And bogeyman is an English corruption of Boney Man -- short for Bonaparte (yes, Napoleon). The Englishmen of his era disparaged him so much, that they gave his name this connotation of an evil frightening monster.
Did anybody ever consider that maybe McDonald's is providing people in the third world a service: Clean, tasty food in a clean restaurant all sold at affordable prices? Let my cite a piece of my culture essay, The Ultimate Democracy.
Thomas Friedman, a New York Times foreign affairs columnist writes about his visit to Qatar, a small nation in the Persian Gulf, "'If there is an authentic Persian Gulf culture scene, this is it,' [I thought to myself]. And the more I walked, the more I enjoyed myself - until I rounded one corner and suddenly it appeared before me, like a huge blot on the horizon: Taco Bell" (278). He notes that the Taco Bell was quite crowded and that before Taco Bell arrived, Qataris only had filthy shacks as restaurants. "In its place Qataris were being offered something they had never tasted before, Mexican food, with a clean bathroom, international sanitation standards, smiling service and quality controls - all at a cheap price they could afford. No wonder it was crowded" (293). Who would be so foolish as to suggest that the Qatari government expel Taco Bell so that the local culture - including dirty restaurants - could be protected? If the local people prefer to eat at Taco Bell or KFC or McDonald's, there's no moral basis to stop them. Many people in developing countries seek the middle-class cultural lifestyle ubiquitous in America and America abroad. Let these people define their culture, since it is theirs; they should be allowed to include elements of foreign cultures as well, if they so desire.
about 170 attacks so far.
(about 5/hour)
I downloaded the patch back in late July. Point, click, click, reboot. That simple.
Had I not downloaded the patch for my NT machine, my BlackIce Defender Firewall would've bounced the attacks anyway.... which it did.
Lesson: When MS fails, get a firewall!
Remember that the US sets the standards for internet technology. If SBC likes it, maybe Bell Canada will get ideas... Maybe Telefonia will, maybe then BT... it's endless.
I don't know of any and I've actually been searching the web for one. I emailed I.J. Hudson, who reports The Digital Edge on NBC4, to suggest that he report on wireless freenets and this was his reponse:
Yes, it is intriguing with great potential. But it also is a double-edge
sword.
Starbucks is installing WAPS - wireless access points using 802.11b. Many
corporations or their employees have used 802.11b to extend the company LAN
to lunchrooms, and even deli's across the street.
The problem is that the implementation of 802.11b hasn't been very secure.
Often defaults are excepted that open up everything to anyone who has a
properly configured laptop and, in many instances, surf the company's files.
What you suggest in terms of a neighborhood access would be great. And if
everyone knew the rules and limitations, it could be great.
I'll take a closer look at the article and make some calls. Perhaps some of
the folks who have set up those systems have already develop some additional
protocols that both of us sue[sic] the wireless system without exposing the data
on each other's hard drive.
Thanks for the note. Your suggestion may turn into a tv piece in the near
future.
I.J.
Nonetheless, I think that the DC area has maybe a few nodes here and there, but they're just not publicized.
It's quite sad that this left-wing let's-blame-everybody-else attitude has engulfed our nation. The plaintiffs are either greedy or they are so ignorant and childish that they are searching for a scapegoat so they can think to themselves as they go to bed, "Golly, I've made a difference in the world! What a good person am I!" However, nothing will have been accomplished, except massacring liberty for no guarantee of safety. Ben Franklin put it best: "They that can sacrifice essential liberty in order to gain temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
CdrTaco must have typed this "extremely" (quickly and without planning). His grammatical error is glaring. "with less errors" should be "with fewer errors" since errors are countable, ergo we use 'fewer' rather than 'less.'
Slashdot Mirror
"It has the same root as bogeyman."
And bogeyman is an English corruption of Boney Man -- short for Bonaparte (yes, Napoleon). The Englishmen of his era disparaged him so much, that they gave his name this connotation of an evil frightening monster.
Thomas Friedman, a New York Times foreign affairs columnist writes about his visit to Qatar, a small nation in the Persian Gulf, "'If there is an authentic Persian Gulf culture scene, this is it,' [I thought to myself]. And the more I walked, the more I enjoyed myself - until I rounded one corner and suddenly it appeared before me, like a huge blot on the horizon: Taco Bell" (278). He notes that the Taco Bell was quite crowded and that before Taco Bell arrived, Qataris only had filthy shacks as restaurants. "In its place Qataris were being offered something they had never tasted before, Mexican food, with a clean bathroom, international sanitation standards, smiling service and quality controls - all at a cheap price they could afford. No wonder it was crowded" (293). Who would be so foolish as to suggest that the Qatari government expel Taco Bell so that the local culture - including dirty restaurants - could be protected? If the local people prefer to eat at Taco Bell or KFC or McDonald's, there's no moral basis to stop them. Many people in developing countries seek the middle-class cultural lifestyle ubiquitous in America and America abroad. Let these people define their culture, since it is theirs; they should be allowed to include elements of foreign cultures as well, if they so desire.
about 170 attacks so far. (about 5/hour) I downloaded the patch back in late July. Point, click, click, reboot. That simple. Had I not downloaded the patch for my NT machine, my BlackIce Defender Firewall would've bounced the attacks anyway.... which it did. Lesson: When MS fails, get a firewall!
Remember that the US sets the standards for internet technology. If SBC likes it, maybe Bell Canada will get ideas... Maybe Telefonia will, maybe then BT... it's endless.
Yes, it is intriguing with great potential. But it also is a double-edge sword.
Starbucks is installing WAPS - wireless access points using 802.11b. Many corporations or their employees have used 802.11b to extend the company LAN to lunchrooms, and even deli's across the street.
The problem is that the implementation of 802.11b hasn't been very secure. Often defaults are excepted that open up everything to anyone who has a properly configured laptop and, in many instances, surf the company's files.
What you suggest in terms of a neighborhood access would be great. And if everyone knew the rules and limitations, it could be great.
I'll take a closer look at the article and make some calls. Perhaps some of the folks who have set up those systems have already develop some additional protocols that both of us sue[sic] the wireless system without exposing the data on each other's hard drive.
Thanks for the note. Your suggestion may turn into a tv piece in the near future.
I.J.
Nonetheless, I think that the DC area has maybe a few nodes here and there, but they're just not publicized.
You forgot to mention kite-flying. Afghanistan is not very Poppins-friendly.
Afghanistan also bans flying kites... the government describes kite-flying as "useless."
It's quite sad that this left-wing let's-blame-everybody-else attitude has engulfed our nation. The plaintiffs are either greedy or they are so ignorant and childish that they are searching for a scapegoat so they can think to themselves as they go to bed, "Golly, I've made a difference in the world! What a good person am I!" However, nothing will have been accomplished, except massacring liberty for no guarantee of safety. Ben Franklin put it best: "They that can sacrifice essential liberty in order to gain temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
CdrTaco must have typed this "extremely" (quickly and without planning). His grammatical error is glaring. "with less errors" should be "with fewer errors" since errors are countable, ergo we use 'fewer' rather than 'less.'