I have, and we are now actually a reseller for them (although we only "resell" it to the people we host). ChainedSSL (Equifax in Astroturf) has been working hard to switch us over to their certificates. They're trying to spread a bunch of FUD because the InstantSSL certificates have a root that is owned by Baltimore, which has just been bought out. But InstantSSL has much better browser compatibility (something like 99% of all browsers vs. Equifax's 95%).
They generally have very fast turn around, usually you can get the certificates that day if you have your documents in order.
The nice thing is that once you're a reseller, you become responsible for the the validity of the seller, which means that certificates are issued as soon as you submit them.
As anyone who owns a business can tell you, nothing is ever free.
My boss continued using and supporting Windows NT as our server OS of choice until Microsoft announced more restrictive licensing policies.
I think Microsoft's new angle on licenses is what's driving people away, not the cost of the software, which is peanuts to a lot of enterprise companies.
The Window OS licenses are no longer as portable, which means that if I have to junk one computer and buy another, odds are I'm going to have to buy a new license for that computer; I can't just use the disk that came with the trashed computer. So over time my boss came to distrust Microsoft.
That and increasing security concerns are the reason I was successful at getting him to see the benefits of Linux.
Now, whenever we want to add another machine, we don't have to waste any time purchasing licenses or getting new software cds. I just download the ISOs and install.
I'm starting to sway him towards Linux for desktops too. He was getting a computer for his wife, who only needs to do E-mail and Web surfing. He's seriously thinking of using Linux for that, since it's an ideal OS for just standard Internet work.
You're just too damn bored with whatever it is you're trying to pay attention to.
Yeah, well, tragically, life isn't all that exciting, generally.
And it's much more useful to go through life being able to cope than lolling around doing nothing because of all the darn boredom.
I have a pretty strong form of ADD, and it isn't all boredom. I mean, I think I would be conscious of being bored all the time, wouldn't I? Or would I really be sitting there, desperately trying to focus on a task that was very important to me, but finding myself unable to do so, just because it was somehow boring?!?
Oh, and don't forget overstimulation, the flip side of ADD, when you're getting too much input, and so you freak out. Some people with ADD I know would shut down completely under too much stimulation, and become unable to take in *anything*. Me, I just freak out and get really nervous and uncomfortable. For me, one of the scariest sounds ever is the chatter in a cocktail party. It's too many voices all at once.
And then there's hyperfocusing. I guess I was too "bored" by the outside world to hear if anyone was speaking to me while I was reading a book? There was seriously a time when someone would have to grab my head and stare into my eyes to get my attention while reading.
I guess it's frustrating when people say that ADD is not a real disorder or a real problem. "They're just too smart. Put them in more challenging classes, and they'll pay attention." "They're just hyper; that's normal in someone his age." These are all somewhat plausible explanations for a 10-12 year old, but not for someone in their 20s.
Here are the problems I've noticed as a result of ADD, both in myself and in many, many others with ADD that I have encountered: lack of organizational skills (cleanliness is boring), lack of social skills (having friends is boring), being impulsive (thinking before acting is boring), lack of focus (getting things done is boring), anger issues (dealing with emotions in a healthy way is boring), problems with empathy (relating to others is boring), not paying attention to surroundings (the whole frikkin' world is boring!), lack of focus even when performing crucial tasks, like driving a car (not crashing is boring).
I could go on and on, but I feel that calling people with ADD "bored" is like saying that alcoholics are just really thirsty, and if only you gave them the right kind of liquids they wouldn't have a problem anymore. The fact that alcoholics drink a lot of liquid is only a side-symptom of their need to get alcohol in their systems. People with ADD feel bored because they don't know how to focus their attention to the task at hand. In essence, the complete opposite of what the parent is saying.
I would heartily agree that drug companies, like all companies, are out to make money. But I disagree that everyone who shells out money for ADD medication doesn't actually need it.
These discreet earbuds work perfectly when you're trying to blend in. As you can see, they're virtually undetectable. Come with a comfortable, expandable cord
If you believe that being gay is a choice someone makes then there's no reason why they should have special rights because of this choice (gay marriage, etc.)
Marriage isn't a special right. Anyway, if I only dig fat chicks, should I be required to be married to a woman who's skinny? No.
And so if the only kind of woman that turns me on is the kind that has a penis and no breasts, why can't I marry her (him)?
I think the number one block in the gay/lesbian issue is the "choice" issue. I don't think it should matter whether someone chooses to be gay, or if they were born that way. If I want to be a musician, dammit, I should be able to a musician, whether or not my parents gave me any genetic predisposition towards it. I think it also sends a huge "Fuck You" to the bi community, whose member obviously *are* able to pluck fruit from both sides of the tree.
Forcing the "choice/no choice" issue around homosexuality implies that fundamentally homosexuality is wrong. "I didn't choose to be this way." means "I don't want to be this way" or "It's wrong that I'm this way, but I can't help it."
If you believe that homosexuality is wrong, then you shouldn't care whether it's a choice or not. You can say, "If you didn't choose it, become a monk, forswear sex for the rest of your life, or kill yourself." If you think it's a choice, you can tell them, "Change your ways, you fuck!"
If you believe that homosexuality isn't wrong, then you shouldn't care whether someone is the way they are because of choice or because of how they are wired.
In my opinion, I think homosexuality is just fine and dandy, although of course I have little to no first-hand experience to back up my claims. All my many, many gay friends that I have, however, seem to feel it works for them. I mean, it certainly works a whole lot better than sexual repression and misery. I don't care whether any of them are doing it because it's a choice or because they decided to be that way. I mean, none of them are choosing it for the glamour and ease of being a homosexual in the South. And I think it's probably hard to be gay anywhere, even in places with large, supportive gay communities. So either it's a difficult thing to live with, or a difficult choice to make.
Under certain conditions, sharks will attack and kill humans. It's in their nature; it's not a choice. But even though they're not "choosing" to kill and it's hard-wired in them, I don't think sharks should have equal access to public swimming areas. This is because I think the key element here is a shark killing people, and not whether it's choosing to or not.
Michael gets to post a story again! Remember, as long as he's doing that, he's happy and can't be bothered with us lowly visitors. As soon as his hands are idle, though. Watch out.
Far better that Michael keeps posting old stories. It's what he does best.:-)
Luxo Jr. was that animation involving a jumpy, excitable desklamp that now serves as the "i" in Pixar (You'll see it in the opening titles of any Pixar film).
Of course, instead of just hearing people on Slashdot go on about Pixar's history, why not just get it straight from the horse's mouth?
ctime(2147483641)=Tue Jan 19 03:14:01 2038 ctime(2147483642)=Tue Jan 19 03:14:02 2038 ctime(2147483643)=Tue Jan 19 03:14:03 2038 ctime(2147483644)=Tue Jan 19 03:14:04 2038 ctime(2147483645)=Tue Jan 19 03:14:05 2038 ctime(2147483646)=Tue Jan 19 03:14:06 2038 ctime(2147483647)=Tue Jan 19 03:14:07 2038 ctime(2147483648)=Tue Jan 19 03:14:07 2038 ctime(2147483649)=Tue Jan 19 03:14:07 2038 ctime(2147483650)=Tue Jan 19 03:14:07 2038 ctime(2147483651)=Tue Jan 19 03:14:07 2038 ctime(2147483652)=Tue Jan 19 03:14:07 2038 ctime(2147483653)=Tue Jan 19 03:14:07 2038
This means that, barring any unfortunate mishaps between now and 2038, I will live forever and never grow older!!!
When the industrial revolution made farming unprofitable, those workers got better jobs in industry.
Well, they were better once the workers organized with unions and fought for issues like workplace safety, shorter work weeks, and ant-child labor laws. Or did you not hear the stories about young women losing their fingers to mechanical looms, or thousands of people sick and hungry, crowded 20 something to a room in tenement housing.
Granted, I'm a little rusty on how miserable the lives of farmers were, but I think it's fair to say that being a worker in the USA has always sucked the big one. Most of them are better off than they were in the first half of the 20th century, but most (except women, who are now slowly bridging the salary gap) workers are not better off than they were in the second half of the 20th century. A big part of it has been ridiculous increases in health and other costs, accompanied by a lackluster increase in salary.
I personally agree with you that economic redistribution would probably hep the plight of the worker. Incidentally, it's called socialism (not that there's anything wrong with that). Economic distribution is in direct opposition to capitalism, in which the emphasis is exclusively on private ownership.
And you're not going to get economic distribution in the US, not as long as some opposing politician can slap the horrible label of "socialist" or "communist" to it. If Reagan, as president, was successful at one thing, it was making the idea of socialism and communism so abbhorent to the populace that now it is associated in the US with evil, death, etc. Clearly there are many socialist democracies that are doing just fine.
I think the problem is that America is too productive. We create too many products, with too few workers. It means we can pay the workers more, but it also means we need fewer of them, which means that we can actually turn to the workers and say, "Hey, there's this out-of-work guy who'll do the same job you're doing for less money. Better stay in line, or else." So despite the glowing association some economists have with productivity, I don't necessarily think it leads to a better economic situation for all workers.
What we really need to do is mandate a three week paid vacation. It isn't communist, it isn't socialist, and everyone could get behind it. The longer our vacation time, the less overall work hours, so more workers are needed. When those workers are on vacation, they spend their money on travel, so it goes back into the economy. Or, if they're not traveling, they might be spending that time working on their houses, which will raise property values in the area. Or, they might volunteer, which will improve the local community.
A lot of people in this country say, "I'd love to do X, if only I had more time." I say, give them the time. More vacation time can't hurt the country, it can only help it. And I think most companies can afford it. I mean, somehow businesses in other countries muddle through profitably while giving out 4-6 week paid vacations (Yes, Australians, the lucky bastards, have 6 weeks paid vacation).
Anyone?!?...yeah, well, my grandma was lucky. When my aunt set up her computer, she uninstalled IE from Windows (I guess it's not as devastating as they claim it is) and installed Netscape.
But if she hadn't done that, then my grandma would be using IE.
Are you saying that my grandma deserves to be screwed? My grandma?!?!
You heartless fucker. Oh wait, I mean, uh, you insensitive clod.
Yeah, and don't forget that in the book, everyone knows what happened in Moria. Nobody goes in there expecting food and drink.
Gimli: "My cousin Balin would give us a royal welcome."
(pause)
Gimli: "Oh wait, no, scratch that. Everyone in Moria is frikkin' DEAD!"
Also, considering that Gimli is a dwarf and thus has good night vision, shouldn't *he* have been the first one to realize, "this is a tomb"? I mean, it was pretty clear, really. I could see it in the dark, before they even had bright lights on the bodies.
Except that governments generally have a stronger buying power than an individual person. They can probably get the converters at a lower price than a single person would, so the amount that a person pays from their taxes may be less than they would pay to go out and purchase the converter on their own.
Also, my understanding is that the government makes/saves money by having TVs going to digital format, so it's possible they'll simply use some of the difference in costs to pay for the converters.
Finally, Sweden, like many of the other Scandinavian countries, is heavily socialized. The people there are used to paying high taxes, but getting a lot back from their government in return. In US, by contrast, a large portion of the governments budget goes towards the military, which many people in the US do not agree with but have no say over it.
As someone with a dinky TV set that certainly won't be ready for digital television, I would welcome receiving a converter from the government, even if it meant tax money. I only look at the amount that I get in my paycheck after taxes, not at how much taxes I pay each year. Besides, a vast majority of the tax I pay are for payroll taxes; I pay a piddling amount each year on income taxes (though I'm not poor enough to be a "lucky ducky").
When I look at the decisions that the Bush administration is making -- cutting social programs left and right, while increasing military spending to Reagan levels -- damn straight I'm pissed off about how the tax money is being spent.
I think it is useful to point out, as the parent poster did, that anything that the government "pays for" is really done with the people's money. But considering that the taxes have pretty much already been taken, it's more interesting to consider what is actually done with that tax money.
I think the parent's posting is largely insightful, except for his partisan take on it. My experience is that, across the board, government officials are very stupid (or evilly clever) when it comes to making decisions regarding technology. I mean, it wasn't just Democrats that voted for the DMCA, right?
As another poster, unfortunately marked as troll, pointed out, there are representatives from both sides of the aisle who are praising the bill. What's dumb is that we know who the spammers are. They're corporations that are set up here in the US. If I remember correctly, there are really only 3-4 major spam companies that send out a majority of the spam. If we could just shut down those companies, that would be a good start.
I disagree with people who think that there is a purely technological solution to this problem. As has been seen, spammers are very good at adapting to new anti-spam technologies. Basically, all of the nice features of e-mail -- anonymity, cheapness, simplicity, user-friendliess, automation -- would have to be abandoned in order to make a form of electronic communication that a spammer couldn't work around. Ultimately, we have to make it painful for spammers to exist. We have to apply pressure, also, to credit card companies and merchant account providers that set up accounts for these jerks. Instead of introducing laws defining what kinds of email are illegal (really, it's more like porn -- I know something is spam when I see it), it would be better to introduce laws governing credit when a company spams. Merchant Account companies should be forced to take down a merchant account when that company knowingly engages in spamming (say, after the second offense), and a record must go into their credit check (both for the individual and for the company), so the next time they try to set up a merchant account, that note will be there: Account shut down due to non-comformance with US. Code blah blah blah.
Merchant account companies that actually set up accounts for people with that in their credit report could be held liable or fined.
Yes, that sort of law might be more intrusive. But damn would it work. Without access to a merchant account, a spam-based commerce site basically would collapse.
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't tried them personally
I have, and we are now actually a reseller for them (although we only "resell" it to the people we host). ChainedSSL (Equifax in Astroturf) has been working hard to switch us over to their certificates. They're trying to spread a bunch of FUD because the InstantSSL certificates have a root that is owned by Baltimore, which has just been bought out. But InstantSSL has much better browser compatibility (something like 99% of all browsers vs. Equifax's 95%).
They generally have very fast turn around, usually you can get the certificates that day if you have your documents in order.
The nice thing is that once you're a reseller, you become responsible for the the validity of the seller, which means that certificates are issued as soon as you submit them.
As anyone who owns a business can tell you, nothing is ever free.
My boss continued using and supporting Windows NT as our server OS of choice until Microsoft announced more restrictive licensing policies.
I think Microsoft's new angle on licenses is what's driving people away, not the cost of the software, which is peanuts to a lot of enterprise companies.
The Window OS licenses are no longer as portable, which means that if I have to junk one computer and buy another, odds are I'm going to have to buy a new license for that computer; I can't just use the disk that came with the trashed computer. So over time my boss came to distrust Microsoft.
That and increasing security concerns are the reason I was successful at getting him to see the benefits of Linux.
Now, whenever we want to add another machine, we don't have to waste any time purchasing licenses or getting new software cds. I just download the ISOs and install.
I'm starting to sway him towards Linux for desktops too. He was getting a computer for his wife, who only needs to do E-mail and Web surfing. He's seriously thinking of using Linux for that, since it's an ideal OS for just standard Internet work.
*sigh* where are the mod points when you really need them?
Mod this up, up, up.
You're just too damn bored with whatever it is you're trying to pay attention to.
Yeah, well, tragically, life isn't all that exciting, generally.
And it's much more useful to go through life being able to cope than lolling around doing nothing because of all the darn boredom.
I have a pretty strong form of ADD, and it isn't all boredom. I mean, I think I would be conscious of being bored all the time, wouldn't I? Or would I really be sitting there, desperately trying to focus on a task that was very important to me, but finding myself unable to do so, just because it was somehow boring?!?
Oh, and don't forget overstimulation, the flip side of ADD, when you're getting too much input, and so you freak out. Some people with ADD I know would shut down completely under too much stimulation, and become unable to take in *anything*. Me, I just freak out and get really nervous and uncomfortable. For me, one of the scariest sounds ever is the chatter in a cocktail party. It's too many voices all at once.
And then there's hyperfocusing. I guess I was too "bored" by the outside world to hear if anyone was speaking to me while I was reading a book? There was seriously a time when someone would have to grab my head and stare into my eyes to get my attention while reading.
I guess it's frustrating when people say that ADD is not a real disorder or a real problem. "They're just too smart. Put them in more challenging classes, and they'll pay attention." "They're just hyper; that's normal in someone his age." These are all somewhat plausible explanations for a 10-12 year old, but not for someone in their 20s.
Here are the problems I've noticed as a result of ADD, both in myself and in many, many others with ADD that I have encountered: lack of organizational skills (cleanliness is boring), lack of social skills (having friends is boring), being impulsive (thinking before acting is boring), lack of focus (getting things done is boring), anger issues (dealing with emotions in a healthy way is boring), problems with empathy (relating to others is boring), not paying attention to surroundings (the whole frikkin' world is boring!), lack of focus even when performing crucial tasks, like driving a car (not crashing is boring).
I could go on and on, but I feel that calling people with ADD "bored" is like saying that alcoholics are just really thirsty, and if only you gave them the right kind of liquids they wouldn't have a problem anymore. The fact that alcoholics drink a lot of liquid is only a side-symptom of their need to get alcohol in their systems. People with ADD feel bored because they don't know how to focus their attention to the task at hand. In essence, the complete opposite of what the parent is saying.
I would heartily agree that drug companies, like all companies, are out to make money. But I disagree that everyone who shells out money for ADD medication doesn't actually need it.
These discreet earbuds work perfectly when you're trying to blend in. As you can see, they're virtually undetectable. Come with a comfortable, expandable cord
If you believe that being gay is a choice someone makes then there's no reason why they should have special rights because of this choice (gay marriage, etc.)
Marriage isn't a special right. Anyway, if I only dig fat chicks, should I be required to be married to a woman who's skinny? No.
And so if the only kind of woman that turns me on is the kind that has a penis and no breasts, why can't I marry her (him)?
I think the number one block in the gay/lesbian issue is the "choice" issue. I don't think it should matter whether someone chooses to be gay, or if they were born that way. If I want to be a musician, dammit, I should be able to a musician, whether or not my parents gave me any genetic predisposition towards it. I think it also sends a huge "Fuck You" to the bi community, whose member obviously *are* able to pluck fruit from both sides of the tree.
Forcing the "choice/no choice" issue around homosexuality implies that fundamentally homosexuality is wrong. "I didn't choose to be this way." means "I don't want to be this way" or "It's wrong that I'm this way, but I can't help it."
If you believe that homosexuality is wrong, then you shouldn't care whether it's a choice or not. You can say, "If you didn't choose it, become a monk, forswear sex for the rest of your life, or kill yourself." If you think it's a choice, you can tell them, "Change your ways, you fuck!"
If you believe that homosexuality isn't wrong, then you shouldn't care whether someone is the way they are because of choice or because of how they are wired.
In my opinion, I think homosexuality is just fine and dandy, although of course I have little to no first-hand experience to back up my claims. All my many, many gay friends that I have, however, seem to feel it works for them. I mean, it certainly works a whole lot better than sexual repression and misery. I don't care whether any of them are doing it because it's a choice or because they decided to be that way. I mean, none of them are choosing it for the glamour and ease of being a homosexual in the South. And I think it's probably hard to be gay anywhere, even in places with large, supportive gay communities. So either it's a difficult thing to live with, or a difficult choice to make.
Under certain conditions, sharks will attack and kill humans. It's in their nature; it's not a choice. But even though they're not "choosing" to kill and it's hard-wired in them, I don't think sharks should have equal access to public swimming areas. This is because I think the key element here is a shark killing people, and not whether it's choosing to or not.
Michael gets to post a story again! Remember, as long as he's doing that, he's happy and can't be bothered with us lowly visitors. As soon as his hands are idle, though. Watch out.
:-)
Far better that Michael keeps posting old stories. It's what he does best.
Unfortunately, there isn't yet a way to use computers to detect dupes.
Or Is there?!?
Wow, they put the Tom Bobadil scene in the Two Towers?
I guess everyone who says that the movies don't represent the books very well was right.
And how did they manage to get all the hobbits together again? Must of been some kind of magic recall spell.
Also in The Best of Resfest: Vol. 2, which is available for rental from Netflix.
Luxo Jr. was that animation involving a jumpy, excitable desklamp that now serves as the "i" in Pixar (You'll see it in the opening titles of any Pixar film).
Of course, instead of just hearing people on Slashdot go on about Pixar's history, why not just get it straight from the horse's mouth?
A nice, clear, and easy history of Pixar.
The world doesn't explode.
Time stops.
At least, it does on a mac:
ctime(2147483641)=Tue Jan 19 03:14:01 2038
ctime(2147483642)=Tue Jan 19 03:14:02 2038
ctime(2147483643)=Tue Jan 19 03:14:03 2038
ctime(2147483644)=Tue Jan 19 03:14:04 2038
ctime(2147483645)=Tue Jan 19 03:14:05 2038
ctime(2147483646)=Tue Jan 19 03:14:06 2038
ctime(2147483647)=Tue Jan 19 03:14:07 2038
ctime(2147483648)=Tue Jan 19 03:14:07 2038
ctime(2147483649)=Tue Jan 19 03:14:07 2038
ctime(2147483650)=Tue Jan 19 03:14:07 2038
ctime(2147483651)=Tue Jan 19 03:14:07 2038
ctime(2147483652)=Tue Jan 19 03:14:07 2038
ctime(2147483653)=Tue Jan 19 03:14:07 2038
This means that, barring any unfortunate mishaps between now and 2038, I will live forever and never grow older!!!
Unfortunately, I will be 61. So, no babes.
When the industrial revolution made farming unprofitable, those workers got better jobs in industry.
Well, they were better once the workers organized with unions and fought for issues like workplace safety, shorter work weeks, and ant-child labor laws. Or did you not hear the stories about young women losing their fingers to mechanical looms, or thousands of people sick and hungry, crowded 20 something to a room in tenement housing.
Granted, I'm a little rusty on how miserable the lives of farmers were, but I think it's fair to say that being a worker in the USA has always sucked the big one. Most of them are better off than they were in the first half of the 20th century, but most (except women, who are now slowly bridging the salary gap) workers are not better off than they were in the second half of the 20th century. A big part of it has been ridiculous increases in health and other costs, accompanied by a lackluster increase in salary.
I personally agree with you that economic redistribution would probably hep the plight of the worker. Incidentally, it's called socialism (not that there's anything wrong with that). Economic distribution is in direct opposition to capitalism, in which the emphasis is exclusively on private ownership.
And you're not going to get economic distribution in the US, not as long as some opposing politician can slap the horrible label of "socialist" or "communist" to it. If Reagan, as president, was successful at one thing, it was making the idea of socialism and communism so abbhorent to the populace that now it is associated in the US with evil, death, etc. Clearly there are many socialist democracies that are doing just fine.
I think the problem is that America is too productive. We create too many products, with too few workers. It means we can pay the workers more, but it also means we need fewer of them, which means that we can actually turn to the workers and say, "Hey, there's this out-of-work guy who'll do the same job you're doing for less money. Better stay in line, or else." So despite the glowing association some economists have with productivity, I don't necessarily think it leads to a better economic situation for all workers.
What we really need to do is mandate a three week paid vacation. It isn't communist, it isn't socialist, and everyone could get behind it. The longer our vacation time, the less overall work hours, so more workers are needed. When those workers are on vacation, they spend their money on travel, so it goes back into the economy. Or, if they're not traveling, they might be spending that time working on their houses, which will raise property values in the area. Or, they might volunteer, which will improve the local community.
A lot of people in this country say, "I'd love to do X, if only I had more time." I say, give them the time. More vacation time can't hurt the country, it can only help it. And I think most companies can afford it. I mean, somehow businesses in other countries muddle through profitably while giving out 4-6 week paid vacations (Yes, Australians, the lucky bastards, have 6 weeks paid vacation).
Pretty exciting stuff, but they should keep digging for bones - there's nothing like ground truth.
No, there's nothing like ground bones!
Oh yes! They're even better raw!
In case any of you were worried, Cyberdog is unaffected also.
anyone still using IE
...yeah, well, my grandma was lucky. When my aunt set up her computer, she uninstalled IE from Windows (I guess it's not as devastating as they claim it is) and installed Netscape.
Anyone?!?
But if she hadn't done that, then my grandma would be using IE.
Are you saying that my grandma deserves to be screwed? My grandma?!?!
You heartless fucker. Oh wait, I mean, uh, you insensitive clod.
Myself, I'd rather collect welfare or flip burgers than code mind-numbing database applications for salespeople without brains.
Hmmm... what's more mind numbing, flipping burgers or writing programs (even in *gasp* VB)?
Yeah, yeah, IHBT.
Damn.
Okay, better example:
Quantum physics for pedestrians:
"So how fast was the car going when it hit you?"
"I'm not sure, but I *do* know its position when it hit me!"
Actually, the flashing don't walk sign, during which time you both can and cannot cross a street, is a real-life example of Schroedinger's (sp?) cat.
Venus is perfectly habitable; the government wants you to believe that it's not.
Yeah, yeah, I want to believe.
How about "quantum mechanics for pedestrians"?
Look out for that bus! It's going really fast!
"That's not a bus. It's just an SUV that's stretched out because it's approaching c."
"Oh, thank goodness!"
*SPLAT!*
For those of you interested in what it might be about here is the script.
Yeah, and don't forget that in the book, everyone knows what happened in Moria. Nobody goes in there expecting food and drink.
Gimli: "My cousin Balin would give us a royal welcome."
(pause)
Gimli: "Oh wait, no, scratch that. Everyone in Moria is frikkin' DEAD!"
Also, considering that Gimli is a dwarf and thus has good night vision, shouldn't *he* have been the first one to realize, "this is a tomb"? I mean, it was pretty clear, really. I could see it in the dark, before they even had bright lights on the bodies.
Except that governments generally have a stronger buying power than an individual person. They can probably get the converters at a lower price than a single person would, so the amount that a person pays from their taxes may be less than they would pay to go out and purchase the converter on their own.
Also, my understanding is that the government makes/saves money by having TVs going to digital format, so it's possible they'll simply use some of the difference in costs to pay for the converters.
Finally, Sweden, like many of the other Scandinavian countries, is heavily socialized. The people there are used to paying high taxes, but getting a lot back from their government in return. In US, by contrast, a large portion of the governments budget goes towards the military, which many people in the US do not agree with but have no say over it.
As someone with a dinky TV set that certainly won't be ready for digital television, I would welcome receiving a converter from the government, even if it meant tax money. I only look at the amount that I get in my paycheck after taxes, not at how much taxes I pay each year. Besides, a vast majority of the tax I pay are for payroll taxes; I pay a piddling amount each year on income taxes (though I'm not poor enough to be a "lucky ducky").
When I look at the decisions that the Bush administration is making -- cutting social programs left and right, while increasing military spending to Reagan levels -- damn straight I'm pissed off about how the tax money is being spent.
I think it is useful to point out, as the parent poster did, that anything that the government "pays for" is really done with the people's money. But considering that the taxes have pretty much already been taken, it's more interesting to consider what is actually done with that tax money.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
I think the parent's posting is largely insightful, except for his partisan take on it. My experience is that, across the board, government officials are very stupid (or evilly clever) when it comes to making decisions regarding technology. I mean, it wasn't just Democrats that voted for the DMCA, right?
As another poster, unfortunately marked as troll, pointed out, there are representatives from both sides of the aisle who are praising the bill. What's dumb is that we know who the spammers are. They're corporations that are set up here in the US. If I remember correctly, there are really only 3-4 major spam companies that send out a majority of the spam. If we could just shut down those companies, that would be a good start.
I disagree with people who think that there is a purely technological solution to this problem. As has been seen, spammers are very good at adapting to new anti-spam technologies. Basically, all of the nice features of e-mail -- anonymity, cheapness, simplicity, user-friendliess, automation -- would have to be abandoned in order to make a form of electronic communication that a spammer couldn't work around. Ultimately, we have to make it painful for spammers to exist. We have to apply pressure, also, to credit card companies and merchant account providers that set up accounts for these jerks. Instead of introducing laws defining what kinds of email are illegal (really, it's more like porn -- I know something is spam when I see it), it would be better to introduce laws governing credit when a company spams. Merchant Account companies should be forced to take down a merchant account when that company knowingly engages in spamming (say, after the second offense), and a record must go into their credit check (both for the individual and for the company), so the next time they try to set up a merchant account, that note will be there:
Account shut down due to non-comformance with US. Code blah blah blah.
Merchant account companies that actually set up accounts for people with that in their credit report could be held liable or fined.
Yes, that sort of law might be more intrusive. But damn would it work. Without access to a merchant account, a spam-based commerce site basically would collapse.