Never underestimate the bandwidth of a turtle with...
aw crap. nevermind.
Re:Today's kids = tomorrow's workers. Prepare them
on
Reading, Writing, RFID
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Just as you know no limits when it comes to keeping track track them for their protection, your employer and government has an interest in your well-being. Granted, the interest isn't as overarching as the relationship between parent and child; more like rancher and cattle. But show me a rancher who doesn't take care of his cattle, and I'll show you a rancher who's out of business in a year.
Funny, that's exactly what Apologists said about the condition of slaves in the Old South.
By getting the kids accustomed to the Panopticon at an early age, they'll graduate from school better-prepared to take part in the security society.
You seem to be arguing that loss of privacy is enevitable, that we should get over it, and it's really a good thing anyway. That's bullshit. That type of thinking can only lead to more government control over our private lives. The more I hear people spout off such inflamatory nonsense, the more I think about purchasing a gun while I've got the chance. I'll pay in cash, of course. Does that sound threatening? Good, it's supposed to. I'm not threatening you in particular (that is, you'll never be in physical danger from me), but I want to make it very clear how serious the right to basic privacy really is. I, for one, will defend it to the death, and will raise any children I have to do the same.
This boils down to our right to be anonymous in our speech and in our beliefs. Lack of privacy means lack of anonymity. A lack of anonymity means a lack of freedom in speech. A lack of freedom of speech means that we no longer control our own lives.
300 years ago, old farmers probably hated having to get up at oh-dark-hundred to go to the factory as much as you seem to dislike your zero-privacy expectation at work.
What's the point here? 150 years ago (there were no real factories 300 years ago) workers were treated like cattle with little to no respect for their saftey and well-being, least of all their privacy. Disposable and repressed, the factory workers eventually banded together and forced the factory owners to pay attention. Hence labor unions.
I don't know, maybe you'd like to being forced to work 16 hour days, seven days a week, for maybe a tenth of your current pay. Personally, I'm very thankful for the sacrifices those workers made way back then.
Within a generation or so, our presecurity culture will also be abandoned, and 300 years from now, our descendants will look on us and our presecuity culture as just as primitive as we now imagine our preindustrial subsistence-farming ancestors.
Unless we vigorously defend all of our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, including free speech and the right of anonymous travel (eg: no implanted RFID tags), nobody will know a damn thing about us 300 years from now. Certainly not in any meaningful sense. The revisionist control freaks will make certain of that.
It's a nice theory, but sadly naive. As we all know, power always seeks to protect itself. In this context, that means that the mid-east oil barons, when deprived of their oil revenues, will use their remaining fortunes to seize control over whatever resources are remaining. In the middle east, that probably means water.
Furthermore, as oil revenues decline, the oil barons will attempt to prop up their revenues in any way they can. The easiest way will almost certainly be to squeeze those that are less powerful: ordinary citizens. So, decreased oil revenue will, in the short term at least, very significantly hurt the general populace.
Iraq provides a very clear example of this. As oil revenues fell in the 1990's due to sanctions place on the Iraqi government by the U.N. and by the U.S., Sadam Hussein reacted by providing fewer services to his people in favor of retaining a larger portion of declining revenue. He used that money to further his stranglehold on the population; principally by funding private armies to run terror campaigns, controlling the food supply, and cracking down on dissidents.
This is why sanctions against dictatorships don't work. The only way to confront repressive dictatorships is by presenting them with a poison apple. Make them dependant on foreign investment, then jerk those strings in ways that cause the dictator to grant more freedoms to his people (Sure, we'd be happy to build you a new powerplant, but first you must agree to a basic minimum wage). As the people gain in power and influence, his regime will be destabilized.
To be crass, if the mid-east didn't have oil, nobody would give a flying fuck about them. Just look at Haiti, or most of the countries in central Africa. Their situations are just as bad or worse, yet we are not involving ourselves in those countries nearly as much as we are in the mid-east.
There are many ways to attract spam, and some of them do not require that you give your email address to anyone, including your own mother.
The most obvious is the dictionary attack. This probably won't affect you much if you have a relatively obscure mail address, but addresses at any of the major ISPs or free email providers are perfect targets.
Even if you only give your email address to friends and family, who is to say that they won't let the address slip somewhere? Perhaps they like those free eGreeting card services - some of those are notorious spam havesters.
I hate to say it, but I think that there will have to be some sort of legislation before the spam problem can be checked. Unfortunately, current computer crime laws do not cover spam in an effective way because they tend to target the sender of the spam instead of his customer. For spam legislation to be truly effective, it will be necessary to apply the law to people who commission spammers, not just the spammers themselves.
Go ahead and get your wireless. The popular routers come with the ability to encrypt your band, making it impossible for *most* people to use your bandwidth. It is unlikely that you'll actually run into someone that will both be able to hijack your signal and be willing to. Just choose a good pass phrase when you generate your encryption key.
You try wiring a split level home. It's not built like an office building. You have to drill holes in wood. You crawl around in a hot attic struggling with a flashlight and a roll of cable. You get fiberglass insulation in the most uncomfortable places. You do a shitty job. You fall through the ceiling.
None of those were terrorist acts. They certainly did instill terror, but they were performed by an organized government. Since terrorism is defined as acts of violence committed by organized resistance groups against 'soft' targets, the acts you cite do not qualify. They may qualify as war crimes, and if the U.S. were not the super-power it is, those responsible would have been indicted and (if caught) convicted for them.
If Microsoft truly understood open standards, there wouln't have ever been a '.doc' format, or at the very least, they would have published the format so that their customers could exchange documents easily between people that may not use the same software.
I don't think that there needs to be a way to query the recipient. Probably this will entail some sort of public key encryption system ala PGP, but unlocked by that ever secure.NET Passport instead of something that you control. Included in the encrypted message will be rules that state what the client program may or may not do with the message, including reading, replying, and forwarding. Apparently, the message may also contain a 'self-destruct' order that instructs the client to destroy it's copy if it meets certain requirements. Who knows if it's only the requirements set by the creator of the content.
Now, this only works if the client plays by the rules. To ensure this, only Microsoft created clients will be able to read the messages. Well, that's the idea at any rate. I leave it to you to ponder whether or not Microsoft's new system can be broken.
Now, having gotten the method out of the way, this brings up some serious issues for we in the OSS movement and for society at large.
Microsoft has stated that there will be a free viewer available that can read these messages. Note that's a viewer, not a true email client. Users of this viewer will not be able to send messages in the same fashion. It is very possible that they will not be able to do anything with the message other than view it, regardless of whether copyright controls contained therein allow for forwarding. Obviously, if you want to be able to use the messages sent to you by someone else, you must use a Microsoft product. That means that you must run Microsoft Windows. Given that Microsoft only makes software for Windows and Macintosh, and will be dropping support for the Mac, I must conclude that this is simply yet another way for Microsoft to control the market, and stifle competition.
Finally, to satisfy the requirements of my moniker, I should point out that Microsoft will be able to read these messages via it's Passport system. Therefore, by extension, the U.S. government will also be able to read those messages. Don't believe the crap that Microsoft is trying to sell you. This is not about you being able to control what happens to your content (as implied in the article by that bleeding heart story about the woman who sent embarassing material to her irresponsible boyfriend). No, this is about Microsoft controlling what you do on your computer with software that you own. It is also about the government being able to monitor your communication.
And what do you do for blind voters, or those with muscular defects such as MS? Those people have a right to an anonymous vote also, but that is being denied them because they must seek assistance from someone else.
It's more involved than you think. The voter must be given a chance to change the vote in the event that he made a mistake. In my opinion, that would mean taking a printed ballot to a collection box which would then read and add the vote. But only after the voter has had a chance to review his ballot. Having a paper ballot be read on-the-spot by a computer/ballot box has the added advantage of being able to spot faulty ballots. In such a case, the voter could be instructed to try again.
Because of it's ephemeral nature, a computer generated representation is not a ballot, and nor should it be. The chances of failure are far too great.
Speaking as a devil's advocate, I must point out that Diebold election machines are not, at any point during the election, connected to the internet. At the end of each election, they dial central servers directly and post their results. Far more secure than any internet connection as long as basic security precations are taken.
It's interesting to note that engineers working on the Columbia had notified managers repeatedly about an array of problems with the shuttle, yet the managers still insisted that it fly.
Mandrake was fully aware that slashdotters would post.torrent files almost immediately. They decided to follow that course anyway. Personally, I don't see what's wrong with people posting their own.torrent files.
What bugs me is that they decided to use BitTorrent in the first place. There are no BitTorrent rpms availabe for 9.1, and I have yet to get the source to compile correctly due to dependancy hell. Frankly, I'm a bit miffed by that. I paid good money to be a club member, I was promised early access to releases and I have yet to be able to download the ISOs.
Even if I succeed in installing BitTorrent, I am behind a firewall that blocks the ports that BitTorrent uses. I'd have to get our network admin to open those ports. If I'm able to get BitTorrent to work at home, I'd have to reassign precious ports in my NAT box to point to my workstation, meaning that I would then have to close my FTP ports, SSH or some other highly useful port. Unfortunately, my NAT box will only forward a limited number of ports.
What I want is a direct link to an.iso via ftp or http, not BitTorrent files.
Those people are in the spamming business because it's cheap, easy, and it generates significant income. I doubt that any of the Boca Raton group would actually move to a foreign country. More likely, they'll just get into some other sort of scam. Pyramid schemes or something.
But we may well see folks in Vietnam or other countries picking up their slack. In that case, the U.S. gov't will need to employ diplomatic measures to convince foreign governments to get involved. Punative measures could include sanctions and/or denying access to our networks.
People dislike saying GNU/Linux because it's awkward and ungainly. The shorter, simpler term Linux sounds much better. I think RMS should just get over it. Linux is going nowhere without the GNU, whatever happens with the name, so Stallman's baby is safe. On top of that, the GNU license specifically grants it's users to call their derivitive products anything they want. For RMS to whine when they do does not reflect well upon him.
Same here. Just got over a bout with it. Ended up going back to the nv (xfree86) driver and doing without the OpenGL for the moment. If this next version is not more stable, I'll be trying Gentoo next. Hell, I might switch just for the change, but I'll download and burn the mdk9.2 all the same.
The most insulting thing about this article is the way they portray the free software movement; as though it were a collection of naive communistic kooks. They seem to look at us as though we've completely taken leave of our senses and therefore willing to squander our hard work for no benifit at all.
Of course, we know that the real reason we release software under the GPL is so that we can in turn make use of the work that others have done. It makes our jobs as engineers much easier. In return for that, we offer up the derivitive code that we write so that others may to the same. It's called selflessness and it's a good trait in a person, and it's good for society. We also realize that there is still opportunity in such a structure. Someone has to actually bring something to market in a sustainable way.
Consumers will always be willing to pay for good products and services. As long as a company can release good software and offer good support for that software, then the viral nature of the GPL will not kill them. I offer RedHat as an example of this. They have built their entire business around the GPL and they seem to be doing very well despite the fact that others are making (or attempting to make) money off of their hard work. Mandrake is the example here. I don't mean to disparage Mandrake, they are doing a fantastic job, which merely emphasizes the point.
Business people look at the GPL as a way to keep them from capitalizing on a piece of software to it's fullest extent. I suppose that it is true that by embracing the GPL they give their competitors the very tools they need to become better but they fail to realize that their competitors will then be bound by the same rules. The first business can make use of the work the second business did upon the product of the first. And if the second (the competitor) breaks the rules, the first can hold them accountable. Hell, if necessary, they can request the assistance the Free Software Foundation. That's why they exist, and they continue to exist through the largess of the companies they protect.
That brings me to back to being insulted. This article, instead of relying solely upon reasoned argument, attempted to paint the free software movement as some sort of radical communist plot. Lines like "the movement's usual public image of happy software proles linking arms and singing the 'Internationale'" do nothing to further debate but much to instill fear, uncertainty and doubt. It is like asking a man when he stopped beating his wife. It's based on false assumptions and is designed to cast a negative light on the subject.
If you buy into the view espoused by the author of that propagandist tripe, I have one thing to say to you: prepare yourself the Fourth Reich, brother. I hope the father... er, homeland finds you useful.
I read Robin's tirade a couple days ago. What a piece of self-serving tripe. Advocacy is great, but Robin is proving herself to be a stark raving zeolot, without any consideration for truth or moderation. I used to respect her some years ago be for she let herself degenerate into mudflinging hysteria. But now I can't trust anything she says because her motives are suspect, and she is not above employing the same FUD tactics that she accuses others of, as this article reveals all to plainly.
As the old joke goes, it is a pile of excrement and none can abide the stench thereof.
Slashdot Mirror
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a turtle with...
aw crap. nevermind.
Just as you know no limits when it comes to keeping track track them for their protection, your employer and government has an interest in your well-being. Granted, the interest isn't as overarching as the relationship between parent and child; more like rancher and cattle. But show me a rancher who doesn't take care of his cattle, and I'll show you a rancher who's out of business in a year.
Funny, that's exactly what Apologists said about the condition of slaves in the Old South.
By getting the kids accustomed to the Panopticon at an early age, they'll graduate from school better-prepared to take part in the security society.
You seem to be arguing that loss of privacy is enevitable, that we should get over it, and it's really a good thing anyway. That's bullshit. That type of thinking can only lead to more government control over our private lives. The more I hear people spout off such inflamatory nonsense, the more I think about purchasing a gun while I've got the chance. I'll pay in cash, of course. Does that sound threatening? Good, it's supposed to. I'm not threatening you in particular (that is, you'll never be in physical danger from me), but I want to make it very clear how serious the right to basic privacy really is. I, for one, will defend it to the death, and will raise any children I have to do the same.
This boils down to our right to be anonymous in our speech and in our beliefs. Lack of privacy means lack of anonymity. A lack of anonymity means a lack of freedom in speech. A lack of freedom of speech means that we no longer control our own lives.
300 years ago, old farmers probably hated having to get up at oh-dark-hundred to go to the factory as much as you seem to dislike your zero-privacy expectation at work.
What's the point here? 150 years ago (there were no real factories 300 years ago) workers were treated like cattle with little to no respect for their saftey and well-being, least of all their privacy. Disposable and repressed, the factory workers eventually banded together and forced the factory owners to pay attention. Hence labor unions.
I don't know, maybe you'd like to being forced to work 16 hour days, seven days a week, for maybe a tenth of your current pay. Personally, I'm very thankful for the sacrifices those workers made way back then.
Within a generation or so, our presecurity culture will also be abandoned, and 300 years from now, our descendants will look on us and our presecuity culture as just as primitive as we now imagine our preindustrial subsistence-farming ancestors.
Unless we vigorously defend all of our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, including free speech and the right of anonymous travel (eg: no implanted RFID tags), nobody will know a damn thing about us 300 years from now. Certainly not in any meaningful sense. The revisionist control freaks will make certain of that.
It's a nice theory, but sadly naive. As we all know, power always seeks to protect itself. In this context, that means that the mid-east oil barons, when deprived of their oil revenues, will use their remaining fortunes to seize control over whatever resources are remaining. In the middle east, that probably means water.
Furthermore, as oil revenues decline, the oil barons will attempt to prop up their revenues in any way they can. The easiest way will almost certainly be to squeeze those that are less powerful: ordinary citizens. So, decreased oil revenue will, in the short term at least, very significantly hurt the general populace.
Iraq provides a very clear example of this. As oil revenues fell in the 1990's due to sanctions place on the Iraqi government by the U.N. and by the U.S., Sadam Hussein reacted by providing fewer services to his people in favor of retaining a larger portion of declining revenue. He used that money to further his stranglehold on the population; principally by funding private armies to run terror campaigns, controlling the food supply, and cracking down on dissidents.
This is why sanctions against dictatorships don't work. The only way to confront repressive dictatorships is by presenting them with a poison apple. Make them dependant on foreign investment, then jerk those strings in ways that cause the dictator to grant more freedoms to his people (Sure, we'd be happy to build you a new powerplant, but first you must agree to a basic minimum wage). As the people gain in power and influence, his regime will be destabilized.
To be crass, if the mid-east didn't have oil, nobody would give a flying fuck about them. Just look at Haiti, or most of the countries in central Africa. Their situations are just as bad or worse, yet we are not involving ourselves in those countries nearly as much as we are in the mid-east.
Who modded this guy as troll? He raises an interesting point, whatever your particular viewpoint on OSS.
There are many ways to attract spam, and some of them do not require that you give your email address to anyone, including your own mother.
The most obvious is the dictionary attack. This probably won't affect you much if you have a relatively obscure mail address, but addresses at any of the major ISPs or free email providers are perfect targets.
Even if you only give your email address to friends and family, who is to say that they won't let the address slip somewhere? Perhaps they like those free eGreeting card services - some of those are notorious spam havesters.
I hate to say it, but I think that there will have to be some sort of legislation before the spam problem can be checked. Unfortunately, current computer crime laws do not cover spam in an effective way because they tend to target the sender of the spam instead of his customer. For spam legislation to be truly effective, it will be necessary to apply the law to people who commission spammers, not just the spammers themselves.
In the words of another slashdotter...
"It's the queers. They're in it with the aliens. They're building landing strips for gay martians. I swear to God."
Well sure, anything is possible. But it won't do you much good. A better idea might be to buy or build a cantenna.
Go ahead and get your wireless. The popular routers come with the ability to encrypt your band, making it impossible for *most* people to use your bandwidth. It is unlikely that you'll actually run into someone that will both be able to hijack your signal and be willing to. Just choose a good pass phrase when you generate your encryption key.
You try wiring a split level home. It's not built like an office building. You have to drill holes in wood. You crawl around in a hot attic struggling with a flashlight and a roll of cable. You get fiberglass insulation in the most uncomfortable places. You do a shitty job. You fall through the ceiling.
Trust me, wireless is a lot easier.
None of those were terrorist acts. They certainly did instill terror, but they were performed by an organized government. Since terrorism is defined as acts of violence committed by organized resistance groups against 'soft' targets, the acts you cite do not qualify. They may qualify as war crimes, and if the U.S. were not the super-power it is, those responsible would have been indicted and (if caught) convicted for them.
If Microsoft truly understood open standards, there wouln't have ever been a '.doc' format, or at the very least, they would have published the format so that their customers could exchange documents easily between people that may not use the same software.
I don't think that there needs to be a way to query the recipient. Probably this will entail some sort of public key encryption system ala PGP, but unlocked by that ever secure .NET Passport instead of something that you control. Included in the encrypted message will be rules that state what the client program may or may not do with the message, including reading, replying, and forwarding. Apparently, the message may also contain a 'self-destruct' order that instructs the client to destroy it's copy if it meets certain requirements. Who knows if it's only the requirements set by the creator of the content.
Now, this only works if the client plays by the rules. To ensure this, only Microsoft created clients will be able to read the messages. Well, that's the idea at any rate. I leave it to you to ponder whether or not Microsoft's new system can be broken.
Now, having gotten the method out of the way, this brings up some serious issues for we in the OSS movement and for society at large.
Microsoft has stated that there will be a free viewer available that can read these messages. Note that's a viewer, not a true email client. Users of this viewer will not be able to send messages in the same fashion. It is very possible that they will not be able to do anything with the message other than view it, regardless of whether copyright controls contained therein allow for forwarding. Obviously, if you want to be able to use the messages sent to you by someone else, you must use a Microsoft product. That means that you must run Microsoft Windows. Given that Microsoft only makes software for Windows and Macintosh, and will be dropping support for the Mac, I must conclude that this is simply yet another way for Microsoft to control the market, and stifle competition.
Finally, to satisfy the requirements of my moniker, I should point out that Microsoft will be able to read these messages via it's Passport system. Therefore, by extension, the U.S. government will also be able to read those messages. Don't believe the crap that Microsoft is trying to sell you. This is not about you being able to control what happens to your content (as implied in the article by that bleeding heart story about the woman who sent embarassing material to her irresponsible boyfriend). No, this is about Microsoft controlling what you do on your computer with software that you own. It is also about the government being able to monitor your communication.
And what do you do for blind voters, or those with muscular defects such as MS? Those people have a right to an anonymous vote also, but that is being denied them because they must seek assistance from someone else.
It's more involved than you think. The voter must be given a chance to change the vote in the event that he made a mistake. In my opinion, that would mean taking a printed ballot to a collection box which would then read and add the vote. But only after the voter has had a chance to review his ballot. Having a paper ballot be read on-the-spot by a computer/ballot box has the added advantage of being able to spot faulty ballots. In such a case, the voter could be instructed to try again.
Because of it's ephemeral nature, a computer generated representation is not a ballot, and nor should it be. The chances of failure are far too great.
Speaking as a devil's advocate, I must point out that Diebold election machines are not, at any point during the election, connected to the internet. At the end of each election, they dial central servers directly and post their results. Far more secure than any internet connection as long as basic security precations are taken.
It's interesting to note that engineers working on the Columbia had notified managers repeatedly about an array of problems with the shuttle, yet the managers still insisted that it fly.
You can cast your ballot through the mail during early voting periods. Contact your local voting precinct to obtain the forms.
Mandrake was fully aware that slashdotters would post .torrent files almost immediately. They decided to follow that course anyway. Personally, I don't see what's wrong with people posting their own .torrent files.
.iso via ftp or http, not BitTorrent files.
What bugs me is that they decided to use BitTorrent in the first place. There are no BitTorrent rpms availabe for 9.1, and I have yet to get the source to compile correctly due to dependancy hell. Frankly, I'm a bit miffed by that. I paid good money to be a club member, I was promised early access to releases and I have yet to be able to download the ISOs.
Even if I succeed in installing BitTorrent, I am behind a firewall that blocks the ports that BitTorrent uses. I'd have to get our network admin to open those ports. If I'm able to get BitTorrent to work at home, I'd have to reassign precious ports in my NAT box to point to my workstation, meaning that I would then have to close my FTP ports, SSH or some other highly useful port. Unfortunately, my NAT box will only forward a limited number of ports.
What I want is a direct link to an
Those people are in the spamming business because it's cheap, easy, and it generates significant income. I doubt that any of the Boca Raton group would actually move to a foreign country. More likely, they'll just get into some other sort of scam. Pyramid schemes or something.
But we may well see folks in Vietnam or other countries picking up their slack. In that case, the U.S. gov't will need to employ diplomatic measures to convince foreign governments to get involved. Punative measures could include sanctions and/or denying access to our networks.
People dislike saying GNU/Linux because it's awkward and ungainly. The shorter, simpler term Linux sounds much better. I think RMS should just get over it. Linux is going nowhere without the GNU, whatever happens with the name, so Stallman's baby is safe. On top of that, the GNU license specifically grants it's users to call their derivitive products anything they want. For RMS to whine when they do does not reflect well upon him.
Same here. Just got over a bout with it. Ended up going back to the nv (xfree86) driver and doing without the OpenGL for the moment. If this next version is not more stable, I'll be trying Gentoo next. Hell, I might switch just for the change, but I'll download and burn the mdk9.2 all the same.
The most insulting thing about this article is the way they portray the free software movement; as though it were a collection of naive communistic kooks. They seem to look at us as though we've completely taken leave of our senses and therefore willing to squander our hard work for no benifit at all.
Of course, we know that the real reason we release software under the GPL is so that we can in turn make use of the work that others have done. It makes our jobs as engineers much easier. In return for that, we offer up the derivitive code that we write so that others may to the same. It's called selflessness and it's a good trait in a person, and it's good for society. We also realize that there is still opportunity in such a structure. Someone has to actually bring something to market in a sustainable way.
Consumers will always be willing to pay for good products and services. As long as a company can release good software and offer good support for that software, then the viral nature of the GPL will not kill them. I offer RedHat as an example of this. They have built their entire business around the GPL and they seem to be doing very well despite the fact that others are making (or attempting to make) money off of their hard work. Mandrake is the example here. I don't mean to disparage Mandrake, they are doing a fantastic job, which merely emphasizes the point.
Business people look at the GPL as a way to keep them from capitalizing on a piece of software to it's fullest extent. I suppose that it is true that by embracing the GPL they give their competitors the very tools they need to become better but they fail to realize that their competitors will then be bound by the same rules. The first business can make use of the work the second business did upon the product of the first. And if the second (the competitor) breaks the rules, the first can hold them accountable. Hell, if necessary, they can request the assistance the Free Software Foundation. That's why they exist, and they continue to exist through the largess of the companies they protect.
That brings me to back to being insulted. This article, instead of relying solely upon reasoned argument, attempted to paint the free software movement as some sort of radical communist plot. Lines like "the movement's usual public image of happy software proles linking arms and singing the 'Internationale'" do nothing to further debate but much to instill fear, uncertainty and doubt. It is like asking a man when he stopped beating his wife. It's based on false assumptions and is designed to cast a negative light on the subject.
If you buy into the view espoused by the author of that propagandist tripe, I have one thing to say to you: prepare yourself the Fourth Reich, brother. I hope the father... er, homeland finds you useful.
Let's hit 'im again. *snicker*
I read Robin's tirade a couple days ago. What a piece of self-serving tripe. Advocacy is great, but Robin is proving herself to be a stark raving zeolot, without any consideration for truth or moderation. I used to respect her some years ago be for she let herself degenerate into mudflinging hysteria. But now I can't trust anything she says because her motives are suspect, and she is not above employing the same FUD tactics that she accuses others of, as this article reveals all to plainly.
As the old joke goes, it is a pile of excrement and none can abide the stench thereof.