jackola | Jan. 11th, 2005

Jan. 11th, 2005

... FOR ME TO POOP ON

Subject: (no subject)
From: Kyle Michel <kyle.michelus@cicli.ch>
To: jackola
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 05:58:20 +0000
cla;_Lis sö:ftäb's

disolvê hälf tab under toungé 9 mins bêfore intércourse...for däily rêsults

lêarn móre here

goawaypls.

I do congratulate them on getting through GMail's spam filter.

Bill Gates: Free Culture advocates = Commies
I imagine my blog-mate Cory might have a few things to say about this when he's online again. :-) In an interview on news.com, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates described free culture advocates as a "modern-day sort of communists." Well now.
Q: "In recent years, there's been a lot of people clamoring to reform and restrict intellectual-property rights. It started out with just a few people, but now there are a bunch of advocates saying, 'We've got to look at patents, we've got to look at copyrights.' What's driving this, and do you think intellectual-property laws need to be reformed?
A: "No, I'd say that of the world's economies, there's more that believe in intellectual property today than ever. There are fewer communists in the world today than there were. There are some new modern-day sort of communists who want to get rid of the incentive for musicians and moviemakers and software makers under various guises. They don't think that those incentives should exist.
And this debate will always be there. I'd be the first to say that the patent system can always be tuned--including the U.S. patent system. There are some goals to cap some reform elements. But the idea that the United States has led in creating companies, creating jobs, because we've had the best intellectual-property system--there's no doubt about that in my mind, and when people say they want to be the most competitive economy, they've got to have the incentive system. Intellectual property is the incentive system for the products of the future."

Link (Thanks, Rick Prelinger, and Nathan Slaughter).

This story has unfolded quite a bit on BoingBoing: (1, 2 3, 4, 5)

Bush Inaugural A Terrorist Attack?
The next time the Republican leaders of the House start whining about Washington DC's finances they should think about the fact that their President is forcing the nation's capitol to pay for his innauguration's security, cleaning and other costs.

And how do they want the DC government to pay for it? By using anti-terrorism funds intended to protect them from external attack:

D.C. officials said yesterday that the Bush administration is refusing to reimburse the District for most of the costs associated with next week's inauguration, breaking with precedent and forcing the city to divert $11.9 million from homeland security projects.

Federal officials have told the District that it should cover the expenses by using some of the $240 million in federal homeland security grants it has received in the past three years—money awarded to the city because it is among the places at highest risk of a terrorist attack.

If the federal government announces that anti-terror funds should be used to handle a particular event, does that make the event a terror attack?

What is it with Texans? In DC they use anti-terror funds for parties, and in Texas they use them for lawnmower races.

This is freakin' awesome.

It's totally upgradeable, but here's the default $499 configuration:

1.25GHz PowerPC G4
256MB DDR333 SDRAM
ATI Radeon 9200 with 32MB DDR video memory
40GB Ultra ATA hard drive
Combo drive
DVI or VGA video output
AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth optional