No, it's a Geneva Conventions violation and does not prove in principle a double standard. For example, police and emergency vehicles violate traffic laws everyday. That doesn't mean there is a double standard for traffic laws.
I'm so sick of people trying to compare Iraq and the US in this situation like it is an apples-to-apples comparision. The intent of Iraq and the US in these instances were totally different.
If you want to go down the route of GC violations, go ahead and make lists for each country and see which one has significantly more.
I'm disgusted to see any dead bodies on TV. Again, look at the differences in cultures and purposes.
US citizens weren't in the streets denying that US soldiers were dying. In fact, more were protesting that deaths were occurring. Saddam showing dead bodies wasn't to "inform" US citizens that the deaths had occurred.
The Iraqis on the other hand we being fed daily garbage from Baghdad Bob, and believing it. Many are still denying that the brothers were killed and will still commit violence against US troops in their names. The dead soldiers that Saddam showed had little rank (not to belittle them). Saddam's sons, on the other hand, were #2 and #3 in the Iraqi food chain. Proving their deaths is very significant to the Iraqi population. Showing dead rank-and-file US soldiers isn't.
I opposed this war and I dislike this administration just as much as the next guy, but use some friggen common sense and look at this objectively. There's plenty of double standards with US policy, but this isn't one of them.
Censorship ? What ? On the US side, this was the most open war to reporters from all news organizations around the world. Where were the reporters with the Iraqi troops ?
3. When an Arab TV stations shows pictures of dead US and British troops it's disgusting. When pictures of Saddam Hussein's two sons are plastered all over the world's press, then it's perfectly fine.
If you want to trot out the line that the people of Iraq needed proof then please explain to me why the same reason/excuse can't be used by others seeking to provide proof of US/UK casualties.
The United States or anyone else didn't need proof of casualties. Our news organizations as well as international ones covered it quite well. The Iraqis on the other hand don't trust anyone and their news organization(s) are a joke.
Saddam's purpose for showing the pictures was to disgust people and feed his own ego. You know it, I know it, we all know it, so please cut this line of BS.
The oil isn't going to last forever. This is a perfect investment opportunity for rich Saudis funding the terrorist activities. Talk about win-win -- kill infidels and make your money back, courtesy of the US government.
1. Train fanatics in suicide bombing 2. Invest in appropriate futures 3. Execute the attack 4. Profit !!
In a world where developers are baying for customers' attentions, very few people can claim to command that of the developer. Their blogs may be the only clue to the higher level of thinking that they operate at, creating the answers to why and when code works in addition to the perennial how
This is throwing an 802.11 card in a computer and configuring it. Start etching some circuit boards, break out the soldering iron and spectrum analyzer, then you can considering it building...
Now we not only have to deal with oblivious drivers on cell phones, drunk drivers, senior citizen drivers who should have lost their licenses 10 years ago, soccer moms being distracted by five bratty kids, and the countless number of just plain incompetant drivers, but now we will have drivers reading email, watching videos, and playing games. Perhaps we should create a death mobile and complete the evolution of driving.
It's certainly the exception rather than the rule. It is much more work to validate addresses than it is just to send the spam and let the bounce go to a fake address. Consider that the spammer has to supply a real return address for these test emails and have a mail server that can accept the thousands of bounce messages that come back. Having a real return address increases the chances that they will be traced back to their network provider who will shut down their connectivity and make their lives a PITA.
Any spammer that is validating addresses isn't bound to be a very successful spammer, IMO.
Cellular has such a massive coverage area and number of towers. Anyone who thinks WiFi is going to surpass Cellular doesn't have clue as to the infrastructure needed to support a mobile network. Sure, cellular companies are like slow moving telcos. You can't push oodles of bandwidth yet, but the sites and network infrastructure are there. 802.11 is no match for the billions of dollars invested in the 90s on cellular and the standards that have been developed.
The hype factor with WiFi is so much higher than cellular and people with Pringles cans get excited and think 802.11 is the answer to everything from national networks to world starvation. 802.11 was an indoor LAN protocol that got stretched beyond what it was intended to do. Sure, 802.16 addresses some of this, but still the frequency allocations and necessary regulatory protection to create a national mobile network with unlicensed technology just isn't there.
802.11 is better suited for hotspots, but remember when Cellular was only for use in vehicles ? Now people use it in place of their home landline phones. Hotspots are merely fads, cellular will stomp on 802.11 hotspots, just watch.
Cellular is a tortoise and WiFi is the hare in the mobile data race. Slow and steady wins this race...
This happens all of the time -- it's called a spam dictionary attack, as the article attempts to explain. Spammers simply use every possible username in the world and append @yourdomain.com hoping to nail every user with their offers of bigger appendages.
The part in this article about spammers testing for the validity of a dictionary-generated email addresses is a load of crap. They could care less if the address is valid or not. They simply let the bounce message go out into never never land.
I doubt Telstra sold any email addresses. Dealing with spam attacks isn't worth the meager revenue that would be derived from selling addresses.
Agreed. The forbidden post was off-topic and not any earth-shattering information. Many of us, including me, jumped on the positive moderation bandwagon after it was made known that the editors were manipulating what was going on. As I mentioned before, it was the principle of it. This is supposedly an open publically moderated discussion site, and the editors should let it take the course that it takes. Instead, CmdrTaco chose to sweep this all under the carpet. That was back when/. had some quality and was worth reading. Now it's overflowing with duplicate articles, Linux bigotry, questionable moderation, journalistically and spelling challenged editors, and rather predicatable drivel postings.
Before the $rtbl I was getting moderation points about every two weeks, and for a short time I was getting it on a weekly basis. That was with minor levels of posting comments, mind you, about one or two comment postings a week.
Send CmdrTaco an email asking if you've been $rtbl'ed. I'm sure you'll get a prompt, helpful response.:-)
But perhaps you got bit by metamoderation. Maybe the editors have God like metamoderation points that make your chances of getting moderation points again next to nil. Who knows. This is their playground we are in.
It's the principle of the matter, and I like the ID I have. CmdrTaco and friends were wrong in the first place to $rtbl moderators on a publically moderated discussion. (Whether they truly wanted it public is another discussion.) If I really got a chub from moderating I'd get a new ID. The editors are the ones that call the shots with their unlimited moderation points anyways, so what does it matter...
I'm one of the folks that got $rtbl'ed for modding up the forbidden post awhile back. As a result I have never gotten moderation rights and metamoderation went away. About two months ago or so, metamoderation came back, but I still have never gotten moderation rights, so I assume I'm still $rtbl'ed.
Was some code changed that $rtbl'ed users can now metamoderate, or is this a bug ? How are $rtbl'ed users worthy of metamoderation rights but not moderation ?
This is/. Linux snobbery rearing its ugly head. After jumping through hoops to get a Linux box to print several years ago, I never had the inclination or time to set it up on subsequent boxes. I now use the method above...
This would mean that anyone who gets SARS is obviously a dirty rotten patent infringer, as they are making, using and (well, hopefully not selling) the "invention."
Actually, if I get SARS, can't I sue the organization that has patented it becuase it's their invention that is causing me harm ?
Cheers for taking the company that used to create those really good laser printers and turning them into another crap marketing company, just like you did to Digital.
Compaq didn't turn HP into a crap company, it was merely the final step in a multi-year process. Things went to hell the day HP made printers a priority over the good quality innovative test equipment they built the 50 years before.
HP, do you want to spend the rest of your life selling colored ink ?
The second I saw the headline, I though onboard RC oscillator triggering some microcode on startup, and count how many cycles you can run during one onboard clock pulse. It looks like this is what they are doing and it isn't rocket science. Disabling or crippling the microproccesor is trivial task once it's determined the clock is out of spec.
I though you couldn't patent a technique if it was determined that someone without privleged knowledge could come up with a similiar design ??!! I think the Intel logo on the article should be replaced with the 'Patent Pending' spoon-and-fork logo.
Picture Rocks, Pennsylvania, discovers Windows and the wonders of Graphical User Interfaces, or Gooeys, as they are commonly referred to. Details at 11.
So now the people that pay will have their opinions posted first. It's nice to see/. ignoring their original goals for a community-based discussion unlike an other site, while trying to make a site and a concept that was never meant to generate revenue do just that.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's a Geneva Conventions violation and does not prove in principle a double standard. For example, police and emergency vehicles violate traffic laws everyday. That doesn't mean there is a double standard for traffic laws.
I'm so sick of people trying to compare Iraq and the US in this situation like it is an apples-to-apples comparision. The intent of Iraq and the US in these instances were totally different.
If you want to go down the route of GC violations, go ahead and make lists for each country and see which one has significantly more.
I'm disgusted to see any dead bodies on TV. Again, look at the differences in cultures and purposes.
US citizens weren't in the streets denying that US soldiers were dying. In fact, more were protesting that deaths were occurring. Saddam showing dead bodies wasn't to "inform" US citizens that the deaths had occurred.
The Iraqis on the other hand we being fed daily garbage from Baghdad Bob, and believing it. Many are still denying that the brothers were killed and will still commit violence against US troops in their names. The dead soldiers that Saddam showed had little rank (not to belittle them). Saddam's sons, on the other hand, were #2 and #3 in the Iraqi food chain. Proving their deaths is very significant to the Iraqi population. Showing dead rank-and-file US soldiers isn't.
I opposed this war and I dislike this administration just as much as the next guy, but use some friggen common sense and look at this objectively. There's plenty of double standards with US policy, but this isn't one of them.
Censorship ? What ? On the US side, this was the most open war to reporters from all news organizations around the world. Where were the reporters with the Iraqi troops ?
3. When an Arab TV stations shows pictures of dead US and British troops it's disgusting. When pictures of Saddam Hussein's two sons are plastered all over the world's press, then it's perfectly fine. If you want to trot out the line that the people of Iraq needed proof then please explain to me why the same reason/excuse can't be used by others seeking to provide proof of US/UK casualties.
The United States or anyone else didn't need proof of casualties. Our news organizations as well as international ones covered it quite well. The Iraqis on the other hand don't trust anyone and their news organization(s) are a joke.
Saddam's purpose for showing the pictures was to disgust people and feed his own ego. You know it, I know it, we all know it, so please cut this line of BS.
The oil isn't going to last forever. This is a perfect investment opportunity for rich Saudis funding the terrorist activities. Talk about win-win -- kill infidels and make your money back, courtesy of the US government.
1. Train fanatics in suicide bombing
2. Invest in appropriate futures
3. Execute the attack
4. Profit !!
In a world where developers are baying for customers' attentions, very few people can claim to command that of the developer. Their blogs may be the only clue to the higher level of thinking that they operate at, creating the answers to why and when code works in addition to the perennial how
(Score: -5, Please pass the doobie over here )
This is throwing an 802.11 card in a computer and configuring it. Start etching some circuit boards, break out the soldering iron and spectrum analyzer, then you can considering it building...
Now we not only have to deal with oblivious drivers on cell phones, drunk drivers, senior citizen drivers who should have lost their licenses 10 years ago, soccer moms being distracted by five bratty kids, and the countless number of just plain incompetant drivers, but now we will have drivers reading email, watching videos, and playing games. Perhaps we should create a death mobile and complete the evolution of driving.
It's certainly the exception rather than the rule. It is much more work to validate addresses than it is just to send the spam and let the bounce go to a fake address. Consider that the spammer has to supply a real return address for these test emails and have a mail server that can accept the thousands of bounce messages that come back. Having a real return address increases the chances that they will be traced back to their network provider who will shut down their connectivity and make their lives a PITA.
Any spammer that is validating addresses isn't bound to be a very successful spammer, IMO.
Cellular has such a massive coverage area and number of towers. Anyone who thinks WiFi is going to surpass Cellular doesn't have clue as to the infrastructure needed to support a mobile network. Sure, cellular companies are like slow moving telcos. You can't push oodles of bandwidth yet, but the sites and network infrastructure are there. 802.11 is no match for the billions of dollars invested in the 90s on cellular and the standards that have been developed.
The hype factor with WiFi is so much higher than cellular and people with Pringles cans get excited and think 802.11 is the answer to everything from national networks to world starvation. 802.11 was an indoor LAN protocol that got stretched beyond what it was intended to do. Sure, 802.16 addresses some of this, but still the frequency allocations and necessary regulatory protection to create a national mobile network with unlicensed technology just isn't there.
802.11 is better suited for hotspots, but remember when Cellular was only for use in vehicles ? Now people use it in place of their home landline phones. Hotspots are merely fads, cellular will stomp on 802.11 hotspots, just watch.
Cellular is a tortoise and WiFi is the hare in the mobile data race. Slow and steady wins this race...
This happens all of the time -- it's called a spam dictionary attack, as the article attempts to explain. Spammers simply use every possible username in the world and append @yourdomain.com hoping to nail every user with their offers of bigger appendages.
The part in this article about spammers testing for the validity of a dictionary-generated email addresses is a load of crap. They could care less if the address is valid or not. They simply let the bounce message go out into never never land.
I doubt Telstra sold any email addresses. Dealing with spam attacks isn't worth the meager revenue that would be derived from selling addresses.
Will the nickname for PCI Express be "PCI XP" ?
Agreed. The forbidden post was off-topic and not any earth-shattering information. Many of us, including me, jumped on the positive moderation bandwagon after it was made known that the editors were manipulating what was going on. As I mentioned before, it was the principle of it. This is supposedly an open publically moderated discussion site, and the editors should let it take the course that it takes. Instead, CmdrTaco chose to sweep this all under the carpet. That was back when /. had some quality and was worth reading. Now it's overflowing with duplicate articles, Linux bigotry, questionable moderation, journalistically and spelling challenged editors, and rather predicatable drivel postings.
Before the $rtbl I was getting moderation points about every two weeks, and for a short time I was getting it on a weekly basis. That was with minor levels of posting comments, mind you, about one or two comment postings a week.
:-)
Send CmdrTaco an email asking if you've been $rtbl'ed. I'm sure you'll get a prompt, helpful response.
But perhaps you got bit by metamoderation. Maybe the editors have God like metamoderation points that make your chances of getting moderation points again next to nil. Who knows. This is their playground we are in.
It's the principle of the matter, and I like the ID I have. CmdrTaco and friends were wrong in the first place to $rtbl moderators on a publically moderated discussion. (Whether they truly wanted it public is another discussion.) If I really got a chub from moderating I'd get a new ID. The editors are the ones that call the shots with their unlimited moderation points anyways, so what does it matter...
I'm one of the folks that got $rtbl'ed for modding up the forbidden post awhile back. As a result I have never gotten moderation rights and metamoderation went away. About two months ago or so, metamoderation came back, but I still have never gotten moderation rights, so I assume I'm still $rtbl'ed.
Was some code changed that $rtbl'ed users can now metamoderate, or is this a bug ? How are $rtbl'ed users worthy of metamoderation rights but not moderation ?
if companies in the US, especially small etailers, don't bother?
They will be invaded by the French. Pay up, or prepare to die !!!
This is /. Linux snobbery rearing its ugly head. After jumping through hoops to get a Linux box to print several years ago, I never had the inclination or time to set it up on subsequent boxes. I now use the method above...
cat filename.txt | mail -s "Print this" me@somewhere.com
and then print the email using Outlook Express on a Windoze box.
There, now you don't have to buy a book.
This would mean that anyone who gets SARS is obviously a dirty rotten patent infringer, as they are making, using and (well, hopefully not selling) the "invention."
Actually, if I get SARS, can't I sue the organization that has patented it becuase it's their invention that is causing me harm ?
Cheers for taking the company that used to create those really good laser printers and turning them into another crap marketing company, just like you did to Digital.
Compaq didn't turn HP into a crap company, it was merely the final step in a multi-year process. Things went to hell the day HP made printers a priority over the good quality innovative test equipment they built the 50 years before.
HP, do you want to spend the rest of your life selling colored ink ?
Q: What's the difference between SCO and a carp ?
A: One is a worthless scum-sucking bottom dweller, the other is a fish...
Stop giving CmdrTaco hell. This article passed the stringent Slashdot tests for posting:
1. It busts on Microsoft.
2. It busts on Microsoft.
3. errr...uhhh...
The second I saw the headline, I though onboard RC oscillator triggering some microcode on startup, and count how many cycles you can run during one onboard clock pulse. It looks like this is what they are doing and it isn't rocket science. Disabling or crippling the microproccesor is trivial task once it's determined the clock is out of spec.
I though you couldn't patent a technique if it was determined that someone without privleged knowledge could come up with a similiar design ??!! I think the Intel logo on the article should be replaced with the 'Patent Pending' spoon-and-fork logo.
Picture Rocks, Pennsylvania, discovers Windows and the wonders of Graphical User Interfaces, or Gooeys, as they are commonly referred to. Details at 11.
So now the people that pay will have their opinions posted first. It's nice to see /. ignoring their original goals for a community-based discussion unlike an other site, while trying to make a site and a concept that was never meant to generate revenue do just that.