 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
...That this is not a good way to win friends and influence people?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/03/us_visa_scheme/
...and for the comments
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/03/us_visa_scheme/comments/
John
--
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
You know your PC is too slow when...
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/03/us_visa_scheme/comments/
...clicking on a link causes Firefox to lock up. :-/
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> You know your PC is too slow when...
>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/03/us_visa_scheme/comments/
>
> ....clicking on a link causes Firefox to lock up. :-/
>
What're you running Firefox on? (Hardware info pls)
John
--
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Doctor John" <doc### [at] gmail com> wrote
> ...That this is not a good way to win friends and influence people?
No, it's not. But who says winning friends is or should be a pressing
priority for US?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 11:12:48 -0600, somebody wrote:
> "Doctor John" <doc### [at] gmailcom> wrote
>
>> ...That this is not a good way to win friends and influence people?
>
> No, it's not. But who says winning friends is or should be a pressing
> priority for US?
I don't think anyone can afford to be isolationist in this global
economy...
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Doctor John" <doc### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
news:48455c6e$1@news.povray.org...
> ...That this is not a good way to win friends and influence people?
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/03/us_visa_scheme/
Never? Have you ever had the pleasure of a chat with the Border Protection
people at a US airport?
It's definitly making me reconsider visiting again.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Doctor John wrote:
> ...That this is not a good way to win friends and influence people?
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/03/us_visa_scheme/
You know I'm going to be question any article that begins with:
"Europeans and other potential enemies of the US..."
--
Fax me no questions, I'll Fax you no lies!
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 13:25:02 -0500, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Doctor John wrote:
>> ...That this is not a good way to win friends and influence people?
>>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/03/us_visa_scheme/
>
> You know I'm going to be question any article that begins with:
>
> "Europeans and other potential enemies of the US..."
Ah, so it'll affect those of us who live here as well, then.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Doctor John <doc### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> ...That this is not a good way to win friends and influence people?
Call me nationalistic or whatever you want, but IMO the main
responsibility of a government is to protect its own people. The
intricacies of foreign relationships is always second to that (at
least when it doesn't directly affect the first responsibility).
Europe has dug somewhat of a hole for itself with its generally
lenient immigration policy, and some people, such as the US, are
wary of that.
I think it's rather telling that the people who performed the London
bombings were not foreign terrorists who had entered the country
illegally. They were British citizens. I believe that has had at least
some effect on the foreign policies of the US with respect to Europe.
(That is, it's no longer just "ah, an European citizen, thus not a
terrorist, welcome" as it may have been in the past, because nowadays
even European citizens can be muslim radical terrorists thanks to these
immigration policies.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> You know I'm going to be question any article that begins with:
> "Europeans and other potential enemies of the US..."
That expression just sounded like sarcasm to me. I would be surprised
if the author wrote it seriously.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> That expression just sounded like sarcasm to me. I would be surprised
> if the author wrote it seriously.
>
Not sarcasm, irony; I agree with you however.
John
--
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
>
> Never? Have you ever had the pleasure of a chat with the Border Protection
> people at a US airport?
Yup. Several times and don't ask ...
> It's definitly making me reconsider visiting again.
>
You'll have to offer me serious money to get me to visit again
John
--
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Doctor John" <doc### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
news:48459a58$1@news.povray.org...
> Gail Shaw wrote:
> >
> > Never? Have you ever had the pleasure of a chat with the Border
Protection
> > people at a US airport?
>
> Yup. Several times and don't ask ...
Twice for me. I found the guys in Seattle OK, and even willing to joke a
bit. The 'person' in Denver on the other hand...
Let's just say I don't like interregations at (for me) 2am after I've been
travelling for 28 hours
> You'll have to offer me serious money to get me to visit again
There's a conference I would like to attend in Seattle in November. At least
it's before the registration becomes compulsary.
Hmmm. Anyone know what the Canadian border's like on that side of the
continent?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Doctor John <doc### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >
> > That expression just sounded like sarcasm to me. I would be surprised
> > if the author wrote it seriously.
> >
> Not sarcasm, irony; I agree with you however.
Well, according to the dictionary:
sarcasm:
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark
I really think in this case "sarcasm" is more appropriate than the
more generic (and often milder) "irony".
(Yeah, I love semantics. :P )
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>
>
> Doctor John wrote:
>> ...That this is not a good way to win friends and influence people?
>>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/03/us_visa_scheme/
>
> You know I'm going to be question any article that begins with:
>
> "Europeans and other potential enemies of the US..."
I read that as sarcasm. Maybe my needles need adjusting.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Doctor John <doc### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> That expression just sounded like sarcasm to me. I would be surprised
>>> if the author wrote it seriously.
>>>
>
>> Not sarcasm, irony; I agree with you however.
>
> Well, according to the dictionary:
>
> sarcasm:
> 1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
> 2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark
>
> I really think in this case "sarcasm" is more appropriate than the
> more generic (and often milder) "irony".
>
> (Yeah, I love semantics. :P )
>
I still disagree. Note the words "harsh, bitter, sharply, taunt,
sneering and cutting" in the definition. I don't think that Joe Fay
intended his remark to be anything but affectionately ironic but ymmv
John
--
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:52:32 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Call me nationalistic or whatever you want, but IMO the main
> responsibility of a government is to protect its own people.
You don't protect the people of a nation by pissing off the rest of the
world, though.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4845a7d2$1@news.povray.org...
> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:52:32 -0400, Warp wrote:
> > Call me nationalistic or whatever you want, but IMO the main
> > responsibility of a government is to protect its own people.
> You don't protect the people of a nation by pissing off the rest of the
> world, though.
Ideally, and I am sure the goal of the authorities was not to piss off other
nations, but often it's not possible to not compromise. On the face of it,
electronic registration, if it can save any checkpoint congestions, even
sounds reasonable. FWIW, I was throroughly pissed last time I flew through
Heathrow too, but I doubt that the intent of the British was to piss off
flyers. Air and cross border travel has become a PITA in general.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> Air and cross border travel has become a PITA in general.
>
You can take some comfort in the idea that within a few years kerosen
will be so costly that all the problems of air travel will disappear :-p
--
Vincent
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Vincent Le Chevalier <gal### [at] libertyallsurfspamfr> wrote:
> You can take some comfort in the idea that within a few years kerosen
> will be so costly that all the problems of air travel will disappear :-p
In a way it might be a blessing that the ending of fossil fuels and
global warming problems are coincidentally happening at the same time,
as the former will help alleviate the latter.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>> You know I'm going to be question any article that begins with:
>
>> "Europeans and other potential enemies of the US..."
>
> That expression just sounded like sarcasm to me. I would be surprised
> if the author wrote it seriously.
I agree - which is why I don't expect it to objective. Since I don't
know him, I'll assume the author is trying to make a case, and is
willing to use any tactic that he can to get the message across -
including ignoring data points to the contrary (i.e. selective data).
If he had provided links to more background information (that was a bit
more on the descriptive rather than opinionated side), then I may be
interested.
If I already knew something about the subject of the article, then I
may actually read it - but I don't, and I don't want to find out through
him.
A very casual glance at the article suggests the article is of use only
to those who already know what he's talking about and agree with him.
Why bother?
--
On a clear disk you can seek forever.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I think it's rather telling that the people who performed the London
> bombings were not foreign terrorists who had entered the country
> illegally. They were British citizens. I believe that has had at least
> some effect on the foreign policies of the US with respect to Europe.
> (That is, it's no longer just "ah, an European citizen, thus not a
> terrorist, welcome" as it may have been in the past, because nowadays
> even European citizens can be muslim radical terrorists thanks to these
> immigration policies.)
What I don't understand is why not just simply have a visa requirement
regardless of where you're from? As you yourself pointed out,
nationality is not a good indication of anything from a security
standpoint.
--
On a clear disk you can seek forever.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:58:00 -0600, somebody wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:4845a7d2$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:52:32 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
>> > Call me nationalistic or whatever you want, but IMO the main
>> > responsibility of a government is to protect its own people.
>
>> You don't protect the people of a nation by pissing off the rest of the
>> world, though.
>
> Ideally, and I am sure the goal of the authorities was not to piss off
> other nations, but often it's not possible to not compromise.
It's nearly always possible to compromise. What it takes is a reasonable
point of view to start from. The attitude "we're the USA and we can do
anything we damned well please" is what leads to this type of behaviour.
> On the
> face of it, electronic registration, if it can save any checkpoint
> congestions, even sounds reasonable.
On the face of it, yes. But then you get into privacy issues and who has
access to the information. With our government's demonstrated inability
to keep secure data secure, I don't trust them with my SSN, and *they
issued it to me*.
> FWIW, I was throroughly pissed last
> time I flew through Heathrow too, but I doubt that the intent of the
> British was to piss off flyers. Air and cross border travel has become a
> PITA in general.
Yes, but in some places it's more of a PITA than others. Not just in
Terminal 5. But hey, at least you weren't wearing a Transformers shirt
where the robot was holding a gun. Someone was detained in Terminal 5 at
Heathrow for that (though I wonder if there's more to that story than
we're hearing).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Yes, but in some places it's more of a PITA than others. Not just in
> Terminal 5. But hey, at least you weren't wearing a Transformers shirt
> where the robot was holding a gun. Someone was detained in Terminal 5 at
> Heathrow for that (though I wonder if there's more to that story than
> we're hearing).
In the article I read, they either declined to comment or did not give
a better explanation.
To an extent, I think the claims about that incident were a bit off.
The BBC article title implied he was not allowed on due to a security
concern. However, the end of the article suggested that it was not to
offend other passengers (put in the same category as having a shirt with
expletives).
--
How many of you believe in telekinesis? Raise MY hand!
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 20:26:00 -0500, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> In the article I read, they either declined to comment or did not
give
> a better explanation.
>
> To an extent, I think the claims about that incident were a bit
off.
> The BBC article title implied he was not allowed on due to a security
> concern. However, the end of the article suggested that it was not to
> offend other passengers (put in the same category as having a shirt with
> expletives).
We must've read the same article - bbc.co.uk? I do think that there's
more to the story than was there. The scary thing is that even as
written, it's believable.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <48456963$1@news.povray.org>, doc### [at] gmailcom says...
> Invisible wrote:
> > You know your PC is too slow when...
> >
> >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/03/us_visa_scheme/comments/
> >
> > ....clicking on a link causes Firefox to lock up. :-/
> >
> What're you running Firefox on? (Hardware info pls)
>
> John
Could just be the page. Some stuff that is very IE friendly makes
Firefox barf. GMail, for example, at least on my system, will hang
Firefox (2.0, not sure about the 3.0beta) when attempting to check
"any" mail folder other than the inbox, and that will too, if you manage
to get to some other folder, then return to it. Its also slower than
Hotmail was while using Dialup. No idea why, and it bugs the hell out of
me. It works blindingly fast and error free under IE though, again, no
fracking clue why...
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> You know your PC is too slow when...
>>
>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/03/us_visa_scheme/comments/
>> ....clicking on a link causes Firefox to lock up. :-/
>>
> What're you running Firefox on? (Hardware info pls)
AMD Athlon XP 1700+, 256 MB RAM, Windoze XP SP2, Firefox 2.0.0.9.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> However, the end of the article suggested that it was not to
> offend other passengers (put in the same category as having a shirt with
> expletives).
In a country where something like 80% of the population has a protected
minority group status it's probably *impossible* to not to offend anyone,
no matter what you do. You would probably have to live excluded from
society if you want to avoid offending anyone (and even that probably
would offend someone if he finds out).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:484649d4@news.povray.org...
> 256 MB RAM
You're kidding, right?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> AMD Athlon XP 1700+, 256 MB RAM, Windoze XP SP2, Firefox 2.0.0.9.
Terrific state-of-art specs for a gamer and computer programmer?-)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
> "Doctor John" <doc### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
> news:48459a58$1@news.povray.org...
>
>>Gail Shaw wrote:
>>
>>>Never? Have you ever had the pleasure of a chat with the Border
>
> Protection
>
>>>people at a US airport?
>>
>>Yup. Several times and don't ask ...
>
>
> Twice for me. I found the guys in Seattle OK, and even willing to joke a
> bit. The 'person' in Denver on the other hand...
> Let's just say I don't like interregations at (for me) 2am after I've been
> travelling for 28 hours
>
>
>>You'll have to offer me serious money to get me to visit again
>
>
> There's a conference I would like to attend in Seattle in November. At least
> it's before the registration becomes compulsary.
>
> Hmmm. Anyone know what the Canadian border's like on that side of the
> continent?
>
>
Recently when RETURNING to Canada, (that would be the country of my
citizenship,) from the US, I had to endure a close screening by a crew
of smarmy homeland security agents. My mistake was that I was riding on
a bus rather than in a car. Now, while I consider it invasive, I can
understand that these freaks feel the need to monitor who is crossing
the border in either direction. But the complexion of the 'interview'
was that I somehow had to meet the approval of these American agents,
before I would be allowed to return to my own country.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> Recently when RETURNING to Canada, (that would be the country of my
> citizenship,) from the US, I had to endure a close screening by a crew
> of smarmy homeland security agents. My mistake was that I was riding on
> a bus rather than in a car. Now, while I consider it invasive, I can
> understand that these freaks feel the need to monitor who is crossing
> the border in either direction. But the complexion of the 'interview'
> was that I somehow had to meet the approval of these American agents,
> before I would be allowed to return to my own country.
Well, it makes sense. We can never know what those Canadians are up to.
Ever seen the South Park movie?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Doctor John <doc### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> ...That this is not a good way to win friends and influence people?
>
> Call me nationalistic or whatever you want, but IMO the main
> responsibility of a government is to protect its own people. The
> intricacies of foreign relationships is always second to that (at
> least when it doesn't directly affect the first responsibility).
>
> Europe has dug somewhat of a hole for itself with its generally
> lenient immigration policy, and some people, such as the US, are
> wary of that.
>
> I think it's rather telling that the people who performed the London
> bombings were not foreign terrorists who had entered the country
> illegally. They were British citizens. I believe that has had at least
> some effect on the foreign policies of the US with respect to Europe.
> (That is, it's no longer just "ah, an European citizen, thus not a
> terrorist, welcome" as it may have been in the past, because nowadays
> even European citizens can be muslim radical terrorists thanks to these
> immigration policies.)
It's not as if the recent spate of terrorism was the first time that a
European citizen harbored wishes of blowing up Americans. During the
80's the Soviet Union sponsored quite a few terrorist groups in Europe,
and it was European citizens who took the cash and blew up Americans
where they could.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp a écrit :
> Vincent Le Chevalier <gal### [at] libertyallsurfspamfr> wrote:
>> You can take some comfort in the idea that within a few years kerosen
>> will be so costly that all the problems of air travel will disappear :-p
>
> In a way it might be a blessing that the ending of fossil fuels and
> global warming problems are coincidentally happening at the same time,
> as the former will help alleviate the latter.
>
Sadly even if fossil fuels were abruptly out of use, the effects on
climate could last for some time. There will probably be a length of
time where we'll have the inconvenience from climate change while not
having the benefits of fossil fuels any longer...
--
Vincent
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:52:32 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
>> Call me nationalistic or whatever you want, but IMO the main
>> responsibility of a government is to protect its own people.
>
> You don't protect the people of a nation by pissing off the rest of the
> world, though.
And you don't protect them by letting your policies be limited by the
opinions foreigners have about those policies.
Let's be frank. Every nation on the planet that is run by anyone with
any brains at all makes protection of its own interests the first
priority of its foreign policy. The French government does what it
thinks is best for France, and if the Americans don't like it, the
French really don't care. Same goes for the Spaniards with regard to
Spain, the British with regard to the UK, the Germans with regard to
Germany, the Russians with regard to Russia, and so on.
The only real difference is that much of the world has this notion that
the US, and another nation I will not name here, are somehow not
entitled to place their own interests first, but must, for reasons that
never bear close scrutiny, place other nations first.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 20:24:43 +0100, Doctor John <doc### [at] gmailcom>
wrote:
>
>You'll have to offer me serious money to get me to visit again
Me too.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> a écrit dans le message de news:
4845fdf0$1@news.povray.org...
> We must've read the same article - bbc.co.uk? I do think that there's
> more to the story than was there. The scary thing is that even as
> written, it's believable.
Here's the pic of the guy.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1023560/Man-threatened-arrest-Heathrow-wearing-Transformers-T-shirt.html
Note that he has a sri lankan name. Since Sri Lanka is home to one of the
most ferocious terrorist organisations (they had cornered the whole "suicide
bombing" market until Al Qaeda came along, and they have tried to claim the
title back since) I wouldn't be surprised that people with this background
are special targets for the authorities. Perhaps this works like some spam
filters.
X-Terror-Report:
* 0.4 M_30 Young male below thirty
* 2.5 DK_SKIN Person with dark skin
* 4.5 FROM_TRR_CTRY From: country with lots of terrorists
* 4.3 CLTH_OFFENS Clothes: wearing potentially offensive message
* 8.1 BNN_IMG Image: contains banned images including guns, bombs
and nail clippers
X-Terror-Status: Yes, score=19.8 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_99,M_30 ,DK_SKIN,
FROM_TRR_CTRY ,CLTH_OFFENS,BNN_IMG
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>
> AMD Athlon XP 1700+, 256 MB RAM, Windoze XP SP2, Firefox 2.0.0.9.
>
Gordon Bennett! My spare laptop's more powerful than that
:-)
John
--
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> AMD Athlon XP 1700+, 256 MB RAM, Windoze XP SP2, Firefox 2.0.0.9.
>
> Terrific state-of-art specs for a gamer and computer programmer?-)
This is the PC I have *at work*. :-P
The PC I have *at home* is an AMD Athlon64 X2 4200+ with 3 GB RAM and an
nVidia GeForce 7900GT. And it works very nicely too. :-D
[It *was* a pretty good system back when I bought it. Obviously several
years on it's been superceeded by better things...]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
> You're kidding, right?
Why would the people I work for bother spending money on the guy who
swaps the backup tapes?
Put simply: I am not considered important.
I should perhaps point out that I only got *this* PC because somebody
else got a better one, so I had their old one. My previous machine was
an AMD Duron 800 MHz with 128 MB RAM. (Running Windows NT, obviously.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Why would the people I work for bother spending money on the guy who
> swaps the backup tapes?
And who browses the internet at work hours? ;)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Why would the people I work for bother spending money on the guy who
>> swaps the backup tapes?
>
> And who browses the internet at work hours? ;)
Hey, I gotta check the Internet link is still working. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:36:47 +0200, Gilles Tran wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 4845fdf0$1@news.povray.org...
>> We must've read the same article - bbc.co.uk? I do think that there's
>> more to the story than was there. The scary thing is that even as
>> written, it's believable.
>
> Here's the pic of the guy.
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1023560/Man-threatened-arrest-
Heathrow-wearing-Transformers-T-shirt.html
Yeah, didn't look too threatening to me. :-)
> Note that he has a sri lankan name. Since Sri Lanka is home to one of
> the most ferocious terrorist organisations (they had cornered the whole
> "suicide bombing" market until Al Qaeda came along, and they have tried
> to claim the title back since) I wouldn't be surprised that people with
> this background are special targets for the authorities. Perhaps this
> works like some spam filters.
Ah, racial/ethnic profiling at its best. That explains a lot. :-)
> X-Terror-Report:
> * 0.4 M_30 Young male below thirty
> * 2.5 DK_SKIN Person with dark skin
> * 4.5 FROM_TRR_CTRY From: country with lots of terrorists *
> 4.3 CLTH_OFFENS Clothes: wearing potentially offensive message *
> 8.1 BNN_IMG Image: contains banned images including guns, bombs
> and nail clippers
>
> X-Terror-Status: Yes, score=19.8 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_99,M_30
> ,DK_SKIN, FROM_TRR_CTRY ,CLTH_OFFENS,BNN_IMG
You forgot on the BNN_IMG portion of the report that that list also
includes knitting needles. It probably *should* include "big
hands" (since you could cause some serious harm with big hands), but the
real filter doesn't.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 07:31:18 -0400, John VanSickle wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:52:32 -0400, Warp wrote:
>>
>>> Call me nationalistic or whatever you want, but IMO the main
>>> responsibility of a government is to protect its own people.
>>
>> You don't protect the people of a nation by pissing off the rest of the
>> world, though.
>
> And you don't protect them by letting your policies be limited by the
> opinions foreigners have about those policies.
Sure, but it's not about the opinions. It's about treating people with
respect. And BTW, it's not just foreigners who have these opinions about
the policies. I live in the US, and I think it's total bullshit.
Why? Because the terrorists know what our measures are. They know
they're going to need a better fake ID to get into the country. They
know that instead of recruiting middle-eastern looking people, they need
to recruit people who look like me (average middle aged white guy).
All measures like this do is keep the stupid terrorists out. But stupid
terrorists do things like set the time on their bomb vest wrong and blow
themselves up before they leave the workshop.
It does us absolutely no good to put measures in place that depend on the
people we're trying to prevent entering the country being total idiots.
> Let's be frank. Every nation on the planet that is run by anyone with
> any brains at all makes protection of its own interests the first
> priority of its foreign policy. The French government does what it
> thinks is best for France, and if the Americans don't like it, the
> French really don't care. Same goes for the Spaniards with regard to
> Spain, the British with regard to the UK, the Germans with regard to
> Germany, the Russians with regard to Russia, and so on.
Yes, but the thing that most governments miss is that protection of one's
own interests DOES include not pissing off other countries. "Why do they
hate us?" Because we're IN the middle east. So what's our solution?
SEND MORE TROOPS. Duh, what kind of stupid foreign policy decision is
that?
> The only real difference is that much of the world has this notion that
> the US, and another nation I will not name here, are somehow not
> entitled to place their own interests first, but must, for reasons that
> never bear close scrutiny, place other nations first.
As I said, there's a difference between placing your interests first
without regard to the effect it has on other parts of the world, putting
your interests first but protecting relations with your allies, and
putting measures in place that actually work and don't *depend* on "the
enemy" being as stupid as a potted plant.
"Oh, if I want to fly in from Europe without a visa, I need to register
on a website. I guess I'll get a visa from a non-European country, fly
in to Mexico or Canada, and find a place to cross the border. Or maybe
I'll go to Haiti and hop a boat there with a bunch of immigrants - I may
not make it, but there will be plenty after me and one boat is bound to
get through."
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> "Why do they hate us?" Because we're IN the middle east.
As if it was that simple.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:04:03 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> "Why do they hate us?" Because we're IN the middle east.
>
> As if it was that simple.
Sure there are other factors, but the major beef that Bin Laden and
others has is that unbelievers are in their holy land. Our solution to
that was to put MORE unbelievers in their land.
So, someone comes to your house uninvited, and you ask them to leave.
Instead, they invite 20 friends. Tell me you're not gonna get pissed off
about that.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> So, someone comes to your house uninvited, and you ask them to leave.
> Instead, they invite 20 friends. Tell me you're not gonna get pissed off
> about that.
How about: You threaten to kill them and their families, and they call
the police.
It's not always that simple.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:19:24 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> So, someone comes to your house uninvited, and you ask them to leave.
>> Instead, they invite 20 friends. Tell me you're not gonna get pissed
>> off about that.
>
> How about: You threaten to kill them and their families, and they call
> the police.
So the US is the world police?
> It's not always that simple.
It's only as complicated as we make it.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Why would the people I work for bother spending money on the guy who
>>> swaps the backup tapes?
>>
>> And who browses the internet at work hours? ;)
>
> Hey, I gotta check the Internet link is still working. ;-)
I found this hilarious:
http://readatwork.com/
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Sure there are other factors, but the major beef that Bin Laden and
> others has is that unbelievers are in their holy land. Our solution to
> that was to put MORE unbelievers in their land.
Yeah. And the obviously correct way to get our military *out* of their
land was to start attacking our *own* country. Good move, that. ;-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
