And what's so LOL-worthy about that? Take this story. All the words you list apply, and the story is legitimate, whether you like it or not. it's also one of the most disgusting, Soviet-like deceptions perpetrated by your president. Not funny.
Correction. StartupMonitor doesn't look for systray apps. Rather, it intercepts any attempt by an application to add itself to autostart folder or a registry entry, so that the application will run automatically at startup.
But you can't use it indiscriminately. Most setup programs for example will add a run-once entry to delete temp files or files that were in use and couldn't be replaced - this is something you want to allow. But the same setup program may also be installing fishy stuff, so you need to be able to tell the difference.
What good is Real Alternative (and all other players that purport to play Real content) if it requires you to install the original crud in the first place?
Well, no. This information isn't confidential. It can, however, be embarassing. So they keep the information technically available, while making it significantly harder to find via the usual means a journalist or researcher would use.
What "incredibly good" has Bush done? For the record. And assuming that in order to be "incredibly good", it has to positively affect a large part of the population in a measurable way.
If _ANYONE_ considered what the media had to say, then Arnold Shwartzeneggar would've lost by a landslide.
The day before California elections. CNN news. Arnold all over them. Sound bytes, clips ("Terminate Gray Davis!"), commentaries. I waited for the part where they show sound bytes and clips from the other contenders. There were zero. If you only watched CNN, you would think Arnold was running fucking solo.
Except that's not true. Some of these directories don'r exist, but others do. And while not all are related to Iraq, they're all related to politically sensitive issues where Bush has an iffy record at best. Example:/climatechangefactsheet/text
First there was open relaying for everyone. It may have been sloppy, but it was useful. It was useful for people like me, who connected through one provider but used another for an email/shell account. Then spammers came, no more relaying.
Back then everyone posted to Usenet using their real email address, everyone displayed their address on the website. Then spammers came, and a lot of people started munging or altogether hiding their addresses, making it difficult or impossible to contact them.
Spammers came and stayed, so most ISPs and many users learned they had to use filters. Now my ISP is bouncing email to me from my students, and from people who use my software, and from people who are offering me jobs, without even notifying me about it - because they use(d) SPEWS and because they're a little too trigger-happy with their own filters.
And now you're suggesting we agree to dump yet another useful facility the network provides - the search engine that will index and link to our sites for free and let others know where to find them.
*These* are the greatest losses we have incurred due to spam. This is what spammers have done to the network. It's not just the junk in your mailbox, it's not just the overloaded servers.
And BTW - what's stopping spammers from operating their own web crawlers? Do you think spammers will respect robots.txt?
This is one of the lamest and most mendacious arguments spam-apologists have ever come up with. Every spammer says this.
Well first, it's not one or two ads. Every morning I have between 50 and 70 spams in just one account. Most of these are large HTML-formatted email with attachments.
Second, about getting things for free. You get nothing free from fucking spammers, moron! It's one thing to get, say, Slashdot for free and have to see the ads in return. Spammers do not offer any services for free. They only take: they take the bandwidth (so much as to crash huge mailservers), they take my time, they take my disk space - and that's before they've actually provided me with any good or service whatsoever.
The free speech argument is of course totally bogus. Commercial speech does not enjoy all the free speech protections. You can't say your car has 4 airbags if it does not - it's not free speech, it's fraud. You can't post your ad on the wall of my house - it's not free speech, it's trespass. You can't ride around town blasting your ads from a loudspeaker at 4 a.m. And you have absolutely no right to stuff my mailbox with advertising designed to deceive me ("Re: your order").
Someone please moderate parent as troll, because that's exactly what it is.
Cool. When I pass by your house, can I spray-paint a penis-enlargement ad on your wall? If I do, will you: a) call the cops b) take the matter into your own hands, so to speak?
If you answered (a) you've made my point for me, so I assume you've answered (b). But (b) is not a solution against spam. It's more like you're on a long vacation and every night I come by and spray-paint some more on your house. You have no idea who I am or where to find me. Indeed, it's not just me, it's thousands of folks doing that to you. You now have so much "control" you're ready to burst, now catch me.
the device only has enough memory to store a few seconds worth of data;
How much will it store in five years? Or why bother with storage at all, if the device could be beaming data continuously, e.g. via the cellphone network, or a purpose-built one?
To say that guns are only for killing is really a very politically-loaded statement, and makes you look like somebody with an agenda to push.
Since pro-gun folks always point to the 2nd Amendment as the justification and source of their right to own firearms, it follows that they need guns for killing people. The amendment doesn't say you can have a gun for shooting fucking pigeons.
Why do people have such a serious problem with weapons?
Because generally they make it _easier_ to kill? Because weapons like handguns make it easy enough for a child to do it? You print hard-to-copy money to make it hard to produce conterfeit cash. Not impossible, but difficult. You install locks in doors to make it harder for the potential burglars. As simple as that. The easier a weapon makes it to kill people, the less available it should be.
The purpose of the second ammendment is to allow an armed populace to perform an uprising against its government if necessary. It is one of the checks on government the people retain, along with the vote and the jury system.
This is true historically, but if you really needed to defend yourself from the government _today_, a gun wouldn't do you a whole lot of good, for one thing. In that sense, 2nd amendment is entirely anachronistic.
Amazon requires that you supply your CC number before you can search. (Probably happens automatically for those who already have an account.) Then there's a limit on the nuymber of pages per book they'll show you (up to 20%). So to get the whole book you'd have to have at least 5 separate accounts and 5 separate CC numbers. This Wired article has more.
I won't go to B&N because (a) I'm too lazy and (b) there's not a single B&N store in my whole country (and it's a good thing, too). But I buy several books a month from Amazon.
IOW, it's about the numbers. The number of those who can and will go to a brick-and-mortar store is minuscule compared to those who'll search online.
Refusing to admit it simply shows that reality doesn't matter
Bogus. What you're saying is that just because something has been accomplished, everyone needs to toe the line and accept that. So if a military coup removes a democratically elected leader and takes over a country - as has happened many times in history - that's your "reality" and that's OK, right?
The "reality" is that the Supreme Court picked your president. Whether they did right or wrong is one thing (surely the fact that Clarence Thomas's wife was at the time working for the Bush election committee had nothing to do with *his* vote; the fact that while SC's rulings set precedents and are binding, but this time the court added a disclaimer saying that the ruling applies to that one case only - doesn't make you wonder at all, does it?), but to say that everyone should shut up and accept the "reality" is inexcusable.
So Bush can't grant pardon to Ken Lay, good. So Ken Lay has not been convicted of fraud, goo--Wait a minute! The guy who screwed up a huge corporation, got rid of his stock knowing it would tank while advising his employees to hold, the guy who nulled the pension funds of the whole Enron workforce and who inflated energy prices in CA by creating artificial scarcity where there was none - he's not about to be convicted of fraud, is he.
That's not the whole story, because you can set cookies via javascript. So it's perfectly possible for HTML email to use cookies. But most of the time I suppose cookies are just tied to a blank 1x1 gif.
The point being, if you boycott with integrity, you'd probably have to include all the major players in any given market for one reason or another. But most people just "boycott" what's convenient and feels good. And it's hard to blame them - Amazon does have lower shipping charges.
Slashdot Mirror
And what's so LOL-worthy about that? Take this story. All the words you list apply, and the story is legitimate, whether you like it or not. it's also one of the most disgusting, Soviet-like deceptions perpetrated by your president. Not funny.
But you can't use it indiscriminately. Most setup programs for example will add a run-once entry to delete temp files or files that were in use and couldn't be replaced - this is something you want to allow. But the same setup program may also be installing fishy stuff, so you need to be able to tell the difference.
What good is Real Alternative (and all other players that purport to play Real content) if it requires you to install the original crud in the first place?
Well, no. This information isn't confidential. It can, however, be embarassing. So they keep the information technically available, while making it significantly harder to find via the usual means a journalist or researcher would use.
Not true. Some of them do exist, like this one: /climatechangefactsheet/text
What "incredibly good" has Bush done? For the record. And assuming that in order to be "incredibly good", it has to positively affect a large part of the population in a measurable way.
Arafat is already a recipient of the Nobel peace prize. But you knew that, right?
The day before California elections. CNN news. Arnold all over them. Sound bytes, clips ("Terminate Gray Davis!"), commentaries. I waited for the part where they show sound bytes and clips from the other contenders. There were zero. If you only watched CNN, you would think Arnold was running fucking solo.
What does Bush's environmental policy has in common with his Iraq policy?
Except that's not true. Some of these directories don'r exist, but others do. And while not all are related to Iraq, they're all related to politically sensitive issues where Bush has an iffy record at best. Example: /climatechangefactsheet/text
First there was open relaying for everyone. It may have been sloppy, but it was useful. It was useful for people like me, who connected through one provider but used another for an email/shell account. Then spammers came, no more relaying.
Back then everyone posted to Usenet using their real email address, everyone displayed their address on the website. Then spammers came, and a lot of people started munging or altogether hiding their addresses, making it difficult or impossible to contact them.
Spammers came and stayed, so most ISPs and many users learned they had to use filters. Now my ISP is bouncing email to me from my students, and from people who use my software, and from people who are offering me jobs, without even notifying me about it - because they use(d) SPEWS and because they're a little too trigger-happy with their own filters.
And now you're suggesting we agree to dump yet another useful facility the network provides - the search engine that will index and link to our sites for free and let others know where to find them.
*These* are the greatest losses we have incurred due to spam. This is what spammers have done to the network. It's not just the junk in your mailbox, it's not just the overloaded servers.
And BTW - what's stopping spammers from operating their own web crawlers? Do you think spammers will respect robots.txt?
This is one of the lamest and most mendacious arguments spam-apologists have ever come up with. Every spammer says this.
Well first, it's not one or two ads. Every morning I have between 50 and 70 spams in just one account. Most of these are large HTML-formatted email with attachments.
Second, about getting things for free. You get nothing free from fucking spammers, moron! It's one thing to get, say, Slashdot for free and have to see the ads in return. Spammers do not offer any services for free. They only take: they take the bandwidth (so much as to crash huge mailservers), they take my time, they take my disk space - and that's before they've actually provided me with any good or service whatsoever.
The free speech argument is of course totally bogus. Commercial speech does not enjoy all the free speech protections. You can't say your car has 4 airbags if it does not - it's not free speech, it's fraud. You can't post your ad on the wall of my house - it's not free speech, it's trespass. You can't ride around town blasting your ads from a loudspeaker at 4 a.m. And you have absolutely no right to stuff my mailbox with advertising designed to deceive me ("Re: your order").
Someone please moderate parent as troll, because that's exactly what it is.
Cool. When I pass by your house, can I spray-paint a penis-enlargement ad on your wall? If I do, will you:
a) call the cops
b) take the matter into your own hands, so to speak?
If you answered (a) you've made my point for me, so I assume you've answered (b). But (b) is not a solution against spam. It's more like you're on a long vacation and every night I come by and spray-paint some more on your house. You have no idea who I am or where to find me. Indeed, it's not just me, it's thousands of folks doing that to you. You now have so much "control" you're ready to burst, now catch me.
So how about being a good dumb citizen instead of borrowing subversive books from your local library?
How much will it store in five years? Or why bother with storage at all, if the device could be beaming data continuously, e.g. via the cellphone network, or a purpose-built one?
Since pro-gun folks always point to the 2nd Amendment as the justification and source of their right to own firearms, it follows that they need guns for killing people. The amendment doesn't say you can have a gun for shooting fucking pigeons.
Because generally they make it _easier_ to kill? Because weapons like handguns make it easy enough for a child to do it? You print hard-to-copy money to make it hard to produce conterfeit cash. Not impossible, but difficult. You install locks in doors to make it harder for the potential burglars. As simple as that. The easier a weapon makes it to kill people, the less available it should be.
This is true historically, but if you really needed to defend yourself from the government _today_, a gun wouldn't do you a whole lot of good, for one thing. In that sense, 2nd amendment is entirely anachronistic.
Amazon requires that you supply your CC number before you can search. (Probably happens automatically for those who already have an account.) Then there's a limit on the nuymber of pages per book they'll show you (up to 20%). So to get the whole book you'd have to have at least 5 separate accounts and 5 separate CC numbers. This Wired article has more.
I won't go to B&N because (a) I'm too lazy and (b) there's not a single B&N store in my whole country (and it's a good thing, too). But I buy several books a month from Amazon.
IOW, it's about the numbers. The number of those who can and will go to a brick-and-mortar store is minuscule compared to those who'll search online.
Bogus. What you're saying is that just because something has been accomplished, everyone needs to toe the line and accept that. So if a military coup removes a democratically elected leader and takes over a country - as has happened many times in history - that's your "reality" and that's OK, right?
The "reality" is that the Supreme Court picked your president. Whether they did right or wrong is one thing (surely the fact that Clarence Thomas's wife was at the time working for the Bush election committee had nothing to do with *his* vote; the fact that while SC's rulings set precedents and are binding, but this time the court added a disclaimer saying that the ruling applies to that one case only - doesn't make you wonder at all, does it?), but to say that everyone should shut up and accept the "reality" is inexcusable.
Well, the way these things happen, you can't reallyudismantle a monopoly before a company becomes one, can you? IOW, it has to happen after the fact.
So Bush can't grant pardon to Ken Lay, good. So Ken Lay has not been convicted of fraud, goo--Wait a minute! The guy who screwed up a huge corporation, got rid of his stock knowing it would tank while advising his employees to hold, the guy who nulled the pension funds of the whole Enron workforce and who inflated energy prices in CA by creating artificial scarcity where there was none - he's not about to be convicted of fraud, is he.
That's not the whole story, because you can set cookies via javascript. So it's perfectly possible for HTML email to use cookies. But most of the time I suppose cookies are just tied to a blank 1x1 gif.
The point being, if you boycott with integrity, you'd probably have to include all the major players in any given market for one reason or another. But most people just "boycott" what's convenient and feels good. And it's hard to blame them - Amazon does have lower shipping charges.