I've been called worse. "Sir" was unnecessary, I felt.
Here's where the lameness of your "spy-on-everyone" proposal shows up:
As for saying it's all the FBI's fault for not listening well enough that just goes to show that you have no idea of the total volume of tips and leaks the FBI gets. Many are bogus, intentionally false, or even true but never acted upon in the end. There is not the manpower sufficient to fully check them all out, thanks in good part to the demolition of our intelligence services under the previous administration that was more interested in FBI files on political enemies, rather than terrorists.
Read your own words, and then explain to me how syping on everyone is a workable option. Take your foot out of your mouth first, though.
While we're insulting each other, you might like to read the famous words of Stalin: "It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes." You're telling me that's not relevant? You must not live in America.
You imply that spying on everyone would have prevented 9/11. But that's overkill. Competent airport security would have prevented 9/11. Strong doors on the cockpits of planes would have prevented 9/11. The FBI listening to multiple individuals who came to them with their concerns might have stopped 9/11.
It's a scary world. Bad things happen. Your desire to implement Stalinist tactics is not a rational response to the threat.
Apple needs to work a deal with Sony, Dell, and that hip new HP company with the hot CEO and bundle iTunes, and maybe like thirty bucks of "iTunes money" with new PCs.
Didn't the OEMs get the right to add whatever they wanted on the desktop under one of the many Microsoft settlements?
Um... he had to cough up the WMDs to comply. Having the WMDs meant he hadn't complied >>> invasion. Not coughing up the WMDs meant he was lying >>> invasion. Plus, we had really good made-up evidence from Nigeria!
Just a little reality check, b-dog. And I don't like the idea of anyone with nuclear weapons, let alone Saddam Hussein (who, even if he had them, didn't really have a delivery system, but that's probably a minor point). Regardless, the genie has got at least one appendage out of the bottle. India, Pakistan, Israel, and suppposedly North Korea. It seems like the best way to get the US to NOT invade you is to get some nukes, quick! (reference: W's sudden willingness to negotiate with North Korea. Isn't that what Clinton tried?)
Realistically, why would any country, in light of current U.S. "cowboy diplomacy" actions, NOT pursue nuclear arms? And even if Jimmy Carter were running the show, you never know which direction the wind is going to blow in 4-8 years, so why not get some nukes just as an insurance policy?
It was tough to not hate america for the past five minutes, but I think I pulled it off. Now, back to lighting a flag and burning a bible with it!
PS Maybe the reason the U.N. didn't want to blow up Iraq is because the rest of the world isn't particularly interested in being in precisely the sort of quagmire we're in right now. Maybe they don't have an extra $87 billion lying around, or maybe their leaders aren't so cozy with the companies that will benefit from having to rebuild all the crap that got blown up. Either way, it wouldn't be the first time the UN guys sort of cough and mutter while we do the dirty work. But let's not forget that Roosevelt created the UN to advocate for US foreign policy around the globe.
I want to be in Roy S. Lahet's "Vice President of Planning for Mercy Behavioral Health" job. At the "busiest times" of his day, he has time to randomlyy type URLs into Internet Explorer (or maybe AOL. You can never tell.) Plus, he can't even type, or he never would have found SiteFinder in the first place.
Maybe he just fires the assholes who would sue when they see "offending porn" at the company. Those people are more of a problem than the ones looking at porn in the first place.
I may not have been *legally required* to state the Pledge, but my teachers *made me do it* in High School. I suppose I should have stood up for my rights.
I'm getting out a sharpie and blacking out "under god" from all my money right now, just to get back at those nasty teachers.
Interesting that these contraversial two words where just an addition to seperate us from those "godless commies", no?
It makes even less sense now, in our current military predicament, to say "Under God." Christians, Jews, and Muslims are all children of Abraham, and all worship the same god.
Suggestion to school kids: Substitute in "Under Allah" or "Under Yahweh" (or whatever that god's name is) and see if anything interesting happens.
Software Assurance... Microsoft's revenue-enhancer of a year and a half ago. You pay a fee, and SA gives you the right to use the latest and greatest Microsoft products (office and OS, basically) for three years.
Turns out there won't be a new version of Windows for three years. Nice trick!
I guess if you are dying to upgrade to Office.NET as soon as it comes out (read: you are an idiot) then SA for Microsoft Office wasn't such a rip-off. We looked at where our business was going, and the fact that MS has committed to support Windows 2000 through 2005 (or 2006, can't remember) and saw no reason whatsoever to purchase Software Assurance.
The thing that bothers me is that we have to keep learning this "law of unintented consequences" over and over again. We have blinders on. Lobbyists say "deregulation will increase competition" but how many times are we gonna get burned?
I for one don't want to learn the lesson of Enron again. And look at what a great job the airlines did "regulating" security! -- The airline companies told the FAA that they could provide the same security screening services that the Feds did, and it would cost way less. That second part seemed to be true, but there was a hidden cost somewhere in downtown Manhattan.
I do feel that there are a certain class of goods and services (the water that comes out of your tap, for instance) that don't fit the capital model. But I do agree that competition (genrally) leads to better value for consumers. I'm confident that competition in the cell phone market is what's made the offerings strong enough that I can get a cell phone plan to replace land line completely.
Most of what you describe has happened post-deregulation, to me!
I waited for six months for Qwest/MSN to get DSL going. They never did and I moved.
When I first signed up with Qwest, I was paying about a dollar a minute for long distance. Of course, those charges were really from AT&T, but as a "convenience" they were included in my Qwest bill each month.
My bills were full of details, though. All sorts of federal and state taxes and fees. And they even included bills that weren't from the company billing me! (See above)
Okay, so maybe having to lease a phone is annoying. I'll grant you that. But at least the phone was made out of metal. I know because when I was a kid, I smashed the phone in the kitchen with a hammer during an exciting temper tantrum. Then mom took it back to the Ma Bell store, and they just handed her a new one. That phone, also metal, lasted until we moved out of that house. Nowadays you can buy a phone for less than ten bucks at Target, but it's plastic crap, it's not shielded from RF, and it will die in a year. I can literally listen to AM 1000 on one particularly crappy phone I still own.
Regardless, you've done little to convince me that Qwest, SBC, Verison, and whoever else is left is actually any real improvement over Ma Bell. Mysterious bills, outrageous bills (for calls which can magically be "re-rated" if you bitch enough) and waiting for service... Those may be the "old days" for you, but to me it's a perfect description of "business as usual" today.
(I won't even go in to how long it might have taken Qwest to let Covad into a CO to hook up some poor bloke's DSL line.)
So, please go whack yourself with the clue bat. It only took about three years of Qwest hitting me with it, and I wised up. I dropped the land line altogether.
I realize the laws will probably change soon. Maybe if the pricing model changes and I dont' have to pay for incoming calls, I will get telemarketers calling on my cell phone. But as it stands now, telemarketers actually seem to respect the law making it illegal for them to call you on your cell.
Just because something is new doesn't mean it's better. In fact, with regards to the phone company, I feel it's "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss." I won't get fooled again, though, and so long as I keep living in cities I can't imagine ever getting another land line.
I hope you come to my funeral and laugh when the brain cancer kills me.
I never really had a problem with annoying telemarker calls, but I've only gotten two in the past five years on my cell phone.
I no longer have a land line because Qwest, my LEC or whatever, is horribly mismanaged and they like to steal my money too. Fortunately cell phone plans have gotten good enough that it only costs me a few bucks more each moneth for my cell phone than my land line.
And I'd have a cell phone anyway, since it's the only phone number that doesn't have to change every time I move. Even if it's just across town, I can never take my old phone number with me. Yet I paid a federal tax each month for "phone number portability." Not that the tax situation is much better on my cell phone bill...
I have a cable modem for internet access, so I don't need the land line for DSL. And hopefully, soon, I'll have (real) cell phone number portability and at least have the option of switching providers.
I believe that telemarketers are just another symptom of the profiteering disease that afflicts the telecommunications industry. Personally I kind of like the idea of a single, nationwide, regulated telephone company. The only reason we don't have this anymore is so some investors and executives can get rich. The value of services offered have not improved.
We have gone from a single regulated monopoly to four less-regulated regional monoplies. That's not really progress.
And the telcos take in SOOO MUCH MONEY (I think Qwest gets $3 billion a quarter or something). When you're dealing with numbers that large, AND you're expected to turn a profit too, some crazy decisions get made, books get cooked to please Wall Street, and so forth. Better to just remove the profit motive and have the industry provide the simple service they're expected to.
any act which causes an unauthorised modification of the contents of any computer
There will probably be some fine print somewhere on the CD stating that by playing this CD in your computer, you agree to the terms, which may include installing special software on your computer to protect your digital rights. So it's not unauthorized, because by using the contents of this software you agree to be bound by the terms of the license.
Part of the strategy is that most people won't bother to read the fine print. But that's not SunnComm's fault.
There is no way they can disable the shift key to make it not by-pass the auto-run "feature". Microsoft can make it so you can't turn off Autorun in future editions of Windows, though.
From what I understand, which isn't much, Eolas basically still exists solely to pursue this lawsuit. The rationale being that, if they win, the original investors will actually get some $$$ on their investment.
The fetuses that die have some horrifying birth defects and have no viable life support systems of their own. Once out of the womb they will not live, no matter what. Even when born "naturally."
However, this is where the problem comes in. Read on.
The reason they have to suck the brains out is because the fetus's head has swollen to such an extent that it can be as large as 50cm across.
By outlawing "partial birth abortion" you are sentencing women to torture and possible death. The only safe way to extract the non-viable fetus has been taken away. Now the mother has no choice but to push an object roughly twenty inches wide through her vagina. If the mother lives through that, she can look forward to her baby dieing in about two days from the birth defects, birth defects that were only detected late in pregnancy, too late for a normal abortion.
This has nothing to do with the "abortion industry" protecting their profits. I do feel that the medical cartel in the USA is run by greedy rapacious money launderers, but that's a different argument. In this case, doctors have found a safe, if horrific, way to remove a non-viable fetus with a specific type of birth defect from the mother. You should be happy that the vessel, uh, I mean woman, won't endure such injury that she'll never be able to bring forth life from a man's seed again.
I encourage you to learn the facts before you open your anonymous mouth again.
But when you stick up for Koresh, that deflates your argument.
I don't give a fuck about David Koresh. It's just that the United States government trapped his followers in their compound, gassed them, and then burned them alive.
Sounds like the same sort of thing that's happening now with "Partial Birth Abortion." A medical procedure designed to safely remove a non-viable fetus is being twisted into something horrifying.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been called worse. "Sir" was unnecessary, I felt.
Here's where the lameness of your "spy-on-everyone" proposal shows up:
As for saying it's all the FBI's fault for not listening well enough that just goes to show that you have no idea of the total volume of tips and leaks the FBI gets. Many are bogus, intentionally false, or even true but never acted upon in the end. There is not the manpower sufficient to fully check them all out, thanks in good part to the demolition of our intelligence services under the previous administration that was more interested in FBI files on political enemies, rather than terrorists.
Read your own words, and then explain to me how syping on everyone is a workable option. Take your foot out of your mouth first, though.
While we're insulting each other, you might like to read the famous words of Stalin: "It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes." You're telling me that's not relevant? You must not live in America.
You imply that spying on everyone would have prevented 9/11. But that's overkill. Competent airport security would have prevented 9/11. Strong doors on the cockpits of planes would have prevented 9/11. The FBI listening to multiple individuals who came to them with their concerns might have stopped 9/11.
It's a scary world. Bad things happen. Your desire to implement Stalinist tactics is not a rational response to the threat.
Just hold down the "Shift" key when opening your email and you can bypass all this DRM stuff!
Apple needs to work a deal with Sony, Dell, and that hip new HP company with the hot CEO and bundle iTunes, and maybe like thirty bucks of "iTunes money" with new PCs.
Didn't the OEMs get the right to add whatever they wanted on the desktop under one of the many Microsoft settlements?
Um... he had to cough up the WMDs to comply. Having the WMDs meant he hadn't complied >>> invasion. Not coughing up the WMDs meant he was lying >>> invasion. Plus, we had really good made-up evidence from Nigeria!
Just a little reality check, b-dog. And I don't like the idea of anyone with nuclear weapons, let alone Saddam Hussein (who, even if he had them, didn't really have a delivery system, but that's probably a minor point). Regardless, the genie has got at least one appendage out of the bottle. India, Pakistan, Israel, and suppposedly North Korea. It seems like the best way to get the US to NOT invade you is to get some nukes, quick! (reference: W's sudden willingness to negotiate with North Korea. Isn't that what Clinton tried?)
Realistically, why would any country, in light of current U.S. "cowboy diplomacy" actions, NOT pursue nuclear arms? And even if Jimmy Carter were running the show, you never know which direction the wind is going to blow in 4-8 years, so why not get some nukes just as an insurance policy?
It was tough to not hate america for the past five minutes, but I think I pulled it off. Now, back to lighting a flag and burning a bible with it!
PS Maybe the reason the U.N. didn't want to blow up Iraq is because the rest of the world isn't particularly interested in being in precisely the sort of quagmire we're in right now. Maybe they don't have an extra $87 billion lying around, or maybe their leaders aren't so cozy with the companies that will benefit from having to rebuild all the crap that got blown up. Either way, it wouldn't be the first time the UN guys sort of cough and mutter while we do the dirty work. But let's not forget that Roosevelt created the UN to advocate for US foreign policy around the globe.
I want to be in Roy S. Lahet's "Vice President of Planning for Mercy Behavioral Health" job. At the "busiest times" of his day, he has time to randomlyy type URLs into Internet Explorer (or maybe AOL. You can never tell.) Plus, he can't even type, or he never would have found SiteFinder in the first place.
I got 288,000,000 in .11 sec
You must work at slashdot or one of the related companies.
Maybe he just fires the assholes who would sue when they see "offending porn" at the company. Those people are more of a problem than the ones looking at porn in the first place.
I would love to see how the link in your sig shows up after being parsed by JAZ's "Web Content De-offensivizier" at work!
I may not have been *legally required* to state the Pledge, but my teachers *made me do it* in High School. I suppose I should have stood up for my rights.
I'm getting out a sharpie and blacking out "under god" from all my money right now, just to get back at those nasty teachers.
Interesting that these contraversial two words where just an addition to seperate us from those "godless commies", no?
It makes even less sense now, in our current military predicament, to say "Under God." Christians, Jews, and Muslims are all children of Abraham, and all worship the same god.
Suggestion to school kids: Substitute in "Under Allah" or "Under Yahweh" (or whatever that god's name is) and see if anything interesting happens.
Good points. "I hope you didn't buy SA for your Windows desktops" is what I meant to say.
Software Assurance... Microsoft's revenue-enhancer of a year and a half ago. You pay a fee, and SA gives you the right to use the latest and greatest Microsoft products (office and OS, basically) for three years.
Turns out there won't be a new version of Windows for three years. Nice trick!
I guess if you are dying to upgrade to Office.NET as soon as it comes out (read: you are an idiot) then SA for Microsoft Office wasn't such a rip-off. We looked at where our business was going, and the fact that MS has committed to support Windows 2000 through 2005 (or 2006, can't remember) and saw no reason whatsoever to purchase Software Assurance.
The thing that bothers me is that we have to keep learning this "law of unintented consequences" over and over again. We have blinders on. Lobbyists say "deregulation will increase competition" but how many times are we gonna get burned?
I for one don't want to learn the lesson of Enron again. And look at what a great job the airlines did "regulating" security! -- The airline companies told the FAA that they could provide the same security screening services that the Feds did, and it would cost way less. That second part seemed to be true, but there was a hidden cost somewhere in downtown Manhattan.
I do feel that there are a certain class of goods and services (the water that comes out of your tap, for instance) that don't fit the capital model. But I do agree that competition (genrally) leads to better value for consumers. I'm confident that competition in the cell phone market is what's made the offerings strong enough that I can get a cell phone plan to replace land line completely.
Most of what you describe has happened post-deregulation, to me!
I waited for six months for Qwest/MSN to get DSL going. They never did and I moved.
When I first signed up with Qwest, I was paying about a dollar a minute for long distance. Of course, those charges were really from AT&T, but as a "convenience" they were included in my Qwest bill each month.
My bills were full of details, though. All sorts of federal and state taxes and fees. And they even included bills that weren't from the company billing me! (See above)
Okay, so maybe having to lease a phone is annoying. I'll grant you that. But at least the phone was made out of metal. I know because when I was a kid, I smashed the phone in the kitchen with a hammer during an exciting temper tantrum. Then mom took it back to the Ma Bell store, and they just handed her a new one. That phone, also metal, lasted until we moved out of that house. Nowadays you can buy a phone for less than ten bucks at Target, but it's plastic crap, it's not shielded from RF, and it will die in a year. I can literally listen to AM 1000 on one particularly crappy phone I still own.
Regardless, you've done little to convince me that Qwest, SBC, Verison, and whoever else is left is actually any real improvement over Ma Bell. Mysterious bills, outrageous bills (for calls which can magically be "re-rated" if you bitch enough) and waiting for service... Those may be the "old days" for you, but to me it's a perfect description of "business as usual" today.
(I won't even go in to how long it might have taken Qwest to let Covad into a CO to hook up some poor bloke's DSL line.)
So, please go whack yourself with the clue bat. It only took about three years of Qwest hitting me with it, and I wised up. I dropped the land line altogether.
I realize the laws will probably change soon. Maybe if the pricing model changes and I dont' have to pay for incoming calls, I will get telemarketers calling on my cell phone. But as it stands now, telemarketers actually seem to respect the law making it illegal for them to call you on your cell.
Just because something is new doesn't mean it's better. In fact, with regards to the phone company, I feel it's "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss." I won't get fooled again, though, and so long as I keep living in cities I can't imagine ever getting another land line.
I hope you come to my funeral and laugh when the brain cancer kills me.
I never really had a problem with annoying telemarker calls, but I've only gotten two in the past five years on my cell phone.
I no longer have a land line because Qwest, my LEC or whatever, is horribly mismanaged and they like to steal my money too. Fortunately cell phone plans have gotten good enough that it only costs me a few bucks more each moneth for my cell phone than my land line.
And I'd have a cell phone anyway, since it's the only phone number that doesn't have to change every time I move. Even if it's just across town, I can never take my old phone number with me. Yet I paid a federal tax each month for "phone number portability." Not that the tax situation is much better on my cell phone bill...
I have a cable modem for internet access, so I don't need the land line for DSL. And hopefully, soon, I'll have (real) cell phone number portability and at least have the option of switching providers.
I believe that telemarketers are just another symptom of the profiteering disease that afflicts the telecommunications industry. Personally I kind of like the idea of a single, nationwide, regulated telephone company. The only reason we don't have this anymore is so some investors and executives can get rich. The value of services offered have not improved.
We have gone from a single regulated monopoly to four less-regulated regional monoplies. That's not really progress.
And the telcos take in SOOO MUCH MONEY (I think Qwest gets $3 billion a quarter or something). When you're dealing with numbers that large, AND you're expected to turn a profit too, some crazy decisions get made, books get cooked to please Wall Street, and so forth. Better to just remove the profit motive and have the industry provide the simple service they're expected to.
any act which causes an unauthorised modification of the contents of any computer
There will probably be some fine print somewhere on the CD stating that by playing this CD in your computer, you agree to the terms, which may include installing special software on your computer to protect your digital rights. So it's not unauthorized, because by using the contents of this software you agree to be bound by the terms of the license.
Part of the strategy is that most people won't bother to read the fine print. But that's not SunnComm's fault.
There is no way they can disable the shift key to make it not by-pass the auto-run "feature".
Microsoft can make it so you can't turn off Autorun in future editions of Windows, though.
From what I understand, which isn't much, Eolas basically still exists solely to pursue this lawsuit. The rationale being that, if they win, the original investors will actually get some $$$ on their investment.
You don't call it "trapped" when the compound is surrounded by snipers, tanks, and helicopters?
LOL "made-up religion" like there's any other type.
You're dumb AC.
You don't know what you're talking about.
The fetuses that die have some horrifying birth defects and have no viable life support systems of their own. Once out of the womb they will not live, no matter what. Even when born "naturally."
However, this is where the problem comes in. Read on.
The reason they have to suck the brains out is because the fetus's head has swollen to such an extent that it can be as large as 50cm across.
By outlawing "partial birth abortion" you are sentencing women to torture and possible death. The only safe way to extract the non-viable fetus has been taken away. Now the mother has no choice but to push an object roughly twenty inches wide through her vagina. If the mother lives through that, she can look forward to her baby dieing in about two days from the birth defects, birth defects that were only detected late in pregnancy, too late for a normal abortion.
This has nothing to do with the "abortion industry" protecting their profits. I do feel that the medical cartel in the USA is run by greedy rapacious money launderers, but that's a different argument. In this case, doctors have found a safe, if horrific, way to remove a non-viable fetus with a specific type of birth defect from the mother. You should be happy that the vessel, uh, I mean woman, won't endure such injury that she'll never be able to bring forth life from a man's seed again.
I encourage you to learn the facts before you open your anonymous mouth again.
But when you stick up for Koresh, that deflates your argument.
I don't give a fuck about David Koresh. It's just that the United States government trapped his followers in their compound, gassed them, and then burned them alive.
Sounds like the same sort of thing that's happening now with "Partial Birth Abortion." A medical procedure designed to safely remove a non-viable fetus is being twisted into something horrifying.
I'd mod that up if I had points. +1 Insightful.