Re: [FoRK] Google (fwd from rst@ai.mit.edu)
On 11 Feb 2005, at 20:20, Tyler Durden wrote: Hum...I've been thinking about that...seems to me one could set up anonymity using even Hotmail and Yahoo by a careful selection of completely improbably emails addresses. The timing might be tricky, though: 1. Think up two email addresses no one would have utilized...a random list of letters and numbers. 2. Go to Yahoo mail and sign up using one the email addresses. Plug in the other as the 'reference' and point it at, say, hotmail. 3. Open another browser to hotmail, do the reverse. 4. Hit send. 5. Hit send. Seems like a lot of work... why not just use www.mytrashmail.com or one of the many identical sites? (Need to change your hotmail password right away, obviously) W
Re: tangled context probe
Roy M. Silvernail wrote: R.W. (Bob) Erickson wrote: (curious thing about this spew, it keeps disappearing into the bit bucket, Yawn. Roboposting this babble doesn't really increase its chances of getting read. I work through JY because I know there's uranium in that ore. But I'm about 2 posts away from ensconcing RWBE in my procmail file next to TM, choate and proffr. Is there a term for messages that are indistinguishable from those generated by Dissociated Press or one of its superior modern cousins? A kind of inverse Turing Test? W
Patriot Insurance
US Patriot Financial (USPF) exists to help Americans, who risk their lives making this world a better place, obtain life insurance. This includes resident aliens. Whether you are a soldier deploying overseas, a DOD contractor helping to rebuild war torn countries, a missionary volunteering to help the most needy, or a business man or woman traveling the globe to support our economy we can help. Using our extensive network of life insurance carriers, we are able to provide protection to those whose service leads them into some of the world's most dangerous places. This includes US citizens living abroad. http://www.uspfinancial.com/ How long have soldiers deployed in war-zones been able to get life insurance? Would love to see their actuarial process... W
Re: Cryptography Research Takes Aim at Content Pirates
R.A. Hettinga wrote: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/041105/sff023_1.html?printer=1 Yahoo! Finance Source: Cryptography Research, Inc. Cryptography Research VP Benjamin Jun Takes Aim at Content Pirates Friday November 5, 6:02 am ET Discusses Technology Trends and Responses at Upcoming RSA Conference Europe 2004 snip Yes, we can protect you from those vil commie pirates. Our product is a flexible solution that combines programmable security and 'smart content' with risk management techniques such as forensic marking and attack response capabilities. And yes, the icon comes in cornflower blue. Meanwhile, Bittorrent now takes up 35% of global bandwidth (http://in.tech.yahoo.com/041103/137/2ho4i.html) and 4Mb DSL lines are now available in the UK mass market (http://www.bulldogbroadband.com/general/landing.asp) for £40 ($73) per month with TCs that scream 'P2P-OK'. Good luck with those 'attack response capabilities'. W
Re: Seld-defeating US foreign policy
James A. Donald wrote: How could the US have given him support, short of violent means, such as bombing Tehran, which he was reluctant to accept? Money. Push it through your favourite UN department. Schools and hospitals == goodwill. You have this back to front. Khatami was marginalized by the mullahs, and BECAUSE he was marginalized, because democracy in Iran was suppressed, the US government THEN included Iran in the axis of evil. June 2001: Khatami re-elected January 2002: Bush's 'Axis of Evil' speech February 2004: Rigged parliamentary elections lead to conservative majority Where do you source your data? W
Re: Seld-defeating US foreign policy
James A. Donald wrote: But Khatami was knackered shortly after being elected, so any aid would be aiding the terrorists. We saw how well that worked in Fallujah and Sadr city. snip June 2001: Khatami re-elected A few months or weeks thereafter, Khatami knackered. Hmm. Either you're trolling, in which case I salute you as a master of your art, or you are wilfully ignorant. *plonk* W
Re: Seld-defeating US foreign policy
Tyler Durden wrote: What if the US had not followed such an aggressive policy towards the PRC? Chinese history gives us a clear indication: They would never have backed the Khmer Rouge. (Sihoanouk regularly traveled to China before and after that time, BTW, and was moderately friendly with Jong Nan Hai.) In addition, the notion of having to hide Chinese industry from the Americans could never have been used as a credible reason for lauching the Cultural Revolution. In the end, our policies in SE Asia likely caused millions to be killed, and in the end were self-defeating. A complete fiasco. And the same thing is happening in the Middle East. I certainly wouldn't argue that US policy in Indochina was anything other than a fiasco, nor that the current misadventure in the Middle East will be spared the same fate, but the Chinese had another very important reason to back the Khmer Rouge against Vietnam - Russia. The Soviets supplied heavy military and financial aid to Vietnam, in return for an anticipated naval base through which they could extend their power into the South Seas. They never got the base - the Vietnamese played them like a fiddle - but the threat was enough for the PRC to view Vietnam as an enemy-by-proxy, and so to back the Khmer Rouge. In addition, the whole of Indochina was (and is) a clusterfuck of rivalries and feuds going back centuries. The (relatively) sudden appearance of a bunch of new regimes, all with revolutionary mindsets through which to apply their old vendettas, probably made the bloodshed inevitable - although US intervention undoubtedly made it worse. W
Re: Seld-defeating US foreign policy
Tyler Durden wrote: But of course, we were still in the middle of McCarthy-ism, so way too ideologically blind to see the obvious. As a result we continued to mindlessly pursue ideology rather than practicality and so ended really making things worse in SE Asia, in a place where Marxism was really a useful but temporary veneer over local politics (again we were too blind to see that Marxism was a western transplant that wasn't going to do too well in Asia). And we're doing it again...(eg, we had some chances with Iran recently that we passed up...that was really stupid, and the Iranians seem to know it). The US missed a real trick when Khatami got into power in 1997; he had a huge swell of popular support behind him, and with significant US backing he could probably have outmaneuvered the conservatives and made some real changes. A truly democratic Persian state would be a huge boost to stability in the Middle East, not to mention the psyops benefits of having a poster-child for moderate, tolerant Islam. Instead, we had the 'axis of evil' hogwash, and lo: the conservatives marginalise Khatami, and we're back to abayas, beards and jihad. Of course the more cynical might think that this lack of stability is entirely deliberate on the part of the US. Better to have pet tyrants who require American military aid to suppress dissent, and hence ensure ongoing access to oil fields, or else loonies who spit vitriol about The Great Satan and ensure their own irrelevance (in which case the oil stays underground, waiting for a more economically realistic owner). Stable regimes with the ability to sell oil on the world stage might start throwing their geopolitical weight around. Venezuela, anyone? W
Re: Vote for nobody
Justin wrote: On 2004-09-06T06:22:29-0700, Sarad AV wrote: the election commision of india had a proposal to the govt. that the voter should be able to vote for 'none of the above'. Though one can predict that such a proposal will never be approved by the government, it makes a lot of sense. Is any other democratic country seriously thinking of implementing such an option? If someone would vote for none of the above rather than write in his/her ideal candidate, that someone is a lazy oaf. Everyone who writes in a candidate is voting none of the above. The 50% of the U.S. population which doesn't vote is also voting none of the above in a way. There's a difference in that some non-voters may slightly prefer one candidate over another, but _assuming that everyone has an ideal candidate_ they'd be willing to go to the polls for, not voting is the same as saying all the candidates are significantly less than the ideal. The difference being that in a system such as Sarad describes, if 'None of the above' gets more votes than any candidate, the election is declared void and a re-election is called (possibly excluding any of the candidates from the first round, depending on the details); hence, the 50% of the population who think 'they're all fvckers' have a reason to go to the polls. I've experienced such a system in action (within a student body) and it works well, provided you like your democracy to be loud and participatory. For this reason it's unlikely to be implemented by an incumbent government, though I guess it's possible an uber-populist like Chavez or Lula might consider it. W
