You use the card if you want to identify yourself to apply for a job or to show up at a hospital and ask for medical services as an American. Just like you have to show an ID when you get on an airplane or cross into any country in the world. Just like you have to "carry a card" when you drive a car
And just like drivers' licenses and Social Security cards are used for myriad purposes for which they were not intended, so will any sort of national ID card. It is the camel's nose under the proverbial tent.
The fight against national ID cards is to make it at least harder to track people nationally. At least now, with ID cards balkanized by state, it's difficult to connect everything up. That inefficiency in practice provides some measure of anonymity. I would like to keep it that way.
Or your daughter might accidentally shoot herself. If punishment is intended to deter or rehabilitate you, what more do you think they really need? Any punishment now would just be for the sake of making these people pay.
You could say the same about seat belts, yet it most certainly took laws and education to increase seat belt use. You're thinking like a rational, sane person. Some people need to be told not to do stupid things like leaving a loaded gun within reach of a 3 year old.
I agree with previous posters - this case needs to be publicized to death. However that's done. If I were a creative prosecutor, I might plead this case down to 20,000 hours of community service each, payable over 40 years. If I let these people off the hook, I want them dedicating their lives to the cause of gun safety. If it's true that their pain is enough punishment, they'll want to do that anyway. Win-win, right?
Failing that, I want them incarcerated. Not as punishment or rehabilitation, I just want them in jail for as many of their child bearing years as possible so they don't get a chance to repeat the same mistake.
Genetics today is obsessed with conserved DNA sequences as "proof" of evolutionary kinship. It is based on a faith that DNA mutates at a uniform rate over time. But why should we assume a uniform rate over time, when evolutionary theory says that genetic differentiation happens in leaps and bounds?
Science fail. DNA does mutate uniformly. Genetic differentiation based on the mutations goes in leaps in bounds because of selection pressures that drive evolution,
Agreed. But if you read my other posts, you'll see that a) the bulk of internet users is 14-year-old girls and Latina housewives,
And yet they still count as much as high-minded (and racist and misogynistic) folks like yourself. And that's ultimately the problem you face - geeks who advocate unnecessary technical changes for their own aesthetic sake are a tiny minority of internet users now.
You are a prime example of someone who lives in 'the land of should'. By that I mean you hold as an ideal that all traffic 'should' be encrypted without any discussion as to why. But from a practical standpoint, the vast majority of people either A) don't care if their non-transactional traffic is encrypted, or B) consider themselves uninteresting enough to not be a target.
More to the point, encryption of one-way traffic (http sessions) is controlled by providers, and as mentioned, there's approximately 0 reason to encrypt a web site that anyone can go read for themselves, aside from your idealistic and subjective notion that 'all traffic should be encrypted'. Given that, you're increasing their operational costs...for nothing. And driving away users...for nothing. So the only way they'll change is when so many users DEMAND encryption that they'd lose traffic for not having it, and that's not ever happening.
The above also ignores the blatantly obvious fact (as mentioned) that encryption with self-signed certs is actually worse that nothing, since it causes people to trust a cert that could easily be generated by a man-in-the-middle type of attack. So it's either buy a real cert, or use nothing. As above, using real certs costs money, so there's absolutely no motivation to use it for standard web traffic. If I'm a guy writing a blog, why would I go to that expense?
People keep telling you why traffic won't go full-encryption anytime soon, and you keep arguing with the blatantly obvious reasons why not. I'd suggest finding a windmill and start tilting.
The way I see it, we're at a point now where all digital communications should be encrypted.
Whenever I hear somebody say "All X should be Y", I ask 'why'? The problem you have is inertia - if switching requires any kind of thought or effort, it's not going to get accepted by the general public. I don't want to dig up the old slashdot checkbox meme, but your idea won't work because it requires buy-in from people who don't care.
To the server, maybe.
You got it. Also, the first page somebody sees goes from a normal looking http web page to a "ZOMG this certificate can't be validated!" which will require additional clicks to accept the cert, and scare people who don't know what they're doing. Either way, there's absolutely no reason to add that to a simple web page.
The web was built largely because people made websites for others out of the kindness of their hearts. From that, it's not a big step to turn on https.
That internet hasn't existed for at least 15-20 years. It's pretty commercial now, and companies don't add costs and drive away users due to subjective notions like 'all traffic should be encrypted.'
You also presume that every other geek cares that much about encrypting all traffic. That's the problem with 'should', it's inherently subjective. I don't think the bulk of internet users agree with you.
Thanks to Internet, we Chinese ppl these days could get these information easier than before. We know about these things like Tienanmen event, etc. Well we have some places to share these information(p2p rocks, doesnt it?) As far as i know, most student in my college have knowledges of what happened those years and sometime we chat about that.
That's good to hear. I'm glad that things have changed for the better in the last 10 years or so. I hope that China will be a different place in the coming decades when the people who come to power have overcome the government's lies and learned the truth.
Clearly, you've never met an actual Chinese person. Do you honestly think they don't know what's going on? No, they know. They just don't care.
That's not entirely true. Often true, but not entirely.
In college I worked in a research group that was probably 80% Chinese. This was in the late 90s, when Internet as means of exchanging information was somewhat new. We worked shifts together monitoring experiments, which got boring, so naturally all of us swapped stories.
One of our research group was a Chinese visiting scholar, probably in his 40s. An American student asked him what he thought about Tienanmen. At first we thought he didn't understand what we were asking, but then it became clear - he'd never heard of this event. The government had successfully kept it from him.
This being the internet age, we quickly brought up the pictures of the event we're all familiar with now. It was one of the most memorable, but sad, experiences of my life to watch this guy go from denial to disbelief, learning that his government had committed atrocities against its people and covered it up. I can't really express how strongly that interaction affected me.
So unless things in China have changed drastically in the last 10 years - which is possible - China is still somewhat effective at keeping its people in the dark. And from what I experienced with our visiting scholar, there are Chinese people who care very much.
Err... WTF are you smoking? Just about every intelligence agency on the planet said before the Afghan campaign that invading Afghanistan would not yield a positive result vis a vis terrorism,
Well, how many significant domestic instances of terror in America have happened since? 0. I think that's partly because we've caused problems for AQ's leadership, and partly because we've made our military an easier target. But if you're going to criticize the decision in retrospect, you need burden of proof. On this, the simple statistic is that we haven't had a 9/11-like incident since then, and you can't argue with that.
and every intelligence agency AND the IAEA said that Iraq had no WMDs. Both have been proved true.
That's simply factually incorrect. If I recall, three intel agencies had reports of WMDs, including CIA and one of the British services. The problem was they all got info from the same guy, who was either wrong or making it up. Which should teach us a lesson, certainly.
The more interesting question was why Saddam fought inspections to his own ultimate demise if he didn't even have WMDs at all? There have been explanations of that since but they're all crazy.
Goddammit, the deadness of a dead cat can be determined classically. Like with a stick, say.
Way to kill the kids' dreams.
Actually, the way physics has gotten so fucking esoteric, Schrodinger's cat is passe. What you do is get them a box with no cat in it. Then they can argue about whether there is a parallel box in the next county that does have a cat in it, or whether there is currently a dark, unobservable cat in the box. Or whether there is actually a box at all, or if we've invented the whole thing.
Before you know it, they'll come up with something so dumb they'll be offered tenure.
Hm. It would have been a little bit funnier if Ed.the.Manager hadn't registered that name just to say that.
Let me guess, you're also the guy who posts "'SHOPPED!" on stories with funny pictures. Or explains in detail why the things that happen in movies are impossible.
We get that he registered the name for the joke. It was well-played. Bravo to Ed the Manager.
On the other hand, I've done nothing illegal, and as a DoD employee, have held a security clearence for over 20 years.
Few things there:
1) If you get an aggressive investigator, he could make it unpleasant for you on your next re-investigation if you're foolish enough to tie your fringe group views tied to your actual identity. Assuming your Daddy's family name wasn't "Piss", I'll guess you're OK there.
2) Their level of interest of you depends on the clearance level. For instance, my cell carrier probably put more effort into checking my background than the gov puts into a DoD secret, for instance.
3) DoD is, I think, less concerned about such things than their brethren. Not sure why exactly.
4) I'd care a lot more about my employer finding my profile than the gummint. Nobody really interesting in the gummint is legally allowed to collect against you, and the ones that are allowed generally refuse to work with the ones that don't.
I wouldn't really call it faster for anything mentioned in TFS because of the fact that while you can get a lot of data really fast via pigeon there is terrible latency.
That's nothing compared to the packet loss. Ever get this error with ethernet over copper or fiber?
Seriously, what on earth has he done to win such a prize? He has brokered no treaties, he has resolved no conflicts, he hasn't even particularly changed foreign policy with Iraq and Afghanistan. Even the crown jewel of his agenda, closing Gitmo. Having gotten into office he's discovered the world is more complicated that a sound bite for a political stage allows.
But...but...he's a really nice guy. And he gives great speeches. And when he's making a point, he uses this fantastic faraway gaze and extremely compelling hand gestures. You can't teach that.
You say Obama doesn't deserve the Prize after 8 months in office and no major accomplishments? Foo, I say! I have personally seen him give more kittens and rainbows to the needy than any world leader. When his talks with other world leaders break down, at least those leaders go away thinking 'Wow, that man has a fantastic handshake. That may be the best handshake I've ever experienced'. And you know, maybe years down the line, they'll be more likely to roll over for us thanks to that handshake.
Really, I think it's great that the Nobel committee is now awarding prizes for trying a little bit for a little while. Sort of reflects the reduced standards in our schools where kids get diplomas for sitting in a room and learning nothing for 12 years. This gives little Johnny hope that he doesn't really need to accomplish anything in life, but that if he at least tries a little for 8 months, he can achieve his dream of an increasingly watered-down prize.
Thank you, Nobel Committee. You give hope to the mediocre everywhere.
The abstract of the actual article is a little more informative, but still makes strange claims. I think they can compress a 10Ghz electrical signal into a 270GHz optical signal, with obvious ramifications in multiplexing, as you can then take 27 such signals at a time (theoretically).
I'm no communications engineer, but I think there's a guy named Shannon who's gonna take issue with some of the claims attached to this story.
Sorry, I also thought I had the right to peacably assemble. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
You have the right to peaceably assemble. That doesn't guarantee you the right to assemble *wherever*, *whenever* you want. See the difference? Like if I wanted to assemble my band of morons in the middle of a freeway. Not gonna work.
The right to assemble was written to prevent the government from breaking up groups of people whose sole threat was sharing their ideas with each other. Some people try to abuse that right by using it to do nothing but create a disturbance and attempt to gain attention for their 'cause' by doing so.
There's a balance between your ability to demonstrate and society's ability to actually function. The first amendment does not guarantee the right to create anarchy.
Until a few people die to demonstrate that we won't put up with casual torture via tasers, sound cannons, pain rays, and what-have-you, the police will continue to use such technologies on the populace for increasingly trivial reasons
Or you could avoid the whole thing by actually listening to the cops. When you have cops trying to control misbehaving crowds that outnumber them 100 to 1, coercion is needed. I'm glad they've researched better, safer methods of dealing with idiots. Shows they care, actually.
And now, merely to clear the streets in blatant violation of another of our rights (the first).
You have the right to speak. You don't have the right to make yourself a public nuisance. Many people confuse the right to speak with the right to a captive audience, which you don't have. So when the cops need to clear streets so people who actually work for a living can get between work and home, and when the idiots refuse, they need a means of getting people to obey.
Let me put it this way, if criminals dumped a dead body in the back of someone's car without his knowledge, and the car is stopped by police for whatever reason who then find the body, would you not expect the police to arrest the man (and anyone else in the vehicle), guns drawn, treating him like a potential murderer?
Except disposing of bodies in other people's cars is rather rare (and stupid), whereas criminals using somebody else's address as a dead drop is absolutely common. Yes, I would expect the cops to do some initial research to figure out whether the homeowner in question was involved in the raid.
This reminds me of a time way back when 14.4k was common (yes, it was a relative eon ago). A certain ISP I happened to bump into viewed that 9600 bps or higher actually encouraged warez transfers.
That's funny. It's exactly why I bought my 14.4 at the tender age of 15. I suppose your ISP was right!;)
Slashdot Mirror
You use the card if you want to identify yourself to apply for a job or to show up at a hospital and ask for medical services as an American. Just like you have to show an ID when you get on an airplane or cross into any country in the world. Just like you have to "carry a card" when you drive a car
And just like drivers' licenses and Social Security cards are used for myriad purposes for which they were not intended, so will any sort of national ID card. It is the camel's nose under the proverbial tent.
The fight against national ID cards is to make it at least harder to track people nationally. At least now, with ID cards balkanized by state, it's difficult to connect everything up. That inefficiency in practice provides some measure of anonymity. I would like to keep it that way.
Shouldn't the 911 operator taking the call be well trained enough to know what's life threatening and whats not?
Um, no. As a wise man once said,
Yeah BOYYYYYYEEEEE!
Or your daughter might accidentally shoot herself. If punishment is intended to deter or rehabilitate you, what more do you think they really need? Any punishment now would just be for the sake of making these people pay.
You could say the same about seat belts, yet it most certainly took laws and education to increase seat belt use. You're thinking like a rational, sane person. Some people need to be told not to do stupid things like leaving a loaded gun within reach of a 3 year old.
I agree with previous posters - this case needs to be publicized to death. However that's done. If I were a creative prosecutor, I might plead this case down to 20,000 hours of community service each, payable over 40 years. If I let these people off the hook, I want them dedicating their lives to the cause of gun safety. If it's true that their pain is enough punishment, they'll want to do that anyway. Win-win, right?
Failing that, I want them incarcerated. Not as punishment or rehabilitation, I just want them in jail for as many of their child bearing years as possible so they don't get a chance to repeat the same mistake.
Genetics today is obsessed with conserved DNA sequences as "proof" of evolutionary kinship. It is based on a faith that DNA mutates at a uniform rate over time. But why should we assume a uniform rate over time, when evolutionary theory says that genetic differentiation happens in leaps and bounds?
Science fail. DNA does mutate uniformly. Genetic differentiation based on the mutations goes in leaps in bounds because of selection pressures that drive evolution,
Agreed. But if you read my other posts, you'll see that a) the bulk of internet users is 14-year-old girls and Latina housewives,
And yet they still count as much as high-minded (and racist and misogynistic) folks like yourself. And that's ultimately the problem you face - geeks who advocate unnecessary technical changes for their own aesthetic sake are a tiny minority of internet users now.
You are a prime example of someone who lives in 'the land of should'. By that I mean you hold as an ideal that all traffic 'should' be encrypted without any discussion as to why. But from a practical standpoint, the vast majority of people either A) don't care if their non-transactional traffic is encrypted, or B) consider themselves uninteresting enough to not be a target.
More to the point, encryption of one-way traffic (http sessions) is controlled by providers, and as mentioned, there's approximately 0 reason to encrypt a web site that anyone can go read for themselves, aside from your idealistic and subjective notion that 'all traffic should be encrypted'. Given that, you're increasing their operational costs...for nothing. And driving away users...for nothing. So the only way they'll change is when so many users DEMAND encryption that they'd lose traffic for not having it, and that's not ever happening.
The above also ignores the blatantly obvious fact (as mentioned) that encryption with self-signed certs is actually worse that nothing, since it causes people to trust a cert that could easily be generated by a man-in-the-middle type of attack. So it's either buy a real cert, or use nothing. As above, using real certs costs money, so there's absolutely no motivation to use it for standard web traffic. If I'm a guy writing a blog, why would I go to that expense?
People keep telling you why traffic won't go full-encryption anytime soon, and you keep arguing with the blatantly obvious reasons why not. I'd suggest finding a windmill and start tilting.
The way I see it, we're at a point now where all digital communications should be encrypted.
Whenever I hear somebody say "All X should be Y", I ask 'why'? The problem you have is inertia - if switching requires any kind of thought or effort, it's not going to get accepted by the general public. I don't want to dig up the old slashdot checkbox meme, but your idea won't work because it requires buy-in from people who don't care.
To the server, maybe.
You got it. Also, the first page somebody sees goes from a normal looking http web page to a "ZOMG this certificate can't be validated!" which will require additional clicks to accept the cert, and scare people who don't know what they're doing. Either way, there's absolutely no reason to add that to a simple web page.
The web was built largely because people made websites for others out of the kindness of their hearts. From that, it's not a big step to turn on https.
That internet hasn't existed for at least 15-20 years. It's pretty commercial now, and companies don't add costs and drive away users due to subjective notions like 'all traffic should be encrypted.'
You also presume that every other geek cares that much about encrypting all traffic. That's the problem with 'should', it's inherently subjective. I don't think the bulk of internet users agree with you.
Thanks to Internet, we Chinese ppl these days could get these information easier than before. We know about these things like Tienanmen event, etc. Well we have some places to share these information(p2p rocks, doesnt it?) As far as i know, most student in my college have knowledges of what happened those years and sometime we chat about that.
That's good to hear. I'm glad that things have changed for the better in the last 10 years or so. I hope that China will be a different place in the coming decades when the people who come to power have overcome the government's lies and learned the truth.
Clearly, you've never met an actual Chinese person. Do you honestly think they don't know what's going on? No, they know. They just don't care.
That's not entirely true. Often true, but not entirely.
In college I worked in a research group that was probably 80% Chinese. This was in the late 90s, when Internet as means of exchanging information was somewhat new. We worked shifts together monitoring experiments, which got boring, so naturally all of us swapped stories.
One of our research group was a Chinese visiting scholar, probably in his 40s. An American student asked him what he thought about Tienanmen. At first we thought he didn't understand what we were asking, but then it became clear - he'd never heard of this event. The government had successfully kept it from him.
This being the internet age, we quickly brought up the pictures of the event we're all familiar with now. It was one of the most memorable, but sad, experiences of my life to watch this guy go from denial to disbelief, learning that his government had committed atrocities against its people and covered it up. I can't really express how strongly that interaction affected me.
So unless things in China have changed drastically in the last 10 years - which is possible - China is still somewhat effective at keeping its people in the dark. And from what I experienced with our visiting scholar, there are Chinese people who care very much.
Err... WTF are you smoking? Just about every intelligence agency on the planet said before the Afghan campaign that invading Afghanistan would not yield a positive result vis a vis terrorism,
Well, how many significant domestic instances of terror in America have happened since? 0. I think that's partly because we've caused problems for AQ's leadership, and partly because we've made our military an easier target. But if you're going to criticize the decision in retrospect, you need burden of proof. On this, the simple statistic is that we haven't had a 9/11-like incident since then, and you can't argue with that.
and every intelligence agency AND the IAEA said that Iraq had no WMDs. Both have been proved true.
That's simply factually incorrect. If I recall, three intel agencies had reports of WMDs, including CIA and one of the British services. The problem was they all got info from the same guy, who was either wrong or making it up. Which should teach us a lesson, certainly.
The more interesting question was why Saddam fought inspections to his own ultimate demise if he didn't even have WMDs at all? There have been explanations of that since but they're all crazy.
Maybe they'll grow up to be Quantum Physicists.
Goddammit, the deadness of a dead cat can be determined classically. Like with a stick, say.
Way to kill the kids' dreams.
Actually, the way physics has gotten so fucking esoteric, Schrodinger's cat is passe. What you do is get them a box with no cat in it. Then they can argue about whether there is a parallel box in the next county that does have a cat in it, or whether there is currently a dark, unobservable cat in the box. Or whether there is actually a box at all, or if we've invented the whole thing.
Before you know it, they'll come up with something so dumb they'll be offered tenure.
Hm. It would have been a little bit funnier if Ed.the.Manager hadn't registered that name just to say that.
Let me guess, you're also the guy who posts "'SHOPPED!" on stories with funny pictures. Or explains in detail why the things that happen in movies are impossible.
We get that he registered the name for the joke. It was well-played. Bravo to Ed the Manager.
On the other hand, I've done nothing illegal, and as a DoD employee, have held a security clearence for over 20 years.
Few things there:
1) If you get an aggressive investigator, he could make it unpleasant for you on your next re-investigation if you're foolish enough to tie your fringe group views tied to your actual identity. Assuming your Daddy's family name wasn't "Piss", I'll guess you're OK there.
2) Their level of interest of you depends on the clearance level. For instance, my cell carrier probably put more effort into checking my background than the gov puts into a DoD secret, for instance.
3) DoD is, I think, less concerned about such things than their brethren. Not sure why exactly.
4) I'd care a lot more about my employer finding my profile than the gummint. Nobody really interesting in the gummint is legally allowed to collect against you, and the ones that are allowed generally refuse to work with the ones that don't.
No. Someone's just getting a dedicated data center hosting scalable web apps. Nothing new.
Truly. Can we stick this "cloud" shit in the heap with "information superhighway", "cyber", and "web 2.0"?
I wouldn't really call it faster for anything mentioned in TFS because of the fact that while you can get a lot of data really fast via pigeon there is terrible latency.
That's nothing compared to the packet loss. Ever get this error with ethernet over copper or fiber?
It's a good thing that sites like Slashdot work great on all devices though... ...oh, wait...
Hey, slashdot looks like shit on any browser on any device. So it least it's fair. Kind of.
(Posted from a textbox that's twice as wide as my screen).
Seriously, what on earth has he done to win such a prize? He has brokered no treaties, he has resolved no conflicts, he hasn't even particularly changed foreign policy with Iraq and Afghanistan. Even the crown jewel of his agenda, closing Gitmo. Having gotten into office he's discovered the world is more complicated that a sound bite for a political stage allows.
But...but...he's a really nice guy. And he gives great speeches. And when he's making a point, he uses this fantastic faraway gaze and extremely compelling hand gestures. You can't teach that.
You say Obama doesn't deserve the Prize after 8 months in office and no major accomplishments? Foo, I say! I have personally seen him give more kittens and rainbows to the needy than any world leader. When his talks with other world leaders break down, at least those leaders go away thinking 'Wow, that man has a fantastic handshake. That may be the best handshake I've ever experienced'. And you know, maybe years down the line, they'll be more likely to roll over for us thanks to that handshake.
Really, I think it's great that the Nobel committee is now awarding prizes for trying a little bit for a little while. Sort of reflects the reduced standards in our schools where kids get diplomas for sitting in a room and learning nothing for 12 years. This gives little Johnny hope that he doesn't really need to accomplish anything in life, but that if he at least tries a little for 8 months, he can achieve his dream of an increasingly watered-down prize.
Thank you, Nobel Committee. You give hope to the mediocre everywhere.
...these morons are going to figure out the whole Streisand Effect thing. Keep screwing yourselves, fellas.
The abstract of the actual article is a little more informative, but still makes strange claims. I think they can compress a 10Ghz electrical signal into a 270GHz optical signal, with obvious ramifications in multiplexing, as you can then take 27 such signals at a time (theoretically).
I'm no communications engineer, but I think there's a guy named Shannon who's gonna take issue with some of the claims attached to this story.
Sorry, I also thought I had the right to peacably assemble. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
You have the right to peaceably assemble. That doesn't guarantee you the right to assemble *wherever*, *whenever* you want. See the difference? Like if I wanted to assemble my band of morons in the middle of a freeway. Not gonna work.
The right to assemble was written to prevent the government from breaking up groups of people whose sole threat was sharing their ideas with each other. Some people try to abuse that right by using it to do nothing but create a disturbance and attempt to gain attention for their 'cause' by doing so.
There's a balance between your ability to demonstrate and society's ability to actually function. The first amendment does not guarantee the right to create anarchy.
Until a few people die to demonstrate that we won't put up with casual torture via tasers, sound cannons, pain rays, and what-have-you, the police will continue to use such technologies on the populace for increasingly trivial reasons
Or you could avoid the whole thing by actually listening to the cops. When you have cops trying to control misbehaving crowds that outnumber them 100 to 1, coercion is needed. I'm glad they've researched better, safer methods of dealing with idiots. Shows they care, actually.
And now, merely to clear the streets in blatant violation of another of our rights (the first).
You have the right to speak. You don't have the right to make yourself a public nuisance. Many people confuse the right to speak with the right to a captive audience, which you don't have. So when the cops need to clear streets so people who actually work for a living can get between work and home, and when the idiots refuse, they need a means of getting people to obey.
Let me put it this way, if criminals dumped a dead body in the back of someone's car without his knowledge, and the car is stopped by police for whatever reason who then find the body, would you not expect the police to arrest the man (and anyone else in the vehicle), guns drawn, treating him like a potential murderer?
Except disposing of bodies in other people's cars is rather rare (and stupid), whereas criminals using somebody else's address as a dead drop is absolutely common. Yes, I would expect the cops to do some initial research to figure out whether the homeowner in question was involved in the raid.
This reminds me of a time way back when 14.4k was common (yes, it was a relative eon ago). A certain ISP I happened to bump into viewed that 9600 bps or higher actually encouraged warez transfers.
That's funny. It's exactly why I bought my 14.4 at the tender age of 15. I suppose your ISP was right! ;)
Well, that and for porn, of course.
50 bucks says that cat was pictured in the act in a lolcat image.
I can has passwurdz?
When I was growing up, I ran out of the house to play in the morning and did not return until the street lights came on.
Yeah, that's fantastic parenting.
Sometimes it is the customer's fault.
Not when "it" involves a consumer product exploding, and "the customer" is a whole lot of customers.