I was especially enamored with the iconoclastic, meglo-maniac, super-genious infant "Stewey" bent on the destruction of his "birth giver". The alcoholic talking dog just took the cake.
It's sole failing may have been it's similarity to the Simpsons where the mother and father looked and behaved like clones of Homer and Marge.
Kelsey Grammar is more "Wooden" then a porn jock. I dare say he's more wooden than Al Gore.
Stan Lee is a wonderfully successful writer of Comics. His body of work and it's popularity speaks for itself. Translating that work into other mediums is the job of others. Don't blame Stan if someone takes his wonderful stories and makes something like the recent Hulk movie.
Hmm... and I don't think South Park would work out very well in Mother Russia! Sure it would. Just substitute "Siberean" every time they say "Canadian" and it will translate just fine;-)
BTW, if your getting the same Cartoon network as American's do... They do show quite a bit of cartoons for "mature" audiences in their "adult swim" late night segments. Futurama, Family Guy, and some pretty bizzare, poorly animated, but excellently written originals.
Of course if it's broadcast at THE SAME time as the American network, this will probably air noonish in Sweden.
The best animation I've seen recently is the "Mr. Hell" show which comes out of Britain. Showtime is airing these hear in the US. Basically, it plays like an animated "Monty Python" save theirs only one lead... "Mr. Hell".
If you've never seen "The Critic" your missing out on a treat. It's a hilarious 10-year old show that was dropped from three different networks before being killed off.
Jon Lovitz voices a movie critic working for a cable "SuperStation" with a flamboyent playboy meglo-maniac boss (like Ted Turner). His best friend is a washed up, middle age Australian actor (like Paul Hogan), and he constantly spars with charicatures of MOST hollywood stars.
It's treatment of hollywood, it's product, and it's celebrities is cruelly hilarious. In retrospect, it's no wonder why such a hilarious show would be cancelled three times. It was just "too hot to handle".
Beavis and Butthead was MTV's version of 'Mystery Science Theater 3000'. Their job was to poke fun at videos and perform sophmoric, idiotic humor (their modern replacement is Tom Green).
On the good side... Beavis and Butthead was never really pretentious. The Movie WAS funny because the characters were idiotic morons who you could laugh at and relate to some of your neighbors and co-workers.
Stupid for "higher moral" sake is annoying and pretentious. Stupid for stupid's sake is pretty funny.
P.S. regarding the "absolute worst product", you obviously don't understand business in America. Sell crap at premium prices, maximize profit. Thats the point!!!!... unfotunately
Unless you've never noticed, Arnold really isn't that good of an actor. His best parts are playing dim-witted violent brutes. Little acting is required for such roles.
His best acting role yet may be a remake of "Ronald Reagan becomes governer of California". Fortunately, the sequel "Reagan, the simple dimwitted puppet becomes president" simply isn't a role that Arnold is qualified for.
BTW, before knocking George Lucas, remember that he MADE the original three Star Wars. He didn't screw anything up, he simply took it in a different direction. The original Star Wars movies were not Sci-Fi, they were "Space Westerns". They had the plot depth of Dudley DooRight rescuing a damsel from a railroad track.
Everybody bitched about "Return of the Jedi", but it was the only one of the three with plot broader that a couple of white hats, a girl, and a gang of black hats. Muppets aside (as if, YOU KNOW what furry 3 foot aliens look like).
I too wasn't completely satisfied with the overall composition of both new Star Wars movies. I think we build things up in our heads that something would be great or earth shattering. Besides Jar-Jar and the atrocious acting of Jake Lloyd (Anakin) I thought Phantom Menace was a pretty good movie. "Attack of the Clones" was EXCELLENT save the C3-PO as Jar-Jar routine.
I think a LOT of this has to do with Lucas' new concept of adding new elements AFTER principal photography. The editing phase really needs to be one where you cut out ANYTHING that isn't absoluetly necessary for the story to flow. I thought that the post-production Annakin and Amidala as Super Mario Bros. in a factory was was over the top.
We all have expectations out of Hollywood that are realy too unrealistic. Those who think that they're great conceptual artists need to get a Camcorder and just start making movies. You may find that your great "cinematic visions" make people groan.
Bush won a democratic election fair and square: 5 to 4;-)
If the Supreme Court truly had acted in a matter of law they would have issued an actual ruling that could be cited before federal courts. As it was they:
* Put a stay on something that couldn't possibly be considered "irreperable harm" because recount activity is simply an activity of "research", not decision. The results of such a recount could be contested.
* Put a stay based on a foolish charge of "equal protection" for voters. A careful recount could only find votes that were lost due to the unreliable nature of the machinery. The gold standard for elections has ALWAYS been visual inspection. There is nothing wrong with subjective overview of ambiguous ballots. This is a practice as old as our nation as original ballots required one to write the names of candidates.
The judicial precedent was very clear "determine the intent of the voter". If the court disagreed with this ruling, they should have overturned it in a judgement.
* Interfered with separation of powers. The federal circuit judge made it very clear that this was NOT the business of federal courts. The irony here is the very people who trumpet "States Rights" argued THE EXACT OPPOSITE in federal court.
The interpretation of Florida state law is the EXCLUSIVE DOMAIN of Florida's courts. One could challenge such a law as being unconstitutional at the federal level, but asking ANY federal judge to review whether the laws of Florida are properly executed is a blatant violation of States Rights.
TRANSLATION: "We don't really give a hoot about states rights. It's just a principle we bring up when it's convenient for us. Just like "limited government" and "limited taxation".
* The head election officer in Florida took it upon herself
Does this mean Gore should have won, well ultimately no. I preferred Gore, but you know what, had he won his home state, Florida would have been irrelevant. The principle that holds everyone to this issue is THE RULE OF LAW!!!!!! The SANCTITY of free and fair elections in a democratic society.
Consider the following that occured in Florida:
* The systematic scrubbing of voter roles of "convicted felons." Governor Bush (Dubaya's brother) unilaterally overruled competitive bidding laws to turn the task of identifying "convicted felons" for scrubbing the voter roles. The company picked "ChoicePoint" was already indicated for a scandal in Texas. They basically identified loads of people who had never even been in the criminal justice system. This, was exactly the criterea that made them desirable. Claim to the public that your scrubbing "criminals" from the voting roles, when your really targeting minorties.
See http://www.gregpalast.com/contents.htm for details. There are two free chapters of the book "The Best Democracy Money Could Buy" by Greg Palast who covered the election exensively.
* Lastly, the chief election officer of Florida, Katherine Harris, was also Florida's "Bush for President" campaign coordinator. How ANY reasonable person could claim this ISN'T a conflict of interest is beyond reason. It's impossible to WORK FOR candidate Bush while overseeing an election in a free and fair fashion.
Well, maybe it's OK for Republicans since their sole purpose is to lie, cheat and steal in any way possible to WIN. Read that book, than talk to me about Florida 2000.
All this is really irrelevant now since if you have a routing number and check number, you can write "e-checks" over the phone. Furthermore, one could simply order your own "set" of checks for somebody if they don't get home till 5 but you can grab the checks as soon as the mailman goes by.
Why bother modifying checks when you can just order a set or "forge" an e-check???
Isn't this EXACTLY the same type of situation that occurred with Dow Corning and Silicone Breast implants. At the time, the scientific evidence showed ZERO correlation between having an implant and the occurence of auto-immune diseases.
The jury made it's decision based on pop/press science which highlighted a limited number of women who happened to have auto-immune disease AND breast implants. Dow Corning went bankrupt, the lawyers got rich. No women was ever helped by the suits because the implants WEREN'T causing auto-immune disease.
I agree with your statement regarding the nature of the legal system. I that highly technical materials should be vetted by juries with technical degrees and backgrounds. If there's not enough evidence, a case shouldn't be dismissed, rather it should be suspended until such time when proof is forthcoming. Of course if the science is just plain BS, the case should be dismissed.
The US needs a section of "Science Courts" to clear credible science info for the use of the rest of the court system proper.
Basically, you find a bunch of judges who also have science and engineering backgrounds. "Juries" would be made up of college graduates in Science and Engineering.
They would no concentrate on "right" or "wrong". They would merely vette material claims for it's level of scientific proof and backing. Farsicle, outrageous claims with no basis in research would be held inadmissable irregardless of what nonsense wacko scientist for hire will say.
Seriously, "lay" juries are often woefully unqualified to sift through seriously technical information and decide wether it has legitimacy. Jury trial assures trial by "peers". This concept is often misapplied when dealing with technical issues, especially in cases of medical malpractice.
When dealing with such issues of a highly technical nature, I believe the courts should be required to strive above the "lay" jurymen. They needn't find a doctor or research scientist, but they SHOULD select people with a background that will give them an ability to evaluate evidence scientifically.
Finally, anyone who advertises in legal journals as "expert witnesses" should be disallowed to testify or predudiced for this fact by the judge. Someone "for hire" will often say anything at all. There willingness to offer pay-for-say services nullifies the objectivity that would help them clarify an issue.
At the very least, lawyers should be made to troll through hundreds of unagreeable professors with integrity to find the one crackpot that will say whatevers best for their particular client THAT day.
Now that I have your attention, I would like to discuss the larger issue of Linux in general. It is time for us, fellow patriots, to look at our situation in the world on a global scale. Microsoft is an American company. Bill Gates started with nothing and built an empire. What is the problem here? We should be supporting American enterprise, not undermining it. The simple fact is that no true partiot would use Linux at all. In these hard times we must rally around our companies, our economy, and our president. If we let the 'Linux Community' have their way, we will all be at the mercy of the Germans making KDE, or the Japanese with their desktop. Do you plan to learn Japanese in the near future? You may have to, if we don't start poneying up to the bar and laying it down for our cause.
Dear Mr. Patriot (aka Anonymous Coward),
Your thesis is BULLSHIT.
First regarding the French. Yes, their modern military exploits (post Napolean) have been farsicle. However, they are still DAMN good cooks and nice people.
Beyond that, they did have one truly great military exploit. They provided invaluable miliatary assistance at the battle of Yorktown which effectively capped off the American Revolution. Without the help of the French Army and Navy, Yorktown probably would NOT have been possible (We had no Navy!!!). One could credibly claim that without the aid of the French, the revolution would not have been a success.
Regarding Microsoft. Microsoft (along with most other US corporations) employs a high level of H-1B, L-Z1 and other foreign non-immigrant Visa holders. They produce software world over and are effectively a "global corporation" with their headquarters in the US.
The best "open-source" stuff is coming out of Ximian which is located in Boston. Beyond that, if there were any particular political agendas in Linux, you could simply comment them out and replace them with "patriotic" code.
Seriously Anonymous Coward, you sound like the paranoid love child of John Ashcroft and Bill Gates. BTW, which one is the bitch, John or Bill????;-)
The only thing that positive ID does is turn the US into a "small town".
By this I mean that everybody in a small town knows one another and can positively ID each other. Does this mean that small towns are effectively Police States???????
Privacy and ananominity are two separate issues. You can be anonymous, yet your appearance and behavior can get you noticed, that will affect your privacy. People with nothing to hide are NOT afraid of positive ID.
Positive ID does NOT imply that information on your COMPLETE existence is available on demand. Like a small town, who you are and some relevant details are all common knowledge. But your neighbor certainly doesn't have access to your bank info. In fact, your bank info is MORE secure because all the teller's know who you are and would immediately recognize an impersonator.
Likewise with proof positive secure identification, you gain the SAME security. As it is now, our financial credit system is a mess because anyone with some fairly trivial knowledge can impersonate you.
So effectively, positive ID makes us all more like a "small town". Whats wrong with that????
Personally, I think you've already been tatooed on the head, with a RUSTY RABIES INFECTED NEEDLE!!!!!!
The fact of the matter is that a "MARK" has been common in many transactions for centuries. Written signatures have been the most popular. This is simply a different type of signature.
Many people voluntarily mark themselves voluntarily through tatooes, brandings, and piercings.
One US right held pretty sacred is the right to your person. So don't get uptite about the return of the beast until you've seen a constitutional amendment saying that the state can dictate that you undergo body altering surgeries..... That, or you can tune into the 700 club where the Beast's smiling face is featured every afternoon begging for money to make everybody "like him".;-)
We aren't requiring "better documents" because illegal immigrants drive down US wages. Corporations like lower wages because CEOs and other executives have a bigger pot of money to steal from. Our legislators don't care because these CEOs and other executives pay the bulk of their campaign funds (as well as "investigative trips" (vacation bribes) ). The CEOs and other executives OF COURSE tell them that undocumented illegalal aliens are a "GOOD" thing for Americans.
Ralph Nader and Ross Perot were right. They do seem somewhat mad on the surface but their predictions become reality.
After 9-11, you would expect that the Bush administration and their "homeland security" department would fight illegal, undocumented immigration. Nope, they could give a shit less. The "Homeland Security" department is just a sham excuse for consolidating government agencies more closely under the thumb of the president and abolishing protections for career civil servants.
Secure National "Smart Cards" would be a great way to:
* Secure our financial infrastructure and prevent identity theft and credit fraud. * Allow the easy identification and deportation of illegal immigrants * Increase our level of security, hence reducing the need for foreign "pre-emptive" military action.
So of course, neither Republicans nor Democrats would be in favor of it. Follow the money, I gauruntee that it doesn't trail back to ordinary Joe Americans.
For certain types of transactions, authentication is absoluetly necessary in order to maker sure your not being scammed. This is true on the client side as well. If you get a message from your "financial institution" you want a way of verifying that it's really the person at the bank who sent the message.
I think this would take off RIGHT-AWAY. Why, well there's always snail-mail to fall back on if your client doesn't wish to use signed e-mail. In any case, a trip to the post office isn't really a big obstacle since EVERYBODY has one. It's not like Verisign or others where dealing with a web-site ONLY can be a bit confusing, daunting, or intimidating.
When you have a system like National ID card, people start to assume that they will be correct, and not frauded. This mean when "David Nelson - 23243564" is reported as commiting a crime, it will be assumed you did commit that crime.
The police ALWAYS assume they are correct irregardless of whatever backwater, nonsense, methodologies they may be using. Beyond that, we still live in the US and despite the efforts of John Ashcroft, we are all still INNOCENT until proven guilty in a court of law.
If there is a VERY strong method of authentication, this does make it harder to imply that something was faked (like a credit card, which is notoriously easy). In 99% of cases, this will make things better for everybody involved. In the other 1% of cases where your ID is STOLEN, or someone tricked/bribed the system to generate a fradulent ID, there will be issues. However, these issues are no different than those associated with traditional identification techniques.
The strength and integrity of the ID will be judged by the strength and integrity of the authenticating body. Transparancy of process will help. Generating logs for any and ALL transactions within ID generating systems will create data trails that can be used to track down patterns of fraud an unauthorized data tampering.
I personally believe that we ALL have a right to privacy. However, I do not think that we all have a right to anamonimity. People with nothing to hide proudly proclaim their identity. Thieves and scammers and other law breakers sulk in the shadows and are afraid to have their real identities known.
I actually believe that USPS is missing out on a great business and also a great way to help secure financial transactions. Email addresses change far too often do to people moving, switching services, and companies buying each other out.
The USPS would be the PERFECT agency to provide email P.O. Boxes. Basically, they would forward your mail to your provider (for an annual fee). This would fit in perfectly with providing authentication codes etc...
Since EVERYBODY has a USPS, it would be easy to set up in person and pay for with cash.
Regarding the "national id" card. We already have one, it's called a Social Security card. It's not it's intended use, but it's effectively become the lingua franca for identifying yourself in credit and large financial transactions.
I personally would welcome an National Authenticated "SMART CARD". These would be the unbreakable variety with strong internal encryption.
The photo itself would be duplicated and digitally signed in memory. Readers could pull up the picture so that forgers couldn't use the old "cut & paste" method of modifying the picture. Actually, the phsyical picture could be done in hologram to make it even harder to break.
As I said in another message, indexing databases by social security number should be ILLEGAL. Instead, companies could generate hashed indexes numbers based on operating a company Fed ID# and your Pers ID#. You would NEVER give your own ID# out.
The Feds would hold all the master keys so that they could do security work and cross-reference databases. Corporations, by contrast would not be able to do industrial scale personal data mining because DBs from different companies (especially financials) wouldn't have unique numbers for individuals that would travel with them as they changed addresses, etc...
We do NOT have a right to anonymity. Basically, indexing databases by social security number should be illegal. The credit beaureaus should be held accountable (financially) when they allow thieves to steal your identity.
Our financial systems are woefully insecure in this day and age. The move towards purely electronic transactions has rendered traditional "minted" authentication largely irrelevant (save for cash).
I am very glad to see the USPS step in on this issue. We need some pretty stringent laws regarding what data you can pass TO WHOM!!! Electronic PKI technologies will really enable us to get a hold of a lot of this mess provided we can get the greed mongers behind it.
These idiots just don't get it, do they. We don't want the crap their schlepping.
Perhpas we'll need a "do not mail, and do not e-mail" list now as well.
Seriously, I think spammers should go to jail if they are requrested to stop and DON'T. I'm not even convinced that the death penalty would be considered "cruel and unusual" for these idiots who JUST WON'T LEAVE US ALONE!!!!!
As long as they're not trying to formally "treat" kids, they should be fine.
Everyone should know that their conduct is ALWAYS being evaluating irregardless of whether they're writing it down. The biggest issue is confidentiality.
BTW, this is a two-edged sword. I strongly believe that kids behavior problems should NOT be considered confidential. A community has a right to know when a kid is causing havoc in a school and taking away the educational opportunities of others.
This is where really small school districts are good. Everybody knows whats going on so parents get really embarassed if their kid's are causing problems. The kid get's an earful, the teacher and principal gets apologies. In large school districts it's the other way around. The kid pleads innocent and the parent goes ballistic on the school and thteatens to sue. Hence the principal backs down and the kid learns he can do whatever he wants as long as he lies well.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed, these two shows ROCKED!!!!
I was especially enamored with the iconoclastic, meglo-maniac, super-genious infant "Stewey" bent on the destruction of his "birth giver". The alcoholic talking dog just took the cake.
It's sole failing may have been it's similarity to the Simpsons where the mother and father looked and behaved like clones of Homer and Marge.
What did you expect????
Kelsey Grammar is more "Wooden" then a porn jock. I dare say he's more wooden than Al Gore.
Stan Lee is a wonderfully successful writer of Comics. His body of work and it's popularity speaks for itself. Translating that work into other mediums is the job of others. Don't blame Stan if someone takes his wonderful stories and makes something like the recent Hulk movie.
Hmm... and I don't think South Park would work out very well in Mother Russia! ;-)
... They do show quite a bit of cartoons for "mature" audiences in their "adult swim" late night segments. Futurama, Family Guy, and some pretty bizzare, poorly animated, but excellently written originals.
... "Mr. Hell".
Sure it would. Just substitute "Siberean" every time they say "Canadian" and it will translate just fine
BTW, if your getting the same Cartoon network as American's do
Of course if it's broadcast at THE SAME time as the American network, this will probably air noonish in Sweden.
The best animation I've seen recently is the "Mr. Hell" show which comes out of Britain. Showtime is airing these hear in the US. Basically, it plays like an animated "Monty Python" save theirs only one lead
If you've never seen "The Critic" your missing out on a treat. It's a hilarious 10-year old show that was dropped from three different networks before being killed off.
Jon Lovitz voices a movie critic working for a cable "SuperStation" with a flamboyent playboy meglo-maniac boss (like Ted Turner). His best friend is a washed up, middle age Australian actor (like Paul Hogan), and he constantly spars with charicatures of MOST hollywood stars.
It's treatment of hollywood, it's product, and it's celebrities is cruelly hilarious. In retrospect, it's no wonder why such a hilarious show would be cancelled three times. It was just "too hot to handle".
While most Anime does NOT concern Cephalopod violence upon young girls, I have to say ... that this comment was hilarious. ;-)
Beavis and Butthead was MTV's version of 'Mystery Science Theater 3000'. Their job was to poke fun at videos and perform sophmoric, idiotic humor (their modern replacement is Tom Green).
... Beavis and Butthead was never really pretentious. The Movie WAS funny because the characters were idiotic morons who you could laugh at and relate to some of your neighbors and co-workers.
... unfotunately
On the good side
Stupid for "higher moral" sake is annoying and pretentious. Stupid for stupid's sake is pretty funny.
P.S. regarding the "absolute worst product", you obviously don't understand business in America. Sell crap at premium prices, maximize profit. Thats the point!!!!
Unless you've never noticed, Arnold really isn't that good of an actor. His best parts are playing dim-witted violent brutes. Little acting is required for such roles.
His best acting role yet may be a remake of "Ronald Reagan becomes governer of California". Fortunately, the sequel "Reagan, the simple dimwitted puppet becomes president" simply isn't a role that Arnold is qualified for.
BTW, before knocking George Lucas, remember that he MADE the original three Star Wars. He didn't screw anything up, he simply took it in a different direction. The original Star Wars movies were not Sci-Fi, they were "Space Westerns". They had the plot depth of Dudley DooRight rescuing a damsel from a railroad track.
Everybody bitched about "Return of the Jedi", but it was the only one of the three with plot broader that a couple of white hats, a girl, and a gang of black hats. Muppets aside (as if, YOU KNOW what furry 3 foot aliens look like).
I too wasn't completely satisfied with the overall composition of both new Star Wars movies. I think we build things up in our heads that something would be great or earth shattering. Besides Jar-Jar and the atrocious acting of Jake Lloyd (Anakin) I thought Phantom Menace was a pretty good movie. "Attack of the Clones" was EXCELLENT save the C3-PO as Jar-Jar routine.
I think a LOT of this has to do with Lucas' new concept of adding new elements AFTER principal photography. The editing phase really needs to be one where you cut out ANYTHING that isn't absoluetly necessary for the story to flow. I thought that the post-production Annakin and Amidala as Super Mario Bros. in a factory was was over the top.
We all have expectations out of Hollywood that are realy too unrealistic. Those who think that they're great conceptual artists need to get a Camcorder and just start making movies. You may find that your great "cinematic visions" make people groan.
Damn straight,
;-)
Bush won a democratic election fair and square: 5 to 4
If the Supreme Court truly had acted in a matter of law they would have issued an actual ruling that could be cited before federal courts. As it was they:
* Put a stay on something that couldn't possibly be considered "irreperable harm" because recount activity is simply an activity of "research", not decision. The results of such a recount could be contested.
* Put a stay based on a foolish charge of "equal protection" for voters. A careful recount could only find votes that were lost due to the unreliable nature of the machinery. The gold standard for elections has ALWAYS been visual inspection. There is nothing wrong with subjective overview of ambiguous ballots. This is a practice as old as our nation as original ballots required one to write the names of candidates.
The judicial precedent was very clear "determine the intent of the voter". If the court disagreed with this ruling, they should have overturned it in a judgement.
* Interfered with separation of powers. The federal circuit judge made it very clear that this was NOT the business of federal courts. The irony here is the very people who trumpet "States Rights" argued THE EXACT OPPOSITE in federal court.
The interpretation of Florida state law is the EXCLUSIVE DOMAIN of Florida's courts. One could challenge such a law as being unconstitutional at the federal level, but asking ANY federal judge to review whether the laws of Florida are properly executed is a blatant violation of States Rights.
TRANSLATION: "We don't really give a hoot about states rights. It's just a principle we bring up when it's convenient for us. Just like "limited government" and "limited taxation".
* The head election officer in Florida took it upon herself
Does this mean Gore should have won, well ultimately no. I preferred Gore, but you know what, had he won his home state, Florida would have been irrelevant. The principle that holds everyone to this issue is THE RULE OF LAW!!!!!! The SANCTITY of free and fair elections in a democratic society.
Consider the following that occured in Florida:
* The systematic scrubbing of voter roles of "convicted felons." Governor Bush (Dubaya's brother) unilaterally overruled competitive bidding laws to turn the task of identifying "convicted felons" for scrubbing the voter roles. The company picked "ChoicePoint" was already indicated for a scandal in Texas. They basically identified loads of people who had never even been in the criminal justice system. This, was exactly the criterea that made them desirable. Claim to the public that your scrubbing "criminals" from the voting roles, when your really targeting minorties.
See http://www.gregpalast.com/contents.htm for details. There are two free chapters of the book "The Best Democracy Money Could Buy" by Greg Palast who covered the election exensively.
* Lastly, the chief election officer of Florida, Katherine Harris, was also Florida's "Bush for President" campaign coordinator. How ANY reasonable person could claim this ISN'T a conflict of interest is beyond reason. It's impossible to WORK FOR candidate Bush while overseeing an election in a free and fair fashion.
Well, maybe it's OK for Republicans since their sole purpose is to lie, cheat and steal in any way possible to WIN. Read that book, than talk to me about Florida 2000.
Makes no difference. In our nations highest court, a few judges don't know shit about law either. Heck, one of those judges runs it. ;-)
All this is really irrelevant now since if you have a routing number and check number, you can write "e-checks" over the phone. Furthermore, one could simply order your own "set" of checks for somebody if they don't get home till 5 but you can grab the checks as soon as the mailman goes by.
Why bother modifying checks when you can just order a set or "forge" an e-check???
Isn't this EXACTLY the same type of situation that occurred with Dow Corning and Silicone Breast implants. At the time, the scientific evidence showed ZERO correlation between having an implant and the occurence of auto-immune diseases.
The jury made it's decision based on pop/press science which highlighted a limited number of women who happened to have auto-immune disease AND breast implants. Dow Corning went bankrupt, the lawyers got rich. No women was ever helped by the suits because the implants WEREN'T causing auto-immune disease.
I agree with your statement regarding the nature of the legal system. I that highly technical materials should be vetted by juries with technical degrees and backgrounds. If there's not enough evidence, a case shouldn't be dismissed, rather it should be suspended until such time when proof is forthcoming. Of course if the science is just plain BS, the case should be dismissed.
The US needs a section of "Science Courts" to clear credible science info for the use of the rest of the court system proper.
Basically, you find a bunch of judges who also have science and engineering backgrounds. "Juries" would be made up of college graduates in Science and Engineering.
They would no concentrate on "right" or "wrong". They would merely vette material claims for it's level of scientific proof and backing. Farsicle, outrageous claims with no basis in research would be held inadmissable irregardless of what nonsense wacko scientist for hire will say.
Seriously, "lay" juries are often woefully unqualified to sift through seriously technical information and decide wether it has legitimacy. Jury trial assures trial by "peers". This concept is often misapplied when dealing with technical issues, especially in cases of medical malpractice.
When dealing with such issues of a highly technical nature, I believe the courts should be required to strive above the "lay" jurymen. They needn't find a doctor or research scientist, but they SHOULD select people with a background that will give them an ability to evaluate evidence scientifically.
Finally, anyone who advertises in legal journals as "expert witnesses" should be disallowed to testify or predudiced for this fact by the judge. Someone "for hire" will often say anything at all. There willingness to offer pay-for-say services nullifies the objectivity that would help them clarify an issue.
At the very least, lawyers should be made to troll through hundreds of unagreeable professors with integrity to find the one crackpot that will say whatevers best for their particular client THAT day.
Now that I have your attention, I would like to discuss the larger issue of Linux in general. It is time for us, fellow patriots, to look at our situation in the world on a global scale. Microsoft is an American company. Bill Gates started with nothing and built an empire. What is the problem here? We should be supporting American enterprise, not undermining it. The simple fact is that no true partiot would use Linux at all. In these hard times we must rally around our companies, our economy, and our president. If we let the 'Linux Community' have their way, we will all be at the mercy of the Germans making KDE, or the Japanese with their desktop. Do you plan to learn Japanese in the near future? You may have to, if we don't start poneying up to the bar and laying it down for our cause.
;-)
Dear Mr. Patriot (aka Anonymous Coward),
Your thesis is BULLSHIT.
First regarding the French. Yes, their modern military exploits (post Napolean) have been farsicle. However, they are still DAMN good cooks and nice people.
Beyond that, they did have one truly great military exploit. They provided invaluable miliatary assistance at the battle of Yorktown which effectively capped off the American Revolution. Without the help of the French Army and Navy, Yorktown probably would NOT have been possible (We had no Navy!!!). One could credibly claim that without the aid of the French, the revolution would not have been a success.
Regarding Microsoft. Microsoft (along with most other US corporations) employs a high level of H-1B, L-Z1 and other foreign non-immigrant Visa holders. They produce software world over and are effectively a "global corporation" with their headquarters in the US.
The best "open-source" stuff is coming out of Ximian which is located in Boston. Beyond that, if there were any particular political agendas in Linux, you could simply comment them out and replace them with "patriotic" code.
Seriously Anonymous Coward, you sound like the paranoid love child of John Ashcroft and Bill Gates. BTW, which one is the bitch, John or Bill????
The only thing that positive ID does is turn the US into a "small town".
By this I mean that everybody in a small town knows one another and can positively ID each other. Does this mean that small towns are effectively Police States???????
Privacy and ananominity are two separate issues. You can be anonymous, yet your appearance and behavior can get you noticed, that will affect your privacy. People with nothing to hide are NOT afraid of positive ID.
Positive ID does NOT imply that information on your COMPLETE existence is available on demand. Like a small town, who you are and some relevant details are all common knowledge. But your neighbor certainly doesn't have access to your bank info. In fact, your bank info is MORE secure because all the teller's know who you are and would immediately recognize an impersonator.
Likewise with proof positive secure identification, you gain the SAME security. As it is now, our financial credit system is a mess because anyone with some fairly trivial knowledge can impersonate you.
So effectively, positive ID makes us all more like a "small town". Whats wrong with that????
Personally, I think you've already been tatooed on the head, with a RUSTY RABIES INFECTED NEEDLE!!!!!!
.... That, or you can tune into the 700 club where the Beast's smiling face is featured every afternoon begging for money to make everybody "like him". ;-)
The fact of the matter is that a "MARK" has been common in many transactions for centuries. Written signatures have been the most popular. This is simply a different type of signature.
Many people voluntarily mark themselves voluntarily through tatooes, brandings, and piercings.
One US right held pretty sacred is the right to your person. So don't get uptite about the return of the beast until you've seen a constitutional amendment saying that the state can dictate that you undergo body altering surgeries.
We aren't requiring "better documents" because illegal immigrants drive down US wages. Corporations like lower wages because CEOs and other executives have a bigger pot of money to steal from. Our legislators don't care because these CEOs and other executives pay the bulk of their campaign funds (as well as "investigative trips" (vacation bribes) ). The CEOs and other executives OF COURSE tell them that undocumented illegalal aliens are a "GOOD" thing for Americans.
Ralph Nader and Ross Perot were right. They do seem somewhat mad on the surface but their predictions become reality.
After 9-11, you would expect that the Bush administration and their "homeland security" department would fight illegal, undocumented immigration. Nope, they could give a shit less. The "Homeland Security" department is just a sham excuse for consolidating government agencies more closely under the thumb of the president and abolishing protections for career civil servants.
Secure National "Smart Cards" would be a great way to:
* Secure our financial infrastructure and prevent identity theft and credit fraud.
* Allow the easy identification and deportation of illegal immigrants
* Increase our level of security, hence reducing the need for foreign "pre-emptive" military action.
So of course, neither Republicans nor Democrats would be in favor of it. Follow the money, I gauruntee that it doesn't trail back to ordinary Joe Americans.
Yes but ALL email originating from NIGERIA IS SPAM!!!!!!! ;-)
For certain types of transactions, authentication is absoluetly necessary in order to maker sure your not being scammed. This is true on the client side as well. If you get a message from your "financial institution" you want a way of verifying that it's really the person at the bank who sent the message.
I think this would take off RIGHT-AWAY. Why, well there's always snail-mail to fall back on if your client doesn't wish to use signed e-mail. In any case, a trip to the post office isn't really a big obstacle since EVERYBODY has one. It's not like Verisign or others where dealing with a web-site ONLY can be a bit confusing, daunting, or intimidating.
When you have a system like National ID card, people start to assume that they will be correct, and not frauded. This mean when "David Nelson - 23243564" is reported as commiting a crime, it will be assumed you did commit that crime.
The police ALWAYS assume they are correct irregardless of whatever backwater, nonsense, methodologies they may be using. Beyond that, we still live in the US and despite the efforts of John Ashcroft, we are all still INNOCENT until proven guilty in a court of law.
If there is a VERY strong method of authentication, this does make it harder to imply that something was faked (like a credit card, which is notoriously easy). In 99% of cases, this will make things better for everybody involved. In the other 1% of cases where your ID is STOLEN, or someone tricked/bribed the system to generate a fradulent ID, there will be issues. However, these issues are no different than those associated with traditional identification techniques.
The strength and integrity of the ID will be judged by the strength and integrity of the authenticating body. Transparancy of process will help. Generating logs for any and ALL transactions within ID generating systems will create data trails that can be used to track down patterns of fraud an unauthorized data tampering.
I personally believe that we ALL have a right to privacy. However, I do not think that we all have a right to anamonimity. People with nothing to hide proudly proclaim their identity. Thieves and scammers and other law breakers sulk in the shadows and are afraid to have their real identities known.
I actually believe that USPS is missing out on a great business and also a great way to help secure financial transactions. Email addresses change far too often do to people moving, switching services, and companies buying each other out.
The USPS would be the PERFECT agency to provide email P.O. Boxes. Basically, they would forward your mail to your provider (for an annual fee). This would fit in perfectly with providing authentication codes etc...
Since EVERYBODY has a USPS, it would be easy to set up in person and pay for with cash.
Regarding the "national id" card. We already have one, it's called a Social Security card. It's not it's intended use, but it's effectively become the lingua franca for identifying yourself in credit and large financial transactions.
I personally would welcome an National Authenticated "SMART CARD". These would be the unbreakable variety with strong internal encryption.
The photo itself would be duplicated and digitally signed in memory. Readers could pull up the picture so that forgers couldn't use the old "cut & paste" method of modifying the picture. Actually, the phsyical picture could be done in hologram to make it even harder to break.
As I said in another message, indexing databases by social security number should be ILLEGAL. Instead, companies could generate hashed indexes numbers based on operating a company Fed ID# and your Pers ID#. You would NEVER give your own ID# out.
The Feds would hold all the master keys so that they could do security work and cross-reference databases. Corporations, by contrast would not be able to do industrial scale personal data mining because DBs from different companies (especially financials) wouldn't have unique numbers for individuals that would travel with them as they changed addresses, etc...
I believe we all have a right to privacy.
We do NOT have a right to anonymity. Basically, indexing databases by social security number should be illegal. The credit beaureaus should be held accountable (financially) when they allow thieves to steal your identity.
Our financial systems are woefully insecure in this day and age. The move towards purely electronic transactions has rendered traditional "minted" authentication largely irrelevant (save for cash).
I am very glad to see the USPS step in on this issue. We need some pretty stringent laws regarding what data you can pass TO WHOM!!! Electronic PKI technologies will really enable us to get a hold of a lot of this mess provided we can get the greed mongers behind it.
COOL!!!
;-)
Will Agent K show up himself???? He does have postal experience
Does the phrase "FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS" mean anything to you????
Why should everybody else in line have to wait for your "special attention" because you refused to read.
I would suggest filling out all your forms on the benches BEFORE sending you package.
These idiots just don't get it, do they. We don't want the crap their schlepping.
Perhpas we'll need a "do not mail, and do not e-mail" list now as well.
Seriously, I think spammers should go to jail if they are requrested to stop and DON'T. I'm not even convinced that the death penalty would be considered "cruel and unusual" for these idiots who JUST WON'T LEAVE US ALONE!!!!!
Your right, instead maybe we should just start chucking bombs ... at YOU.
If your going to feed off the giant, be sure not to wake him!!!!! >-\
As long as they're not trying to formally "treat" kids, they should be fine.
Everyone should know that their conduct is ALWAYS being evaluating irregardless of whether they're writing it down. The biggest issue is confidentiality.
BTW, this is a two-edged sword. I strongly believe that kids behavior problems should NOT be considered confidential. A community has a right to know when a kid is causing havoc in a school and taking away the educational opportunities of others.
This is where really small school districts are good. Everybody knows whats going on so parents get really embarassed if their kid's are causing problems. The kid get's an earful, the teacher and principal gets apologies. In large school districts it's the other way around. The kid pleads innocent and the parent goes ballistic on the school and thteatens to sue. Hence the principal backs down and the kid learns he can do whatever he wants as long as he lies well.