>We're planning on spending up to more than a >hundred billion dollars to rebuild the country's >infrastructure
You make that sound as if Bush is going to run a charge card through some Iraqi clerk's cash register.
There's no 100 billion dollar check being written to the head of the new Iraqi government!
Do you really think the raw materials involved in the construction and operation of the war machine come close to the costs associated? Even if you consider the cost of the labor, it still does not add up. American corporations are the ones getting the money. The current administration isn't actually using the phrase "trickle down economics", but that's the goal of throwing 100 billion dollars into the till of the military-industrial complex. Most of it gets reinvested in the military-industrial complex. A tiny fraction goes into the paychecks of the laborers. An even tinier fraction buys the commodities that will be distributed among the Iraqis. How much do you really think it costs to feed 22 million people at a subsistence level?
When you talk about "spending money on Iraq", you need to consider that the money "spent" won't actually be exiting the US borders, except to go into Cayman Islands banks.
You make it sound like a single botched election is responsible for the current governemnt. You insult those of us who have been documenting the careers of the people currently in power, since the 1970's.
First of all, please realize that George W. Bush is not the only person in government who was placed there as the result of an election. Secondly, please consider that the current government is the result of decades of process. Are you suggesting that every local, state, and national election in the last 30 years has been botched or manipulated?
Voter apathy has placed the current government in power. The current government might not represent you individually very well, if at all, but it has not been placed in power by some conspiracy. Rather, it has been placed in power under significant support of the people who participate in the process of government, and enjoys adamant consent, in general, of the governed.
The voice of dissent seems significant if framed out of context. But considered against the voice of support, it is feeble and irrelevant. A few thousand protestors, standing down to police, will do nothing at all to deter the tens of millions who support the current administration.
Do you even realize how long it has taken the current government to form in its present state, or how long it will take to flush it through any process whatsoever? I believe it would take at least twelve years of a focused, well-supported campaign, to get Washington out of the current two-party system. Given the lack of support for a real opposition party, and given the overwhelming amount of apathy for the process, I have no confidence that any such changes are coming.
The impeachists don't even seem to consider that the government is more than one man in the executive chair. It takes a long time and a lot of work by a lot of people to affect the process, and the current government reflects the work and patience of the people who don't "pffft" the system.
Read the biographies of the people in the cabinet, and maybe a few senators.
I wonder how many slashdotters even realize that Jack Valenti worked for the Kennedy administration?
Rumsfeld was a congressman during Kennedy, Johnson, and a member of Nixon's cabinet, for instance. The botched election of 2000 didn't do all that, did it? How about Cheney as the White House Chief of Staff in '74? My point is that the current government didn't just spring up "in spite of" the American people have put this government in power, either by action or by apathy. By you "pfffting" the process, I believe you fall in the latter category. The government in power over you governs you by your consent. You helped put it there, and you suffer it to continue.
Re:A War for France's Oil
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
Well, I don't mean to suggest that anyone can stand up to the US, even combined, not for long at least on air or sea.
But if you had to get popular support for going against anyone capable of SHOOTING BACK, you only think you've seen protests, dissent, and politics.
That's why I say, if France, China, Russia, or anyone else really was opposed to this action, they could have easily raised the stakes enough to make it a much cloudier issue. Currently, the forces commanded by the Bush administration are pretty much unopposed. That makes it real easy to get popular support.
In another scenario, say one that had 20,000 men coming home in bags every month, we might do something besides yellow ribbons, "my country right or wrong", and flag stickers on our trucks.
No, the average Joe would see that we're getting our asses handed to us, and we should have left it alone.
But, obviously, we don't take on enemies with armies. And we don't invade in theatres that would require protracted infantry battles against nonuniformed guerilla militias. There are plenty of places where air superiority won't solve the war, and ships at sea would be irrelevant. But we don't start fights there...
"We take advantage of the situation and rack up the second best psyop ever."
Second best? What was the best? Kennedy against Kruschev?
Re:A War for France's Oil
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
>Don't mean to post the whole article, but this >should clear up any confusion by why we are not >being supported by our "allies"
Well, there is a world of difference between "not being supported" and "actively being opposed".
I note that none of the nations voising their opposition have taken any military action to prevent it. A bunch of hot air at the UN is one thing, but a Russian sub in the Gulf would have said "WE OPPOSE THIS ACTION. PLEASE DESIST."
Re:Or 60 years ago: Nazi Germany vs. Poland
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
"Excuse me, how were the Nazi's liberal?"
The *party* was a liberal democrat socialist labor platform. The people who eventually took the government seats (NOT just Hitler! It took far more than one man to create the Germany of WWII! How convenient to assume it wouldn't have happened without him!) weilded the enormous power and popular support that the labor party enjoyed. They twisted this power, and used it toward the ends that we now see as utter atrocity. They used the political power and pointed it at *imperialist* goals. Because the people had overwhelmingly supported the rise of the Nazi party, they had a collective problem of cognitive dissonance which steered them toward continued support. Evidence that would have led them to other motivations was generally hidden from people, and all voices of dissent were silenced. The people who knew they were living under an oppressive regime didn't really get the chance to tell the people who thought they were heading back to the prosperity of the early 19th century. And those people didn't care to seek out any such evidence, until it was really too late. The war was over by the time most Germans really knew the extent of it, or its severity. Remember that in those days, most people lived in the country, without radio or tv. Most towns would have had a telephone (one, in the Mayor's office!) so would not have been a month removed from "news", and many families had members fighting. But they believed, as all who share their circumstance, that their sons were the ones fighting the good fight and defending freedom and righteousness. What reason did they have to believe any different?
Now, I'm not afraid of the Bush administration, directly, and I'm not one who will draw the idiotic comparisons between Bush and any other leader, present or historical. But what does scare me is the way the current administration has grabbed for an enormous amount of power, centralized directly under the authority of the executive branch. What scares me is that very resource might be used for purposes other than the noble intentions with with they were granted, by a future administration. A liberal democrat, running on a labor platform, who promises to bring us back to prosperity after a few dozen years of going bankrupt fighting "terrorism" and "drugs", and losing, for example.
Re:I don't hate the war, just GWB
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
"I think that if this country was going about it in any way other than as the big bully on the playground, the international community would not be so opposed."
If the "international community" were really opposed, they'd have put their own armies, navies, and air forces in the way. They'd have said "we don't do this because we support Iraq, but because we reject American agression."
No, if there were real opposition, the US forces
would have to get past Russian subs and Chinese fighters before taking Baghdad. That would have stopped all the momentum, because I don't think the people supporting today's war would be quite as optimistic if we had to fight through armed opponents with a real military stake, before getting to the unarmed one, with purely political stakes.
No, the "international community" has given its blessing, while maintining a nominal voice of opposition merely with words. Nobody really believes the Iraqi army is prepared to do anything but surrender, after making the fireworks show with their AA that doesn't even reach the parking altitude of a B-52. And your "international community" hasn't lifted a finger to stop it. One Russian sub in the Gulf would have clouded the issue enough to put the brakes on.
So which is it? "We oppose your actions" or "We say we oppose your actions, but we do not oppose them strongly enough to take action of our own?"
Re:The Propaganda machine is already running.
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
I like how G.B. can call a radio station a site of "military importance" or whatever term he used in his speach.
The very first steps are: disable the enemy's military communications infrastructure, and, use the civilian channels to deliver propaganda. Makes perfect sense to me.
What you probably did not consciously notice, was the draping of the flags, particularly the one with the Great Seal.
The eagle depicted on that seal has two talons. One holds the olive branch of peace. The other holds the arrows of war. It is no accident that only one of these was presented during the President's war speech.
Everything on that set is meticulously dressed. The flags are not simply draped by some Boy Scout to hang however they fall.
"musicians, on the other hand, buy turtle beach sound cards..."
Baloney. Unless they've introduced it recently, TB/Voyetra have NOTHING in pro audio, or even pro-sumer. What do they have to compete with
this: SekD
or this: m-audio or this: aardvark
?
A whole lot of the commercial stuff you hear today was done with ProTools: DigiDesign
Real musicians use cassettes, when we can afford them.
"Now I know you're speaking of not committing piracy."
No, I'm just saying that in practice, in context, the price of the software does not really raise the barrier that it should If it truly did, alternative software might have an easier time competing. Instead, it's common to consider Windows, etc., "free". I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that I've observed it to be very common.
I have no disagreement with the facts in your post, but I will say it is not that simple to purchase a full copy of win98.
An assumption is implied in your statement. Do you think "Gamers" have significant needs from audio hardware? All gamers want is playback. What gamers want from "high-end" audio is specific eq and channel encoding, one home theatre standard or another.
Musicians, on the other hand, want recording capabilities. We want to be able to make quiet, production quality multitrack recordings on consumer hardware, with a minimum of fuss. We want our masters to be good enough that they do not have to be redone on pro equipment just because they lack a patented timecode, for example. We also don't want to be shut out because our recordings do not support a specific copy protection, and likewise, we do not want to be prevented by hardware or software from making sync'd, digital copies of our own tracks.
It would, and I wish that there were real controls that forced everyone to pay retail. Unfortunately, the software prices do not enter into this evaluation. Do you really believe the "prodigal techie" setting up the "in-law's pc" is paying retail for software?
Re:Family Tree Tech support: Wood for the fire....
on
Family Tech Support
·
· Score: 2
"Because you *can't* just tell them to go pound sand, or just tell them that they are stupid...."
Your family operates on a completely different level of diplomacy than mine ever did.
"suddenly its like when you have a truck: you help everyone move"
I'm seeing a pattern here. You are responsible for allowing yourself to be persuaded. I'll bet there are people with trucks who said "no" before they called you...
What strikes me the most about the testimony is the counterfeit label.
I see a cdr with whatever game or os or mp3 collection as one thing, and a manufactured CD with a counterfeit holographic label, presumably even in a retail box with counterfeit labels being sold as a retail product, as quite different things.
Now, I do draw the line at "...including supporting terrorist activities" for two reasons.
1. If Mr. Malcolm Justice is not prepared to give evidence for that conclusion, then the court should ask some probing questions. Would those answers be satisfactory basis to make such a statement under oath?
2. The claim has a chicken-little effect against the premise that we should assign importance to avoiding "things that support terrorism." There may be all kinds of activities that "support terrorism" that are not obvious. What does the State Department have to say about the risk of copyright infringement? I doubt they assign it a high level of military risk. Is it even on the radar as an economic threat?
I predict that if we get into a war with an enemy who has the capability of shooting back, all the mainstream media will be tripping over themselves to ride the propaganda machine. Sharing and copying will be encoraged then. Music copy protection will not be used on the things "they" want you to hear (and, thanks to the conformism of our population, that will be all the popular stuff.)
Watch for the mainstream to further adopt the idioms of urban culture. I expect there are a few years to go where it will not stand out as something manufactured. Propagandized mainstream entertainment, serving to polarize domestic morale while further dehumanizing the enemy.
Entertainment Media may be the War Bonds of Cold War II.
I'm a math major, so econ and polisci folks please be gentle tearing my assumptions to shreds:-)
But the value of marijuana is a fictional artifact of its prohibition. If it were merely a legal crop, it would just be a rotation crop, selling for maybe a buck a pound.
Nobody is saying the telemarkers are not legitimate. But if the call is an intrusion, it is a problem for the person being called. It does not matter whether the caller represents a "legitimate" enterprise.
I just hung up on a caller who identified himself as calling from "Virginia Beach" with a sweepstakes that I've been entered into as a result of using one of my credit cards.
The caller made two mistakes: 1. He called me on my cell phone, which costs me airtime after the first minute. 2. He did not take the hint from my first words "I am not interested in your product in any way, shape, or form, and I consider your call to be an unwelcome intrusion. Please take me off your list, and do not ever call this number again."
The caller went on to explain that he wanted me to enter into a sweepstakes for $75000. I had to interrupt to say "I am not interested in your sweepstakes, and I do not care to hear about it."
"I have asked you to terminate this discussion and place me on your do not call list. Please do so now, before I become hostile."
The caller should not have said another word, but he went on with something I took no mind of.
There was nothing legitimate about that call. I don't care who the caller represented.
>I would glady trade my privelege of "online >privacy" (whatever that means) in order to live >safely in a world free of terror.
If you give up privileges and don't get to live in a utopia, will you still have that opinion, or will you want your privileges back?
>What makes you think that you have some inherent >right to "online privacy" or "online freedom"? I >don't see that in the bill of rights or the >constitution itself, do you?
I do. I see it between the lines. The very spirit from whence the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were forged is borne on the blood of a revolution against a government which had sought to supress dissent through any and all means.
>Get used to it or go somewhere else.
Or participate in the process of government? Or is that not an option, in your black and white view of the world?
>Is having a password that forces a user to write >it down on a little piece of paper or a post-it >note really better than one that they can >remember?
Depends on how you evaluate the risk of physical security versus the risk of remote intrusion.
I have a LOT of things on my desk that would be more useful than a list of passwords. If you broke in my office, I have high risks. On the other hand, if my passwords are weak you can do certain types of damage without breaking in my office...
FWIW, I use pwgen. I'm looking for options for a hardware/dev/random. Anyone know of a project for that?
>grandiose but crummy cars that Nader thought >were unsafe at any speed.
Grandiose? The Covair?! That was General Motor's answer to the VW Karmann Ghia. They were pretty nice actually, as downscale sportscars go, but hardly "grandiose!"
>>Linux is to Unix as a Bicycle is to a Luxury Car
>so, uh, let me guess...not to hot in the verbal >section?
I don't think you understood -- that is a verbatim quote from the actual court document. SCO has actually made that statement in their complaint, and with a straight face, filed it with a court.
Personally, I would have fired the lawyer who came up with that. (It reminds me of the time I DID fire a lawyer for saying "you don't need a nuclear bomb to blow up an anthill" in a piece of litigation for me.)
In a first draft you can say amateur crap like that, but this is a billion dollar suit. It calls for some standards.
Slashdot Mirror
>We're planning on spending up to more than a
>hundred billion dollars to rebuild the country's
>infrastructure
You make that sound as if Bush is going to run a charge card through some Iraqi clerk's cash register.
There's no 100 billion dollar check being written to the head of the new Iraqi government!
Do you really think the raw materials involved in the construction and operation of the war machine come close to the costs associated? Even if you consider the cost of the labor, it still does not add up. American corporations are the ones getting the money. The current administration isn't actually using the phrase "trickle down economics", but that's the goal of throwing 100 billion dollars into the till of the military-industrial complex. Most of it gets reinvested in the military-industrial complex. A tiny fraction goes into the paychecks of the laborers. An even tinier fraction buys the commodities that will be distributed among the Iraqis. How much do you really think it costs to feed 22 million people at a subsistence level?
When you talk about "spending money on Iraq", you need to consider that the money "spent" won't actually be exiting the US borders, except to go into Cayman Islands banks.
You make it sound like a single botched election is responsible for the current governemnt. You insult those of us who have been documenting the careers of the people currently in power, since the 1970's.
First of all, please realize that George W. Bush is not the only person in government who was placed there as the result of an election. Secondly, please consider that the current government is the result of decades of process. Are you suggesting that every local, state, and national election in the last 30 years has been botched or manipulated?
Voter apathy has placed the current government in power. The current government might not represent you individually very well, if at all, but it has not been placed in power by some conspiracy. Rather, it has been placed in power under significant support of the people who participate in the process of government, and enjoys adamant consent, in general, of the governed.
The voice of dissent seems significant if framed out of context. But considered against the voice of support, it is feeble and irrelevant. A few thousand protestors, standing down to police, will do nothing at all to deter the tens of millions who support the current administration.
Do you even realize how long it has taken the current government to form in its present state, or how long it will take to flush it through any process whatsoever? I believe it would take at least twelve years of a focused, well-supported campaign, to get Washington out of the current two-party system. Given the lack of support for a real opposition party, and given the overwhelming amount of apathy for the process, I have no confidence that any such changes are coming.
The impeachists don't even seem to consider that the government is more than one man in the executive chair. It takes a long time and a lot of work by a lot of people to affect the process, and the current government reflects the work and patience of the people who don't "pffft" the system.
Read the biographies of the people in the cabinet, and maybe a few senators.
I wonder how many slashdotters even realize that Jack Valenti worked for the Kennedy administration?
Rumsfeld was a congressman during Kennedy, Johnson, and a member of Nixon's cabinet, for instance. The botched election of 2000 didn't do all that, did it? How about Cheney as the White House Chief of Staff in '74? My point is that the current government didn't just spring up "in spite of" the American people have put this government in power, either by action or by apathy. By you "pfffting" the process, I believe you fall in the latter category. The government in power over you governs you by your consent. You helped put it there, and you suffer it to continue.
Well, I don't mean to suggest that anyone can stand up to the US, even combined, not for long at least on air or sea.
But if you had to get popular support for going against anyone capable of SHOOTING BACK, you only think you've seen protests, dissent, and politics.
That's why I say, if France, China, Russia, or anyone else really was opposed to this action, they could have easily raised the stakes enough to make it a much cloudier issue. Currently, the forces commanded by the Bush administration are pretty much unopposed. That makes it real easy to get popular support.
In another scenario, say one that had 20,000 men coming home in bags every month, we might do something besides yellow ribbons, "my country right or wrong", and flag stickers on our trucks.
No, the average Joe would see that we're getting our asses handed to us, and we should have left it alone.
But, obviously, we don't take on enemies with armies. And we don't invade in theatres that would require protracted infantry battles against nonuniformed guerilla militias.
There are plenty of places where air superiority won't solve the war, and ships at sea would be irrelevant. But we don't start fights there...
"We take advantage of the situation and rack up the second best psyop ever."
Second best? What was the best? Kennedy against Kruschev?
>Don't mean to post the whole article, but this
>should clear up any confusion by why we are not
>being supported by our "allies"
Well, there is a world of difference between "not being supported" and "actively being opposed".
I note that none of the nations voising their opposition have taken any military action to prevent it. A bunch of hot air at the UN is one thing, but a Russian sub in the Gulf would have said "WE OPPOSE THIS ACTION. PLEASE DESIST."
"Excuse me, how were the Nazi's liberal?"
The *party* was a liberal democrat socialist labor platform. The people who eventually took the government seats (NOT just Hitler! It took far more than one man to create the Germany of WWII! How convenient to assume it wouldn't have happened without him!) weilded the enormous power and popular support that the labor party enjoyed. They twisted this power, and used it toward the ends that we now see as utter atrocity. They used the political power and pointed it at *imperialist* goals. Because the people had overwhelmingly supported the rise of the Nazi party, they had a collective problem of cognitive dissonance which steered them toward continued support. Evidence that would have led them to other motivations was generally hidden from people, and all voices of dissent were silenced. The people who knew they were living under an oppressive regime didn't really get the chance to tell the people who thought they were heading back to the prosperity of the early 19th century. And those people didn't care to seek out any such evidence, until it was really too late. The war was over by the time most Germans really knew the extent of it, or its severity. Remember that in those days, most people lived in the country, without radio or tv. Most towns would have had a telephone (one, in the Mayor's office!) so would not have been a month removed from "news", and many families had members fighting. But they believed, as all who share their circumstance, that their sons were the ones fighting the good fight and defending freedom and righteousness. What reason did they have to believe any different?
Now, I'm not afraid of the Bush administration, directly, and I'm not one who will draw the idiotic comparisons between Bush and any other leader, present or historical. But what does scare me is the way the current administration has grabbed for an enormous amount of power, centralized directly under the authority of the executive branch. What scares me is that very resource might be used for purposes other than the noble intentions with with they were granted, by a future administration. A liberal democrat, running on a labor platform, who promises to bring us back to prosperity after a few dozen years of going bankrupt fighting "terrorism" and "drugs", and losing, for example.
If the "international community" were really opposed, they'd have put their own armies, navies, and air forces in the way. They'd have said "we don't do this because we support Iraq, but because we reject American agression."
No, if there were real opposition, the US forces would have to get past Russian subs and Chinese fighters before taking Baghdad. That would have stopped all the momentum, because I don't think the people supporting today's war would be quite as optimistic if we had to fight through armed opponents with a real military stake, before getting to the unarmed one, with purely political stakes.
No, the "international community" has given its blessing, while maintining a nominal voice of opposition merely with words. Nobody really believes the Iraqi army is prepared to do anything but surrender, after making the fireworks show with their AA that doesn't even reach the parking altitude of a B-52. And your "international community" hasn't lifted a finger to stop it. One Russian sub in the Gulf would have clouded the issue enough to put the brakes on.
So which is it? "We oppose your actions" or "We say we oppose your actions, but we do not oppose them strongly enough to take action of our own?"
I like how G.B. can call a radio station a site of "military importance" or whatever term he used in his speach.
The very first steps are: disable the enemy's military communications infrastructure, and, use the civilian channels to deliver propaganda. Makes perfect sense to me.
That is absolutely standard practice.
What you probably did not consciously notice, was the draping of the flags, particularly the one with the Great Seal.
The eagle depicted on that seal has two talons. One holds the olive branch of peace. The other holds the arrows of war. It is no accident that only one of these was presented during the President's war speech.
Everything on that set is meticulously dressed. The flags are not simply draped by some Boy Scout to hang however they fall.
"musicians, on the other hand, buy turtle beach sound cards..."
Baloney. Unless they've introduced it recently, TB/Voyetra have NOTHING in pro audio, or even pro-sumer. What do they have to compete with this: SekD or this: m-audio or this: aardvark ?
A whole lot of the commercial stuff you hear today was done with ProTools: DigiDesign
Real musicians use cassettes, when we can afford them.
"Now I know you're speaking of not committing piracy."
No, I'm just saying that in practice, in context, the price of the software does not really raise the barrier that it should If it truly did, alternative software might have an easier time competing. Instead, it's common to consider Windows, etc., "free". I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that I've observed it to be very common.
I have no disagreement with the facts in your post, but I will say it is not that simple to purchase a full copy of win98.
"sufficient for even gamers' needs..."
An assumption is implied in your statement. Do you think "Gamers" have significant needs from audio hardware? All gamers want is playback.
What gamers want from "high-end" audio is specific eq and channel encoding, one home theatre standard or another.
Musicians, on the other hand, want recording capabilities. We want to be able to make quiet, production quality multitrack recordings on consumer hardware, with a minimum of fuss. We want our masters to be good enough that they do not have to be redone on pro equipment just because they lack a patented timecode, for example. We also don't want to be shut out because our recordings do not support a specific copy protection, and likewise, we do not want to be prevented by hardware or software from making sync'd, digital copies of our own tracks.
"Hmm. $100 + $100 + $50 + $50 seems to equal $300"
It would, and I wish that there were real controls that forced everyone to pay retail. Unfortunately, the software prices do not enter into this evaluation. Do you really believe the "prodigal techie" setting up the "in-law's pc" is paying retail for software?
"Because you *can't* just tell them to go pound sand, or just tell them that they are stupid...."
Your family operates on a completely different level of diplomacy than mine ever did.
"suddenly its like when you have a truck: you help everyone move"
I'm seeing a pattern here. You are responsible for allowing yourself to be persuaded. I'll bet there are people with trucks who said "no" before they called you...
>Making cars is not a high skilled job
It certainly is skilled labor, with all kinds of specialization involved.
What strikes me the most about the testimony is the counterfeit label.
:-)
I see a cdr with whatever game or os or mp3 collection as one thing, and a manufactured
CD with a counterfeit holographic label, presumably even in a retail box with counterfeit labels being sold as a retail product, as quite different things.
Now, I do draw the line at "...including supporting terrorist activities" for two reasons.
1. If Mr. Malcolm Justice is not prepared to give evidence for that conclusion, then the court should ask some probing questions. Would those answers be satisfactory basis to make such a statement under oath?
2. The claim has a chicken-little effect against the premise that we should assign importance to avoiding "things that support terrorism." There may be all kinds of activities that "support terrorism" that are not obvious. What does the State Department have to say about the risk of copyright infringement? I doubt they assign it a high level of military risk. Is it even on the radar as an economic threat?
I predict that if we get into a war with an enemy who has the capability of shooting back, all the mainstream media will be tripping over themselves to ride the propaganda machine. Sharing and copying will be encoraged then. Music copy protection will not be used on the things "they" want you to hear (and, thanks to the conformism of our population, that will be all the popular stuff.)
Watch for the mainstream to further adopt the idioms of urban culture. I expect there are a few years to go where it will not stand out as something manufactured. Propagandized mainstream entertainment, serving to polarize domestic morale while further dehumanizing the enemy.
Entertainment Media may be the War Bonds of Cold War II.
I'm a math major, so econ and polisci folks please be gentle tearing my assumptions to shreds
>People get shot over anything of value.
But the value of marijuana is a fictional artifact of its prohibition. If it were merely a legal crop, it would just be a rotation crop, selling for maybe a buck a pound.
"I thought the main thing stopping Linux is the fact that is simply isn't as good as other operating systems."
It's fabulously superior in some aspects, and wholly inadequate in others. There's no "simply" to it. It depends on your application.
> I highly doubt that it is safe.
Not safe to be a rabbit in your mom's lab, that's for sure!
"Restricting commercial speech is MUCH easier."
A counterpoint to the "corporations bought the government" motif?
>These were legitimate offers
Nobody is saying the telemarkers are not legitimate. But if the call is an intrusion, it is a problem for the person being called. It does not matter whether the caller represents a "legitimate" enterprise.
I just hung up on a caller who identified himself as calling from "Virginia Beach" with a sweepstakes that I've been entered into as a result of using one of my credit cards.
The caller made two mistakes: 1. He called me on my cell phone, which costs me airtime after the first minute. 2. He did not take the hint from my first words "I am not interested in your product in any way, shape, or form, and I consider your call to be an unwelcome intrusion. Please take me off your list, and do not ever call this number again."
The caller went on to explain that he wanted me to enter into a sweepstakes for $75000. I had to interrupt to say "I am not interested in your sweepstakes, and I do not care to hear about it."
"I have asked you to terminate this discussion and place me on your do not call list. Please do so now, before I become hostile."
The caller should not have said another word, but he went on with something I took no mind of.
There was nothing legitimate about that call. I don't care who the caller represented.
>I would glady trade my privelege of "online
>privacy" (whatever that means) in order to live
>safely in a world free of terror.
If you give up privileges and don't get to live in a utopia, will you still have that opinion, or will you want your privileges back?
>What makes you think that you have some inherent
>right to "online privacy" or "online freedom"? I
>don't see that in the bill of rights or the
>constitution itself, do you?
I do. I see it between the lines. The very spirit from whence the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were forged is borne on the blood of a revolution against a government which had sought to supress dissent through any and all means.
>Get used to it or go somewhere else.
Or participate in the process of government? Or is that not an option, in your black and white view of the world?
>Is having a password that forces a user to write
/dev/random. Anyone know of a project for that?
>it down on a little piece of paper or a post-it
>note really better than one that they can
>remember?
Depends on how you evaluate the risk of physical security versus the risk of remote intrusion.
I have a LOT of things on my desk that would be more useful than a list of passwords. If you broke in my office, I have high risks. On the other hand, if my passwords are weak you can do certain types of damage without breaking in my office...
FWIW, I use pwgen. I'm looking for options for a hardware
>grandiose but crummy cars that Nader thought
>were unsafe at any speed.
Grandiose? The Covair?! That was General Motor's answer to the VW Karmann Ghia. They were pretty nice actually, as downscale sportscars go, but hardly "grandiose!"
>>Linux is to Unix as a Bicycle is to a Luxury Car
>so, uh, let me guess...not to hot in the verbal
>section?
I don't think you understood -- that is a verbatim quote from the actual court document. SCO has actually made that statement in their complaint, and with a straight face, filed it with a court.
Personally, I would have fired the lawyer who came up with that. (It reminds me of the time I DID fire a lawyer for saying "you don't need a nuclear bomb to blow up an anthill" in a piece of litigation for me.)
In a first draft you can say amateur crap like that, but this is a billion dollar suit. It calls for some standards.