Spam is sent randomly to people who don't want it. This email will probably be sent specifically to certain people who have a history of dealing with whichever candidate or party. That's just a guess based on the characterizations in the story.
Of course, this misses the point I made. You're not going to win the fight against spam by taking minor technical points and exaggerating them into a pseudo-scandal.
Spam is a real problem. It would be easier to convince people of that without you people distracting the public with fake problems.
Outsourcing to India is good on almost all levels. It'll create a world of wealthier people on both continents. The end result will be a broad, worldwide middle-class who can afford a decent lifestyle -- a lifestyle that can be had at a lower and lower price all the time.
In the short term, outsourcing creates displaced workers. The rate of outsourcing could to be controlled so the expanding job market can absorb all the quality people whose jobs are outsourced.
If there's a government answer to outsourcing, that's it. Add tax and regulation cuts to make it less expensive to hire Americans, and the outsourcing "problem" goes away.
They don't have to sell to you if they don't want to.
After your contract term is up (at the end of the month or something) they can just tell you to go away. They can do this for almost any reason they like, including because you were a heavy bandwidth user.
The attack on 9/11 was real. It wasn't made-up what-if scenario.
Serious people respond with practical efforts to do the best they can to minimize attacks in the future. They're not trying to win a debating contest or solve an academic puzzle.
"I could have done more to prevent the death of your family, Mrs. Smith. But that would have been inconsistent with these 3 intellectual principles."
Terrorists attack the US or our interests. Those are the ones we're interested in. If someone wants to engage in terrorism against North Korean government officials, I don't think the US will be too interested in catching them.
It's ultimately a question of our side (the US) vs. their side (the terrorists in question). We also happen to be "The Good Guys" in this particular conflict.
Slashdot Mirror
What credential qualifies you to make ANY decision or offer ANY comment on ANY subject?
Because no one without a degree can possibly understand anything as important as science.
And they certainly can't be trusted to make their own decisions.
No, I think it's just you.
Spam is sent randomly to people who don't want it. This email will probably be sent specifically to certain people who have a history of dealing with whichever candidate or party. That's just a guess based on the characterizations in the story.
Of course, this misses the point I made. You're not going to win the fight against spam by taking minor technical points and exaggerating them into a pseudo-scandal.
Spam is a real problem. It would be easier to convince people of that without you people distracting the public with fake problems.
Spam is very bad, and it is a threat to the future of the Internet.
These political emails are perhaps somewhat questionable, and not a threat to anyone or anything.
You're setting back the fight against spam with your exaggerations.
How can Prada afford all this technology and still only charge $1000.00 for a handbag?
She makes me feel kinda funny. Like when we used to climb the rope in gym class. *
Nope, it really is the Democrats that consistently oppose legal reforms. Republicans have tried to pass a bunch of them. Look it up.
Who has time for that? We have to work really long hours to pay taxes to support the schools.
More accurately, they said we know what it says, just nevermind this time. We'll bring it back for speech we approve of.
A loser pays rule would make these kind of lawsuits very risky for the plaintiff. "I'll sue" would cease to be a meaningful threat.
Money is why we won't get reform as long as Democrats have the power to prevent it.
The metric system is the tool of the devil. My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead and thats the way I likes it!
Why are farmers in every country constantly whining about everything? And why listen to them? They're never happy.
I guess it's off topic, but seriouly, does any country have happy farmers?
NetLedger
Outsourcing to India is good on almost all levels. It'll create a world of wealthier people on both continents. The end result will be a broad, worldwide middle-class who can afford a decent lifestyle -- a lifestyle that can be had at a lower and lower price all the time.
In the short term, outsourcing creates displaced workers. The rate of outsourcing could to be controlled so the expanding job market can absorb all the quality people whose jobs are outsourced.
If there's a government answer to outsourcing, that's it. Add tax and regulation cuts to make it less expensive to hire Americans, and the outsourcing "problem" goes away.
By what standard? The US is not suffering from a financial downfall -- I don't see one here anyway.
What's your point exactly?
Is it "stuff shouldn't be blown up"?
Is it "the USA is bad"?
Is it "bragging is bad"?
Is it "Safire is bad"?
Is it "3 questions marks aren't enough"?
The only thing you've made clear is that you think it's lucky the "many weren't killed". Hard to argue with that.
In Soviet Russia, software crashes YOU!
They don't have to sell to you if they don't want to.
After your contract term is up (at the end of the month or something) they can just tell you to go away. They can do this for almost any reason they like, including because you were a heavy bandwidth user.
Some koffice drops will clear that right up.
Serious people respond with practical efforts to do the best they can to minimize attacks in the future. They're not trying to win a debating contest or solve an academic puzzle.
"I could have done more to prevent the death of your family, Mrs. Smith. But that would have been inconsistent with these 3 intellectual principles."
Are you suggesting surrender? (Obviously, not. Let's not be silly, ok?)
Here's a suggestion though: we do the best we can.
Or, in this case, keep them from doing it to you.
There is no way to defeat the "other side" in a war on drugs/terrorism/poverty. You can't stomp out a social ill or political disagreement with force
You can render the other side unable to fight. Or you can make it much, much harder for them to hurt you.
When all else fails, a dead enemy is an ineffective enemy.
Yep. That's why this decision will actually result in a more-specific, more-focused, and stronger Patriot Act.
Easy:
Terrorists attack the US or our interests. Those are the ones we're interested in. If someone wants to engage in terrorism against North Korean government officials, I don't think the US will be too interested in catching them.
It's ultimately a question of our side (the US) vs. their side (the terrorists in question). We also happen to be "The Good Guys" in this particular conflict.