I'd say we block the US back to the stone age, and let them rot in their IP-infested hole until they realize they have fallen so far behind the times, they need to do something about their problem.
AOL would be happy though, they would get the walled garden they always dreamed about.
Actually, I find the stereotypical "Scandinavian" woman unattractive. Blondes aren't my thing, especially 6'2" broad shouldered ones.
Well, you seem to be making most of your judgements based on stereotypes, stereotypes that are based on hearsay rather than going out in the world and acquire experience. That is not uncommon, but when you fail to appreciate the beauty of our women, that's just too much!:-)
That said, I have travelled a lot around the world, and found there are certain traits that are just very beautiful in most people. In Europe, Bulgarian women are very beautiful. In South America, the Inca-Spanish mix high in the Andes has resulted in many astoningshly beautiful women. Also, I suspect that there are really a lot of beautiful women in Iran and Afghanistan, too bad they're covered up like that. I shall admit, however, that I do find those who are not too different from myself most appealing.
I suggest travelling more, it helps to form a balanced opinion.
Actually, there seems to be some conflict between Swedish Finns and Finns. Since, as you note, the Swedes were the conquerors (they had that habit for a while), there seems to be a strange bitterness. Nowadays the swedish finns are minority, and I have noted that most finns hate learning swedish in school.
But what really surprised me was when I met a Swedish-Finnish girl last year. She said that she would not speak Swedish if out on the town in Helsinki, she would be afraid to get a fist in her face. Allthough Norway was a colony under Sweden for 90 years, there is certainly nothing like that in Norway.
That someone would dream of hitting her is itself very weird: She was a very beautiful blonde, with the kind of appearance that would stop wars...
Reminds me of a story I heard about a 15-y.o. who had been brought up in Jehova's Witnesses. When she finally broke with the Witnesses, she went off to sleep with all the guys she found, because she had been thought that "that's what they do on the outside".
Most guys where actually happy to fuck her and leave her, but finally there was an atheist guy who really fell in love with her and pulled her in. He had to teach her that sex certainly was among the things they had lied to her about. Think they are still doing good.
NOTE to FBI, election officials and readers: This is not a suggestion on things to do. I am not saying that someone needs to hack the voting system, I'm just saying that if the worste case scenerio occurs people would notice. I don't want someone doing this and me ending up in Gitmo.
Excuse me for yet again being so anti-american, but I thought that the american concept of patriotism was that you would proudly hack the voting machines if it was needed to demonstrate that the election was easy to steal?
That any patriot would take the risk of being shipped off to Gitmo when it was needed to preserve democracy and freedom?
So WTF happened to patriotism?
The fact is that the voting machines needs to be hacked, at this point the only way to ensure that democracy survives in the US is that CowboyNeal is elected for President.
It means that some patriotic hacker has to do it, and I see nothing wrong with advocating it.
If you want to improve your chances of not going to Gitmo, you may want to hack the machines and hop on a plane to somewhere more free and stage a press conference there just as election officers discover the hack.
I don't know, but AFAIK, they included some debian control files in the SA distribution itself, to make it easy to build debs independently.
However, the Debian SA maintainers have actively pushed pre-releases and rc's into experimental, so clearly they have a lot of experience with packaging it. Besides, they are active SA developers too, so the packages are in the best possible hands.
I'm not on debian-devel, so I haven't seen the most reason discussion, but there was something seen from debian news that indicated they might not get 3.0 in Sarge, which would be shame IMHO, it is no point in releasing with 2.64, it would be deprecated for use by then anyway...
There is a long-term solution: It is going to take a while, but with genetically engineered chickens that specifically target spammers. Spammer eats chicken, but chokes on the bones. The great advantage is that spammers will not realize the danger before they are all terminated. Very effective.;-)
I'm sorry to say, but it is my opinion that the US had very little to do with the collapse of the Soviet regime. I think it had very little to do with leadership at all. Reagan had very little to do with it, IMHO, Gorbatchev played a role in that he kept his hands off of what happened, but that's it.
The Soviet regime, and its ideological followers, collapsed on itself, and there are many reasons why it drove itself to collapse, lack of freedom has something to do with many of the reasons, lack of incentives to be productive are also important.
However, what made the revolution was simply lots and lots of people standing up. Huge crowds waking up from apathy was the single most important reason why it happened.
The US has indeed a remarkable ability to heal itself, and I'm sure it can this time too. However, ringing the bells to get the crowds to wake up from apathy is a huge undertaking.
Not only that, this is exactly the kind of stupidity that the citizens in Eastern Europe had to go through every now and then. It is a major reason why the whole system collapsed, people won't take the shit of someone standing above their heads, the daily humilitation and the "we can't tell you".
It is high time the citizens of the United States learn from recent mistakes. How many can you wake up and get to realize that the US is now of the level of former communists countries with respect to freedom?
I can't imagine a one-man-militia, so necessarily, someone has to band together and say: "The government is no so corrupt, good men must band together and overthrow it by violent means if necessary." That's an incitement to violence AFAICU.... A threat of violence is also incitement.
Having the wrong opinion and voicing it is generally okay.
Yup, first amendment, right?
Free speech ends when you're inciting violence.
....but, I thought that was the second amendment? I mean, how can a well-organized milita exist without someone inciting violence?
Note that I'm not American and I'm a pacifist. I think inciting violence is wrong, and that change is not a matter of arms, but a matter of people getting off their fat asses. I'm just trying to understand some aspects of American culture that looks funny to many europeans...
Uhm, let me get this straight. We have an example here of extreme broadband penetration. And we can have another example: Sweden. I think they are top 2...
Then, on the other side, you have US. Which isn't that bad, but doesn't really make it to the top when it comes to broadband....
In one case, you have had, and still has, a very high level of government involvement. In the other case, some say that you have a bunch of providers and a free market system.
So, you'd think that you would want to learn from the case that has actually provided the best services, wouldn't you?
You can talk about free market all you want, but the fact is: Either the free market didn't work, or it isn't a free market...
(I'll be fair: I think it is mainly due to the lack of a free market, but then I also think that a working free market is as rare as a working communist state, allthough perhaps not as vulnerable to megalomaniacs).
Refusing to take note of success stories and cite ideology instead is perhaps not such a good idea...
If broadband really spurred growth in other parts of society is a different matter, though...
You're missing the point. I was not addressing whether it is really happening in the US yet. I was addressing the question of how things worked in Soviet Russia in their near allies. It is up to you to decide whether you're sliding down the slippery slope at full speed. I think you are.
Besides, does it really make much of a difference if the US is abusing citizens of other countries
(Maher Arar is an excellent example), or its own? Abuse is abuse.
The Soviets lived in constant fear of Big Brother because unlike our government,
Not really.
You'd actually have to do something to get onto their shitlist. For most, who did not care, the led a boring but safe life.
My parents were communists in the early 60-ties, and my uncle married a girl from Eastern Germany. In fact, my mother was a Norwegian delegate to a big youth-conference in Bulgaria in 1968, but that became a big wake-up-call for her. Pretty much all the delegates were brain-dead droids, except the Czechoslovakians, who had a government heading in the right direction. That's how my parents viewed the possible future of communism, not authoratorian, more anarchistic.
While they were there, the Soviets invaded Czechoslovakia. To my parents, that's the straw that broke the camels' back, and they resigned.
They also made some moves towards their Eastern German friends, which made my parents enter the STASI shitlist. It didn't really matter to them, but it has been very interesting to look in the STASI archives now. They knew pretty much everything.
To those never entering the shitlist, what made a difference was the constant pounding of head against the beaurocratic brickwall, the humiliation of "sorry, you're not allowed to enter that flight", "you're not authorized by proper authorities", always have to submit to some greater authority. Always hearing "you have nothing to fear if you have done nothing wrong". To most, that's something they could live with.
And what it would take to change it had very little to do with leadership, it had to do with people getting off their asses.
My cousin (the son of the Eastern German), studied three years in Jacksonville. He happened to be just a couple of blocks away from Bush when the planes hit on 911. Because of family that was still in Eastern Germany, they had been there a lot, even though STASI made sure they were thoroughly examined on every visit. He knew what that was about. The privatized US beaurocracy (especially in banks and insurance companies) is not very different from the Eastern German beaurocracy according to him. The three months that he spent in the US after 911, he felt that the US had lost most of its lead on Soviet-era Eastern Germany.
Now, the hard part in Eastern Germany was to get on the shitlist. You would actually have to do something. They did in fact not have the resources to keep a tab on everyone.
Well, according to this article, that's pretty much the reaction she got, yes....:-)
And for the/. droolers, it's a picture of the girl herself there. Some "Security Industry Salesmen" probably had their prejudices about blond girls thoroughly whacked....
My mother is (the equivalent of) a high-school teacher, and she had some problems with plagiarizers recently.
First thing she noticed was one of her best students starting to slip. She went from the occasional A to regular C's. Then she delivered an essay that was fairly well written, but really didn't make much sense: Many of the things she wrote about was definately not in the sources she quoted. So she quietly told the student that she believed the essay to be plagarized. At first the student went whining home to dad, who wrote my mother an angry letter saying "my daughter would never do anything like that, you hurt her feelings, blah, blah", to which my mother responded pretty much "my main concern is to ensure that my students are equipped to perform in life, and life will sometimes hurt their feelings".
That worked well with this student, she graduated with a B+.
She told me about this ordeal a few weaks happened, at which point my mother complained "plagiarism is so rampant, I may only let work done in schools count". I responded: No way, it has leveled the playing field: Yes it is easier to plagarize, but equally easy to bust them. Look here, google is your friend!
So, she busted five students, even after warning them "I'm checking on you!" At the same time, she makes sure they understand that it is just a "now pull yourself together"-message. If they just do it once, it is just a one-time bust. She hasn't had many problems after that...
Great. Every geeks' favorite excuse for sitting on their fat asses and do nothing good: "It isn't my fault, I was just writing the tools", "I have to feed my family, what they use it for is not my concern".
Fact is, there are a bunch of geeks involved in developing that/. geeks would consider Evil[tm]: DRM, Echelon, auto-cease-and-desist mailers etc. They're using exactly the same excuse.
There are actually some thinkers that point out that it is possible to design tools with evil in mind. Furthermore, everyone has an individual responsibility to understand when the things he are building is built with evil in mind. You can't just sit there after the fact saying "I didn't know what my actions would result in", especially, as a technologist, if you couldn't, who could?
I suppose neither you nor I read the whole e-mail he sent to his LUG. It was just an excerpt that was posted, and I couldn't find the whole e-mail.
But of course, who cares to RTWFE-M?
Probably, this guy is not only advocating Linux, he is probably actively developing something, if not the kernel, so possibly tons of other stuff. Then, the reason why he steps down is not because the military is using it, but because he refuses to contribute to the military. That is a decision I respect.
You make it sound like this is a simple matter, but it isn't for most thinking people: On one hand, one wishes to contribute to development, and one holds ideals of freedom highly. Those ideals include no restrictions on fields of use, which includes military.
On the other hand, you don't want that the stuff you develop to be used for evil. You realize, contrary to most ducks, that it is your personal privilige and responsibility to understand and define what's evil.
So, what the hell do you do?
My personal decision is that I can't prevent my stuff to be used for evil in many cases. The best I can hope for is that there's a net positive effect of what I do, and work very hard to achieve that.
So, what he saying is that most geeks don't care about doing good, they just develop the tools to gain notority in society, so that they can get sex in spite of all their other shortcomings. If that's all people have in mind, the net positive of free software may be neglible. So, he quits.
It is something like this I have suggested that "we" build in areas where people are living under suppression, where the Internet is under strong control and the government can censor everything.
A free and uncontrolled Internet could be very valuable under those conditions, and if the routers where hard to find, it could be a very powerful democratizing force.
It's not particularly clear to me that you could even, say, cite Hitler's writings or show pictures of historical artifacts without running afoul of it, even should you (rightfully!) condemn the horrible things that happened during that war.
The reason why that is not quite clear to you, is that perhaps because you have never been to Germany or spoken to any Germans who grew up in the post-war era...?
Look, I'm not German either, but I know that it was (is?) quite common that kids in Germany would read those speeches in school, undress that rhetoric, so as to make sure they'll never fall into that trap again.
It couldn't occur to you that when Richard Perle is calling for a total war, he's saying the exact same thing as Goebbels did in 1943, the Germans know that, because they've been through that speech countless times, and they know fanatism when they see it?
Clearly, the geeks will have an edge, but could we give them a really great advantage? Could we, for example, build them a real independent Internet that the hardlines wouldn't control? The problem is that hardliners control the major nodes in the network, that's how they can enforce censorship. If they couldn't control the nodes, what then?
Allthough the article talks about cafes, I know for sure that there are also a whole lot of home PCs in Iran, most progressive middle-class people have them.
I was thinking, in urban areas, for example Tehran, if it existed a few Wi-Fi hotspots, and others started buying base stations, and kept them open, you would soon have a complete urban network where authorities would not be in control of any of the nodes. They could perhaps crack down on base stations, but at the time it hits them that there exists a complete, independent network, the airwaves would be so full of them, tracking them down could be well beyond their ability.
But, that's just an urban network, to make it really useful, you would need to connect it to the Internet. So, you would need to ensure that some nodes have a connection to the Internet that the authorities can't control. You probably want to have several different connections to the Internet, and I guess several different types, so even if one kind of connection is identified and shut down, traffic can still route through other connections.
This is going to be expensive, but I figured, at least in Europe, there are many companies doing business in Iran, and they probably want to continue after the revolution comes. It'll be a small investment for them to secretly distribute a few satellite phones to willing Iranians to establish an uncontrolled connection to the Internet.
So, what do the/. think, is this viable?
Why is a free Internet important? I think that it is extremely important to keep the communications flowing, so that western policy-makers can decide how to help the Iranian people based upon information flowing from a wide spectrum of Iranians. Not only that, if we on the outside can maintain an open debate, the revolution is more likely to be a peaceful one.
OK, I know it was modded funny, but really.... Valentine's day is about romance and love. A threesome is not either. Sure, you can fantasize about it, it's OK, but doing it is not going to earn you any good love.
And I'm telling you, if you're really in love with a person, it is not even on your mind, then all you can think about is this other person, and you simply want to spend your time just with her. Just you and her.
It might be the time to have sex, however, if both feel like it. But take your time, the worst thing you can do with sex is rushing it. Also, it is too common that people have sex the first time when drunk, or at night. It is much better to do it in the middle of the day, when you're awake and attention is at the top. Then, put several hours aside, make sure you don't have anything you have to catch. That's a prerequisite for good sex.
Slashdot Mirror
AOL would be happy though, they would get the walled garden they always dreamed about.
Well, you seem to be making most of your judgements based on stereotypes, stereotypes that are based on hearsay rather than going out in the world and acquire experience. That is not uncommon, but when you fail to appreciate the beauty of our women, that's just too much! :-)
That said, I have travelled a lot around the world, and found there are certain traits that are just very beautiful in most people. In Europe, Bulgarian women are very beautiful. In South America, the Inca-Spanish mix high in the Andes has resulted in many astoningshly beautiful women. Also, I suspect that there are really a lot of beautiful women in Iran and Afghanistan, too bad they're covered up like that. I shall admit, however, that I do find those who are not too different from myself most appealing.
I suggest travelling more, it helps to form a balanced opinion.
But what really surprised me was when I met a Swedish-Finnish girl last year. She said that she would not speak Swedish if out on the town in Helsinki, she would be afraid to get a fist in her face. Allthough Norway was a colony under Sweden for 90 years, there is certainly nothing like that in Norway.
That someone would dream of hitting her is itself very weird: She was a very beautiful blonde, with the kind of appearance that would stop wars...
Most guys where actually happy to fuck her and leave her, but finally there was an atheist guy who really fell in love with her and pulled her in. He had to teach her that sex certainly was among the things they had lied to her about. Think they are still doing good.
Excuse me for yet again being so anti-american, but I thought that the american concept of patriotism was that you would proudly hack the voting machines if it was needed to demonstrate that the election was easy to steal?
That any patriot would take the risk of being shipped off to Gitmo when it was needed to preserve democracy and freedom?
So WTF happened to patriotism?
The fact is that the voting machines needs to be hacked, at this point the only way to ensure that democracy survives in the US is that CowboyNeal is elected for President.
It means that some patriotic hacker has to do it, and I see nothing wrong with advocating it.
If you want to improve your chances of not going to Gitmo, you may want to hack the machines and hop on a plane to somewhere more free and stage a press conference there just as election officers discover the hack.
However, the Debian SA maintainers have actively pushed pre-releases and rc's into experimental, so clearly they have a lot of experience with packaging it. Besides, they are active SA developers too, so the packages are in the best possible hands.
I'm not on debian-devel, so I haven't seen the most reason discussion, but there was something seen from debian news that indicated they might not get 3.0 in Sarge, which would be shame IMHO, it is no point in releasing with 2.64, it would be deprecated for use by then anyway...
There is a long-term solution: It is going to take a while, but with genetically engineered chickens that specifically target spammers. Spammer eats chicken, but chokes on the bones. The great advantage is that spammers will not realize the danger before they are all terminated. Very effective. ;-)
The Soviet regime, and its ideological followers, collapsed on itself, and there are many reasons why it drove itself to collapse, lack of freedom has something to do with many of the reasons, lack of incentives to be productive are also important.
However, what made the revolution was simply lots and lots of people standing up. Huge crowds waking up from apathy was the single most important reason why it happened.
The US has indeed a remarkable ability to heal itself, and I'm sure it can this time too. However, ringing the bells to get the crowds to wake up from apathy is a huge undertaking.
It is high time the citizens of the United States learn from recent mistakes. How many can you wake up and get to realize that the US is now of the level of former communists countries with respect to freedom?
The problem is with carismatic mad-men, they are known to exist, and it has happened more than once in history that they can get masses moving, compare this with Herman Goerings famous quote: Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. (check the link for the rest).
Goering's observation could undermine Washington's view, if it was correct. And frankly, I think it is.
I can't imagine a one-man-militia, so necessarily, someone has to band together and say: "The government is no so corrupt, good men must band together and overthrow it by violent means if necessary." That's an incitement to violence AFAICU.... A threat of violence is also incitement.
Yup, first amendment, right?
Free speech ends when you're inciting violence.
Note that I'm not American and I'm a pacifist. I think inciting violence is wrong, and that change is not a matter of arms, but a matter of people getting off their fat asses. I'm just trying to understand some aspects of American culture that looks funny to many europeans...
Then, on the other side, you have US. Which isn't that bad, but doesn't really make it to the top when it comes to broadband....
In one case, you have had, and still has, a very high level of government involvement. In the other case, some say that you have a bunch of providers and a free market system.
So, you'd think that you would want to learn from the case that has actually provided the best services, wouldn't you?
You can talk about free market all you want, but the fact is: Either the free market didn't work, or it isn't a free market...
(I'll be fair: I think it is mainly due to the lack of a free market, but then I also think that a working free market is as rare as a working communist state, allthough perhaps not as vulnerable to megalomaniacs).
Refusing to take note of success stories and cite ideology instead is perhaps not such a good idea...
If broadband really spurred growth in other parts of society is a different matter, though...
You mean seriously that the fact that Bush is planning the final step to become full-fledged dictator has passed unnoticed to the mainstream US media?
Besides, does it really make much of a difference if the US is abusing citizens of other countries (Maher Arar is an excellent example), or its own? Abuse is abuse.
The Soviets lived in constant fear of Big Brother because unlike our government,
Not really.
You'd actually have to do something to get onto their shitlist. For most, who did not care, the led a boring but safe life.
My parents were communists in the early 60-ties, and my uncle married a girl from Eastern Germany. In fact, my mother was a Norwegian delegate to a big youth-conference in Bulgaria in 1968, but that became a big wake-up-call for her. Pretty much all the delegates were brain-dead droids, except the Czechoslovakians, who had a government heading in the right direction. That's how my parents viewed the possible future of communism, not authoratorian, more anarchistic. While they were there, the Soviets invaded Czechoslovakia. To my parents, that's the straw that broke the camels' back, and they resigned.
They also made some moves towards their Eastern German friends, which made my parents enter the STASI shitlist. It didn't really matter to them, but it has been very interesting to look in the STASI archives now. They knew pretty much everything.
To those never entering the shitlist, what made a difference was the constant pounding of head against the beaurocratic brickwall, the humiliation of "sorry, you're not allowed to enter that flight", "you're not authorized by proper authorities", always have to submit to some greater authority. Always hearing "you have nothing to fear if you have done nothing wrong". To most, that's something they could live with. And what it would take to change it had very little to do with leadership, it had to do with people getting off their asses.
My cousin (the son of the Eastern German), studied three years in Jacksonville. He happened to be just a couple of blocks away from Bush when the planes hit on 911. Because of family that was still in Eastern Germany, they had been there a lot, even though STASI made sure they were thoroughly examined on every visit. He knew what that was about. The privatized US beaurocracy (especially in banks and insurance companies) is not very different from the Eastern German beaurocracy according to him. The three months that he spent in the US after 911, he felt that the US had lost most of its lead on Soviet-era Eastern Germany.
That includes freedom from reprisal from government. Look here to know what happens if you try to say that abstinence only is wrong
Now, the hard part in Eastern Germany was to get on the shitlist. You would actually have to do something. They did in fact not have the resources to keep a tab on everyone.
With Echelon, they can.
And for the /. droolers, it's a picture of the girl herself there. Some "Security Industry Salesmen" probably had their prejudices about blond girls thoroughly whacked....
Too bad she can't ever go to the US again. She'll be arrested under the DMCA immediately. Probably Patriot Act too. It'll be Guantanamo for her...
First thing she noticed was one of her best students starting to slip. She went from the occasional A to regular C's. Then she delivered an essay that was fairly well written, but really didn't make much sense: Many of the things she wrote about was definately not in the sources she quoted. So she quietly told the student that she believed the essay to be plagarized. At first the student went whining home to dad, who wrote my mother an angry letter saying "my daughter would never do anything like that, you hurt her feelings, blah, blah", to which my mother responded pretty much "my main concern is to ensure that my students are equipped to perform in life, and life will sometimes hurt their feelings".
That worked well with this student, she graduated with a B+.
She told me about this ordeal a few weaks happened, at which point my mother complained "plagiarism is so rampant, I may only let work done in schools count". I responded: No way, it has leveled the playing field: Yes it is easier to plagarize, but equally easy to bust them. Look here, google is your friend!
So, she busted five students, even after warning them "I'm checking on you!" At the same time, she makes sure they understand that it is just a "now pull yourself together"-message. If they just do it once, it is just a one-time bust. She hasn't had many problems after that...
Great. Every geeks' favorite excuse for sitting on their fat asses and do nothing good: "It isn't my fault, I was just writing the tools", "I have to feed my family, what they use it for is not my concern".
Fact is, there are a bunch of geeks involved in developing that /. geeks would consider Evil[tm]: DRM, Echelon, auto-cease-and-desist mailers etc. They're using exactly the same excuse.
There are actually some thinkers that point out that it is possible to design tools with evil in mind. Furthermore, everyone has an individual responsibility to understand when the things he are building is built with evil in mind. You can't just sit there after the fact saying "I didn't know what my actions would result in", especially, as a technologist, if you couldn't, who could?
I suppose neither you nor I read the whole e-mail he sent to his LUG. It was just an excerpt that was posted, and I couldn't find the whole e-mail. But of course, who cares to RTWFE-M?
Probably, this guy is not only advocating Linux, he is probably actively developing something, if not the kernel, so possibly tons of other stuff. Then, the reason why he steps down is not because the military is using it, but because he refuses to contribute to the military. That is a decision I respect.
You make it sound like this is a simple matter, but it isn't for most thinking people: On one hand, one wishes to contribute to development, and one holds ideals of freedom highly. Those ideals include no restrictions on fields of use, which includes military.
On the other hand, you don't want that the stuff you develop to be used for evil. You realize, contrary to most ducks, that it is your personal privilige and responsibility to understand and define what's evil.
So, what the hell do you do?
My personal decision is that I can't prevent my stuff to be used for evil in many cases. The best I can hope for is that there's a net positive effect of what I do, and work very hard to achieve that.
So, what he saying is that most geeks don't care about doing good, they just develop the tools to gain notority in society, so that they can get sex in spite of all their other shortcomings. If that's all people have in mind, the net positive of free software may be neglible. So, he quits.
Excuse me while I jump into my asbesto underwear.
A free and uncontrolled Internet could be very valuable under those conditions, and if the routers where hard to find, it could be a very powerful democratizing force.
The reason why that is not quite clear to you, is that perhaps because you have never been to Germany or spoken to any Germans who grew up in the post-war era...?
Look, I'm not German either, but I know that it was (is?) quite common that kids in Germany would read those speeches in school, undress that rhetoric, so as to make sure they'll never fall into that trap again.
It couldn't occur to you that when Richard Perle is calling for a total war, he's saying the exact same thing as Goebbels did in 1943, the Germans know that, because they've been through that speech countless times, and they know fanatism when they see it?
Allthough the article talks about cafes, I know for sure that there are also a whole lot of home PCs in Iran, most progressive middle-class people have them.
I was thinking, in urban areas, for example Tehran, if it existed a few Wi-Fi hotspots, and others started buying base stations, and kept them open, you would soon have a complete urban network where authorities would not be in control of any of the nodes. They could perhaps crack down on base stations, but at the time it hits them that there exists a complete, independent network, the airwaves would be so full of them, tracking them down could be well beyond their ability.
But, that's just an urban network, to make it really useful, you would need to connect it to the Internet. So, you would need to ensure that some nodes have a connection to the Internet that the authorities can't control. You probably want to have several different connections to the Internet, and I guess several different types, so even if one kind of connection is identified and shut down, traffic can still route through other connections.
This is going to be expensive, but I figured, at least in Europe, there are many companies doing business in Iran, and they probably want to continue after the revolution comes. It'll be a small investment for them to secretly distribute a few satellite phones to willing Iranians to establish an uncontrolled connection to the Internet.
So, what do the /. think, is this viable?
Why is a free Internet important? I think that it is extremely important to keep the communications flowing, so that western policy-makers can decide how to help the Iranian people based upon information flowing from a wide spectrum of Iranians. Not only that, if we on the outside can maintain an open debate, the revolution is more likely to be a peaceful one.
And I'm telling you, if you're really in love with a person, it is not even on your mind, then all you can think about is this other person, and you simply want to spend your time just with her. Just you and her.
It might be the time to have sex, however, if both feel like it. But take your time, the worst thing you can do with sex is rushing it. Also, it is too common that people have sex the first time when drunk, or at night. It is much better to do it in the middle of the day, when you're awake and attention is at the top. Then, put several hours aside, make sure you don't have anything you have to catch. That's a prerequisite for good sex.
Big house? Is that what you call the buildings on Capitol? :-)