Multizilla is a tabbed browsing extension that allows you to do things like duplicate tabs, gather tabs from other instances of Mozilla, set permissions on a tab-by-tab basis (e.g, turn off image loading, turn off javascript, turn-off plug-ins, etc.), force auto-reload of a tab on a timed basis, reopen tabs that you closed, and more.
Googlebox, it a toolbar for searching and it's very handy. I won't waste space describing it when it's done much better at the provided link.
I don't use Thunderbird or Mozilla as my e-mail client as I prefer Outlook 2003 (not Express). Please, no anti-Microsoft comments. I tried lots of clients, including Thunderbird, Mozilla, The Bat, Eudora, Poco Mail, and Pegasus Mail, before deciding on Outlook 2003. Whether you like MS or not, it's a damned good client (though not without flaws).
It is, however, the dominant implication in these debates. For going on fourty years now environmentalism has been a thin veil over class warfare.
I'm sorry that you feel that way, but I assure you that many environmental concerns, from mercury pollution to PCBs in the water to air pollution in urban areas, are valid, scientifically grounded concerns. I fish in a river where I have to throw the fish back because the PCB levels make them unsafe for human consumption, so please don't tell me that pollution isn't a real problem.
Also, environmentalists are often well-to-do. Al Gore and Jimmy Carter aren't struggling to make ends meet and they are environmentalists. In fact, the Democrats, who are much more aligned with environmentalists, typically get votes from the wealthier areas while the Republicans, who are in favor of dismantling much of the environmental protection legislation, get more votes from economically poorer areas of the country.
Let's not worry about how to spell "dioxin" either I guess.
One should always try to spell words properly. I thought that "dioxin" was spelled "dioxyn," but I was apparently wrong. Please accept my sincere apologies for any inconvenience or mental anguish that my error caused.
Unless you can find Republicans actually using this logic (outside the fevered imaginings of your diseased mind, that is).
It's easy to find Republicans using that "logic." Just look at how many of them are claiming that we should ignore man-made greenhouse gas emissions because (insert one: sunspots, natural climatic cycles, Milankovitch Cycles, Plate Tectonics, or volcanoes) have a greater effect on climate. You will note that Bush backed us out of the Kyoto treaty, so it's obvious that he doesn't take man's contribution to global warming very seriously.
I know the idea that our environment is a static entity that will only be changed should someone like the evil corporations or the Bush administration do something to it is a commonly accepted idea, but that is just scientifically inaccurate.
That's also a straw man argument, since no one is making that claiming. Everyone knows that the environment can be affected by things beyond man's control. But that doesn't mean that we should just ignore those things we can control. "Well, a meteor strike could wipe out life on Earth, so let's not worry about dioxyn, PCBs, air pollution, or greenhouse gas emissions. And what's with those whiners in Bhopal, India? So what if Union Carbide killed thousands. Earthquakes kill thousands of people, so why should Union Carbide have to be concerned with safety?" That's Republican logic (to use an oxymoron) for you.
Nice job of avoiding the really important points of his post, in which he quotes the article:
"The climate system is remarkably sensitive to natural variability," he said. "It's likely that it is equally sensitive to effects brought on by human activity, changes like increased greenhouse gases, altered land-use policies and fossil-fuel dependence.
"Any prudent person would agree that we don't yet understand the complexities with the climate system and, since we don't, we should be extremely cautious in how much we 'tweak' the system," he said.
So you want them to act like adults, but you treat them like children?
No, treating them like adults is informing them that screaming and whining like children isn't going to get them root/administrator access and that they have to behave like adults and work with the IT department.
Adults have adult responsibilities. Cars don't have safety features that keep them from going more than 35 mph. Instead, we have driver's ed classes, driver's licenses, penalties for speeding, penalties for drunk driving, etc.
Cars have a handful of controls which perform obvious functions. Computer interfaces morph constantly and there are uncountable buttons, check boxes, drop-down menus, and applications that can change the way that a computer works. And there aren't people all over the world trying to sabotage their cars.
The best solution to security problems is to educate users. Most people are not slashdotters. They don't do this stuff for fun -- for them, computers are just a tool to get the job done.
And that is precisely why they won't pay any attention. It's like trying to teach the average person about the inner workings of their microwave oven. They won't pay any attention and most will just walk away.
You also have to realize that security is not an absolute. You have to pick the level of security that is optimal for you.
I was the architect on a system which got a C2 evaluation and headed up the team producing it. I just came back from IBM today where I was talking with some of the top computer security people in the world. You aren't exactly inundating me with new information here.
That's all fine and dandy until you're unemployed because someone with a lot of clout tells your boss that you're being "uncooperative".
If you have that little respect from your boss, then your job was not very secure to begin with.
If you have to go up against those kinds of people, you'd better have a comprehensive written security policy with the full backing of the entire IT department (and if that's just the one person, then the IT "person"'s boss as well), as well as the higher administration.
Absolutely. I was making the assumption that anyone responsible for network security would have a complete written policy, with rationale to explain the reasons behind each aspect of the policy. Again, if your boss and his superiors don't respect you enough to back you, then you should already be looking for work already.
I ask you this: how do you limit a user's access without making it look like you're limiting their access?
You don't. You limit their access and tell them that they have to live with it. Explain to them that security is inconvenient and that they have to be adults and accept it. It's your job to secure the network and it's their job to teach the students, so make a deal with them: You won't tell them how to teach their courses and they don't tell you how to run the network.
Hehe, the Chinese Government would call that a good solution to the twin problems of "evil ideas" coming into China over the wire and "dissident communication" getting out.
It also would devastate them economically. The Chinese government may not tolerate political dissidents, but they rely on their booming export business to bring money into their country.
Given the PRC government's (not to be confused with the legitimate government of the Republic of China in exile in Taipei) methods for dealing the the people demanding anything, I don't think that's too likely.
When China can't use the net for business relating to their massive exports, the government will have an intense interest. They may not give a damn about human rights, but they sure care about their economy.
Only two dozen posts in and I see half of them appear to suggest blocking email from China.
I suggested blocking all traffic. If they want to host spammers' web sites, then block web traffic. If they want to communicate over IRC with zombie machines to send spam, then block IRC. Just block everything for a week and watch the sudden interest on the part of China to deal with the spam problem.
This is a good individual solution on an ISP by ISP basis but not a good universal solution. Businesses have to deal with other businesses in China, and well there are plenty of families who legitimately want to email from China to the US and back.
So what? Make it tough on businesses, families, and everyone else and then there will be pressure to address the spam problem. I don't really give a rat's ass if some company incurs inconvenience and added expense when dealing with China. Maybe they will choose to stop doing business with Chinese firms until the spam blockade is lifted. China needs the west more than the west needs China, from an economic standpoint. They rely on exports to survive.
Any solution that involves blocking everything from China won't work for everyone, and every solution that tries to selectively opt in or selectively block from China is a greater expense to set up.
Blocking trade with Cuba doesn't "work for everyone," but we do it anyway. There's no reason that China can't be knocked off of the net (at least for traffic to/from the U.S.). These namby-pamby attempts to keep from inconveniencing people are counter-productive. You get action when you inconvenience lots of people.
If we want to put an end to the spam from China, stop routing their data. Knock them off of the Internet and their citizens will demand that the problem be addressed. This is easy: Make it illegal for U.S. companies to move Internet traffic from China. A traceroute to www.chinanet.cn.net shows that the data is being moved through Sprintlink. Shut those pipes down and the problem will be handled. Let China go back to telephones and faxes for their communications with the U.S. and they will do something about the spam problem.
Nevermind, you've got your head so far up your own ass it's impossible to speak to you. Rant on flamer.
No, I don't respect people who choose to exercise their rights in the most inflammatory, repugnant manner possible.
How ironic those three sentences are when read together.
BTW... why would you cage in your own rally?
I would not. But the Bush administration, in their ongoing attempts to curtail the free speech rights of dissenters would, and do.
I was suggesting that you have it at a Marriot or get a permit to hold it in Central Park or Times Square or if in D.C. find a good attractive location in the city somewhere. Tell the media about it and organize it with provisions for everyone involved, public bathrooms, catered food, decorations, traffic control, security... you know like you were throwing a big party..
I understand your position: Only the wealthy and well-connected should have their voices heard. Anyone who opposes the Bush administration is supposed to be able to spend so much money that they convince the major TV networks and newspapers to give their event major press coverage. Out of work Americans who are unhappy with the Bush administration are supposed to fund $100/head catered affairs for the press?
Meanwhile, Bush's inauguration is funded by tax dollars. So they can fund the inauguration with my tax dollars, but I should not be able to peacefully protest in the public areas where the inauguration is held.
with the theme being that you are protesting GW's election to the office of President of US.
Unlike you, I respect the laws of the U.S., so I am not protesting his election. I'm protesting his administration's policies.
You want to raise awareness and encourage support? You'll get a lot more people to tune in to your message when you have invited political, social, and other celebrity speakers to talk about your issue. Make it into a benefit while you're at it.
We don't just want to raise awareness and encourage support. We want Bush to see, with his own eyes, faces of those Americans who disagree with his policies. We want him to see that a 51%-48% victory in time of war is not a "mandate."
It's funny how you Republicans think that protesting abortion is best done by angry mobs standing in front of clinics intimidating the employees and patients. Yet you feel that public protest, on public lands, at a publically funded inauguration of G.W. Bush should be prevented by any means possible -- even if it involves abridging people's Constitutional rights.
I dissent with my wallet and my vote, not with fruitless attention whore tactics for people with nothing better to do.
"Nothing better to do?" You mean like the pro-Bush crowd hooting it up in their cowboy boots at the inauguration? The ones carrying anti-homosexual, anti-choice, religious signs in support of Bush? The ones who don't get penned up somewhere?
You are so un-American that you sicken me. Rather than recognizine the value in free speech, you call those who practice it 'attention whores.'
Instead of standing around with signs in hopes of catching some media coverage, why don't these protesters do something productive like lobbying someone with enough money to put an ad on TV or a full page spread in the NY Times.
Because seeing throngs of people on national news coverage is far more convincing than seeing an ad on TV or in a newspaper. One person with enough money could put an ad on TV. It doesn't mean that his ideas have widespread support.
If you must gather together to pat each other on your backs and stroke each others egos while 'demonstrating' something that everyone is and has been aware of most likely for months and months (seriously we know how you feel already and yeah we know there are quite a few of you out there, it's kind of hard to miss)... then pick your own location to have a rally.
But don't do anything to make President Bush look bad. Don't rain on his parade. Only those who want to throw rose petals at his feet and kiss his ass deserve public attention, right?
All you do when demonstrating at a government event is to cause security concerns to go up all around and increase the chance that someone with criminal intent will take advantage of your cover to do something heinous.
If you are such a fucking coward that you are afraid every time someone protests, then stay at home, pussy. Pro-Bush crowds, yelling, hooting, and hollering are no less cover for those with criminal intent. Hell, look at the Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta in 1996. It happened in the middle of a loud, but happy, crowd.
Nobody hears your message any better than if you did it somewhere else.
More bullshit. While the networks are covering the inauguration, how will any dissenting voices be heard from some fenced-off pen blocks away?
But your opinion about where others should protest is immaterial. If someone wants to protest at the inauguration, they have the right, as an American, to do so. The federal government has no right to cage up dissenters while allowing those who support the administration to have their voices be heard on public lands. If that's how you think that a country should be run, then move to Communist China. You probably think that Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989 was justified because the protestors were voicing dissent with the administration.
I was under the impression that under the Patriot Act they could delay notification, up to a few months - but eventually you had to be notified if any searches made.
Under Section 213 searches, the government may extend the notification period indefinitely for 'good cause' -- meaning that you may never be notified. Searches made under the PATRIOT Act's Section 218, which amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, have no mandatory disclosure provision at all.
never had my privacy invaded by government or non-government individuals or organizations.
How do you know? Under the PATRIOT Act, warrantless searches can be conducted against you and you might never know it. In fact, the FBI can go to your local library to ask what books you've checked out or for records of what web sites you visited while there -- and the librarians are prohibited from even telling you of the inquiry. How do you know if your phone has been tapped, your Internet connection monitored, or your e-mail traffic examined?
never felt that my rights have been diminshed even in the least possible way, in fact I have more ways to express myself, more ways to share my views and absolutely no hint of having my freedom of speech oppressed or my freedom to life, liberty and property... I have more of each now than 2000.
Yes, your rights have been diminished -- whether you choose to exercise them or not. Show up at George W. Bush's inauguration carrying a sign protesting the war, his handling of the economy, or anything related to his Presidency. You will find yourself cordoned off in a "free speech zone" -- a euphamism for a remote, fenced-in area that's outside of the public's view.
Here's a link to a December 15, 2003 article in "The American Conservative" entitled "Free-Speech Zone": The administration quarantines dissent.. Notice how I chose a conservative publication to prevent you from whining about it being a liberal source.
That was an intelligent and insightful post. Thank you.
Yes, man-made pollution is bad and we need to take steps in curbing that - I never disputed that point. My point was that there is no foolproof connection between rise in CO2 levels and rise in Earth's temperature. And I never disputed that rise in Earth's temperature could be harmful.
Then we are basically in agreement -- except that I feel that the evidence does tend to show that GW warming is largely caused by man-made greenhous gas emissions. Far too often, those who dispute the existence of, or man's contribution to, global warming are doing so not for scientific reasons, but rather for political reasons. They don't want any further pollution limits on industry, automobiles, etc.
Unfortunately, climatology is a science in its infancy. The number of variables and the interactions between them is staggering. We may never see proof beyond a doubt that greenhouse gas emissions caused by man are the primary cause of global warming. But if we wait for climatology to get to the point where that can be proven, then we might be dooming countless species, and even mankind itself. We have to act now based on a valid concern and some supporting scientific evidence -- even if there is not proof beyond any reasonable doubt.
From the EPA web site: According to the National Academy of Sciences, the Earth's surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century, with accelerated warming during the past two decades. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Human activities have altered the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of greenhouse gases - primarily carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.
That's what's posted there right now under the Republican-controlled federal government. If even they admit that, then it's pretty damned clear that it's well-accepted. You want to disprove my claim, then do so. I don't have the time or resources to conduct a poll of climatologists to prove something to an AC on Slashdot.
Until it can be proven absolutely conclusively to the dot, no amount of "widespread acceptance" is going to convince me otherwise. But wait, being a skeptic is wrong, right?
No, being a fool is wrong. Taking no steps to curb man-made pollution when there is strong evidence linking it to global warming is being a fool. What if you are wrong and in 20 years they prove that global warming is man-made? If nothing has been done to reduce man-made greenhouse gas emissions, we could see a temperature rise that spirals out of control. At the end of the Permian era, there was a temperature rise of six degrees. 95% of the species on Earth perished as a result.
Because there are some of us with the balls to question a theory with lots of ifs and maybe's.
When you want to question scientific studies based on logic and alternate studies, you let me know. It doesn't take "balls" to post on Slashdot saying you don't believe that there is man-made global warming. You want to show your cajones? Then do a study on global warming and publish it in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
I made my argument on #5. Mayhem is not free speech.
Holding up a sign is not mayhem. How dare you characterize civil protest and free speech as "mayhem"? You are so un-American that it disgusts me.
I will not discuss the PATRIOT act because opposition to the PATRIOT act is not based on reality or rationality.
My opposition is based on reality and rationality. It's based on cherishing the rights that our ancestors fought and died for. I provided concrete, rational reasons for opposition to the PATRIOT act. You are being irrational in your refusal to discuss it.
#3,4,5 and 6 are false in my judgement. You disagree. They are arguable cases.
Then please make your arguments. I'm eager to discuss them.
I'm waiting for #7 and beyond.
Let's debate what's already on the table instead.
Meanwhile, Democrats want to take away freedom to live where you want
In what way? I can live where I want (within my means).
freedom to drive the car you want
As long as it meets safety and pollution standards, you can drive it.
freedom to talk on a cell phone
The nation's first ban on cell phone use while driving was signed into law by Republican Governor George Pataki of New York in 2001. Still feeling frisky?
freedom to run a company as you see fit
Are you referring to laws relating to child labor, worker safety, SEC, or what?
freedom to smoke a cigarette
As an asthmatic, I never wanted to smoke a cigarette, but it sure it nice to be able to go into a restaurant and not have my meal and health ruined by cigarette smoke. By the way, why should you be free to smoke a cigarette while your neighbor isn't free to smoke marijuana?
freedom to say a prayer in school
If you want to say grace before lunch or pray silently before a test, knock yourself out. If you don't want the teacher saying a prayer to Allah to start homeroom, then don't complain when others don't want her to say a Christian prayer. If you want your kid to pray in school, send them to a private school. My tax dollars shouldn't be funding your child's indoctrination into Catholicism, Islam, Hinduism, Satanism, or whatever religion you want him/her exposed to.
freedom to associate
The PATRIOT Act is the only limit on that I'm aware of.
freedom to own a gun
I'm a Democrat and I'll be at the NRA HQ range tomorrow to shoot my 9mm Makarov and my 8x57mm Mauser rifle. I may also take a.22 rifle to keep the costs down.
free speech on campus
Nixon. Kent State. Google it and tell me what you find.
freedom to leave your kids an inheritance
My father left me an inheritance and my mother will leave me one when she passes away. No one has tried to take away that right.
freedom to spend your own paycheck
Don't use inflammatory Republican BS-speak. What you object to is paying taxes. Well Bush sure doesn't mind spending more than any President ever, so don't bitch when you have to cover some of the costs.
freedom to control your own land
I control my own land already. What do you want to do with yours that isn't permitted? Turn it into a NAMBLA retreat? Dump toxins on it?
Slashdot Mirror
What are your reasons for running the old standby suite over the Firefox/Thunderbird combo?
I still use Mozilla because of Multizilla and Googlebox, which do not yet run on Firefox.
Multizilla is a tabbed browsing extension that allows you to do things like duplicate tabs, gather tabs from other instances of Mozilla, set permissions on a tab-by-tab basis (e.g, turn off image loading, turn off javascript, turn-off plug-ins, etc.), force auto-reload of a tab on a timed basis, reopen tabs that you closed, and more.
Googlebox, it a toolbar for searching and it's very handy. I won't waste space describing it when it's done much better at the provided link.
I don't use Thunderbird or Mozilla as my e-mail client as I prefer Outlook 2003 (not Express). Please, no anti-Microsoft comments. I tried lots of clients, including Thunderbird, Mozilla, The Bat, Eudora, Poco Mail, and Pegasus Mail, before deciding on Outlook 2003. Whether you like MS or not, it's a damned good client (though not without flaws).
Actually some do make that claim, and that was an implication in the origional /. story that I was responding too.
Please show me where that is implied in the story.
It is, however, the dominant implication in these debates. For going on fourty years now environmentalism has been a thin veil over class warfare.
I'm sorry that you feel that way, but I assure you that many environmental concerns, from mercury pollution to PCBs in the water to air pollution in urban areas, are valid, scientifically grounded concerns. I fish in a river where I have to throw the fish back because the PCB levels make them unsafe for human consumption, so please don't tell me that pollution isn't a real problem.
Also, environmentalists are often well-to-do. Al Gore and Jimmy Carter aren't struggling to make ends meet and they are environmentalists. In fact, the Democrats, who are much more aligned with environmentalists, typically get votes from the wealthier areas while the Republicans, who are in favor of dismantling much of the environmental protection legislation, get more votes from economically poorer areas of the country.
Let's not worry about how to spell "dioxin" either I guess.
One should always try to spell words properly. I thought that "dioxin" was spelled "dioxyn," but I was apparently wrong. Please accept my sincere apologies for any inconvenience or mental anguish that my error caused.
Unless you can find Republicans actually using this logic (outside the fevered imaginings of your diseased mind, that is).
It's easy to find Republicans using that "logic." Just look at how many of them are claiming that we should ignore man-made greenhouse gas emissions because (insert one: sunspots, natural climatic cycles, Milankovitch Cycles, Plate Tectonics, or volcanoes) have a greater effect on climate. You will note that Bush backed us out of the Kyoto treaty, so it's obvious that he doesn't take man's contribution to global warming very seriously.
since no one is making that claiming
Obviously should have been "claim." Sorry for not editing with more care.
I know the idea that our environment is a static entity that will only be changed should someone like the evil corporations or the Bush administration do something to it is a commonly accepted idea, but that is just scientifically inaccurate.
That's also a straw man argument, since no one is making that claiming. Everyone knows that the environment can be affected by things beyond man's control. But that doesn't mean that we should just ignore those things we can control. "Well, a meteor strike could wipe out life on Earth, so let's not worry about dioxyn, PCBs, air pollution, or greenhouse gas emissions. And what's with those whiners in Bhopal, India? So what if Union Carbide killed thousands. Earthquakes kill thousands of people, so why should Union Carbide have to be concerned with safety?" That's Republican logic (to use an oxymoron) for you.
Nice job of avoiding the really important points of his post, in which he quotes the article:
"The climate system is remarkably sensitive to natural variability," he said. "It's likely that it is equally sensitive to effects brought on by human activity, changes like increased greenhouse gases, altered land-use policies and fossil-fuel dependence.
"Any prudent person would agree that we don't yet understand the complexities with the climate system and, since we don't, we should be extremely cautious in how much we 'tweak' the system," he said.
So you want them to act like adults, but you treat them like children?
No, treating them like adults is informing them that screaming and whining like children isn't going to get them root/administrator access and that they have to behave like adults and work with the IT department.
Adults have adult responsibilities. Cars don't have safety features that keep them from going more than 35 mph. Instead, we have driver's ed classes, driver's licenses, penalties for speeding, penalties for drunk driving, etc.
Cars have a handful of controls which perform obvious functions. Computer interfaces morph constantly and there are uncountable buttons, check boxes, drop-down menus, and applications that can change the way that a computer works. And there aren't people all over the world trying to sabotage their cars.
The best solution to security problems is to educate users. Most people are not slashdotters. They don't do this stuff for fun -- for them, computers are just a tool to get the job done.
And that is precisely why they won't pay any attention. It's like trying to teach the average person about the inner workings of their microwave oven. They won't pay any attention and most will just walk away.
You also have to realize that security is not an absolute. You have to pick the level of security that is optimal for you.
I was the architect on a system which got a C2 evaluation and headed up the team producing it. I just came back from IBM today where I was talking with some of the top computer security people in the world. You aren't exactly inundating me with new information here.
That's all fine and dandy until you're unemployed because someone with a lot of clout tells your boss that you're being "uncooperative".
If you have that little respect from your boss, then your job was not very secure to begin with.
If you have to go up against those kinds of people, you'd better have a comprehensive written security policy with the full backing of the entire IT department (and if that's just the one person, then the IT "person"'s boss as well), as well as the higher administration.
Absolutely. I was making the assumption that anyone responsible for network security would have a complete written policy, with rationale to explain the reasons behind each aspect of the policy. Again, if your boss and his superiors don't respect you enough to back you, then you should already be looking for work already.
I ask you this: how do you limit a user's access without making it look like you're limiting their access?
You don't. You limit their access and tell them that they have to live with it. Explain to them that security is inconvenient and that they have to be adults and accept it. It's your job to secure the network and it's their job to teach the students, so make a deal with them: You won't tell them how to teach their courses and they don't tell you how to run the network.
Hehe, the Chinese Government would call that a good solution to the twin problems of "evil ideas" coming into China over the wire and "dissident communication" getting out.
It also would devastate them economically. The Chinese government may not tolerate political dissidents, but they rely on their booming export business to bring money into their country.
Given the PRC government's (not to be confused with the legitimate government of the Republic of China in exile in Taipei) methods for dealing the the people demanding anything, I don't think that's too likely.
When China can't use the net for business relating to their massive exports, the government will have an intense interest. They may not give a damn about human rights, but they sure care about their economy.
Only two dozen posts in and I see half of them appear to suggest blocking email from China.
I suggested blocking all traffic. If they want to host spammers' web sites, then block web traffic. If they want to communicate over IRC with zombie machines to send spam, then block IRC. Just block everything for a week and watch the sudden interest on the part of China to deal with the spam problem.
This is a good individual solution on an ISP by ISP basis but not a good universal solution. Businesses have to deal with other businesses in China, and well there are plenty of families who legitimately want to email from China to the US and back.
So what? Make it tough on businesses, families, and everyone else and then there will be pressure to address the spam problem. I don't really give a rat's ass if some company incurs inconvenience and added expense when dealing with China. Maybe they will choose to stop doing business with Chinese firms until the spam blockade is lifted. China needs the west more than the west needs China, from an economic standpoint. They rely on exports to survive.
Any solution that involves blocking everything from China won't work for everyone, and every solution that tries to selectively opt in or selectively block from China is a greater expense to set up.
Blocking trade with Cuba doesn't "work for everyone," but we do it anyway. There's no reason that China can't be knocked off of the net (at least for traffic to/from the U.S.).
These namby-pamby attempts to keep from inconveniencing people are counter-productive. You get action when you inconvenience lots of people.
If we want to put an end to the spam from China, stop routing their data. Knock them off of the Internet and their citizens will demand that the problem be addressed. This is easy: Make it illegal for U.S. companies to move Internet traffic from China. A traceroute to www.chinanet.cn.net shows that the data is being moved through Sprintlink. Shut those pipes down and the problem will be handled. Let China go back to telephones and faxes for their communications with the U.S. and they will do something about the spam problem.
Nevermind, you've got your head so far up your own ass it's impossible to speak to you. Rant on flamer.
No, I don't respect people who choose to exercise their rights in the most inflammatory, repugnant manner possible.
How ironic those three sentences are when read together.
BTW... why would you cage in your own rally?
I would not. But the Bush administration, in their ongoing attempts to curtail the free speech rights of dissenters would, and do.
I was suggesting that you have it at a Marriot or get a permit to hold it in Central Park or Times Square or if in D.C. find a good attractive location in the city somewhere. Tell the media about it and organize it with provisions for everyone involved, public bathrooms, catered food, decorations, traffic control, security... you know like you were throwing a big party..
I understand your position: Only the wealthy and well-connected should have their voices heard. Anyone who opposes the Bush administration is supposed to be able to spend so much money that they convince the major TV networks and newspapers to give their event major press coverage. Out of work Americans who are unhappy with the Bush administration are supposed to fund $100/head catered affairs for the press?
Meanwhile, Bush's inauguration is funded by tax dollars. So they can fund the inauguration with my tax dollars, but I should not be able to peacefully protest in the public areas where the inauguration is held.
with the theme being that you are protesting GW's election to the office of President of US.
Unlike you, I respect the laws of the U.S., so I am not protesting his election. I'm protesting his administration's policies.
You want to raise awareness and encourage support? You'll get a lot more people to tune in to your message when you have invited political, social, and other celebrity speakers to talk about your issue. Make it into a benefit while you're at it.
We don't just want to raise awareness and encourage support. We want Bush to see, with his own eyes, faces of those Americans who disagree with his policies. We want him to see that a 51%-48% victory in time of war is not a "mandate."
It's funny how you Republicans think that protesting abortion is best done by angry mobs standing in front of clinics intimidating the employees and patients. Yet you feel that public protest, on public lands, at a publically funded inauguration of G.W. Bush should be prevented by any means possible -- even if it involves abridging people's Constitutional rights.
I dissent with my wallet and my vote, not with fruitless attention whore tactics for people with nothing better to do.
"Nothing better to do?" You mean like the pro-Bush crowd hooting it up in their cowboy boots at the inauguration? The ones carrying anti-homosexual, anti-choice, religious signs in support of Bush? The ones who don't get penned up somewhere?
You are so un-American that you sicken me. Rather than recognizine the value in free speech, you call those who practice it 'attention whores.'
Instead of standing around with signs in hopes of catching some media coverage, why don't these protesters do something productive like lobbying someone with enough money to put an ad on TV or a full page spread in the NY Times.
Because seeing throngs of people on national news coverage is far more convincing than seeing an ad on TV or in a newspaper. One person with enough money could put an ad on TV. It doesn't mean that his ideas have widespread support.
If you must gather together to pat each other on your backs and stroke each others egos while 'demonstrating' something that everyone is and has been aware of most likely for months and months (seriously we know how you feel already and yeah we know there are quite a few of you out there, it's kind of hard to miss)... then pick your own location to have a rally.
But don't do anything to make President Bush look bad. Don't rain on his parade. Only those who want to throw rose petals at his feet and kiss his ass deserve public attention, right?
All you do when demonstrating at a government event is to cause security concerns to go up all around and increase the chance that someone with criminal intent will take advantage of your cover to do something heinous.
If you are such a fucking coward that you are afraid every time someone protests, then stay at home, pussy. Pro-Bush crowds, yelling, hooting, and hollering are no less cover for those with criminal intent. Hell, look at the Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta in 1996. It happened in the middle of a loud, but happy, crowd.
Nobody hears your message any better than if you did it somewhere else.
More bullshit. While the networks are covering the inauguration, how will any dissenting voices be heard from some fenced-off pen blocks away?
But your opinion about where others should protest is immaterial. If someone wants to protest at the inauguration, they have the right, as an American, to do so. The federal government has no right to cage up dissenters while allowing those who support the administration to have their voices be heard on public lands. If that's how you think that a country should be run, then move to Communist China. You probably think that Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989 was justified because the protestors were voicing dissent with the administration.
I was under the impression that under the Patriot Act they could delay notification, up to a few months - but eventually you had to be notified if any searches made.
Under Section 213 searches, the government may extend the notification period indefinitely for 'good cause' -- meaning that you may never be notified. Searches made under the PATRIOT Act's Section 218, which amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, have no mandatory disclosure provision at all.
never had my privacy invaded by government or non-government individuals or organizations.
How do you know? Under the PATRIOT Act, warrantless searches can be conducted against you and you might never know it. In fact, the FBI can go to your local library to ask what books you've checked out or for records of what web sites you visited while there -- and the librarians are prohibited from even telling you of the inquiry. How do you know if your phone has been tapped, your Internet connection monitored, or your e-mail traffic examined?
never felt that my rights have been diminshed even in the least possible way, in fact I have more ways to express myself, more ways to share my views and absolutely no hint of having my freedom of speech oppressed or my freedom to life, liberty and property... I have more of each now than 2000.
Yes, your rights have been diminished -- whether you choose to exercise them or not. Show up at George W. Bush's inauguration carrying a sign protesting the war, his handling of the economy, or anything related to his Presidency. You will find yourself cordoned off in a "free speech zone" -- a euphamism for a remote, fenced-in area that's outside of the public's view.
Here's a link to a December 15, 2003 article in "The American Conservative" entitled "Free-Speech Zone": The administration quarantines dissent.. Notice how I chose a conservative publication to prevent you from whining about it being a liberal source.
That was an intelligent and insightful post. Thank you.
Yes, man-made pollution is bad and we need to take steps in curbing that - I never disputed that point. My point was that there is no foolproof connection between rise in CO2 levels and rise in Earth's temperature. And I never disputed that rise in Earth's temperature could be harmful.
Then we are basically in agreement -- except that I feel that the evidence does tend to show that GW warming is largely caused by man-made greenhous gas emissions. Far too often, those who dispute the existence of, or man's contribution to, global warming are doing so not for scientific reasons, but rather for political reasons. They don't want any further pollution limits on industry, automobiles, etc.
Unfortunately, climatology is a science in its infancy. The number of variables and the interactions between them is staggering. We may never see proof beyond a doubt that greenhouse gas emissions caused by man are the primary cause of global warming. But if we wait for climatology to get to the point where that can be proven, then we might be dooming countless species, and even mankind itself. We have to act now based on a valid concern and some supporting scientific evidence -- even if there is not proof beyond any reasonable doubt.
BULLSHIT. Prove it.
From the EPA web site: According to the National Academy of Sciences, the Earth's surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century, with accelerated warming during the past two decades. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Human activities have altered the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of greenhouse gases - primarily carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.
That's what's posted there right now under the Republican-controlled federal government. If even they admit that, then it's pretty damned clear that it's well-accepted. You want to disprove my claim, then do so. I don't have the time or resources to conduct a poll of climatologists to prove something to an AC on Slashdot.
There is nothing problematic about "sunspot activity", it is simply a fact of nature. Deal with it.
If, as you claim, it's to blame for global warming, then sunspot activity is problematic. I, however, believe that it is almost completely unrelated.
You failed to answer the important question:
Doesn't it seem to make more sense to address the things that we can rather than throwing our hands up in the air and saying 'it's God's will'?
Until it can be proven absolutely conclusively to the dot, no amount of "widespread acceptance" is going to convince me otherwise. But wait, being a skeptic is wrong, right?
No, being a fool is wrong. Taking no steps to curb man-made pollution when there is strong evidence linking it to global warming is being a fool. What if you are wrong and in 20 years they prove that global warming is man-made? If nothing has been done to reduce man-made greenhouse gas emissions, we could see a temperature rise that spirals out of control. At the end of the Permian era, there was a temperature rise of six degrees. 95% of the species on Earth perished as a result.
Because there are some of us with the balls to question a theory with lots of ifs and maybe's.
When you want to question scientific studies based on logic and alternate studies, you let me know. It doesn't take "balls" to post on Slashdot saying you don't believe that there is man-made global warming. You want to show your cajones? Then do a study on global warming and publish it in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
I made my argument on #5. Mayhem is not free speech.
Holding up a sign is not mayhem. How dare you characterize civil protest and free speech as "mayhem"? You are so un-American that it disgusts me.
I will not discuss the PATRIOT act because opposition to the PATRIOT act is not based on reality or rationality.
My opposition is based on reality and rationality. It's based on cherishing the rights that our ancestors fought and died for. I provided concrete, rational reasons for opposition to the PATRIOT act. You are being irrational in your refusal to discuss it.
You're wrong about the first cell-phone ban
No, I am not, as you could see by reading this press release entitled GOVERNOR PATAKI SIGNS HISTORIC CELL PHONE BAN LEGISLATION: New York Becomes First State in Nation to Ban Hand-Held Cell Phones While Driving. You will note that it is on New York state's official web site.
Your claims that I "agree" with you on other issues are, at best, misrepresentations.
Since you have apparently decided that debating in an adult manner is not of interest to you, I shall bid you farewell. Have a nice day.
#3,4,5 and 6 are false in my judgement. You disagree. They are arguable cases.
.22 rifle to keep the costs down.
Then please make your arguments. I'm eager to discuss them.
I'm waiting for #7 and beyond.
Let's debate what's already on the table instead.
Meanwhile, Democrats want to take away freedom to live where you want
In what way? I can live where I want (within my means).
freedom to drive the car you want
As long as it meets safety and pollution standards, you can drive it.
freedom to talk on a cell phone
The nation's first ban on cell phone use while driving was signed into law by Republican Governor George Pataki of New York in 2001. Still feeling frisky?
freedom to run a company as you see fit
Are you referring to laws relating to child labor, worker safety, SEC, or what?
freedom to smoke a cigarette
As an asthmatic, I never wanted to smoke a cigarette, but it sure it nice to be able to go into a restaurant and not have my meal and health ruined by cigarette smoke. By the way, why should you be free to smoke a cigarette while your neighbor isn't free to smoke marijuana?
freedom to say a prayer in school
If you want to say grace before lunch or pray silently before a test, knock yourself out. If you don't want the teacher saying a prayer to Allah to start homeroom, then don't complain when others don't want her to say a Christian prayer. If you want your kid to pray in school, send them to a private school. My tax dollars shouldn't be funding your child's indoctrination into Catholicism, Islam, Hinduism, Satanism, or whatever religion you want him/her exposed to.
freedom to associate
The PATRIOT Act is the only limit on that I'm aware of.
freedom to own a gun
I'm a Democrat and I'll be at the NRA HQ range tomorrow to shoot my 9mm Makarov and my 8x57mm Mauser rifle. I may also take a
free speech on campus
Nixon. Kent State. Google it and tell me what you find.
freedom to leave your kids an inheritance
My father left me an inheritance and my mother will leave me one when she passes away. No one has tried to take away that right.
freedom to spend your own paycheck
Don't use inflammatory Republican BS-speak. What you object to is paying taxes. Well Bush sure doesn't mind spending more than any President ever, so don't bitch when you have to cover some of the costs.
freedom to control your own land
I control my own land already. What do you want to do with yours that isn't permitted? Turn it into a NAMBLA retreat? Dump toxins on it?