It is safe to say that a) US are scared of Arab people or b) Americans are better authorites at the ports than Arab people.
Friday, February 24, 2006
Comic of the Week
It is safe to say that a) US are scared of Arab people or b) Americans are better authorites at the ports than Arab people.
Friday, February 03, 2006
Give me a break...again...
'Faust' Opera Video Stirs Angry Parents
Yahoo
Some parents in this prairie town are angry with an elementary school music teacher for showing pupils a video about the opera "Faust," whose title character sells his soul to the devil in exchange for being young again.
"Any adult with common sense would not think that video was appropriate for a young person to see. I'm not sure it's appropriate for a high school student," Robby Warner said after two of her children saw the video.
Another parent, Casey Goodwin, said, "I think it glorifies Satan in some way."
Tresa Waggoner showed approximately 250 first-, second- and third-graders at Bennett Elementary portions of a 33-year-old series titled "Who's Afraid of Opera" a few weeks ago.
The video features the soprano Dame Joan Sutherland and three puppet friends discussing Gounod's "Faust." Waggoner thought it would be a good introduction to opera.
Her critics questioned the decision to show children a portrayal of the devil, Mephistopheles, along with a scene showing a man being killed by a sword and a reference to suicide.
School Superintendent George Sauter said the teacher should not have shown the video to children below the fourth grade but will not lose her job. She has sent letter of apology to all elementary school parents in Bennett, population 2,400 and about 25 miles east of Denver on Colorado's eastern plains.
"I was definitely not sensitive to the conservative nature of the community, and I've learned that," Waggoner said in Sunday's editions of The Denver Post. "However, from what has been said about me, that I'm a Satan worshipper, my character, I can't believe all of this. My intention was just to expose the kids to opera."
Waggoner, who is in her first year teaching vocal music in Bennett, said she doesn't expect to stay in town.
"I know I'm not accepted here, that I'm not welcome here by the parents," she said. "It's a very uncomfortable position."
aC. Sidebar
You know Faust is a 18th century opera/drama. It is considered to be a classical masterpiece. It's comparable to Aesop's fable teaching the consequences of pride and vanity. Now think, about this, we will show Shakespeare with his romancing Juliet and sword-welding Hamlet in our schools, but when "the devil" comes around we all hide and protect our childen. So some reason, the conservatives worship the idea of banishing the devil, but won't allow moral acts of literature and arts show them from temptations.
No, I won't testify, but I will say that adults are getting stupider. I'm not saying that all adults are morally, parently, and common-sensely challenged, but more like they don't think. Please, give me a break. How many people, let alone students have ever heard or know what Faust is about. We as people will allow the play of Grand Theft Auto to children, but when the arts have a moral lesson we run away. This is truely a shame for mankind. Not to you, but the privilage that these students have lost to neo-conservatism in the great state of Colorado. Hmm...I wonder what Kobe is up to these days?
Yahoo
Some parents in this prairie town are angry with an elementary school music teacher for showing pupils a video about the opera "Faust," whose title character sells his soul to the devil in exchange for being young again.
"Any adult with common sense would not think that video was appropriate for a young person to see. I'm not sure it's appropriate for a high school student," Robby Warner said after two of her children saw the video.
Another parent, Casey Goodwin, said, "I think it glorifies Satan in some way."
Tresa Waggoner showed approximately 250 first-, second- and third-graders at Bennett Elementary portions of a 33-year-old series titled "Who's Afraid of Opera" a few weeks ago.
The video features the soprano Dame Joan Sutherland and three puppet friends discussing Gounod's "Faust." Waggoner thought it would be a good introduction to opera.
Her critics questioned the decision to show children a portrayal of the devil, Mephistopheles, along with a scene showing a man being killed by a sword and a reference to suicide.
School Superintendent George Sauter said the teacher should not have shown the video to children below the fourth grade but will not lose her job. She has sent letter of apology to all elementary school parents in Bennett, population 2,400 and about 25 miles east of Denver on Colorado's eastern plains.
"I was definitely not sensitive to the conservative nature of the community, and I've learned that," Waggoner said in Sunday's editions of The Denver Post. "However, from what has been said about me, that I'm a Satan worshipper, my character, I can't believe all of this. My intention was just to expose the kids to opera."
Waggoner, who is in her first year teaching vocal music in Bennett, said she doesn't expect to stay in town.
"I know I'm not accepted here, that I'm not welcome here by the parents," she said. "It's a very uncomfortable position."
aC. Sidebar
You know Faust is a 18th century opera/drama. It is considered to be a classical masterpiece. It's comparable to Aesop's fable teaching the consequences of pride and vanity. Now think, about this, we will show Shakespeare with his romancing Juliet and sword-welding Hamlet in our schools, but when "the devil" comes around we all hide and protect our childen. So some reason, the conservatives worship the idea of banishing the devil, but won't allow moral acts of literature and arts show them from temptations.
No, I won't testify, but I will say that adults are getting stupider. I'm not saying that all adults are morally, parently, and common-sensely challenged, but more like they don't think. Please, give me a break. How many people, let alone students have ever heard or know what Faust is about. We as people will allow the play of Grand Theft Auto to children, but when the arts have a moral lesson we run away. This is truely a shame for mankind. Not to you, but the privilage that these students have lost to neo-conservatism in the great state of Colorado. Hmm...I wonder what Kobe is up to these days?
Friday, January 20, 2006
Privacy
Google Rebuffs Feds on Search Requests
AP Business
Google Inc. is rebuffing the Bush administration's demand for a peek at what millions of people have been looking up on the Internet's leading search engine — a request that underscores the potential for online databases to become tools for government surveillance.
Mountain View-based Google has refused to comply with a White House subpoena first issued last summer, prompting U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales this week to ask a federal judge in San Jose for an order to hand over the requested records.
The government wants a list all requests entered into Google's search engine during an unspecified single week — a breakdown that could conceivably span tens of millions of queries. In addition, it seeks 1 million randomly selected Web addresses from various Google databases.
In court papers that the San Jose Mercury News reported on after seeing them Wednesday, the Bush administration depicts the information as vital in its effort to restore online child protection laws that have been struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Yahoo Inc. (Nasdaq:YHOO - news) and Microsoft Corp., which operate the next most-used search engines behind Google, confirmed that they had complied with similar government subpoenas. America Online said it didn't fully comply with the subpoena but did provide a list of search requests already publicly available from other sources.
Combined, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft's MSN and AOL handle nearly 90 percent of all U.S. search requests, according to Nielsen/NetRatings.
Although the government says it isn't seeking any data that ties personal information to search requests, the subpoenas still raise serious privacy concerns, experts said. Those worries have been magnified by recent revelations that the White House authorized eavesdropping on civilian communications after the Sept. 11 attacks without obtaining court approval.
"Search engines now play such an important part in our daily lives that many people probably contact Google more often than they do their own mother," said Thomas Burke, a San Francisco attorney who has handled several prominent cases involving privacy issues.
"Just as most people would be upset if the government wanted to know how much you called your mother and what you talked about, they should be upset about this, too."
The content of search request sometimes contain information about the person making the query.
For instance, it's not unusual for search requests to include names, medical profiles or Social Security information, said Pam Dixon, executive director for the World Privacy Forum.
"This is exactly the kind of thing we have been worrying about with search engines for some time," Dixon said. "Google should be commended for fighting this."
Sunnyvale, Calif.-based Yahoo stressed that it didn't reveal any personal information. "We are rigorous defenders of our users' privacy," Yahoo spokeswoman Mary Osako said. "In our opinion, this is not a privacy issue."
MSN said it complied with the government's request "in a way that ensured we also protected the privacy of our customers."
As the Internet's dominant search engine, Google has built up a valuable storehouse of information that "makes it a very attractive target for law enforcement," said Chris Hoofnagle, senior counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center.
The Department of Justice argues that Google's cooperation is essential in its effort to simulate how people navigate the Web.
In a separate case in Pennsylvania, the Bush administration is trying to prove that Internet filters don't do an adequate job of preventing children from accessing online pornography and other objectionable destinations.
Obtaining the subpoenaed information from Google "would assist the government in its efforts to understand the behavior of current Web users, (and) to estimate how often Web users encounter harmful-to-minors material in the course of their searches," the Justice Department wrote in a brief filed Wednesday
Google — whose motto when it went public in 2004 was "do no evil" — contends that submitting to the subpoena would represent a betrayal to its users, even if all personal information is stripped from the search terms sought by the government.
"Google's acceding to the request would suggest that it is willing to reveal information about those who use its services. This is not a perception that Google can accept," company attorney Ashok Ramani wrote in a letter included in the government's filing.
Complying with the subpoena also wound threaten to expose some of Google's "crown-jewel trade secrets," Ramani wrote. Google is particularly concerned that the information could be used to deduce the size of its index and how many computers it uses to crunch the requests.
"This information would be highly valuable to competitors or miscreants seeking to harm Google's business," Ramani wrote.
Dixon is hoping Google's battle with the government reminds people to be careful how they interact with search engines.
"When you are looking at that blank search box, you should remember that what you fill can come back to haunt you unless you take precautions," she said.
aC. Sidebar
I'm a big proponent for privacy, because heck, don't we all want privacy. It's not written in the Constitution, but privacy can be inferred as a liberty, a right, or a destination from the pursuit of happiness. So where do you draw the line on privacy? How can we as people and upright vocalists for freedom demand privacy when we're so consumed with the daily tabloids, reality television, and restraining murders, sex offenders, and proliferators of child pornography.
So my question is, where do you draw the draw the line of conservatism and libertarianism, but much more of common sense? We know what we want and we will make decision for ourselves and erroneously for others as well. We err in understand proper judgment and decision process. So in another words, don't be offended to be called a hypocrite when you're trying to live the Walden life but your civil disobedience tunes you into Big Brother 25 or if your younger, Laguna Beach. Everyone should be allowed a proper amount of privacy and if one chooses to compromise their privacy for their 15 minutes of fame or a felonies or two, then they shouldn't be surprised to lose their privacy.
I know a lot of us aren't felonies and belong to good wholesome families and upbringings, so I can understand the fear and the need to be able to live privately, but as a species, we aren't wholesome. We want ADT security and cameras to protect the boogie-man. So why compromise 100% privacy. This is what I don't understand and want to know why we say one thing, but sort of mean something else.
Now back to Google. They are the world's largest search engine. I know when I type in a person's name; I can find a lot of information. In fact, I can find sources that will find your social security card information and address for a nominal fee. If you're graphic bound, you can even find nude pictures of Nicole Kidman, but wait. Don't you have to be 18 or so of age to view adult pictures? So why do adult sites force an additional age verification page while search on Google by-passes this page. The Google technology if you aren't aware is not just searching keywords of the billions of websites, but caching the image and text from these sites so that Google will have a fast and accurate library to search from. This is very effective.
So if your running a child pornography ring between El Paso, Texas and Amarillo, Texas, no one in Alaska may be looking for it, but they may run into it. Now, there are security systems in place with Google, so there such far-end results are mitigated, but Google is a tremendous tool for everyone (user) that any electronic investigation or need to police would have included the help of Google. In my opinion, Google has to release these records. In other words, this library will have to transfer evidence of users that has checkout or read materials that are deemed in appropriate, for the better good of the community.
I know, you're like what? Are you still a 9/11 fanatic with a sheriff mentality to police with complete disregard? No. I'm not that phobic, but this is an example of a situation that would lend itself as something that is for the better good of society. Don't you want the sex offenders in jail? Don't you want criminals in jail?
Even if the police would look though your records or files, if your clean, your clean. If you're wearing grandma's gown and your teeth are sharp, with oh so big eyes, then you're screwed and the authorities have done their job. Protection, minus privacy. So how much can you take from this tradeoff??
AP Business
Google Inc. is rebuffing the Bush administration's demand for a peek at what millions of people have been looking up on the Internet's leading search engine — a request that underscores the potential for online databases to become tools for government surveillance.
Mountain View-based Google has refused to comply with a White House subpoena first issued last summer, prompting U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales this week to ask a federal judge in San Jose for an order to hand over the requested records.
The government wants a list all requests entered into Google's search engine during an unspecified single week — a breakdown that could conceivably span tens of millions of queries. In addition, it seeks 1 million randomly selected Web addresses from various Google databases.
In court papers that the San Jose Mercury News reported on after seeing them Wednesday, the Bush administration depicts the information as vital in its effort to restore online child protection laws that have been struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Yahoo Inc. (Nasdaq:YHOO - news) and Microsoft Corp., which operate the next most-used search engines behind Google, confirmed that they had complied with similar government subpoenas. America Online said it didn't fully comply with the subpoena but did provide a list of search requests already publicly available from other sources.
Combined, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft's MSN and AOL handle nearly 90 percent of all U.S. search requests, according to Nielsen/NetRatings.
Although the government says it isn't seeking any data that ties personal information to search requests, the subpoenas still raise serious privacy concerns, experts said. Those worries have been magnified by recent revelations that the White House authorized eavesdropping on civilian communications after the Sept. 11 attacks without obtaining court approval.
"Search engines now play such an important part in our daily lives that many people probably contact Google more often than they do their own mother," said Thomas Burke, a San Francisco attorney who has handled several prominent cases involving privacy issues.
"Just as most people would be upset if the government wanted to know how much you called your mother and what you talked about, they should be upset about this, too."
The content of search request sometimes contain information about the person making the query.
For instance, it's not unusual for search requests to include names, medical profiles or Social Security information, said Pam Dixon, executive director for the World Privacy Forum.
"This is exactly the kind of thing we have been worrying about with search engines for some time," Dixon said. "Google should be commended for fighting this."
Sunnyvale, Calif.-based Yahoo stressed that it didn't reveal any personal information. "We are rigorous defenders of our users' privacy," Yahoo spokeswoman Mary Osako said. "In our opinion, this is not a privacy issue."
MSN said it complied with the government's request "in a way that ensured we also protected the privacy of our customers."
As the Internet's dominant search engine, Google has built up a valuable storehouse of information that "makes it a very attractive target for law enforcement," said Chris Hoofnagle, senior counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center.
The Department of Justice argues that Google's cooperation is essential in its effort to simulate how people navigate the Web.
In a separate case in Pennsylvania, the Bush administration is trying to prove that Internet filters don't do an adequate job of preventing children from accessing online pornography and other objectionable destinations.
Obtaining the subpoenaed information from Google "would assist the government in its efforts to understand the behavior of current Web users, (and) to estimate how often Web users encounter harmful-to-minors material in the course of their searches," the Justice Department wrote in a brief filed Wednesday
Google — whose motto when it went public in 2004 was "do no evil" — contends that submitting to the subpoena would represent a betrayal to its users, even if all personal information is stripped from the search terms sought by the government.
"Google's acceding to the request would suggest that it is willing to reveal information about those who use its services. This is not a perception that Google can accept," company attorney Ashok Ramani wrote in a letter included in the government's filing.
Complying with the subpoena also wound threaten to expose some of Google's "crown-jewel trade secrets," Ramani wrote. Google is particularly concerned that the information could be used to deduce the size of its index and how many computers it uses to crunch the requests.
"This information would be highly valuable to competitors or miscreants seeking to harm Google's business," Ramani wrote.
Dixon is hoping Google's battle with the government reminds people to be careful how they interact with search engines.
"When you are looking at that blank search box, you should remember that what you fill can come back to haunt you unless you take precautions," she said.
aC. Sidebar
I'm a big proponent for privacy, because heck, don't we all want privacy. It's not written in the Constitution, but privacy can be inferred as a liberty, a right, or a destination from the pursuit of happiness. So where do you draw the line on privacy? How can we as people and upright vocalists for freedom demand privacy when we're so consumed with the daily tabloids, reality television, and restraining murders, sex offenders, and proliferators of child pornography.
So my question is, where do you draw the draw the line of conservatism and libertarianism, but much more of common sense? We know what we want and we will make decision for ourselves and erroneously for others as well. We err in understand proper judgment and decision process. So in another words, don't be offended to be called a hypocrite when you're trying to live the Walden life but your civil disobedience tunes you into Big Brother 25 or if your younger, Laguna Beach. Everyone should be allowed a proper amount of privacy and if one chooses to compromise their privacy for their 15 minutes of fame or a felonies or two, then they shouldn't be surprised to lose their privacy.
I know a lot of us aren't felonies and belong to good wholesome families and upbringings, so I can understand the fear and the need to be able to live privately, but as a species, we aren't wholesome. We want ADT security and cameras to protect the boogie-man. So why compromise 100% privacy. This is what I don't understand and want to know why we say one thing, but sort of mean something else.
Now back to Google. They are the world's largest search engine. I know when I type in a person's name; I can find a lot of information. In fact, I can find sources that will find your social security card information and address for a nominal fee. If you're graphic bound, you can even find nude pictures of Nicole Kidman, but wait. Don't you have to be 18 or so of age to view adult pictures? So why do adult sites force an additional age verification page while search on Google by-passes this page. The Google technology if you aren't aware is not just searching keywords of the billions of websites, but caching the image and text from these sites so that Google will have a fast and accurate library to search from. This is very effective.
So if your running a child pornography ring between El Paso, Texas and Amarillo, Texas, no one in Alaska may be looking for it, but they may run into it. Now, there are security systems in place with Google, so there such far-end results are mitigated, but Google is a tremendous tool for everyone (user) that any electronic investigation or need to police would have included the help of Google. In my opinion, Google has to release these records. In other words, this library will have to transfer evidence of users that has checkout or read materials that are deemed in appropriate, for the better good of the community.
I know, you're like what? Are you still a 9/11 fanatic with a sheriff mentality to police with complete disregard? No. I'm not that phobic, but this is an example of a situation that would lend itself as something that is for the better good of society. Don't you want the sex offenders in jail? Don't you want criminals in jail?
Even if the police would look though your records or files, if your clean, your clean. If you're wearing grandma's gown and your teeth are sharp, with oh so big eyes, then you're screwed and the authorities have done their job. Protection, minus privacy. So how much can you take from this tradeoff??
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Comic of the Week
aC. Sidebar
Our grandparents and even our parents are screwed...but not as bad as us when we're 50. Sorry to be a pessimist.
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Happy New Year!!!
To the National Champs! Texas Longhorns!!!
This will be a great year, because not only did Texas pull off an upset, but so did my home-team West Virginia Mountaineers, and JoePa's Penn State. This week, is truely the best week of college sports, next to March Madness.
This will be a great year, because not only did Texas pull off an upset, but so did my home-team West Virginia Mountaineers, and JoePa's Penn State. This week, is truely the best week of college sports, next to March Madness.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
RE: Thank You Senators
In retrospect to a recent blog I read, I thought long and hard about the Patriot Act that was recently defeated in the Senate Halls. I thought long and hard about the underlying dilemma of the Patriot Act. Are Americans scared shit-less or are we all (us fellow Americans) crazy, introverted homebodies that would be considered sleeping giants that would not want to meddle with affairs outside the comforts of the living room?
I have often presumed that American and the Chinese are very much a like. Besides, us Chinese (Americans) aren't even considered a minority group anymore. I mean, we practically make up the majority in the Top 50 university and technological programs in the nation. Joking, aside, the Chinese were very isolationist people that shun western society until Great Britain and Portugal came in confiscated land during the Opium War and forced the Far Eastern society to not be so private anymore. In the other hemisphere, the Monroe Doctrine strived Americans to be they're own masters of their domains without interference of European influence (Namely Napoleon) Together, with destiny of the Manifest Destiny, us American grew to be expansionistic pigs. Well, the topic about McDonalds and obesity is another blog subject.
So now how are we as American respond to privacy issues? Don't forget, we're greedy pigs that shun other society out. We don't want black-boxes in our cars, we don't want pop-ups and telemarketing, and we certainly don't want big brother to check out neighbor or homes, regardless if it's part of Neighborhood Watch. So we also shun the Patriotic Act.
Personally by all means I'm opposed to the Patriotic Act, namely because I do not have the legal capacity to pick-it over with a fine-tooth comb. I understand that some practices may seem out of hand, absurd, and even like a strip-search without the cold, latex hands. I wish I had more time to read about the actual legislation turn to simple notes and paper of history, and to give more of an honest response, but the purpose of my blog today is to find out how private are we and defendable are we for our right to privacy, are afraid of the Patriot Act.
I should mention, I have read nothing but attacking articles, except for one pro-sided piece about the Patriot Act, so some misnomers and one-sided thinking is present. So, what's Jessica Simpson up to these days? Serious, we all want to know about the divorce. Who’s going to get the alimony? How about Kate and Tom, or even Bennifer?
Now how about the tragedy of Princess Diana. Now, that's privacy gone deadly. Then how about reality television? Real World Chicago, Big Brother 10, Survivor Jumanji-Style. Granted reality television is fake, but still we private Americans that shun telemarketers by storming the Do Not Call directory want our 15 minutes of fame. Now how about this, we want privacy and piece at weddings and funerals, but we announce the terms and story in the newspaper and OB. We also have webcam action for a cost of $14.95 a month for those over 18. We sign up for Martins, Safeway, Giant, and Dominick's grocery cards and other frequent diner, buyer, or seller cards with our personal information away. We use our Social Security numbers in public like a locker combination to apply for credit and more credit. The blog about debt-bleeding Americans will come soon.
So do we want to know where rapists, murders, and felons are in the neighborhood are? Yes, so screw their privacy. We want to know how our children are doing in school. Sure, until they go to college where their failures are kept from you. (HINT: Going to school for 7 years does not mean you're a doctor of gen. Ed) We want to build in new developments that will be more affordable and pleasant because they're closer to nature. So, screw you "Natural Habitat" and "Bambi"! Oh, have I mentioned that celebrities are screwed too?
So what is the comfort level for privacy? I'm willing to put an automotive black box in my car if it means lower insurance premiums. I'm willing to get a Banana Republic card if I annually get a $25 off card. I'm willing to have my library card history, purchase, and credit history check to make sure that this .aC (because my name is like the Chinese version of John Smith) isn't the one whose plotting the next terrorist attack, to killing someone, to building a bomb, or the rapist next door. Ever seen those Citibank ads about identify theft, privacy is not private anymore. What is it in it for me? To me, a Patriot Act with a value proposition will fly with me. What about you?
I have often presumed that American and the Chinese are very much a like. Besides, us Chinese (Americans) aren't even considered a minority group anymore. I mean, we practically make up the majority in the Top 50 university and technological programs in the nation. Joking, aside, the Chinese were very isolationist people that shun western society until Great Britain and Portugal came in confiscated land during the Opium War and forced the Far Eastern society to not be so private anymore. In the other hemisphere, the Monroe Doctrine strived Americans to be they're own masters of their domains without interference of European influence (Namely Napoleon) Together, with destiny of the Manifest Destiny, us American grew to be expansionistic pigs. Well, the topic about McDonalds and obesity is another blog subject.
So now how are we as American respond to privacy issues? Don't forget, we're greedy pigs that shun other society out. We don't want black-boxes in our cars, we don't want pop-ups and telemarketing, and we certainly don't want big brother to check out neighbor or homes, regardless if it's part of Neighborhood Watch. So we also shun the Patriotic Act.
Personally by all means I'm opposed to the Patriotic Act, namely because I do not have the legal capacity to pick-it over with a fine-tooth comb. I understand that some practices may seem out of hand, absurd, and even like a strip-search without the cold, latex hands. I wish I had more time to read about the actual legislation turn to simple notes and paper of history, and to give more of an honest response, but the purpose of my blog today is to find out how private are we and defendable are we for our right to privacy, are afraid of the Patriot Act.
I should mention, I have read nothing but attacking articles, except for one pro-sided piece about the Patriot Act, so some misnomers and one-sided thinking is present. So, what's Jessica Simpson up to these days? Serious, we all want to know about the divorce. Who’s going to get the alimony? How about Kate and Tom, or even Bennifer?
Now how about the tragedy of Princess Diana. Now, that's privacy gone deadly. Then how about reality television? Real World Chicago, Big Brother 10, Survivor Jumanji-Style. Granted reality television is fake, but still we private Americans that shun telemarketers by storming the Do Not Call directory want our 15 minutes of fame. Now how about this, we want privacy and piece at weddings and funerals, but we announce the terms and story in the newspaper and OB. We also have webcam action for a cost of $14.95 a month for those over 18. We sign up for Martins, Safeway, Giant, and Dominick's grocery cards and other frequent diner, buyer, or seller cards with our personal information away. We use our Social Security numbers in public like a locker combination to apply for credit and more credit. The blog about debt-bleeding Americans will come soon.
So do we want to know where rapists, murders, and felons are in the neighborhood are? Yes, so screw their privacy. We want to know how our children are doing in school. Sure, until they go to college where their failures are kept from you. (HINT: Going to school for 7 years does not mean you're a doctor of gen. Ed) We want to build in new developments that will be more affordable and pleasant because they're closer to nature. So, screw you "Natural Habitat" and "Bambi"! Oh, have I mentioned that celebrities are screwed too?
So what is the comfort level for privacy? I'm willing to put an automotive black box in my car if it means lower insurance premiums. I'm willing to get a Banana Republic card if I annually get a $25 off card. I'm willing to have my library card history, purchase, and credit history check to make sure that this .aC (because my name is like the Chinese version of John Smith) isn't the one whose plotting the next terrorist attack, to killing someone, to building a bomb, or the rapist next door. Ever seen those Citibank ads about identify theft, privacy is not private anymore. What is it in it for me? To me, a Patriot Act with a value proposition will fly with me. What about you?
Monday, December 12, 2005
Barnes and Noble
GET YOUR TEXTBOOKS HERE!!!
Barnes & Noble.com Home Page
aC. Sidebar
In my history of cheapness and thrift, B&N has been my primary source of textbooks at DePaul and Northwestern. College bookstores are definately over priced, but B&N offers very competitive rates. Plus, I'm a B&N member, so I can get you an additional 10% if you want.
Barnes & Noble.com Home Page
aC. Sidebar
In my history of cheapness and thrift, B&N has been my primary source of textbooks at DePaul and Northwestern. College bookstores are definately over priced, but B&N offers very competitive rates. Plus, I'm a B&N member, so I can get you an additional 10% if you want.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
