* Posts by EagleZ28

91 publicly visible posts • joined 15 Jun 2020


Iran sent threatening pro-Trump emails to American Democrats, Russia close behind, says US intelligence


Re: @EagleZ28

Okay... I think I see your (their) point about barter...

EVERY economic system of which I can conceive uses barter, if you distill it far enough.

Even using cash, you're trading one item for another... bartering.

Since cash and coins go through a "manufacturing" process, they are both also still "products" in and of themselves...

Therefore, in order to distinguish different types of economies, they need to overlook/ignore "barter".


Re: It's not tricky.

Thanks, Mahhn,

Yes, I expect I'll get a lot of down-votes for some of my posts in here. It seems that our El Reg community has quite a few people who belong to the "shoot the messenger" school of thought,

which I observed on some of my earlier politically related posts.


Re: @codejunky, capitalism

@Snake - You have a very cynical, and ERRONEOUS, definition of capitalism.

According to Webster (and Oxford's definition is almost identical) - "Capitalism is an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods..."

Therefore, "outright barter" IS capitalism... if the two people doing the bartering actually own the goods that they trying to barter.

ARE there "evil capitalists"? Hell yes. No one with an average (or better) IQ denies it... not that I've ever heard.

Probably the best and most accurate defense of capitalism that I've ever heard/seen can be summarized like this... It's the LEAST EVIL economic system we (humans) have yet discovered/invented.


Re: Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt

The BLM wanting cops to quit shooting unarmed Black people is NOT "far left".

THAT is actually something that MOST of USA can support.

What makes BLM "far Left", and they ARE... are some of their OTHER demands...

They have six "demands"... here they are, as listed on their Wikipedia page:

1) End the war on black people.

2) Reparations for past and continuing harms. (Reparations)

3) Divestment from the institutions that criminalize, cage and harm black people; and investment in the education, health and safety of black people. (Invest-Divest)

4) Economic justice for all and a reconstruction of the economy to ensure our communities have collective ownership, not merely access.(Economic justice)

5) Community control of the laws, institutions and policies that most impact us. (Community control)

6) Independent black political power and black self-determination in all areas of society. (Political power)

So, why are they "far Left"?

So, addressing each of their demands, in order, with the same numbering:

1) Alleges, states as a fact, that there IS a war on Black people... as if there is no room for debate for much less dissent... This is "problematic", but not of itself "far Left".

2) Reparations... The Left are the only ones in USA who propose reparations, and not even universal, not even close, within the Left... ergo, it is, by definition, a FAR Left agenda, and not Moderate or Right.

3) "Divestment from... police" - defunding the police. In the US, the Right are also often called "the party of Law and Order", ergo, this is also a Leftist agenda. Yes, in the US, the Reps are usually the ones calling for stronger punishments for criminals, such as the "Three Strikes" policy, which calls for far stronger punishments for the conviction of a third crime. Further, not even most Liberals/Leftists want the police to be defunded, so this is not a Moderate Leftist agenda, much less Centrist, so can only be FAR Left.

4) "Economic justice", "reconstruction of the economy", "collective ownership"... That last one, COLLECTIVE OWNERSHIP... can you say 'Socialist'? That's FAR Left.

5) N/A, since it isn't a Leftist point... nor Centrist nor Right. It's actually supposed to be something that all of us SHARE... have in COMMON... (for all of us who live in Democracies.)

6) This is a WTF... but I don't know how to classify it as either Left or Right... but it sounds a lot like diplomatic immunity for all Blacks... OR segregating them all to their own areas where they CAN have their own laws... but it's also another way to say, 'one rule for thee, another for me'. This biggest thing about this "demand", is that whatever side it is... you can't reasonably deny that is is effing EXTREME.


Re: Uhm

Look at what the article says...

The emails were sent to DEMS... who are NOT going to vote for Trump... and claims to be from a Right-wing group. According to the article, though, it appears that it was actually sent by Iranians... and Iranians have NO reason to like Trump or want him to win reelection... quite the contrary.

So, what could be the intent?

Piss off the Dem voters... get them mad at the Proud Boys/Trump... the latter of which is already done, as you can tell just by reading the other comments on this article.

WHY piss them off?

The only conceivable reasons are to further divide the US, and perhaps to further inflame the Left's anger to get them out to vote for Biden.

I can't see any way that this will benefit Trump.


Re: It's not tricky.

Uh... just so you know...

BIDEN is Iran's "preferred candidate", if they have one at all.

He was VP when Obama put USA in that recent treaty... "the ran nuclear deal", which THEY wanted.

Trump pulled USA... OUT... of it.

The treaty = "Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action", AKA, "the Iran nuclear deal"

BIDEN presented the Treaty to the Senate Democrats on the Foreign Relations Committee,

on July 15, 2015. That was during the Obama admin. (which lasted until mid-Jan 2017).

Trump pulled the USA out of the treaty, and doing so appears to have hurt the Iranian economy.

One reason they don't like him.

He also killed one of their national heroes, alleged to have been a mastermind of "Iranian terror operations"... via a drone strike, IIRC... He was "Qassim Suleimani", and you can find many articles about his death by using that BIG famous search engine...

I'm not making any judgement about the treaty itself, or Trump's actions, or Suleimani's alleged activities... only pointing out that Iran has NO reason to prefer Trump over Biden.

You can read about Trump pulling USA out of the treaty here, and it contains links to the article about the treaty itself...


LibreOffice rains on OpenOffice's 20th anniversary parade, tells rival project to 'do the right thing' and die



Indeed, Monty Python's Norwegian Blue (and its beautiful plumage) may have shuffled off this mortal coil, but only to shine forever as a stellar example of witty and funny redundancy.

As for Open Office, it's merely resting peacefully, perhaps pining for field-arrays, rather than propagating revisions for the sake of forcing mere humans to learn new ways of doing old things... like a certain OS which I could name. Open Office, at least for me, is still very much a "going concern", regardless of that for which it pines.

When you're On Call, only you can hear the silence of the clicks


Re: Black Ops?? ;-)

Did I hear some anonymous coward say something about "black ops"?

(BTW - isn't that a contradiction in terms?)

Having drunk WAY too much alcohol one night, I was awakened by the alarm.

My roommate asked me if I had been the one who "ralphed" out the window during the night.

I asked if he'd locked the door... which he had.

Even after hours of "paying homage to the porcelain god", which had left me incredibly sore, particularly in the abdominal muscles... and bruised knees and buttocks from "hugging the throne", I had somehow stumbled over to his side of the room, opened the old-fashioned tilt-out (rather than lift-up) window, then proceeded to do a "technicolor yawn"...

right down the side of the building... from three floors up.

Bleary-eyed and draggin' ass, I looked across the narrow alley to the neighboring barracks... to the first floor office directly across from my room... the office which belonged to a CAPTAIN in the Army.

I was mere lowly airman... in the AIR FORCE. One word, even delivered with a grin, from that captain to MY major... and I'd be... probably flushed down the toilet myself.




Quickly (well, as quickly as I could!) I tied several sheets together, into a make-shift rope, hung a bottle of Windex by its trigger from one belt loop, and tugged a rag into the opposite side, then rappelled out the third-floor window to begin cleaning my mess.

Ah! Thank God! The second floor window beneath my own was closed!

Further down the wall I clean...

Oh... Oh NO... the FIRST floor window was OPEN!

Peer inside... no... no one visible... no angry NCO glaring at me across a mess...

QUICKLY... and QUIETLY... clean the window, inside and out, until it's spotless... then quietly close it... and pray... as I climb back up the 'rope' and back into my own room.

And yes, people noticed the single spotless patch... vertical stripe... of wall beneath my room.

Four years after Europe sorted this, America is still going around in circles on data privacy in stuffy hearings


Re: Ownership of personal data

If I remember the reasoning correctly, they shut the site down because:

1) Some of the data belonged to people who died between the data being posted to the website, and the date that the GDPR was passed.

2) A *lot* of the people whose data had been posted had changed email addresses over the intervening years, and couldn't be contacted to get the new required permissions.

In the end, the owners/operators of the website simply judged that it was too impractical or expensive (in time and effort) to comply with the new rules... so they complied by shutting it down.

(BTW, those are NOT "BS reasons"... I know for a fact that one of the gents in question had passed on, but didn't learn that until much later, when I finally made contact with someone else who HAD been in contact with him prior to his death... and there were numerous cases when I tried to contact people by email, only to receive an "undeliverable" notice.)


Re: "US states try to hold on to their independence"

LDS - I have to disagree with you here...

"It's the concentration of wealth in a few hands that means the wealth for everybody else shrinks."


Your statement says that you perceive wealth to be a finite thing, and therefore, it's a "zero-sum game".

It's NOT. The available wealth keeps growing.

Just for example, OIL was worthless five-hundred years ago... but look what it did for a bunch of Arab sheikhs, for example.

Even the wind has hard monetary value these days, since owners of wind generators will pay to harness the wind blowing over your land.

Other things, especially some metals, have gone from being of little-to-no-value, to being very valuable indeed, as we find uses/needs for them.

These days, you can go to your local hospital and get better medical care than the richest kings, queens, and so on could get just a hundred years ago.

In 1929, we had a HUGE depression here in the US, "The Great Depression". MANY people literally starved to death.

Here in the US, a lot of pundits claimed that the depression of 2008 was even worse... but only if you looked ONLY at purely financial data... NO ONE STARVED TO DEATH... and very few people "flew" out of the windows or off the roofs of tall buildings... unlike in 1929.

Returning to the more common meaning of "wealth" though...

Just because someone like Jeff Bezos, or Mark Zuckerberg, et al, become multi-billionaires, or even "gazillionaires"... does that make *you* (or anyone else) less "wealthy"? Poorer?


In fact, both men helped to make quite a few other people wealthy... if they were smart enough to get in on the stock market early.

In short, though, if you've got enough money for the things that you need, you are quite a bit wealthier, in REAL terms.

For his day, George Washington was quite a wealthy man... and yet he couldn't afford a decent set of dentures (by today's standard of decent).


Re: "US states try to hold on to their independence"

"And thinking companies are far better than governments is a silly idea that brought the entire world into the actual crises."


Hell, they might even be WORSE... IF THEY HAD THE POWER THAT GOVERNMENTS HAVE... but they DON'T!

Google can't tax you... (although they might decide to charge a fee, which you can then refuse to pay simply by not using them)... they can't throw you in jail, or worse, a gulag... or put a gun to your head.

It's pretty hard to be a tyrant, no matter how evil you might be, when you just don't have POWER.


Re: "US states try to hold on to their independence"

In reference to this one comment:

"... they balk at the idea of an ID card, but are willingly to let FB & C. profile them down to inside their pants."

The "balking at the idea of an ID card" is really NOT about privacy... it's about pure politics.

The people who complained about ID cards, specifically in conjunction with laws about VOTING, were objecting to how some people might then be prevented from voting.

In 1960, in some places, that might have been a legitimate concern.

Back then, we had "Jim Crow laws" which were specifically intended to disenfranchise some legitimate voters... namely Blacks... to prevent them from voting.

More recently, the picture ID's being discussed were done so, once again, in the context of voting... but it was to prevent NON-CITIZENS from being able to vote in our elections.

THIS TIME, it would have been quite difficult to "sneak" into blocking legal citizens from being able to vote. The only ones who would have a hard time getting that government-issued photo ID would have been illegal aliens... which was rather the POINT of it.


Re: "that we want privacy FROM THE GOVERNMENT."

Facebook, Google, et al, aren't going to come arrest us for something... like a 16yo kid having a beer after a football game, or watching an R-rated movie, or making out with his same-aged girlfriend.

The government MIGHT do that.

The big difference here is needing/wanting privacy from people who DO have authority over you... the ability to punish you.

Therefore, it simply doesn't matter NEARLY AS MUCH, if Google et al would be any "better"... because they don't have any AUTHORITY... unless you work for them, and then, the worst that they could do, would be to fire you.

"The government... is a monster..."

No, our government is not a monster... and I'm aware that some people might disagree with me, and have cause to do so... like the people of North Vietnam circa 1970, just to name one group.

It is not, however, generally a monster to its own people...

unlike some governments in recent history, and currently, for example the Nazi government of 1939-1945.


I wasn't really complaining about the GDPR, only giving an example of how it had negatively impacted me.

Democracy isn't "parenting"...

Well, there I have to disagree with you... because in some places it IS.

Of course, that's not an inherent trait... just one that sometimes happens, depending on the people who vote and the people they elect... and the way that elected, democratic, government BEHAVES.

To give you an example...

The mayor of New York passed a city ordinance to add/raise taxes on soft drinks sold in volumes over a certain size... to help reduce obesity.

That's a VERY "parental" (or patriarchal, or matriarchal) behavior.

That's a fairly recent example. Here in the US, we have a group of mostly older taxes which we actually refer to as "sin taxes"... intended to raise money by "punishing" people for "immoral" behavior, such as smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, and so on. There were other laws, too... "blue laws" which forced certain businesses (like bars, but even grocery stores in some states) to be closed on certain days or at certain times, and so on.

By and large, the "sin taxes" still exist, and have, in MANY cases, only been increased.

The "blue laws" have largely been repealed... but DO have other purposes. Some were also "labor laws" which forced businesses to give their workers at least one day off. Others were intended to protect kids from being exposed to more adult things.

"...to protect less powerful citizens from the powerful ones."

I agree... but governments CAN cross a line... and not only can, but DO... and thus the need to limit them.

To give another example from history... Nazi Germany... where Hitler and his cabal claimed that they were "protecting real Germans (aka Aryans) from the (allegedly too powerful) Jews."

A more recent example could be the USA's "Patriot Act", post 9-11, written into law "to protect us", but which has led to some rather infamous violations of privacy.


Re: "US states try to hold on to their independence"

"Anyways, not true, look at marijuana; some state laws are looser than the federal law."

Marijuana is one of VERY few exceptions... where state laws are (in some states) looser than federal law.

Marijuana is also still a gray area... mostly because the federal government hasn't, yet, decided to object to the states having looser laws. I strongly suspect that this is due to the (apparent) fact that marijuana has legitimate medical applications.


Re: Ownership of personal data

Here's a real-world example for you...

A few years ago, I was a member of a site where people volunteered to exchange a certain type of info, in order to connect with other people with a similar interest... and similar "data".

After the EU passed that privacy law, the entire site went down... gone... poof.

Now, it's a lot harder for me to connect with those people... and that was an entirely voluntary sharing of data.


Re: "US states try to hold on to their independence"

A few answers for you...

Yes, states have to follow federal law.

Yes, federal law preempts state laws... unless the state laws are even MORE strict.

(A good example is California's pollution laws being more strict than federal law. Another example

is that federal law might allow 18yo to drink/purchase alcohol, while a specific state can set the

minimum age to be higher, such as 21.)

"It's funny after all US people believe they can have freedom without privacy."

It's a bit more nuanced than that, here in the US... and there are, BROADLY, two opinions.

On the first matter... I think it's basically unanimous, that we want privacy FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

Our Constitution and courts ensure and protect that... with some failures, and within limits.

Then, when it comes to privacy from things like private corporations, there are the two basic camps,

those who want the privacy, and those who either don't care or believe the individual should have the responsibility.

For myself, just for an example...

Do I care if FB sells info that I'm a male, and wear jeans? No. Even what size/style? No.


Hell yes, I care... which is why I won't give it to them.

MORE than that, those databases are eventually going to get HACKED... and obviously hackers don't obey the laws... so I try to *think* about what data I'm giving out, with the knowledge that it probably WILL get stolen, eventually, or at least MIGHT get stolen.

Americans are also accustomed to "commercialization"... we watch TV... and those TV shows are paid for by commercial advertisements... not by a yearly fee/license that we pay.

Adding even more nuance...

SOME Americans live in certain states, like New York and California, where the state exhibits more control... sort of like parents... parents who are sometimes benevolent, sometimes abusive. Those people are ACCUSTOMED to that sort of "parental control"... ergo, that particular point in the article about Californians insisting that the state do something... and being upset because the state finally passed a law... which they are apparently not enforcing... which of course makes it rather pointless.


Re: Interesting interpretation

Thanks, Codejunky, for presenting both sides of the debate so well... and without the blatant bias of the author of the article.

At the time I post this, your comment has 6 down-votes... which I interpret to mean 6 people who follow the "shoot the messenger" school of thought... or perhaps 6 people who are simply triggered by learning that there is another side who have actual reasons supporting their own opinions/beliefs.

Uncle Sam's legal eagles finally make up their mind on internet giants' Get Out Of Jail Free card – and it's not as bad as you may fear


No moderation at all sounds like an excellent solution to me.

The good thing about the internet... I can control the "volume"... and I can control the "channel"... and of course you don't have to put up with anyone's bad breath.

Even better, this legislation MIGHT push the "platforms" to give the USERS more control over whose posts they see/read... or DON'T see/read, which is more to the point.

This PDP-11/70 was due to predict an election outcome – but no one could predict it falling over


Re: Telephone dog circuit

That poor dog needed a new pet human...

You *bang* will never *smash* humiliate me *whack* in front of *clang* the teen computer whizz *crunch* EVER AGAIN


Re: mea culpa - always check compatibility

Damn! That IBM1403 is older than *I* am!

(Although, not by much...)


Re: mea culpa - always check compatibility

When not reading my e-books on my desktop or laptop, i read them on my...

PalmOne Tungsten E2

which still works, and has no problem letting me read my new .mobi format ebooks,

and which also fits comfortably in my shirt pocket.

I can't recall exactly when it was new... mid 90's, at best guess.

I'm also still using my AT-style 101-key Keytronics keyboard on my desktop.

I bought that keyboard in the early 90's... circa 92-93, when I bought my first PC, a 386SX.


Re: Embarrassing?

Back in the late 90's, I was working tech support...

A customer called in and said his monochrome monitor, a CRT, had died on him... no output

to the screen.

The power LED was on... the cables were plugged into the correct places... and snugly.

All was to no avail, until I had him swap out the monitor with a known-good one... which

continued to work.


The monitor WAS bad!

Great... ship a new replacement monitor to the customer, have him return the bad one so

that WE can send it to OUR supplier for a replacement... all is well.

The next morning, courtesy of express overnight shipping, he's got a new monitor, plugged

it in... and WORKING.

A few days go by... we get the old monitor back via snail mail...

Just in case... we try it... to confirm it IS bad...

The monitor was an old-style amber monochrome CRT... if you turned the brightness down...

the screen would go *completely* blank... not even a faint hint of an image.

Yes... the brightness and contrast were turned all the way down. We turned them up... and yes,

it worked just fine.

A week or so later, the SAME customer called in again... with a bad CRT...


Yep, solved it again.

Pew, pew, pew! Our galaxy is shooting cold, gaseous 'bullets' of high-speed matter. Boffins are baffled


Re: Either someone's firing up the stardrive, or...

Maybe the black hole had something to do with the Darkover?

UK national debt hits 1.46 Apples – and weighs as much as 2 billion adult badgers



Sperm? or killer?

Shocking no one, not enough foreigners applied for H-1B visas this year so US govt ran a second lottery



Hollerithevo -

I think that any 'sneering' in the original comment was intended towards the COMPANIES who hire/import foreign workers, rather than those workers.



Hollerithevo - Yes, "H1-B applicants" runs the gamut of probably EVERY race and most nationalities.

The H1-B visa program is intended to allow companies to "import" workers who have skills that CAN'T be found within our own borders. It was NEVER intended as a source of "cheaper labor".

It was also intended to allow the immigration of extraordinary talent... ex., Albert Einstein...

and 'special talent' such as The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Anthony Hopkins, etc... short term to do concert tours and movies, etc., as well as "visiting academics" to teach a semester or two at a Uni.

This latter case, movie stars, is probably a big part of the DROP in the H1-B applications, with movie theaters and studios and concerts being cancelled/postponed due to Covid.



Gerdesj - I'm not sure which of the comments you intended this as a reply to, but...

H1-B applicants come from (almost?) every race, and most nations... so "racist" doesn't apply to any perceived criticism of them as an entire group. Indeed, that post didn't criticize H1-B applicants except to say that they weren't any BETTER.

Americans, likewise, come from just about every race, so, again, saying "American" isn't a racist comment, not even by a sloppy definition, much less a "dictionary definition".


The H1B and Covid things are seperate, although there's a bit of overlap.

IBM takes Power10 processors down to 7nm with Samsung, due to ship by end of 2021


Well... either 2.1 or Warp 3.0... strictly 32-bit

although, really, I was just joking.


Oh... can I run OS/2 on this thing?

Sun welcomes vampire dating website company: Arrgh! No! It burns! It buuurrrrnsss!


Re: Inappropriate garb? Me? Probably daily ...

I guess you weren't the droid it was looking for, OB1.


Re: Inappropriate garb

"Standard there [Denmark] (if you are technical, not sales) was jeans and shirt (or polo), all in decent condition. Probably even ironed."

WOW... I knew I liked Danishes, oops, I mean Danish, for a reason!

Ironed jeans? Sounds like home!

How about a cowboy hat and boots?


Re: Inappropriate garb

I'll never again work a job that requires me to wear a noose... oops... a tie.

If they expect me to wear slacks, they'll have to pay for it.

I'm strictly a jeans and nice shirt type of guy, except on formal occasions.

How do you feel about single-use plastics? OK, interesting. Now tell us your views on surprise Windows updates


Re: Fear

Reminds me of their old (?) marketing strategy... FUD... FEAR, Uncertainty, and Doubt.

Still, it also sounds like job security for all those MSCE's etc...


Re: Keep New Zealand on the map!

Remember... when you go to the Home Depot, the toilets on display are NOT connected to plumbing.

Please don't poop in the dis-play toilets.


Re: Tiny?

Flock -


Texas alone more than 676K km^2

I guess "tiny" is relative.

Someone made an AI that predicted gender from email addresses, usernames. It went about as well as expected


Re: Work with facts

It's been a while, but...

According to "The Concise Oxford Dictionary Of Current English- 1912"

definition of "gender"

1) defines it according to the grammatical usage in "gendered" languages, such as French, Spanish, Italian, German, etc...

2) "sex"

That's it for the second definition... gender=sex

NASA to stop using names like 'Eskimo Nebula' and 're-examine' what it calls cosmic objects


Re: Ban all Homonyms!

"Racism now includes a "power" element..."

Only if we the people LET them change it.

We can refuse to accept that new one, and keep using the word in its older meaning, and thereby refute the new one.


Re: Ban all Homonyms!

Is it just me, or does that "boo tcamp" sound a lot like a "re-eduction camp"?

An effort at "policing thoughts", as well as language...


Re: Human Nature

In my opinion (and experience), "JDX" put the cart before the horse.

Language does not "inform" behavior and culture... but REFLECT it... both.

The language and culture adapt... change... grow... and then language changes to reflect those things.


Re: Human Nature

It isn't a matter of them projecting FEARS...

Do you remember the old saw/aphorism, back when you were a kid... that "the first to smell the fart (and point the finger), was probably the one who farted?"

Did you ever wonder why the first people to cry out "Sexism!" are the extreme feminists, aka feminazis?

What do you want to bet that most of the people complaining about how this or that is racist... are, themselves, quite racist?


Re: White dwarf

No... they'll allow the "white dwarfs"... so that they can get them to pay reparations for all their guilt and privilege.


Or choice...

c) Scared of losing funding from hyper-woke S4B Congresspersons.


Re: Languages


I was thinking mostly of the...

Romance - French, Spanish, Italian, Rumanian... (Portuguese?)

Germanic - German, Dutch, Scandinavian, (but not, of course, English)

Slavic - Russian, Czech, Slovak, Slovene, Bulgarian (?), etc...

Finnish... well... I know almost nothing about Finnish, including even which group it might belong to, other than (probably) Indo-European... other than that it has so many damned CASES that it seems rather improbable that they could possibly have overlooked the added complication of genders. <grin>

And I overlooked Celtic, Gaelic, and Welsh...


Re: Ban all Homonyms!

I can give most of these people the benefit of the doubt... believe that they just have good intentions.

(Innocent until proven guilty, as SOME have already confessed to being racists.)

At the same time, these people are a good example of why we have that old saying...

"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

No matter what their INTENT might be, SOME of the RESULTS of this crap are going to be...

Very Bad Indeed.


Re: Languages

You left out an interesting one...

"Das Maedchen"...

Das is neuter... but "Maedchen" means "girl".

If "we're" going to get rid of every gendered language... that's pretty much all of the European languages except for English.


Re: Languages

No! Not "neuter"! It's "neither", darn it, as in "nonbinary"... and I think the count is up to something like fifty versions of nonbinary? (This week. It'll be more next week!)


Re: Ban all Homonyms!

No! Then we wouldn't be able to have pun!