At least, the bush administration has been labeling anyone who fights against the US. There was a clip of an upset Iraqi woman who had her whole family killed and her house destroyed, but most likely, the parent poster was talking about the American woman, who's son had been killed fighting in Iraq.
Michael Moore has consistently insisted that at least a significant portion of his film is satire and not meant to be taken seriously, but he won't tell us which parts or what makes them untrue.
Only one peice of information in the film is untrue (that saudis left while the flight embargo was in place. The 9/11 comission determined that wasn't the case, but it was too late to edit the film around it. And the main point of the segment was that they should at least have been interviewed).
It's definetly true that parts of the movie are meant to be funny, and are. (for example, interviewing britney spears), but even the humourous moments are grounded in truth.
Why don't you watch the movie and see for yourself.
Richard Clark had said that Saudis (including bin-ladens) left the country while the flight ban was still in effect. However, the 9/11 commission has said that the flight ban was lifted when the Saudi's left. (apparently by 9/13 it had been lifted?).
Still, ferrying those people out of the nation so soon after the attacks was probably bad form on the administration's part, at least according to Moore. Moore's admitted that the section is incorrect, but I guess he didn't have time to change the film after the 9/11th commission came out with their report.
A partisan congressional committee decided there was no link between Osama and Saddam. This from a culture that created the phrase "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Both had a larger enemy in the US than they did with each other. I'll bet there really was a connection.
There had been talks between the two groups, but Saddam blew them off. Honestly, the US wasn't giving Saddam too much trouble, and he wasn't giving us any trouble at all. Partnering with Al-Quada would have been suicidal. The fact that they were both enemies certainly does not mean that they were working together. That's just paranoid conjecture.
On the other hand, an impartial judge agreed with the claims of victims of terrorism that there WAS enough evidence to link Saddam and Osama, and allowed a suit against Iraq for reparations for the deaths of their loved ones.
If you don't show up to court, you lose. I don't think Saddam had anyone there to defend him, as the war had already started when the Suit was brought. Also, the judge didn't rule against Iraq, only that a suit could go on. Basically, the judge would only have thrown the suit out if it were totally frivolous.
An impartial judge also allowed the SCO trial to go on for two years, as well.
There are no voters under 17 in this nation, and kids are free to see R-rated movies with their parents (or at some theaters, parents can sign a form letting their kids see any R rated movie). If you want your kids to see the film, take them. Or get it on DVD when it comes out.
While they're are conservatives on ABC, The Television network is actually much more liberal then CNN (and obviously FOX). This is the station that read names of dead Soldiers for a whole episode of nightline (subsequently banned by some affiliates). ABC is the quintessential "Liberal Media"
Disney just didn't want to be associated with something so partisan. The Weinstein's knew this all along, but waited until the film was about ready to do anything about it. Why? Huge publicity for the film. I half expected Disney to "cave" at the last minutes and reap millions from their own attempts at censorship.
If the thread doesn't interest you, don't read it.
Slashdot's apolitical stance makes the few political threads really interesting. It's one of the few places you can find smart people from both sides.
I mean, assuming there are any smart people who support bush left. (I know that bush had a lot of vociferous, intelligent defenders on fark.com, but they either gave up on fark, or gave up on bush a long time ago. The only ones left can barely spell.)
As a bush hater, I enjoyed the film's attacks on him, but I doubt they'll sway anyone who loves him, or even anyone who has a neutral opinion of him.
On the other hand, the film did a wonderful job capturing the emotion of the people and the families affected by the Iraq war.
That said, one of the most interesting things about the movie were the crowd reactions. It was the first time I've ever seen an audience applause after a film (doesn't really happen around here. We know there's no one to hear:). But it was great. People all laughed, or gasped at the same time:). Most of the reactions were to the admen's words themselves.
Would it kill the editors to include one sentence describing what something is to those of us who don't know? I mean I'm guessing it's a file system, but, bleh.
Why would someone with a BS in computer science be looking for network admin jobs? That's like someomeone with a dgree in fluid dynamics looking for a job as a plumber.
That's a little surprising, given that in the past they were so pressed for space that they decided to delete every sent message stored on their servers, so pressed for space that they decided to delete all mail after 45 days of not logging in, up from a year as it had been originally.
I'm getting hundreds of bounce messages these days sent to random-name@mydomain. A few of them do contain the orgional message. I should probably dig through those sometime and see if I can try to find the spammer. If you're using a baysian filter, look at the bounce messages that get a high baysian score.
It's really bizzare that the ISP won't even give you a copy of a message they're holding you responsible for.
And anyway, if you're in a suing mood, why don't you sue your ISP? How much did you pay for your year of hosting? one-hosting is $83 for the year, but it sounds like you must have paid a lot more then that.
Go back and read their terms of service, and see if it says "we can cancle your account whenever we want, for any reason." Keep in mind that they are bound by the TOS just as much as you are. If they're in breach of contract, they should refund your money, and pay for the costs involved in moving your domain.
Finaly, if you own your own domain, why not setup SPF? AOL has been pretty big in promoting it, so I would assume they check for SPF records when delivering mail. The spammer might give up on your address if it can't send to AOL.
If these guys win in Canada, it won't affect the US products, or anywhere else in the world for that matter. Cisco will still be able to sell products in the US even if Wi-Lan wins.
Their attitude is just assinie, and quite frankly shows that they don't know anything abuot how the internet works (hint: anyone can send email claming to be from anyone else. And almost all spam is faked this way)
You do own your own domain, right?
I'm signed up with one-hosting. They dissallow "anything that might get them blacklisted" basicaly, so sending spam or using your page to host a spam-promoted site. But no black-lists will list you for being jo-jobed (the anti-spammer term for whats happening to you).
The worst part of being jo-jobbed is that there's really nothing you can do about it, since you can't track down the offender. And the hundreds of bounce messages you get every day...
ESR didn't write the New Hacker's dictionary, he simply took a pre-existing online version, added some crap to it, and let it fester. For example, there's an entry for fisking, which is term used primarily by conservative blogers, (Primarily it means a point by point deconstruction of a liberal argument, pointing out how each point disagrees with conservative ideology, and is therefore wrong) but entry for "apache", or "DDoS"
Looking at movie traliers while your at the theater trying to decide what movie to see might be kind of convienent.
But yeah, these kinds of suggestions (other then large attachments) have been bandied about since the beginning of the 'information superhighway' talk.
It has more to do with the fantasies of corporate pigs then the desires of individuals.
It isn't what you or I want, its what the CEOs and stuff wish would want. You know what the original conception of the "information superhighway" was? Basically interactive Cable TV. You'd be able to "Fast-forward and rewind", shop over your TV, play video games, etc. Everything they thought up was another way to fork over money.
meanwhile, why they tried to develop that, people just began connecting to the internet.
That's why these phone sandboxes are never going to catch on. In a couple years, most people are going to be able to find free, wireless internet everywhere in most cities. It won't be as ubiquitous as the Cellphone system is now (at least I don't think so. I hope I'm wrong on this point) but for the vast majority of people, it'll be there the vast majority of the time.
People aren't interested in what big corporations and marketers want to feed them. Give them an open platform, and someone will come up with the 'next big thing.'. Big companies would never have thought up ebay, or hotornot, or autopr0n.com (okay, maybe that one isn't so big:P) or Slashdot, or whatever.
I'd say more but it's 5 in the fucking morning and I'm tired.
Slashdot Mirror
Limbaugh is under investigation for his drug use. He may get convicted and sent to jail. Maybe it would turn some conservatives against the drug war.
At least, the bush administration has been labeling anyone who fights against the US. There was a clip of an upset Iraqi woman who had her whole family killed and her house destroyed, but most likely, the parent poster was talking about the American woman, who's son had been killed fighting in Iraq.
Michael Moore has consistently insisted that at least a significant portion of his film is satire and not meant to be taken seriously, but he won't tell us which parts or what makes them untrue.
Only one peice of information in the film is untrue (that saudis left while the flight embargo was in place. The 9/11 comission determined that wasn't the case, but it was too late to edit the film around it. And the main point of the segment was that they should at least have been interviewed).
It's definetly true that parts of the movie are meant to be funny, and are. (for example, interviewing britney spears), but even the humourous moments are grounded in truth.
Why don't you watch the movie and see for yourself.
if Moore's film is so bad, why not make their own film
they have (title seems a little tactless to me, though)
Richard Clark had said that Saudis (including bin-ladens) left the country while the flight ban was still in effect. However, the 9/11 commission has said that the flight ban was lifted when the Saudi's left. (apparently by 9/13 it had been lifted?).
Still, ferrying those people out of the nation so soon after the attacks was probably bad form on the administration's part, at least according to Moore. Moore's admitted that the section is incorrect, but I guess he didn't have time to change the film after the 9/11th commission came out with their report.
Or did bush invade a third nation while I was sleeping. One of the points in F9/11 was that we didn't do enough in Afghanistan to stop bin-ladin.
A partisan congressional committee decided there was no link between Osama and Saddam. This from a culture that created the phrase "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Both had a larger enemy in the US than they did with each other. I'll bet there really was a connection.
There had been talks between the two groups, but Saddam blew them off. Honestly, the US wasn't giving Saddam too much trouble, and he wasn't giving us any trouble at all. Partnering with Al-Quada would have been suicidal. The fact that they were both enemies certainly does not mean that they were working together. That's just paranoid conjecture.
On the other hand, an impartial judge agreed with the claims of victims of terrorism that there WAS enough evidence to link Saddam and Osama, and allowed a suit against Iraq for reparations for the deaths of their loved ones.
If you don't show up to court, you lose. I don't think Saddam had anyone there to defend him, as the war had already started when the Suit was brought. Also, the judge didn't rule against Iraq, only that a suit could go on. Basically, the judge would only have thrown the suit out if it were totally frivolous.
An impartial judge also allowed the SCO trial to go on for two years, as well.
There are no voters under 17 in this nation, and kids are free to see R-rated movies with their parents (or at some theaters, parents can sign a form letting their kids see any R rated movie). If you want your kids to see the film, take them. Or get it on DVD when it comes out.
While they're are conservatives on ABC, The Television network is actually much more liberal then CNN (and obviously FOX). This is the station that read names of dead Soldiers for a whole episode of nightline (subsequently banned by some affiliates). ABC is the quintessential "Liberal Media"
Disney just didn't want to be associated with something so partisan. The Weinstein's knew this all along, but waited until the film was about ready to do anything about it. Why? Huge publicity for the film. I half expected Disney to "cave" at the last minutes and reap millions from their own attempts at censorship.
If the thread doesn't interest you, don't read it.
Slashdot's apolitical stance makes the few political threads really interesting. It's one of the few places you can find smart people from both sides.
I mean, assuming there are any smart people who support bush left. (I know that bush had a lot of vociferous, intelligent defenders on fark.com, but they either gave up on fark, or gave up on bush a long time ago. The only ones left can barely spell.)
As a bush hater, I enjoyed the film's attacks on him, but I doubt they'll sway anyone who loves him, or even anyone who has a neutral opinion of him.
:). But it was great. People all laughed, or gasped at the same time :). Most of the reactions were to the admen's words themselves.
On the other hand, the film did a wonderful job capturing the emotion of the people and the families affected by the Iraq war.
That said, one of the most interesting things about the movie were the crowd reactions. It was the first time I've ever seen an audience applause after a film (doesn't really happen around here. We know there's no one to hear
Would it kill the editors to include one sentence describing what something is to those of us who don't know? I mean I'm guessing it's a file system, but, bleh.
Minor annoyance, but still.
Film at 11.
Why would someone with a BS in computer science be looking for network admin jobs? That's like someomeone with a dgree in fluid dynamics looking for a job as a plumber.
That's a little surprising, given that in the past they were so pressed for space that they decided to delete every sent message stored on their servers, so pressed for space that they decided to delete all mail after 45 days of not logging in, up from a year as it had been originally.
I'm getting hundreds of bounce messages these days sent to random-name@mydomain. A few of them do contain the orgional message. I should probably dig through those sometime and see if I can try to find the spammer. If you're using a baysian filter, look at the bounce messages that get a high baysian score.
It's really bizzare that the ISP won't even give you a copy of a message they're holding you responsible for.
And anyway, if you're in a suing mood, why don't you sue your ISP? How much did you pay for your year of hosting? one-hosting is $83 for the year, but it sounds like you must have paid a lot more then that.
Go back and read their terms of service, and see if it says "we can cancle your account whenever we want, for any reason." Keep in mind that they are bound by the TOS just as much as you are. If they're in breach of contract, they should refund your money, and pay for the costs involved in moving your domain.
Finaly, if you own your own domain, why not setup SPF? AOL has been pretty big in promoting it, so I would assume they check for SPF records when delivering mail. The spammer might give up on your address if it can't send to AOL.
Looks like people are "misusing" the word hacker again! Someone better let ESR know so he can stop all this nonsense!
Note: that was sarcasm.
If these guys win in Canada, it won't affect the US products, or anywhere else in the world for that matter. Cisco will still be able to sell products in the US even if Wi-Lan wins.
Their attitude is just assinie, and quite frankly shows that they don't know anything abuot how the internet works (hint: anyone can send email claming to be from anyone else. And almost all spam is faked this way)
You do own your own domain, right?
I'm signed up with one-hosting. They dissallow "anything that might get them blacklisted" basicaly, so sending spam or using your page to host a spam-promoted site. But no black-lists will list you for being jo-jobed (the anti-spammer term for whats happening to you).
The worst part of being jo-jobbed is that there's really nothing you can do about it, since you can't track down the offender. And the hundreds of bounce messages you get every day...
I wasn't aware that hotmail could be used to send spam, I would have assumed they'd used message-volume limits.
The fact that Microsoft shuts down hotmail accounts after one complaint is pretty problematic, given the prevalance of forged headers out there...
ESR didn't write the New Hacker's dictionary, he simply took a pre-existing online version, added some crap to it, and let it fester. For example, there's an entry for fisking, which is term used primarily by conservative blogers, (Primarily it means a point by point deconstruction of a liberal argument, pointing out how each point disagrees with conservative ideology, and is therefore wrong) but entry for "apache", or "DDoS"
please remember, all lot of that software is stuff that he "maintains", and a lot of it is useless toys.
ESR is not a a 'great' programmer by far.
Looking at movie traliers while your at the theater trying to decide what movie to see might be kind of convienent.
:P) or Slashdot, or whatever.
But yeah, these kinds of suggestions (other then large attachments) have been bandied about since the beginning of the 'information superhighway' talk.
It has more to do with the fantasies of corporate pigs then the desires of individuals.
It isn't what you or I want, its what the CEOs and stuff wish would want. You know what the original conception of the "information superhighway" was? Basically interactive Cable TV. You'd be able to "Fast-forward and rewind", shop over your TV, play video games, etc. Everything they thought up was another way to fork over money.
meanwhile, why they tried to develop that, people just began connecting to the internet.
That's why these phone sandboxes are never going to catch on. In a couple years, most people are going to be able to find free, wireless internet everywhere in most cities. It won't be as ubiquitous as the Cellphone system is now (at least I don't think so. I hope I'm wrong on this point) but for the vast majority of people, it'll be there the vast majority of the time.
People aren't interested in what big corporations and marketers want to feed them. Give them an open platform, and someone will come up with the 'next big thing.'. Big companies would never have thought up ebay, or hotornot, or autopr0n.com (okay, maybe that one isn't so big
I'd say more but it's 5 in the fucking morning and I'm tired.
OMG, that's so novel, so un-thought of ever before.
That's so outside the box! And just think what if we put wifi cards in laptops! Then you could surf the web, without paying outrageous telco charges!