Only of the 37 compared. Countries like North Korea were not considered. I guess that makes sense... why bother ranking countries about privacy if you still have a power-mongering all-controlling government? No... wait... that sounds too much like where I live (US).
Thanks for the description. Greylisting sounds like a positive step, but I'm not able to enable it. Yahoo does their own thing, so I can't work with that account. Stupid Pac Bell is blocking INCOMING port 25 (bastards!). To get mail to the billrocks.org server, I have to pay a relay service $10/year to forward it to another port. So, I'm never directly contacted by the spammers.
I got 48 spams since reading your post about greylisting. Is there anything else I can do? Thanks.
That would be the next step beyond challenge/response, once the spammers figure out who's on my whitelist and masquerade as them. However, I haven't seen this issue in the wild yet, except for some annoying spam claiming to come from me. Naturally, I'm in my own whitelist.
Ok... tell me more. This grey-listing sounds interesting. I have two e-mails that regularly get spammed. The billrocks.org one goes through my home server. I can do whatever I want with it. The other goes through Yahoo, and I can't change Yahoo. Got any good link for a how-to? Thanks!
You know... if you installed a challenge/response system, you wouldn't get any of those joebob messages anymore;-)
I stuck with filters for years, and only gave up once I was having trouble finding my real mail in the forest of fakes. It's not a great solution, but it is a solution. I don't see that I have any alternative, other than actually reading the 200+ spam e-mails I get every day (I've received 5987 since Sept 4). SpamCop is a nice idea, but as this/. topic points out, spam is now coming from botnets. I've found SpamCop useless against them.
As for 'breaking the Internet', only one bounce to any given destination is ever sent, not one per spam-email. Chances are, it's the traditional e-mail filter systems out there that are jobobbing you, not challenge/response.
If you've got a better solution for me, I'd like to hear it. Spamassasin doesn't cut it.
I have a need to post my e-mail plainly on certain web-sites, so I'm not significantly increasing spam to my inbox by posting it again. I'm already on all the spam lists. I'm hoping that a critical mass will develop, and we can eliminate the vast majority of spam.
It's a bit of a pain having to go to challenge/response, but there is also new freedom. I am free to tell you who I am, and no longer have to hide. It feels good, and IMO, is worth the trouble of challenge/response.
Also, as an end-user, this is one way I can help stop spam. The filters out there are nice for reducing network traffic, but I can't control the network. I can only control my machine. This is the best I can do.
Still, I see you hide your e-mail on/. The only effective solution I've found is challenge/response. That pretty much kills spam. And, my e-mail is bill@billrocks.org. that's the level of protection I get from challenge/response. Try that with a Bayesian filter.
In case my previous reply sounded too harsh, let me say I agree with the rest of your post about guns and privacy. I find there to be a great many interesting contradictions like this. People who want to save unborn babies are generally in favor of the death penalty. People against the death penalty are typically in favor of doctor-assisted suicide. The really gung-ho hawks seem to more often than not believe in Jesus, who preached peace, while godless atheists seem more often to be pacifistic. To save trees, some people are willing to hurt people. Animal rights activists often aren't vegetarian.
Then there's the new conservatives... The traditionally pro-individual-freedom, pro-integrity, government-off-my-back Republican party (the one I respect) is now on our backs like white on rice, stripping our rights to privacy and Habeas Corpus, cloaking it's actions in secrecy, opening secret prisons, tourchering people, and spying on all of us. The party of small government, power to the states, and fiscal responsibility has created the biggest government, focused power in Washington, and spent more irresponsibly than at any time in my life. The party of individual power has stripped my vote of meaning, turning our House Representatives into powerless ditto-heads. There's irony everywhere.
Grr... I hate it when people call a president 'their guy', or a political party 'the enemy'. It makes it sound like they've decided that one party is always right, and the other is always wrong. Obviously, no person or party can be right all the time. Anyone who always votes for the same party for every position in every election does a disservice to our country.
I don't think this patent would be covered by typical prior-art triple-play services. Nor do I think it will slow implementation of triple-play.
I think the claims are fairly narrow. In particular, as part of the system, an operator must use "interdiction" to keep customers from having access to paid channels such as HBO. The body of the patent implies that interdiction is done in the routers themselves. In other words, Cisco is building routers that can block channels based on an up-stream subscription database. "Encryption" is mentioned as another technique, which is probably the one other providers have used. With encryption, TV channels are broadcast to everyone, but only subscribers receive the keys to decrypt them. So, Cisco has a method that reduces broadcast bandwidth a small amount. Whoop-de-dooo.
Routers with "interdiction" might be patentable by itself, but the claims are further narrowed: the patent only applies if you are offering triple-play service. I guess someone else invented routers with "interdiction" before. Don't get confused when you see all that triple-play wording in the claims. It narrows the claims, rather than broadening them.
You are absolutely right. Over the coming year I hope to hire more. I'm in a bit of a tough spot though, since others will follow my lead on hours. My extra effort gets multiplied by several, just because my example will motivate the others. Investors would have me put in 60 hours/week, and have me set that as the standard. I coming off of many years in Silicon Valley where I worked 60 hours year after year. For me, 45 seems like a nice compromise, and my wife has accepted that level.
I have an unusual theory about how the gene pool works. I've done a fair amount of simulating evolution, and one insight I've gained is that evolution is far subtler than most people realize.
In particular, it is by no means difficult for evolution to arrange for the less skilled people to have most of the babies, and for their children to be at least of average intelligence.
A population with this quality allows the less skilled individuals to do more of the work that requires less skill, and allows the leaders more free time to lead.
Actually, I think many marriage councilors recommend never putting your spouse second. Second is exactly where the kids belong. It's kind of like when the oxygen masks on an airplane pop-out. You put on your own mask before helping others. You can't help anyone if you pass out. The same is true with family. It's hard to help the kids if you're getting divorced.
I started a company in NC in 2000 with my wife. We already had a 6-month old baby, and a couple years later we had another. I worked like heck, ignoring the family, until one day my wife declared, "This isn't a marriage. You've got to either choose work or our family." I chose the family, and yes, things at work do suffer somewhat as a result. However, I'd be no good to anyone if my family broke up.
My personal goal is now to work no more than 45 hours/week on average. I'm getting there, but it's hard.
I think there is a real need for these machines right here in the US. My daughter is in 1st grade, and this looks like a better machine than anything else out there for her. This computer would allow her to carry fewer books, and to start learning more computer skills.
I think the real reason these machines aren't available in the developed world is Microsoft. They demand their $70 for each MACHINE sold, even if it ships Linux (at least the use to). Selling a $150 laptop for kids WITHOUT Windows is too threatening. No proper Microsoft partner, like Dell or HP, would dare PO M$.
Quite true... we live in messed-up times here in America. Just on principle, I'm tempted to encrypt all my communication, and obfuscate my Internet access. But, that would just mean some poor slob might have to actually work to figure out weather or not I was sending any kind of threatening communication. So, I exercise my freedom of speech here on/., while my government exercises it's self-granted right to listen. To everything.
"Opening up their economy, moving towards capitalism are some of the bigger steps. Allowing wikipedia is a good step in the right direction."
Those are two very interesting 'remarks'...not sure where to start, as you've taken some fairly significant liberties, speaking as you do, and not being one of 'them'.
These "significant liberties" are called freedom of speech, which here on/. we exercise with great zeal. We've got all kinds of dumb opinions, and aren't afraid to offer them. Feel free to correct them any time, but don't expect anyone here to curb their appetite for speaking up on topics they know little about. It's our basic/.-given right.
Also, is it true you can/. from China? I would have to say that their government must be watching this sight closely, so I don't blame you for the gung-ho pro-China attitude.
The original poster had valid comments. Improving economic ties between the rest of the world and China is good for many reasons, and for everyone. More communication is better, reducing fear and distrust.
I urge you to consider that you and many others will soon be judging what the Internet is and does using China as the norm, not the exception. I am fairly sure your hubris is in for a shock when you learn that you don't define such things to the Chinese, when in fact they are even now defining it for you...
Just trying to scare us? You have to realize that the web-censorship technology being perfected by the Chinese scares the heck out of us/.-ers. Let's all just hope that the original poster was right, and that China is indeed on a long-term trend towards freedom of speech.
Just as a test: I dare you to reply with an anti-Chinese-government post. You don't have the freedom. Actually... please don't. Keep up the pro-China guise. No point pissing off a government sensor. However, watch what I can do here in America: My President is a MORON!!! Damn that feels good.
Yes, I eventually recovered, after switching to a laptop (which I actually use in my lap), and after having a child. Half of the problem with many repetitive motion injuries is stress, and having a family refocused mine.
I'll pitch in. I lost the use of my hands for three years due to a repetitive motion injury, and had to code by voice. That was 1997, nine years ago. I figured that within a couple years, the technology would be so great I would out-code my peers. Then the web bubble came, and Dragon Systems lost their focus on helping disabled people and focused instead on letting people dictate to Word. The creators of this great technology eventually sold out and moved on. Nine years later, the best product for coding is nine years old: the original Dragon Dictate. It doesn't even use the CPU for it's signal processing: it runs that on the sound card because in the early 90's the sound card had more power.
We've gotta do something to get this beast moving forward.
The Chinese do try to respect our culture. It's a two-way street, and other countries tire of living up to our norms, while we walk all over theirs. Bush Jr insults whole countries without even knowing. Remember early on when he refered to the fight against terrorism as a crusade? Remember when Bush Senior threw up during a Japanees dinner? Bush senior was trying desperately to deal with the Japanese culture, even their food. Bush Jr is simply clueless. Stupid Americans think the rest of the world is the one with the problem.
I'm totally serious. We had an agreement where we bribe them over-the-table with yearly cash payments, and in a bilateral agreement promised not to attack them, ever. In return, we had our nuclear inspectors on-site in NK, verifying that all those spent fuel rods stayed where they were. Of course, NK continued to pursue nuclear technology in secret, but only a fool would have expected otherwise. The important step was safeguarding the nuclear fuel.
Is the problem you have with my position a principle kind of thing, or do you feel that we had not in fact made the world safer from NK with the old agreement? Here's an insight few Americans get: our principles get shat on by the world at large every day. To live and play well with others, we have to get off our high horse, and deal with these guys on their own level.
A good example of this is how we deal with bribery in other countries. US companies cannot legally bribe foreign officials. However, all our competitors in those countries know how things are done, and they grease the wheels with the expected bribes. Our companies hands are tied, in an unfair position. So, in reality, US companies often either ignore the bribery laws, or high contractors to do it for them. What would you have them do?
In your field, you've probably run across the Israel-to-Chinese tech-transfer problem. I hate linking to this obviously BS site, but I'd like to know if this article it carries has any truth to it:
That would really PO the Chinese. They hate it when we point at their miserable human-rights record in public. A better way IMO to deal with the Chinese is to work behind the scenes to get them to improve while publicly praising their efforts. IMO, Chinese culture cares much about 'face', a concept of honor that requires the appearance of respect, even if we bicker shamelessly behind closed doors. Bush routinely shows his ignorance of the Chinese by publicly lashing them, and then he gets bent out of shape when the Chinese retaliate with substance rather than words.
When the Chinese accidentally rammed one of our surveillance planes was a great example. Bush immediately publicly blamed the Chinese overly-hostile pilots (who were, of course, at fault), and demanded back our plane and it's crew. The correct course would have been to call the Chinese first, and negotiate terms for getting our plane and crew back secretly. IMO, the Chinese can be far more reasonable if we agree to put on a face showing friendship, cooperation, and respect for each other. We could have agreed to publicly call it a freak accident, with no one to blame. That probably would have gotten our guys and maybe even the plane back far quicker.
So, I think changing the web site to shame the Chinese government would be a bad idea. Instead, we should work with the Chinese behind close doors to solve the problem. Of course, that wont end Chinese spying on the US, nor will it end our spying on them. In general, I feel that it is good for world stability when we know the truth about each other. Fear of the unknown can cause major problems (like WMD in Iraq).
I get confused by the consistent -1 troll mods like the one you got. Is it troll to state a genuine opinion? Seems to me that you've been trolled for not agreeing with others.
That said, I don't agree with you either, though if I had mod points, I'd mark your post 'interesting'. I read somewhere else here that Russia has already confirmed that it was a nuclear blast, so it probably was. Remember... no country that ever tried to make a nuke and who has been left alone long enough has failed. Apparently, it's a lot easier than putting a man on the moon.
The reason I disagree with your idea that the Bush will use this as fuel to justify invading NK is simple. Our military is tapped-out in Iraq. We couldn't invade the Falklands right now. Besides, we've got semi-friendly countries all around NK, and they all want us to stay non-hostile to NK (not that Bush listens to anybody).
I think it's much more likely that Bush would like to invade Iran. The link there between WMD and terrorists is crystal clear. Also, we've already got our military at their door, and their leader is a raving lunatic. If we attack sooner than later, we'll be attacking a non-nuclear opponent, while if we wait too long, they'll have the big bomb. We might even get Israel to help. It'd be a great way to get our military back to doing what it was designed for: winning wars against armies. It might even improve Bush's ratings back in the US. We love football, and winning battles. Heck, I'm proud as I can be that our warriors are top-notch. I even want to lend a hand in improving their tech gear.
However, invading Iran would simply make an even bigger mess in the Middle East. As crusading invaders discovered, winning battles is easier than winning the hearts of the people. I hate to say it, but in this case, the French were right. I really HATE it when the French are right.
I'm also quite disappointed at his voting record lately. He's obviously trying to warm up to the religious right so he can win the primary. However, other presidents that I've admired, including Clinton and Bush senior, did the same thing to get elected. The scary thing about our current president is that he failed to shift towards the middle once elected, as most do.
While Iraq is the clear leading screw-up of Bush Jr's administration, he's got a list so freaking long I'd wear out my hands listing them. Today's NK nuclear test is near the top. Totally his fault, since Clinton had already resolved the NK issue, and all Bush Jr had to do was not screw it up. McCain was one of the few Republicans who occasionally opposed him. In my book, that deserves a lot more respect than all the Democrats bad-mouthing everything Bush does.
I'm not so good at humor... "Be afraid. Be very afraid." was a reference to "The Fly" and also "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy." I meant it to be funny.
I'm a strong believer in the whole "nothing to fear but fear itself" idea. Fear is the problem. That's why I post links to "The Power of Nightmares". It's very worthwile viewing.
Slashdot Mirror
Only of the 37 compared. Countries like North Korea were not considered. I guess that makes sense... why bother ranking countries about privacy if you still have a power-mongering all-controlling government? No... wait... that sounds too much like where I live (US).
Thanks for the description. Greylisting sounds like a positive step, but I'm not able to enable it. Yahoo does their own thing, so I can't work with that account. Stupid Pac Bell is blocking INCOMING port 25 (bastards!). To get mail to the billrocks.org server, I have to pay a relay service $10/year to forward it to another port. So, I'm never directly contacted by the spammers.
I got 48 spams since reading your post about greylisting. Is there anything else I can do? Thanks.
That would be the next step beyond challenge/response, once the spammers figure out who's on my whitelist and masquerade as them. However, I haven't seen this issue in the wild yet, except for some annoying spam claiming to come from me. Naturally, I'm in my own whitelist.
Ok... tell me more. This grey-listing sounds interesting. I have two e-mails that regularly get spammed. The billrocks.org one goes through my home server. I can do whatever I want with it. The other goes through Yahoo, and I can't change Yahoo. Got any good link for a how-to? Thanks!
You know... if you installed a challenge/response system, you wouldn't get any of those joebob messages anymore ;-)
/. topic points out, spam is now coming from botnets. I've found SpamCop useless against them.
I stuck with filters for years, and only gave up once I was having trouble finding my real mail in the forest of fakes. It's not a great solution, but it is a solution. I don't see that I have any alternative, other than actually reading the 200+ spam e-mails I get every day (I've received 5987 since Sept 4). SpamCop is a nice idea, but as this
As for 'breaking the Internet', only one bounce to any given destination is ever sent, not one per spam-email. Chances are, it's the traditional e-mail filter systems out there that are jobobbing you, not challenge/response.
If you've got a better solution for me, I'd like to hear it. Spamassasin doesn't cut it.
I have a need to post my e-mail plainly on certain web-sites, so I'm not significantly increasing spam to my inbox by posting it again. I'm already on all the spam lists. I'm hoping that a critical mass will develop, and we can eliminate the vast majority of spam.
It's a bit of a pain having to go to challenge/response, but there is also new freedom. I am free to tell you who I am, and no longer have to hide. It feels good, and IMO, is worth the trouble of challenge/response.
Also, as an end-user, this is one way I can help stop spam. The filters out there are nice for reducing network traffic, but I can't control the network. I can only control my machine. This is the best I can do.
Still, I see you hide your e-mail on /. The only effective solution I've found is challenge/response. That pretty much kills spam. And, my e-mail is bill@billrocks.org. that's the level of protection I get from challenge/response. Try that with a Bayesian filter.
In case my previous reply sounded too harsh, let me say I agree with the rest of your post about guns and privacy. I find there to be a great many interesting contradictions like this. People who want to save unborn babies are generally in favor of the death penalty. People against the death penalty are typically in favor of doctor-assisted suicide. The really gung-ho hawks seem to more often than not believe in Jesus, who preached peace, while godless atheists seem more often to be pacifistic. To save trees, some people are willing to hurt people. Animal rights activists often aren't vegetarian.
Then there's the new conservatives... The traditionally pro-individual-freedom, pro-integrity, government-off-my-back Republican party (the one I respect) is now on our backs like white on rice, stripping our rights to privacy and Habeas Corpus, cloaking it's actions in secrecy, opening secret prisons, tourchering people, and spying on all of us. The party of small government, power to the states, and fiscal responsibility has created the biggest government, focused power in Washington, and spent more irresponsibly than at any time in my life. The party of individual power has stripped my vote of meaning, turning our House Representatives into powerless ditto-heads. There's irony everywhere.
Grr... I hate it when people call a president 'their guy', or a political party 'the enemy'. It makes it sound like they've decided that one party is always right, and the other is always wrong. Obviously, no person or party can be right all the time. Anyone who always votes for the same party for every position in every election does a disservice to our country.
I don't think this patent would be covered by typical prior-art triple-play services. Nor do I think it will slow implementation of triple-play.
I think the claims are fairly narrow. In particular, as part of the system, an operator must use "interdiction" to keep customers from having access to paid channels such as HBO. The body of the patent implies that interdiction is done in the routers themselves. In other words, Cisco is building routers that can block channels based on an up-stream subscription database. "Encryption" is mentioned as another technique, which is probably the one other providers have used. With encryption, TV channels are broadcast to everyone, but only subscribers receive the keys to decrypt them. So, Cisco has a method that reduces broadcast bandwidth a small amount. Whoop-de-dooo.
Routers with "interdiction" might be patentable by itself, but the claims are further narrowed: the patent only applies if you are offering triple-play service. I guess someone else invented routers with "interdiction" before. Don't get confused when you see all that triple-play wording in the claims. It narrows the claims, rather than broadening them.
You are absolutely right. Over the coming year I hope to hire more. I'm in a bit of a tough spot though, since others will follow my lead on hours. My extra effort gets multiplied by several, just because my example will motivate the others. Investors would have me put in 60 hours/week, and have me set that as the standard. I coming off of many years in Silicon Valley where I worked 60 hours year after year. For me, 45 seems like a nice compromise, and my wife has accepted that level.
I have an unusual theory about how the gene pool works. I've done a fair amount of simulating evolution, and one insight I've gained is that evolution is far subtler than most people realize.
In particular, it is by no means difficult for evolution to arrange for the less skilled people to have most of the babies, and for their children to be at least of average intelligence.
A population with this quality allows the less skilled individuals to do more of the work that requires less skill, and allows the leaders more free time to lead.
"don't you ever put your children second."
Actually, I think many marriage councilors recommend never putting your spouse second. Second is exactly where the kids belong. It's kind of like when the oxygen masks on an airplane pop-out. You put on your own mask before helping others. You can't help anyone if you pass out. The same is true with family. It's hard to help the kids if you're getting divorced.
I started a company in NC in 2000 with my wife. We already had a 6-month old baby, and a couple years later we had another. I worked like heck, ignoring the family, until one day my wife declared, "This isn't a marriage. You've got to either choose work or our family." I chose the family, and yes, things at work do suffer somewhat as a result. However, I'd be no good to anyone if my family broke up.
My personal goal is now to work no more than 45 hours/week on average. I'm getting there, but it's hard.
I think there is a real need for these machines right here in the US. My daughter is in 1st grade, and this looks like a better machine than anything else out there for her. This computer would allow her to carry fewer books, and to start learning more computer skills.
I think the real reason these machines aren't available in the developed world is Microsoft. They demand their $70 for each MACHINE sold, even if it ships Linux (at least the use to). Selling a $150 laptop for kids WITHOUT Windows is too threatening. No proper Microsoft partner, like Dell or HP, would dare PO M$.
Quite true... we live in messed-up times here in America. Just on principle, I'm tempted to encrypt all my communication, and obfuscate my Internet access. But, that would just mean some poor slob might have to actually work to figure out weather or not I was sending any kind of threatening communication. So, I exercise my freedom of speech here on /., while my government exercises it's self-granted right to listen. To everything.
These "significant liberties" are called freedom of speech, which here on /. we exercise with great zeal. We've got all kinds of dumb opinions, and aren't afraid to offer them. Feel free to correct them any time, but don't expect anyone here to curb their appetite for speaking up on topics they know little about. It's our basic /.-given right.
Also, is it true you can /. from China? I would have to say that their government must be watching this sight closely, so I don't blame you for the gung-ho pro-China attitude.
The original poster had valid comments. Improving economic ties between the rest of the world and China is good for many reasons, and for everyone. More communication is better, reducing fear and distrust.
Just trying to scare us? You have to realize that the web-censorship technology being perfected by the Chinese scares the heck out of us /.-ers. Let's all just hope that the original poster was right, and that China is indeed on a long-term trend towards freedom of speech.
Just as a test: I dare you to reply with an anti-Chinese-government post. You don't have the freedom. Actually... please don't. Keep up the pro-China guise. No point pissing off a government sensor. However, watch what I can do here in America: My President is a MORON!!! Damn that feels good.
Yes, I eventually recovered, after switching to a laptop (which I actually use in my lap), and after having a child. Half of the problem with many repetitive motion injuries is stress, and having a family refocused mine.
I'll pitch in. I lost the use of my hands for three years due to a repetitive motion injury, and had to code by voice. That was 1997, nine years ago. I figured that within a couple years, the technology would be so great I would out-code my peers. Then the web bubble came, and Dragon Systems lost their focus on helping disabled people and focused instead on letting people dictate to Word. The creators of this great technology eventually sold out and moved on. Nine years later, the best product for coding is nine years old: the original Dragon Dictate. It doesn't even use the CPU for it's signal processing: it runs that on the sound card because in the early 90's the sound card had more power.
We've gotta do something to get this beast moving forward.
The Chinese do try to respect our culture. It's a two-way street, and other countries tire of living up to our norms, while we walk all over theirs. Bush Jr insults whole countries without even knowing. Remember early on when he refered to the fight against terrorism as a crusade? Remember when Bush Senior threw up during a Japanees dinner? Bush senior was trying desperately to deal with the Japanese culture, even their food. Bush Jr is simply clueless. Stupid Americans think the rest of the world is the one with the problem.
I'm totally serious. We had an agreement where we bribe them over-the-table with yearly cash payments, and in a bilateral agreement promised not to attack them, ever. In return, we had our nuclear inspectors on-site in NK, verifying that all those spent fuel rods stayed where they were. Of course, NK continued to pursue nuclear technology in secret, but only a fool would have expected otherwise. The important step was safeguarding the nuclear fuel.
Is the problem you have with my position a principle kind of thing, or do you feel that we had not in fact made the world safer from NK with the old agreement? Here's an insight few Americans get: our principles get shat on by the world at large every day. To live and play well with others, we have to get off our high horse, and deal with these guys on their own level.
A good example of this is how we deal with bribery in other countries. US companies cannot legally bribe foreign officials. However, all our competitors in those countries know how things are done, and they grease the wheels with the expected bribes. Our companies hands are tied, in an unfair position. So, in reality, US companies often either ignore the bribery laws, or high contractors to do it for them. What would you have them do?
In your field, you've probably run across the Israel-to-Chinese tech-transfer problem. I hate linking to this obviously BS site, but I'd like to know if this article it carries has any truth to it:
http://www.americanintifada.com/2005/5/05-06.htm
I've seen similar stories elsewhere. Have we in fact indirectly sold F-16 technology to the Chinese through Israel? Thanks.
That would really PO the Chinese. They hate it when we point at their miserable human-rights record in public. A better way IMO to deal with the Chinese is to work behind the scenes to get them to improve while publicly praising their efforts. IMO, Chinese culture cares much about 'face', a concept of honor that requires the appearance of respect, even if we bicker shamelessly behind closed doors. Bush routinely shows his ignorance of the Chinese by publicly lashing them, and then he gets bent out of shape when the Chinese retaliate with substance rather than words.
When the Chinese accidentally rammed one of our surveillance planes was a great example. Bush immediately publicly blamed the Chinese overly-hostile pilots (who were, of course, at fault), and demanded back our plane and it's crew. The correct course would have been to call the Chinese first, and negotiate terms for getting our plane and crew back secretly. IMO, the Chinese can be far more reasonable if we agree to put on a face showing friendship, cooperation, and respect for each other. We could have agreed to publicly call it a freak accident, with no one to blame. That probably would have gotten our guys and maybe even the plane back far quicker.
So, I think changing the web site to shame the Chinese government would be a bad idea. Instead, we should work with the Chinese behind close doors to solve the problem. Of course, that wont end Chinese spying on the US, nor will it end our spying on them. In general, I feel that it is good for world stability when we know the truth about each other. Fear of the unknown can cause major problems (like WMD in Iraq).
I get confused by the consistent -1 troll mods like the one you got. Is it troll to state a genuine opinion? Seems to me that you've been trolled for not agreeing with others.
That said, I don't agree with you either, though if I had mod points, I'd mark your post 'interesting'. I read somewhere else here that Russia has already confirmed that it was a nuclear blast, so it probably was. Remember... no country that ever tried to make a nuke and who has been left alone long enough has failed. Apparently, it's a lot easier than putting a man on the moon.
The reason I disagree with your idea that the Bush will use this as fuel to justify invading NK is simple. Our military is tapped-out in Iraq. We couldn't invade the Falklands right now. Besides, we've got semi-friendly countries all around NK, and they all want us to stay non-hostile to NK (not that Bush listens to anybody).
I think it's much more likely that Bush would like to invade Iran. The link there between WMD and terrorists is crystal clear. Also, we've already got our military at their door, and their leader is a raving lunatic. If we attack sooner than later, we'll be attacking a non-nuclear opponent, while if we wait too long, they'll have the big bomb. We might even get Israel to help. It'd be a great way to get our military back to doing what it was designed for: winning wars against armies. It might even improve Bush's ratings back in the US. We love football, and winning battles. Heck, I'm proud as I can be that our warriors are top-notch. I even want to lend a hand in improving their tech gear.
However, invading Iran would simply make an even bigger mess in the Middle East. As crusading invaders discovered, winning battles is easier than winning the hearts of the people. I hate to say it, but in this case, the French were right. I really HATE it when the French are right.
I'm also quite disappointed at his voting record lately. He's obviously trying to warm up to the religious right so he can win the primary. However, other presidents that I've admired, including Clinton and Bush senior, did the same thing to get elected. The scary thing about our current president is that he failed to shift towards the middle once elected, as most do.
While Iraq is the clear leading screw-up of Bush Jr's administration, he's got a list so freaking long I'd wear out my hands listing them. Today's NK nuclear test is near the top. Totally his fault, since Clinton had already resolved the NK issue, and all Bush Jr had to do was not screw it up. McCain was one of the few Republicans who occasionally opposed him. In my book, that deserves a lot more respect than all the Democrats bad-mouthing everything Bush does.
I'm not so good at humor... "Be afraid. Be very afraid." was a reference to "The Fly" and also "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy." I meant it to be funny.
I'm a strong believer in the whole "nothing to fear but fear itself" idea. Fear is the problem. That's why I post links to "The Power of Nightmares". It's very worthwile viewing.