient instances of informing the
president, it should be the president's decision. Regarding
notification of the committees, there's controversy over how prompt
is prompt. This was addressed in the 1987 legislation.
Mr. Deutch: Forty-eight hours from decision.
Senator Specter: That might establish the parameters.
Second panel of witnesses: Kenneth Adelman, former director of
Arms Contral and Disarmament Agency; Ted Koppel, ABC News;
Terry Anderson, former hostage and AP correspondent; Morton
Zuckerman, publisher of U.S. News and World Report
Mr. Adelman: I would like to make three points.
First, There is the phenomenon of press self-absorption. The
Council on Foreign Relations study made important
recommendations about broad aspects of U.S. intelligence. The
press seized on one sentence, that dealing with journalists, and that
became the controversy.
In general, intelligence is good on hardware, but we were surprised
by Gorbachev.
Senator Specter: What could intelligence have done better?
Mr. Adelman: There should have been a leap of imagination. They
should have known that Gorbachev would want to do something
dramatic. I take responsibility, too. Intelligence should have had a
better feel. I like the idea of competing intelligence analyses.
Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) joined the panel.
Mr. Adelman continued: Second, current policy is fine. No group
should be exempt. The finding should be at the covert-action level.
The remarks of the DCI were to the point, although they did not
totally cover the issue.
Third, no matter what we do, it will be laughed off by the bad guys.
American journalists should feel a civic responsibility to step
outside their role as journalists.
Senator John Kerry: I am deeply concerned about publicizing this
issue. It is better left alone. If they weren't tainted before, they will
be now.
Most intelligence-gathering can be done without the use of these
categories. The Peace Corps, et al. The most salutary effect of these
inquiries would be if it elicits a prohibition rather than leaving it in
doubt.
Terry Anderson: I also share the opinions of Senators Kerry and
especially Coverdell. The damage has already been done by Mr.
Deutch's admission that it had been done. It must be prohibited.
Journalists are in danger. In much of the world the CIA is held in
great disfavor. Journalists begin with a presumption of involvement.
I was accused of being a spy, I was on a list of CIA agents put out
by fundamentalist Shiites.
When we make rules, it depends if people have been disrespectful
of rules, if they have been stretching the rules. There is sufficient
evidence in the history of the CIA to put it in this category.
Regarding the use of journalists, it is difficult for journalists to
keep information to themselves. If they have it, they will publish it.
We need an absolute, public, blanket ban on the use of journalistic
cover.
Ted Koppel: I am opposed to the CIA having the legal option of
using journalistic cover.
The CIA has broken laws. It will again.
Many governments assume that journalists are working for the CIA,
because they use journalists.
How often the waiver is actually used is irrelevant. It is how it is
assumed to be used.
When an intelligence official breaks U.S. laws, if their argument is
persuasive, Congress can be lenient. If the CIA must use journalists
it will do so, but it should have to be breaking the law in so doing.
Morton Zuckerman: I recall the Nick Daniloff case. His name was
associated with the CIA. This is an example of a journalist exposed
to risk. This may have violated guidelines.
Any association of the press with intelligence, particularly with the
CIA, is bad.
The prohibition should be increased, made absolute, not just to
protect individual journalists, but to preserve the constitutional
independence of the press.
It is not an individual decision if the journalist is witting. It affects
all the press.
Senator Specter: The Council on Foreign Relations report has
brought this question to public view. There has been the House
vote.
He asked Mr. Anderson regarding the substance of the House vote.
You were a major victim.
Mr. Anderson: It is a very significant issue. I'm not the only victim.
It is fairly frequent that journalists are put at risk. The
fundamentalist Islams in Lebanon believed that all journalists were
spies. The only way of healing this is a flat ban without exception.
If there is an exception, no matter how well hedged, it would
confirm their belief.
They interrogated me roughly, though without torture. They gave us
the name of what they termed a CIA agent at the American
University. They said that I reported to him. They had many
questions regarding intelligence. They were not satisfied with my
complete denial. They had weapons pointed at my head, they were
shouting, "Spy!"
There is no way of telling how many journalists have been put at
risk because of this issue. Last year, some fifty-five journalists died
worldwide in the course of duty, many in obscure circumstances.
There is no way of knowing how many of those were killed because
of suspicion they were intelligence agents. Most believe that that
was the reason for some.
Senator Specter: What about a national-security exception? By the
president, if extraordinary circumstances prevail?
Mr. Koppel: You heard the DCI object even to that. I said that the
CIA will do it anyway regardless of the law. At least the violators
would know the consequences. Otherwise, there is no prohibition.
You are left with the goodwill of the director or deputy director.
Senator Specter: This is an interesting argument you are making,
that they should have to break the law. We pride ourselves on being
a nation of laws.
Mr. Koppel: We also have the precedent of the CIA routinely
violating the law.
Senator Specter: Finding the facts can be hard, as we found in the
Ruby Ridge case.
Would you be satisfied if the president made a finding?
Mr. Koppel: My preference would be that the law stay in place.
Senator Specter: We have no statute on that. It has been up to the
CIA.
Mr. Koppel: That would be unacceptable.
Senator Specter: That is why we are considering legislation.
[To Mr. Zuckerman:] You consider it a First Amendment issue?
Mr. Zuckerman: As we understand the present situation, there are
circumstances under which intelligence agencies use journalists.
There is the example of Daniloff.
This calls for a balancing of interests: the value of an untainted
press, bringing in unvarnished reports.
The day-to-day role of the press abroad, without taint of
intelligence, is better assured by an absolute prohibition. A greater
national interest is served by this than by any that would involve
preserving this suspicion or taint.
Senator Specter: So you would argue for no exceptions including a
national-security waiver.
Mr. Zuckerman: Yes.
Senator Specter: And that this would have a substantial effect on
journalism.
Mr. Zuckerman: Mr. Daniloff was indirectly involved with the CIA,
though that wasn't the whole reason they arrested him. Yet the taint
was there. Read Secretary of State Shultz's memoirs.
Yes, there may be individual circumstances where the information
would be useful, but the greater value is journalism without this
suspicion.
Senator Specter: Mr. Adelman, you've heard this. Would you settle
for a national- security exception?
Mr. Adelman: I have no opinion on the president-vs.-DCI issue.
I used to have a dsl circut whne it first hit my area, but had to switch to @home. I was just at speakeasy's site and have to say their prices are pretty dang high for the service. Nothing would be comparable to the speed that I am currently getting with @home.
hehe yeah. i had some beers last night when I fired that off and maybe the point did not come across.
My first linux install was Slackware '96. I am a big fan of Slack, tho I do in some places like a more "advanced" package managment system. Not something really to go over again here.
The point I was trying to make was that Mandrake has done a good job of making a distro that just fires up and Debian could learn quite a few lessons from what they have done.
Yeah I know you can turn off those services, but does that average user?;)
I think the other poster who responded to my post has some interesting distros that use debian as a base.
Hey that sounds like some cool tips. Like I said, I was testing out Mandrake 8.1 on the machine for use as a desktop. It is cool, it is a lot of eye candy. Its a fine distro.
I was not aware of these other distros based on Debian, they sound fun tho. I have some places to check them out as well.
I have to say, I love Open Source. I have been playing with Debian on a server I have almost religiously. Its freeeken cool. Apt-get is a monumental achivement. Actually, I think that Debian in general is a monumental achivement. The incredible country-like atmosphere: voting, bug reports, elected officials, a clear and distinct vision. All of this is very very good.
My experiences with setting up this latest debian server have been nothing more than wonderful. As much as I like the slackware model of "pure simplicity" I like the mode of Debians package management. I do not get the args against it. When it works, it works, even of there are some problems. hey there always has to be some problems.
The fact of the matter is getting debian setup is a bit of a chore. i am not one to think that the "installer" is a problem. Installing seems AOK for me- at least the base install. The trouble is when you get into having to do the dselect part of the install, which of course you end up having to do.
deslect aint so bad really. Its just that there are *tons* of packages. It makes it confusing for the average user. I know Debian says that the average user is no good for debian. I think quite simply that the social contract says otherwise.
debian needs to be excited about anyone who decides to go with the platform they have created.
And what a good platform they have created.
Freedom truly is the issue. And freedom truly is a goodthing(tm).
On that note, I installed Mandrake 8.1 one tonight on a machine I use for my main Workstation. Just for kicks. Just to see how things are. Just to see how things went. I ma quite impressed. I have to say that I love being up and running with a wonderful, kick ass GUI with a minimum of muss and fuss for my workstation machine. I am sorry. I just do not want to spend hours fucking with my workstation: I can do that with my servers for hours. But to get a GUI based fully functional machine running with a minimum of effort is totally sweet for me. I have to say I hate the services and crap that are running on Mandrake, I hate the installer and do not think for a second that Debian should emulate the kind of crap install process that Mandrake *imposes* on the user. But there is something about having hardware pretty much setup, having the desktop pretty much ready to go if needed that really rocks. Especially when you want ot get down to work, doing something besides tweeking your setup.
I love debian. But Debian has some things to learn from the whole Mandrake process.
Do not make it as stupid, make it as functional.
smells like propaganda to me.
on
Message from Kabul
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
So whats the deal? Katz is now a dupe of the man as well? Remember right after the 9/11 there was an email from muslim man circulating around the interenet? Yep.. Propaganda.
So while Katz is airing out his complete crap about *nothing* in particular, nothing but a heart warming tale spun to augment the beard shaving, women baring their faces, and the possiblility that MTV is coming to Kabul soon. Lets not forget the reality of the situation:
The Northern Alliance is a brutal regime as well. People welcomed the Taleban after being ruled by these losers.
On the homefront, the administration is taking power in sweeping gestures whose effects will leave us reeling for possibly fewgenerations.
Like the fancy stories you see above. People from the less fortunate countries in the world like Australia and Europe think our media is full of shit, and lying to us point blank.
Anyway, just a reminder to use that search engine of yours and get the facts, see some other perspectives, especially now since Mr. Katz has obviously become a tool as well. Yeah maybe he was a tool before, but at least he had the power in his court to say something to Slashdot readers. I guess no more.
Re:ummm... Japanese Cell Phones.
on
New Nokia Phone
·
· Score: 1
I completely agree. Hey.. Don't you want one?
ummm... Japanese Cell Phones.
on
New Nokia Phone
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I was away in Asia for a year and during that time I got to see lots and lots of people using cell phones, all the time. In Thailand everyone had these cool slick phones, very small, text messaging, the works. Everyone uses them, and most people 150% more quiet than the American users of cell phones.
My point is though, once we got to Japan on our trip, I became blown away by the phones there. I have never really wanted to get one, but after seeing those I thought, crap can't wait to go back to the states to get a cell phone!
Once back, there were no cellphones that would even compare to what I saw there.
Here is a few things:
65k color screens in ultra thin phone.
Downloadable Javabased Nintendo games. Download and play, whenever you want.
People stand around in train stations doing email on their phones or surfing the web instead of telling everyone in the train about their sexual expliots of the last weekend.
We were in Shinjuku on a side street and there was a film crew filming some celebs. People grabbed their cell phones and took digital pics of the goings on and emailed their friends right from the side street.
Point is: Japanese cell phones are cool. I wish we had the services that they had.
My question to all North Americans: does it bother you that the USA legal system (as this case confirms) seems to consist of nothing more than 'who has more money eventually wins regardless'?
...Yes it does.. As a matter of fact as an American I am bothered by all of the hipocracy that we stand for here. These failings are becoming more and more evident daily.
Oooo! Look what I got in my INBOX again today:
Show You're Proud to be an American!
Wear a FREE American Flag T-Shirt or Display a FREE Car Window Flag!
On September 11, 2001 hijackers sent 4 airliners to devastating crashes into New York's World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the woods of rural Pennsylvania. This day drove terror into America, but we are fighting back with courage and heroism. We've taken a stand and are United against terrorism. Show the rest of the world we're proud to be Americans and nobody can push us around.
Get a Free American Flag T-shirt or Free Car Window Flag like the samples below. You only pay a small shipping and handling fee. You can even personalize your T-Shirt. Take a stand and order one today.
That may seem like I am being horribly off-topic, but it relates: America has given its soul and spirit to money. The God of America (you know, the one who likes bombing people for revenge and thinks America kicks ass) is money. Americans have given everything over to this God, and now we are falling apart at the seams.
As a European, I practically dismiss the US legal system as merely a tool for large corporate bodies to use in a similar way as they use other available mechanisms for economic jousting. In a similar way, the 'lobbying' system the USA has in politics (we normally call this 'bribery' here) seems to be another fine tool for the comporations to use.
..Yes.. The systems really sucks. Its getting worse. I miss being in Asia and having coversations with Europeans, especially after the events of September.
Do what I did, go check out Nepal for like 3 months (hey its cheaper than a day in College). Spend some time walking around in the mountains there and CS will never seem more irrelevant.
Yes.. hear hear.. It became all too evident when epiode 1 came out that Lucas had lost his Buddhist yearnings and decided to make puja with that all mighty and powerful god of money. Was he always a complete sell out?
While I liked the movie (Episode 1), you certainly won't see me prostrating around the theatre in attempt to get quasi-religious significance out of it. On the countrary, there are other films that have taken that place in my heart at this point, thanks...
Slashdot Mirror
How about starting a new campaign? I personally have been on this campaign for a while now due to the insanity that is known as the music industry
Campaign title: I choose piracy!!
I have been refusing to buy Major Label albums for years now, trouble is even most of the indies are being fuXored by the majors and the RIAA through distribution and legislation deals that are wrought in the favor of business and not art.
Later on as more facts came in, I began refusing to buy any albums/cds/tapes at all. The advent of p2p and all sorts of wonderful little corners where I find the music I want (usually hard to find) has made living the reality of no support to the industry at all pretty easy.
But what of the artists you say? Well, here's how I do it. I download like mad, but pay the artist directly. Here's an example:
Sonic Youth released a new album on Geffen, I download it as well as another Geffen SY album I was missing from my collection. As payment I goto sonic youths website, click the link for their own label SYR and purchase a copy of one of their own CD's directly from them. Later in the year, sonic youth rolls through town, I buy a t-shirt, a book of poetry and a canvas shopping bag from the stand outside the show- cos that stuff is theirs and they make the most profit from it.
Granted, if we were talking Creed here, the stuff for sale outside the show does not have the same level of intimacy that it does at a Sonic Youth gig. But, we are not talking about Creed. If for some strange reason I liked any of the output from that band, I would have no problem stealing a cd or two from them because everything about that band has been manufactured from start to finish. I don't get the guilt that drives me to the edge of the stage to hand the guys from Modest Mouse a 10 dollar bill, while telling them I downloaded their latest album off of the internet, so here's ten bucks. With Creed, you just simply can't do that, unless you win the "wow man, rockin" contest from the local Alternative market (read: radio station). The same contest that if you had any scruples would require a few showers to wash off all the dirty feelings you got from the payola scams going down left and right around you. The contest that would make you feel like you needed to be a woman so you could get your tits signed backstage by the lead singer. But wait.. I digress.
And why are we talking about Creed anyway? If you stop squinting Creed has nothing to do with alternative anything. We should be talking about Negativeland and the fact that they have made a career out of challenging the record industry about copyright issues. You should too.
Tell em all: "I choose Piracy!"
AFI actually has some credibilty. I hate award shows, but the american film institute is one org you can blame for some quality film as art stuff in Hollywood.
I watched a bit of it last night, and I have to say, as far as award shows went, the whole thing was very humble, as would be expected from AFI.
Well, its kinda like the movie trailer for "Black Hawk Down" saying that the efforts in Somalia back in 1993 were a "Triumph".
Media/PR etc are full of shit 24 hours a day.
You best be working on that attention span there buddy.
Were you the guy who was talking to himself next to me and had his backpack on from right after the first half hour, on the edge of his seat, ready to leave the whole time.
Sucks when you can't click a mouse and move on to another story.
Buddhist meditation works wonders for getting things balanced again. You might wanna try it. Modern life destroys normal thinking. Messed up ain't it?
More like those cultureless monoculturists led by the autistic son of a powerlful banker are probably messing around with *HIM*.
I could be wrong, but you know what happens everytime those idjits up in Redmond play nice with the little guy.
It ain't pretty is it?
I cannot log into hotmail with mozilla.
:)
Seems to not like my security settings
You really need to get out and see the world. I did, and it was the best experience of my life. Next up, I want to go and do work over there so I can make a difference, and have a rewarding existance. Sorry but the dot-bomb stuff that happened (while I was over in Asia for a year) made me realize more than a few things. Its interesting to juxtapose village life in Nepal with the strange avenues we tend to persue.
See if you go through life thinking its a bunch of hippies who are going over there and doing such a thing, then like the other responder said, you are doomed to a shallow and useless life.
Getting up off your ass and doing it is so easy once you realize it is, and far more rewarding than the worker/slave mentality this country promotes as the answer to all of your ills.
It just makes you ill. Here's to hoping you go and see your world.
Interesting. When I was in Nepal I heard from Peace Corps workers that the CIA were involved with certain aspects. I forgot about that, but you saying you had never heard of it before. So I did a little checking:
/
http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/18/spies.journalists
and here:
The CIA's use of journalists, clergy, and Peace Corps
Notes from July 17, 1996 hearing of the Senate Intelligence
Committee. Not verbatim, the gist.
Witnesses:
Sen. Paul Coverdell, R-Ga., former Peace Corps director
John M. Deutch, director of central intelligence
Public witnesses:
Terry Anderson
Ken Adelman
Morton Zuckerman
Ted Koppel
National Association of Evangelicals
Maryknoll Sisters
Church World Service
Senators present at beginning of hearing: Arlen Specter (R-Pa..,
chairman), Bob Kerrey (D- Neb.), and John Glenn (D-Ohio)
Senator Specter:
The CIA's use of journalists has been a collateral issue in the recent
commission reports on U.S. intelligence. The House voted in its
intelligence authorization bill that there must be a presidential
waiver before the intelligence agencies might use journalists, clergy
or Peace Corps. The Senate has not yet voted. The issue is before
Congress.
Among the suggestions before Congress:
Let the president decide, as he must now for covert action.
Let the director of the CIA decide.
Limit the exemption to a specific period of time.
A national-security waiver.
I am concerned that this discussion gives publicity to the issue.
Our first witness will be Senator Paul Coverdell, a former director
of the Peace Corps. I asked the Peace Corps to send a witness but
they are not coming.
Senator Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.): We are uncomfortable discussing
publicly sources and methods of intelligence. In any event, I don't
see why any professor, any American patriot should be prohibited
from working for their country.
Senator John Glenn (D-Ohio): In some situations, you can't send a
satellite, you need human intelligence. I see that as an individual
choice. I wouldn't rule it in or out.
Testimony of Senator Coverdell:
The committee should put the Peace Corps aside. It should not be
used for intelligence.
It is dangerous for volunteers to be in the context of the CIA. The
former CIA was not allowed to use them.
I was director of the Peace Corps during the Bush administration.
We entered Eastern Europe. Solidarity asked, Are the volunteers
CIA?
It would raise doubts across the entire Corps. It would put the
volunteers at risk. We lost a volunteer in Bolivia because they said
he was DEA. We need to ratify an exemption for the safety of the
Corps. It should be a separate facility.
By letter dated April 2, 1984 the permanent ineligibility of
volunteers to join the CIA is established. They are ineligible to join
any other intelligence agency for ten years after the end of their
service. This can be greater than ten years, if the general counsel so
determines.
Senator Specter said that Mr. Deutch was in favor of the exception
from the blanket ban if:
1. It could save the lives of hostages
2. There was a terrorist threat
Senator Coverdell said there could be no exceptions because it
would undermine the whole thing. Given the large size of the
existing intelligence community, exceptions were not necessary.
Senator Specter asked whether the prohibition worked to protect
the volunteers.
Senator Coverdell replied that it did. Their safety has been a
concern since the inception of the Peace Corps. They are without
assets. If you violate their exemption from intelligence involvement
at any one point, you have done it across the board.
Written testimony of John M. Deutch, director of central
intelligence. [His oral statement was similar.]
Mr. Chairman, I appear this morning at your request to explain the
policy of the Central Intelligence Agency concerning possible use
of American journalists, American clergy or the Peace Corps.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, I am uneasy discussing potential
intelligence sources in public session, even in general fashion, but I
can make a general statement on this very sensitive issue.
Simply put, CIA's policy is not to use journalists accredited to
American news organizations, their parent organizations, American
clergy or the Peace Corps for intelligence purposes. This includes
any use of such organizations for cover.
This policy has been in place for 20 years. Recently at the request
of this Committee, I reviewed the policy to determine whether it
was both appropriate and sufficiently circumscribed.
As I told the Committee when this issue was raised with me, my
sympathy is on the side of no intelligence use of American
journalists or clergy. I strongly believe in the independence of our
free press and in the division between government and the church.
That is why I have stated publicly that I have no intention of using
either American journalists or clergy for intelligence purposes.
Further, as this Committee knows, I have found no circumstances
while Director of Central Intelligence that would cause me to do
either.
But, Mr. Chairman, as the Director of Central Intelligence I must
be in a position to assure the President and the members of his
National Security Council that there will never come a time when
the United States cannot ask a witting citizen to assist in combating
an extreme threat to the nation. So, I, like my predecessors, have
arrived at the conclusion that the Agency should not be prohibited
from considering the use of American journalists or clergy. I am
able to imagine circumstances, Mr. Chairman, in which the lives of
American hostages depended upon particular knowledge only a
journalist might have or obtain. I can foresee the possibility of a
terrorist group attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction in a
crowded urban area where both the President and the nation would
look to the Agency to use all possible means to detect and deter
such an event. Under either of those scenarios, I believe it
unreasonable to foreclose the witting use of any likely source of
information.
Now critics of this decision might well say that these are far-
fetched examples in which the possible confluence of highly
improbable circumstances is fanciful at best. Unfortunately recent
history has shown us that the threat in these scenarios is real. I do
not believe that as Director of Central Intelligence I can gamble that
future sources of critical information will come only from
predictable sources. Nothing in my 14 months in this job supports
that kind of a judgment.
Having decided that I should allow the possibility of exceptional
waivers, I looked carefully at the guidelines which governed such
waivers. I found them restrictive but nonspecific. I therefore issued
new policy guidelines which set out several specific tests that must
be satisfied before the Director or Deputy Director may consider a
waiver. Those guidelines have been made available to both
intelligence committees. They are classified and I am available to
discuss them in any detail the Committee may desire in closed
session, but I want to state that the guidelines require prompt as
well as periodic notification of the intelligence committees.
Let me repeat. These guidelines allow for the possibility of a
waiver, but they do not compel or encourage such waivers. I have
not changed my view that it would take extremely rare, indeed
highly improbable circumstances to change my predilection against
any waiver of our policy not to use journalists or clergy for
intelligence purposes.
There is one other aspect of this question that deserves comment in
this public session, which is who ought to be the official entrusted
with the responsibility of deciding whether to waive this policy. I
considered whether the President ought to be the decision maker. In
the end, we decided such decisions should remain with the
Director. The Director is the official entrusted with running
intelligence operations. The Director ought to be responsible for
this operational, albeit extremely important decision in the rare
situation where it might be contemplated. If the Director fails to
give the matter proper attention or judgment, the Director can be
overruled or even fired by his boss, the President.
Let me return to the Peace Corps. Here too, our policy is not to use
Peace Corps personnel for intelligence purposes. This has not
changed, and here any waiver could occur under even more
circumscribed circumstances.
Lastly, I would like to close by commenting on the Richardson
amendment adopted by the House. The Richardson amendment
requires that the President decide any waiver on the intelligence use
of an American journaiist. As I have said, I believe that this
decision ought to rest with the Director. The Richardson
amendment also excludes cases of voluntary cooperation between
the Agency and a particular journalist. This is important because
we would never contempiate a relationship without the witting and
willing cooperation of the individual involved.
Mr. Chairman, that completes my statement. I am happy to answer
any questions you may have that are appropriate for this public
hearing, and, of course, I will be pleased to provide any details you
require in closed session.
Q and A
Senator Specter said that the committee could pursue the issue of
the guidelines in closed session.
Senator Specter noted that the House by a vote of 417-6 provided
that intelligence agencies not use accredited journalists or those
officially recognized by the host government as U.S. journalists.
The president may waive this prohibition if there is a presidential
certification to the intelligence committees.
This would not prohibit voluntary cooperation.
The Senate has not yet considered this issue.
You propose that it be the director of central intelligence who
makes this decision?
Mr. Deutch: The director or the deputy director. No one below.
Senator Specter: This would include the Peace Corps?
Mr. Deutch: The criteria are neaarly the same. As mentioned in my
testimony, there is no case of using the Peace Corps.
Senator Specter: So you say you have not used anyone in any of
these categories?
The presumption is that it just isn't done. Why not then elevate it to
the level of a finding for covert operations? A presidential
certification, in writing, with notification of the intelligence
committees.
In light of the sensitivity of the issue and its infrequent use, this
would not be difficult for the president to do.
Mr. Deutch: First, the director of central intelligence should be
responsible for human intelligence. If the president has any doubt
in the DCI's judgment, replace him/her.
Second, leave room between the decision of the director and the
president. It is not a day-to-day involvement.
Senator Spector: It is hardly a question of day-to-day involvement
of the president. This type of use would be infrequent,
extraordinary. Isn't that added protection?
Mr. Deutch: The president should have confidence in his/her
appointee, the president can oversee, you should not have the
White House involved in intelligence activities, leave it to their
professional judgment. There would still be immediate notification
to the president and the intelligence committees.
Senator Specter: If there are sufficient instances of informing the
president, it should be the president's decision. Regarding
notification of the committees, there's controversy over how prompt
is prompt. This was addressed in the 1987 legislation.
Mr. Deutch: Forty-eight hours from decision.
Senator Specter: That might establish the parameters.
Second panel of witnesses: Kenneth Adelman, former director of
Arms Contral and Disarmament Agency; Ted Koppel, ABC News;
Terry Anderson, former hostage and AP correspondent; Morton
Zuckerman, publisher of U.S. News and World Report
Mr. Adelman: I would like to make three points.
First, There is the phenomenon of press self-absorption. The
Council on Foreign Relations study made important
recommendations about broad aspects of U.S. intelligence. The
press seized on one sentence, that dealing with journalists, and that
became the controversy.
In general, intelligence is good on hardware, but we were surprised
by Gorbachev.
Senator Specter: What could intelligence have done better?
Mr. Adelman: There should have been a leap of imagination. They
should have known that Gorbachev would want to do something
dramatic. I take responsibility, too. Intelligence should have had a
better feel. I like the idea of competing intelligence analyses.
Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) joined the panel.
Mr. Adelman continued: Second, current policy is fine. No group
should be exempt. The finding should be at the covert-action level.
The remarks of the DCI were to the point, although they did not
totally cover the issue.
Third, no matter what we do, it will be laughed off by the bad guys.
American journalists should feel a civic responsibility to step
outside their role as journalists.
Senator John Kerry: I am deeply concerned about publicizing this
issue. It is better left alone. If they weren't tainted before, they will
be now.
Most intelligence-gathering can be done without the use of these
categories. The Peace Corps, et al. The most salutary effect of these
inquiries would be if it elicits a prohibition rather than leaving it in
doubt.
Terry Anderson: I also share the opinions of Senators Kerry and
especially Coverdell. The damage has already been done by Mr.
Deutch's admission that it had been done. It must be prohibited.
Journalists are in danger. In much of the world the CIA is held in
great disfavor. Journalists begin with a presumption of involvement.
I was accused of being a spy, I was on a list of CIA agents put out
by fundamentalist Shiites.
When we make rules, it depends if people have been disrespectful
of rules, if they have been stretching the rules. There is sufficient
evidence in the history of the CIA to put it in this category.
Regarding the use of journalists, it is difficult for journalists to
keep information to themselves. If they have it, they will publish it.
We need an absolute, public, blanket ban on the use of journalistic
cover.
Ted Koppel: I am opposed to the CIA having the legal option of
using journalistic cover.
The CIA has broken laws. It will again.
Many governments assume that journalists are working for the CIA,
because they use journalists.
How often the waiver is actually used is irrelevant. It is how it is
assumed to be used.
When an intelligence official breaks U.S. laws, if their argument is
persuasive, Congress can be lenient. If the CIA must use journalists
it will do so, but it should have to be breaking the law in so doing.
Morton Zuckerman: I recall the Nick Daniloff case. His name was
associated with the CIA. This is an example of a journalist exposed
to risk. This may have violated guidelines.
Any association of the press with intelligence, particularly with the
CIA, is bad.
The prohibition should be increased, made absolute, not just to
protect individual journalists, but to preserve the constitutional
independence of the press.
It is not an individual decision if the journalist is witting. It affects
all the press.
Senator Specter: The Council on Foreign Relations report has
brought this question to public view. There has been the House
vote.
He asked Mr. Anderson regarding the substance of the House vote.
You were a major victim.
Mr. Anderson: It is a very significant issue. I'm not the only victim.
It is fairly frequent that journalists are put at risk. The
fundamentalist Islams in Lebanon believed that all journalists were
spies. The only way of healing this is a flat ban without exception.
If there is an exception, no matter how well hedged, it would
confirm their belief.
They interrogated me roughly, though without torture. They gave us
the name of what they termed a CIA agent at the American
University. They said that I reported to him. They had many
questions regarding intelligence. They were not satisfied with my
complete denial. They had weapons pointed at my head, they were
shouting, "Spy!"
There is no way of telling how many journalists have been put at
risk because of this issue. Last year, some fifty-five journalists died
worldwide in the course of duty, many in obscure circumstances.
There is no way of knowing how many of those were killed because
of suspicion they were intelligence agents. Most believe that that
was the reason for some.
Senator Specter: What about a national-security exception? By the
president, if extraordinary circumstances prevail?
Mr. Koppel: You heard the DCI object even to that. I said that the
CIA will do it anyway regardless of the law. At least the violators
would know the consequences. Otherwise, there is no prohibition.
You are left with the goodwill of the director or deputy director.
Senator Specter: This is an interesting argument you are making,
that they should have to break the law. We pride ourselves on being
a nation of laws.
Mr. Koppel: We also have the precedent of the CIA routinely
violating the law.
Senator Specter: Finding the facts can be hard, as we found in the
Ruby Ridge case.
Would you be satisfied if the president made a finding?
Mr. Koppel: My preference would be that the law stay in place.
Senator Specter: We have no statute on that. It has been up to the
CIA.
Mr. Koppel: That would be unacceptable.
Senator Specter: That is why we are considering legislation.
[To Mr. Zuckerman:] You consider it a First Amendment issue?
Mr. Zuckerman: As we understand the present situation, there are
circumstances under which intelligence agencies use journalists.
There is the example of Daniloff.
This calls for a balancing of interests: the value of an untainted
press, bringing in unvarnished reports.
The day-to-day role of the press abroad, without taint of
intelligence, is better assured by an absolute prohibition. A greater
national interest is served by this than by any that would involve
preserving this suspicion or taint.
Senator Specter: So you would argue for no exceptions including a
national-security waiver.
Mr. Zuckerman: Yes.
Senator Specter: And that this would have a substantial effect on
journalism.
Mr. Zuckerman: Mr. Daniloff was indirectly involved with the CIA,
though that wasn't the whole reason they arrested him. Yet the taint
was there. Read Secretary of State Shultz's memoirs.
Yes, there may be individual circumstances where the information
would be useful, but the greater value is journalism without this
suspicion.
Senator Specter: Mr. Adelman, you've heard this. Would you settle
for a national- security exception?
Mr. Adelman: I have no opinion on the president-vs.-DCI issue.
[Sen. Charles S. Robb (D-Va.) joined the panel.]
Mr Adelman continued: Terry An
Mongolia is my dream country. I cannot wait to go. How did you get that going for yourself?
You are one lucky bastid.
I used to have a dsl circut whne it first hit my area, but had to switch to @home. I was just at speakeasy's site and have to say their prices are pretty dang high for the service. Nothing would be comparable to the speed that I am currently getting with @home.
hehe yeah. i had some beers last night when I fired that off and maybe the point did not come across.
;)
My first linux install was Slackware '96. I am a big fan of Slack, tho I do in some places like a more "advanced" package managment system. Not something really to go over again here.
The point I was trying to make was that Mandrake has done a good job of making a distro that just fires up and Debian could learn quite a few lessons from what they have done.
Yeah I know you can turn off those services, but does that average user?
I think the other poster who responded to my post has some interesting distros that use debian as a base.
Hey that sounds like some cool tips. Like I said, I was testing out Mandrake 8.1 on the machine for use as a desktop. It is cool, it is a lot of eye candy. Its a fine distro.
I was not aware of these other distros based on Debian, they sound fun tho. I have some places to check them out as well.
I have to say, I love Open Source. I have been playing with Debian on a server I have almost religiously. Its freeeken cool. Apt-get is a monumental achivement. Actually, I think that Debian in general is a monumental achivement. The incredible country-like atmosphere: voting, bug reports, elected officials, a clear and distinct vision. All of this is very very good.
My experiences with setting up this latest debian server have been nothing more than wonderful. As much as I like the slackware model of "pure simplicity" I like the mode of Debians package management. I do not get the args against it. When it works, it works, even of there are some problems. hey there always has to be some problems.
The fact of the matter is getting debian setup is a bit of a chore. i am not one to think that the "installer" is a problem. Installing seems AOK for me- at least the base install. The trouble is when you get into having to do the dselect part of the install, which of course you end up having to do.
deslect aint so bad really. Its just that there are *tons* of packages. It makes it confusing for the average user. I know Debian says that the average user is no good for debian. I think quite simply that the social contract says otherwise.
debian needs to be excited about anyone who decides to go with the platform they have created.
And what a good platform they have created.
Freedom truly is the issue. And freedom truly is a goodthing(tm).
On that note, I installed Mandrake 8.1 one tonight on a machine I use for my main Workstation. Just for kicks. Just to see how things are. Just to see how things went. I ma quite impressed. I have to say that I love being up and running with a wonderful, kick ass GUI with a minimum of muss and fuss for my workstation machine. I am sorry. I just do not want to spend hours fucking with my workstation: I can do that with my servers for hours. But to get a GUI based fully functional machine running with a minimum of effort is totally sweet for me. I have to say I hate the services and crap that are running on Mandrake, I hate the installer and do not think for a second that Debian should emulate the kind of crap install process that Mandrake *imposes* on the user. But there is something about having hardware pretty much setup, having the desktop pretty much ready to go if needed that really rocks. Especially when you want ot get down to work, doing something besides tweeking your setup.
I love debian. But Debian has some things to learn from the whole Mandrake process.
Do not make it as stupid, make it as functional.
So whats the deal? Katz is now a dupe of the man as well? Remember right after the 9/11 there was an email from muslim man circulating around the interenet? Yep.. Propaganda.
So while Katz is airing out his complete crap about *nothing* in particular, nothing but a heart warming tale spun to augment the beard shaving, women baring their faces, and the possiblility that MTV is coming to Kabul soon. Lets not forget the reality of the situation:
The Northern Alliance is a brutal regime as well. People welcomed the Taleban after being ruled by these losers.
On the homefront, the administration is taking power in sweeping gestures whose effects will leave us reeling for possibly fewgenerations.
Like the fancy stories you see above. People from the less fortunate countries in the world like Australia and Europe think our media is full of shit, and lying to us point blank.
But never fear, America is the home of the free. The best country in the world dude. And all that shit.
Anyway, just a reminder to use that search engine of yours and get the facts, see some other perspectives, especially now since Mr. Katz has obviously become a tool as well. Yeah maybe he was a tool before, but at least he had the power in his court to say something to Slashdot readers. I guess no more.
I completely agree. Hey.. Don't you want one?
My point is though, once we got to Japan on our trip, I became blown away by the phones there. I have never really wanted to get one, but after seeing those I thought, crap can't wait to go back to the states to get a cell phone!
Once back, there were no cellphones that would even compare to what I saw there.
Here is a few things:
65k color screens in ultra thin phone.
Downloadable Javabased Nintendo games. Download and play, whenever you want.
People stand around in train stations doing email on their phones or surfing the web instead of telling everyone in the train about their sexual expliots of the last weekend.
We were in Shinjuku on a side street and there was a film crew filming some celebs. People grabbed their cell phones and took digital pics of the goings on and emailed their friends right from the side street.
Point is: Japanese cell phones are cool. I wish we had the services that they had.
some links:
http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20011116S0107
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9909/20/bandai.c ell.phone.idg/
http://foma.nttdocomo.co.jp/english/terminals/inde x.html
Hey so does anyone who voted for this band of criminals feel like they might have fscked up yet?
My question to all North Americans: does it bother you that the USA legal system (as this case confirms) seems to consist of nothing more than 'who has more money eventually wins regardless'?
...Yes it does.. As a matter of fact as an American I am bothered by all of the hipocracy that we stand for here. These failings are becoming more and more evident daily.
Oooo! Look what I got in my INBOX again today:
Show You're Proud to be an American!
Wear a FREE American Flag T-Shirt or Display a FREE Car Window Flag!
On September 11, 2001 hijackers sent 4 airliners to devastating crashes into New York's World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the woods of rural Pennsylvania. This day drove terror into America, but we are fighting back with courage and heroism. We've taken a stand and are United against terrorism. Show the rest of the world we're proud to be Americans and nobody can push us around.
Get a Free American Flag T-shirt or Free Car Window Flag like the samples below. You only pay a small shipping and handling fee. You can even personalize your T-Shirt. Take a stand and order one today.
That may seem like I am being horribly off-topic, but it relates: America has given its soul and spirit to money. The God of America (you know, the one who likes bombing people for revenge and thinks America kicks ass) is money. Americans have given everything over to this God, and now we are falling apart at the seams.
As a European, I practically dismiss the US legal system as merely a tool for large corporate bodies to use in a similar way as they use other available mechanisms for economic jousting. In a similar way, the 'lobbying' system the USA has in politics (we normally call this 'bribery' here) seems to be another fine tool for the comporations to use.
..Yes.. The systems really sucks. Its getting worse. I miss being in Asia and having coversations with Europeans, especially after the events of September.
Do what I did, go check out Nepal for like 3 months (hey its cheaper than a day in College). Spend some time walking around in the mountains there and CS will never seem more irrelevant.
That is if you truly look around.
ummm.. really? link?
While I liked the movie (Episode 1), you certainly won't see me prostrating around the theatre in attempt to get quasi-religious significance out of it. On the countrary, there are other films that have taken that place in my heart at this point, thanks...
Wait until we design your voting machines....[diabolical laughter]...
I am scared now.. please stop....
9/11
since day one.. who benefits? question answered..
Anthrax is used to keep the fear, as are the FBI leaks of terror that *may* happen.
The world is changing is right.. Our world.. and someone is doing it on purpose.
What porn site did your wallet go to today?
Everyone in power lies to the people who are not.. all the time..