Wyden says "platforms should be punished" if they don't censor despicable Alex Jones-type speech.
Sorry, the end of "protecting Section 230" doesn't justify that means. Saying that we should censor, so that we won't have to censor, is a pretty poor solution.
Now, I said that hate speech does poorly in a free marketplace of ideas. You disagreed.
Look at the highly-publicized white nationalist rally that was held on Aug 12. Out of 326 million Americans, only 24 people showed up to that rally.
If that's not an example of an idea that's "doing poorly," I don't know what is.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - from The Friends of Voltaire
This kind of commitment to free speech is a pillar of classical liberalism. Sen. Wyden is interested in the opposite: infringing civil rights.
Hate speech does poorly in a free marketplace of ideas, and brings discredit upon the speaker. There is no need to infringe freedom of speech, one of the most fundamental civil rights.
detect tiny ripples in water, created by an ordinary underwater speaker. This could let lost flight recorders and submarines communicate with planes.
Chances are this underwater speaker would have to be quite "loud," and connected to a powerful amplifier that would quickly drain the battery in a flight recorder.
I like, in a sarcastic way, how you skirted the idea that charities would only help those they deemed worthy. I suspect that 'lazy' has a wealth of meanings for you. I am familiar with Charity Navigator. I would point you towards Rotten Tomatoes, which was, more or less, subverted the moment the big movie studios took a hit in profits they could trace back to the site. Do you think that the mega-churches would fail to do the same to Charity Navigator?
I don't like, in a literal way, how you made an allegation against Charity Navigator without doing any basic research. I looked at the top 4 megachurches (based on average attendance):
So yes, I'm confident Charity Navigator won't be subverted by organizations it doesn't rate.
Republicans whine about unfunded liabilities, then spend big.
Yes, I'm very unhappy with Republicans about that. At least they -- unlike the proponents of socialized medicine -- aren't proposing new programs that would cause $218 trillion in additional deficit spending over the next 30 years (to say nothing of what the new programs would do to unfunded liabilities). You complain about hypocrisy on the issue of unfunded liabilities, which is certainly true of some Republicans, but you offer no solutions to that issue yourself.
The only way the system breaks down is if people stop paying taxes
You don't think Social Security will break down if the ratio of retirees to FICA-paying workers grows a lot larger (due to lower birth rate, increasing life expectancy, etc.)? That's what's happening in Japan, and to say fixing that problem is "a major political challenge" might be the understatement of the century. Sorry, rather than trusting your bare assertion, I will trust the official report of the U.S. Social Security Board of Trustees, which back in 2009 had already announced $17.5 trillion in unfunded liabilities. I've never seen a credible definition of "Ponzi scheme" that doesn't describe Social Security to a T.
Again, this comes back to you and those like you. This belief that anything that doesn't directly benefit you is a waste of money, no matter the net benefit to our society as a whole, that people who need assistance are just "lazy." It is short-sighted, narrow-minded, and it is dragging the US down more effectively than any outside agent ever could.
You must live in opposite world, because the facts consistently support the opposite of your assertions. * I advocate for making the social safety net sustainable, and much more robust. That certainly doesn't benefit me; just the opposite, it requires me to become more charitable. * I didn't say people who need assistance are lazy. I said they are the opposite of people who are merely lazy, and that they should receive the opposite treatment (more resources directed to them). Does your reading comprehension really suck that much, or do you just
The beautiful thing about private charity is, you're in control. If you feel gay youth are underserved, that's where you can direct your dollars. You don't have that power when you write a check to the IRS.
Apparently you're not familiar with CharityNavigator.org. If you choose charities that have earned four stars from CharityNavigator, your dollars will be spent exceptionally efficiently and griftlessly.
Again, that's better than government attempting to do social good. It's terribly inefficient at that. I have participated in legal grift when I traveled on government contracts. The per-diem allowance is so extravagant, I was always able to stay at four- or five-star hotels, and enjoy fine dining every evening. That's totally unnecessary for someone at my level. I would have performed the job just fine, and taxpayers would have been much better served, if my lodging had been restricted to two-star hotels.
The PITA scholarship application process you described is what happens when privately-funded scholarship dollars are scarce. As the number of such dollars increases, the process will necessarily be relaxed somewhat, because it wouldn't be possible to give away all those dollars if the process remained as stringent as it is today.
It's true that private charities are more willing and able than government to make judgements about who is truly needy, and who is merely lazy. Don't act like that's a bad thing. For as long as the social safety net remains finite in size, it will be important to direct resources more in the direction of the truly needy, and less in the direction of the merely lazy.
Medicare alone is 702 billion dollars per year. 402 billion isn't going to cover it.
That's why I said "Within our lifetime, we might see voluntary charitable contributions exceed the size of coercive government wealth redistribution programs." I pretty clearly acknowledged that we haven't yet reached that point.
That reminds me. Private charities do not build up unfunded liabilities. Government entitlement programs, on the other hand, have built up $210 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities. In other words, $210 TRILLION in future obligations, for which we currently have no idea where the money will come from. The unfunded liabilities will inevitably begin to come due, like an apocalyptic balloon payment. This fact alone should make everyone want to make a shift toward private charity, rather than doubling down on the programs that created the unfunded liabilities.
I've heard people describe Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" programs as "successful," but they couldn't possibly be aware of the unfunded liabilities while making that characterization. Johnson himself, if his advisors had been able to foresee and warn him about the unfunded liabilities, never would have endorsed his Great Society programs. He didn't have a deathwish for his country's economy.
he understands that he needs socialized medicine or he dies.
Socialized medicine could provide him with insulin paid for by taxpayers, who did not consent to the amount the IRS confiscated from them. (Indeed, even those who call for higher tax rates hire accountants, or meticulously go through tax-prep apps, to minimize their own personal tax bill.)
Or, private charity could provide him with insulin paid for by people who provided the funds voluntarily.
You might think that voluntary charitable contributions could never grow large enough to replace the nanny state. That would be wrong. Year after year, the amount Americans donate to charity breaks the record set the previous year. It grows faster than GDP grows, for reasons I won't get into in this post. In 2017, the amount was $410 billion -- which is within the same order of magnitude as the coercive (and highly inefficient) government wealth redistribution programs.
Within our lifetime, we might see voluntary charitable contributions exceed the size of coercive government wealth redistribution programs. Even though this would result in a much more robust social safety net, some people loathe the thought that government would no longer have control over the social safety net.
Three things prevent charitable contributions from growing even faster than they do now (thereby delaying the day when the nanny state is no longer needed) -- and all three are related to taxation.
1. The tax rate directly affects charitable contributions. When people receive a tax cut, yes, they keep most of the cut for themselves, but they also give more to charity than they otherwise would have. If you take into account the fact that private charities create social good vastly more efficiently than government social programs do, cuts to the government programs do not cause proportional reductions in social good, and in some cases may even cause net increases.
2. The tax rate indirectly affects charitable contributions, because lower taxes result in higher GDP growth, and more charitable contributions that arise from that GDP growth. (No, I'm not an anarchist who believes the tax rate should be cut all the way to zero. But I suspect we are far from the "sweet spot" that maximizes GDP growth and the growth of charitable contributions.)
3. We're held back by the attitude that "federal, state and local governments are already taxing me, and in the aggregate transferring over $2 trillion per year from the top 40% to the bottom 60%, so why should I give more to charity?" All of us suffer from this transference of social responsibility -- away from individuals, and onto faceless bureaucrats -- to one extent or another.
I have 1.5 Mbps DSL (and I don't even live in a rural area). It's enough to get a pretty sharp picture when watching Netflix, so I feel no need to upgrade to something faster.
Am I missing something? Do I have needs that I'm not aware of? Why the obsession with more speed than one needs?
Thanks for pointing out that "broadband does not mean fast."
Nonetheless, there's still a problem with your definition of broadband...
A cable TV channel is 8Mhz wide (if there is a channel at 54Mhz, the next channel is at 62Mhz). That means it can carry up to 8Mhz gross bandwidth without special tricks like quadrature encoding. In order to get more bandwidth, providers send your internet signal over several TV channels simultaneously. (And use other tricks). Of your signal is on channels 100, 101, and 102 there can NOT be another person using channel 102 at exactly the same time.
The problem is that the 8 Mhz channel-width definition was rather arbitrary. What if a channel had been defined as 24 MHz wide? Then the whole signal would have fit on a single channel, and we'd be back to baseband.
So I still am unaware of any definition of "broadband" that isn't arbitrary (because it in turn depends on another arbitrary definition).
There are lots of ways rural areas differ from urban areas, and always will, because no one is willing to pony up the massive amount of subsidies it would take to eliminate the differences:
* With enough subsidies, you could entice world-class theater companies to perform in Bankston, Iowa, population 25. * With enough subsidies, you could entice airlines to provide scheduled passenger service to every grass airstrip. * With enough subsidies, you could get a subway built that connects Riverside, Georgia to Funston, Georgia (combined population 461).
It's fortunate that nobody wants to provide these subsidies, because they would be a terrible use of society's finite resources.
But for some reason, there seems to be an automatic assumption among many, having done no cost/benefit analysis, that rural broadband is not like the projects mentioned above; that providing whatever subsidies are necessary to make it the equal of urban broadband ought to commence at once.
Bernie Sanders held up "Scandinavian socialism" as a model that the U.S. should follow. Are you saying that he was holding up something that doesn't actually exist, and/or that he is a wannabe far leftist?
Just trying to understand, in the spirit of quelling class wars.
There's been a lot of talk about "civility" recently, but it all ignores why the civility of others is important to us: it is something people give to us voluntarily. When you start enforcing civility, it is no longer civility, it's conformity.
Similarly, when funds are coercively redistributed from someone who earned them to someone who didn't earn them, no one is being charitable. The spirit of charity is found nowhere in the conformist act of writing out a check to the IRS.
Shorter workweeks are the answer. A drastic increase in productivity calls for a drastic reduction in the workweek.
In 1890, the average workweek for manufacturing employees was 100 hours. But productivity gains over subsequent years allowed the workweek to get shorter and shorter.
However, in 1940 Congress imposed a definition of "full-time employment" as 40 hours per week. This codification arrested the natural trend toward shorter workweeks. The workweek has been stuck at 40 hours ever since.
If not for this, employers would compete for scarce labor resources by offering shorter workweeks.
So yes, laissez faire (getting government out of the business of deciding how long the workweek should be) would have a massive improvement on quality of life.
Jane comes in two hours per week to lubricate her robots, and out-produces Jake, an old-school guy who works 40 hours per week sans robots. Given the choice, I'd much rather have Jane working for me.
I'm not thinking? That's pretty rich from someone who proposes more solar. If you cover a given area with solar panels, the amount of solar radiation that would otherwise get reflected right back out into space drops dramatically. Have you ever touched an operating photovoltaic panel? Even unconcentrated systems become so hot they will burn your hand. And concentrated photovoltaics (CPV) require water cooling to prevent damage to the cells. All this waste heat raises the atmosphere temperature DIRECTLY. Plus, all electrical energy generated by solar panels eventually turns into heat, which raises the atmosphere temperature INDIRECTLY.
All energy produced by nuclear reactions, either fission or fusion, likewise ends up in the atmosphere.
However, dumping massive amounts of heat into the atmosphere, even continuously, would not contribute to climate change. The heat does not "build up" in the atmosphere; it quickly gets radiated into space. Warm things radiate like crazy (recall the Stefan-Boltzmann law: thermal radiation is proportional to the fourth power of temperature).
Bottom line, you can dump massive amounts of thermal energy into the atmosphere, and the displacement from the planet's natural equilibrium will be negligible. It's entirely different from the CO2 mechanism. To the extent that space-based power replaces fossil fuels, climate change would be reversed.
Go here to read about "the only viable option for generating the massive amounts of electrical power that would be needed to raise the standard of living in third-world nations to that of first-world nations."
we have no SpaceX or Blue Origin in the wings, and an environment that I don't think would ever create one.
What do you think about Skylon? SABRE will be tested here in Colorado very soon...
Whatever ULA bids, SpaceX will undercut them - even though that undercutting is still a windfall for SpaceX. What alternative does the US government have?
Why would the US government even want an alternative to that terrific situation? : )
Slashdot Mirror
Wyden says "platforms should be punished" if they don't censor despicable Alex Jones-type speech.
Sorry, the end of "protecting Section 230" doesn't justify that means. Saying that we should censor, so that we won't have to censor, is a pretty poor solution.
Now, I said that hate speech does poorly in a free marketplace of ideas. You disagreed.
Look at the highly-publicized white nationalist rally that was held on Aug 12. Out of 326 million Americans, only 24 people showed up to that rally.
If that's not an example of an idea that's "doing poorly," I don't know what is.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - from The Friends of Voltaire
This kind of commitment to free speech is a pillar of classical liberalism. Sen. Wyden is interested in the opposite: infringing civil rights.
Hate speech does poorly in a free marketplace of ideas, and brings discredit upon the speaker. There is no need to infringe freedom of speech, one of the most fundamental civil rights.
detect tiny ripples in water, created by an ordinary underwater speaker. This could let lost flight recorders and submarines communicate with planes.
Chances are this underwater speaker would have to be quite "loud," and connected to a powerful amplifier that would quickly drain the battery in a flight recorder.
I like, in a sarcastic way, how you skirted the idea that charities would only help those they deemed worthy. I suspect that 'lazy' has a wealth of meanings for you. I am familiar with Charity Navigator. I would point you towards Rotten Tomatoes, which was, more or less, subverted the moment the big movie studios took a hit in profits they could trace back to the site. Do you think that the mega-churches would fail to do the same to Charity Navigator?
I don't like, in a literal way, how you made an allegation against Charity Navigator without doing any basic research. I looked at the top 4 megachurches (based on average attendance):
Life.Church. Charity Navigator has not rated it.
Church of the Highlands. Charity Navigator has not rated it.
Lakewood Church. Charity Navigator has not rated it.
North Point Community Church. Charity Navigator has not rated it.
So yes, I'm confident Charity Navigator won't be subverted by organizations it doesn't rate.
Republicans whine about unfunded liabilities, then spend big.
Yes, I'm very unhappy with Republicans about that. At least they -- unlike the proponents of socialized medicine -- aren't proposing new programs that would cause $218 trillion in additional deficit spending over the next 30 years (to say nothing of what the new programs would do to unfunded liabilities). You complain about hypocrisy on the issue of unfunded liabilities, which is certainly true of some Republicans, but you offer no solutions to that issue yourself.
The only way the system breaks down is if people stop paying taxes
You don't think Social Security will break down if the ratio of retirees to FICA-paying workers grows a lot larger (due to lower birth rate, increasing life expectancy, etc.)? That's what's happening in Japan, and to say fixing that problem is "a major political challenge" might be the understatement of the century. Sorry, rather than trusting your bare assertion, I will trust the official report of the U.S. Social Security Board of Trustees, which back in 2009 had already announced $17.5 trillion in unfunded liabilities. I've never seen a credible definition of "Ponzi scheme" that doesn't describe Social Security to a T.
Again, this comes back to you and those like you. This belief that anything that doesn't directly benefit you is a waste of money, no matter the net benefit to our society as a whole, that people who need assistance are just "lazy." It is short-sighted, narrow-minded, and it is dragging the US down more effectively than any outside agent ever could.
You must live in opposite world, because the facts consistently support the opposite of your assertions.
* I advocate for making the social safety net sustainable, and much more robust. That certainly doesn't benefit me; just the opposite, it requires me to become more charitable.
* I didn't say people who need assistance are lazy. I said they are the opposite of people who are merely lazy, and that they should receive the opposite treatment (more resources directed to them). Does your reading comprehension really suck that much, or do you just
The beautiful thing about private charity is, you're in control. If you feel gay youth are underserved, that's where you can direct your dollars. You don't have that power when you write a check to the IRS.
Apparently you're not familiar with CharityNavigator.org. If you choose charities that have earned four stars from CharityNavigator, your dollars will be spent exceptionally efficiently and griftlessly.
Again, that's better than government attempting to do social good. It's terribly inefficient at that. I have participated in legal grift when I traveled on government contracts. The per-diem allowance is so extravagant, I was always able to stay at four- or five-star hotels, and enjoy fine dining every evening. That's totally unnecessary for someone at my level. I would have performed the job just fine, and taxpayers would have been much better served, if my lodging had been restricted to two-star hotels.
The PITA scholarship application process you described is what happens when privately-funded scholarship dollars are scarce. As the number of such dollars increases, the process will necessarily be relaxed somewhat, because it wouldn't be possible to give away all those dollars if the process remained as stringent as it is today.
It's true that private charities are more willing and able than government to make judgements about who is truly needy, and who is merely lazy. Don't act like that's a bad thing. For as long as the social safety net remains finite in size, it will be important to direct resources more in the direction of the truly needy, and less in the direction of the merely lazy.
Medicare alone is 702 billion dollars per year. 402 billion isn't going to cover it.
That's why I said "Within our lifetime, we might see voluntary charitable contributions exceed the size of coercive government wealth redistribution programs." I pretty clearly acknowledged that we haven't yet reached that point.
That reminds me. Private charities do not build up unfunded liabilities. Government entitlement programs, on the other hand, have built up $210 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities. In other words, $210 TRILLION in future obligations, for which we currently have no idea where the money will come from. The unfunded liabilities will inevitably begin to come due, like an apocalyptic balloon payment. This fact alone should make everyone want to make a shift toward private charity, rather than doubling down on the programs that created the unfunded liabilities.
I've heard people describe Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" programs as "successful," but they couldn't possibly be aware of the unfunded liabilities while making that characterization. Johnson himself, if his advisors had been able to foresee and warn him about the unfunded liabilities, never would have endorsed his Great Society programs. He didn't have a deathwish for his country's economy.
he understands that he needs socialized medicine or he dies.
Socialized medicine could provide him with insulin paid for by taxpayers, who did not consent to the amount the IRS confiscated from them. (Indeed, even those who call for higher tax rates hire accountants, or meticulously go through tax-prep apps, to minimize their own personal tax bill.)
Or, private charity could provide him with insulin paid for by people who provided the funds voluntarily.
You might think that voluntary charitable contributions could never grow large enough to replace the nanny state. That would be wrong. Year after year, the amount Americans donate to charity breaks the record set the previous year. It grows faster than GDP grows, for reasons I won't get into in this post. In 2017, the amount was $410 billion -- which is within the same order of magnitude as the coercive (and highly inefficient) government wealth redistribution programs.
Within our lifetime, we might see voluntary charitable contributions exceed the size of coercive government wealth redistribution programs. Even though this would result in a much more robust social safety net, some people loathe the thought that government would no longer have control over the social safety net.
Three things prevent charitable contributions from growing even faster than they do now (thereby delaying the day when the nanny state is no longer needed) -- and all three are related to taxation.
1. The tax rate directly affects charitable contributions. When people receive a tax cut, yes, they keep most of the cut for themselves, but they also give more to charity than they otherwise would have. If you take into account the fact that private charities create social good vastly more efficiently than government social programs do, cuts to the government programs do not cause proportional reductions in social good, and in some cases may even cause net increases.
2. The tax rate indirectly affects charitable contributions, because lower taxes result in higher GDP growth, and more charitable contributions that arise from that GDP growth. (No, I'm not an anarchist who believes the tax rate should be cut all the way to zero. But I suspect we are far from the "sweet spot" that maximizes GDP growth and the growth of charitable contributions.)
3. We're held back by the attitude that "federal, state and local governments are already taxing me, and in the aggregate transferring over $2 trillion per year from the top 40% to the bottom 60%, so why should I give more to charity?" All of us suffer from this transference of social responsibility -- away from individuals, and onto faceless bureaucrats -- to one extent or another.
they do need options other than: *1-2 MB DSL
I have 1.5 Mbps DSL (and I don't even live in a rural area). It's enough to get a pretty sharp picture when watching Netflix, so I feel no need to upgrade to something faster.
Am I missing something? Do I have needs that I'm not aware of? Why the obsession with more speed than one needs?
Thanks for pointing out that "broadband does not mean fast."
Nonetheless, there's still a problem with your definition of broadband...
The problem is that the 8 Mhz channel-width definition was rather arbitrary. What if a channel had been defined as 24 MHz wide? Then the whole signal would have fit on a single channel, and we'd be back to baseband.
So I still am unaware of any definition of "broadband" that isn't arbitrary (because it in turn depends on another arbitrary definition).
There are lots of ways rural areas differ from urban areas, and always will, because no one is willing to pony up the massive amount of subsidies it would take to eliminate the differences:
* With enough subsidies, you could entice world-class theater companies to perform in Bankston, Iowa, population 25.
* With enough subsidies, you could entice airlines to provide scheduled passenger service to every grass airstrip.
* With enough subsidies, you could get a subway built that connects Riverside, Georgia to Funston, Georgia (combined population 461).
It's fortunate that nobody wants to provide these subsidies, because they would be a terrible use of society's finite resources.
But for some reason, there seems to be an automatic assumption among many, having done no cost/benefit analysis, that rural broadband is not like the projects mentioned above; that providing whatever subsidies are necessary to make it the equal of urban broadband ought to commence at once.
Putin says the nation that leads in AI 'will be the ruler of the world'
How about we at least look into some ways to defend against this?
Bernie Sanders held up "Scandinavian socialism" as a model that the U.S. should follow. Are you saying that he was holding up something that doesn't actually exist, and/or that he is a wannabe far leftist?
Just trying to understand, in the spirit of quelling class wars.
There's been a lot of talk about "civility" recently, but it all ignores why the civility of others is important to us: it is something people give to us voluntarily. When you start enforcing civility, it is no longer civility, it's conformity.
Similarly, when funds are coercively redistributed from someone who earned them to someone who didn't earn them, no one is being charitable. The spirit of charity is found nowhere in the conformist act of writing out a check to the IRS.
Slashdot's moderation system is working very well. He hasn't been censored, but he has been modded down into oblivion.
The best of both worlds. We should not ask for anything more.
Shorter workweeks are the answer. A drastic increase in productivity calls for a drastic reduction in the workweek.
In 1890, the average workweek for manufacturing employees was 100 hours. But productivity gains over subsequent years allowed the workweek to get shorter and shorter.
However, in 1940 Congress imposed a definition of "full-time employment" as 40 hours per week. This codification arrested the natural trend toward shorter workweeks. The workweek has been stuck at 40 hours ever since.
If not for this, employers would compete for scarce labor resources by offering shorter workweeks.
So yes, laissez faire (getting government out of the business of deciding how long the workweek should be) would have a massive improvement on quality of life.
Jane comes in two hours per week to lubricate her robots, and out-produces Jake, an old-school guy who works 40 hours per week sans robots. Given the choice, I'd much rather have Jane working for me.
Space is much like air. You drop things from it that impact the ground.
To be more accurate, you can deorbit things, which is a lot more difficult than dropping things -- and that is referred to as kinetic bombardment.
But there is not a big push to develop this kind of capability; and that would not change if a space-centric branch of the military is created.
I guess the Army can get, and likely already has, a small "space force" of its own.
Well, there's the Army Space and Missile Defense Command.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I'm not thinking? That's pretty rich from someone who proposes more solar. If you cover a given area with solar panels, the amount of solar radiation that would otherwise get reflected right back out into space drops dramatically. Have you ever touched an operating photovoltaic panel? Even unconcentrated systems become so hot they will burn your hand. And concentrated photovoltaics (CPV) require water cooling to prevent damage to the cells. All this waste heat raises the atmosphere temperature DIRECTLY. Plus, all electrical energy generated by solar panels eventually turns into heat, which raises the atmosphere temperature INDIRECTLY.
All energy produced by nuclear reactions, either fission or fusion, likewise ends up in the atmosphere.
However, dumping massive amounts of heat into the atmosphere, even continuously, would not contribute to climate change. The heat does not "build up" in the atmosphere; it quickly gets radiated into space. Warm things radiate like crazy (recall the Stefan-Boltzmann law: thermal radiation is proportional to the fourth power of temperature).
Bottom line, you can dump massive amounts of thermal energy into the atmosphere, and the displacement from the planet's natural equilibrium will be negligible. It's entirely different from the CO2 mechanism. To the extent that space-based power replaces fossil fuels, climate change would be reversed.
Go here to read about "the only viable option for generating the massive amounts of electrical power that would be needed to raise the standard of living in third-world nations to that of first-world nations."
we have no SpaceX or Blue Origin in the wings, and an environment that I don't think would ever create one.
What do you think about Skylon? SABRE will be tested here in Colorado very soon...
Whatever ULA bids, SpaceX will undercut them - even though that undercutting is still a windfall for SpaceX. What alternative does the US government have?
Why would the US government even want an alternative to that terrific situation? : )
You're my favorite Slashdotter. And I'll be in Reykjavik May 27, May 28 and June 7... may I buy you lunch?
(Sorry to spam a bunch of your posts, but I wanted to be sure you saw my invite.) Reply to GPSpilot1@NOsPam.gmail.com.
And you're right... it's ridiculous that we can't type a thorn here.
You're my favorite Slashdotter. And I'll be in Reykjavik May 27, May 28 and June 7.... may I buy you lunch?
(Sorry to spam a bunch of your posts, but I wanted to be sure you saw my invitation.) Reply to GPSpilot1@NOsPam.gmail.com.
And you're right... it's ridiculous that we can't type a thorn here.
You're my favorite Slashdotter. And I'll be in Reykjavik May 27, May 28 and June 7... may I buy you lunch?
(Sorry to spam a bunch of your posts, but I wanted to be sure you saw my invitation.) Reply to GPSpilot1@NOsPam.gmail.com.
And you're right... it's ridiculous that we can't type a thorn here.
You're my favorite Slashdotter. And I'll be in Reykjavik May 27, May 28 and June 7.... may I buy you lunch?
(Sorry to spam a bunch of your posts, but I wanted to be sure you saw my invitation.) Reply to GPSpilot1@NOsPam.gmail.com.
And you're right... it's ridiculous that we can't type a thorn here.
You're my favorite Slashdotter. And I'll be in Reykjavik May 27, May 28 and June 7... may I buy you lunch?
(Sorry to spam a bunch of your posts, but I wanted to be sure you saw my invitation.) Reply to GPSpilot1@NOsPam.gmail.com.
And you're right... it's ridiculous that we can't type a thorn here.
You're my favorite Slashdotter. And I'll be in Reykjavik May 27, May 28 and June 7.... may I buy you lunch?
(Sorry to spam a bunch of your posts, but I wanted to be sure you saw my invitation.) Reply to GPSpilot1@NOsPam.gmail.com.
And you're right... it's ridiculous that we can't type a thorn here.