Your broadband router is, by definition, a rudamentary firewall. It's performing NAT (network address translation) for your private network (your wireless client) and giving you a private IP address. That in itself will protect you from from the type of virus/trojan we're talking about. As an exercise, try setting the router to put one of your machiens on the DMZ (demilitarized zone) and run a fresh unpatched copy of Windows 98SE or later. See what happens.
Personal anecdote: In Sept. 2003 I got Earthlink DSL and connected my primary 98SE machine (had some patches, but not recent) directly to the modem to do the initial account configuration, knowing that if I had any problems the Earthlink support would not assist me if a router is in the picture. Within 3 hours I had 4 different viruses in the system.
The post above this is exactly right, and I'll explain, using the US as an example. In the US there are 3 "branches of government" as set down in the constitution. There's the Executive Branch (President), the Legislative Branch (Congress) and the Judicial Branch. They each have duties, and the existance of the three brings balance (none of them can go overboard, because it's almost impossible to control all 3).
You'd think that, but the Republicans bought the Legislative, stole the Executive, and are making inroads on the Judicial. The way they see it the judicial branch should be a wholly owned subsidiary of the executive branch. (Yes, corporate metaphore intentional)
Have you ever worked as an election judge? I didn't think so. At least here in DuPage County, IL, we can and *do* ask for identification. Normally, you don't need to show an ID - if your signature matches that on the preprinted application, you're all set. If you're never voted at that precinct before, we will ask for a state-issued ID. If there's a question of whether you're eligible (maybe you moved to a different precinct and the paperwork didn't catch up, maybe the county just screwed up), we will ask you for state ID. This is perfectly legal and part of standard procedure.
You can "get out the vote" to illegal aliens all you want, but they're not registered so they won't be able to vote. You *have* heard of voter registration, haven't you?
Not true. The regulation is for folks who run businesses on the rooftops for the purpose of baseball. You don't have to pay the city a dime to sit on top of your house. BTW, said regulation is currently the only thing keeping the Cubs' lawyers on their leash against the rooftop owners.
They blew an incredible opportunity with Voyager. Wouldn't it have been interesting if Voyager returned home only to find the earth completely assimilated by The Borg and the entire Federation being decimated? Or maybe just have the Borg follow them home, to add a bitter note to their return?
Like, did you watch the same Voyager finale that I did? The borg did follow them home.
Insightful?!? Allow me to unravel your web of shit.
The poster has no concept of history whatsoever. First, some things to clear up. In the 1948 election, Strom Thurmond was not running as a Republican OR a Democract. He was running as a semi-independent. A group of Southern Democrats, who thought Harry Truman (a democrat) was going too far with his civil rights policies, broke from the Democratic party and formed their own party with their key point being the "right of the States". In practice, the only States' Right they cared about was the right to allow segregation. (These were unofficially known as "Dixiecrats".)
's true. Strom started out as a Democrat before bolting the party, because the party shifted towards pro-civil rights and away from the Southern Democrats' (segregationist) philosophy. What's your point, exactly?
Second, the Democratic Party nominated Eisenhower as a candidate and wanted him to face Truman in the Democratic Primary. Eisenhower (as a national WWII hero) knew that he would win, but declined the nomination. He threw in the towel, and is reported to have discussed this with Truman, saying he (Eisenhower) would decline the nomnation provided Truman did not seek a second term in 1952. We all know the rest of the story - Truman rode around the county, decrying the Republican Congress; the media picked Dewey (Republican) as their favorite; and Truman won by a landslide.
Again, what's your point? I could give a shit what party Eisenhower was from. The imprtant point is that Truman was against segregation, Strom was not, regardless of what party they were members of. Do you really think the whole Trent Lott fiasco was because he "misspoke himself"? Yes. Lott has a history of misspeaking himself. Regardless of whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, you have to agree that Lott is the kind of person that shouldn't be allowed to speak without a teleprompter. If one "misspeaks" himself often enough, that's usually a clue that he's in fact not misspeaking at all. Lott said almost the exact same thing about Strom twenty years ago. He has a history saying things like that. He wouldn't keep saying those things unless somewhere inside him he believed it. Furthermore, if you can't speak without a teleprompter, you shouldn't be the head of the most powerful legislature in the history of civilization. Or the President for that matter, but I digress.
Furthermore, Lott did not say "If we'd had segregation in 1948, things would be better.", nor did he say "Strom, if your platform had been carried in '48, we'd all be happy." He merely said that if Thurmond had been president, we wouldn't have had "these problems" today. He didn't say what problems. It's conceiveable he was talking about Korea, for example. If Thurmond had been elected in '48, it's likely that a) We wouldn't have gone into Korea at all; or b) We would have gone in, but Thurmond wouldn't have fired McArthur like Truman did. He could have been talking about anything at all.
Ah, the First Law of Bullshit: Deny he said that which he was documented saying. Anyone with a clue knew exactly what he meant, including the room full of (Republican) spectators who were there, who let out an audible gasp. If he wasn't talking about segregation, he would have clearly said so afterward instead of half-assedly apologizing for it. But he didn't say he meant something else, because he didn't mean something else.
Fact is, there's no way in hell Thurmond would have even been elected, given the strong Democratic support for civil rights. Second of all, even if he _had_ been elected, there's no way he would have passed any anti-civil rights stuff with the do-nothing 80th Republican Congress, and by the time the 81st Congress rolled around, it was strongly controlled by Democratic advocaters of Civil Rights, which is what allowed Truman to pass the order of de-segregation for the U.S. Armed Forces so quickly.
Again, the point of the history lesson is...? We know Thurmond didn't get elected, and we also know that Lott now thinks he ought to have been.
lso, Lott was 5 or 6 in 1948. How many of you paid attenton to politics when you were 5 or 6? How many of you in college now remember the detailed platforms of the '84 election? I sure don't.
No, but I know what Strom Thurmond stood for in his early career, and I knew it before and after the Lott fiasco. Whether or not I was alive in 1948 (I wasn't) bears little relevance to Trent Lott's views on civil rights.
Fact is, whatever Lott's remark meant, it got blown out of proportion. The reason it took 3 days for ANYONE (on either side) to get upset at his remark, is because they had to go back and look at the '48 election, and figure out what the hell platform Thurmond was running on, because nobody remembers.
Anyone with basic U.S. history education should know a little about Strom Thurmond's Presidential platform. And I read about Lott's remarks on Yahoo the next day, not three days later. Would you like me to dig up a few links?
Regardless, he should have known that anything he says as a politician is going to get misinterpreted, and that's why you keep your mouth shut unless your speechwriter and spin doctor are with you.
True dat. I hope you'll extend the same courtesy to members of the Democratic Party.
Hmm...last time I checked (yup = right there on the CD's), Metallica was signed by Elektra. And last time I checked, Elektra wasn't owned by Metallica. Nice try though.
Sometimes I wish I lived in a different county. Here in DuPage County, IL, everything has to be conduit. We're one of just a few counties in the country (Cook being another one) where romex is illegal inside a wall without conduit. It can be quite annoying sometimes.
A lot of people seem to havea misunderstanding of the Bill of Rights here, so let me try to sort this out. First of all, the Constitution applies (affirmed in Amendment 14) to every citizen in the United States and on every square inch of every US state and territory. The Bill of Rights consists of the first ten Amendments to the Constitution, ratified December 1791 and taking effect somewhere around 1792.
Now, regarding the statement "The First Amendment doesn't apply to private schools. They can make whatever rules they want.", the point they're trying to get at is correct, but the statement is technically wrong. Let's take a look at the Amendment in question:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." - First Amendment to the Consitution, http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/billrights/bil lrights.html
This is where "freedom of speech" come from. Unfortunately, many people seem to think this means "I have the write to say whatever I want, wherever I want!", and this just isn't the case. What the 1st Amendment says (and it's right there in the previous paragraph for anyone who wishes to question it) is that Congress (and the federal government) cannot limit your freedom of speech. It doesn't say that private citizens or organizations cannot restrict your speech on their property or retaliate against you for something you say. For example, if I wrote a Shroom Manefesto (*1) that annoyed a lot of people and I placed it around the Internet, the federal government would have no right to stop me. Slashdot could, however, remove my posting at their will and it would be completely legal. You also have the right to prohibit me from reading it from your front lawn. The Constitution guarentees that I can speak, but not that anyone has to listen. Back to the issue at hand, though. It's not that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply in private schools (I can't reiterate enough times that it in fact does), it's that the 1st Amendment just doesn't give you any protection from private schools for your speech. They're not the government. As long as you're going to their school, they can punish you for pretty much anything they don't like, within the rest of law. In short, the 1st Amendment applies in private schools, it just doesn't protect you from private schools. (*2)
Sorry if that sounded like a lesson in semantics, I didn't intend it to be. It's just that so many people misunderstand the Constitution.
Jeff Sand (Shroom)
shroom@bradley.edu
*1: This assumes that I'm not soliciting violence or something like that. That's not protected the same way as other speech, or so says the Supreme Court.
*2: Not to say that private schools can do anything they want to you for speaking out against them. They can't break your arm or lock you in a room without food or water all day, that would violate several other laws - just not the 1st Amendment
Take a look at IRC. Everyone has access to the specifications. That means that anyone can write a client and a server. Only certain people actually run active servers, but nothing can stop me from writing a client that will take advantage of some poorly written server. In theory, I would then be able to get a * next to my nick (server operator), an @ (channel operator) and who knows what. The trick is that there is a community. Everyone has access to the source => anyone can submit a patch that will prevent me from running my exploit.
Oh yeah, there's no cracking problems on IRC. Nah, EFNet is the most stable network around, thanks to Open Source! Server exploits never happen because somebody always fixes those holes in a jiffy. No DoS or op hacking there! Safe and secure, yesirrie!
If you're gonna promote conspiracy theories, at least try to get your facts straight. Last time I checked (and I have my Illinois absentee ballot right here in front of me), the Reform Party kicked ol' Pat out a couple months ago. John Hagelin is the Reform candidate. Pat's running independent.
You know, I can never understand why people get all into a frenzy about censorship, freedom of speech, and technology, and then go and bash the Democratic Party, Clinton, and Lieberman. The fact of the matter is that while many of us Democrats support the idea that violent/sexual material should generally be restricted from children, it is the Republican party and right-wing fundamentalists who seek to ban it. Take a look at Internet censorship laws. Who proposes them? Republicans like Sen. John McCain. (Yes Katz, McCain was the one who supported mandatory filtering at schools and libraries, not Lieberman). Take a look at "child protection" laws like COPA. Who's behind them? The Republican-led Congress. The GOP has historically supported censorship in the name of fundamentalist morals for years.
The next little leap of logic I'd like at address is this backlash against Al Gore when it comes to technology. Let's take a look at Gore's history for a moment. Which major candidate in this election has been a constant proponent of computers and technology in our schools? Who started pushing for email and the Internet in the federal government before most people even knew about it? Which candidate has been fighting to bring technology to poor areas and the people lease able to otherwise access it? The answers to all of these would be Al Gore. Gore has consistently supported the expansion of the Internet, while the GOP has consistently fought to restrict it and censor it. All whining about "creating the Internet" aside (which really wasn't what he meant at all), Gore has done more to promote the Internet than just about any other federal official in history. You will hear the GOP, on the other hand, talking about "protecting our children" from the Internet, never about embracing it (unless you count the pop-up ad on his website to donate money). Which brings us back to the main point:
There are certain things which society has deemed innapropriate, in general for children. These things include extreme violence and sexuality. This is not to say that these things do not exist in the world we live in, or that they should not exist, or even that all children can't accept or understand them. What it does mean is that children ought to be kept away from these things until or unless their parents deem it appropriate for them. At the same time, such materials should not be restricted in any way from aduilts. This is where labeling, such as movie and video game ratings, comes into play. Ratings are not censorship, and the current hysteria here and elsewhere about violent games being marked as such is rediculous. Let's look at this realisticly. Let's say I want to play a Quake deathmatch on the network here at Bradley University. I should (and am) free to go to the software store and buy a copy of Q3A and play it as I see fit. Labeling it as violent does not impede my doing this, and it won't affect my purchase since I already know what the game is about. What it does do is shift the responsibility of deciding what is appropriate for children to the parents. I fail to see what the problem is if K-mart chooses not to sell "M"-rated games to kids. The games are not banned at all, they are just off-limits by default to kids . Parents are still free to buy those games for their kids if they feel it is appropriate for them, it's the parents' choice. This is just like porn. You can't buy it yourself if you're under 18 because society feels it's an adult subject, but your parents are completely free to buy it for you if they think you should have it. The decision is simply shifted to the parents. That said, we musn't restrict information. Preventing children from talking about drugs is a lot different from preventing children from access to drugs. (Or guns, or sex, or whatever). It is this restriction of information that these neo-luddites, or fundamentalists, or "moralists", or whatever (pick a name) are really centered on. Information is power, and these groups don't want other people to have that power. This is what we should really be concerned about, not the fact that Lieberman thinks movie studios shouldn't market violence to young children (which they shouldn't, and for the record, Leiberman has never propsed any type of legislation banning said material). Katz bashing the Democratic party over this issue while letting the GOP off the hook* shows bias and ignorance. I guess Katz is just really confused if he can write an essay like that and then apparently empathize with the party that supports all censorshp bills (and don't get me started about their stance on spam).
I wonder what Katz really wants out of this election - the better party for technology, or a little more tax decrease to line his pockets since he's morally opposed to making any money as a writer.
* Yes, I realized that he mentioned George W. in his sermon as well. But the implication was that the Big Bad Democrats (tm) are coming to take away our rights and George just happened to be there for the ride. Read between the lines, folks.
GET A FUCKING CLUE MORON. How is sending packets through the ports Napster uses violating ANYONES copyright?
Comments like this really make me pissed. How is it violating copyright? If you download a song from Napster that the artist didn't give you permission to do, you're violating copyright and you're violating the law. Now I know that technically it's the user breaking the law and not Napster. But probably 99.9% of all Napster use violates copyright law, and something's got to be done about it. Frankly, I think the RIAA's jihad against Napster is misguided, but something needs to be done. Maybe Napster needs to have a mechanism for any artist to have their music blocked from the database, or soemthing like that.
Anyone who says Eudora doesn't work has either never used it, never used MS or Netscape mail clients, or is just a troll. Eudora is far and away the best email client in existence for Windows and has been for quite some time. Among its many great features (and I'm running 4.22 BTW):
Clean, sensible interface with straighforward menus and icons. Functions are where they should be: the configuration is all in one place, all message functions are in one place, all mailbox management functions are in one place, all file management functions are in one place. All in all, the interface makes sense more than any other (especially Outlook Express - is it email? usenet? hotmal? daily planner? what, you can't tell them apart?)
All mailboxes are stored in regular old text files. This means you can zip them, read them in notepad/DOS edit/word/whatever if need be, grep them, edit them, hack them, or whatever. Also makes it real easy to restore everthing after a resinstall. Not so easy with MS or Netscape.
All your address book, filter, sig, and stationary files are plain text files in the Eudora directory. See above.
The.ini file is also in the Eudora directory. Ditto above. Great when reinstalling. (Try that, Outlook).
The filter system is better than I've seen anywhere else. You can filter on darn near anything, and have darn near any response - refile into another box, delete, reply with stationary, play a sound, launch a program, raise or lower the priority, give it a color, etc.
Setting up multiple email accounts is much more straightforward than Outlook (nonexistant in Netscape). Plus you have a nice little window tab showing your accounts plainly and simply. And change personalities (i.e. the "From:" address) on the fly. Nice
No HTML (unless you ask for it), scripting, Active Controls/XML or any other crap to open up security holes. No program, script, or macro runs without your permission. EVER. 'Nuff said.
Rock solid stable. Very very rarely crashes/locks. And in 4 years I've never had any version lose any data or corrupt any file in a crash. Not once.
Doesn't muck with Windows No unnessary "integration".
Somehow, it gets through the campus firewall here. Dunno how, but it's cool.
Well that's just my $.02 or $.03 on the subject. I think that's all I have to say about that.
I usually ignore fundamentalist crap like this, but I'll take my shot at this one.
The court has turned the meaning of this protection around by prohibiting public displays of religion
Careful there, Sparky. The Court has not ruled against public displays of religion (and in fact supports said displays), the Court has ruled against government-sponsored public displays of religion. Small difference on paper, but very different things.
(though they typically only enfoce this against the Christian sects, other religions are deemed to bring a proper "diversity" to public life)
Typical Christian fundamentalist crap. Please cite an example Supreme Court opinion.
instead of adhering to its proper intent, which is that the federal government could not create a state religion and tie the rights of citizenship to membership within the state religion. The authors of the Amendment were quite accepting of the individual states having an official religion, but because the states had different sects, they didn't want the federal government to choose one over the others.
HUH? Say what? I studied the Constitution quite thoroughly in school and I've read a lot about the Bill of Rights and its intents, and I have NEVER heard that one. Which camp told you that? Buchannon, Robertson, or Falwell? The Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court (and the ACLU, and the list goes on and on) all have consistently said that freedom of religion means the right to practice the religion of your choice - or none at all. This means that the government cannot endorse any particular religion. Period.
...I played with your pics I made you belive I'm blocking out porn...
Not just Baby One More Time, probably any Britney Spears picture will be banned, just look at what she wears in any publicity shot (and she wonders why people think of her as a sex object...)
Definitely not appropriate for kids.
Warning: The above is sarcastic if you didn't get that.
Oh please. I was going to write a rebuttal, but it's not worth my time. I'm liberal because I don't have a strong father figure, and I'm gonna become gay. Yep, that's it.
So let me get this straight. If someones hears the word "fart", bleeped out, it's going to turn them into a homosexual, get them pregnant, make them a liberal? Oh my gosh...
All: In the beginning, God created the Earth...
Stan: Wait a minute, aren't you a Democrat, Kyle?
Kyle: Yeah, I think so
Stan: You're supposed to be liberal and support civil liberties!
Kyle: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press
Stan: (interrupting) That amendment sucks!
Cartman: Yeah, freedom of speech sucks!
Kyle: Don't you censor me, fat boy!
Cartman: Don't call me fat, buttfucker!
Kyle: Then don't belittle my freedom, you fucking fatass!
Cartman: God dammit, don't call me fat, you buttfucking sonofabitch!
[Pat Robertson decends from the sky]
Stan: Holy shit, it's Pat Robertson!
Cartman: What are you doing in South Park, Pat?
Pat Robertson: I come spreading conservative Christian values.
Kyle: Oh, fuck! I'm sorry, Pat!
PR: Fear not, a hurricane will kill you and all the homosexuals later. I am looking for a place called The Oscars.
Stan: We can take you to the Oscars, in fact, we're nominated!
[They start walking]
Cartman: Dude, this is gay.
Stan: Dude, don't say gay in front of Pat Robertson.
Cartman: Aw, fuck you.
[They all travel to LA, where Trey Parker is picketing at the Shrine Auditorium]
Stan: This is it, who are you looking for?
PR: Him! [points to Trey Parker]
Trey: So, we meet again, Pat Robertson.
PR: You are turning this country into a cestpool of homosexuals, liberals, and anti-Christian bigots!
Trey: And you have attacked the freedom on which this country is based!
PR: You have taken the Lord's name in vain for the last time.
Trey: My movies bring happiness to people around the world.
PR: I'm here to put an end to your blasphemy
Trey: This time we finish it. [stands] There can be only one.
Stan: Dude, this is pretty fucked up right here. [Pat and Trey fight] Kids: Go Trey! [Pat looks at them] Uh, go Pat!
[Pat and Trey fight more, Mortal Kombat style.] Kyle: Oh my god! They killed Kenny!
Pat: Boys, help me put an end to him once and for all.
Trey: No, boys, help me, so that I can put an end to him.
Pat: God is watching you, boys. You know who to help.
Stan: I don't know what to do, dude. Who should we help?
Cartman: I say we help Trey Parker.
Kyle: Eh, you're just saying that because he made you famous.
Cartman: Hey! I don't need to take that kinda shit from a liberal.
Kyle: You're such a fat fuck, Cartman, that when you walk down the street people go God DAMMIT that kid's a BIG FAT FUCK.
Cartman: Oh yeah? Well listen up...
Stan: Wait, wait, just a second. Now we've got to think here. Now let's see. What would Brian Boitano do?
Cartman: Yeah. What would Brian Boitano do? [Brian Boitano appears.]
Brian: Did someone say my name?
Cartman: Brian Boitano!
Kyle: What incredible irony!
Cartman: Yeah, it's Brian Boitano!
Brian: What's going on, kids?
Stan: Okay, Brian? Who would you help in a fight, Pat Robertson or Trey Parker?
Brian: Kids...you shouldn't think of things like that. The Oscars are the one time of year when we all try to get along, no matter what we believe in. This is the season just to be good to each other. Bi-eee! [Brian skates away.]
Pat: You fuckin' liberal!
Trey: C'mere! Come on!
Stan: Hey, Pat! You have to understand that Trey is keeping the spirit of your religion alive by bringing humor and attention to the evils of Satan and Hell.
Kyle: Yeah. And Trey, you need to remember that if it weren't for Pat, You wouldn't have a Religious Right to make fun of!
Trey: You're right kids. I'm sorry, Pat.
Pat: No, no. It's me who should be sorry. I've been a right bastard. I'm sorry Parker.
Trey: Thank you boys.
Pat: Yeah, thank you boys. Come on, Parker, I'll buy you an Orange Smoothie.
Trey: oooo!
Stan: *whew* That sucked.
Kyle: Yeah, but just think. Today we actually met--we actually spoke--to _the_ Brian Boitano.
Stan: Yeah. And you know? I think I learned something today, it doesn't matter if you're Republican or Democratic or Liberal or Conservative. The Oscars still is about one very important thing:
Cartman: Yeah, ham.
Stan: No not ham, you fat fuck!
Cartman: Fuck you!
Stan: The Oscars are about something much more important.
Kyle: What?
Stan: Money.
Kyle: Ah.
Stan: Don't you see, Kyle? Money.
Kids: "Blame Canada, blame Canada, with all their beady little eyes..."
Slashdot Mirror
Your broadband router is, by definition, a rudamentary firewall. It's performing NAT (network address translation) for your private network (your wireless client) and giving you a private IP address. That in itself will protect you from from the type of virus/trojan we're talking about. As an exercise, try setting the router to put one of your machiens on the DMZ (demilitarized zone) and run a fresh unpatched copy of Windows 98SE or later. See what happens.
Personal anecdote: In Sept. 2003 I got Earthlink DSL and connected my primary 98SE machine (had some patches, but not recent) directly to the modem to do the initial account configuration, knowing that if I had any problems the Earthlink support would not assist me if a router is in the picture. Within 3 hours I had 4 different viruses in the system.
Or maybe not. [snopes.com]
.sig, there is only ZUUL
There is no
You'd think that, but the Republicans bought the Legislative, stole the Executive, and are making inroads on the Judicial. The way they see it the judicial branch should be a wholly owned subsidiary of the executive branch. (Yes, corporate metaphore intentional)
Have you ever worked as an election judge? I didn't think so. At least here in DuPage County, IL, we can and *do* ask for identification. Normally, you don't need to show an ID - if your signature matches that on the preprinted application, you're all set. If you're never voted at that precinct before, we will ask for a state-issued ID. If there's a question of whether you're eligible (maybe you moved to a different precinct and the paperwork didn't catch up, maybe the county just screwed up), we will ask you for state ID. This is perfectly legal and part of standard procedure.
You can "get out the vote" to illegal aliens all you want, but they're not registered so they won't be able to vote. You *have* heard of voter registration, haven't you?
Segways don't kill people, PEOPLE with Segways kill people!.....yeah....
Not true. The regulation is for folks who run businesses on the rooftops for the purpose of baseball. You don't have to pay the city a dime to sit on top of your house. BTW, said regulation is currently the only thing keeping the Cubs' lawyers on their leash against the rooftop owners.
Like, did you watch the same Voyager finale that I did? The borg did follow them home.
's true. Strom started out as a Democrat before bolting the party, because the party shifted towards pro-civil rights and away from the Southern Democrats' (segregationist) philosophy. What's your point, exactly?
Again, what's your point? I could give a shit what party Eisenhower was from. The imprtant point is that Truman was against segregation, Strom was not, regardless of what party they were members of.
Do you really think the whole Trent Lott fiasco was because he "misspoke himself"?
Yes. Lott has a history of misspeaking himself. Regardless of whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, you have to agree that Lott is the kind of person that shouldn't be allowed to speak without a teleprompter.
If one "misspeaks" himself often enough, that's usually a clue that he's in fact not misspeaking at all. Lott said almost the exact same thing about Strom twenty years ago. He has a history saying things like that. He wouldn't keep saying those things unless somewhere inside him he believed it. Furthermore, if you can't speak without a teleprompter, you shouldn't be the head of the most powerful legislature in the history of civilization. Or the President for that matter, but I digress.
Ah, the First Law of Bullshit: Deny he said that which he was documented saying. Anyone with a clue knew exactly what he meant, including the room full of (Republican) spectators who were there, who let out an audible gasp. If he wasn't talking about segregation, he would have clearly said so afterward instead of half-assedly apologizing for it. But he didn't say he meant something else, because he didn't mean something else.
Again, the point of the history lesson is...? We know Thurmond didn't get elected, and we also know that Lott now thinks he ought to have been.
No, but I know what Strom Thurmond stood for in his early career, and I knew it before and after the Lott fiasco. Whether or not I was alive in 1948 (I wasn't) bears little relevance to Trent Lott's views on civil rights.
Anyone with basic U.S. history education should know a little about Strom Thurmond's Presidential platform. And I read about Lott's remarks on Yahoo the next day, not three days later. Would you like me to dig up a few links?
True dat. I hope you'll extend the same courtesy to members of the Democratic Party.
Hmm...last time I checked (yup = right there on the CD's), Metallica was signed by Elektra. And last time I checked, Elektra wasn't owned by Metallica. Nice try though.
Sometimes I wish I lived in a different county. Here in DuPage County, IL, everything has to be conduit. We're one of just a few counties in the country (Cook being another one) where romex is illegal inside a wall without conduit. It can be quite annoying sometimes.
It's by Arthur C. Clarke. There's also a few sequels.
A lot of people seem to havea misunderstanding of the Bill of Rights here, so let me try to sort this out. First of all, the Constitution applies (affirmed in Amendment 14) to every citizen in the United States and on every square inch of every US state and territory. The Bill of Rights consists of the first ten Amendments to the Constitution, ratified December 1791 and taking effect somewhere around 1792.
l lrights.html
Now, regarding the statement "The First Amendment doesn't apply to private schools. They can make whatever rules they want.", the point they're trying to get at is correct, but the statement is technically wrong. Let's take a look at the Amendment in question:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." - First Amendment to the Consitution, http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/billrights/bi
This is where "freedom of speech" come from. Unfortunately, many people seem to think this means "I have the write to say whatever I want, wherever I want!", and this just isn't the case. What the 1st Amendment says (and it's right there in the previous paragraph for anyone who wishes to question it) is that Congress (and the federal government) cannot limit your freedom of speech. It doesn't say that private citizens or organizations cannot restrict your speech on their property or retaliate against you for something you say. For example, if I wrote a Shroom Manefesto (*1) that annoyed a lot of people and I placed it around the Internet, the federal government would have no right to stop me. Slashdot could, however, remove my posting at their will and it would be completely legal. You also have the right to prohibit me from reading it from your front lawn. The Constitution guarentees that I can speak, but not that anyone has to listen. Back to the issue at hand, though. It's not that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply in private schools (I can't reiterate enough times that it in fact does), it's that the 1st Amendment just doesn't give you any protection from private schools for your speech. They're not the government. As long as you're going to their school, they can punish you for pretty much anything they don't like, within the rest of law. In short, the 1st Amendment applies in private schools, it just doesn't protect you from private schools. (*2)
Sorry if that sounded like a lesson in semantics, I didn't intend it to be. It's just that so many people misunderstand the Constitution.
Jeff Sand (Shroom)
shroom@bradley.edu
*1: This assumes that I'm not soliciting violence or something like that. That's not protected the same way as other speech, or so says the Supreme Court.
*2: Not to say that private schools can do anything they want to you for speaking out against them. They can't break your arm or lock you in a room without food or water all day, that would violate several other laws - just not the 1st Amendment
Take a look at IRC. Everyone has access to the specifications. That means that anyone can write a client and a server. Only certain people actually run active servers, but nothing can stop me from writing a client that will take advantage of some poorly written server. In theory, I would then be able to get a * next to my nick (server operator), an @ (channel operator) and who knows what. The trick is that there is a community. Everyone has access to the source => anyone can submit a patch that will prevent me from running my exploit. Oh yeah, there's no cracking problems on IRC. Nah, EFNet is the most stable network around, thanks to Open Source! Server exploits never happen because somebody always fixes those holes in a jiffy. No DoS or op hacking there! Safe and secure, yesirrie!
If you're gonna promote conspiracy theories, at least try to get your facts straight. Last time I checked (and I have my Illinois absentee ballot right here in front of me), the Reform Party kicked ol' Pat out a couple months ago. John Hagelin is the Reform candidate. Pat's running independent.
Jeff Sand
shroom@bradley.edu
Except for the fact that that up to $1,000,000 is (or will shortly be) exempt from federal estate tax. Sorry, but thinks for playing.
You know, I can never understand why people get all into a frenzy about censorship, freedom of speech, and technology, and then go and bash the Democratic Party, Clinton, and Lieberman. The fact of the matter is that while many of us Democrats support the idea that violent/sexual material should generally be restricted from children, it is the Republican party and right-wing fundamentalists who seek to ban it. Take a look at Internet censorship laws. Who proposes them? Republicans like Sen. John McCain. (Yes Katz, McCain was the one who supported mandatory filtering at schools and libraries, not Lieberman). Take a look at "child protection" laws like COPA. Who's behind them? The Republican-led Congress. The GOP has historically supported censorship in the name of fundamentalist morals for years.
The next little leap of logic I'd like at address is this backlash against Al Gore when it comes to technology. Let's take a look at Gore's history for a moment. Which major candidate in this election has been a constant proponent of computers and technology in our schools? Who started pushing for email and the Internet in the federal government before most people even knew about it? Which candidate has been fighting to bring technology to poor areas and the people lease able to otherwise access it? The answers to all of these would be Al Gore. Gore has consistently supported the expansion of the Internet, while the GOP has consistently fought to restrict it and censor it. All whining about "creating the Internet" aside (which really wasn't what he meant at all), Gore has done more to promote the Internet than just about any other federal official in history. You will hear the GOP, on the other hand, talking about "protecting our children" from the Internet, never about embracing it (unless you count the pop-up ad on his website to donate money). Which brings us back to the main point:
There are certain things which society has deemed innapropriate, in general for children. These things include extreme violence and sexuality. This is not to say that these things do not exist in the world we live in, or that they should not exist, or even that all children can't accept or understand them. What it does mean is that children ought to be kept away from these things until or unless their parents deem it appropriate for them. At the same time, such materials should not be restricted in any way from aduilts. This is where labeling, such as movie and video game ratings, comes into play. Ratings are not censorship, and the current hysteria here and elsewhere about violent games being marked as such is rediculous. Let's look at this realisticly. Let's say I want to play a Quake deathmatch on the network here at Bradley University. I should (and am) free to go to the software store and buy a copy of Q3A and play it as I see fit. Labeling it as violent does not impede my doing this, and it won't affect my purchase since I already know what the game is about. What it does do is shift the responsibility of deciding what is appropriate for children to the parents. I fail to see what the problem is if K-mart chooses not to sell "M"-rated games to kids. The games are not banned at all, they are just off-limits by default to kids . Parents are still free to buy those games for their kids if they feel it is appropriate for them, it's the parents' choice. This is just like porn. You can't buy it yourself if you're under 18 because society feels it's an adult subject, but your parents are completely free to buy it for you if they think you should have it. The decision is simply shifted to the parents. That said, we musn't restrict information. Preventing children from talking about drugs is a lot different from preventing children from access to drugs. (Or guns, or sex, or whatever). It is this restriction of information that these neo-luddites, or fundamentalists, or "moralists", or whatever (pick a name) are really centered on. Information is power, and these groups don't want other people to have that power. This is what we should really be concerned about, not the fact that Lieberman thinks movie studios shouldn't market violence to young children (which they shouldn't, and for the record, Leiberman has never propsed any type of legislation banning said material). Katz bashing the Democratic party over this issue while letting the GOP off the hook* shows bias and ignorance. I guess Katz is just really confused if he can write an essay like that and then apparently empathize with the party that supports all censorshp bills (and don't get me started about their stance on spam).
I wonder what Katz really wants out of this election - the better party for technology, or a little more tax decrease to line his pockets since he's morally opposed to making any money as a writer.
* Yes, I realized that he mentioned George W. in his sermon as well. But the implication was that the Big Bad Democrats (tm) are coming to take away our rights and George just happened to be there for the ride. Read between the lines, folks.
Comments like this really make me pissed. How is it violating copyright? If you download a song from Napster that the artist didn't give you permission to do, you're violating copyright and you're violating the law. Now I know that technically it's the user breaking the law and not Napster. But probably 99.9% of all Napster use violates copyright law, and something's got to be done about it. Frankly, I think the RIAA's jihad against Napster is misguided, but something needs to be done. Maybe Napster needs to have a mechanism for any artist to have their music blocked from the database, or soemthing like that.
Well that's just my $.02 or $.03 on the subject. I think that's all I have to say about that.
Jeff Sand
shroom at bradley.edu
I usually ignore fundamentalist crap like this, but I'll take my shot at this one.
The court has turned the meaning of this protection around by prohibiting public displays of religion
Careful there, Sparky. The Court has not ruled against public displays of religion (and in fact supports said displays), the Court has ruled against government-sponsored public displays of religion. Small difference on paper, but very different things.
(though they typically only enfoce this against the Christian sects, other religions are deemed to bring a proper "diversity" to public life)
Typical Christian fundamentalist crap. Please cite an example Supreme Court opinion.
instead of adhering to its proper intent, which is that the federal government could not create a state religion and tie the rights of citizenship to membership within the state religion. The authors of the Amendment were quite accepting of the individual states having an official religion, but because the states had different sects, they didn't want the federal government to choose one over the others.
HUH? Say what? I studied the Constitution quite thoroughly in school and I've read a lot about the Bill of Rights and its intents, and I have NEVER heard that one. Which camp told you that? Buchannon, Robertson, or Falwell? The Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court (and the ACLU, and the list goes on and on) all have consistently said that freedom of religion means the right to practice the religion of your choice - or none at all. This means that the government cannot endorse any particular religion. Period.
-Shroom (Jeff Sand)
...I played with your pics
I made you belive
I'm blocking out porn...
Not just Baby One More Time, probably any Britney Spears picture will be banned, just look at what she wears in any publicity shot (and she wonders why people think of her as a sex object...)
Definitely not appropriate for kids.
Warning: The above is sarcastic if you didn't get that.
-Shroom
Where's the grammar error there? I don't see anything wrong with the statement in question.
Jeff Sand
shroom-at-bradley.edu
What the fuck? A neutral object is hetersexual in nature? Isn't that an oxymoron? inanimate objects don't have a gender bias. Geesh.
Um, no, actually a homosexual *can* get pregnant, being gay doesn't mean you're sterile, it means you prefer a partner of the same sex.
Oh please. I was going to write a rebuttal, but it's not worth my time. I'm liberal because I don't have a strong father figure, and I'm gonna become gay. Yep, that's it.
Jeff Sand
So let me get this straight. If someones hears the word "fart", bleeped out, it's going to turn them into a homosexual, get them pregnant, make them a liberal? Oh my gosh...
All: In the beginning, God created the Earth...
Stan: Wait a minute, aren't you a Democrat, Kyle?
Kyle: Yeah, I think so
Stan: You're supposed to be liberal and support civil liberties!
Kyle: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press
Stan: (interrupting) That amendment sucks!
Cartman: Yeah, freedom of speech sucks!
Kyle: Don't you censor me, fat boy!
Cartman: Don't call me fat, buttfucker!
Kyle: Then don't belittle my freedom, you fucking fatass!
Cartman: God dammit, don't call me fat, you buttfucking sonofabitch!
[Pat Robertson decends from the sky]
Stan: Holy shit, it's Pat Robertson!
Cartman: What are you doing in South Park, Pat?
Pat Robertson: I come spreading conservative Christian values.
Kyle: Oh, fuck! I'm sorry, Pat!
PR: Fear not, a hurricane will kill you and all the homosexuals later. I am looking for a place called The Oscars.
Stan: We can take you to the Oscars, in fact, we're nominated!
[They start walking]
Cartman: Dude, this is gay.
Stan: Dude, don't say gay in front of Pat Robertson.
Cartman: Aw, fuck you.
[They all travel to LA, where Trey Parker is picketing at the Shrine Auditorium]
Stan: This is it, who are you looking for?
PR: Him! [points to Trey Parker]
Trey: So, we meet again, Pat Robertson.
PR: You are turning this country into a cestpool of homosexuals, liberals, and anti-Christian bigots!
Trey: And you have attacked the freedom on which this country is based!
PR: You have taken the Lord's name in vain for the last time.
Trey: My movies bring happiness to people around the world.
PR: I'm here to put an end to your blasphemy
Trey: This time we finish it. [stands] There can be only one.
Stan: Dude, this is pretty fucked up right here.
[Pat and Trey fight]
Kids: Go Trey! [Pat looks at them] Uh, go Pat!
[Pat and Trey fight more, Mortal Kombat style.]
Kyle: Oh my god! They killed Kenny!
Pat: Boys, help me put an end to him once and for all.
Trey: No, boys, help me, so that I can put an end to him.
Pat: God is watching you, boys. You know who to help.
Stan: I don't know what to do, dude. Who should we help?
Cartman: I say we help Trey Parker.
Kyle: Eh, you're just saying that because he made you famous.
Cartman: Hey! I don't need to take that kinda shit from a liberal.
Kyle: You're such a fat fuck, Cartman, that when you walk down the street people go God DAMMIT that kid's a BIG FAT FUCK.
Cartman: Oh yeah? Well listen up...
Stan: Wait, wait, just a second. Now we've got to think here. Now let's see. What would Brian Boitano do?
Cartman: Yeah. What would Brian Boitano do?
[Brian Boitano appears.]
Brian: Did someone say my name?
Cartman: Brian Boitano!
Kyle: What incredible irony!
Cartman: Yeah, it's Brian Boitano!
Brian: What's going on, kids?
Stan: Okay, Brian? Who would you help in a fight, Pat Robertson or Trey Parker?
Brian: Kids...you shouldn't think of things like that. The Oscars are the one time of year when we all try to get along, no matter what we believe in. This is the season just to be good to each other. Bi-eee!
[Brian skates away.]
Pat: You fuckin' liberal!
Trey: C'mere! Come on!
Stan: Hey, Pat! You have to understand that Trey is keeping the spirit of your religion alive by bringing humor and attention to the evils of Satan and Hell.
Kyle: Yeah. And Trey, you need to remember that if it weren't for Pat, You wouldn't have a Religious Right to make fun of!
Trey: You're right kids. I'm sorry, Pat.
Pat: No, no. It's me who should be sorry. I've been a right bastard. I'm sorry Parker.
Trey: Thank you boys.
Pat: Yeah, thank you boys. Come on, Parker, I'll buy you an Orange Smoothie.
Trey: oooo!
Stan: *whew* That sucked.
Kyle: Yeah, but just think. Today we actually met--we actually spoke--to _the_ Brian Boitano.
Stan: Yeah. And you know? I think I learned something today, it doesn't matter if you're Republican or Democratic or Liberal or Conservative. The Oscars still is about one very important thing:
Cartman: Yeah, ham.
Stan: No not ham, you fat fuck!
Cartman: Fuck you!
Stan: The Oscars are about something much more important.
Kyle: What?
Stan: Money.
Kyle: Ah.
Stan: Don't you see, Kyle? Money.
Kids: "Blame Canada, blame Canada, with all their beady little eyes..."
Jeff Sand
shroom@NOSPAMbradley.edu