Yep. I remember when Code Red hit. I couldn't get a decent ping in games for months. And of course, I certainly wasn't running IIS or PWS or whatever other POS service it was that was targetted. Packets dropped on the floor, but still taking up precious gaming bandwidth...
Nowhere did I say that Democrats don't take bribes.
Perhaps not but there are plenty of people who do. At any rate, I wasn't trying to imply anything concerning Democrats in particular either. I really don't think all that many of them are corrupt either. I think charges of corruption are *really* overblown and people are far too suspicious. I don't doubt that it goes on to a limited degree, but I don't feel that it's that much of a problem.
Your comment opens up a much larger discussion, however, about the appropriateness of corporations, with their disproportionately superior power relative to individuals and with interests often at odds with the public good, participating in politics.
Well, I would dispute that their interests are *often* at odds with the public good. Remember several things here: 1) "Corporation" doesn't mean "Huge monstrous company." There are plenty of small companies that are corps. In fact, I'd say most corps are probably pretty small. 2) Even if a corporation is large, it isn't the evil bogeyman here to ruin the world. It's a business that provides employment so people can put food on their tables and products and services so people can have better lifestyles. Also, they tend to provide an environment for other businesses to spring up; that's even more jobs, products, and services. 3) Businesses are comprised of people. And these people are just like you and me. They were your classmates in school, they go to your church or synogogue, they're people in your local [insert hobby here] club. They're not inhuman monsters from another dimension, hell-bent on destroying the world, robbing you of your money, and raping the family parakeet.
In any event, corporations are not giving money to candidates, who may one day vote on a piece of legislation of interest to said corporation, because they have some great interest in democracy.
I think they support candidates for the same reason that individuals support candidates: they like them and think that those people represent them more realistically than the other candidates. Think about it for a second. Why is it that certain kinds of businesses tend to support Republicans more than Democrats (and vice versa)? You don't see the media giving anywhere near as much support to Republicans as to Democrats, for example. I think it's because most people in the media see themselves as being more like Democrats than Republicans, and thus more accurately represented by Democrats.
Corporate contributions are bribes, generally speaking.
There's a much more powerful force that influences politicians to help business: the economy. When business (especially businesses in your home constituency) do well, there are more jobs, more wealth for your constituents, and more government income through taxes. These are all things that make the voters happy.
When unemployment rises, people tend to blame the government. The dot-bomb bubble had zilch to do with any politician. Yet some people blame Bush (who wasn't even in office at the time) and others blame Clinton (who had nothing to do with it and couldn't have done anything to stop it anyway).
It's in the best interests of everyone in Washington to see that large businesses that boost the economy do well, also. And it's really in our interests too. Of course, one problem is that they often prop up companies or entire industries that really should just die off because of market forces; I think this is hurting the free market. And this problem only gets worse the longer it continues. It becomes harder and harder to take those companies die because the collateral damage it would do to the economy just keeps growing.
Also, I believe that most politicians do what they do because they DO have core beliefs. Some, like Clinton, are mainly in the game because they can get a lot of pleasure and power and prestige. But I really believe that's an aberration. I think Bush does what he does from principle (though I don't always agree with his principles); and, for example, Jimmy Carter does what he does from principle (though I hardly ever agree with HIS principles:-).
BTW, if you want to continue discussing, we might want to move to email. You can get to me at jhclouse at juno dot com.
It's actually in the text and the arguments are in the Congressional record. But I'm tired and I got it backwards (brain fart). So, completely ignore what I said.:-)
Re:250,000 Euros... Per Violation
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 1
If CSS is a legitimate tool, and region-encoding / player certification are legal business tools, then DeCSS is not a legitimate use. Even if it's found to be legal and legitimate somewhere, it may still be illegal somewhere else.
The only reason DeCSS could be illegal is the circumvention portion of the DMCA. The only thing protected here is copy prevention schemes. Congress specifically got rid of the access prevention protection.
You can still use access prevention schemes, of course; but it's not a violation of law to bypass one. And CSS only prevents access.
Entergy was part of the cabal that reamed Californians during that phoney energy crisis. And they are big contributors to Bush.
This is where the preconceived opinion comes in. It works like this: A business made campaign contributions. The campaign was for a Republican. Therefore, it must have been a bribe.
One question that must be asked here is why the Democrats don't all get together and donate a huge sum of money to Republican campaigns. After all, Republicans are for sale to the highest bidder, aren't they?
"I get the feeling that Bush administration policies can largely explained as using popular issues...as an excuse to transfer large amounts of government subsidies to big donors." You certainly seem to be implying that there's deceptive corruption going on here.
I don't know exactly what this is in reference to but it's a prime example of your approach to this. I'll just have to guess what you're talking about: The government awarded a contract. Since Bush is in office, it must be payback for donations. The possibility that it's above board and legitimate is not something you will consider because it doesn't fit your preconceived ideas about the moral character of the present Administration.
What the President ate for breakfast can be turned into an instance of bribery and corruption if you've got an active imagination.
The Bush folks are quite open about their economic policies. The real question is why people like you keep electing people like Bush even though they are so forthright about what they are doing.
First of all, you'll have to make a choice: are they open about what they're doing or are they making up an "excuse" to "transfer large amounts of government subsidies to big donors"? You can't have it both ways.
To answer your question, I didn't even vote for Bush. I didn't like him when he came into office and I still dislike many of his policies. I think the Dept. of Homeland Security is pretty much worthless, for instance. But I don't think he makes his decisions based on a desire to "transfer large amounts of government subsidies to big donors."
Look who's talking about "conspiracy theories".
Certainly not me. International government is like peeing on an electric fence: it's not a conspiracy--it's just a bad idea. It's a well-intentioned idea but it's a bad idea all the same; not to mention that it's unconstitutional.
No, I just find it funny that people put so much stock in a conclusion that has no foundation besides their own hackneyed conspiracy theories about big business. All logic is presuppositional; but the really egregious circular arguments are amusing.
I get the feeling that Bush administration policies can largely explained as using popular issues ("the environment", "national security", etc.) as an excuse to transfer large amounts of government subsidies to big donors.
Of course you do. You made up your mind at the beginning and interpret everything relative to your presuppositions.
NexTStEp was somewhat limited by Sun's intellectual property, IIRC,
Hmmm. I remember hearing something about Apple dumping DPS in favor of Quartz because of licensing issues. I wonder if that was where the problem was?
I've heard of NeWS before and I really should check it out sometime. It's kind of sad that GNUstep is pretty much abandoning the DPS stuff. It's all still emulated with raw X calls (or win32 calls in that backend). But I guess it's just too complicated and obscure to get anybody to work it up to a useful state.
Re:I had a chance to look at the classified editio
on
IT at the CIA
·
· Score: 1
You should work for the New York Times or the Washington Post. You appear to have mastered the judicial use of quotes. I hear there's a post open at the Times. Some guy named Blair just left...
Re:CIA Humint - Sigint - Remote Sensing
on
IT at the CIA
·
· Score: 1
Well, what I heard was that they only want you to think that they're intentionally leaking information about their mistakes to project an image of being ineffectual...:-)
Re:CIA Humint - Sigint - Remote Sensing
on
IT at the CIA
·
· Score: 1
They didn't really "miss" 9-11. They just didn't know the details in advance.
Re:Actually, I'm kind of cheered up by this.
on
IT at the CIA
·
· Score: 1
You'd be surprised. A lot of what the CIA does is conglomerate and summarize information, encyclopedia style.
Re:firewall? we don't need no stinkin' firewall!
on
IT at the CIA
·
· Score: 1
have a WAP outside
As I understand things, they have heavily shielded construction anywhere important for just this reason. And I would be surprised if they didn't also monitor RF in the vacinity as well.
In which international community did the consensus go the way of the US? It didn't happen on Earth.
By the time the war started, the number of nations that felt justified in supporting the action was nearly 50, as I recall. That's a reasonable number to qualify as consensus, I think.
As for the sweet deals that Frane, Germany and Russia had with Iraq, they were all pretty paltry and the deals their oil companies had with Iraq were perfectly legal under the UN oil for aid programme.
I'm actually referring to the nuclear reactors for oil and weapons for oil programs that these nations conducted with Iraq. And the yet-to-be-consumated deals that will now no longer be possible. Of course, I don't recognize the UN as being legitimate in any fashion anyway, so I don't really care about that part of it. But when so many were accusing the U.S. of going into this for oil it's an interesting fact to note.
Additionally, it points up the real reason they opposed us. Their high-minded preaching was nothing more than a smokescreen. Remember the Russian agents we shot at as our tanks rolled into Baghdad and their station wagon full of documents that implicated them in the torture and weapons program of the Iraqi regime?
The US seemingly was a bit jealous of being beaten in fair competition for this (as Exxon was not well represented) and so presents this as collaboration.
I presume you spoke to the President in confidence and obtained this real reason for our war? No, I didn't think so. Your presuppositions are that the U.S. is corrupt and run by corporations; that's why this bizarre conclusion is the only theory that makes sense to you. It's a common enough conspiracy theory; but that's all it is.
What this comes down to is a question of trust. What I've seen of Bush so far is enough to convince me that he's a man of principle and a one who only takes action out of necessity. Obviously, you disagree and that's fine. But based on my observations of his demeanor, his words, and his previous actions and associations, the idea that he would engage in a war because Exxon got beaten out of a deal is laughable to say the least.
His immediate predecessor had a much more tenuous reputation for honesty, however, and perhaps you were confusing the two.
Interestingly no-one defedning US policy on this ever mentions Haliburton's negotiations with Iraq in the late 90s that were not linked to aid for oil and were illegal.
Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll-Dresser Pump both provided products to Iraq's oil industry through French affiliates before Haliburton purchased a 49% share of the company. But these deals were also administered through the UN oil for palaces program of which you spoke so highly earlier. At any rate, I fail to see how this proves your point at all.
I hope that I never live in a world were the use of force and extortion is seen as more acceptable than consensus building and compromise.
It's too late, you already do. You cannot compromise with those who wish to destroy you. Well, you can, but all the compromise will be on your side and all the force and extortion will be on their side. As with Kaiser Wilhelm. As with Hitler. As with Stalin. As with every Middle Eastern power that hopes for the destruction of the West. As with every conqueror and violent man in history.
In fact, 30 years ago, the French government decided it was better to appease the Middle Eastern powers than to oppose them. They have pursued this foreign policy consistently and there are now many places in urban France where French women cannot go out without wearing Burkas or risk being taken for prostitutes and being sexually assaulted.
Of course, that's not the first time France decided it was better to appease an enemy rather than stand up to them. But you surely know how that worked out for them. It's still the subject of a thousand jokes. Compromise and appeasement are the battle cries of the subjugated.
Actually, hard drive manufacturers have been using base 10 for quite some time now and not being entirely vocal about that fact. It works out to their advantage, after all.:-)
I always heard that a meter was derived from the distance between the N. Pole and the Equator. Is the modern Metric system not the same as the one established by Napoleon?
They rode roughshod over every international organisation when the consensus didn't go their way and ultimately staged an invasion rather than liberation.
Actually, the consensus did go our way. The governments of France, Germany, and Russia opposed us because they had sweet arms and oil deals with Saddam and didn't want to lose their investments. But most everyone else was on our side in this.
At any rate, nations *should* run roughshod over international organizations. Not just the U.S., but every nation. I have no problem with the above nations opposing us, for instance. They didn't view it as being in their best interest to support us, and that's fine. And if the actions of the U.S. ever threaten them, I fully expect them to do their moral duty and engage us in a just war of defense. To do any less is to violate their responsibility to protect their citizens.
By the way, I think the first thing they should do is refuse to accept the outrageous demands of the World Intellectual Property Organziation. The WIPO treaty being pushed by the U.S. is ridiculous and should never be signed by ANYONE. This swings both ways you know.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep. I remember when Code Red hit. I couldn't get a decent ping in games for months. And of course, I certainly wasn't running IIS or PWS or whatever other POS service it was that was targetted. Packets dropped on the floor, but still taking up precious gaming bandwidth...
I can't believe people are still going on about ISO anyway. I thought that was DOA years ago...
Perhaps not but there are plenty of people who do. At any rate, I wasn't trying to imply anything concerning Democrats in particular either. I really don't think all that many of them are corrupt either. I think charges of corruption are *really* overblown and people are far too suspicious. I don't doubt that it goes on to a limited degree, but I don't feel that it's that much of a problem.
Your comment opens up a much larger discussion, however, about the appropriateness of corporations, with their disproportionately superior power relative to individuals and with interests often at odds with the public good, participating in politics.
Well, I would dispute that their interests are *often* at odds with the public good. Remember several things here: 1) "Corporation" doesn't mean "Huge monstrous company." There are plenty of small companies that are corps. In fact, I'd say most corps are probably pretty small. 2) Even if a corporation is large, it isn't the evil bogeyman here to ruin the world. It's a business that provides employment so people can put food on their tables and products and services so people can have better lifestyles. Also, they tend to provide an environment for other businesses to spring up; that's even more jobs, products, and services. 3) Businesses are comprised of people. And these people are just like you and me. They were your classmates in school, they go to your church or synogogue, they're people in your local [insert hobby here] club. They're not inhuman monsters from another dimension, hell-bent on destroying the world, robbing you of your money, and raping the family parakeet.
In any event, corporations are not giving money to candidates, who may one day vote on a piece of legislation of interest to said corporation, because they have some great interest in democracy.
I think they support candidates for the same reason that individuals support candidates: they like them and think that those people represent them more realistically than the other candidates. Think about it for a second. Why is it that certain kinds of businesses tend to support Republicans more than Democrats (and vice versa)? You don't see the media giving anywhere near as much support to Republicans as to Democrats, for example. I think it's because most people in the media see themselves as being more like Democrats than Republicans, and thus more accurately represented by Democrats.
Corporate contributions are bribes, generally speaking.
There's a much more powerful force that influences politicians to help business: the economy. When business (especially businesses in your home constituency) do well, there are more jobs, more wealth for your constituents, and more government income through taxes. These are all things that make the voters happy.
When unemployment rises, people tend to blame the government. The dot-bomb bubble had zilch to do with any politician. Yet some people blame Bush (who wasn't even in office at the time) and others blame Clinton (who had nothing to do with it and couldn't have done anything to stop it anyway).
It's in the best interests of everyone in Washington to see that large businesses that boost the economy do well, also. And it's really in our interests too. Of course, one problem is that they often prop up companies or entire industries that really should just die off because of market forces; I think this is hurting the free market. And this problem only gets worse the longer it continues. It becomes harder and harder to take those companies die because the collateral damage it would do to the economy just keeps growing.
Also, I believe that most politicians do what they do because they DO have core beliefs. Some, like Clinton, are mainly in the game because they can get a lot of pleasure and power and prestige. But I really believe that's an aberration. I think Bush does what he does from principle (though I don't always agree with his principles); and, for example, Jimmy Carter does what he does from principle (though I hardly ever agree with HIS principles :-).
BTW, if you want to continue discussing, we might want to move to email. You can get to me at jhclouse at juno dot com.
And I just noticed that the original comment was actually modded up to +5. Geez, the moderators really *are* on crack.
Doh! That's what I meant. I've been running on very little sleep lately and it looks like it's starting to have an effect.
It's actually in the text and the arguments are in the Congressional record. But I'm tired and I got it backwards (brain fart). So, completely ignore what I said. :-)
Nah, that's what? Like, ten bucks? :-)
Never mind. Even if they did, they'd vaporize pretty quickly. They have no mass. Neither do Protestants.
The only reason DeCSS could be illegal is the circumvention portion of the DMCA. The only thing protected here is copy prevention schemes. Congress specifically got rid of the access prevention protection.
You can still use access prevention schemes, of course; but it's not a violation of law to bypass one. And CSS only prevents access.
This is where the preconceived opinion comes in. It works like this: A business made campaign contributions. The campaign was for a Republican. Therefore, it must have been a bribe.
One question that must be asked here is why the Democrats don't all get together and donate a huge sum of money to Republican campaigns. After all, Republicans are for sale to the highest bidder, aren't they?
"I get the feeling that Bush administration policies can largely explained as using popular issues...as an excuse to transfer large amounts of government subsidies to big donors." You certainly seem to be implying that there's deceptive corruption going on here.
I don't know exactly what this is in reference to but it's a prime example of your approach to this. I'll just have to guess what you're talking about: The government awarded a contract. Since Bush is in office, it must be payback for donations. The possibility that it's above board and legitimate is not something you will consider because it doesn't fit your preconceived ideas about the moral character of the present Administration.
What the President ate for breakfast can be turned into an instance of bribery and corruption if you've got an active imagination.
The Bush folks are quite open about their economic policies. The real question is why people like you keep electing people like Bush even though they are so forthright about what they are doing.
First of all, you'll have to make a choice: are they open about what they're doing or are they making up an "excuse" to "transfer large amounts of government subsidies to big donors"? You can't have it both ways.
To answer your question, I didn't even vote for Bush. I didn't like him when he came into office and I still dislike many of his policies. I think the Dept. of Homeland Security is pretty much worthless, for instance. But I don't think he makes his decisions based on a desire to "transfer large amounts of government subsidies to big donors."
Look who's talking about "conspiracy theories".
Certainly not me. International government is like peeing on an electric fence: it's not a conspiracy--it's just a bad idea. It's a well-intentioned idea but it's a bad idea all the same; not to mention that it's unconstitutional.
There are plenty of facts that prove nothing and people bring their predetermined conclusions to interpret them.
No, I just find it funny that people put so much stock in a conclusion that has no foundation besides their own hackneyed conspiracy theories about big business. All logic is presuppositional; but the really egregious circular arguments are amusing.
Of course you do. You made up your mind at the beginning and interpret everything relative to your presuppositions.
Hmmm. I remember hearing something about Apple dumping DPS in favor of Quartz because of licensing issues. I wonder if that was where the problem was?
I've heard of NeWS before and I really should check it out sometime. It's kind of sad that GNUstep is pretty much abandoning the DPS stuff. It's all still emulated with raw X calls (or win32 calls in that backend). But I guess it's just too complicated and obscure to get anybody to work it up to a useful state.
You should work for the New York Times or the Washington Post. You appear to have mastered the judicial use of quotes. I hear there's a post open at the Times. Some guy named Blair just left...
Well, what I heard was that they only want you to think that they're intentionally leaking information about their mistakes to project an image of being ineffectual... :-)
They didn't really "miss" 9-11. They just didn't know the details in advance.
You'd be surprised. A lot of what the CIA does is conglomerate and summarize information, encyclopedia style.
As I understand things, they have heavily shielded construction anywhere important for just this reason. And I would be surprised if they didn't also monitor RF in the vacinity as well.
By the time the war started, the number of nations that felt justified in supporting the action was nearly 50, as I recall. That's a reasonable number to qualify as consensus, I think.
As for the sweet deals that Frane, Germany and Russia had with Iraq, they were all pretty paltry and the deals their oil companies had with Iraq were perfectly legal under the UN oil for aid programme.
I'm actually referring to the nuclear reactors for oil and weapons for oil programs that these nations conducted with Iraq. And the yet-to-be-consumated deals that will now no longer be possible. Of course, I don't recognize the UN as being legitimate in any fashion anyway, so I don't really care about that part of it. But when so many were accusing the U.S. of going into this for oil it's an interesting fact to note.
Additionally, it points up the real reason they opposed us. Their high-minded preaching was nothing more than a smokescreen. Remember the Russian agents we shot at as our tanks rolled into Baghdad and their station wagon full of documents that implicated them in the torture and weapons program of the Iraqi regime?
The US seemingly was a bit jealous of being beaten in fair competition for this (as Exxon was not well represented) and so presents this as collaboration.
I presume you spoke to the President in confidence and obtained this real reason for our war? No, I didn't think so. Your presuppositions are that the U.S. is corrupt and run by corporations; that's why this bizarre conclusion is the only theory that makes sense to you. It's a common enough conspiracy theory; but that's all it is.
What this comes down to is a question of trust. What I've seen of Bush so far is enough to convince me that he's a man of principle and a one who only takes action out of necessity. Obviously, you disagree and that's fine. But based on my observations of his demeanor, his words, and his previous actions and associations, the idea that he would engage in a war because Exxon got beaten out of a deal is laughable to say the least.
His immediate predecessor had a much more tenuous reputation for honesty, however, and perhaps you were confusing the two.
Interestingly no-one defedning US policy on this ever mentions Haliburton's negotiations with Iraq in the late 90s that were not linked to aid for oil and were illegal.
Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll-Dresser Pump both provided products to Iraq's oil industry through French affiliates before Haliburton purchased a 49% share of the company. But these deals were also administered through the UN oil for palaces program of which you spoke so highly earlier. At any rate, I fail to see how this proves your point at all.
I hope that I never live in a world were the use of force and extortion is seen as more acceptable than consensus building and compromise.
It's too late, you already do. You cannot compromise with those who wish to destroy you. Well, you can, but all the compromise will be on your side and all the force and extortion will be on their side. As with Kaiser Wilhelm. As with Hitler. As with Stalin. As with every Middle Eastern power that hopes for the destruction of the West. As with every conqueror and violent man in history.
In fact, 30 years ago, the French government decided it was better to appease the Middle Eastern powers than to oppose them. They have pursued this foreign policy consistently and there are now many places in urban France where French women cannot go out without wearing Burkas or risk being taken for prostitutes and being sexually assaulted.
Of course, that's not the first time France decided it was better to appease an enemy rather than stand up to them. But you surely know how that worked out for them. It's still the subject of a thousand jokes. Compromise and appeasement are the battle cries of the subjugated.
I
Actually, hard drive manufacturers have been using base 10 for quite some time now and not being entirely vocal about that fact. It works out to their advantage, after all. :-)
As soon as another Napoleon comes along and forces us to switch at gunpoint, as in Europe (excepting the U.K.).
I always heard that a meter was derived from the distance between the N. Pole and the Equator. Is the modern Metric system not the same as the one established by Napoleon?
Actually, the consensus did go our way. The governments of France, Germany, and Russia opposed us because they had sweet arms and oil deals with Saddam and didn't want to lose their investments. But most everyone else was on our side in this.
At any rate, nations *should* run roughshod over international organizations. Not just the U.S., but every nation. I have no problem with the above nations opposing us, for instance. They didn't view it as being in their best interest to support us, and that's fine. And if the actions of the U.S. ever threaten them, I fully expect them to do their moral duty and engage us in a just war of defense. To do any less is to violate their responsibility to protect their citizens.
By the way, I think the first thing they should do is refuse to accept the outrageous demands of the World Intellectual Property Organziation. The WIPO treaty being pushed by the U.S. is ridiculous and should never be signed by ANYONE. This swings both ways you know.