Well, that is the usual way to get authentic fake IDs, yes. I was pointing out that for those of us who are not paparazzi or private detectives have yet another channel of finding such...alternate identifications.
Yes, it does seem suspicious, especially since it's Iran--a country that's in the news a lot lately, and with whom communication may be rather important.
If this is followed by reports of various despicable actions in Iran which cannot be verified due to the lack of communication, then it would be even more suspicious.
Perfect opportunity to set up a few convenient aliases--with all the work that they'll be getting, the folks registering will likely not pay quite as much attention as they ought to new registrants. Voila, government-approved IDs, guaranteed to pass any test for fakes.
Of course, getting past the initial screening may not be trivial--but investigation into that avenue may be worthwhile.
Thus why I use KublaiKhan here--it's comparatively difficult to trace the name KublaiKhan, being as it's reasonably popular as a pseudonym and it happens to be the name of a historical figure.
I've another handle elsewhere, however, that is unique to me and can be traced back to my real identity--but I'm aware of that, and am generally mindful of what I post under that name.
Of course, if you know my real name, you can generally figure out a handful of my less-obfuscated pseudonyms--not all of them, though, as I also have a small handful of truly anonymous pseudonyms roaming around the 'net.
It's all about risk assessment, really.;-p The more risky the location that you're posting, the more generic, obfuscated, and removed from one's real identity your handle should be.
Which is why it's handy to have a common username--it may be frustrating to try to find the same one on every forum, but on the flip side, it's hard to track you.
One of my usernames happens to be (as far as I can tell) unique since about the turn of the century, when I came up with it--only things posted by me or quoting me will show up.
This username, though, is surprisingly common, and there's only a handful of places where it's actually me--many of 'em fairly far down in the google search results. As a bonus, it's the name of a historical figure on whom many books have been written--so tracking me through this username would be a great deal more difficult.
What might work better is to offer counselling on how to craft a truly anonymous persona for yourself (for the naughty bits) and how to keep it separated from your real persona--and, of course, counselling on how to take care of your real online persona, and perhaps a service to check up on it from time to time.
(If anyone out there wanted to hire me for that service, I'd be more'n willing for a very reasonable rate...;-P )
Thus, the advice would seem to be to either change your name to a common one, or use a nondescript pseudonym for all your online identifications.
Or, of course, to have common sense about what's connected with your name....but most people don't seem to understand how easily things can be 'connected'.
Oh, well, if that's the case, then the Mafia'd realize that they can get a lot more money from hosting companies than from frivolous lawsuits. Sure, they'll want "a little consideration to make sure your songs stay safe" but that'd be much less of a hassle in the end, wouldn't it?
True enough, but this does raise some interesting possibilities--Italy may end up with a large number of folks deciding to pay to host their 'educational' mp3 collections (say, for their correspondence 'music appreciation' course) in Italy, thus providing employment, et al.
The key is to get the Mafia supporting this, so that they can view the RIAA as a threat to the business, and treat 'em accordingly.;-p
Yep, more or less. O'course, if you spread it around in one of those urban-legend emails that the ISP was going to randomly drop your emails, then maybe you could recruit a few extras...but yeah, really, most folks don't care enough.
Perhaps there's a business niche for a server that'll accept an encrypted email, decrypt it, and send it off to its destination...but I shouldn't think it'd be a very big niche.
This ends up being a discussion about when someone is considered "alive", for which everyone has a different answer--everything from "when the sperm hits the egg" to "birth".
I do not agree that using fetal cells for the purposes of saving lives will necessarily lead to pre-emptive wars--that's a slippery slope argument and has no real merit. But then, my standard of 'alive' is "capable of maintaining life functions independently of another organism"--yours obviously differs.
Only if it becomes part of the desk...there will always be a place for desks and tables, even if only as a method of organizing things in one place and having a 'base of operations' to work from.
Though I wouldn't mind having a gargoyle rig, a la the gent in Snow Crash. We've almost got the tech for it now, save only that I don't know of a good portable input method that doesn't require poking at a tiny screen or a mini keyboard...
That'd be, what, about six months in Iraq? We had no problem with borrowing that from the Chinese; why not fix up the infrastructure here?
I'm thinking, though, that 'broadband' in the US is rather slower than in other countries--wasn't there a study that said the US has the slowest broadband in the developed world? I mean, sure, it's significantly faster than dialup--but for some reason, dialup still sells; 'broadband' connections are still unreliable in speed and connectivity (how many times do you have to reset a cable/dsl modem in a week, anyway?); a lack of choice--because of the de facto regional monopolies--has completely removed all desire to innovate or compete, leading to a situation that decays over time.
How long will it be until the US is relegated to a third-world ghetto because nobody can get information in and out in a timely manner?
Conservative compared to the world at large, yes, but compared to other popes, quite progressive.
And I really don't think that embryonic research is on the way out. The advances in making stem cells out of other cells may reduce its growth, but I'm fairly sure there will still be more than enough of it to go around.
Your morals are not the same as everyone else's morals--as such, your definition of 'barbaric' will differ; I, for one, consider the standpoint where one lets someone die painfully rather than hurt a clump of cells that may not actually grow into something capable of living on its own to be barbaric.;-p
Actually, I think most of the problem is with his conservative stance--he's trying to stay still, as it were, rather than moving with the times.
And in some places, this works. Catholicism has been gaining a lot of ground in Africa and South America even as it loses influence in the 'richer' countries--leading to, amongst other things, rather amusing conflicts between hereditarily Catholic (but not actively participating) Quebecois and immigrants to Quebec who are 'taking over' the old Catholic churches.
JPII actually endorsed evolution at one point--though Benedict has made a few noises about that 'intelligent design' nonsense. (And I hear that Ben Stein's buying into that old fallacy with some movie that makes him look like he's trying to be the next Michael Moore--but I digress.)
As Christian churches go, though, the Catholic church really isn't that bad. Its main problems are its pre-eminence as the largest christian denomination and its two millenia (minus a couple hundred years, if you're counting from the Council of Nicea) of institutional inertia. Benedict does represent the inertial side of things, yes, but he's not forever--and the next pope, the way these things go, should be a bit more on the progressive side.
What you really have to watch out for are certain of the protestant denominations--they're the ones who're trumpeting creationism, setting up creationist museums, actively picketing abortion clinics, etc.
Not an option. He's the pope. He has to say something, and he has to remain consistent with earlier doctrine--unless he decides to do something other than what he's been doing his entire papacy and take a bold new stance.
John Paul II might have considered it, but Benedict is extremely conservative and is living up to the 'placeholder' assessment that most people had of him at the time of his election.
Well, it's not as if he had much of a choice of what to say, to maintain consistency with church doctrine. If he encouraged it, there would come some rather unpleasant questions as to what, exactly, would require baptism; if a cloned person has a cloned soul; whether you receive some of the soul of the fetus that gave the stem cells when, for whatever reason, you use said stem cells--all a bunch of nasty theological problems.
Frankly, is there anything else he -could- have said?
Controlling the water means you control the people, as well--remember, China has been, traditionally, a largely agricultural country, dependent upon a certain flood cycle.
If you control the rivers, you control the land they feed and drain. If you control the feeding and draining, you control the people who need that feeding and draining to survive, and to grow food. If you control the people who grow food, you control the people who need food--and that's more or less everyone.
Not exactly 'new' tech...the silver iodide version's been around forever, and the liquid nitrogen version doesn't sound particularly revolutionary.
It does, however, go along with the Chinese cultural desire to control the elements, which heretofore has been embodied mostly with the rivers--the legendary "Yellow Emperor" was the first to stop the flooding of the Yang Tze; the current government has thrown massive resources into the Three Gorges dam. Controlling the rivers has been traditionally (as far as I recall, anyway) seen as evidence of controlling the land, and thus of being a legitimate government.
Controlling the rain, then, would be an extension of this.
Are batteries included? I mean, I know it's a low power protocol, but how long is the power source in this going to last, and is it replaceable?
This little toy's neat, and no mistake--but if you can only use it for, say, 50 hours total and then it loses half its function, then what's the point?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that is the usual way to get authentic fake IDs, yes. I was pointing out that for those of us who are not paparazzi or private detectives have yet another channel of finding such...alternate identifications.
Yes, it does seem suspicious, especially since it's Iran--a country that's in the news a lot lately, and with whom communication may be rather important.
If this is followed by reports of various despicable actions in Iran which cannot be verified due to the lack of communication, then it would be even more suspicious.
Perfect opportunity to set up a few convenient aliases--with all the work that they'll be getting, the folks registering will likely not pay quite as much attention as they ought to new registrants. Voila, government-approved IDs, guaranteed to pass any test for fakes.
Of course, getting past the initial screening may not be trivial--but investigation into that avenue may be worthwhile.
Thus why I use KublaiKhan here--it's comparatively difficult to trace the name KublaiKhan, being as it's reasonably popular as a pseudonym and it happens to be the name of a historical figure.
;-p The more risky the location that you're posting, the more generic, obfuscated, and removed from one's real identity your handle should be.
I've another handle elsewhere, however, that is unique to me and can be traced back to my real identity--but I'm aware of that, and am generally mindful of what I post under that name.
Of course, if you know my real name, you can generally figure out a handful of my less-obfuscated pseudonyms--not all of them, though, as I also have a small handful of truly anonymous pseudonyms roaming around the 'net.
It's all about risk assessment, really.
Which is why it's handy to have a common username--it may be frustrating to try to find the same one on every forum, but on the flip side, it's hard to track you.
One of my usernames happens to be (as far as I can tell) unique since about the turn of the century, when I came up with it--only things posted by me or quoting me will show up.
This username, though, is surprisingly common, and there's only a handful of places where it's actually me--many of 'em fairly far down in the google search results. As a bonus, it's the name of a historical figure on whom many books have been written--so tracking me through this username would be a great deal more difficult.
What might work better is to offer counselling on how to craft a truly anonymous persona for yourself (for the naughty bits) and how to keep it separated from your real persona--and, of course, counselling on how to take care of your real online persona, and perhaps a service to check up on it from time to time.
;-P )
(If anyone out there wanted to hire me for that service, I'd be more'n willing for a very reasonable rate...
Thus, the advice would seem to be to either change your name to a common one, or use a nondescript pseudonym for all your online identifications.
Or, of course, to have common sense about what's connected with your name....but most people don't seem to understand how easily things can be 'connected'.
Oh, well, if that's the case, then the Mafia'd realize that they can get a lot more money from hosting companies than from frivolous lawsuits. Sure, they'll want "a little consideration to make sure your songs stay safe" but that'd be much less of a hassle in the end, wouldn't it?
True enough, but this does raise some interesting possibilities--Italy may end up with a large number of folks deciding to pay to host their 'educational' mp3 collections (say, for their correspondence 'music appreciation' course) in Italy, thus providing employment, et al.
;-p
The key is to get the Mafia supporting this, so that they can view the RIAA as a threat to the business, and treat 'em accordingly.
I need liquor, myself, for them to sound good. ...in me, not on the record.
Great, I have to find the time to set up an SMTP server now? I'm already down to 5.5 hrs of sleep/night...
Yep, more or less. O'course, if you spread it around in one of those urban-legend emails that the ISP was going to randomly drop your emails, then maybe you could recruit a few extras...but yeah, really, most folks don't care enough.
Perhaps there's a business niche for a server that'll accept an encrypted email, decrypt it, and send it off to its destination...but I shouldn't think it'd be a very big niche.
This ends up being a discussion about when someone is considered "alive", for which everyone has a different answer--everything from "when the sperm hits the egg" to "birth".
I do not agree that using fetal cells for the purposes of saving lives will necessarily lead to pre-emptive wars--that's a slippery slope argument and has no real merit. But then, my standard of 'alive' is "capable of maintaining life functions independently of another organism"--yours obviously differs.
'cuz if they can't read it, they can't filter it.
O'course, this means that your recipient must have PGP in order to read your message, which can get inconvenient when talking to grandma.
Only if it becomes part of the desk...there will always be a place for desks and tables, even if only as a method of organizing things in one place and having a 'base of operations' to work from.
Though I wouldn't mind having a gargoyle rig, a la the gent in Snow Crash. We've almost got the tech for it now, save only that I don't know of a good portable input method that doesn't require poking at a tiny screen or a mini keyboard...
That'd be, what, about six months in Iraq? We had no problem with borrowing that from the Chinese; why not fix up the infrastructure here?
I'm thinking, though, that 'broadband' in the US is rather slower than in other countries--wasn't there a study that said the US has the slowest broadband in the developed world? I mean, sure, it's significantly faster than dialup--but for some reason, dialup still sells; 'broadband' connections are still unreliable in speed and connectivity (how many times do you have to reset a cable/dsl modem in a week, anyway?); a lack of choice--because of the de facto regional monopolies--has completely removed all desire to innovate or compete, leading to a situation that decays over time.
How long will it be until the US is relegated to a third-world ghetto because nobody can get information in and out in a timely manner?
Conservative compared to the world at large, yes, but compared to other popes, quite progressive.
;-p
And I really don't think that embryonic research is on the way out. The advances in making stem cells out of other cells may reduce its growth, but I'm fairly sure there will still be more than enough of it to go around.
Your morals are not the same as everyone else's morals--as such, your definition of 'barbaric' will differ; I, for one, consider the standpoint where one lets someone die painfully rather than hurt a clump of cells that may not actually grow into something capable of living on its own to be barbaric.
Actually, I think most of the problem is with his conservative stance--he's trying to stay still, as it were, rather than moving with the times.
And in some places, this works. Catholicism has been gaining a lot of ground in Africa and South America even as it loses influence in the 'richer' countries--leading to, amongst other things, rather amusing conflicts between hereditarily Catholic (but not actively participating) Quebecois and immigrants to Quebec who are 'taking over' the old Catholic churches.
JPII actually endorsed evolution at one point--though Benedict has made a few noises about that 'intelligent design' nonsense. (And I hear that Ben Stein's buying into that old fallacy with some movie that makes him look like he's trying to be the next Michael Moore--but I digress.)
As Christian churches go, though, the Catholic church really isn't that bad. Its main problems are its pre-eminence as the largest christian denomination and its two millenia (minus a couple hundred years, if you're counting from the Council of Nicea) of institutional inertia. Benedict does represent the inertial side of things, yes, but he's not forever--and the next pope, the way these things go, should be a bit more on the progressive side.
What you really have to watch out for are certain of the protestant denominations--they're the ones who're trumpeting creationism, setting up creationist museums, actively picketing abortion clinics, etc.
Not an option. He's the pope. He has to say something, and he has to remain consistent with earlier doctrine--unless he decides to do something other than what he's been doing his entire papacy and take a bold new stance.
John Paul II might have considered it, but Benedict is extremely conservative and is living up to the 'placeholder' assessment that most people had of him at the time of his election.
Well, it's not as if he had much of a choice of what to say, to maintain consistency with church doctrine. If he encouraged it, there would come some rather unpleasant questions as to what, exactly, would require baptism; if a cloned person has a cloned soul; whether you receive some of the soul of the fetus that gave the stem cells when, for whatever reason, you use said stem cells--all a bunch of nasty theological problems.
Frankly, is there anything else he -could- have said?
Controlling the water means you control the people, as well--remember, China has been, traditionally, a largely agricultural country, dependent upon a certain flood cycle.
If you control the rivers, you control the land they feed and drain. If you control the feeding and draining, you control the people who need that feeding and draining to survive, and to grow food. If you control the people who grow food, you control the people who need food--and that's more or less everyone.
It all comes back to the water.
Not exactly 'new' tech...the silver iodide version's been around forever, and the liquid nitrogen version doesn't sound particularly revolutionary.
It does, however, go along with the Chinese cultural desire to control the elements, which heretofore has been embodied mostly with the rivers--the legendary "Yellow Emperor" was the first to stop the flooding of the Yang Tze; the current government has thrown massive resources into the Three Gorges dam. Controlling the rivers has been traditionally (as far as I recall, anyway) seen as evidence of controlling the land, and thus of being a legitimate government.
Controlling the rain, then, would be an extension of this.
Are batteries included? I mean, I know it's a low power protocol, but how long is the power source in this going to last, and is it replaceable?
This little toy's neat, and no mistake--but if you can only use it for, say, 50 hours total and then it loses half its function, then what's the point?
It's only a movie. It's not -real- blood. ;-p
Does this mean that a remake of "The Birds" with robotic birds will be in the offing, then?