Arab Americans Call on President to Insist Ashcroft Clarify Offensive Remarks
Given your dedication to tolerance and greater understanding, it is with some concern that we write to you about a matter of serious import. During an interview with syndicated columnist and radio personality Cal Thomas, Attorney General John Ashcroft is quoted as having made anti-Muslim remarks that could only serve to incite the very hatred you have worked so hard to combat. Commenting on faith, Attorney General Ashcroft reportedly said, “Islam is a religion in which God requires you to send your son to die for him. Christianity is a faith in which God sends his son to die for you.” This, of course, is a horrible distortion of Islam.
How one of the two brains behind the Iran-Contra scandal this week became one of America’s most powerful men
Last Wednesday something strange happened. The American population was instructed to panic. Place themselves, that is, on a state of highest vigilance. Some cataclysmic act of terrorism would happen – within hours. But nothing terrible happened. Something creepy did. On Thursday there was an inconspicuous news item. John M Poindexter had been appointed to head a new agency “to counter attacks on the US”, such as Wednesday’s no-show. It is equivalent, in British terms, to Jeffrey Archer being made chancellor of the exchequer.
[ this space intentionally left blank ]
Hello — Just wanted to inform you that we have completed the patch we promised,
on their browsers and still have some functionality when surfing the Web anonymously.
This solves all problems pointed out in the paper by Martin and Schulman.
(510) 601-8855 x108
Nice followup to a previous entry.
When evaluating logical operators, put the constant on the left so you have no chance of forgetting that extra =. For example:
if (5 == $id)
Think about it; it’s very logical and if it even saves you a single bug in your code it’s worth it.
Well at least you can’t say Microsoft isn’t helpful.
You may remember the variety of interesting comments the DOJ got concerning the Microsoft case, well they’ve gone ahead and picked 47 from the mess that are relavent to the proceedings. Read on for list, or check out the original.
Continue reading “DOJ releases comments on MS”
It seems I’ve managed to contract a case of the flu right around the most romantic day of the year. I spent most of the day in Methodist Hospital with a nasty fever, and the rest at home getting a suprising amount of work done. Actually it was probably my most pleasant hospital visit ever, as with the miracles of modern technology they were able to subdue my fever (103+), headache, dizziness, and nausea.
It seems yet another journalist/economist/muckraker has decided to attack Paul Krugman for his alleged involvement with Enron several years ago. I think Krugman’s blanket FAQ covers most of the issues reasonably. If you’re interested in more about Krugman, I suggest his excellent article There’s something about macro
I faintly remember a year or two ago seeing the ads talked about in this article, but I never actually emailed one of the addresses listed in them. Looking back over the summary of the ad campaign is fascinating, and it has a BMW Films touch to it that it doesn’t directly sell anything, and it doens’t even try to brand, it just is.
Safeweb, the anonymous proxy lauded by analysts and given money by the CIA, is inheritly unsecure. Declan McCullagh has good coverage of the issue at Wired.
I haven’t decided what to do with it yet, but I want one.
Lawrence Lessig, my favorite lawyer (with Mike Godwin and Mike Wallace), has just launched a new project called Creative Commons that aims to facilitate the creation of legally sound legal that can be attached to creative works, enabling them to be released into the open, so to speak, without the creative author losing all rights to the work. For example from the article:
An artist might, for example, agree to give away a work as long as no one is making money on it but include a provision requiring payments on a sliding scale if it’s sold
It’ll be very exciting to see how this technology is embraced.
Updates? Maybe when school lets up a little. Give me a day or two. There is some really interesting political things going on that I’m going to post about.
In an excellent article, “Check the fine print”, Ed Foster brings up some interesting points about the legalese that most of us blindly agree to every time we install software, in this case Microsoft’s.
Although it’s not at all new, I try to read this great essay by my favorite designer Jeff Zeldman just to keep my perspective fresh. Today I had a long day, and it just seemed right.
Got this in the mail, think it merits reprinting:
Therapeutic cloning research could lead to cures for heart disease, stroke, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease and other lethal conditions. It could also lead to therapies to reverse the infirmities and ravages of aging.
The U.S. Senate is now debating The Human Cloning Prohibition Act (S.790), which has already passed the House. This bill could put scientists who conduct therapeutic cloning research in prison for 10 years.
The Life Extension Foundation urges you to contact U.S. Senators to urge them to vote against this bill. Information about how to do so can be found on The Foundation’s web site
(www.lef.org). Also on the site is an interview with Mike West, Ph.D., the President and CEO of Advanced Cell Technology, and an article entitled “Don’t Let The U.S. Government Ban Therapeutic Cloning”.
Please send this message to everyone you know who is interested in staying alive and healthy.
Saul Kent, Founder and Director
Life Extension Foundation
Obviously a bit of hype there, but the message itself is fundamental.
Don’t think of them as screenshots, think of them as glimpses into my digital existence ;).
Entire Microsoft DOJ filing
[excerpt]The 60-day public comment period began on November 28, 2001, and ended on January 28, 2002.1 During that period, the United States received over 30,000 public comments.2 Based on those comments, the United States provides the following summary and categorization:
- Approximately 1,250 comments are unrelated in substance to United States v. Microsoft or the RPFJ (though they were sent to the address for public comments and may or may not mention the RPFJ in their “subject” line).
- A small number of these submissions are simply advertisements or, in at least one case, pornography. The United States proposes not to publish such submissions or to provide them as part of its filing to the Court.
- The remainder of these unrelated comments address only the proposed settlement of the private, class-action litigation against Microsoft, and
not the RPFJ.
- Roughly 2,800 comments are “form” letters or emails – essentially identical text submitted by different persons.
- Approximately 19,500 comments express an overall view of the RPFJ but do not contain any further discussion of it. These comments do not, for example, attempt to analyze the substance of the RPFJ, do not address any of its specific provisions, and do not describe any particular strengths or shortcomings of it.
- Approximately 2,900 of the comments can be characterized as containing a
degree of detailed substance concerning the RPFJ. These substantive comments range from brief, one- or two-page discussions of some aspect of the RPFJ to 100- or more-page, detailed discussions of numerous of its provisions or alternatives. The essence of many of these substantive comments overlaps with other comments; that is, numerous comments address at least some of the same issues or raise similar arguments.
- Of the above substantive comments, approximately 45 can be characterized as “major” comments based on their length and the detail with which they analyze significant issues relating to the RPFJ. Once again, there is considerable duplication of issues and arguments among these major comments.
- Of the total comments received, roughly 7,500 are in favor or urge entry of the RPFJ, roughly 15,000 are opposed, and roughly 7,000 do not directly express a view in favor or against entry. For example, a significant number of comments contain opinions concerning Microsoft generally, e.g., “I hate Microsoft,” or concerning this antitrust case generally, e.g., “This case should never have been brought,” but do not state whether they support or oppose entry of the RPFJ