goldinero

I recently read about a company called Nethercomm that is promoting a broadband in gas technology. Apparently, this company has some patents pending on devices that can be installed in gas pipelines that go to commercial and residential buildings to provide the "last mile" connection for broadband.It appears the technology is based on radio frequencies propogated down the gas pipe as a wave guide. Nethercomm boasts data rates up to 40 Mbps are possible to the home.Anyone know of any actual implementation/trials of this technology going on presently?

The RFID technology referred to in a previous post is already being implanted in humans. I saw a Fox News program that indicated in a New Jersey hospital these are being promoted heavily in the emergency room as a way to save lives.Several RFID companies are producing products that could be used subcutaneously. But the VeriChip (http://www.4verichip.com/) seems to be leading the pack. I read an article indicating these chips are being put into security personnel in Mexico and are even being promoted in some night clubs for financial transactions, i.e., no more credit card necessary.I even read somewhere that the next generation of these chips will include GPS for easy tracking of the user. This use, of course, is to track missing children. But it may be used for tracking anyone (how convenient). Anyway, do a Google search on VeriChip and RFID implants and you can read a lot of this stuff for yourself.

I'm curious what firewalls you folks use to protect your computers. I have ZoneAlarm on my Windows box. I am looking at setting up a stand-alone Linux box with some kind of firewall and wonder which is the best to use. Any ideas?

Cool! I never knew these different services existed. Is the access secure, using SSL or some other encrypted means to access the PC?

I don't know exactly what happens when a person dies. And I don't believe anyone else does either. The only way to know would be to die. And though some have claimed to die and come back to life, how can we be sure they were really dead in the first place?I think it's important to believe in an afterlife, but I wouldn't be so arrogant as to call anyone else a liar who believes in a certain kind of afterlife or in no afterlife at all. Who am I to judge? And if you're a Bible-believer, I think your Lord would ask you, "who are you to judge?" too.

My neighbors are a pain too. Fortunately, the neighbors on one side of me only play their classic rock music too loud on Friday nights. But the neighbors on the other side of me seem to think they have a right to walk all over my property... that really upsets me!

Looks pretty good to me. My suggestion would be to have the text pause after it finishes scrolling to the left, then fade out, then have the Xisto text suddenly appear.

PHP and Perl both allow you to process web page forms. Many people here seem to like PHP. I like Perl, which is also a server-side scripting language. Perl has been around a long time and many good scripts use it. Xisto supports Perl too. You can put your Perl scripts in your cgi-bin directory and call them by putting something in your browser like: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ Happy programming! Goldinero

I had always thought that in the United States, separation of church and state meant that the state (government) did not influence or control the church (religious gatherings, organization, etc.). I believe that was the original intent. But it recently came to my intention that separation of church and state is rarely practiced by the church.What I mean is that every major religion that I am aware of is incorporated as a non-profit or not-for-profit organization. The reasons for incorporating are many, but seem to primarily consist of getting certain protections and privileges only afforded incorporated entities.So how does incorporating violate the fundamental belief that people in the United States enjoy separation of church and state? Because every corporation, for-profit or not-for-profit, is a person created by the state. And to have a separation between church and state, you certainly can not have the church as a state-created entity.I am not saying that NO churches are separate from the state. But those that are incorporated certainly are not. And pastors of these churches are likely influenced by the state as to what they can or cannot preach. Although this influence may be very subtle, it is there.

dtygel has some valid points. I've never heard of a complementary currency system before, but it sounds a lot like the Social Credit system proposed in Canada circa 1930. Refer to the links below: The Money Myth Exploded Social Credit: Make Your Own Bank Although people like to think the United States as the epitomy of pure capitalism, I'd challenge that thought. The banking system in the US is a pure monopoly regulated entirely to the benefit of those who own it. And the existing fractional banking system promotes scarcity of money and, therefore, poverty. Banks create money by making so-called loans. But the amount of money created by these loans only covers the principal. The interest is never created. Since all money comes from loans and the interest on loans can only be paid by new loans, foreclosures and bankruptcies are unavoidable. Inflation is also unavoidable. In a purely capitalist economy, there would be no banking monopoly. Money would be created by private enterprise and its value determined by the free market. Junk money would be quickly abandoned and solid money would be quickly adopted. Who knows? Perhaps a complementary currency system will lead to that end.

Apparently you are a lawyer. I am not. Therefore I am not qualified to interpret law. I may "imply" that I will abide by the State's law, but if I am not qualified to interpret it, how can I abide by it? Also, any police officer that pulls me over for a traffic violation must interpret the law to enforce it. Is a police officer qualified to interpret law? Not unless he has passed the bar exam. Although I am not a lawyer, I am a person able to make a contract. And contracts between myself and another party can be factually binding. That's why I look at the relationship between the State and an individual on a contractual level. You realize, of course, that you're forcing me to ask a couple more questions: 1) What is a citizen? 2) What factually is the Constitution of The United States of America? A citizen submits himself to the dominion of the State in exchange for protection of his rights. It's a simple contract. But it is a well established principle of law that the State is not bound to protect the individual. If it were bound to protect, then I could effectively sue the county if failed to protect my property rights or sue the police department if it failed to protect my person. But I cannot. Yet each individual citizen is bound to the governance of the State. One party to the contract (the State) is in breach and yet continues to require the other party (the individual) to perform. Regarding the Constitution, some may say that it is the supreme law of the land. But that is a legal opinion. Factually, it is an unsigned written document. How can an unsigned document written over 200 years ago by people who have been dead for over 150 years be binding on anyone today? About the vote, lets look at the presidency as an example. GW Bush was voted into office by only about 25% of the population. And I'm sure that it would be impossible to get that full 25% to agree on any one of his policies. The lack of voting in the US is a good indication that most people don't buy the propoganda that their vote counts. And those who do are often trying to vote in "the lesser of two evils." And why shouldn't they think this way? No government can represent the widely diverse opinions of the population on even one issue, much less all the issues that matter. By not voting I, along with several million other people, am making a statement . That statement is that the political process doesn't work for me. And I'm being heard. How do I know? Because thousands of dollars in airtime are spent each election year on advertisements trying to get people like me to vote. The smaller the percentage of the population that votes, the more difficult it is for politicians to show they represent the American people, and the more obvious it becomes that the political process is divorced from reality. Goldinero

As I recall, the justification for the war in Iraq had to do with the US determination that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). In the US point of view, we had "probable cause" for this war. Of course, the US found no evidence of WMDs. So a new justification for the war had to be created. Hence the link between Iraq and terrorism, even though the evidence indicates that Iraq had nothing to do with terrorist threats to the US. My personal opinion is that the war is a sham. It was instigated so that Americans would have an enemy to hate to justify spending a %#^&-load of money for absolutely no benefit to the the US or anyone else. But it has done its job. Notice that nobody seems to be asking why we're in Iraq but the so-called Al Qaida terrorist leader, Osama Bin Laden, cannot be found. How convenient is that! The war in Iraq is simply a political ploy to distract people from what is really important in life. But then, that's what most of politics is anyway. Goldinero

My all time favorite movie is The Matrix. I believe it is an excellent allegory for the fictional world in which we live. What's your choice - the blue pill or the red pill?

Yes... I've felt all that at least a few times in my life. I'm glad to have settled down. Playing the field is a lot of fun but can be painful.

Because there is an SSL Manager, I assume a person can set up a secure https website with his xyz.trap17.com domain. But the Manager indicates a dedicated IP address is necessary. I don't think we get a dedicated IP address with the free hosting service. Am I right? If so, is there a way to use a shared SSL certificate to run a secure site?Goldinero

I got approval (online, but never received Opaque's email) for free hosting and used the /process link to register my new site. Upon doing so, I input all the information and ended up with the following message:"You are suppposed to get approved for Hosting by ADMINISTRATORs."I thought I was approved. Is an admin available to help me create my account?Thanks,Goldinero

I take it you're using PHP. If you would be willing to create your form using a Perl CGI, you could use the Soupermail form script available at soupermail.sourceforge.net. It is a full-featured form script that includes PDF creation and mail capability. It'll even encrypt the email in PGP if you want. Hope this helps. Cheers! Goldinero

Some WinModems work okay in linux with the correct drivers. Go to linmodems.org and see if the information there can help you. If yours is one of the unsupported WinModems, you're out of luck. Then your best bet is to spend a few bucks on an external modem.Cheers!Goldinero

No, I am not bitter against my State because of some legal action against me. I have never been nor am I at risk for being a party any lega action. And no, I wasn't being sarcastic in my question. "Poisoning the well is a pre-emptive logical fallacy where adverse information about someone is presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting everything he is about to say." Wikipedia I don't believe I was guilty of "poisoning the well." But I learned something new about logical fallacies! I do not vote, so the governing official could not be acting on my behalf. In each of the four different so-called States in which I've lived I don't remember making an agreement with anybody about the observed law. And if I did not knowingly and willingly make such an agreement, how can it be enforceable? All laws in these States were made without anyone asking my approval. And these laws were and continue to be enforced upon me and most others whether I like it or not. Have you read the entire constitution of the State in which you reside? Do you understand all the laws that you are held accountable to obey? Did you sign an agreement that you would comply with the constitution and every law or else lose your residency in the State? I didn't. Well, since I know I have probably gotten out of hand on this discussion (do I sound argumentative here?), I'll move on to other less-volatile topics and/or move this kind of discussion to a more appropriate forum. Thanks for the feedback! Goldinero

Is the State a geographical location defined by boundaries marked on the ground? If so, where are the boundaries? I see them on a map, but when I fly between "States" I never see them on the ground. Or is the State a group of people, "a body politic" that could be spread throughout the world at any one time? 1) If the State is a geographical location, how can it bring suit against anyone else within it? How can you be sued by dirt? 2) If the State is a group of people, how can you be "within the State" for the purpose of law? Does your driver's license make you part of the State? Or is it your residence that makes you part of the State? 3) If it is your residence, then perhaps the State is nothing more than dirt. Therefore, go to #1.

You are assuming that you know what "the State" is. So now ask yourself, "What is the State?" I am starting another "What is..." under that title. I was mearly using the dictionary definition to complement the discussion. What I have discovered that I didn't know already is that jurisdiction = control. Cheers! Goldinero

I think online dating is fine for people who are mature enough to know what they're doing. Remember the movie You've Got Mail? I know a couple of people who met their mates over the internet and got married. I'm sure it's no more difficult (or desparate) than hanging out at a bar and trying to pick up on someone. Yours Online, Goldinero

They say that "in the foxholes, there are no atheists." I think it is human nature to believe in something bigger and more powerful than self. It probably gets down to that core question, "what am I here for?" and "if I die today, where will I go?"Aside from the internal mind/spirit thing, however, is a truth that regardless of our intelligence, we humans still don't have the mystery of life figured out. And there are so many unexplained things that happen in the world that are completely out of the realm of our understanding. Prayer helps people connect with that being who they believe understands the unexplainable.

I think politics is mostly worthless banter used by the few to gain control of the many. Almost everything I grew up believing I realize now is untrue. Most of the "realities" of life are only assumptions I accepted as true thanks to conditioning from my parents and society. The truth is that it is all a massive public relations scheme. It is a rather bleak view, I admit, but more accurate than any political one.

What is "jurisdiction?" According to Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., it is "the legal right by which judges exercise their authority." Also, "it exists when court has cognizance of class of cases involved, proper parties are present, and point to be decided is within powers of court." Although I'm no lawyer, I've heard that a court cannot try a case if it has no jurisdiction over it. In other words, a state court cannot try a federal case. But jurisdiction is also important for smaller issues. Consider a traffic violation... a speeding ticket. Typically, this type of case is a civil one in which the State is bringing a case against the speeding driver. If I go to traffic court I could have the following conversation with the police officer in the witness chair: Me: What is your jurisdiction? Officer: The State. Me: So if I wasn't in the State at the time of the alleged violation, would I be guilty? Officer: No. Me: Exactly what is the State, factually? At this point, not only is it likely that the officer doesn't know the answer. It is also likely that the prosecuting attorney and/or judge will not allow him to answer. The reason is that jurisdiction is determined legally, not factually, and the officer, not a lawyer, cannot draw a legal conclusion in court. Not only that, if he said that the State was a geographic area, it would contradict the definition of the State being used to bring a case against me in the first place. Recall that the State is bringing the case against me. How can a geographic area (the ground I'm standing on) bring a case against me? Food for thought? I hope so.