Particularly since they TELL you to mouseover the links. If they hadn't said that, I might have tried to interpret the displayed links, but probably would have marked them all frauds anyway if I couldn't be sure from examination.
And why would I click on the "legitimate" message hyperlinks?
I don't trust any of these messages, therefore I'm not clicking on ANY hyperlink in such a message, ESPECIALLY if they all go to the same place which these do.
This means I got a 70% score because I clicked "fraud" on all of them.
Actually my score is 100% because I was properly suspicious of links that did not go to the proper domains.
The idiots who made this test tell you to scroll over the links. I did. They were wrong links, so I marked them all as fraudulent. How is this wrong?
It's not.
You should be wary of even clicking on a link that DOES go to the proper domain when you get this sort of message. How do you know a session or domain hijack is not in operation?
If somebody wants me to change my info even just by going directly to their site, they better have SSL running.
But she has been legally gagged in the name of "national security" (i.e., "whistleblowing" on the FBI is against "national security", according to Ashcroft).
And that shot is tame compared to the ones where she is signing autographs for the troops. Her military blouse in those shots is almost completely open and MAJOR tittage is being displayed openly to both male and female soldiers.
Let me explain it to you in simple terms, moron. In NO society is the STATE the PUBLIC. None. Ever. Obviously not in monarchies, or dictatorships, or whatever, but not in "democracies" either. There has NEVER been a STATE where the STATE was the PUBLIC. EVER.
What part of EVER can't you comprehend?
What part of the definition of STATE vrs the definition of PUBLIC can't you comprehend?
The FCC is an appointed state institution. The public are some 300-plus-or-minus-million people who live in this country.
The last election was stolen by the Supreme Court and vote fraud. Do you think the PUBLIC actually "selected that public official publicly with the sole purpose of putting into effect the common will?"
Not to mention the painfully obvious fact - to anyone without major daylight passing uninterrupted through their brain pan - that there is NO SUCH THING as the "common will"?
Get a fucking clue.
Ratings are just "censorship light".
You don't need ratings, idiot. You need TV Guide which explains what the show is about. That and some clue about what writers and directors do these days. If you can't decide whether your kid should watch based on these factors, you're obviously too incompetent to be having children - which is no surprise as that is the state of about 99% of the human race.
Not to mention the fact that if you can't prepare your kid for ANYTHING he might see on TV, you are too incompetent to be raising children.
There is no need for regulation of any kind of programming by the state.
Not porn, not violence, not snuff films, not commercials, nothing.
Children are not "harmed" by any of this crap. They are harmed by moronic primate parents who can't explain reality to them because neither THEIR parents nor the educational system in this pathetic country ever explained it to them. Period. And that's the way the government and the religious and educational and corporate institutions in this country like it.
You want regulation of violence? Learn to shoot politicians without hitting anyone else.
Depends on what "got" means (at the risk of sounding like Bill Clinton).
What I see we "got" is one old man who may or may not be Saddam (his wife says no, and his attorneys say they fear the US may kill him before trial to prevent anyone from knowing for sure).
What I see we "got" is no oil and 900 (at least) dead troops and thousands of civilian casualties and a $200 billion dollar bill that AIN'T gonna be paid off by Iraq oil revenues despite what Wolfie told you.
If you'd have paid me one billion dollars, I'd have "got" Saddam for you and made a nine hundred million dollar profit (at least) and nobody but him and some of his cronies would have died.
You don't need "long-term foreign posts", idiot! That's simply nonsense. The only purpose for that crap is to exert pressure on foreign governments to kowtow to US politicians and to stir up trouble to justify more crap. Name me one fucking war America avoided by having troops in any other country. You need intelligence about other countries activity, not military posts.
Your notion that freedom means laws is on a par with the Nazi concentration camp slogans "Work makes you free". The exact opposite is true. Law invariable creates crime - the more law, the more crime. And the greatest criminals are those who pass the laws. This has been true throughout human history. No exceptions.
Anarchy has nothing to do with "roving bands". The only "roving bands" you have now are the morons in US uniform shooting civilians in Iraq. Get a clue.
I don't advocate anarchist ideals. I waste time posting on/. There's a difference.
You say "most people don't want". Well, then they don't deserve freedom, do they? What do think the term "Army Reserve" and "National Guard" mean? It means citizen-soldiers.
As far which one to fight against, I'd pick the standing army every time - because once it's defeated, it's over. With a nation of citizen-soldiers, you'll be fighting them forever and never win - just like in Iraq now - and the Iraqis aren't even citizen-soldiers - they're more like just "armed pissed-off citizens" (with some direction from the former Iraqi military).
The real problem with Americans, unlike the usual portrayal of Americans as all being "gun-nuts", is the fact that the vast majority of them have gone soft and can't stomach any kind of violence, in self-defense or otherwise.
Those are the kind of people statists like - weaklings.
Nothing cop-out about it. Just realistic. You presume to have something productive - if so, let's hear it. Better yet, let's see it work. Otherwise, STFU. And voting ain't it.
There are more effective methods of dealing with the state. The technology just hasn't arrived yet. When it does, we Transhumans will crush the state like a used gum wrapper.
If you support your competitor, you're legitimizing them.
In the case of Mono, Linux doesn't have much choice. You either interoperate or it's a harder uphill battle to get adopted by people using the dominant software.
In the case of MS, there's no benefit to them to offer Office for Linux. They're already the dominant OS, and to offer Office on Linux would merely increase Linux's encroachment on the desktop. Sales would probably be too low to justify such a risk.
Office sales are dependent on the fact that MS OS's dominate on the desktop - and conversely, MS OS's dominate on the desktop because people are trained to use Office which only runs on those OS's (and the Mac which was never a factor).
It's a nonsense concept. Bill Gates is an asshole but he's not that stupid.
Don't hold your breath waiting for MS Office on Linux.
"What do you do with the vote that your forefathers died to give you?"
Which is only one reason voting is moronic.
As we anarchists say, "Don't vote - it only encourages them".
And "If voting could change the system, it would be illegal.
And "No matter who you vote for, the government gets elected."
A Libertarian candidate can not possibly win AND BE ABLE TO DO ANYTHING unless the entire Senate and House were also Libertarian - which essentially would mean the entire country had turned Libertarian.
So the argument is pointless.
There is only one Party in the United States - the War Party.
Or the Greed Party or the Corrupt Party - take your pick of those parties.
Works when you have airports to land at near your target. No go in Iraq. You have to transport the goods from the airport to the bases via convoys. Airdrops won't get it.
The road from Baghdad to the main airport is too dangerous to pull that off in Iraq if there is a mass national resistance.
You might extend your stay a few weeks or months by such an attempt, but in the end it's too costly.
They are having supply problems as it is now just getting the stuff into Iraq. US logistics have been screwed up since the invasion.
The actual price for 40GB drives has gone down, but the price PER GB has gone up relative to newer, higher capacity drives.
When 40's first came out, they cost more than they do now, but the overall price per GB cost more as well. Now they cost less in actual dollars, but the price per GB for them is still higher than the newer, larger capacity drives.
Have you noticed that 40GB drives cost $1.50 per GB whereas 80GB and up cost $1 per GB - until you get to the really BIG drives where the price per GB goes up again?
That's not an accident. It probably has to do with marketing and rate of return on investment on particular drives. I don't pretend to understand the drive manufacturing industry but the price structure is clearly oriented to selling the most available drives. Older, smaller drives aren't around, so the price goes up. Newer, huge drives aren't in full production or accepted by users or filling the distribution channel yet, so their price is up. Medium-capacity drives are in full production and are in the supply channel so their price is down.
My understanding is that most of the industry went to one-year warranties in the last year or two, except for their higher-quality/higher-performance drives (8MB cache) which are still three years.
I think it was Maxtor who came out with an announcement saying that.08% (less than one percent) of their drives were failing, so a three-year warranty made no sense to them and would have no effect on the return rates (which is the only usable statistic - MTBF is almost meaningless given the huge numbers being tossed around.)
It would be nice if every company routinely published a TRUE "Rate of Return" figure for each of their drives.
Of course, this being historical information, it wouldn't help you if you were one of the persons contributing to a BAD Rate of Return.
Like the medical students say, you have to play the odds. To play the odds, you have to know the odds.
Your assertion that brain function and consciousness being related is not supported by known facts is entirely unsupported. There are no "known facts" in science that dispute this assertion that I am aware of.
"What's looking at the image" is probably an emergent phenomena. Some evidence indicates there isn't even such as thing as "I" in there anywhere. What you experience as "I" is likely no more "you" than the monitor on your PC is the CPU. Gray Walter's experiments decades ago showed that normal surface consciousness does not make decisions - it merely reflects decisions made by the underlying brain function. It is not yet clear whether that brain function is unified or a "Society of Mind" as Minsky put it.
Practically of course, that's not too important. We appear to have a unified consciousness on the surface and we function as if we do. But if you believe the "bi-cameral mind" concept, that was not always the case. I have no opinion one way or the other since I haven't seen all the evidence, and in any event, as I've said, until we have adequate brain investigation tech via nanotech, the issue will remain open.
What is quite clear is that so-called "consciousness" phenomena must reside in the physical universe, subject to the laws of physics. Adequate nanotech can and will reveal all of the facts of these phenomena in due time.
It will then be a matter of engineering as to what can be done with these facts. The only likely hurdle would be "unsolvable" problems of complexity or dynamic systems - which I admit could exist given the complexity of the biological systems involved. But this is by no means certain.
Slashdot Mirror
And that was correct.
Exactly what I did.
Particularly since they TELL you to mouseover the links. If they hadn't said that, I might have tried to interpret the displayed links, but probably would have marked them all frauds anyway if I couldn't be sure from examination.
And why would I click on the "legitimate" message hyperlinks?
I don't trust any of these messages, therefore I'm not clicking on ANY hyperlink in such a message, ESPECIALLY if they all go to the same place which these do.
This means I got a 70% score because I clicked "fraud" on all of them.
Actually my score is 100% because I was properly suspicious of links that did not go to the proper domains.
The idiots who made this test tell you to scroll over the links. I did. They were wrong links, so I marked them all as fraudulent. How is this wrong?
It's not.
You should be wary of even clicking on a link that DOES go to the proper domain when you get this sort of message. How do you know a session or domain hijack is not in operation?
If somebody wants me to change my info even just by going directly to their site, they better have SSL running.
Tell Sibel Edmonds that.
Granted she's not in jail (yet).
But she has been legally gagged in the name of "national security" (i.e., "whistleblowing" on the FBI is against "national security", according to Ashcroft).
Nope, Alyssa Milano, as others have pointed out.
And that shot is tame compared to the ones where she is signing autographs for the troops. Her military blouse in those shots is almost completely open and MAJOR tittage is being displayed openly to both male and female soldiers.
Those shots have been all over Usenet.
Good.
Any prison guard deserves to find nekkid pictures of his wife lying around the Internet.
I hope it's him.
"In a democracy, the government IS the public."
/. find morons like this?
Where does
Let me explain it to you in simple terms, moron. In NO society is the STATE the PUBLIC. None. Ever. Obviously not in monarchies, or dictatorships, or whatever, but not in "democracies" either. There has NEVER been a STATE where the STATE was the PUBLIC. EVER.
What part of EVER can't you comprehend?
What part of the definition of STATE vrs the definition of PUBLIC can't you comprehend?
The FCC is an appointed state institution. The public are some 300-plus-or-minus-million people who live in this country.
The last election was stolen by the Supreme Court and vote fraud. Do you think the PUBLIC actually "selected that public official publicly with the sole purpose of putting into effect the common will?"
Not to mention the painfully obvious fact - to anyone without major daylight passing uninterrupted through their brain pan - that there is NO SUCH THING as the "common will"?
Get a fucking clue.
Ratings are just "censorship light".
You don't need ratings, idiot. You need TV Guide which explains what the show is about. That and some clue about what writers and directors do these days. If you can't decide whether your kid should watch based on these factors, you're obviously too incompetent to be having children - which is no surprise as that is the state of about 99% of the human race.
Not to mention the fact that if you can't prepare your kid for ANYTHING he might see on TV, you are too incompetent to be raising children.
There is no need for regulation of any kind of programming by the state.
Not porn, not violence, not snuff films, not commercials, nothing.
Children are not "harmed" by any of this crap. They are harmed by moronic primate parents who can't explain reality to them because neither THEIR parents nor the educational system in this pathetic country ever explained it to them. Period. And that's the way the government and the religious and educational and corporate institutions in this country like it.
You want regulation of violence? Learn to shoot politicians without hitting anyone else.
Depends on whether you believe we "got" Saddam.
Depends on what "got" means (at the risk of sounding like Bill Clinton).
What I see we "got" is one old man who may or may not be Saddam (his wife says no, and his attorneys say they fear the US may kill him before trial to prevent anyone from knowing for sure).
What I see we "got" is no oil and 900 (at least) dead troops and thousands of civilian casualties and a $200 billion dollar bill that AIN'T gonna be paid off by Iraq oil revenues despite what Wolfie told you.
If you'd have paid me one billion dollars, I'd have "got" Saddam for you and made a nine hundred million dollar profit (at least) and nobody but him and some of his cronies would have died.
Your tax dollars at work.
Moron.
Excuse me, but the FCC will decide that FOR you, you know.
And if some pesky wording of the law gets in the way, I'm sure Congress can easily pass an amendment.
You're relying on reality which is always a sure path to defeat when dealing with politicians.
says that immigrants being granted citizenship in Florida were handed forms to indicate their voting preferences when they registered to vote.
All the preferences were prechecked "Republican"!
Some of the immigrants complained to the Democratic Party officials in Florida and the Federal Elections Commission is investigating.
It doesn't get more obvious than this.
Why Florida is still part of the United States instead of Germany - or maybe North Korea - is a mystery to me.
You don't need "long-term foreign posts", idiot!
That's simply nonsense. The only purpose for that crap is to exert pressure on foreign governments to kowtow to US politicians and to stir up trouble to justify more crap. Name me one fucking war America avoided by having troops in any other country. You need intelligence about other countries activity, not military posts.
Your notion that freedom means laws is on a par with the Nazi concentration camp slogans "Work makes you free". The exact opposite is true. Law invariable creates crime - the more law, the more crime. And the greatest criminals are those who pass the laws. This has been true throughout human history. No exceptions.
Anarchy has nothing to do with "roving bands". The only "roving bands" you have now are the morons in US uniform shooting civilians in Iraq. Get a clue.
No, there won't be anarchy in our lifetime.
However, once Transhumans ascend, there will be a definite crushing of the state.
This crap was reported months ago.
/.
Must be a slow news day at
This guy was an idiot when it was first reported and he's an idiot today.
Nothing new to see here. Move along.
Didn't hear him complain when McAfee off-shored its antivirus development to India.
Another old-fool primate who has lived past his time to die.
Just because he discovered something doesn't mean he's not an idiot.
Plenty of idiots with degrees and patents and Nobel Prizes, even.
Fuck off and die, Van Allen.
I don't advocate anarchist ideals. I waste time posting on /. There's a difference.
You say "most people don't want". Well, then they don't deserve freedom, do they? What do think the term "Army Reserve" and "National Guard" mean? It means citizen-soldiers.
As far which one to fight against, I'd pick the standing army every time - because once it's defeated, it's over. With a nation of citizen-soldiers, you'll be fighting them forever and never win - just like in Iraq now - and the Iraqis aren't even citizen-soldiers - they're more like just "armed pissed-off citizens" (with some direction from the former Iraqi military).
The real problem with Americans, unlike the usual portrayal of Americans as all being "gun-nuts", is the fact that the vast majority of them have gone soft and can't stomach any kind of violence, in self-defense or otherwise.
Those are the kind of people statists like - weaklings.
Nothing cop-out about it. Just realistic. You presume to have something productive - if so, let's hear it. Better yet, let's see it work. Otherwise, STFU. And voting ain't it.
There are more effective methods of dealing with the state. The technology just hasn't arrived yet. When it does, we Transhumans will crush the state like a used gum wrapper.
You misunderstand the term "Master".
It is "master of" not "master over".
Try "sensei" if that helps.
If you support your competitor, you're legitimizing them.
In the case of Mono, Linux doesn't have much choice. You either interoperate or it's a harder uphill battle to get adopted by people using the dominant software.
In the case of MS, there's no benefit to them to offer Office for Linux. They're already the dominant OS, and to offer Office on Linux would merely increase Linux's encroachment on the desktop. Sales would probably be too low to justify such a risk.
Office sales are dependent on the fact that MS OS's dominate on the desktop - and conversely, MS OS's dominate on the desktop because people are trained to use Office which only runs on those OS's (and the Mac which was never a factor).
It's a nonsense concept. Bill Gates is an asshole but he's not that stupid.
Don't hold your breath waiting for MS Office on Linux.
"What do you do with the vote that your forefathers died to give you?"
Which is only one reason voting is moronic.
As we anarchists say, "Don't vote - it only encourages them".
And "If voting could change the system, it would be illegal.
And "No matter who you vote for, the government gets elected."
A Libertarian candidate can not possibly win AND BE ABLE TO DO ANYTHING unless the entire Senate and House were also Libertarian - which essentially would mean the entire country had turned Libertarian.
So the argument is pointless.
There is only one Party in the United States - the War Party.
Or the Greed Party or the Corrupt Party - take your pick of those parties.
Works when you have airports to land at near your target. No go in Iraq. You have to transport the goods from the airport to the bases via convoys. Airdrops won't get it.
The road from Baghdad to the main airport is too dangerous to pull that off in Iraq if there is a mass national resistance.
You might extend your stay a few weeks or months by such an attempt, but in the end it's too costly.
They are having supply problems as it is now just getting the stuff into Iraq. US logistics have been screwed up since the invasion.
The actual price for 40GB drives has gone down, but the price PER GB has gone up relative to newer, higher capacity drives.
When 40's first came out, they cost more than they do now, but the overall price per GB cost more as well. Now they cost less in actual dollars, but the price per GB for them is still higher than the newer, larger capacity drives.
Ah, but wait!
The 40GB drive sold for $1/GB WHEN IT WAS THE MAIN SELLER!
NOW it costs more per GB than it did when it was the main seller.
Component costs don't explain that. It's the same components but the price changes.
The only explanation I have is production is ramping DOWN, so availability goes down, so the price goes up.
This is likely true.
Have you noticed that 40GB drives cost $1.50 per GB whereas 80GB and up cost $1 per GB - until you get to the really BIG drives where the price per GB goes up again?
That's not an accident. It probably has to do with marketing and rate of return on investment on particular drives. I don't pretend to understand the drive manufacturing industry but the price structure is clearly oriented to selling the most available drives. Older, smaller drives aren't around, so the price goes up. Newer, huge drives aren't in full production or accepted by users or filling the distribution channel yet, so their price is up. Medium-capacity drives are in full production and are in the supply channel so their price is down.
Market economics at its finest, apparently.
My understanding is that most of the industry went to one-year warranties in the last year or two, except for their higher-quality/higher-performance drives (8MB cache) which are still three years.
.08% (less than one percent) of their drives were failing, so a three-year warranty made no sense to them and would have no effect on the return rates (which is the only usable statistic - MTBF is almost meaningless given the huge numbers being tossed around.)
I think it was Maxtor who came out with an announcement saying that
It would be nice if every company routinely published a TRUE "Rate of Return" figure for each of their drives.
Of course, this being historical information, it wouldn't help you if you were one of the persons contributing to a BAD Rate of Return.
Like the medical students say, you have to play the odds. To play the odds, you have to know the odds.
Your assertion that brain function and consciousness being related is not supported by known facts is entirely unsupported. There are no "known facts" in science that dispute this assertion that I am aware of.
"What's looking at the image" is probably an emergent phenomena. Some evidence indicates there isn't even such as thing as "I" in there anywhere. What you experience as "I" is likely no more "you" than the monitor on your PC is the CPU. Gray Walter's experiments decades ago showed that normal surface consciousness does not make decisions - it merely reflects decisions made by the underlying brain function. It is not yet clear whether that brain function is unified or a "Society of Mind" as Minsky put it.
Practically of course, that's not too important. We appear to have a unified consciousness on the surface and we function as if we do. But if you believe the "bi-cameral mind" concept, that was not always the case. I have no opinion one way or the other since I haven't seen all the evidence, and in any event, as I've said, until we have adequate brain investigation tech via nanotech, the issue will remain open.
What is quite clear is that so-called "consciousness" phenomena must reside in the physical universe, subject to the laws of physics. Adequate nanotech can and will reveal all of the facts of these phenomena in due time.
It will then be a matter of engineering as to what can be done with these facts. The only likely hurdle would be "unsolvable" problems of complexity or dynamic systems - which I admit could exist given the complexity of the biological systems involved. But this is by no means certain.