Clockrates of different processors don't directly compare. I mean, the Dreamcast had a 200MHz processor, and went faster than PCs for several years. My Athlon XP 1.8GHz is faster than my P4 2GHz. The P3 1GHz was faster than the P4 1.4GHz. So, 733MHz may be a lot more than you think. Besides, the only reason that seems underpowered is due to bloatware. If it were Linux installed...
First of all, I am falliable as a human, and did not claim to remember where I read that. I think, tho, it was in a Michael Moore book. As far as the second point, he didn't say it, but did it. Finally, I must say that I don't see to many citations from you either. Be careful.
Do you seriously trust Ascroft less than Osama Bin Laden?
Do you seriously trust that madman more that a God loving patriot willing to to sacrifise some false sense of securuity in order to maintain our freedom and power to strike back against our enemies?
Whatever your opinion on Ascroft and Rumsfeld is; the fact is that they are person's you can trust simply because they are consistent in their policy over time, not jsut in a short glimpse of second.
The qualities we need for homeland security are the same that they can deploy in our research and development sector.
Let me take these one at a time.
Yes. I know what they want. I know what motivates them. Envy of economic status that transforms to hatred. As for Ashcroft, he attacks us on a level far more dangerous than a hijacked planes. A plane can remove your life. Ashcroft tried to remove the meaning of your life.
This would be easier to answer if it were written a little bit more clearly, but in short, Ashcroft is not a patriot. He is a fascist who hides behind a tainted flag. No more, no less.
Trust someone who arrests nuns because they protest foriegn policy? Trust the mastermind behind the PATRIOT ACT? I would rather trust... myself. I don't know who else to trust in this case.
Science should not be constrained by security. Science is not a weapon to be guarded. The application of scientific knowledge to weaponry is a different issue, but the moment the gov't controls what science is conducted by such a powerful means as this, we start getting that a reasearcher that finds evidence of global warning gets arrested to protect the petrochemical industry. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but how can I help but be one in this day and age?
That's right. I forgot that Clinton's dick did much more damage than invading Iraq. Lest I forget that screwing a country is fine, so long as no one but no one screws an intern.
Let's take this a step further: if we weren't humans on earth, no one would have to be worried about security... the environment wouldn't be an issue... but obviously, this is worse than the plights that ail us, and not any solution. Just a cop-out.
But really your comment was just a politically motivated slam against the members of the Bush administration who have been deemed 'best target' by the DNC. That might be true... except I'm not a Democrat, and indeed hate the DNC. Moreover, the Bush administration has much to be slammed for. Letting RIAA run amok, being soft on M$, soft on Enron (or is it Enwrong?), cancelling funds to catch Osama (he did that on his first day in office, IIRC), the PATRIOT ACT, need I go on? If making a slam against a louse like Bush is a sin, then I stand before you a sinner.
Re:Differnet times for a different world
on
Security Versus Science
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
A different world? Correct me if I'm wrong, but Bush wasn't elected on Sep. 11, either. Moreover, we had already identified Osama as a threat, and Bush was busy cancelling funds to arrest him. Nothing on 9-11 made the world so different. We had terrorist attacks around the world both before and after. There was war before and after. Bush sold us change the same way a used car salesman might. He told us the the world had changed in a fundamental way, and that we had to give up our freedom because of it. IIRC, the founding fathers had to worry about security, too. Security is not a new concern. The OK City bombing should have shown us that much. Alas, 9-11 was used by Bush to justify a huge expenditure of effort and money, at the expense of freedom.
Sad, esp. considering how artifical such security is anyway. Frankly, with Ashcroft and Ridge at the helm, I trust the DHS less than what they ostensibly fight against...
That aside, if we refuse to allow talented people into our country, what's that do but force them to work for our competitors and perhaps even enemies? Lovely bit of intel there. Oh, well. No one ever accused the Bush administration of having a collective brain cell.
Clairification: the radio has the ability to block signals based on the station. Tools like SpamAssasin, and basic functions like iprules do a lot to allow you to block based on source, subject, headers, etc. For example, my e-mail address gets almost no spam (tho I don't actively invite it either...) because it goes through 6 redundant blacklists based on IP addresses alone, then after that, the remaining e-mail gets to Mozilla's spam filter. Its been weeks since getting a single spam that passed all seven filters. So no, the old radio station doesn't just pop back on for me.
People can elect to block any e-mail based on whatever critera they choose. This is not a free speech issue in that that the recipient is not obligated to pay attention to a certain speaker. In such a system, if one abuses the right to speak, people will stop listening, lessening the profitability (and hence the impact) of spamming.
To me the concept of "lending" information is rather ludicrious. I mean, lending a CD is just that... lending the CD, and not the content on that CD. The CD is a vessel for the content, which is being reproduced if only in the sense that a neural pattern that corresponds to the content is created in both parties' brains. To that end, should the lender forget that he heard the music at all? Albeit, this is an extreme case, but RIAA is taking extreme measures.
Remind me when something surprising happens. In the meantime, I will continue to rant and scream at the idiocy of those who submit to the RIAA. As for myself, I bought $45 of CDs from CD Baby, which does not sell RIAA-tainted albums. In other news, if you bookmark
But then, that becomes an excuse for companies that deal in more dangerous commodities to treat their employees like shit. In reality, medical companies have some of the worst reputations for the way they treat both employees and clients. Hell, the clients don't have access to the same stuff, but are still mistreated.
Would this be the same USSC that appointed the president who appointed the attorney general who wants to repeal the first amendment? Good luck. Hope springs eternal, but after the RIAA lawsuits, I think even my worthless hope begins to fail.
Interestingly, my college has banned any services running off your computer (as if!), from Freenet to KaZaa to httpd to Jabber to DC. Zip, nada, nilch. Be it server-client, or p2p, they are banned.
I wonder what they'd do about an 802.11b ad-hoc?
Slashdot Mirror
/me sips some green tea. /me is now wired.
AAAHHH! Ford... Linux... Ford... Linux... /me's head pops.
I hate Ford... I love Linux... what do I do? HELP!
Clockrates of different processors don't directly compare. I mean, the Dreamcast had a 200MHz processor, and went faster than PCs for several years. My Athlon XP 1.8GHz is faster than my P4 2GHz. The P3 1GHz was faster than the P4 1.4GHz. So, 733MHz may be a lot more than you think. Besides, the only reason that seems underpowered is due to bloatware. If it were Linux installed...
Yeah, we don't have any home-grown terrorists like McVeigh...
I don't like parties. Studying is better.
The freedom to protest.
Appently, whatever Asscroft doesn't have on his black list.
First of all, I am falliable as a human, and did not claim to remember where I read that. I think, tho, it was in a Michael Moore book. As far as the second point, he didn't say it, but did it. Finally, I must say that I don't see to many citations from you either. Be careful.
Let's not get started on genetically modified organisims...
Let me take these one at a time.
That's right. I forgot that Clinton's dick did much more damage than invading Iraq. Lest I forget that screwing a country is fine, so long as no one but no one screws an intern.
Let's take this a step further: if we weren't humans on earth, no one would have to be worried about security... the environment wouldn't be an issue... but obviously, this is worse than the plights that ail us, and not any solution. Just a cop-out.
But really your comment was just a politically motivated slam against the members of the Bush administration who have been deemed 'best target' by the DNC.
That might be true... except I'm not a Democrat, and indeed hate the DNC. Moreover, the Bush administration has much to be slammed for. Letting RIAA run amok, being soft on M$, soft on Enron (or is it Enwrong?), cancelling funds to catch Osama (he did that on his first day in office, IIRC), the PATRIOT ACT, need I go on? If making a slam against a louse like Bush is a sin, then I stand before you a sinner.
A different world? Correct me if I'm wrong, but Bush wasn't elected on Sep. 11, either. Moreover, we had already identified Osama as a threat, and Bush was busy cancelling funds to arrest him. Nothing on 9-11 made the world so different. We had terrorist attacks around the world both before and after. There was war before and after. Bush sold us change the same way a used car salesman might. He told us the the world had changed in a fundamental way, and that we had to give up our freedom because of it. IIRC, the founding fathers had to worry about security, too. Security is not a new concern. The OK City bombing should have shown us that much. Alas, 9-11 was used by Bush to justify a huge expenditure of effort and money, at the expense of freedom.
Sad, esp. considering how artifical such security is anyway. Frankly, with Ashcroft and Ridge at the helm, I trust the DHS less than what they ostensibly fight against... That aside, if we refuse to allow talented people into our country, what's that do but force them to work for our competitors and perhaps even enemies? Lovely bit of intel there. Oh, well. No one ever accused the Bush administration of having a collective brain cell.
Clairification: the radio has the ability to block signals based on the station. Tools like SpamAssasin, and basic functions like iprules do a lot to allow you to block based on source, subject, headers, etc. For example, my e-mail address gets almost no spam (tho I don't actively invite it either...) because it goes through 6 redundant blacklists based on IP addresses alone, then after that, the remaining e-mail gets to Mozilla's spam filter. Its been weeks since getting a single spam that passed all seven filters. So no, the old radio station doesn't just pop back on for me.
People can elect to block any e-mail based on whatever critera they choose. This is not a free speech issue in that that the recipient is not obligated to pay attention to a certain speaker. In such a system, if one abuses the right to speak, people will stop listening, lessening the profitability (and hence the impact) of spamming.
Then I must deserve an ID at the 12th order of magnitude.
To me the concept of "lending" information is rather ludicrious. I mean, lending a CD is just that... lending the CD, and not the content on that CD. The CD is a vessel for the content, which is being reproduced if only in the sense that a neural pattern that corresponds to the content is created in both parties' brains. To that end, should the lender forget that he heard the music at all? Albeit, this is an extreme case, but RIAA is taking extreme measures.
Screw putting him on hold, how 'bout in the hold?
But then, that becomes an excuse for companies that deal in more dangerous commodities to treat their employees like shit. In reality, medical companies have some of the worst reputations for the way they treat both employees and clients. Hell, the clients don't have access to the same stuff, but are still mistreated.
Would this be the same USSC that appointed the president who appointed the attorney general who wants to repeal the first amendment? Good luck.
Hope springs eternal, but after the RIAA lawsuits, I think even my worthless hope begins to fail.
Interestingly, my college has banned any services running off your computer (as if!), from Freenet to KaZaa to httpd to Jabber to DC. Zip, nada, nilch. Be it server-client, or p2p, they are banned. I wonder what they'd do about an 802.11b ad-hoc?
Furthermore, how does RIAA know they did? Could the very methods that RIAA uses to collect info is illegal?