Let me tell yo a story, friend, and you tell me what you think. When I was 5, I had a sister who was 7, almost 8, when she was raped multiple times and then killed by this psycho who was executed in 1996. You know what I asked myself when I was a kid, and never got an answer to? "Why did God take away my sister?" I didn't care about the guy who did it, I just wanted my sister back. She hadn't done anything to anyone. She was just a kid. But God didn't stop her from being brutally raped and murdered. Where was He?
The usual line is "God works in mysterious ways", or "It's all a part of God's grand plan," or (the one I hate(d) the most) "She's in heaven now." Well, m'friend, that is simply not good enough. *Nothing* can justify the brutality visited upon my sister. Nothing. God just stood passively by while my sister was raped for over THREE HOURS and you are going to try and tell me a) He exists, and b) is a loving God? BULLSHIT!
Nothing can justify a supposedly omnipotent being standing idly by during such a horrific event. Nothing. Not an eternal plan, not the return of Jesus to put forward the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, not anything. The *only* right thing to do in such a situation is to put a stop to it. No Bible verse will ever convince me otherwise. *Nothing will ever convince me that it was ok for God to let that happen.* I even heard this line in "Pitch Black" (of all things) that resonated: "Of course I believe in God. And I absolutely hate the fucker." Know why? Because He doesn't do jack shit.
Oh, and in case you're wondering, yes we did go to church every Sunday. A Baptist church. We were both baptized. That didn't seem to matter, either.
If this doesn't highlight the importance of strict constructionists on the Supreme Court, I don't know what does.
It's not his strict constructionist views that I have a problem with (indeed, I tend to agree with those) but his almost blind adherance to tradition without regard for changing social mores that cause me to disagree. Don't get me wrong: I respect Scalia a great deal. He's an incredibly well-versed Justice with a sharp legal mind, and his adherance to principle is admirable.
However, like the father in "Fiddler on the Roof" he shouts out "Tradition!" too frequently for my tastes. Unlike that father, though, Scalia fails to alter his opinions -- even in the slightest -- based on either new information or the simple fact that people's beliefs have changed. Social mores and taboos do (and should) change as time goes on. Scalia has given far too much weight to the way things were yesterday as a rationale for his decisions.
...And I really did think the majority's stance in the Florida recount was atrocious.
The article is talking about anti-censorship, and what do they do? They censor themselves!
Man, do you have Salon wrong. They were saying "Entertainment Weekly" prints f_ _ _. Salon has no such self-imposed restrictions.
Here, I did a search for "fuck" with their search engine and came up with 900 results, presumably the maxmimum number that will be returned. Here's the list. Enjoy.
Many Christians seem to believe that saying four letter words is a sin that makes the baby Jesus cry. It is surreptitiously implied that the Third Commandment, which prohibits taking the Lord's name in vain, is the source of this.
When it is spelled out like this, it is easy to see the fallacy. The Lord's name is not "fuck", even in Hebrew. Nor is the Lord's name "shit" or any other of the so-called 'bad words' that are frowned upon by so many. A thorough investigation of the Bible will reveal that there is no prohibition against these words, especially in English.
Ephesians 4:29 says "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen." This seems to apply to things such as gossip, the Monica Lewinsky fiasco, and most of the Southern Baptist Convention, but more weight is given to cuss words than these others.
This leads one to believe that the Christian aversion to four letter words is based more on a desire to be sanctimonious rather than truly Christ-like. Jesus loves people who say "fuck" just as much as those who do not.
Oh thats scary, isnt this exactly what happened in the book animal farm? This slow chipping away is beginning to unnerve me. Really I believe animal farm is almost as important if not more important to our present day politics as 1984.
I don't think it's all that bad. Most forms of speech that have been restricted are that way for good reasons. He even talks about it just below the quote you picked. Stuff like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, reneging on contractual agreements, etc. Remember: the First Amendment was set up primarily to protect political speech, and it still holds up marvelously when judged against that yardstick. I can say "Busch is a moron" until the cows come home with no (realistic) fear of retribution coming from the White House.
This isn't to say that we shouldn't keep our guard up, because we most certainly should.
Firstly, many cultures are still too poverty-stricken to have electricity and running water, let alone net access. For these people, the thorny issue of whether Unicode has the capacity to represent their native language is totally irrelevent.
It's totally irrelevant for poor rural populations, true. But as more and more of the world's population moves towards being centered around urban areas this is indeed relevant. It is relevant to those who desire the full functionality of the Internet in their native character set. I believe (and this is a belief, not a fact) that one way to help out those who are poor is by opening them up to the modern economy and make it as accessible as possible. One way to do this is by making sure they can use the latest technology in their native tongue, lowering the slope of the learning curve.
Secondly, the rate at which languages are dying is still accelerating. Every year, we lose several languages as native speakers die of old age without their descendents having ever learned their original language.
This is indeed tragic, but it quite simply cannot be helped. It's so common as to be a cliche: "Life Sucks", or "Shit Happens", or even "C'est l'vie." I hope that there are linguists and philologists who are archiving these languages for future generations and our general cultural awareness. BUT: People must eat, and they have a strong desire to make themselves and their families prosperous. If, when all things are considered, making sure that you live your life only speaking language X turns out to be counterproductive, then that language will become less important. There have been many languages that have come and gone throughout the millenia; humanity continues to advance. Would the world be a richer place if all those languages were still around? Certainly. But it would also be more confusing. And remember: If people can speak to each other, there is less of a chance they'll start killing each other. (LESS of a chance, mind you.)
I'm a Taoist at heart in matters such as this. For every yin, there is a yang, for every good, there is a bad. Life goes on.
Friends, let us gloat. Briefly, to be sure, but let's gloat nonetheless. We said it couldn't be done. We *showed* them it couldn't be done. Did they listen? Nay! Their foolish efforts to stop the free-flow of bits through weak-ass crypto hacks not only had the Good Guys(TM) alternately furious and aloof, but I'm sure there were information theorists who were just passively humored. "They wanna do what? Morons! The 'enemy' has physical access to the ciphertext!"
So a big ol' raspberry to all the suits over at the RIAA, MPAA, etc. Fuck y'all! You are going to have to change your business model, bribe politicians into starting a War on Copyright a la the notorious War on Drugs, or just start offing people a la the Church of Scientology. But any way you go against it the genie is out of the bottle and ya can't stop it.
Or maybe I've just drank too much Jolt. I actually found some today. RaH!
IMHO, having bandwidth intensive applications on your website not only isolates your from reaching a large portion of your user base, but it also tells me that you haven't done something correctly. Even Flash, as complicated as it can be, is a very compact data format relative to MPEG, QuickTime, or other multimedia formats. Pretty pictures tend to distract the user from what they are at the page for in the first place. This isn't to say that media intensive sites don't have a place, for they do. But only in a limited set of circumstances.
Make em work on different browsers on different platforms. Incompatible with the first point, but there we are.
They only have content that is necessary to the purpose of the site
I assume that Dvorak's audience here is web designers. If so, he's telling us nothing we didn't aleady know. (And if you're reading Dvorak for tips on web design, then, umm, go here instead. You'll be better served.) The net is still (thank Buddha) primarily a text-based medium. Even on high speed connections it takes a significant amount of time to download multimedia content. It's just simple politeness not to require your users to download that crap unless they request it. But even if broadband does become universal, the Right Thing To Do(TM) will still be to make pages that are as lean as possible, for simple reasons of maintainability and professionalism.
If, on the other hand, you have no multimedia on your site and it takes longer than 8 secs to load on a 28.8 connection, you should probably be reconsider your design choices and/or toolset. Throw GoLive out the goddamn window & get one book on HTML & one on JavaScript, k?
(BTW: I saw Princess Mononoke for the 1st time last night. 5-stars, friends! Ck it!)
Obviously he didn't face any jail time, but did the Feds give him any noise about persecuting him? I'm kind of surprised they didn't, what with their persistent spreading of FUD about weapons of mass destruction.
I think you missed the point of the article. Nowhere in the article is it claimed that MP3 as a technology has been taken over by the recording industry, just that for profit businesses based on either MP3s or P2P have been assimilated. In fact, the author specifically mentions that the technology continues to thrive.
You may be upset that the system makes mistakes, or that the system can be abused... that makes me upset, and rightfully so. But not having one in place at all would be ridiculous as well. And irresponsible. It is not an easy answer, never will be, but that is the nature of the world we live in.
Well and thoughtfully said, sir. Without any rancor or sarcasm, I humbly bow my head in defeat. You are right. Such a system is necessary, and the world would be a more dangerous place without it. The primary (and some say only legitimate) reason for a government to exist is to protect it's citizens from physical harm. SIGINT is an obviously necessary part of that. We must simply strive to make sure it is only used for the protection of life and liberty, not for petty economic espionage as the EU member states are claiming.
In an interview he [Mike Frost, former Candian secret service officer]gave for an Australian TV channel, he said by way of example that the CSE actually had entered the name and telephone number of a woman in a database of possible terrorists because she had used an ambiguous phrase in a harmless telephone conversation with a friend. When searching through intercepted communications, the computer had found the keyword and reproduced the conversation. The analyst was unsure and therefore recorded her personal details.
And to think I thought that the.sig fodder was silly! Doesn't look that way. And just to help Eris out, I shall henceforth be sprinkling my telephone conversations with random outbursts of "nu-coo-luhr terrorism", "anthrax", and "Backstreet Boys."
He [Wayne Madsen, former NSA employee] argues that the NSA had to concede that it held more than 1000 pages of information on Princess Diana, because her conduct ran counter to US policy, owing to her campaign against land mines
That is FUCKING INSANE. Because she held views counter to that of the Pentagon she's now a target for surveillance? CHRIST! I think marijuana and LSD should be legal, and have given money to several organizations who believe similarly. I guess that means the FBI, et al, have a ph1l3 on me because I question the governing orthodoxy.
FUCK YOU GUYS. And don't gimme any shit about "national security" because I will just throw up on your shoes. Oh yeah, we live in a free country. As long as you don't mind the fact that the government regularly compiles information on people that they don't like, even if they are peace loving activists like the goddamn Princess of Wales.
Where's Noam Chomsky when you need him?
As early as 1988, the Max Plank Institute estimated that the damage caused by industrial espionage in Germany amounted to at least DM 8
billion. The chairman of the association of security consultants in Germany quotes a figure of DM 15 bn a year, based on expert evidence.
The President of the European police trade unions, Hermann Lutz, puts the damage at DM 20 bn a year. According to the FBI, US industry
suffered losses of US$ 1.7 bn as a result of competitive intelligence and industrial espionage in the years 1992/1993. The former chairman of
the Secret Service monitoring committee of the House of Representatives in the USA has spoken of losses of US $ 100 bn sustained through
lost contracts and additional research and development costs. It is claimed that between 1990 and 1996 this resulted in the loss of 6 million
jobs.
Encrypt people, encrypt! And roll out IPv6, cuz it's got packet level encryption. It'll help bunches.
Seriously, why? It's not like I need convincing to go see the movie. I want to be surpised as much as possible when Xmas 2k1 rolls around and this baby hits the theater. Eru knows I've read The Silmarillion 8 dozen times by now. Commercials & trailers will only spoil the fun for me.
My two bits. And this fucking thing better be of higher quality than TPM. Otherwise I'm taking hostages. Grr.
- Rev.
I have an idea for how to at least reduce the amount of cheating going on with SETI: ridicule. Because let's face it if you cheat at SETI you deserve ridicule. You're a worthless mess of a human being who probably hasn't been laid in, I dunno, EVER and has to inflate their self-esteem by turning a quest for Contact into a bigger dick contest. No one respects you. Kill yourself and leave your computer running. Your computer is worth more to society than you are.
Grr. I'm way too high strung today. Where's the bong? But godDAMN people are so freaking simple minded sometimes! What do you gain by cheating at SETI? Higher rankings? So fucking what! Great, now instead of being ranked 39623 your at 32532. RaH. You're my hero. The world is a better place because you cheated. You've fed the hungry and increased our collective wisdom. L0s3r.
It isn't known whether the cable's operator detected the intrusion, though former NSA officials say they believe it went unnoticed.
When I was a freshman in college and had to take a class on telecommunications we had an engineer from Southwestern Bell come out and explain these new fangled fiber optics. One of the claims he made was that they would be nigh-impossible to tap because the splice could be detected at either end rather easily due to latency issues.
So my question is this: Anyone have any ideas how the heck they might have done this? Whatever the device was, it seems it'd have to be very, very fast at whatever it does. The only thing I can imagine is some sort of intelligent lens that reads signals while they pass through it.
So what? If I disagree with what MAPS decides, and somewhere upstream is a MAPS member, then I have no choice but to go along with what they say I can or cannot see. That is totalitarian in this context. And moving to another ISP is unacceptable for the simple reason that that should't be required. The Net was founded upon open access to all IPs, with no central authority deciding what users can or cannot see. Period.
It pains me to say this, but the RBL has become something to be abhorred, not loved. The purpose was (is!) noble, but for all practical purposes we have a few elites who are controlling a significant amount of traffic on the internet, based upon their own personal judgment calls. There is no system of checks and balances to make sure that mistakes like this do not occur, nor is there any recourse for someone to take if they do not believe they fit the classification of spammer and have nevertheless been blacklisted.
I hate spam as much as anybody, and hope for a gooey death for all of them. But MAPS is heading towards becoming a de facto totalitarian organization, deciding who gets to see what on the net. This is a dangerous thing, and don't think that there aren't governments out there who will take MAPS' tactics and apply them in even more unsavory ways.
This is a common fallacy (mostly among liberals, but not exclusively).
Y'know, this term has been thrown around so much in recent years that it has lost all substantive meaning. Instead of throwing labels around how about if you address the isssue, instead? Sorry if this sounds like a personal attack, because it isn't. Just a suggestion.
I oppose any and all censorship of the Internet, but I am very sympathetic to those who wish to prevent their children from viewing pornography and/or violence.
Violence I can understand. I have seen the studies showing a positive correlation between viewing violence and behaving violently. This is understandable. But let's return to the original question: namely, what adverse affects does viewing "Girls Gone Wild" have on a 9 year old? Any? You made the (valid) claim that the brain undergoes radical changes from birth to adulthood, but this says nothing about the harm of viewing porn.
Please bear with me, and I assure you I am not trying to troll.
I understand that our society has deemed it inappropriate for "children" under the age of 18 to view sexually explicit materials. But would someone please explain to me why? Apart from taboos handed down from previous generations, has their been any solid evidence that viewing porn is bad for anyone, even those under 18? Or 12, for that matter? What exactly is expected to happen if some 9 year old comes across "Girls Gone Wild"?
There seems to be so much hyperbole on this issue that no one asks the obvious question here. Namely: What are we protecting children from, and why? I can't help but wonder if the net is going to cause us to rethink our social mores (again), this time in regards to kiddies looking at porn.
This is a bogus submission. "Should I hire open-source developers?" is like asking "Should I hire Germans?" Christ man, who knows? There are way too many factors to be taken into consideration for this to be answered successfully. It depends on the candidate and his/her qualifications, not their opinions about open source.
Ask/. my ass. Here's what this/. is telling you: Yes. But maybe no. Sure.
BTW: Yeah, this is probably flamebait. But c'mon, this really IS a pretty dumb story. Ain't it?
That guy from Ninja Scroll with the electric string. He was a flamer and was 2nd in command.
'Course, that's anime. BUT to be honest white America has given up it's right to have gay villains. Too many people "hate fags" like people of similar dispositions used to (or still) "hate niggers." Don't want to encourage that behavior anymore. You don't see too many bad black guys, either. Or Cherokee. Or Navajo. Or Witchita. Etc.
"BUT THAT'S SO UNFAIR!" Yeah well chock it up to the sins of the fathers being visited on their sons. Deal.
If your still not satisfied I'll have you note that Pres. Bush speaks with a lisp. And he's an evil crime boss.
[There! Now you can discount everything I've said because I'm a liberal!]
Uh-oh. Looks like/. has attracted the attention of a Scientologist. Will the nefarious Scientology legal team follow? Let's hope so. I'd be DAMN interested in watching that combat play itself out.
Look man, this guy has no history of violent behavior, he didn't have any weapons in his possession, and the only thing he is guilty of is speaking out of his ass. But if you've spent any time at all in Usenet you know that this stuff happens ALL THE TIME. If he had been saying these things directly to you then I might sympathize with you a bit. But he didn't. He said it in a newsgroup. Newsgroupies are exactly as threatening as you let them become.
The last statement proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Slashdot.org is dominated by people
who want to help destroy Scn.
Wrong again, m'friend./. is dominated by skeptics who virulently detest any quelshing of speech under damn-near ANY circumstances. There is more rancor directed towards the CoS because of their past (and current!) actions against netizens. But they're (we're) equananimous in our loathing of such behavior, whether it comes from the CoS or the Mormons or the government of Paraguay. Doesn't matter. What DOES matter is that Scientology goes way over the top, moreso than almost all other groups, when it comes to trying to silence criticism.
BTW: You might want to go check out the Freepers for some really crazy stuff that is much worse than this.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me tell yo a story, friend, and you tell me what you think. When I was 5, I had a sister who was 7, almost 8, when she was raped multiple times and then killed by this psycho who was executed in 1996. You know what I asked myself when I was a kid, and never got an answer to? "Why did God take away my sister?" I didn't care about the guy who did it, I just wanted my sister back. She hadn't done anything to anyone. She was just a kid. But God didn't stop her from being brutally raped and murdered. Where was He?
The usual line is "God works in mysterious ways", or "It's all a part of God's grand plan," or (the one I hate(d) the most) "She's in heaven now." Well, m'friend, that is simply not good enough. *Nothing* can justify the brutality visited upon my sister. Nothing. God just stood passively by while my sister was raped for over THREE HOURS and you are going to try and tell me a) He exists, and b) is a loving God? BULLSHIT!
Nothing can justify a supposedly omnipotent being standing idly by during such a horrific event. Nothing. Not an eternal plan, not the return of Jesus to put forward the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, not anything. The *only* right thing to do in such a situation is to put a stop to it. No Bible verse will ever convince me otherwise. *Nothing will ever convince me that it was ok for God to let that happen.* I even heard this line in "Pitch Black" (of all things) that resonated: "Of course I believe in God. And I absolutely hate the fucker." Know why? Because He doesn't do jack shit.
Oh, and in case you're wondering, yes we did go to church every Sunday. A Baptist church. We were both baptized. That didn't seem to matter, either.
- Rev.If this doesn't highlight the importance of strict constructionists on the Supreme Court, I don't know what does.
It's not his strict constructionist views that I have a problem with (indeed, I tend to agree with those) but his almost blind adherance to tradition without regard for changing social mores that cause me to disagree. Don't get me wrong: I respect Scalia a great deal. He's an incredibly well-versed Justice with a sharp legal mind, and his adherance to principle is admirable.
However, like the father in "Fiddler on the Roof" he shouts out "Tradition!" too frequently for my tastes. Unlike that father, though, Scalia fails to alter his opinions -- even in the slightest -- based on either new information or the simple fact that people's beliefs have changed. Social mores and taboos do (and should) change as time goes on. Scalia has given far too much weight to the way things were yesterday as a rationale for his decisions.
...And I really did think the majority's stance in the Florida recount was atrocious.
- Rev.The article is talking about anti-censorship, and what do they do? They censor themselves!
Man, do you have Salon wrong. They were saying "Entertainment Weekly" prints f_ _ _. Salon has no such self-imposed restrictions.
Here, I did a search for "fuck" with their search engine and came up with 900 results, presumably the maxmimum number that will be returned. Here's the list. Enjoy.
- Rev.I found this writeup over at E2 amusing: Jesus doesn't care if you say the word "fuck".
--Begin--
Many Christians seem to believe that saying four letter words is a sin that makes the baby Jesus cry. It is surreptitiously implied that the Third Commandment, which prohibits taking the Lord's name in vain, is the source of this.
When it is spelled out like this, it is easy to see the fallacy. The Lord's name is not "fuck", even in Hebrew. Nor is the Lord's name "shit" or any other of the so-called 'bad words' that are frowned upon by so many. A thorough investigation of the Bible will reveal that there is no prohibition against these words, especially in English.
Ephesians 4:29 says "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen." This seems to apply to things such as gossip, the Monica Lewinsky fiasco, and most of the Southern Baptist Convention, but more weight is given to cuss words than these others.
This leads one to believe that the Christian aversion to four letter words is based more on a desire to be sanctimonious rather than truly Christ-like. Jesus loves people who say "fuck" just as much as those who do not.
--End--
Ok, full disclosure. I wrote it.
- Rev.Another option would be to implement the packet-level encryption capabilities of IPv6. (Pipe dream, I know....)
- Rev.
Oh thats scary, isnt this exactly what happened in the book animal farm? This slow chipping away is beginning to unnerve me. Really I believe animal farm is almost as important if not more important to our present day politics as 1984.
I don't think it's all that bad. Most forms of speech that have been restricted are that way for good reasons. He even talks about it just below the quote you picked. Stuff like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, reneging on contractual agreements, etc. Remember: the First Amendment was set up primarily to protect political speech, and it still holds up marvelously when judged against that yardstick. I can say "Busch is a moron" until the cows come home with no (realistic) fear of retribution coming from the White House.
This isn't to say that we shouldn't keep our guard up, because we most certainly should.
- Rev.Firstly, many cultures are still too poverty-stricken to have electricity and running water, let alone net access. For these people, the thorny issue of whether Unicode has the capacity to represent their native language is totally irrelevent.
It's totally irrelevant for poor rural populations, true. But as more and more of the world's population moves towards being centered around urban areas this is indeed relevant. It is relevant to those who desire the full functionality of the Internet in their native character set. I believe (and this is a belief, not a fact) that one way to help out those who are poor is by opening them up to the modern economy and make it as accessible as possible. One way to do this is by making sure they can use the latest technology in their native tongue, lowering the slope of the learning curve.
Secondly, the rate at which languages are dying is still accelerating. Every year, we lose several languages as native speakers die of old age without their descendents having ever learned their original language.
This is indeed tragic, but it quite simply cannot be helped. It's so common as to be a cliche: "Life Sucks", or "Shit Happens", or even "C'est l'vie." I hope that there are linguists and philologists who are archiving these languages for future generations and our general cultural awareness. BUT: People must eat, and they have a strong desire to make themselves and their families prosperous. If, when all things are considered, making sure that you live your life only speaking language X turns out to be counterproductive, then that language will become less important. There have been many languages that have come and gone throughout the millenia; humanity continues to advance. Would the world be a richer place if all those languages were still around? Certainly. But it would also be more confusing. And remember: If people can speak to each other, there is less of a chance they'll start killing each other. (LESS of a chance, mind you.)
I'm a Taoist at heart in matters such as this. For every yin, there is a yang, for every good, there is a bad. Life goes on.
- Rev.Friends, let us gloat. Briefly, to be sure, but let's gloat nonetheless. We said it couldn't be done. We *showed* them it couldn't be done. Did they listen? Nay! Their foolish efforts to stop the free-flow of bits through weak-ass crypto hacks not only had the Good Guys(TM) alternately furious and aloof, but I'm sure there were information theorists who were just passively humored. "They wanna do what? Morons! The 'enemy' has physical access to the ciphertext!"
So a big ol' raspberry to all the suits over at the RIAA, MPAA, etc. Fuck y'all! You are going to have to change your business model, bribe politicians into starting a War on Copyright a la the notorious War on Drugs, or just start offing people a la the Church of Scientology. But any way you go against it the genie is out of the bottle and ya can't stop it.
Or maybe I've just drank too much Jolt. I actually found some today. RaH!
- Rev.IMHO, having bandwidth intensive applications on your website not only isolates your from reaching a large portion of your user base, but it also tells me that you haven't done something correctly. Even Flash, as complicated as it can be, is a very compact data format relative to MPEG, QuickTime, or other multimedia formats. Pretty pictures tend to distract the user from what they are at the page for in the first place. This isn't to say that media intensive sites don't have a place, for they do. But only in a limited set of circumstances.
My rules for designing good websites are:
Make em standards compliant
Make em work on different browsers on different platforms. Incompatible with the first point, but there we are.
They only have content that is necessary to the purpose of the site
I assume that Dvorak's audience here is web designers. If so, he's telling us nothing we didn't aleady know. (And if you're reading Dvorak for tips on web design, then, umm, go here instead. You'll be better served.) The net is still (thank Buddha) primarily a text-based medium. Even on high speed connections it takes a significant amount of time to download multimedia content. It's just simple politeness not to require your users to download that crap unless they request it. But even if broadband does become universal, the Right Thing To Do(TM) will still be to make pages that are as lean as possible, for simple reasons of maintainability and professionalism.
If, on the other hand, you have no multimedia on your site and it takes longer than 8 secs to load on a 28.8 connection, you should probably be reconsider your design choices and/or toolset. Throw GoLive out the goddamn window & get one book on HTML & one on JavaScript, k?
(BTW: I saw Princess Mononoke for the 1st time last night. 5-stars, friends! Ck it!)
- Rev.Obviously he didn't face any jail time, but did the Feds give him any noise about persecuting him? I'm kind of surprised they didn't, what with their persistent spreading of FUD about weapons of mass destruction.
- Rev.Nice post. Instead of hyperbole we have actual historical facts. Wish I had mod points to burn. - Rev.
I think you missed the point of the article. Nowhere in the article is it claimed that MP3 as a technology has been taken over by the recording industry, just that for profit businesses based on either MP3s or P2P have been assimilated. In fact, the author specifically mentions that the technology continues to thrive.
- Rev.In an effor to raise funds for my trip to the spotel, I am selling off some excess inventory. All are in good condition and have been well-maintained.
1976 Caucasian Wife, low mileage, good in bed
1979 Caucasian Mistress, high mileage, nicer titties.
One Kidney, redundant system unneeded
One Right Arm, redundant system mostly unneeded
1971 Caucasion Soul, mostly unused but has a tendency for occasional evil.
$500,000 OBO.
- Rev.You may be upset that the system makes mistakes, or that the system can be abused... that makes me upset, and rightfully so. But not having one in place at all would be ridiculous as well. And irresponsible. It is not an easy answer, never will be, but that is the nature of the world we live in.
Well and thoughtfully said, sir. Without any rancor or sarcasm, I humbly bow my head in defeat. You are right. Such a system is necessary, and the world would be a more dangerous place without it. The primary (and some say only legitimate) reason for a government to exist is to protect it's citizens from physical harm. SIGINT is an obviously necessary part of that. We must simply strive to make sure it is only used for the protection of life and liberty, not for petty economic espionage as the EU member states are claiming.
- Rev.In an interview he [Mike Frost, former Candian secret service officer]gave for an Australian TV channel, he said by way of example that the CSE actually had entered the name and telephone number of a woman in a database of possible terrorists because she had used an ambiguous phrase in a harmless telephone conversation with a friend. When searching through intercepted communications, the computer had found the keyword and reproduced the conversation. The analyst was unsure and therefore recorded her personal details.
And to think I thought that the .sig fodder was silly! Doesn't look that way. And just to help Eris out, I shall henceforth be sprinkling my telephone conversations with random outbursts of "nu-coo-luhr terrorism", "anthrax", and "Backstreet Boys."
He [Wayne Madsen, former NSA employee] argues that the NSA had to concede that it held more than 1000 pages of information on Princess Diana, because her conduct ran counter to US policy, owing to her campaign against land mines
That is FUCKING INSANE. Because she held views counter to that of the Pentagon she's now a target for surveillance? CHRIST! I think marijuana and LSD should be legal, and have given money to several organizations who believe similarly. I guess that means the FBI, et al, have a ph1l3 on me because I question the governing orthodoxy.
FUCK YOU GUYS. And don't gimme any shit about "national security" because I will just throw up on your shoes. Oh yeah, we live in a free country. As long as you don't mind the fact that the government regularly compiles information on people that they don't like, even if they are peace loving activists like the goddamn Princess of Wales.
Where's Noam Chomsky when you need him?
As early as 1988, the Max Plank Institute estimated that the damage caused by industrial espionage in Germany amounted to at least DM 8 billion. The chairman of the association of security consultants in Germany quotes a figure of DM 15 bn a year, based on expert evidence. The President of the European police trade unions, Hermann Lutz, puts the damage at DM 20 bn a year. According to the FBI, US industry suffered losses of US$ 1.7 bn as a result of competitive intelligence and industrial espionage in the years 1992/1993. The former chairman of the Secret Service monitoring committee of the House of Representatives in the USA has spoken of losses of US $ 100 bn sustained through lost contracts and additional research and development costs. It is claimed that between 1990 and 1996 this resulted in the loss of 6 million jobs.
Encrypt people, encrypt! And roll out IPv6, cuz it's got packet level encryption. It'll help bunches.
- Rev.Seriously, why? It's not like I need convincing to go see the movie. I want to be surpised as much as possible when Xmas 2k1 rolls around and this baby hits the theater. Eru knows I've read The Silmarillion 8 dozen times by now. Commercials & trailers will only spoil the fun for me. My two bits. And this fucking thing better be of higher quality than TPM. Otherwise I'm taking hostages. Grr. - Rev.
I have an idea for how to at least reduce the amount of cheating going on with SETI: ridicule. Because let's face it if you cheat at SETI you deserve ridicule. You're a worthless mess of a human being who probably hasn't been laid in, I dunno, EVER and has to inflate their self-esteem by turning a quest for Contact into a bigger dick contest. No one respects you. Kill yourself and leave your computer running. Your computer is worth more to society than you are.
Grr. I'm way too high strung today. Where's the bong? But godDAMN people are so freaking simple minded sometimes! What do you gain by cheating at SETI? Higher rankings? So fucking what! Great, now instead of being ranked 39623 your at 32532. RaH. You're my hero. The world is a better place because you cheated. You've fed the hungry and increased our collective wisdom. L0s3r.
Dump core. And pass the bong.
- Rev.It isn't known whether the cable's operator detected the intrusion, though former NSA officials say they believe it went unnoticed.
When I was a freshman in college and had to take a class on telecommunications we had an engineer from Southwestern Bell come out and explain these new fangled fiber optics. One of the claims he made was that they would be nigh-impossible to tap because the splice could be detected at either end rather easily due to latency issues.
So my question is this: Anyone have any ideas how the heck they might have done this? Whatever the device was, it seems it'd have to be very, very fast at whatever it does. The only thing I can imagine is some sort of intelligent lens that reads signals while they pass through it.
Scary, whatever it is.
- Rev.Hogwash. Membership is voluntary.
So what? If I disagree with what MAPS decides, and somewhere upstream is a MAPS member, then I have no choice but to go along with what they say I can or cannot see. That is totalitarian in this context. And moving to another ISP is unacceptable for the simple reason that that should't be required. The Net was founded upon open access to all IPs, with no central authority deciding what users can or cannot see. Period.
- Rev.It pains me to say this, but the RBL has become something to be abhorred, not loved. The purpose was (is!) noble, but for all practical purposes we have a few elites who are controlling a significant amount of traffic on the internet, based upon their own personal judgment calls. There is no system of checks and balances to make sure that mistakes like this do not occur, nor is there any recourse for someone to take if they do not believe they fit the classification of spammer and have nevertheless been blacklisted.
I hate spam as much as anybody, and hope for a gooey death for all of them. But MAPS is heading towards becoming a de facto totalitarian organization, deciding who gets to see what on the net. This is a dangerous thing, and don't think that there aren't governments out there who will take MAPS' tactics and apply them in even more unsavory ways.
- Rev.This is a common fallacy (mostly among liberals, but not exclusively).
Y'know, this term has been thrown around so much in recent years that it has lost all substantive meaning. Instead of throwing labels around how about if you address the isssue, instead? Sorry if this sounds like a personal attack, because it isn't. Just a suggestion.
I oppose any and all censorship of the Internet, but I am very sympathetic to those who wish to prevent their children from viewing pornography and/or violence.
Violence I can understand. I have seen the studies showing a positive correlation between viewing violence and behaving violently. This is understandable. But let's return to the original question: namely, what adverse affects does viewing "Girls Gone Wild" have on a 9 year old? Any? You made the (valid) claim that the brain undergoes radical changes from birth to adulthood, but this says nothing about the harm of viewing porn.
- Rev.Please bear with me, and I assure you I am not trying to troll.
I understand that our society has deemed it inappropriate for "children" under the age of 18 to view sexually explicit materials. But would someone please explain to me why? Apart from taboos handed down from previous generations, has their been any solid evidence that viewing porn is bad for anyone, even those under 18? Or 12, for that matter? What exactly is expected to happen if some 9 year old comes across "Girls Gone Wild"?
There seems to be so much hyperbole on this issue that no one asks the obvious question here. Namely: What are we protecting children from, and why? I can't help but wonder if the net is going to cause us to rethink our social mores (again), this time in regards to kiddies looking at porn.
- Rev.This is a bogus submission. "Should I hire open-source developers?" is like asking "Should I hire Germans?" Christ man, who knows? There are way too many factors to be taken into consideration for this to be answered successfully. It depends on the candidate and his/her qualifications, not their opinions about open source.
Ask /. my ass. Here's what this /. is telling you: Yes. But maybe no. Sure.
BTW: Yeah, this is probably flamebait. But c'mon, this really IS a pretty dumb story. Ain't it?
- Rev.That guy from Ninja Scroll with the electric string. He was a flamer and was 2nd in command.
'Course, that's anime. BUT to be honest white America has given up it's right to have gay villains. Too many people "hate fags" like people of similar dispositions used to (or still) "hate niggers." Don't want to encourage that behavior anymore. You don't see too many bad black guys, either. Or Cherokee. Or Navajo. Or Witchita. Etc.
"BUT THAT'S SO UNFAIR!" Yeah well chock it up to the sins of the fathers being visited on their sons. Deal.
If your still not satisfied I'll have you note that Pres. Bush speaks with a lisp. And he's an evil crime boss.
[There! Now you can discount everything I've said because I'm a liberal!]
- Rev.
"Not a liberal."
Uh-oh. Looks like /. has attracted the attention of a Scientologist. Will the nefarious Scientology legal team follow? Let's hope so. I'd be DAMN interested in watching that combat play itself out.
Look man, this guy has no history of violent behavior, he didn't have any weapons in his possession, and the only thing he is guilty of is speaking out of his ass. But if you've spent any time at all in Usenet you know that this stuff happens ALL THE TIME. If he had been saying these things directly to you then I might sympathize with you a bit. But he didn't. He said it in a newsgroup. Newsgroupies are exactly as threatening as you let them become.
The last statement proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Slashdot.org is dominated by people who want to help destroy Scn.
Wrong again, m'friend. /. is dominated by skeptics who virulently detest any quelshing of speech under damn-near ANY circumstances. There is more rancor directed towards the CoS because of their past (and current!) actions against netizens. But they're (we're) equananimous in our loathing of such behavior, whether it comes from the CoS or the Mormons or the government of Paraguay. Doesn't matter. What DOES matter is that Scientology goes way over the top, moreso than almost all other groups, when it comes to trying to silence criticism.
BTW: You might want to go check out the Freepers for some really crazy stuff that is much worse than this.
- Rev.