WshShell.RegDelete "HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Wi nTrust\Trust Providers\Software Publishing\Trust Database\0\" WshShell.RegWrite "HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Wi nTrust\Trust Providers\Software Publishing\Trust Database\0\",NULL... and it will flush that list on every login. Your users will click the "always trust" box. This will undo the damage.
Michael Moore's works may be banned as well. "Stupid White Men?" The title alone seems to violate the new law:
The Council of Europe has adopted a measure that would criminalize Internet hate speech, including hyperlinks to pages that contain offensive content.
The provision, which was passed by the council's decision-making body (the Committee of Ministers), updates the European Convention on Cybercrime.
Specifically, the amendment bans "any written material, any image or any other representation of ideas or theories, which advocates, promotes or incites hatred, discrimination or violence, against any individual or group of individuals, based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, as well as religion if used as pretext for any of these factors."
According to Moore's works, "Stupid White Men" are responsible for all evil on the planet. That would be ideas and theories that promote hatred against a group of individuals based on their race, color, descent and ethnic origin.
Microsoft is beginning to use legal pressure against Free Software. Their next strategy will be to discontinue the badmouthing of Free Software in the press (as that's backfired), and start patent lawsuits against it.
How do you fight a $40 billion bohemeth that's threatening you? How about with its own tools?
No, bad idea. A better idea is to lobby your state legislature to assign electors in proportion to your state's popular vote, rather than winner-take-all. A Prime Minister position would exaggerate control of the winning political party. Do you really want Trent Lott or Tom Daschle to be Prime Minister? A President provides separation of powers.
Actually, the idea behind the staet legislatures electing their states' senators is that, in a federal system such as ours, the states needed representation at the federal level. The house represents the people and is elected directly by them. The Senate represents the states and is elected directly by them. Repeal the 17th Amendment!
It was only in terms of pure popular vote that Gore nudged ahead. But, as it turns out, pure popular vote doesn't matter in Presidential elections. It's pure electoral vote that matters.
Bush didn't win a majority of the popular vote, and neither did Clinton. In his first presidential election, Clinton actually had less of the popular vote than Bush did in 2000.
This is true, as far as I can tell. They keep changing and raising the bar to getting candidates on the ballot, and re-organize districts to favor the major parties.
Instant Runoff Voting should be adpoted for elections. Heck, we use a version of it to decide what soft drinks to stock in the kitchen at work. Our variant gives everyone four votes, which they can spread among the choices as they see fit.
From the site:
The IRV works basically as follows: Instead of just casting one vote for one candidate, voters rank the candidates: 1,2,3, etc. (hence, the motto, "it's as easy as 1-2-3."). If no candidate receives a majority of the #1 votes, the candidate with the least total of #1 votes is eliminated. The second choice votes from these ballots are then transferred to the other candidates. The ballots are recounted, and candidates are eliminated in this fashion until 1 winner emerges with a majority of the vote.
Because current vote-counting systems are not sufficiently protected from manipulation, and are getting less and less auditable, it is now very important to know who has access to the machines. There is no place for secrecy in our voting-counting system. Secret voting, yes. Secret vote-COUNTING, no -- in fact, it's unconstitutional.
For some inexplicable reason, the U.S. is rushing to eliminate the only physical record of the mark made by each voter, going to straight touch-screens with no paper trail. Canada doesn't allow this. Neither does Japan. Why are we so casually throwing away the only real audit trail that protects our vote?
With touch-tone screens, we simply have no paper trail for millions of votes, with private, secret, and (according to computer security experts), insecure programming for vote-counting machines that invites tampering. It takes only ONE true believer with access to manipulate the counting code.
Therefore, disclosure of ownership, flagging conflicts of interest, has become critical.
Socialism is, by definition, government ownership of the means of production. It cannot possibly be "a dialect of capitalism."
"Welfare statism" can be construed as "a dialect of capitalism," as it means that government only confiscates the output of business and regulates for who it can do what and how, rather than owning and controlling businesses outright.
"Fascism" is socialism, with the illusion of private ownership.
Well, the difference between the "free market" people and the "capitalism" people is that capitalism requires a government to regulate the market, enforce contracts and provide a level playing field. Otherwise, the economy is subject to anarchy, monopolies, and other less desirable modes of operation.
"Free Market" is more "you're not the boss of me" kind of stuff.
"Command Economy" (e.g., socialist economy) is a third thing, where the government picks who gets what. It's not a "free market", and it's not "capitalism."
I do not know the specifics, but if there's been damage to public lands, I hope there will be a "People vs." appearing on a docket somewhere. Too ofter public lands are poorly cared for, more poorly than private lands (whose owners care to protect them).
Well, there seems to be as many researchers saying "don't know," as there are saying, "shutter the factories." The whole global warming "debate" seems to be hysterical, and I do not trust the motives of many of the players in it.
I personally think that we should get away from burning oil (making plastics from it is fine), and use non-oil sources of energy. Coal, solar, others. Why coal and not oil? I think that oil will turn out to be a natural by-product of planet formation. There has never been any DNA found in oil, and wells seem to replinish themselves. Coal, however, is definitely carbon taken from the atmosphere by plants -- coal comes with DNA and fossilized (incompletly carbonized) plants in it. By burning coal, we're not adding _new_ CO2 to the air. By burning oil, I suspect that we are adding new carbon. I think it's okay to do things with oil other than burn it, such as making plastics from it, because it's not adding carbon to the atmosphere.
There's some evidence that global warming, regardless of causes, will actually trigger the next ice age, and we'll need _even more_ CO2 in the air to come back out of it. The Earth is currently somewhat low on CO2, historically speaking.
Besides, I have a hard time believing the "computer model predictions" of climate researchers who -- with wreck-the-economy certainty -- can say that global warming is real, the ocean will rise by 3.54 inches, etc., but with those same or similar computer models, still cannot predict either local or global weather accurately for more than a low number of hours into the future. Those "computer models" can do only one thing -- give the answer that was built into their assumptions. 42.
There is evidence that early European colonies died out because of extreme and persistant drought in North America, and that the average local temperatures were, in fact, higher be a degree or so back then. They apparently figured this out from studying cross-sections of trees alive at that time.
I'm not a "the hypothesis that human actions are causing global warming, and that's bad, cannot possibly be right" kind of guy. But I'm not convinced with the research to date, and I deeply distruct the motives of a lot of the "global warming activists." I'm not just a yahoo reading "Discover," either -- I hold degrees in Biochemistry and Chemistry. I know the scientific method when I see it.
People speed all the time. Generally, motorists see the speed limit signs as advisory, rather than actual legal limits. The current drug laws, like alcohol prohibition laws before them, are broken routinely and on a large scale. North Carolina's largest cash crop is marijuana.
Well, you do have to show damages. It does happen. Erin Brockovich did it. There's lots of examples. It's better to require demonstration of damages than to simply allow claims of "I think he hurt me" to result in claims.
I'm not sure what you're alluding to in terms of "the global warming or DDT debate."
characterizing any sense of environmental responsibility as radical leftism
I wouldn't, and do not, think of "environmental responsibility" as "radical leftism." I do, however, I characterize "environmentalism" as "radical leftism." It's mainly because "environmentalism" as a term has been hijacked, and now is more or less means "social statism" and "anti-capitalism" with "do it for the baby seals" as the excuse.
Environmental responsibility is a good thing, and as I mentioned in a previous post, it should be handled as a property-rights issue. I can't dump oil in your driveway or living room without getting sued -- same goes for dumping in a river that runs over my land.
People who build in flood zones will eventually have to pay "the stupid tax," unless they can try to get the their fellow citizens to pay the stupid tax for them, via FEMA or some other scam. Too often, the latter is the case.
I agree, environmental protection is -- or should be -- a property-rights issue. In your example, the damaged party would be able to seek remedy before the law against the person who caused the destruction of his property.
Slashdot Mirror
Do something like this in a logon script:
WshShell.RegDelete "HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\W
WshShell.RegWrite "HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\W
RAID 5 performance, of course, sucks. Spend the dough for extra disks.
According to Moore's works, "Stupid White Men" are responsible for all evil on the planet. That would be ideas and theories that promote hatred against a group of individuals based on their race, color, descent and ethnic origin.
I'm not, for the simple reason that Microsoft *will* do it to us, without any qualms.
Microsoft is beginning to use legal pressure against Free Software. Their next strategy will be to discontinue the badmouthing of Free Software in the press (as that's backfired), and start patent lawsuits against it.
How do you fight a $40 billion bohemeth that's threatening you? How about with its own tools?
And after "20 years," they switch to someone elses' microkernel...
No, bad idea. A better idea is to lobby your state legislature to assign electors in proportion to your state's popular vote, rather than winner-take-all. A Prime Minister position would exaggerate control of the winning political party. Do you really want Trent Lott or Tom Daschle to be Prime Minister? A President provides separation of powers.
Link? I'd like to read about that.
Actually, the idea behind the staet legislatures electing their states' senators is that, in a federal system such as ours, the states needed representation at the federal level. The house represents the people and is elected directly by them. The Senate represents the states and is elected directly by them. Repeal the 17th Amendment!
It was only in terms of pure popular vote that Gore nudged ahead. But, as it turns out, pure popular vote doesn't matter in Presidential elections. It's pure electoral vote that matters.
Bush didn't win a majority of the popular vote, and neither did Clinton. In his first presidential election, Clinton actually had less of the popular vote than Bush did in 2000.
This is true, as far as I can tell. They keep changing and raising the bar to getting candidates on the ballot, and re-organize districts to favor the major parties.
From the site:
See the article here
Socialism is, by definition, government ownership of the means of production. It cannot possibly be "a dialect of capitalism."
"Welfare statism" can be construed as "a dialect of capitalism," as it means that government only confiscates the output of business and regulates for who it can do what and how, rather than owning and controlling businesses outright.
"Fascism" is socialism, with the illusion of private ownership.
Well, the difference between the "free market" people and the "capitalism" people is that capitalism requires a government to regulate the market, enforce contracts and provide a level playing field. Otherwise, the economy is subject to anarchy, monopolies, and other less desirable modes of operation.
"Free Market" is more "you're not the boss of me" kind of stuff.
"Command Economy" (e.g., socialist economy) is a third thing, where the government picks who gets what. It's not a "free market", and it's not "capitalism."
I do not know the specifics, but if there's been damage to public lands, I hope there will be a "People vs." appearing on a docket somewhere. Too ofter public lands are poorly cared for, more poorly than private lands (whose owners care to protect them).
Well, there seems to be as many researchers saying "don't know," as there are saying, "shutter the factories." The whole global warming "debate" seems to be hysterical, and I do not trust the motives of many of the players in it.
I personally think that we should get away from burning oil (making plastics from it is fine), and use non-oil sources of energy. Coal, solar, others. Why coal and not oil? I think that oil will turn out to be a natural by-product of planet formation. There has never been any DNA found in oil, and wells seem to replinish themselves. Coal, however, is definitely carbon taken from the atmosphere by plants -- coal comes with DNA and fossilized (incompletly carbonized) plants in it. By burning coal, we're not adding _new_ CO2 to the air. By burning oil, I suspect that we are adding new carbon. I think it's okay to do things with oil other than burn it, such as making plastics from it, because it's not adding carbon to the atmosphere.
There's some evidence that global warming, regardless of causes, will actually trigger the next ice age, and we'll need _even more_ CO2 in the air to come back out of it. The Earth is currently somewhat low on CO2, historically speaking.
Besides, I have a hard time believing the "computer model predictions" of climate researchers who -- with wreck-the-economy certainty -- can say that global warming is real, the ocean will rise by 3.54 inches, etc., but with those same or similar computer models, still cannot predict either local or global weather accurately for more than a low number of hours into the future. Those "computer models" can do only one thing -- give the answer that was built into their assumptions. 42.
There is evidence that early European colonies died out because of extreme and persistant drought in North America, and that the average local temperatures were, in fact, higher be a degree or so back then. They apparently figured this out from studying cross-sections of trees alive at that time.
I'm not a "the hypothesis that human actions are causing global warming, and that's bad, cannot possibly be right" kind of guy. But I'm not convinced with the research to date, and I deeply distruct the motives of a lot of the "global warming activists." I'm not just a yahoo reading "Discover," either -- I hold degrees in Biochemistry and Chemistry. I know the scientific method when I see it.
People speed all the time. Generally, motorists see the speed limit signs as advisory, rather than actual legal limits. The current drug laws, like alcohol prohibition laws before them, are broken routinely and on a large scale. North Carolina's largest cash crop is marijuana.
Well, you do have to show damages. It does happen. Erin Brockovich did it. There's lots of examples. It's better to require demonstration of damages than to simply allow claims of "I think he hurt me" to result in claims.
I'm not sure what you're alluding to in terms of "the global warming or DDT debate."
characterizing any sense of environmental responsibility as radical leftism
I wouldn't, and do not, think of "environmental responsibility" as "radical leftism." I do, however, I characterize "environmentalism" as "radical leftism." It's mainly because "environmentalism" as a term has been hijacked, and now is more or less means "social statism" and "anti-capitalism" with "do it for the baby seals" as the excuse.
Environmental responsibility is a good thing, and as I mentioned in a previous post, it should be handled as a property-rights issue. I can't dump oil in your driveway or living room without getting sued -- same goes for dumping in a river that runs over my land.
People who build in flood zones will eventually have to pay "the stupid tax," unless they can try to get the their fellow citizens to pay the stupid tax for them, via FEMA or some other scam. Too often, the latter is the case.
I agree, environmental protection is -- or should be -- a property-rights issue. In your example, the damaged party would be able to seek remedy before the law against the person who caused the destruction of his property.
There ought to be a law against people who say, "there ought to be a law!"
You feel terror while visiting this website? Timid little guy, aren't you.
You must be talking about his ad hominem reply. Or possibly your ad hominem reply. Or maybe both.
The government has neither the resources nor the inclination to enforce its environmental laws and so it is up to citizens to do so.
This is always true, essentially. The only enforceable laws in a free society are the ones that the people want to obey anyway.
Uh, no.