Come on, people. If you honestly believe that MyDoom was not written by a disgruntled Linux user, then you are stupid. There have been numerous DDOS attacks against SCO's web site over the last six months...is anyone out there *REALLY* questioning who would hate SCO enough to do such a thing?
Wake up and smell what you're shoveling people. Just because you yourself wouldn't do it does not mean there are not members of our clique who would.
Please read what I said. The UN authorized the use of force when they voided the initial cease fire. Iraq was declared in violation of the same cease fire habitually through through Resolution 1441. This was not a single slap on the hand for violating weapon bans - Iraq was directly declared in violation of the cease fire four times by the UN Security Council.
Like I said - read the documents. This WAS authorized by the UN.
How do you figure the invasion was illegal? Iraq was declared in violation of the terms of the cease fire less than a year after it was signed. At that point, there was no cease fire, and further invasion was authorized. Read the documents, and come back.
I have no military service, and I'm too involved in school to sign up now, but I feel I wouldn't be doing my part if I didn't add my two cents in here.
I don't like President Bush. I think he is a short-sighted, uneducated, intolerant redneck, and it frightens me that he has the ability to launch nuclear missiles. But saying that this war is wrong or that it is illegal simply does not make sense. If there is an intelligent argument against this, I have yet to read it.
Your argument does not make sense.
To accuse President Bush of war crimes and not accuse Saddam Hussein at the same time is as massive MASSIVE hypocrisy. Look at the mass graves. Look at the soldiers dressed in civilian clothing, firing on coalition troops. Look at the countless incidents of Iraqi soldiers feigning surrender only to fire on coalition troops who were willing to show them mercy. Look at the thousands of Shiite Muslims who were killed by nerve gas on Saddam's orders after the first Gulf War. Look at the torture chambers that have been found. Look at the incidents of Iraqi troops firing on unarmed civilians, fleeing the horror of the war. Look at the stockpiles of humanitarian aid that were gathered up and never distributed to the people of Iraq. Look at the squads of professional rapists Saddam used to torture women and children. The list goes on and on. There are too many to name.
Your argument does not make sense.
It saddens me that people can be so blind to how simple this is. You disgust me. UN Resolution 1441 states very clearly that the point was never to "find" biological or chemical weapons in Iraq; the point was to prove whether or not they are there. And it states in no uncertain terms that absolute and unquestioned cooperation was demanded of Saddam's regime. Resolution 1441 can be found here.
Resolution 1441 also notes many previous Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, of which I've counted four that explicitly declare Iraq in violation of the cease-fire of the first Gulf War. There are others that deal with humanitarian problems caused by Saddam's regime, and property stolen from Kuwait (which I might add was never returned or repaid).
Look further at the reports from UN weapons inspection teams, complaining of Iraq's failure to cooperate in the terms set out by Resolution 1441. Unconditional, unrestricted, unquestioned cooperation was demanded, and it was not received. I should probably mention that Iraq *eventually* cooperated with most of the things demanded in Resolution 1441, but the very fact that they cooperated "eventually" constitutes a material breach of the resolution.
Your argument does not make sense.
For every point you try to make to prove your case against the war, twelve can be brought up to prove otherwise.
Today is a great day for the world. Saddam Hussein is not worth the bullet it would take to shoot him. He is an evil, violent man who would eagerly put every man, woman, and child in the world under the control of his equally evil and violent regime, if only he could get his hands on weapons powerful enough to allow it. But you accuse President Bush of war crimes?
It doesn't make sense. It is untrue, and unfair. It is a lie, and it is hypocritical.
Read the facts people. I've tried very hard to understand the opposing viewpoint, but the only explanation I can come up with is either the silent support of terrorism and atrocity, or gross GROSS ignorance to the facts of the matter.
I'm sorry for making this post so long, but I have a lot to say on this matter. Don't believe protest groups, don't believe presidents or politicians, and don't believe France. Read the UN resolutions and reports from expert committees appointed by the UN. After you've read those, see if you can come up with a reasonable argument using facts, not slander.
God bless America! God bless Iraq! May freedom ring so much farther than from sea to shining sea. May it reach so far and ring so loud that even the most ravaged and brutalized nations of the world hear it as clearly as we do in America.
Since politicians are known to be tech-savvy enough to take advantage of this...but they would never do that. Here in America, we demand the highest level of integrity before we will elect anyone to office.
Or do we? (laughs nervously as theme from The Twilight Zone plays ominously in the background)
So now the ISP is responsible for the copyright violations of its users. By that same argument, is the Secret Service or the President's chauffer responsible for crimes committed by the President?
IBM is based out of New York. If IBM is responsible for these infringements, WHY THE HELL ARE THEY SENDING SUBPOENAS TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PLANET?!?!?
The patent office is going to admit that they might have made a mistake? This has me extremely worried.
Is this prophesied in the Book of Revelations, or Nostradamus or something? Will this throw the Earth out of orbit? Somebody get Satan on the phone, and ask if it's snowing.
As much as you people criticize this, it is a step in the right direction. Like it or not, the spam problem isn't going away overnight - we need persistent, and relentless legal action.
By saying they are "wasting their time", you imply that their time would indeed be more productive if spent elsewhere. Should we let the legislature hear some more of the FCC's fascinating plans for HDTV, and make those legal instead?
I see a lot of valid complaints about how effective this is going to be, but honestly, I don't see it having any reverse effects. The spam problem can't possibly get any worsek, so whatever is done is a step in the right direction, however token it may be.
How ironic that the most widely advertised product on the web is going bankrupt. Has anyone considered that web users don't like to be carpet-bombed with popups?
Amendment I
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.
I'm having serious trouble seeing how this protects telemarketers. The way I see it, the First Amendment doesn't even APPLY to non-government persons, because unlike the government, the civilians this Amendment protects *DO* have the right to deny you the right to entry to their homes, or charge you under applicable harassment laws.
That's sad that people will lose their jobs and all, but THE PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS! *WE* are in charge of this country, not the DMA. Of the people, by the people, for the people...
Why should it be our responsibility to remove ourselves from call lists that we never signed up for to begin with? We don't want to be bothered, and we never wanted to be bothered. If telemarketers had stuck to simply calling people who had expressed interest in their products explicitly, this would never have been out of control in the first place.
But no, you just had to put every phone number you could find on your lists. Call a hundred people and make one sale, and the ninety-nine that were annoyed with you will get over it.
I am so sick and tired of you people bitching about unemployment and freedom of speech. YOU ARE NOT A MAJORITY! 50 million Americans signed up for the Do-Not-Call list. There is not a chance in hell that there are 50 million telemarketers to oppose that.
Majority rules, and the majority wants the list. Period. End of story.
[Gets off soap box]
Man, that felt good.
~Knautilus 316
The First Amendment says that the government doesn't have the authority to gag you....THAT'S IT! It's your right to protest, to picket, and denounce government actions.
It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with software written independently, and licensed under the GPL.
Don't tell me to go read the Constitution when you're the one screwing it up.
I am THOROUGLY apalled at this ruling. The judge actually said that industry "trade secrets" overrule free speech. This is a direct circumvention of the First Amendment, and the legel panel responsible should face legal consequences for violating their oath to uphold the United States Constitution.
Judges do not have the ability to determine that something is more important than a Constitutional Amendment, but it seems to me that this is exactly what they've done.
What's next? Are they going to take all firearms away from civilians because they *might* be used to commit a crime?
I for one downloaded DeCSS to my hard drive just because of this ruling.
I just used their little demo on their website, and my popup stopper killed it.
I'm running Panicware (http://www.panicware.com) Pop-Up Stopper Free Edition v. 2.92.
Hint: Enable aggressive mode:)
~Knautilus
Slashdot Mirror
In related news, the US Patent Office also rejected Bill Gates' patent applications for fire and the wheel. ~Knautilus
Slashdot corrospondants would like to apologize for this story, but asks readers to understand that absolutely nothing better is going on.
~Knautilus
Come on, people. If you honestly believe that MyDoom was not written by a disgruntled Linux user, then you are stupid. There have been numerous DDOS attacks against SCO's web site over the last six months...is anyone out there *REALLY* questioning who would hate SCO enough to do such a thing?
Wake up and smell what you're shoveling people. Just because you yourself wouldn't do it does not mean there are not members of our clique who would.
~Knautilus
Fortunately, both the firearms they carry and their legal strategies both bear "Mattel" logos on them.
~Knautilus
Please read what I said. The UN authorized the use of force when they voided the initial cease fire. Iraq was declared in violation of the same cease fire habitually through through Resolution 1441. This was not a single slap on the hand for violating weapon bans - Iraq was directly declared in violation of the cease fire four times by the UN Security Council.
Like I said - read the documents. This WAS authorized by the UN.
~Knautilus
How do you figure the invasion was illegal? Iraq was declared in violation of the terms of the cease fire less than a year after it was signed. At that point, there was no cease fire, and further invasion was authorized. Read the documents, and come back.
~Knautilus
I have no military service, and I'm too involved in school to sign up now, but I feel I wouldn't be doing my part if I didn't add my two cents in here.
I don't like President Bush. I think he is a short-sighted, uneducated, intolerant redneck, and it frightens me that he has the ability to launch nuclear missiles. But saying that this war is wrong or that it is illegal simply does not make sense. If there is an intelligent argument against this, I have yet to read it.
Your argument does not make sense.
To accuse President Bush of war crimes and not accuse Saddam Hussein at the same time is as massive MASSIVE hypocrisy. Look at the mass graves. Look at the soldiers dressed in civilian clothing, firing on coalition troops. Look at the countless incidents of Iraqi soldiers feigning surrender only to fire on coalition troops who were willing to show them mercy. Look at the thousands of Shiite Muslims who were killed by nerve gas on Saddam's orders after the first Gulf War. Look at the torture chambers that have been found. Look at the incidents of Iraqi troops firing on unarmed civilians, fleeing the horror of the war. Look at the stockpiles of humanitarian aid that were gathered up and never distributed to the people of Iraq. Look at the squads of professional rapists Saddam used to torture women and children. The list goes on and on. There are too many to name.
Your argument does not make sense.
It saddens me that people can be so blind to how simple this is. You disgust me. UN Resolution 1441 states very clearly that the point was never to "find" biological or chemical weapons in Iraq; the point was to prove whether or not they are there. And it states in no uncertain terms that absolute and unquestioned cooperation was demanded of Saddam's regime. Resolution 1441 can be found here.
Resolution 1441 also notes many previous Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, of which I've counted four that explicitly declare Iraq in violation of the cease-fire of the first Gulf War. There are others that deal with humanitarian problems caused by Saddam's regime, and property stolen from Kuwait (which I might add was never returned or repaid).
Look further at the reports from UN weapons inspection teams, complaining of Iraq's failure to cooperate in the terms set out by Resolution 1441. Unconditional, unrestricted, unquestioned cooperation was demanded, and it was not received. I should probably mention that Iraq *eventually* cooperated with most of the things demanded in Resolution 1441, but the very fact that they cooperated "eventually" constitutes a material breach of the resolution.
Your argument does not make sense.
For every point you try to make to prove your case against the war, twelve can be brought up to prove otherwise.
Today is a great day for the world. Saddam Hussein is not worth the bullet it would take to shoot him. He is an evil, violent man who would eagerly put every man, woman, and child in the world under the control of his equally evil and violent regime, if only he could get his hands on weapons powerful enough to allow it. But you accuse President Bush of war crimes?
It doesn't make sense. It is untrue, and unfair. It is a lie, and it is hypocritical.
Read the facts people. I've tried very hard to understand the opposing viewpoint, but the only explanation I can come up with is either the silent support of terrorism and atrocity, or gross GROSS ignorance to the facts of the matter.
I'm sorry for making this post so long, but I have a lot to say on this matter. Don't believe protest groups, don't believe presidents or politicians, and don't believe France. Read the UN resolutions and reports from expert committees appointed by the UN. After you've read those, see if you can come up with a reasonable argument using facts, not slander.
God bless America! God bless Iraq! May freedom ring so much farther than from sea to shining sea. May it reach so far and ring so loud that even the most ravaged and brutalized nations of the world hear it as clearly as we do in America.
~Knautilus
Since politicians are known to be tech-savvy enough to take advantage of this...but they would never do that. Here in America, we demand the highest level of integrity before we will elect anyone to office.
Or do we? (laughs nervously as theme from The Twilight Zone plays ominously in the background)
~Knautilus
You fucking idiot!!!
~Knautilus
So now the ISP is responsible for the copyright violations of its users. By that same argument, is the Secret Service or the President's chauffer responsible for crimes committed by the President?
~Knautilus
IBM is based out of New York. If IBM is responsible for these infringements, WHY THE HELL ARE THEY SENDING SUBPOENAS TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PLANET?!?!?
~Knautilus
*WARNING* Don't read this if you haven't read the books! SPOILERS!
Those of us that read the books no doubt loved the Battle of the Shire at the end...is this getting axed? That really sucks.
~Knautilus
The patent office is going to admit that they might have made a mistake? This has me extremely worried.
Is this prophesied in the Book of Revelations, or Nostradamus or something? Will this throw the Earth out of orbit? Somebody get Satan on the phone, and ask if it's snowing.
~Knautilus
As much as you people criticize this, it is a step in the right direction. Like it or not, the spam problem isn't going away overnight - we need persistent, and relentless legal action.
~Knautilus
By saying they are "wasting their time", you imply that their time would indeed be more productive if spent elsewhere. Should we let the legislature hear some more of the FCC's fascinating plans for HDTV, and make those legal instead?
~Knautilus
I see a lot of valid complaints about how effective this is going to be, but honestly, I don't see it having any reverse effects. The spam problem can't possibly get any worsek, so whatever is done is a step in the right direction, however token it may be.
~Knautilus
How ironic that the most widely advertised product on the web is going bankrupt. Has anyone considered that web users don't like to be carpet-bombed with popups?
Nooooooo....that' can't be.....
~Knautilus
What's in a name? That which we call bullshit by any other name would smell as sweet.
~Knautilus
I'm having a hard time caring about this because it's been so long since I've watched TV.
Has anyone else considered that they have the right *NOT* to watch?
~Knautilus
Dave Fester, yesterday dismissed the new iTunes for Windows version, saying it was too limited for the average Windows users.
Oh, because WMA doesn't have any built in limitations? eall....
~Knautilus
Amendment I 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. I'm having serious trouble seeing how this protects telemarketers. The way I see it, the First Amendment doesn't even APPLY to non-government persons, because unlike the government, the civilians this Amendment protects *DO* have the right to deny you the right to entry to their homes, or charge you under applicable harassment laws. That's sad that people will lose their jobs and all, but THE PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS! *WE* are in charge of this country, not the DMA. Of the people, by the people, for the people... Why should it be our responsibility to remove ourselves from call lists that we never signed up for to begin with? We don't want to be bothered, and we never wanted to be bothered. If telemarketers had stuck to simply calling people who had expressed interest in their products explicitly, this would never have been out of control in the first place. But no, you just had to put every phone number you could find on your lists. Call a hundred people and make one sale, and the ninety-nine that were annoyed with you will get over it. I am so sick and tired of you people bitching about unemployment and freedom of speech. YOU ARE NOT A MAJORITY! 50 million Americans signed up for the Do-Not-Call list. There is not a chance in hell that there are 50 million telemarketers to oppose that. Majority rules, and the majority wants the list. Period. End of story. [Gets off soap box] Man, that felt good. ~Knautilus 316
The First Amendment says that the government doesn't have the authority to gag you....THAT'S IT! It's your right to protest, to picket, and denounce government actions.
It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with software written independently, and licensed under the GPL.
Don't tell me to go read the Constitution when you're the one screwing it up.
~Knautilus
I am THOROUGLY apalled at this ruling. The judge actually said that industry "trade secrets" overrule free speech. This is a direct circumvention of the First Amendment, and the legel panel responsible should face legal consequences for violating their oath to uphold the United States Constitution.
Judges do not have the ability to determine that something is more important than a Constitutional Amendment, but it seems to me that this is exactly what they've done.
What's next? Are they going to take all firearms away from civilians because they *might* be used to commit a crime?
I for one downloaded DeCSS to my hard drive just because of this ruling.
~Knautilus
I just used their little demo on their website, and my popup stopper killed it. I'm running Panicware (http://www.panicware.com) Pop-Up Stopper Free Edition v. 2.92. Hint: Enable aggressive mode :)
~Knautilus