I disagree with a lot Fortuyn said, but his assessment of Dutch politics was indeed spot-on. And lots of folks agree - just look at the amount of votes van buitenen got for the EP election.
Indeed. Luckily the press is slowly losing ground to other forms of information. Although Dutch weblogging space is somewhat immature (read the comments on geenstijl and retecool for an example), it is a growing source of scrutiny. Same in the US, actualy.
Do you put reporters in jail when they write about political payoffs in the newspapers?
Of course not! It is even extremely rare that a reporter gets threatened by court to reveal his sources, and I can't offhand recall an instance where the reporter was actually forced to do that.
Do you have no corrupt politicians?
Of course we do - they're human, after all. But the other reply to your post makes clear what we do about them. Last cabinet formation it turned out that one potential sub-secretary of state had 'forgotten' to tell about her stint in the Surinam 'army' of Bouterse (check google - there's a lot of backstory). She now holds the record for shortest amount of time "in office".
Damn! I was wondering why I always get headaches when I mistakingly drink Diet Coke.
I assume you're joking. Aspartaam, like most neurotoxins, and like most anti-depressant medicine (such as citalopram, work very slowly. It takes weeks to take hold. It took me six months after stopping with Diet Coke to get back to normal.
Forget carcinogenic - aspartaam is a neurotoxin. Check google. If you're too sensitive for it (like I am) it will literally drive you crazy. I'm avoiding anything with "Lite" on it like the plague.
Why have you lost interest in Osama bin Laden, the leader of the organization that attacked the United States of America on September 11?
Mr. President, in July of 2003 you said if anyone wanted to attack our troops in Iraq, they should bring it on. In March of this year you appeared at a reporters' dinner and ran a video in which you jokingly stumbled around your office looking for weapons of mass destruction. Can you explain this behavior to the families who have lost loved ones in Iraq?
You recently received a formal intelligence assessment provided by your own agencies, indicating that our mission in Iraq was in great danger of failing. You described this as the CIA 'just guessing'. and indicated that you did not believe what it said. What intelligence sources do you trust when it comes to giving you an accurate assessment of the situation in Iraq?
Do you believe it is best to stick to your guns on an issue even when history is proving the decision incorrect? What about the example of older members of your party were adamant segregationists who have now changed their views and don't apologize for this change of heart. Would you call this flip flopping and a moral weakness? Are there times when admitting your previous position was a mistake is actually a sign of strength?
In that case, in the UK, you're in trouble, because you are breaking the law. There was a really hilarious example when some reporter sent an encrypted document to the government puke who was introducing this law, carefully done so that the encryption key was deleted and unavailable. This was indeed to point out the insanity of the law...
Most open proxies are indeed open by mistake. A significant number of accidental proxies are used by spammers - in fact, that's how most spam is distributed these days. Check the listings at dsbl.org. I've yet to see a spammer get "fined" (or worse) for this usage.
Je hebt een groter vertrouwen in gezond verstand dan ik - je hebt van de week hoop ik in de krant dat artikel gelezen van die dame die, omdat haar huurverhoging 8 cent over de huursubsidie-limiet ging, haar huis uit moest? Leek erg weinig gezond verstand aan te pas te komen..
Taking that bag of apples at the side of a rural road without paying the $1 asked for on the billboard (That'll teach em not to use a stupid business model) If you really, honestly believe this is equivalent to refusing to watch advertising, there's not much I can say that would make any sense to you.
"that's a shitty business model, I won't view the ads" is a silly, intellectually dishonest excuse,
I would actually agree with you, probably because I didn't say it. I said I wasn't responsible for the business model so I felt no ethical responsibility to make it work - that's quite different.
And indeed the example I mentioned was probably fairly unique - but I also said I'm not going to use my imagination on other sites. Actually, I will, if paid for it. That's actually part of my job, to come up with working business models.
Hahah! "Many," eh? Let's see, advertising or subscription. That's "many?" LOL! Great options there. Why do so many sites use the crappy "advertising" model, when there is the clearly superior model of "subscription" available, as well as... uhm.... did I already say "subscription?"
I can't help it if you have no imagination.. I'm hosting a large medical info site that does not rely on advertising or subscription. The business model is that insurance companies pay for the hosting. No advertising necesarry, since well informed customers are shown to save the insurance companies money.
But do you really think it's my job to think of a business model for every site out there?
Bob is being nice to you. He's giving you free pictures of flowers. Being nice to Bob and viewing the whole site is the right thing to do.
Now, where am I wrong?
Here's where you are wrong: Bob picked a business model to make sure he could continue to give out those pictures. He could have picked many, but he picked advertising. That may or may not work: perhaps it earns him enough money to continue doing it this way, perhaps it doesn't. It is not relevant wether people actually view the advertising, buy something based on the advertising, etc, because it's clearly a deal between the advertiser and bob. Not between me and bob. I have no responsibility to make his business model work for him. Suppose he signed a contract that doesn't make him enough money - he just needs 5% more. Would it be an ethical requirement for me to visit his site 5% more to make up for his bad decision? No? How about 50%? I have no ethical requirement to make any business model at all work. I am not ethically required to make the store at the corner profitable, and I'm not ethically required to make Bob profitable. It's his gamble that advertising is a way to get money from my visits to his site.
No, because there's google. Recently I needed some rechargable batteries for my dive lamp. Common batteries are way, way underpowered for my needs. I've never seen an advertisement for the product I was looking for, yet I still found them. Weird, eh?
Aha. You now limit it to "business expenses" where I was not - so apparently we now agree that there are indeed things that even "corporations" must pay taxes on, namely things that are "not business expenses". Right? If I interpret your reply correctly, we've now come to the point where we probably merely disagree on which things should be taxed for corporations and which should not be taxed, or if you wish, which things are "business expenses" and which are not.
I would pose to you that I, personally, am in the business of "making a living", or "living" for short. Should all expenses to that end be called "business expenses" and therefore be personally deductable?
If not, why can corporations deduct expenses that they need for survival while I cannot?
No, not really - the "corporation" will simply never give us any money. Instead, it will take over all our obligations (rent, mortgage, ownership of a lot of stuff like cars and houses) and reimburse actual costs (of groceries etc). Do you honestly think the IRS should let us get away with this?
In 1977 there were 150 Elvis impersonators. By 1999 there were 35,000. If this rate of growth continues, by the year 2019, more than one third of the world's population will be Elvis impersonators
I've simply set up multiple accounts (well, it's really the same account, but with slightly different settings depending on the network I'm on), and Mail.app will silently and automatically pick up which account works and which smtp server works. I can move from home to work (two different firewalls, one my own, one from the company) and never change a setting.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry, I'm not aware of any legit uses of software that sends bulk mail via virus-infected computers owned by others. Please enlighten us.
here is an interesting post about this particular spammer..
I disagree with a lot Fortuyn said, but his assessment of Dutch politics was indeed spot-on. And lots of folks agree - just look at the amount of votes van buitenen got for the EP election.
Indeed. Luckily the press is slowly losing ground to other forms of information. Although Dutch weblogging space is somewhat immature (read the comments on geenstijl and retecool for an example), it is a growing source of scrutiny. Same in the US, actualy.
Hi, Here's another answer from the Netherlands
Do you put reporters in jail when they write about political payoffs in the newspapers?
Of course not! It is even extremely rare that a reporter gets threatened by court to reveal his sources, and I can't offhand recall an instance where the reporter was actually forced to do that.
Do you have no corrupt politicians?
Of course we do - they're human, after all. But the other reply to your post makes clear what we do about them. Last cabinet formation it turned out that one potential sub-secretary of state had 'forgotten' to tell about her stint in the Surinam 'army' of Bouterse (check google - there's a lot of backstory). She now holds the record for shortest amount of time "in office".
-John
1. Go to a google print page
2. Do a "View Source"
3. search for this: ".theimg { background-image:url"
4. copy the URL from that place, into a new browser.
5. ???
6. Profit!
scripting this should be ludicrously easy.
Damn! I was wondering why I always get headaches when I mistakingly drink Diet Coke.
I assume you're joking. Aspartaam, like most neurotoxins, and like most anti-depressant medicine (such as citalopram, work very slowly. It takes weeks to take hold. It took me six months after stopping with Diet Coke to get back to normal.
artificial, carcinogenic "sweeteners".
Forget carcinogenic - aspartaam is a neurotoxin. Check google. If you're too sensitive for it (like I am) it will literally drive you crazy. I'm avoiding anything with "Lite" on it like the plague.
Why have you lost interest in Osama bin Laden, the leader of the organization that attacked the United States of America on September 11?
Mr. President, in July of 2003 you said if anyone wanted to attack our troops in Iraq, they should bring it on. In March of this year you appeared at a reporters' dinner and ran a video in which you jokingly stumbled around your office looking for weapons of mass destruction. Can you explain this behavior to the families who have lost loved ones in Iraq?
You recently received a formal intelligence assessment provided by your own agencies, indicating that our mission in Iraq was in great danger of failing. You described this as the CIA 'just guessing'. and indicated that you did not believe what it said. What intelligence sources do you trust when it comes to giving you an accurate assessment of the situation in Iraq?
Do you believe it is best to stick to your guns on an issue even when history is proving the decision incorrect? What about the example of older members of your party were adamant segregationists who have now changed their views and don't apologize for this change of heart. Would you call this flip flopping and a moral weakness? Are there times when admitting your previous position was a mistake is actually a sign of strength?
Quite often the answer is yes. Some issues are local, in those cases the answer is "not every citizen, only locals"
A Democracy doesn't scale beyond a few thousand people.
I guess Switzerland, amonst others, would take issue with that statement...
In that case, in the UK, you're in trouble, because you are breaking the law. There was a really hilarious example when some reporter sent an encrypted document to the government puke who was introducing this law, carefully done so that the encryption key was deleted and unavailable. This was indeed to point out the insanity of the law...
Yep. Explains a lot, right?
Most open proxies are indeed open by mistake.
A significant number of accidental proxies are used by spammers - in fact, that's how most spam is distributed these days. Check the listings at dsbl.org. I've yet to see a spammer get "fined" (or worse) for this usage.
Je hebt een groter vertrouwen in gezond verstand dan ik - je hebt van de week hoop ik in de krant dat artikel gelezen van die dame die, omdat haar huurverhoging 8 cent over de huursubsidie-limiet ging, haar huis uit moest? Leek erg weinig gezond verstand aan te pas te komen..
Taking that bag of apples at the side of a rural road without paying the $1 asked for on the billboard (That'll teach em not to use a stupid business model)
If you really, honestly believe this is equivalent to refusing to watch advertising, there's not much I can say that would make any sense to you.
"that's a shitty business model, I won't view the ads" is a silly, intellectually dishonest excuse,
I would actually agree with you, probably because I didn't say it. I said I wasn't responsible for the business model so I felt no ethical responsibility to make it work - that's quite different.
And indeed the example I mentioned was probably fairly unique - but I also said I'm not going to use my imagination on other sites. Actually, I will, if paid for it. That's actually part of my job, to come up with working business models.
Hahah! "Many," eh? Let's see, advertising or subscription. That's "many?" LOL! Great options there. Why do so many sites use the crappy "advertising" model, when there is the clearly superior model of "subscription" available, as well as ... uhm.... did I already say "subscription?"
I can't help it if you have no imagination.. I'm hosting a large medical info site that does not rely on advertising or subscription. The business model is that insurance companies pay for the hosting. No advertising necesarry, since well informed customers are shown to save the insurance companies money.
But do you really think it's my job to think of a business model for every site out there?
Bob is being nice to you. He's giving you free pictures of flowers. Being nice to Bob and viewing the whole site is the right thing to do.
Now, where am I wrong?
Here's where you are wrong: Bob picked a business model to make sure he could continue to give out those pictures. He could have picked many, but he picked advertising. That may or may not work: perhaps it earns him enough money to continue doing it this way, perhaps it doesn't. It is not relevant wether people actually view the advertising, buy something based on the advertising, etc, because it's clearly a deal between the advertiser and bob. Not between me and bob. I have no responsibility to make his business model work for him. Suppose he signed a contract that doesn't make him enough money - he just needs 5% more. Would it be an ethical requirement for me to visit his site 5% more to make up for his bad decision? No? How about 50%? I have no ethical requirement to make any business model at all work. I am not ethically required to make the store at the corner profitable, and I'm not ethically required to make Bob profitable. It's his gamble that advertising is a way to get money from my visits to his site.
-John
No, because there's google. Recently I needed some rechargable batteries for my dive lamp. Common batteries are way, way underpowered for my needs. I've never seen an advertisement for the product I was looking for, yet I still found them. Weird, eh?
Aha. You now limit it to "business expenses" where I was not - so apparently we now agree that there are indeed things that even "corporations" must pay taxes on, namely things that are "not business expenses". Right? If I interpret your reply correctly, we've now come to the point where we probably merely disagree on which things should be taxed for corporations and which should not be taxed, or if you wish, which things are "business expenses" and which are not.
I would pose to you that I, personally, am in the business of "making a living", or "living" for short. Should all expenses to that end be called "business expenses" and therefore be personally deductable?
If not, why can corporations deduct expenses that they need for survival while I cannot?
No, not really - the "corporation" will simply never give us any money. Instead, it will take over all our obligations (rent, mortgage, ownership of a lot of stuff like cars and houses) and reimburse actual costs (of groceries etc).
Do you honestly think the IRS should let us get away with this?
So in your perfect world, I could simply avoid all taxes by getting together with a friend and call ourselves a corporation? Cool! Where do I sign up?
In 1977 there were 150 Elvis impersonators. By 1999 there were 35,000. If this rate of growth continues, by the year 2019, more than one third of the world's population will be Elvis impersonators
I've simply set up multiple accounts (well, it's really the same account, but with slightly different settings depending on the network I'm on), and Mail.app will silently and automatically pick up which account works and which smtp server works. I can move from home to work (two different firewalls, one my own, one from the company) and never change a setting.