Re:A few contradictions in Christmas
on
Ho, Ho, Ho
·
· Score: 1
However, the prevailing story we all have is the one our parents told us growing up
As you so freely admit, adults hang on to the beliefs told to them as children. Is it really so horrible that we adults try to believe the lie told to us as children, where a kind jolly old man rewards them simply for being good people?
What would you prefer to teach them? That... the commercial actions people take perpetuate self-hatred and false expressions of love. ?
I sincerely hope you have a happy and merry christmas.
Sorry, I think we can go at this forever, but in parting comments:
1. You said: "Uh if taking sides with the opposition to President Bush as all-pervasive as that is then fine, yea i take sides.". Opposition to President Bush can't be as 'all-pervasive' as you imply, if he was fairly elected. Your grammer is a little funny so I'm hopeful I'm interpreting your sentence incorrectly. I live in Massachusetts (a stone's throw from Kerry's house, actually). *Everyone* around me is a democrat. Most races in the state are uncontested. Most spending proposals are unquestioned (like the "Big Dig"). But I'm not foolish enough to think it's like that in the entire country. Clearly it's not. But most democrats have this unshakeable conviction that everyone thinks like them. Most think the only way Bush got elected was through fraud. Most think people who voted for Bush must be "dumb hicks". They'll think anything to avoid the uncomfortable reality that their viewpoint is not universally accepted by all thinking beings, great and small.
2. You said: "What you do is have someone independent of the group verify the evidence, like say the IAEA". Was that meant to be a joke? I can't imagine you picking a worse example that the IAEA. In case you didn't know, the IAEA is a branch of the United Nations. And the UN, it is now publicly known, had a "horse in the race" when they opined on WMDs. By a "horse in the race", I mean that the UN leadership (namely, Kofi Annan and his son) had deliberately corrupted the "Oil for Food" program. "There's no dispute that Saddam Hussein perpetrated a massive fraud on the Oil-for-Food Program, stole billions of dollars, used it to fund terrorism, rearm himself and to bribe high-ranking individuals connected to member states and Kofi Annan was the guy at the center. He was the boss at that point in time." So should we rely on the word of the UN to say whether Iraq should be invaded, and have the whole "Oil for Food" scheme disrupted? (You should have picked a better example than any UN-related agency, as the "Oil for Food" corruption problem puts any recommendations made by the UN about Iraq over the past several years on highly questionable footing. And the fact that WMDs were, in fact, not found doesn't make the UN's position or reputation any more respectable)
3. You said: "You dont have to verify to _my_ satisfaction, you verify to the standards satisfaction". You're dodging the question. I'd like to formally request what the standards are. They do exist, right? Don't you agree that there are situations that should lead us to war? Is this Kerry's "global test" redux? And how do these standards avoid the risk of my #2 point (UN corruption) above? Millions of people died this summer while the UN pussy-footed around trying to decide if they should get involved. What if those millions were American? Would you still be all for the UN? Or are they just Africans, an inconsequential and unimportant example of global governance gone bureaucratic? I don't blame you for dodging the question. I'd try to dodge it if I was in your situation, too.
I feel very sorry you think the way you do, many people are dying because of it. As soon as you realize an effective global governance and "war standards" organization does not exist, you're on your way to grasping -- and articulating -- the scope of the problems and available solutions to issues involving the use of international force.
Your blog suggests you most clearly DO take sides. I love this quote from your blog: "You are not my president, not because i didnt vote for you, but because you dont and wont represent me... Stop attacking our constitutional rights because of your fucked up religious beliefs."
Nice. You know, when Clinton was president, I considered him to be my president. Not because I liked him (I didn't). But because I respected the opinions of others who supported him enough to be president. That respect of others is notably lacking in your posts and your blog.
You know, I don't subscribe to Bush's religious beliefs. He's very different from most everyone I know in that regard. But I don't have the pompousness to call ANYONE'S religious beliefs "fucked up" like you do. So I'll ask you, since you're the expert: Which is more "fucked up", GWB's religious beliefs, or that of the taliban?
See, it's this overwhelming attitude you have that says, "I am open minded, so shut up you fucked up religious, jesusland, idiot!" attitude that you have that turns me off.
I also take issue with the fig leaf you put up in your prior post, above, "im a scientist, a postivist(sp), who requires verifiability, not arrogant one-sidedness". Well that just begs the question, "to what degree of verification is appropriate?". For example, GWB had verified information, corroborated from the CIA and Britain's M5. Was that not enough? Was he to personally travel to Iraq prior to the war to determine if the WMDs existed? And if he saw them, should he trust his own eyes or should he get independent verification from another set of eyes? Should he trust those?
See where this is going. You can't just say, "I require verifiability". That's nice, but inadequate. Unless, of course, you want to use that argument to harpoon anyone who doesn't verify to your satisfaction.
But don't listen to me. I disagree with you, so I must just be a "fucked up", jesusland, idiot who can't speel, shouldn't be able to pass the test to vote, and need guvment to wipe my ass every time I take a crapper.
First of all, despite your quote marks, I never said that "statisticians are very dangerous to society". I was referring to the Berkeley study, which was released without peer review and presented as fact when it fact it was deliberately flawed, as dangerous.
The point is that the statisticians mis-used their reputation for ill. They didn't use statistics (because the statistics prove otherwise), they instead used their reputation as holders of advanced knowledge, to try to hoodwink the American people into believing George Bush cheated the election process. That's dangerous. Maybe not as dangerous as Osama, but we can identify more than one dangerous group at a time, can't we?? (at least *I* can)
Secondly, if you think that installing Mathematica on your laptop and asking a "statistician" (but who is really a lying liar who gives you answers that are not statistically accurate) is the same thing, then you're not very bright.
And thirdly, are you really trying to argue that "neo-cons" are ignoring Osama? Have you been living in a tree for the last three years?
Yet when faced with indisputable proof of liberal lies, you claim you "need" them... that "its only fair".
Hey, I'm no fan of corporations, but since when did Corporate America call foul on a generally fair election?
Would you feel equally amiable if Rush Limbaugh wrote a book, "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the LEFT" ?
Of course you wouldn't. You'd cry foul and try to squelch the conversation.
I agree. This type of scare mongering is, in my opinion, very dangerous to our society. The Berkeley study got a lot of hype (not enough for most liberals), yet their study has been thoroughly DEBUNKED.
Here's a choice quote from one of the debunking statisticians:
"If I were to get this article as (an academic) reviewer, I would turn it around and say they were fishing to find a result," Stewart said. "I know of no theory or no prior set of intuitions that would have led me to run the analysis they ran."
Talk about timely, the Economist magazine is this week running an article about the extreme liberal bias of American academia, and the hypocrisy of it. (think: we love diversity, so long as you are a liberal). I say ENOUGH of the rabble rousing crap. I've had enough of the academic liberal elites using their credentials to foist lies on the American people.
I agree we should always try to find flaws in any voter-related processes (electronic or otherwise). But spreading lies to undermine an election is tantamount to treason, in my book.
Whoa there soldier. I dispute your assertion that this is a scheme of the "Republican" government.
Just last week Sen. Kennedy (D-MA) tried to inserting H-1B increases into the giant Omnibus Appropriations Bill. But Kennedy's threat was to the people who really wanted the increase. And his threat was that he would stop the increase from happening unless the leaders put back in the provision lowering industrywide wage standards!
Now I live in Massachusetts, pay my taxes, and vote. I wrote my Senator, Ted Kennedy (D-MA), 6 months ago to complain of his unabashed, uncompromising support of the H1B visa program (he wants unlimited H1B). He never replied. I wrote him again. He never replied. I can only gather that his concern for his constituents pales in the face of the influence of the high-tech companies in Massachusetts.
Let's also not forget that it was the senior democratic windbag from Massachusetts (Kennedy), and Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) that introduced the (cynically-named), "High Tech Immigration and United States Worker Protection Act"
This isn't a Democratic Party vs. Republican Party issue. This is a Corporate Party (with Democratic & Republican factions) vs. The Great American Middle Class issue.
Right. You can use Kerberos for authentication, but my point was that OpenLdap will not encrypt its data stream using the Kerberos token. So if I have a secure attribute, say "Salary" available in OpenLDAP and I use Kerberos/GSSAPI to query it, the value of the "Salary" field must pass over the network in cleartext. This is not the case with Active Directory.
Right. You can use Kerberos for authentication, but OpenLdap will not encrypt its data stream using the Kerberos token. So if I have a secure attribute, say "Salary" available in OpenLDAP and I use Kerberos/GSSAPI to query it, the value of the "Salary" field must pass over the network in cleartext. This is not the case with Active Directory.
Let me say it again, this time slowly: You cannot encrypt LDAP communication using Kerberos tokens with OpenLdap. If you need secure LDAP communication with OpenLdap, you must distribute certificates to the client computers and use SSL/TLS. That's why your magic document has a section entitled, "Testing OpenLDAP, using your Kerberos ticket, with SSL/TLS" but it doesn't have one that says, "Testing OpenLDAP, using your Kerberos ticket, and encrypting with your Kerberos ticket".
I may be a "lunitic", but I know what I'm talking about.
Is OpenLdap kerberized? (in other words, can you tie Kerberos security to permissions on the retrieval and setting of LDAP attributes?)
(hint: the answer is NO)
And because of this, OpenLdap authentications solutions are NOT secure, as they pass credentials in CLEARTEXT. Yes, you can use certificates but now you've introduced the thorny issues of key distribution.
Microsoft's Active Directory has smartly tied Kerberos and LDAP together, so LDAP queries can be encrypted with Kerberos... so no certificate distribution problems and secure from sniffing.
Sorry to rain on the MS-bashing parade. They did a good job here, too bad Slashdot isn't a merit-based rating.
Again, excuse my ignorance, but... what's wrong with VNC? Why not switch to an open solution?
VNC is designed solely for accessing a console. Windows Remote Desktop allows multiple users to have sessions with a Windows Server (or a Windows XP client, although only 1 user on the console or Remote desktop at a time), while the console is locked.
Your post seems to assume that regulation or taxation of telephony is needed. Are monopolies forming in telephony? No! The barriers to entry to forming your own telco are practically nil.
The same IS NOT true of Internet service providers, and that seems to speak more toward your point (that some people can't afford it). But let's not use an outdated methodology like telephony taxes to fund ISP regulation.
That's like taxing the bejesus out of electric pencil sharpeners in order to avoid a monopoly in writing paper. It's a great way to decimate the electric pencil sharpener business, but doesn't accomplish the goal of regulating writing paper makers.
Let's abolish these stupid, outdated, state feeding troughs and (if we need to) put new troughs where they can do some good.
I think some of the justification behind this research may be based on the fact that some researchers are starting to believe the brain is a quantum device. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind
Quantum theory (at least mathematically) does allow for teleportation, and so capabilities such as "remote viewing" and so forth *might* be there. But who knows.
So what if the rest of the world agrees with you? I'd also bet the rest of the world thinks the United States should be dissolved and the assets distributed equally to non-US citizens.
Our founding fathers were understandably distrustful of foreign interests, which is why the President must be born in the US (cannot be a naturalized citizen).
When the entire world pays taxes to America and gives up their citizenship to their home country, then I might take them seriously.
In the meantime, I'd suggest you try to find a more defendable reason to vote for John Kerry other than that.
Well, your disdain for the American electoral and political environment is part of the reason the election turned out as it did.
Just because you think all of Bush's decisions were bad doesn't mean the rest of the country has to agree.
Maybe your opinions are not the mainstream. Maybe -- just maybe -- your opinion that all of Bush's decisions were "bad" are wrong.
I'm sick of this whole liberal attitude of how "dumb" the common person is. GWB is "dumb". People who want to control a part of their social security plan are too "dumb" to not get screwed. Government control of everything is the way to go. Tax the bejesus out of everyone because they just can't be trusted, certainly not as much as our fine politicians.
Isn't a cornerstone of liberal idealism being "open-minded"? But if you don't happen to agree with an "open-minded" liberal, you're just dumb, and should be dismissed.
Why not instead take a good hard look at this election, and accept the quite obvious fact that the Democrats are simply OUT OF TOUCH with the mainstream.
Or, take the easy route and say everyone who doesn't think like you is just "dumb".
Until an open source hardware manufacturer is sprouted, I can't understand why any for-profit company would license the most difficult part of their design for "free distribution".
I mean, if they licensed it for free distribution, what would prevent some half-baked Chinese knock off from mass producing the wireless chipset reference design, burning the for-profit's "free" firmware, and selling for a huge profit?
Please sir, if you'd only give me the keys to the kingdom.
they ain't vulnerabilities, they are features. Remember if something goes wrong with windows it is the fault of the drivers, the hardware or the user. NEVER EVER Microsoft.
Yeah, I remember during the debates, Kerry suggested that we should have unilateral discussions with North Korea. That kind of suggestion shows a complete lack of understanding of the geopolitical situation there.
I remember during the last election, some wiseass reporter interviewed Bush and asked him, in a grade school quiz-like fashion, who the president of Pakistan, Brazil, etc... was. Of course he didn't know (he was a governor, not an international leader at that time). That got a lot of yuks in the press.
But here's Kerry, a longtime senator on the foreign intelligence committee, suggesting unilateral talks with North Korea?? is he insane?? Not to mention how he has slammed bush for his unilateral policy toward Iraq... but then when bush is multilateral in North Korea, he says that's wrong too?
Seems to me Kerry is too enamored of his famous (and stupid) line, "The 'W' in George W. Bush stands for *WRONG*". Not everything Bush does is wrong.
the title suggests that "VGA" indicates a default screen size (like 4" by 6"), but my understanding is that VGA says nothing about the size of the display, only the number of pixels (you can display VGA resolution of 640 x 480 on a 10" screen or a 30" screen, and its still VGA).
So isn't the whole term "half VGA screen" kinda dumb? Or is it just me?
Re:Movies while working are newsworthy & produ
on
A Dual Monitor Experiment
·
· Score: 5, Informative
He outta know better... After all, Wired Magazine wrote a freaking ARTICLE two weeks ago about how his site got slashdotted on a prior stunt. Sounds fishy to me.
Slashdot Mirror
However, the prevailing story we all have is the one our parents told us growing up
... the commercial actions people take perpetuate self-hatred and false expressions of love. ?
As you so freely admit, adults hang on to the beliefs told to them as children. Is it really so horrible that we adults try to believe the lie told to us as children, where a kind jolly old man rewards them simply for being good people?
What would you prefer to teach them? That
I sincerely hope you have a happy and merry christmas.
Sorry, I think we can go at this forever, but in parting comments:
1. You said: "Uh if taking sides with the opposition to President Bush as all-pervasive as that is then fine, yea i take sides.". Opposition to President Bush can't be as 'all-pervasive' as you imply, if he was fairly elected. Your grammer is a little funny so I'm hopeful I'm interpreting your sentence incorrectly. I live in Massachusetts (a stone's throw from Kerry's house, actually). *Everyone* around me is a democrat. Most races in the state are uncontested. Most spending proposals are unquestioned (like the "Big Dig"). But I'm not foolish enough to think it's like that in the entire country. Clearly it's not. But most democrats have this unshakeable conviction that everyone thinks like them. Most think the only way Bush got elected was through fraud. Most think people who voted for Bush must be "dumb hicks". They'll think anything to avoid the uncomfortable reality that their viewpoint is not universally accepted by all thinking beings, great and small.
2. You said: "What you do is have someone independent of the group verify the evidence, like say the IAEA". Was that meant to be a joke? I can't imagine you picking a worse example that the IAEA. In case you didn't know, the IAEA is a branch of the United Nations. And the UN, it is now publicly known, had a "horse in the race" when they opined on WMDs. By a "horse in the race", I mean that the UN leadership (namely, Kofi Annan and his son) had deliberately corrupted the "Oil for Food" program. "There's no dispute that Saddam Hussein perpetrated a massive fraud on the Oil-for-Food Program, stole billions of dollars, used it to fund terrorism, rearm himself and to bribe high-ranking individuals connected to member states and Kofi Annan was the guy at the center. He was the boss at that point in time." So should we rely on the word of the UN to say whether Iraq should be invaded, and have the whole "Oil for Food" scheme disrupted? (You should have picked a better example than any UN-related agency, as the "Oil for Food" corruption problem puts any recommendations made by the UN about Iraq over the past several years on highly questionable footing. And the fact that WMDs were, in fact, not found doesn't make the UN's position or reputation any more respectable)
3. You said: "You dont have to verify to _my_ satisfaction, you verify to the standards satisfaction". You're dodging the question. I'd like to formally request what the standards are. They do exist, right? Don't you agree that there are situations that should lead us to war? Is this Kerry's "global test" redux? And how do these standards avoid the risk of my #2 point (UN corruption) above? Millions of people died this summer while the UN pussy-footed around trying to decide if they should get involved. What if those millions were American? Would you still be all for the UN? Or are they just Africans, an inconsequential and unimportant example of global governance gone bureaucratic? I don't blame you for dodging the question. I'd try to dodge it if I was in your situation, too.
I feel very sorry you think the way you do, many people are dying because of it. As soon as you realize an effective global governance and "war standards" organization does not exist, you're on your way to grasping -- and articulating -- the scope of the problems and available solutions to issues involving the use of international force.
You need to read up on the psychology of self-denial. You're building up elaborate belief systems to support an untenable argument.
Face your fears, you'll find reality is not that bad.
Your blog suggests you most clearly DO take sides. I love this quote from your blog: "You are not my president, not because i didnt vote for you, but because you dont and wont represent me... Stop attacking our constitutional rights because of your fucked up religious beliefs."
Nice. You know, when Clinton was president, I considered him to be my president. Not because I liked him (I didn't). But because I respected the opinions of others who supported him enough to be president. That respect of others is notably lacking in your posts and your blog.
You know, I don't subscribe to Bush's religious beliefs. He's very different from most everyone I know in that regard. But I don't have the pompousness to call ANYONE'S religious beliefs "fucked up" like you do. So I'll ask you, since you're the expert: Which is more "fucked up", GWB's religious beliefs, or that of the taliban?
See, it's this overwhelming attitude you have that says, "I am open minded, so shut up you fucked up religious, jesusland, idiot!" attitude that you have that turns me off.
I also take issue with the fig leaf you put up in your prior post, above, "im a scientist, a postivist(sp), who requires verifiability, not arrogant one-sidedness". Well that just begs the question, "to what degree of verification is appropriate?". For example, GWB had verified information, corroborated from the CIA and Britain's M5. Was that not enough? Was he to personally travel to Iraq prior to the war to determine if the WMDs existed? And if he saw them, should he trust his own eyes or should he get independent verification from another set of eyes? Should he trust those?
See where this is going. You can't just say, "I require verifiability". That's nice, but inadequate. Unless, of course, you want to use that argument to harpoon anyone who doesn't verify to your satisfaction.
But don't listen to me. I disagree with you, so I must just be a "fucked up", jesusland, idiot who can't speel, shouldn't be able to pass the test to vote, and need guvment to wipe my ass every time I take a crapper.
First of all, despite your quote marks, I never said that "statisticians are very dangerous to society". I was referring to the Berkeley study, which was released without peer review and presented as fact when it fact it was deliberately flawed, as dangerous.
The point is that the statisticians mis-used their reputation for ill. They didn't use statistics (because the statistics prove otherwise), they instead used their reputation as holders of advanced knowledge, to try to hoodwink the American people into believing George Bush cheated the election process. That's dangerous. Maybe not as dangerous as Osama, but we can identify more than one dangerous group at a time, can't we?? (at least *I* can)
Secondly, if you think that installing Mathematica on your laptop and asking a "statistician" (but who is really a lying liar who gives you answers that are not statistically accurate) is the same thing, then you're not very bright.
And thirdly, are you really trying to argue that "neo-cons" are ignoring Osama? Have you been living in a tree for the last three years?
You are so two-faced, phobos... let's look at what you posted, compared to what you now say: the liberals will show that this election was robbed again because they would be the only ones who have interest to prove it!
In Ukraine when this kind of thing happens the people show up in force to get new elections to occur. Here? They accept the corruption and move on. America doesnt seem to be cut out for democracy...
Yet when faced with indisputable proof of liberal lies, you claim you "need" them... that "its only fair". Hey, I'm no fan of corporations, but since when did Corporate America call foul on a generally fair election? Would you feel equally amiable if Rush Limbaugh wrote a book, "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the LEFT" ? Of course you wouldn't. You'd cry foul and try to squelch the conversation.
I agree. This type of scare mongering is, in my opinion, very dangerous to our society. The Berkeley study got a lot of hype (not enough for most liberals), yet their study has been thoroughly DEBUNKED.
Here's a choice quote from one of the debunking statisticians: "If I were to get this article as (an academic) reviewer, I would turn it around and say they were fishing to find a result," Stewart said. "I know of no theory or no prior set of intuitions that would have led me to run the analysis they ran."
Talk about timely, the Economist magazine is this week running an article about the extreme liberal bias of American academia, and the hypocrisy of it. (think: we love diversity, so long as you are a liberal). I say ENOUGH of the rabble rousing crap. I've had enough of the academic liberal elites using their credentials to foist lies on the American people.
I agree we should always try to find flaws in any voter-related processes (electronic or otherwise). But spreading lies to undermine an election is tantamount to treason, in my book.
Whoa there soldier. I dispute your assertion that this is a scheme of the "Republican" government.
Just last week Sen. Kennedy (D-MA) tried to inserting H-1B increases into the giant Omnibus Appropriations Bill. But Kennedy's threat was to the people who really wanted the increase.
And his threat was that he would stop the increase from happening unless the leaders put back in the provision lowering industrywide wage
standards!
Now I live in Massachusetts, pay my taxes, and vote. I wrote my Senator, Ted Kennedy (D-MA), 6 months ago to complain of his unabashed, uncompromising support of the H1B visa program (he wants unlimited H1B). He never replied. I wrote him again. He never replied. I can only gather that his concern for his constituents pales in the face of the influence of the high-tech companies in Massachusetts.
Let's also not forget that it was the senior democratic windbag from Massachusetts (Kennedy), and Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) that introduced the (cynically-named), "High Tech Immigration and United States Worker Protection Act"
This isn't a Democratic Party vs. Republican Party issue. This is a Corporate Party (with Democratic & Republican factions) vs. The Great American Middle Class issue.
You're right. Thanks, and I wasn't aware of that.
n ux-adminguide/html/ch19s04.html
I found this to clarify better:
http://www.novell.com/documentation/suse91/suseli
Search for "Security Strength Factor".
Assign the half that don't like Linux to a "Special Projects" team. Give them jobs like sorting power cables by color.
Right. You can use Kerberos for authentication, but my point was that OpenLdap will not encrypt its data stream using the Kerberos token. So if I have a secure attribute, say "Salary" available in OpenLDAP and I use Kerberos/GSSAPI to query it, the value of the "Salary" field must pass over the network in cleartext. This is not the case with Active Directory.
Right. You can use Kerberos for authentication, but OpenLdap will not encrypt its data stream using the Kerberos token. So if I have a secure attribute, say "Salary" available in OpenLDAP and I use Kerberos/GSSAPI to query it, the value of the "Salary" field must pass over the network in cleartext. This is not the case with Active Directory.
Try reading the document you linked to.
Let me say it again, this time slowly: You cannot encrypt LDAP communication using Kerberos tokens with OpenLdap. If you need secure LDAP communication with OpenLdap, you must distribute certificates to the client computers and use SSL/TLS. That's why your magic document has a section entitled, "Testing OpenLDAP, using your Kerberos ticket, with SSL/TLS" but it doesn't have one that says, "Testing OpenLDAP, using your Kerberos ticket, and encrypting with your Kerberos ticket".
I may be a "lunitic", but I know what I'm talking about.
Why not single-sign-on to OpenLdap ?
Is OpenLdap kerberized? (in other words, can you tie Kerberos security to permissions on the retrieval and setting of LDAP attributes?)
(hint: the answer is NO)
And because of this, OpenLdap authentications solutions are NOT secure, as they pass credentials in CLEARTEXT. Yes, you can use certificates but now you've introduced the thorny issues of key distribution.
Microsoft's Active Directory has smartly tied Kerberos and LDAP together, so LDAP queries can be encrypted with Kerberos... so no certificate distribution problems and secure from sniffing.
Sorry to rain on the MS-bashing parade. They did a good job here, too bad Slashdot isn't a merit-based rating.
Again, excuse my ignorance, but ... what's wrong with VNC? Why not switch to an open solution?
VNC is designed solely for accessing a console. Windows Remote Desktop allows multiple users to have sessions with a Windows Server (or a Windows XP client, although only 1 user on the console or Remote desktop at a time), while the console is locked.
Your post seems to assume that regulation or taxation of telephony is needed. Are monopolies forming in telephony? No! The barriers to entry to forming your own telco are practically nil.
The same IS NOT true of Internet service providers, and that seems to speak more toward your point (that some people can't afford it). But let's not use an outdated methodology like telephony taxes to fund ISP regulation.
That's like taxing the bejesus out of electric pencil sharpeners in order to avoid a monopoly in writing paper. It's a great way to decimate the electric pencil sharpener business, but doesn't accomplish the goal of regulating writing paper makers.
Let's abolish these stupid, outdated, state feeding troughs and (if we need to) put new troughs where they can do some good.
I think some of the justification behind this research may be based on the fact that some researchers are starting to believe the brain is a quantum device. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind
Quantum theory (at least mathematically) does allow for teleportation, and so capabilities such as "remote viewing" and so forth *might* be there. But who knows.
So what if the rest of the world agrees with you? I'd also bet the rest of the world thinks the United States should be dissolved and the assets distributed equally to non-US citizens.
Our founding fathers were understandably distrustful of foreign interests, which is why the President must be born in the US (cannot be a naturalized citizen).
When the entire world pays taxes to America and gives up their citizenship to their home country, then I might take them seriously.
In the meantime, I'd suggest you try to find a more defendable reason to vote for John Kerry other than that.
Well, your disdain for the American electoral and political environment is part of the reason the election turned out as it did.
Just because you think all of Bush's decisions were bad doesn't mean the rest of the country has to agree.
Maybe your opinions are not the mainstream. Maybe -- just maybe -- your opinion that all of Bush's decisions were "bad" are wrong.
I'm sick of this whole liberal attitude of how "dumb" the common person is. GWB is "dumb". People who want to control a part of their social security plan are too "dumb" to not get screwed. Government control of everything is the way to go. Tax the bejesus out of everyone because they just can't be trusted, certainly not as much as our fine politicians.
Isn't a cornerstone of liberal idealism being "open-minded"? But if you don't happen to agree with an "open-minded" liberal, you're just dumb, and should be dismissed.
Why not instead take a good hard look at this election, and accept the quite obvious fact that the Democrats are simply OUT OF TOUCH with the mainstream.
Or, take the easy route and say everyone who doesn't think like you is just "dumb".
Until an open source hardware manufacturer is sprouted, I can't understand why any for-profit company would license the most difficult part of their design for "free distribution".
I mean, if they licensed it for free distribution, what would prevent some half-baked Chinese knock off from mass producing the wireless chipset reference design, burning the for-profit's "free" firmware, and selling for a huge profit?
Please sir, if you'd only give me the keys to the kingdom.
they ain't vulnerabilities, they are features. Remember if something goes wrong with windows it is the fault of the drivers, the hardware or the user. NEVER EVER Microsoft.
3 6213&tid=113&tid=128&tid=154&tid=2 18
Yeah, I've never heard that one before.
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/19/02
Yeah, I remember during the debates, Kerry suggested that we should have unilateral discussions with North Korea. That kind of suggestion shows a complete lack of understanding of the geopolitical situation there.
I remember during the last election, some wiseass reporter interviewed Bush and asked him, in a grade school quiz-like fashion, who the president of Pakistan, Brazil, etc... was. Of course he didn't know (he was a governor, not an international leader at that time). That got a lot of yuks in the press.
But here's Kerry, a longtime senator on the foreign intelligence committee, suggesting unilateral talks with North Korea?? is he insane??
Not to mention how he has slammed bush for his unilateral policy toward Iraq... but then when bush is multilateral in North Korea, he says that's wrong too?
Seems to me Kerry is too enamored of his famous (and stupid) line, "The 'W' in George W. Bush stands for *WRONG*". Not everything Bush does is wrong.
the title suggests that "VGA" indicates a default screen size (like 4" by 6"), but my understanding is that VGA says nothing about the size of the display, only the number of pixels (you can display VGA resolution of 640 x 480 on a 10" screen or a 30" screen, and its still VGA).
So isn't the whole term "half VGA screen" kinda dumb? Or is it just me?
He outta know better... After all, Wired Magazine wrote a freaking ARTICLE two weeks ago about how his site got slashdotted on a prior stunt. Sounds fishy to me.
, 00.html?tw=wn_story_top5
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,65165
Yeah, and now that you pointed it out, I found out he's pulled this crap before:
0 7&tid=201&tid=133&tid=190&tid=1
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/29/19462