I have no doubt spam will increase to any account that signs on to the list. All we'll do is provide a list of active accounts that aren't receiving domestic spam - what could be better from a spammer's perspective?
If the gov't simply provides a list, then it'll take about 5 minutes for it to get into the hands of foreign spammers. If they have lists submitted to them, then send back a list stripped of addresses on the list, it will take 6 minutes for spammers to get addresses. The only option is to require the spams go through a gov't server which filters out addresses. This is only a step away from having all email in the US required to go through government computers, which is of course the worst possible situation. No only would privacy become nonexistant in emails, but the speed and efficiency would decrease dramatically (bottleneck). I'm sure you can all think of a hundred other reasons this would be bad, of course.
I don't see any way that list can't make things far worse than they are now.
I won't argue with much of your post, just the first part. The government of the USA is not the citizens. Peers are not elected, politicians are - tell my how many Americans consider politicians to be their peers. Political parties who cater to special-interest groups and corporate sponsors rule the land, not the general population (there's a difference between cynicism and accepting reality). The currect US president wasn't even elected by a majority of voters, rather by an archaic and corrupted political entity known as the "electoral college."
Whatever the case, al-Quaeda doesn't go after people who disagree with them all over the world, just people who get in their way. Big difference there. If the US government hadn't gotten involved decades ago, there wouldn't be an al-Quaeda today (not justifying, just explaining). The reason for the resurgence of radical Islamic groups is political, not religious. The targets are Arab governments which have not been successful in attempts to improve citizens' lives in the face of a decline in power linked to falling morals, etc. (historically a major issue in the Islamic community since the end of Islam's Golden Age under the Caliphs), secularization of formerly Islamic nations, and the unwelcome influence of the West.
Ah, the miseducation of the US is so apparent in you.
"Destruction of the US" is in reference to government, not people (though by extension they are often considered 'guilty' as well). If the US government wasn't in power, al-Quaeda wouldn't go on killing people - it would serve no constructive purpose.
Whether or not the tactic will be 'successful' in advancing Islam (or more accurately their corruption of it) is irrelevant. What they think and do is what counts, not the logic behind it.
Oh, and as for the 'caves' comment, you seem to forget that most al-Quaeda 'soldiers' are out and about in the world, leading a 'normal' life, more or less. The caves were used as bunkers to protect those in Afghanistan from bombs. The US has many such bunkers (built for nuclear scenarios), the only difference is that they are more high tech.
George Bush isn't making the world any more dangerous a place for terrorists than is he for any other person in Afghanistan or Iraq. Whether his target is terrorist or civilian doesn't mean much - there are far more 'innocent' civilians, and they will always be collateral damage if you try to take out a terrorist. Saddam knew this well, which is why he hides in residential areas.
I'm not making any pro- or anti-war/Bush statements, I'm just pointing out the simple realities. For every terrorist you kill, you're going to take out dozens of 'innocent' bystanders if you're using bombs. Terrorists don't stand out in the middle of empty fields with a big sign that say 'I'm a terrorist.'
"'and wiping out large numbers of civilians is generally frowned upon'
not if you're al qaeda. that's their primary goal."
That's not their goal, it's the means to an end. They have no interest in killing except that it is the best method they believe they have to achieving their goal (destruction of the USA and its allies, radical 'Islamification' of the world).
It's no different than any other war, except that the targets are civilian instead of military units. The goal in most wars is to topple a political power or achieve independence, the fighting is just the method by which nations attempt to get there, not the 'goal' itself.
Just because you aren't familiar with a word or phrase as used doesn't mean it isn't correct. I'm quite familiar with the usage, and perhaps next time you should look such a thing up before shooting your mouth off.
TRANSITIVE VERB:
Inflected forms: savaged, savaging, savages
1. To assault ferociously. 2. To attack without restraint or pity: The critics savaged the new play.
[The American Heritage(R) Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.]
Quite frankly, I think The Simarillion and Unfinished Tales are the only things he wrote worth considering, however they were just crude ripoffs and blendings of ancient legends and myths. In the end, LOTR is just like Star Wars - nothing great in themselves, they just got lucky and people obsessed so much when they came out that they can live forever.
I agree that he went a bit far with the anti-industrial junk, but the message of utter despair after great triumph remains. "The world is saved, but home is destroyed" - it's a painful read at any age.
What I saw was a heartbreaking tragedy followed by a glee-filled final victory. It's breaking new ground that can make a movie truly great, not just special effects and high production value.
Look at The Matrix: it wasn't a very good movie, if you think about it - the plot is essentially just a ripoff of 2/3 of the anime's out there, and the effects were far from stellar (the wirework being quite the same as Jet Li films had been using for a few years). What made it memorable (and such a success) was that it was bringing those elements to a heretofore unaware audience - Jet Li and anime aren't standard fare in the US.
When you strip the plot from LOTR, you're just left with a bland adventure movie with big effects. It's still big money, but it's not groundbreaking. If they kept the original plot, the profits would be higher, especially decades down the road.
"Saruman wasn't a major player in the final volume to start with."
I have to disagree with you there. In my opinion, the Scouring of the Shire is the most important part of the entire trilogy. The rest is pretty much just a standard action/adventure story - it's the end that makes it special. The final desperation that leaves you gasping for air - the story was over, the ending happy, and all of a sudden the greatest trajedy of all (for the hobbits) is revealed.
Quite agreed. I remember how psyched I was to see the first one - ended up seeing it at noon the day it came out (first showing at my local theater). At this point, I'm not even all that interested on seeing it ROTK on HBO. I'll probably just see it to keep my friend happy (if I didn't, he'd flip out).
Actually, I recall them announcing that the Scouring of the Shire was to be cut before the first movie even came out. That's why I never had very high expectations for the plot of the movies.
Quite frankly, I believe the military advantages would be what gets us back there. The old "Star Wars" missile destruction system concept and Dr. Evil-esque destructive lasers are far more likely to get funding. I'b betting the moon, if developed and used for research, is likely to be mostly military in its goals (the exploration/scientific projects would be good PR, can help keep the military projects secret, and can actually work to facilitate the military projects).
What about Windows 2000/NT? People rarely use them "at home", but they are the standard in offices. Essentially, people recommend the product best suited to the application, not the product they're most familiar with. The similarity between Linux flavors (home use and Red Hat Enterprise) should be enough to keep it going.
"Then why doesn't censorware block the web sites of PG-13(tm) and R(tm) rated movies under the "Typical" settings the way it blocks gun-safety sites under the "Typical" settings?"
Because that's not what parents are clamouring for. Simple as that.
Well that's just plain silly. There is no evidence that violence in the media causes violence in real life - there is a correspondence, not a causality (HUGE difference).
The NRA is a gun-rights lobbying organization, promoting gun safety doesn't change that. Big Tobacco corporations are now putting out commercials on the dangers of smoking and how to quit - that doesn't change the fact that they sell cigarettes. It is the NRA's goal (which it is defending, not pursuing) that gun ownership be legal for all Americans. Gun are used to kill, and it can be easily proven that they account for deaths that would not otherwise occur - any case of a child accidentally shooting themself or someone else is easy to cite.
Of course, parents are fighting media violence (hence MPAA ratings), so your point isn't insighful, rather just pointing out the obvious. Whether the parents are selective in their fights isn't relevant - this is what they want.
Parental Controls are tailored to what parents want - never forget that. The knee-jerk response is that of the parents, and Symantec's research simply picked up on it. Whether something is good or bad for children isn't the issue - what parent's don't want their kids seeing is what counts (whether they're basing it on knee-jerk assumptions or not).
...in the sense you're using it. I've used Symantec products for years (including Internet Security 2001, 2002, and 2003), so I have some experience here.
Parental Controls are an OPTIONAL part of INSTALLATION! I've never even had it on my computer, which means it's not an issue for anyone who isn't already interested in censoring someone using the computer (kids, etc.). Anyone installing/using the Parental Controls is sure to go through the options (how else can you determine what will be censored?), so this isn't some hidden "default" tactic to fight the NRA. Most parents (you can bet they research this stuff) will want pornography, weapons-promoting sites, etc. blocked, so it makes sense to have them checked by default.
Additionally, the reason the "weapons" filter would block the NRA but not anti-gun sites is simply the reason it exists - it's what parents want blocked - weapons-promoting sites. Symantec isn't just pulling this out of a hat, they're catering to the demands of consumers. This isn't censorship, it's not politically-motivated, and it's not an anti-gun statement by Symantec - it's economics and it's not being foisted on anyone.
Would you prefer the term "weapons-promoting", then? Yes, go ahead and try to argue your way out of this - the more you struggle, the tighter the rope gets.
I'm guessing you aren't familiar with the concept of Parental Controls or Web Filtering. This has nothing to do with politics - the option to block "weapons"-related sites had better block the NRA's web site! The filter is designed and user-seleted to block sites that promote/sell weapons, which is exactly what it's doing - parents want it, so Symantec is providing such an option.
Slashdot Mirror
I have no doubt spam will increase to any account that signs on to the list. All we'll do is provide a list of active accounts that aren't receiving domestic spam - what could be better from a spammer's perspective?
If the gov't simply provides a list, then it'll take about 5 minutes for it to get into the hands of foreign spammers. If they have lists submitted to them, then send back a list stripped of addresses on the list, it will take 6 minutes for spammers to get addresses. The only option is to require the spams go through a gov't server which filters out addresses. This is only a step away from having all email in the US required to go through government computers, which is of course the worst possible situation. No only would privacy become nonexistant in emails, but the speed and efficiency would decrease dramatically (bottleneck). I'm sure you can all think of a hundred other reasons this would be bad, of course.
I don't see any way that list can't make things far worse than they are now.
I won't argue with much of your post, just the first part. The government of the USA is not the citizens. Peers are not elected, politicians are - tell my how many Americans consider politicians to be their peers. Political parties who cater to special-interest groups and corporate sponsors rule the land, not the general population (there's a difference between cynicism and accepting reality). The currect US president wasn't even elected by a majority of voters, rather by an archaic and corrupted political entity known as the "electoral college."
Whatever the case, al-Quaeda doesn't go after people who disagree with them all over the world, just people who get in their way. Big difference there. If the US government hadn't gotten involved decades ago, there wouldn't be an al-Quaeda today (not justifying, just explaining). The reason for the resurgence of radical Islamic groups is political, not religious. The targets are Arab governments which have not been successful in attempts to improve citizens' lives in the face of a decline in power linked to falling morals, etc. (historically a major issue in the Islamic community since the end of Islam's Golden Age under the Caliphs), secularization of formerly Islamic nations, and the unwelcome influence of the West.
Ah, the miseducation of the US is so apparent in you.
"Destruction of the US" is in reference to government, not people (though by extension they are often considered 'guilty' as well). If the US government wasn't in power, al-Quaeda wouldn't go on killing people - it would serve no constructive purpose.
Whether or not the tactic will be 'successful' in advancing Islam (or more accurately their corruption of it) is irrelevant. What they think and do is what counts, not the logic behind it.
Oh, and as for the 'caves' comment, you seem to forget that most al-Quaeda 'soldiers' are out and about in the world, leading a 'normal' life, more or less. The caves were used as bunkers to protect those in Afghanistan from bombs. The US has many such bunkers (built for nuclear scenarios), the only difference is that they are more high tech.
George Bush isn't making the world any more dangerous a place for terrorists than is he for any other person in Afghanistan or Iraq. Whether his target is terrorist or civilian doesn't mean much - there are far more 'innocent' civilians, and they will always be collateral damage if you try to take out a terrorist. Saddam knew this well, which is why he hides in residential areas.
I'm not making any pro- or anti-war/Bush statements, I'm just pointing out the simple realities. For every terrorist you kill, you're going to take out dozens of 'innocent' bystanders if you're using bombs. Terrorists don't stand out in the middle of empty fields with a big sign that say 'I'm a terrorist.'
...or the EMP in Command and Conquer, Tiberian Sun...
...or the 'pinch' in Ocean's Eleven...
...we could go on for a long time like this. It's not a unique concept, just a hypothetical device based on a known effect of nuclear weapons.
"'and wiping out large numbers of civilians is generally frowned upon'
not if you're al qaeda. that's their primary goal."
That's not their goal, it's the means to an end. They have no interest in killing except that it is the best method they believe they have to achieving their goal (destruction of the USA and its allies, radical 'Islamification' of the world).
It's no different than any other war, except that the targets are civilian instead of military units. The goal in most wars is to topple a political power or achieve independence, the fighting is just the method by which nations attempt to get there, not the 'goal' itself.
Yes, how dare he use the word appropriately!
Just because you aren't familiar with a word or phrase as used doesn't mean it isn't correct. I'm quite familiar with the usage, and perhaps next time you should look such a thing up before shooting your mouth off.
TRANSITIVE VERB:
Inflected forms: savaged, savaging, savages
1. To assault ferociously. 2. To attack without restraint or pity: The critics savaged the new play.
[The American Heritage(R) Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.]
"Tolkien was a great writer overall."
Quite frankly, I think The Simarillion and Unfinished Tales are the only things he wrote worth considering, however they were just crude ripoffs and blendings of ancient legends and myths. In the end, LOTR is just like Star Wars - nothing great in themselves, they just got lucky and people obsessed so much when they came out that they can live forever.
I agree that he went a bit far with the anti-industrial junk, but the message of utter despair after great triumph remains. "The world is saved, but home is destroyed" - it's a painful read at any age.
I didn't see it as comic.
What I saw was a heartbreaking tragedy followed by a glee-filled final victory. It's breaking new ground that can make a movie truly great, not just special effects and high production value.
Look at The Matrix: it wasn't a very good movie, if you think about it - the plot is essentially just a ripoff of 2/3 of the anime's out there, and the effects were far from stellar (the wirework being quite the same as Jet Li films had been using for a few years). What made it memorable (and such a success) was that it was bringing those elements to a heretofore unaware audience - Jet Li and anime aren't standard fare in the US.
When you strip the plot from LOTR, you're just left with a bland adventure movie with big effects. It's still big money, but it's not groundbreaking. If they kept the original plot, the profits would be higher, especially decades down the road.
"Saruman wasn't a major player in the final volume to start with."
I have to disagree with you there. In my opinion, the Scouring of the Shire is the most important part of the entire trilogy. The rest is pretty much just a standard action/adventure story - it's the end that makes it special. The final desperation that leaves you gasping for air - the story was over, the ending happy, and all of a sudden the greatest trajedy of all (for the hobbits) is revealed.
Quite agreed. I remember how psyched I was to see the first one - ended up seeing it at noon the day it came out (first showing at my local theater). At this point, I'm not even all that interested on seeing it ROTK on HBO. I'll probably just see it to keep my friend happy (if I didn't, he'd flip out).
Actually, I recall them announcing that the Scouring of the Shire was to be cut before the first movie even came out. That's why I never had very high expectations for the plot of the movies.
When did I mention a car?
I just don't like the idea of having to continuously transfer songs to a portable player and delete others to make room.
If you're fitting 12 CDs on one CDR, you're not exactly going for the best sound quality, though.
What I need is a player that can hold 50 gigs of ogg files (~400 CDs at high quality - over 2 weeks of music).
Quite frankly, I believe the military advantages would be what gets us back there. The old "Star Wars" missile destruction system concept and Dr. Evil-esque destructive lasers are far more likely to get funding. I'b betting the moon, if developed and used for research, is likely to be mostly military in its goals (the exploration/scientific projects would be good PR, can help keep the military projects secret, and can actually work to facilitate the military projects).
I suppose stalking and harassment laws would come into play if the person followed you, as well.
"I think it's going to be rather interesting to see if SuSE Linux as a desktop OS survives.
Perhaps you should rephrase that to: "I think it's going to be rather interesting to see if SuSE Linux as a desktop OS breaks through."
What about Windows 2000/NT? People rarely use them "at home", but they are the standard in offices. Essentially, people recommend the product best suited to the application, not the product they're most familiar with. The similarity between Linux flavors (home use and Red Hat Enterprise) should be enough to keep it going.
"Then why doesn't censorware block the web sites of PG-13(tm) and R(tm) rated movies under the "Typical" settings the way it blocks gun-safety sites under the "Typical" settings?"
Because that's not what parents are clamouring for. Simple as that.
Well that's just plain silly. There is no evidence that violence in the media causes violence in real life - there is a correspondence, not a causality (HUGE difference).
The NRA is a gun-rights lobbying organization, promoting gun safety doesn't change that. Big Tobacco corporations are now putting out commercials on the dangers of smoking and how to quit - that doesn't change the fact that they sell cigarettes. It is the NRA's goal (which it is defending, not pursuing) that gun ownership be legal for all Americans. Gun are used to kill, and it can be easily proven that they account for deaths that would not otherwise occur - any case of a child accidentally shooting themself or someone else is easy to cite.
Of course, parents are fighting media violence (hence MPAA ratings), so your point isn't insighful, rather just pointing out the obvious. Whether the parents are selective in their fights isn't relevant - this is what they want.
Parental Controls are tailored to what parents want - never forget that. The knee-jerk response is that of the parents, and Symantec's research simply picked up on it. Whether something is good or bad for children isn't the issue - what parent's don't want their kids seeing is what counts (whether they're basing it on knee-jerk assumptions or not).
...in the sense you're using it. I've used Symantec products for years (including Internet Security 2001, 2002, and 2003), so I have some experience here.
Parental Controls are an OPTIONAL part of INSTALLATION! I've never even had it on my computer, which means it's not an issue for anyone who isn't already interested in censoring someone using the computer (kids, etc.). Anyone installing/using the Parental Controls is sure to go through the options (how else can you determine what will be censored?), so this isn't some hidden "default" tactic to fight the NRA. Most parents (you can bet they research this stuff) will want pornography, weapons-promoting sites, etc. blocked, so it makes sense to have them checked by default.
Additionally, the reason the "weapons" filter would block the NRA but not anti-gun sites is simply the reason it exists - it's what parents want blocked - weapons-promoting sites. Symantec isn't just pulling this out of a hat, they're catering to the demands of consumers. This isn't censorship, it's not politically-motivated, and it's not an anti-gun statement by Symantec - it's economics and it's not being foisted on anyone.
Would you prefer the term "weapons-promoting", then? Yes, go ahead and try to argue your way out of this - the more you struggle, the tighter the rope gets.
I'm guessing you aren't familiar with the concept of Parental Controls or Web Filtering. This has nothing to do with politics - the option to block "weapons"-related sites had better block the NRA's web site! The filter is designed and user-seleted to block sites that promote/sell weapons, which is exactly what it's doing - parents want it, so Symantec is providing such an option.
So much for buying a book at work.