Do you understand that satire only works if it's based on reality, and the question at hand isn't the satire bit, but the invented numbers and finger pointing without evidence bit?
One day after the Yes Men made a joke announcement of ExxonMobil's plans to turn billions of climate-change victims (hypothetical, unlikely premise, original research) into a brand-new fuel called Vivoleum, the Yes Men's upstream internet service provider shut down Vivoleum.com and cut off the Yes Men's email service, in reaction to a complaint whose source they will not identify. 'Since parody is protected under US law, Exxon must think that people seeing the site will think Vivoleum's a real Exxon product, not just a parody,' said Yes Man Mike Bonanno (conjecture). Exxon's policies do already contribute to 150,000 climate-change related deaths each year,' (highly suspect claim, no evidence given to support) added Yes Man Andy Bichlbaum. 'So maybe it really is credible. What a resource!'
"By being forced to submit contributions to the Fedora repository they automatically fall under the provisions of US export law. So, no OLPC for Cuba, Syria and the like. Ever."
Well, no, only until they are removed from the State Department's List of State Sponsors of International Terrorism. This has happened for Iraq (on, off, on, off), Libya (on account of "Libya's continued commitment to its renunciation of terrorism") and the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen (merged with the Yemen Arab Republic).
I'm not sure that the suggestion that what server operating system you prefer is somehow indicative of one's political views is worthy of serious consideration. Both Windows and Linux/BSD are products of the free-market. They only differ in method of development and price.
I'm not speaking of any language specific version of Wikipedia. I'm talking about the entire project. The fact that only the German language section would be inappropriately modified only limits the scope of the problem, not the underlying concerns.
As a contributor to Wikipedia, the idea that a foreign government is targeting Wikipedia to "improve" articles to reflect its point of view and policies (make no mistake, despite whatever they're calling it, that's what this is) makes me deeply uncomfortable, and I'm not even certain this is legal under current Wikipedia rules and practices.
It's a bureaucracy. Any large bureaucracy, where one cannot make direct causal relationships between events and is subject to faceless administrators, breeds paranoia and mistrust.
"1) Although he knew he had been sued, he ducked service and refused to sign for papers trying to hide his address to avoid service at the same time he posted the
legal papers and discussed the case on LEE KAPLAN WATCH bragging that he was being sued but not worried about it. This first go around resulted in a default judgment against him by the original judge. During this time Salahi also boasted on the Internet he had abundant free legal represenation and could file a SLAPP suit to throw out the case. He boasted that the "University lawyers" assured him he could not be sued as well. All this info is on the courthouse website.
2) Although he admitted to the second judge that he knew he was sued and thought "it
was his right" to not sign for legal service documents he knew were notice to appear in court, he was given a new hearing and the original judgment vacated for him. During the second trial, his only defense consisted of libel he made up on LEE KAPLAN WATCH as evidence Lee Kaplan was a bad person who justified what he was doing.
It should be noted, Salahi keeps referring to pornographic homosexual images with Lee Kaplan's head photoshopped on them that were introduced with other evidence in the declarations visible on the Web as somehow central to the case. This evidence was not introduced at the first or second trials due to time constraints and both judges still found in favor of Lee Kaplan. The case was not based on this evidence in the declarations even during Salahi's last appeal as it never came up in front of the judge during the Superior Court trial. Salahi claims he could not have posted links to the porno shots on the LEE KAPLAN WATCH website because the hyperlink was not the same color as others. Anyone who knows about web building knows you can have hyperlinks of different colors that still work, but even that was not relevant to the case. After maintaining he had nothing to do with the porno images he then claims to know of another lawsuit against another website about them. How would he know this if he had no contact with the other website's publisher? The fact is, Salahi was shown to have changed and deleted evidence on the Internet many times over the course of the trial that were proven in court.
3)In all his rants on the Internet trying to elicit sympathy he claims his First Amendement free speech rights were violated by this case so as to enlist the support of other bloggers on the Web. He then says nobody asked or told him he had to remove the LEE KAPLAN WATCH site and he intends to continue posting on it. So, pray tell, how were his First Amendment rights curtailed? Because he was held responsible for libel and writing Lee Kaplan's business associates costing Lee Kaplan work? He threatened Lee Kaplan's publishers with the same things he was doing to Lee Kaplan on the Internet. He stated in an interview in the Daily Cal he enver sent any emails, then admitted to sending the emails and making phone calls in court. One of Kaplan's publishers had to contact the police. Salahi hopes that people who did not see the evidence in court will feel sympathy for him. The judges were not so gullible.
4) Salahi claims he changed the headline to appear on the Google caches from "Lee Kaplan named in federal libel lawsuit" to Lee Kaplan MENTIONED in Federal libel lawsuit. Of course, he doesn't mention he did this change only AFTER he lost in court the first time and the damage to Lee Kaplan had already occured. The dates of the changes were clear to the final judge who heard Salahi's appeal in Superior Court. This leaving out pertinent information is classic Yaman Salahi and why he lost this case." - http://www.leekaplandeconstructsleekaplanwatch.blo gspot.com/
If you're going to tax virtual items, why not just use the approach used to eBay, in which you are responsible for tracking and calculating your taxable burden, and reporting it on your tax return? Of course, almost no one will do this, but people have a habit of not paying taxes for what they don't want or need, or view as illegitimate. Which is something the government should have to deal with in a more civilized fashion.
The cost to "Vistafi" Windows XP, using the numbers quoted in the article, for 1 year, would be $199.84. After 1 year, you'd have to pay an additional $39.95 for the "Outpost" component. As one would already havea Windows XP license, they would be eligible for the upgrade pricing to Windows Vista. Directly from Microsoft, Windows Vista Home Premium costs $159.95, Windows Vista Business costs $199.95, and Windows Vista Ultimate costs $259.95. It would make much more sense for the user to save $39.89 and buy Windows Vista Home Premium, pay an extra 11 cents and buy Windows Vista Business, or pay an extra $39.89 for Windows Vista Ultimate, which they'd recoup the cost of within one year by a margin of 6 cents, by not needing to resubscribe to "Outpost."
As of May 2007, FireFox has 33.7% market share. Safari has 1.5% market share. That's over 22 times less, not 1/4 to 1/3 of the total FireFox market share.
What if every feature I could want on a cellphone isn't softmoddable? I might want more RAM, or a faster CPU, or an advanced GPU. I might want a bigger screen or a different form factor. I might even want it to make me eggs.
Yes, I read that article too, but perhaps to convince developers to code for Safari on the iPhone, they need to convince them to code for Safari for the internet at large first.
I find it hard to believe that Apple, which from time to time is king of marketing, seriously believes that the browser battle is between just itself and IE. It's no doubt well aware FireFox is number 2, and Safari is close to last, in terms of market share. Instead, this is Apple trying to create the illusion that it really is the big dangerous new browser on the block, and create the perception of market dominance and leadership. I don't think it will work, and this is likely to make Apple look foolish in the eyes of the non-default to IE market, but that's what Apple is trying to do with these silly charts and pronouncements.
Which State? I can't think of any whose entire House is filled with Democrats only. For best known for its part in the American Revolution, I'm thinking of a Commonwealth, not a State. In any case, everyone involved in the American Revolution has been dead for several hundred years (give or take a few years), and it's quite probable that the people around now do not share the ideals or principles of the American Revolution. Look at the Republican Revolution of 1994, didn't even take them more than a year or two to dump their commitment to limited and Constitutional government and go bonkers on bloating government spending and power as fast as possible. And those were many of the same people from 1994 to functional repudiation shortly thereafter. Very few people are principled or truly believe in ideas. When it comes to politicians, I can count them on one hand.
"Does anyone besides me wonder if there's a peaceable solution to our differences? Sometimes I wonder if we're going to have to have it out with you and your kind to get our country back. How can we move forward when a third of the nation is okay treating the Constitution like it's just a piece of paper?"
Well, except for liberals screaming down conservative speakers at universities (which legally sometimes veers into assault), and keying up and slashing the tires of SUVs (property crime), there isn't really that much actual violence going on in politics, just voter fraud. I'd say about 90% or so of the nation either have no idea what the Constitution says, or just don't care. That goes for Rep. Pelosi and Sen. Kennedy just as much as it does for President Bush and Sen. McCain.
And no, I'm not suggesting that most or all liberals are using blackshirt tactics, just that you don't see conservatives shouting down President Clinton on his speaking tours, or damaging Volvos, Priuses, and Microbusen. True liberals that support freedom of speech and property rights don't do these things.
Meant that while the function "Control + Enter" exists, as it requires 50% more effort than simply typing "example.com" and pressing enter, it is therefore not a shortcut.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you understand that satire only works if it's based on reality, and the question at hand isn't the satire bit, but the invented numbers and finger pointing without evidence bit?
One day after the Yes Men made a joke announcement of ExxonMobil's plans to turn billions of climate-change victims (hypothetical, unlikely premise, original research) into a brand-new fuel called Vivoleum, the Yes Men's upstream internet service provider shut down Vivoleum.com and cut off the Yes Men's email service, in reaction to a complaint whose source they will not identify. 'Since parody is protected under US law, Exxon must think that people seeing the site will think Vivoleum's a real Exxon product, not just a parody,' said Yes Man Mike Bonanno (conjecture). Exxon's policies do already contribute to 150,000 climate-change related deaths each year,' (highly suspect claim, no evidence given to support) added Yes Man Andy Bichlbaum. 'So maybe it really is credible. What a resource!'
That's purely conjecture at this point.
How long before it comes out as a MMPORG for political/military/news junkies? I'm sure some large server farm in California can handle the load.
Maybe MS wants to be like Apple when it comes to tying the hardware with the OS.
Well, no, only until they are removed from the State Department's List of State Sponsors of International Terrorism. This has happened for Iraq (on, off, on, off), Libya (on account of "Libya's continued commitment to its renunciation of terrorism") and the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen (merged with the Yemen Arab Republic).
I'm not sure that the suggestion that what server operating system you prefer is somehow indicative of one's political views is worthy of serious consideration. Both Windows and Linux/BSD are products of the free-market. They only differ in method of development and price.
I'm not speaking of any language specific version of Wikipedia. I'm talking about the entire project. The fact that only the German language section would be inappropriately modified only limits the scope of the problem, not the underlying concerns.
As a contributor to Wikipedia, the idea that a foreign government is targeting Wikipedia to "improve" articles to reflect its point of view and policies (make no mistake, despite whatever they're calling it, that's what this is) makes me deeply uncomfortable, and I'm not even certain this is legal under current Wikipedia rules and practices.
Since all but one accepted funding from the Federal Government.
It's a bureaucracy. Any large bureaucracy, where one cannot make direct causal relationships between events and is subject to faceless administrators, breeds paranoia and mistrust.
2) Although he admitted to the second judge that he knew he was sued and thought "it was his right" to not sign for legal service documents he knew were notice to appear in court, he was given a new hearing and the original judgment vacated for him. During the second trial, his only defense consisted of libel he made up on LEE KAPLAN WATCH as evidence Lee Kaplan was a bad person who justified what he was doing. It should be noted, Salahi keeps referring to pornographic homosexual images with Lee Kaplan's head photoshopped on them that were introduced with other evidence in the declarations visible on the Web as somehow central to the case. This evidence was not introduced at the first or second trials due to time constraints and both judges still found in favor of Lee Kaplan. The case was not based on this evidence in the declarations even during Salahi's last appeal as it never came up in front of the judge during the Superior Court trial. Salahi claims he could not have posted links to the porno shots on the LEE KAPLAN WATCH website because the hyperlink was not the same color as others. Anyone who knows about web building knows you can have hyperlinks of different colors that still work, but even that was not relevant to the case. After maintaining he had nothing to do with the porno images he then claims to know of another lawsuit against another website about them. How would he know this if he had no contact with the other website's publisher? The fact is, Salahi was shown to have changed and deleted evidence on the Internet many times over the course of the trial that were proven in court.
3)In all his rants on the Internet trying to elicit sympathy he claims his First Amendement free speech rights were violated by this case so as to enlist the support of other bloggers on the Web. He then says nobody asked or told him he had to remove the LEE KAPLAN WATCH site and he intends to continue posting on it. So, pray tell, how were his First Amendment rights curtailed? Because he was held responsible for libel and writing Lee Kaplan's business associates costing Lee Kaplan work? He threatened Lee Kaplan's publishers with the same things he was doing to Lee Kaplan on the Internet. He stated in an interview in the Daily Cal he enver sent any emails, then admitted to sending the emails and making phone calls in court. One of Kaplan's publishers had to contact the police. Salahi hopes that people who did not see the evidence in court will feel sympathy for him. The judges were not so gullible.
4) Salahi claims he changed the headline to appear on the Google caches from "Lee Kaplan named in federal libel lawsuit" to Lee Kaplan MENTIONED in Federal libel lawsuit. Of course, he doesn't mention he did this change only AFTER he lost in court the first time and the damage to Lee Kaplan had already occured. The dates of the changes were clear to the final judge who heard Salahi's appeal in Superior Court. This leaving out pertinent information is classic Yaman Salahi and why he lost this case." - http://www.leekaplandeconstructsleekaplanwatch.blo gspot.com/
If you're going to tax virtual items, why not just use the approach used to eBay, in which you are responsible for tracking and calculating your taxable burden, and reporting it on your tax return? Of course, almost no one will do this, but people have a habit of not paying taxes for what they don't want or need, or view as illegitimate. Which is something the government should have to deal with in a more civilized fashion.
The cost to "Vistafi" Windows XP, using the numbers quoted in the article, for 1 year, would be $199.84. After 1 year, you'd have to pay an additional $39.95 for the "Outpost" component. As one would already havea Windows XP license, they would be eligible for the upgrade pricing to Windows Vista. Directly from Microsoft, Windows Vista Home Premium costs $159.95, Windows Vista Business costs $199.95, and Windows Vista Ultimate costs $259.95. It would make much more sense for the user to save $39.89 and buy Windows Vista Home Premium, pay an extra 11 cents and buy Windows Vista Business, or pay an extra $39.89 for Windows Vista Ultimate, which they'd recoup the cost of within one year by a margin of 6 cents, by not needing to resubscribe to "Outpost."
A robot chicken, yes.
At some currently unknown date, later in time. Probably not tomorrow.
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.a sp
What if every feature I could want on a cellphone isn't softmoddable? I might want more RAM, or a faster CPU, or an advanced GPU. I might want a bigger screen or a different form factor. I might even want it to make me eggs.
Yes, I read that article too, but perhaps to convince developers to code for Safari on the iPhone, they need to convince them to code for Safari for the internet at large first.
I find it hard to believe that Apple, which from time to time is king of marketing, seriously believes that the browser battle is between just itself and IE. It's no doubt well aware FireFox is number 2, and Safari is close to last, in terms of market share. Instead, this is Apple trying to create the illusion that it really is the big dangerous new browser on the block, and create the perception of market dominance and leadership. I don't think it will work, and this is likely to make Apple look foolish in the eyes of the non-default to IE market, but that's what Apple is trying to do with these silly charts and pronouncements.
Which State? I can't think of any whose entire House is filled with Democrats only. For best known for its part in the American Revolution, I'm thinking of a Commonwealth, not a State. In any case, everyone involved in the American Revolution has been dead for several hundred years (give or take a few years), and it's quite probable that the people around now do not share the ideals or principles of the American Revolution. Look at the Republican Revolution of 1994, didn't even take them more than a year or two to dump their commitment to limited and Constitutional government and go bonkers on bloating government spending and power as fast as possible. And those were many of the same people from 1994 to functional repudiation shortly thereafter. Very few people are principled or truly believe in ideas. When it comes to politicians, I can count them on one hand.
Step 2: Gerrymander your seats into safe districts
Step 3: Gerrymander your opponent's into insane districts
Step 4: Win an election
Step 5: Repeat as needed
Seriously, people find ethical lapses in a political system? How is that possible!
I'm looking forward to "ReDistricting 2: Earmarks, or buying of the votes."
I did not realize the MoveOn.org lunatic fringe was constituent of the GOP base at this point in time.
Well, except for liberals screaming down conservative speakers at universities (which legally sometimes veers into assault), and keying up and slashing the tires of SUVs (property crime), there isn't really that much actual violence going on in politics, just voter fraud. I'd say about 90% or so of the nation either have no idea what the Constitution says, or just don't care. That goes for Rep. Pelosi and Sen. Kennedy just as much as it does for President Bush and Sen. McCain.
And no, I'm not suggesting that most or all liberals are using blackshirt tactics, just that you don't see conservatives shouting down President Clinton on his speaking tours, or damaging Volvos, Priuses, and Microbusen. True liberals that support freedom of speech and property rights don't do these things.
Meant that while the function "Control + Enter" exists, as it requires 50% more effort than simply typing "example.com" and pressing enter, it is therefore not a shortcut.