Slashdot Mirror

China to require registration for text messaging Thursday February 02, @12:44PM Rejected

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/HB03Cb 04.html

Had this story been posted this wouldn't be news.

In fact we will

It absolutely was. We used to have monopoly protection. When one company buys all the rest, competition goes WAY down. In an oligopoly, even, there is almost tacit agreement between corporations. As long as they all fuck everyone at the same time, they all reap the benefits.

I believe you are referring to the tendencies to not only monopolize, but to form conglomerates and cartels.

Development on the Dragon CPU isn't working out too well, then?

Had 60 million Americans been living next to Germany it would've swept through them just as easily. Enough with the bullshit.

"Unfortunately, very few among the general population in Western Europe and the US seem to know that historians do not debate whether the war was won by the Soviet or Anglo-Saxon effort, but on how long the Soviet victory would have been postponed if the landing at the beach in Normandy, France, had not taken place. How many know that at the time of the celebrated landing, in June 1944, four-fifths of the German forces were on the Eastern front, trying in vain to stop the mounting Red Army offensive? How many of those Western European international relations or history students know that 27 million Soviet citizens lost their lives in this war, compared to the 295,000 Americans killed mostly in the war against Japan and the 380,000 British civilians and soldiers killed on both fronts?" http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/GF02Dh03.html (nevermind that this is a japanese source, this is a well-established historical fact beyond dispute that I just cited the first I found on googling it, I've long known it and read it in Western publications, ask any respected Western historian or google for it)

The Americans, as usual, came late to the party and stole the photo-op. Enough with the bullshit. The Americans were essentially insignificant in the war against Germany. Their most significant contribution were the war crimes of firebombing the civilian population of Tokyo where 100,000 civilians died in 1 night (Watch 11 lessons from the life of Robert McNamara where he himself tells in detail how he carried out that plan and cites that number of 100,000 civilians burned alive in 1 night) and then the dropping of two nuclear bombs over civilian japanese populations. And then they dare put the Germans officials on trial for war crimes and call Germany "evil"! Such bullshit!

I have been modded down the other day for stating the truth about Churchill - you guys live in bullshit tales about history and don't like to hear the truth. I bothers me much how there can be such bullshit about a history so recent and such persistent belief in lies amongst the mass population even though historians are in no debate about the issues.

Wow, you are so wrong and misguided it isn't even funny.

The war against India was not imperialistic at all; it was a border dispute that India was getting too agressive about; we attacked them, taught them a lesson, and backed out. If we were so imperialistic, why don't we hold any Indian territory today? In fact those same territories that were under dispute then are still under dispute now.

Wow, guess who else is so wrong and misguided? Have you picked up a history book or bothered to look at multiple sources of history to see what actually happened in the 1962 Sino-Indian War? It was completely because of imperialistic desires; among other things, it provided a "bridge" into Tibet, which China claims as its own. There were protests in India and China over this occupation. Ethinically and geographically it belongs to either Tibet (a free one) or India -- definitely not China. Are you even aware of what China said was its valid reason for conquering the territory? It was to "liberate three million Tibetans from imperialist aggression, to complete the unification of the whole of China, and to safeguard the frontier regions of the country." What utter nonsense!

And guess who started the war? Like you said, the Chinese. First, the Chinese took over whatever it felt necessary (Tibet) and started heading towards the Indian border. Second, India put up a military to safegaurd what was clearly its boundary -- a good bit behind what China already claimed at that point. Then, the Chinese decided that border patrol was an act of agression and felt validated conquering MORE territory. And, no they haven't left, yet? Hence the "dispute". So why did India not press itself militaristically? Because India did not have a military set up that China already did in the region; it is hard terrain that India has to play cath up with. So, it remains a "border dispute" that China guards agressively.

The current Chinese foriegn policy towards India dictates, basically, containment. Yeah... no imperialism there! I wouldn't be surprised if you more of your post has it "so" wrong; heads up moderators -- the parent is spouting bullshit.

Some sources:

Asia Times: India in China

The battle for the border

The Sino-Indian War

1962 Sino-Indian War: An Overview

Where does China turn when it shops for military weapons? In a word, Russia. According to the Russian Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST), China constitutes the largest single importer of post-Soviet Russian arms and military equipment, with purchases ranging between 30% and 50% of Russia's entire annual deliveries.

Without those arms exports to China, Russia would lack the funds to modernize its own military. In fact, in the past Russia has prohibited the export of certain of its military aircraft, or production licenses, to China only to revoke the ban later on.

Gearheads were the exception, not the rule, among the youth of society when I was growing up. I would say the same is true of whatever the dominant tech is of the day. That in itself should be obvious!

The important thing to remember is this: http://atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GI30Dj02.h tml

I think he's responding more to two very recognizable trends and packaged it as "the death of the workstation":

1. The growing laptop unit sales versus the average slow-growth workstation unit sales.

2. The decline in wealth and political influence of the American middle-class. (using mode not mean or median, see asia times for some IMF reporting http://atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/EH16Dj01.h tml)

3. There are more companies where it's perfectly okay to treat employees like the developers at EA widely reported on some months ago. So squeeze all potential productivity out of a worker, because the computers and applications and resources we have been so generous in providing are enough to do the job.

Frankly, to believe that the earth's population is expanding - rather than beginning its descent into a death spiral - is akin to believing that the earth is flat, rather than round.

Again, I cannot overemphasize the importance of the work that "SPENGLER" is doing at the Asia Times:

The Complete Spengler

What you have said is absolutely false. The world is in the middle of a population implosion the likes of which we haven't seen since the Black Plague.

If you are at all curious about these things, I cannot overemphasize the importance of the work that a pseudonymous author is doing at the Asia Times, under the name "Spengler":

The Complete Spengler

PS: No one knows what will happen to these nations as they enter their death spirals. Almost all socio-economic models are based on the idea of a expanding population, and no one knows what will happen to these societies as their populations begin to contract.

By means of comparison, almost all financial models are based on an assumption of an increasing money supply [what we call "inflation"]. However, the only time this nation ever experienced a monetary deflation [when the Federal Reserve foolishly contracted the money supply in the late 1920s], we entered a two decade long economic calamity so terrible that it is now known as "The Great Depression".

Taiwan's attitude on this is just as bad, even though small-scale underground piracy thrives. Didn't you hear that a few years ago, they raided university dorms to confiscate computers with mp3s on them? Heck, look at this article:

http://www.atimes.com/china/CD10Ad02.html

The moral of the story: NEVER underestimate a marxist's capacity for self-immolation.

PS: If you are at all interested in this sort of thing, I cannot recommend highly enough the work of the pseudonymous author "Spengler", at the Asia Times:

The Complete Spengler

The moral of the story: NEVER underestimate a marxist's capacity for self-immolation.

PS: If you are at all interested in this sort of thing, I cannot recommend highly enough the work of the pseudonymous author "Spengler", at the Asia Times:

The Complete Spengler

You seem to have some confusion about politics in the US because you are putting it exclusively in terms of political parties.

No, I put it in terms of ideologies and parties.

You can't make the kind of comparison you're trying to make because the fundamental framework in which politics takes place is different in the US and most European countries, which are what I assume you're referring to.

Europe, Canada... yes. And they are human beings just like us; that is the 'fundamental' that counts. If you can't relate at this point, then there is likely nothing I can do to help it. And don't tell me that the US Constitution makes looting agreements like CAFTA or NAFTA necessary. We could pushing agreements that resemble the EU framework, which accounts for human rights... but we do not.

The US Constitution does not make this necessary.

Also, your 'quality of life' argument is a crock, as are all 'quality of life' arguments, because the speaker always simply defines the term to mean what he wants.

That's pretty sweeping... Have I hit a nerve?? The United Nations seems to value quality of life as a concept, as do many countries. You are welcome to visit their site and read the reports along with their methodology. Of course here in the US it is all about GDP, which is assuredly the biggest "crock" currently getting lipservice.

"President Bush, Latin America is calling with offers of aid... Mr. President? Mr. President???"

Looks like voting for oligarch-vetted so-called "individuals" has its sharp pitfalls.

Communications satellites are about one thing-- pushing as much data through with as little energy as possible. A *lot* of the mass of a satellite is in the power subsystem, and a lot of that won't scale down as well as it scales up.

Then there's the communications issue itself. If you have an array of satellites serving one area, you stand a greater chance of require *two* earth-satellite-earth hops, once through the satellite serving the source, and one for the destination. If you have a single satellite, you can reduce that to one hop (assuming the communications system is capable of point-to-point communications, and is not stuck with point-to-gateway communications).

I don't see pico sats affecting the communications industry right now-- perhaps in a couple of decades, but maybe not. Considering Shin satellite just launched the largest (most massive, with the most bandwidth) satellite ever, there still seems to be life left in the big boys.

what insight! India truly is known as a bastion of free commerce and governmental non-intervention. wherever you look, the License-Raj is a shining example of what capitalism should be.

Fuck you.

http://www.geocities.com/japanfaq/FAQ-Prices.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4075536.stm

http://www.japanwindow.com/archives/2005/02/

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/GE17Ad01.html

http://www.asiaweek.com/asiaweek/95/0818/biz1.html

I strongly disagree to your disagreement. So, here we go: http://www.geocities.com/japanfaq/FAQ-Prices.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4075536.stm http://www.japanwindow.com/archives/2005/02/ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/GE17Ad01.html http://www.asiaweek.com/asiaweek/95/0818/biz1.html Ah, geez. Whatta ya know. Nothing like a bibiolography to bring a house of cards down.

The picture is tainted. IT services make up less than 10% of India's GDP. Even though India might not represent a big market opportunity right now, but it is among the fastest growing market in every field - cars, cellphone, computers.

oh please, why is it always a conspiracy theory just because you don't know about it personally? I'll even give you some Newsmax sources,

"The Chinese air force is equipped with the Harpy medium-range anti-radar missile acquired from Israel, and its new Chengdu J-10 strike fighter uses technology obtained from the canceled Israeli Lavi program. link

Here we go from the Asian Times, " Israel has also been a long-standing supplier of advanced military technologies to China. According to the findings of a past US congressional committee chaired by Representative Christopher Cox (Republican-California), Israel has "offered significant technology cooperation to the People's Republic of China, especially in aircraft and missile development", including helping China build its current F-10 fighter jet." LINK

Here's a nice article from the Jerusalem Post about the u.s. suspending cooperative development on the arrow-2 missile defence system with Israel. quote, "A source quoted by MENL explained the rationale for the encroaching US boycott: "It's all about China." As the report explained, "The Pentagon, with full support of the administration, does not want to deal with Israeli products or technology that could be sent to China."

There's plenty more information available from all your favourite right-wing sources about the chinese-israeli love affair that's been going on for 20 years. You just have to look because FoxNews & CNN are not interested in telling you about it.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/FD01Ad01.html

is the reference I forgot...

http://atimes.com/media/CI22Ce01.html Open source hardware and software. Yep, those Indians are useless. :P There's nothing magic about the US's (or the EU's or anyone else's) software developers.

Add to the fact that India has been the biggest VICTIM of international terrorism. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/FF16Df03.h tml

Naomi Klein has interviewed Giuliana Sgrena in Rome. The revelations in this Democracy Now interview of Klein significantly challenge the stories we've heard thus far in the press:

One of the things that we keep hearing is that she was fired on on the road to the airport, which is a notoriously dangerous road. In fact, it's often described as the most dangerous road in the world. So this is treated as a fairly common and understandable incident that there would be a shooting like this on that road. And I was on that road myself, and it is a really treacherous place with explosions going off all the time and a lot of checkpoints. What Giuliana told me that I had not realized before is that she wasn't on that road at all. She was on a completely different road that I actually didn't know existed. It's a secured road that you can only enter through the Green Zone and is reserved exclusively for ambassadors and top military officials. So, when Calipari, the Italian security intelligence officer, released her from captivity, they drove directly to the Green Zone, went through the elaborate checkpoint process which everyone must go through to enter the Green Zone, which involves checking in obviously with U.S. forces, and then they drove onto this secured road. And the other thing that Giuliana told me that she's quite frustrated about is the description of the vehicle that fired on her as being part of a checkpoint. She says it wasn't a checkpoint at all. It was simply a tank that was parked on the side of the road that opened fire on them. There was no process of trying to stop the car, she said, or any signals. From her perspective, they were just -- it was just opening fire by a tank. The other thing she told me that was surprising to me was that they were fired on from behind. Because I think part of what we're hearing is that the U.S. soldiers opened fire on their car, because they didn't know who they were, and they were afraid. It was self-defense, they were afraid. The fear, of course, is that their car might blow up or that they might come under attack themselves. And what Giuliana Sgrena really stressed with me was that she -- the bullet that injured her so badly and that killed Calipari, came from behind, entered the back seat of the car. And the only person who was not severely injured in the car was the driver, and she said that this is because the shots weren't coming from the front or even from the side. They were coming from behind, i.e. they were driving away. So, the idea that this was an act of self-defense, I think becomes much more questionable. And that detail may explain why there's some reticence to give up the vehicle for inspection. Because if indeed the majority of the gunfire is coming from behind, then clearly, they were firing from -- they were firing at a car that was driving away from them.

There's more....

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/2 5/1516242&mode=thread&tid=25

Why won't the US let the Italians inspect the car? The Italians purchased the car from the rental company so they can do forensics. The US won't let them have the car. Why not? Hello? Bueller? Bueller?

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GD28Ak01.html

Klein then gave an extensive in

Naomi Klein has interviewed Giuliana Sgrena in Rome. The revelations in this Democracy Now interview of Klein significantly challenge the stories we've heard thus far in the press:

One of the things that we keep hearing is that she was fired on on the road to the airport, which is a notoriously dangerous road. In fact, it's often described as the most dangerous road in the world. So this is treated as a fairly common and understandable incident that there would be a shooting like this on that road. And I was on that road myself, and it is a really treacherous place with explosions going off all the time and a lot of checkpoints. What Giuliana told me that I had not realized before is that she wasn't on that road at all. She was on a completely different road that I actually didn't know existed. It's a secured road that you can only enter through the Green Zone and is reserved exclusively for ambassadors and top military officials. So, when Calipari, the Italian security intelligence officer, released her from captivity, they drove directly to the Green Zone, went through the elaborate checkpoint process which everyone must go through to enter the Green Zone, which involves checking in obviously with U.S. forces, and then they drove onto this secured road. And the other thing that Giuliana told me that she's quite frustrated about is the description of the vehicle that fired on her as being part of a checkpoint. She says it wasn't a checkpoint at all. It was simply a tank that was parked on the side of the road that opened fire on them. There was no process of trying to stop the car, she said, or any signals. From her perspective, they were just -- it was just opening fire by a tank. The other thing she told me that was surprising to me was that they were fired on from behind. Because I think part of what we're hearing is that the U.S. soldiers opened fire on their car, because they didn't know who they were, and they were afraid. It was self-defense, they were afraid. The fear, of course, is that their car might blow up or that they might come under attack themselves. And what Giuliana Sgrena really stressed with me was that she -- the bullet that injured her so badly and that killed Calipari, came from behind, entered the back seat of the car. And the only person who was not severely injured in the car was the driver, and she said that this is because the shots weren't coming from the front or even from the side. They were coming from behind, i.e. they were driving away. So, the idea that this was an act of self-defense, I think becomes much more questionable. And that detail may explain why there's some reticence to give up the vehicle for inspection. Because if indeed the majority of the gunfire is coming from behind, then clearly, they were firing from -- they were firing at a car that was driving away from them.

There's more....

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/2 5/1516242&mode=thread&tid=25

Why won't the US let the Italians inspect the car? The Italians purchased the car from the rental company so they can do forensics. The US won't let them have the car. Why not? Hello? Bueller? Bueller?

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GD28Ak01.html

Klein then gave an extensive in

Naomi Klein has interviewed Giuliana Sgrena in Rome. The revelations in this Democracy Now interview of Klein significantly challenge the stories we've heard thus far in the press:

One of the things that we keep hearing is that she was fired on on the road to the airport, which is a notoriously dangerous road. In fact, it's often described as the most dangerous road in the world. So this is treated as a fairly common and understandable incident that there would be a shooting like this on that road. And I was on that road myself, and it is a really treacherous place with explosions going off all the time and a lot of checkpoints. What Giuliana told me that I had not realized before is that she wasn't on that road at all. She was on a completely different road that I actually didn't know existed. It's a secured road that you can only enter through the Green Zone and is reserved exclusively for ambassadors and top military officials. So, when Calipari, the Italian security intelligence officer, released her from captivity, they drove directly to the Green Zone, went through the elaborate checkpoint process which everyone must go through to enter the Green Zone, which involves checking in obviously with U.S. forces, and then they drove onto this secured road. And the other thing that Giuliana told me that she's quite frustrated about is the description of the vehicle that fired on her as being part of a checkpoint. She says it wasn't a checkpoint at all. It was simply a tank that was parked on the side of the road that opened fire on them. There was no process of trying to stop the car, she said, or any signals. From her perspective, they were just -- it was just opening fire by a tank. The other thing she told me that was surprising to me was that they were fired on from behind. Because I think part of what we're hearing is that the U.S. soldiers opened fire on their car, because they didn't know who they were, and they were afraid. It was self-defense, they were afraid. The fear, of course, is that their car might blow up or that they might come under attack themselves. And what Giuliana Sgrena really stressed with me was that she -- the bullet that injured her so badly and that killed Calipari, came from behind, entered the back seat of the car. And the only person who was not severely injured in the car was the driver, and she said that this is because the shots weren't coming from the front or even from the side. They were coming from behind, i.e. they were driving away. So, the idea that this was an act of self-defense, I think becomes much more questionable. And that detail may explain why there's some reticence to give up the vehicle for inspection. Because if indeed the majority of the gunfire is coming from behind, then clearly, they were firing from -- they were firing at a car that was driving away from them.

There's more....

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/2 5/1516242&mode=thread&tid=25

Why won't the US let the Italians inspect the car? The Italians purchased the car from the rental company so they can do forensics. The US won't let them have the car. Why not? Hello? Bueller? Bueller?

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GD28Ak01.html

Klein then gave an extensive in

Naomi Klein has interviewed Giuliana Sgrena in Rome. The revelations in this Democracy Now interview of Klein significantly challenge the stories we've heard thus far in the press:

One of the things that we keep hearing is that she was fired on on the road to the airport, which is a notoriously dangerous road. In fact, it's often described as the most dangerous road in the world. So this is treated as a fairly common and understandable incident that there would be a shooting like this on that road. And I was on that road myself, and it is a really treacherous place with explosions going off all the time and a lot of checkpoints. What Giuliana told me that I had not realized before is that she wasn't on that road at all. She was on a completely different road that I actually didn't know existed. It's a secured road that you can only enter through the Green Zone and is reserved exclusively for ambassadors and top military officials. So, when Calipari, the Italian security intelligence officer, released her from captivity, they drove directly to the Green Zone, went through the elaborate checkpoint process which everyone must go through to enter the Green Zone, which involves checking in obviously with U.S. forces, and then they drove onto this secured road. And the other thing that Giuliana told me that she's quite frustrated about is the description of the vehicle that fired on her as being part of a checkpoint. She says it wasn't a checkpoint at all. It was simply a tank that was parked on the side of the road that opened fire on them. There was no process of trying to stop the car, she said, or any signals. From her perspective, they were just -- it was just opening fire by a tank. The other thing she told me that was surprising to me was that they were fired on from behind. Because I think part of what we're hearing is that the U.S. soldiers opened fire on their car, because they didn't know who they were, and they were afraid. It was self-defense, they were afraid. The fear, of course, is that their car might blow up or that they might come under attack themselves. And what Giuliana Sgrena really stressed with me was that she -- the bullet that injured her so badly and that killed Calipari, came from behind, entered the back seat of the car. And the only person who was not severely injured in the car was the driver, and she said that this is because the shots weren't coming from the front or even from the side. They were coming from behind, i.e. they were driving away. So, the idea that this was an act of self-defense, I think becomes much more questionable. And that detail may explain why there's some reticence to give up the vehicle for inspection. Because if indeed the majority of the gunfire is coming from behind, then clearly, they were firing from -- they were firing at a car that was driving away from them.

There's more....

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/2 5/1516242&mode=thread&tid=25

Why won't the US let the Italians inspect the car? The Italians purchased the car from the rental company so they can do forensics. The US won't let them have the car. Why not? Hello? Bueller? Bueller?

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GD28Ak01.html

Klein then gave an extensive in

Naomi Klein has interviewed Giuliana Sgrena in Rome. The revelations in this Democracy Now interview of Klein significantly challenge the stories we've heard thus far in the press:

One of the things that we keep hearing is that she was fired on on the road to the airport, which is a notoriously dangerous road. In fact, it's often described as the most dangerous road in the world. So this is treated as a fairly common and understandable incident that there would be a shooting like this on that road. And I was on that road myself, and it is a really treacherous place with explosions going off all the time and a lot of checkpoints. What Giuliana told me that I had not realized before is that she wasn't on that road at all. She was on a completely different road that I actually didn't know existed. It's a secured road that you can only enter through the Green Zone and is reserved exclusively for ambassadors and top military officials. So, when Calipari, the Italian security intelligence officer, released her from captivity, they drove directly to the Green Zone, went through the elaborate checkpoint process which everyone must go through to enter the Green Zone, which involves checking in obviously with U.S. forces, and then they drove onto this secured road. And the other thing that Giuliana told me that she's quite frustrated about is the description of the vehicle that fired on her as being part of a checkpoint. She says it wasn't a checkpoint at all. It was simply a tank that was parked on the side of the road that opened fire on them. There was no process of trying to stop the car, she said, or any signals. From her perspective, they were just -- it was just opening fire by a tank. The other thing she told me that was surprising to me was that they were fired on from behind. Because I think part of what we're hearing is that the U.S. soldiers opened fire on their car, because they didn't know who they were, and they were afraid. It was self-defense, they were afraid. The fear, of course, is that their car might blow up or that they might come under attack themselves. And what Giuliana Sgrena really stressed with me was that she -- the bullet that injured her so badly and that killed Calipari, came from behind, entered the back seat of the car. And the only person who was not severely injured in the car was the driver, and she said that this is because the shots weren't coming from the front or even from the side. They were coming from behind, i.e. they were driving away. So, the idea that this was an act of self-defense, I think becomes much more questionable. And that detail may explain why there's some reticence to give up the vehicle for inspection. Because if indeed the majority of the gunfire is coming from behind, then clearly, they were firing from -- they were firing at a car that was driving away from them.

There's more....

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/2 5/1516242&mode=thread&tid=25

Why won't the US let the Italians inspect the car? The Italians purchased the car from the rental company so they can do forensics. The US won't let them have the car. Why not? Hello? Bueller? Bueller?

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GD28Ak01.html

Klein then gave an extensive in

Naomi Klein has interviewed Giuliana Sgrena in Rome. The revelations in this Democracy Now interview of Klein significantly challenge the stories we've heard thus far in the press:

One of the things that we keep hearing is that she was fired on on the road to the airport, which is a notoriously dangerous road. In fact, it's often described as the most dangerous road in the world. So this is treated as a fairly common and understandable incident that there would be a shooting like this on that road. And I was on that road myself, and it is a really treacherous place with explosions going off all the time and a lot of checkpoints. What Giuliana told me that I had not realized before is that she wasn't on that road at all. She was on a completely different road that I actually didn't know existed. It's a secured road that you can only enter through the Green Zone and is reserved exclusively for ambassadors and top military officials. So, when Calipari, the Italian security intelligence officer, released her from captivity, they drove directly to the Green Zone, went through the elaborate checkpoint process which everyone must go through to enter the Green Zone, which involves checking in obviously with U.S. forces, and then they drove onto this secured road. And the other thing that Giuliana told me that she's quite frustrated about is the description of the vehicle that fired on her as being part of a checkpoint. She says it wasn't a checkpoint at all. It was simply a tank that was parked on the side of the road that opened fire on them. There was no process of trying to stop the car, she said, or any signals. From her perspective, they were just -- it was just opening fire by a tank. The other thing she told me that was surprising to me was that they were fired on from behind. Because I think part of what we're hearing is that the U.S. soldiers opened fire on their car, because they didn't know who they were, and they were afraid. It was self-defense, they were afraid. The fear, of course, is that their car might blow up or that they might come under attack themselves. And what Giuliana Sgrena really stressed with me was that she -- the bullet that injured her so badly and that killed Calipari, came from behind, entered the back seat of the car. And the only person who was not severely injured in the car was the driver, and she said that this is because the shots weren't coming from the front or even from the side. They were coming from behind, i.e. they were driving away. So, the idea that this was an act of self-defense, I think becomes much more questionable. And that detail may explain why there's some reticence to give up the vehicle for inspection. Because if indeed the majority of the gunfire is coming from behind, then clearly, they were firing from -- they were firing at a car that was driving away from them.

There's more....

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/2 5/1516242&mode=thread&tid=25

Why won't the US let the Italians inspect the car? The Italians purchased the car from the rental company so they can do forensics. The US won't let them have the car. Why not? Hello? Bueller? Bueller?

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GD28Ak01.html

Klein then gave an extensive in

Naomi Klein has interviewed Giuliana Sgrena in Rome. The revelations in this Democracy Now interview of Klein significantly challenge the stories we've heard thus far in the press:

One of the things that we keep hearing is that she was fired on on the road to the airport, which is a notoriously dangerous road. In fact, it's often described as the most dangerous road in the world. So this is treated as a fairly common and understandable incident that there would be a shooting like this on that road. And I was on that road myself, and it is a really treacherous place with explosions going off all the time and a lot of checkpoints. What Giuliana told me that I had not realized before is that she wasn't on that road at all. She was on a completely different road that I actually didn't know existed. It's a secured road that you can only enter through the Green Zone and is reserved exclusively for ambassadors and top military officials. So, when Calipari, the Italian security intelligence officer, released her from captivity, they drove directly to the Green Zone, went through the elaborate checkpoint process which everyone must go through to enter the Green Zone, which involves checking in obviously with U.S. forces, and then they drove onto this secured road. And the other thing that Giuliana told me that she's quite frustrated about is the description of the vehicle that fired on her as being part of a checkpoint. She says it wasn't a checkpoint at all. It was simply a tank that was parked on the side of the road that opened fire on them. There was no process of trying to stop the car, she said, or any signals. From her perspective, they were just -- it was just opening fire by a tank. The other thing she told me that was surprising to me was that they were fired on from behind. Because I think part of what we're hearing is that the U.S. soldiers opened fire on their car, because they didn't know who they were, and they were afraid. It was self-defense, they were afraid. The fear, of course, is that their car might blow up or that they might come under attack themselves. And what Giuliana Sgrena really stressed with me was that she -- the bullet that injured her so badly and that killed Calipari, came from behind, entered the back seat of the car. And the only person who was not severely injured in the car was the driver, and she said that this is because the shots weren't coming from the front or even from the side. They were coming from behind, i.e. they were driving away. So, the idea that this was an act of self-defense, I think becomes much more questionable. And that detail may explain why there's some reticence to give up the vehicle for inspection. Because if indeed the majority of the gunfire is coming from behind, then clearly, they were firing from -- they were firing at a car that was driving away from them.

There's more....

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/2 5/1516242&mode=thread&tid=25

Why won't the US let the Italians inspect the car? The Italians purchased the car from the rental company so they can do forensics. The US won't let them have the car. Why not? Hello? Bueller? Bueller?

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GD28Ak01.html

Klein then gave an extensive in

Naomi Klein has interviewed Giuliana Sgrena in Rome. The revelations in this Democracy Now interview of Klein significantly challenge the stories we've heard thus far in the press:

One of the things that we keep hearing is that she was fired on on the road to the airport, which is a notoriously dangerous road. In fact, it's often described as the most dangerous road in the world. So this is treated as a fairly common and understandable incident that there would be a shooting like this on that road. And I was on that road myself, and it is a really treacherous place with explosions going off all the time and a lot of checkpoints. What Giuliana told me that I had not realized before is that she wasn't on that road at all. She was on a completely different road that I actually didn't know existed. It's a secured road that you can only enter through the Green Zone and is reserved exclusively for ambassadors and top military officials. So, when Calipari, the Italian security intelligence officer, released her from captivity, they drove directly to the Green Zone, went through the elaborate checkpoint process which everyone must go through to enter the Green Zone, which involves checking in obviously with U.S. forces, and then they drove onto this secured road. And the other thing that Giuliana told me that she's quite frustrated about is the description of the vehicle that fired on her as being part of a checkpoint. She says it wasn't a checkpoint at all. It was simply a tank that was parked on the side of the road that opened fire on them. There was no process of trying to stop the car, she said, or any signals. From her perspective, they were just -- it was just opening fire by a tank. The other thing she told me that was surprising to me was that they were fired on from behind. Because I think part of what we're hearing is that the U.S. soldiers opened fire on their car, because they didn't know who they were, and they were afraid. It was self-defense, they were afraid. The fear, of course, is that their car might blow up or that they might come under attack themselves. And what Giuliana Sgrena really stressed with me was that she -- the bullet that injured her so badly and that killed Calipari, came from behind, entered the back seat of the car. And the only person who was not severely injured in the car was the driver, and she said that this is because the shots weren't coming from the front or even from the side. They were coming from behind, i.e. they were driving away. So, the idea that this was an act of self-defense, I think becomes much more questionable. And that detail may explain why there's some reticence to give up the vehicle for inspection. Because if indeed the majority of the gunfire is coming from behind, then clearly, they were firing from -- they were firing at a car that was driving away from them.

There's more....

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/2 5/1516242&mode=thread&tid=25

Why won't the US let the Italians inspect the car? The Italians purchased the car from the rental company so they can do forensics. The US won't let them have the car. Why not? Hello? Bueller? Bueller?

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GD28Ak01.html

Klein then gave an extensive in

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GD28Ak01.html

1. China waged war on India in 1962; India was caught with their pants down.
2. China backstabbed India with this war. Months before the war the then Prime Ministers of both the countries were courting each other. The relationship was so deep (at least from the Indian side) that in India the dominant slogan was "Hindi-Chini bhai-bhai" (Indian and Chinese are brothers)
3. China still controls thousands of square kilometers of Indian territory

If this is real it is good for the next generations. IT is just too stressful for would-be mothers.

Oh wait, women in the First World don't want to be mothers until they're rich or realised or what not, and then only one child... don't worry, in a few generations the Third World will take over by sheer numbers. Remember, the Barbarians did that to Rome once, we'll do it again.

WTF are you talking about. Compared to China, India has no infrastructure to speak of. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GB16Df07.h tml

The reason is that they have a business partnership http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/EJ08Dh01.html

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/kathleenparker/ kp20040410.shtml
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040618/D839DV0O1 .html
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan. binladen/ (note date)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,36 04,314700,00.html (also note date)
http://www.kultursmog.com/Life-Page01.htm
http://www.kultursmog.com/Life-Page02.htm
http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/ kerry-iraq.html
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.htm l
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FD03Aa02.h tml on on the "worldwide support we have squandered"

As I posted in "The Smaller Screen", in the earlier Slashdot discussion:

What exactly is this "Hollywood" that Matthew Yi claims is smaller than the $10B "Game Industry" in TFA? Maybe it doesn't include the $14B US ($32B global) record industry: a business run out of LA, mostly, and NYC, even if it's 80% owned in Tokyo/Sony, Berlin/BMG and Paris/Vivendi-Universal. Is it just movies (not TV, either)? The actual scale of "filmed entertainment" revenue (not including music videos, part of the "recorded music" industry) was $75.3B globally, before the predicted 7.5% growth rate for 2004 (ie. $81B). Porn movies and website subscriptions alone have a global revenue of $8-10B. Maybe video games are bigger than Hollywood the same way that John Lennon was bigger than Jesus.

FWIW, my numbers have a stronger citation basis than Grumpy's, comparing the more-relevant global scale, and actually show "Hollywood" to really dwarf the game industry. I'm not complaining about being underappreciated, because my post is mod'ed a "5, Informative", whatever that's worth (not much, as it garnered 0 replies). But I wonder what a guy's gotta do to get his counterpoint delivered on the Slashdot front page? Is it just a matter of publishing in another web page, to which Slashdot can point as a 'blog - chumming the Web with Slashbait, as it were? Or is there really a "higher mod" level than the apparent maximum "5", within which one's fabulous post can be promoted to a story of its own? How do I get my story pitched beyond this little screen discussion syndication, and get it starring in its own story, on the homepage big screen?

What exactly is this "Hollywood" that Matthew Yi claims is smaller than the $10B "Game Industry" in TFA? Maybe it doesn't include the $14B US ($32B global) record industry: a business run out of LA, mostly, and NYC, even if it's 80% owned in Tokyo/Sony, Berlin/BMG and Paris/Vivendi-Universal. Is it just movies (not TV, either)? The actual scale of "filmed entertainment" revenue (not including music videos, part of the "recorded music" industry) was $75.3B globally, before the predicted 7.5% growth rate for 2004 (ie. $81B). Porn movies and website subscriptions alone have a global revenue of $8-10B. Maybe video games are bigger than Hollywood the same way that John Lennon was bigger than Jesus.

It turns out we were both right and both wrong. Although both youth and middle-age suicides are bad and getting worse, the highest number comes from the elderly, which is surprising considering they are only 19% of the population (2004 statistics)

Anyways, an excerpt on the youth rates:

"The latest NPA data confirm that suicide by elementary- and middle-school students is a serious social problem. The suicide rate for this group rose by a massive 57.6%, representing a total of 93 innocent lives lost, 34 more than in 2002. Among high-school students there was also a sharp rise of 29.3%. In total, 225 young lives were lost in this category. There was also an increase in the number of college students killing themselves. The overall suicide rate among people aged 19 or younger rose by 22%."

And generally:

"Based on provisional data for 2003, Japanese male and female suicide rates per 100,000 people are now roughly 40.2 for men and 14.9 for women, approaching levels normally witnessed in countries suffering severe economic hardships such as Russia, Latvia or Lithuania."

Anyways, here's another source for more up to date statistics.

For example, India is very glad that Bush was reelected because now outsourcing of your job to India can continue unimpeded.

Don't people have any sense at all. If India favors one candidate, it means that that candidate's policies are more favorable to Indian workers than they are to US workers.

The red states need to acquire a clue.

You are saying that to criticize someone, not only do you have to be in the same field as they are, but you also have to be better than them? Otherwise, your criticism isn't "meaningful"?

[Jon Stewart] doesn't do any better of a job at news reporting then them.

Yes, he does. He only has 10 minutes or so, but what he covers in that ten minutes he reports on better than any "real" news channel does in 24 hours. And you know why?

He isn't afraid to show someone is a liar. Bill O'Reilly and others like to throw that term around and call people liars, but Jon Stewart actually shows the goods.

He's honest. I don't think I've ever seen them take someone out of context or try to misrepresent what someone said. They make fun of gaffes and satirize people's positions, but they are intellectually honest (or at least more so than the news channels).

He gives context. When Bush talks about nation building, they run a "debate" between what Bush said in 2000 about not nation building and what he is saying now. That is what the media is supposed to do: they are supposed to provide context, to be our memory, to NOT let things fall into the memory hole.

He is brief. He doesn't have to fill 24 hours so he doesn't try to drag things out and make stories out of nothing. He can't even fit in everything he wants to get to, so he has to cut it down to its very essence.

He filters. I don't have time to listen to everything every Kerry or Bush flack has to say and I certainly don't have time to check if it is true. He incisively cuts to the heart of the issues, offers some biting criticism, or deadpan incredulity that perfectly summarizes the situation.

Viewers of The Daily Show, despite it being a comedic, media satire program whose lead-in is a show about puppets making crank phone calls, are better informed than anyone getting their news from newspapers, network news, or cable news!!! And Jon's point is that that is sad. It is sad that his show, a comedy show satirizing the media, is a better news show than any actual news show. It is proof that the media is not living up to its responsibility of furthering the public debate and the exchange of information. Instead, they are drastically decreasing the signal to noise ratio. In fact, after watching the news, you will be LESS INFORMED!

I think you're the doofus here.

Yes, the internet can route around specific failures, but it still has to go over some kind of physical link, and there are only a limited number of those going to North Korea. The internet is not some magical data genie that can take your bits anywhere, it requires a lot of infrastructure to get those bits from your house to Slashdot or China. We might like to think of the internet as a land of pure data and information, but it cannot exist without the physical layer.

Granted, it would require cooperation from China and Russia, but they could definitely be cut off it they pissed off the world too much with their 'hackers'. They definitely don't have links with South Korea or Japan. And the ability of the internet to route around failures is limited if everyone you network with wants to drop you off the network...

Perhaps you're used to a western country like the U.S. or Europe, where you can get a net connection anywhere and it has multiple redundant paths, but that is not what North Korea is like. North Korea probobly has less bandwidth going in and out than most major universities in the west. Also, you must realize that the NK gov't severely restricts their own networks, because they don't want their citizens to be 'contaminated' with foreign ideas and media.

From Wikipedia:
Telephones - mobile cellular: In November 2002, cell phones were introduced to North Korea and by November 2003, 20000 North Koreans had bought cell phones. On May 24. 2004 cell phones were banned. North Korea supposingly still have a mobile network in Pyongyang which is open for government officials and maybe foreigner, but not locals.

Telephone system: international: satellite earth stations - 1 Intelsat (Indian Ocean) and 1 Russian (Indian Ocean Region); other international connections through Moscow and Beijing

Internet Service Providers (ISPs): NA. North Korea has been testing its first Web portal http://www.kcckp.net/external_e/ (see also [1]).

In 2002 the first Internet cafe has opened ([2], [3], [4] ). It is connected via a line to China. Also, foreign visitors can link their computers to the Internet through international phone lines available in a few hotels in Pyongyang.

In Alaska, we often see a hazy sky, caused by pollution from Siberia and points east.

For the long term, we should probably be more worried about the Soviet nuclear waste the Soviets and now the Russians have accumulated in the Arctic and Pacific Oceans. Then there's the nuclear plants, two of them in Siberia, that we're down wind of. They were built by the same government which brought us Chernobyl.

If you're looking for things to worry about, you'll never run out.

A couple of a/c's don't seem to believe you - maybe you should have given the names of those abducted along with some links.

Here's a link - finding out about Kim's penchant for kidnapping Japanese citizens (present count around a dozen) and taking them to N Korea takes about 30 seconds (hail google). He even kidnapped a South Korean director and forced him to make a movie.

The number that you cite is 1.07. That is for the population as a whole, not just the babies.

Indian culture is a load of crap.

"This sort of thing is of little use to anyone but criminals."

I agree, only for criminals and America doesn't need it since it's free enough as it is. It's not like lawyers are suing people left and right for calling them shyster! It's not like the government employees were silenced and faced retaliation for trying to warn of 9/11! Who would use such a system except for these, and these, and these people who needed to publish incriminating memos that went against the public good.

P.S. if there isn't a +1 sarcastic option for me, you can give parent a -1 for being an idiot.

I thought everyone knew the Pentagon was already doing this, to the tune of 18,000 privately contracted troops. Not all foreign of course. But many are.

I remember reading another article questioning the video on several details appearing on it. Such as: the people on it are too fat to be arabic fighters (how many of those with belly you've seen?). Their posture and actions were more western than arabic, etc.
Unfortunately I couln't find that any more. I did my best to search the Information clearing house archive, not finding what I searched but lots, and I mean lots of articles that makes me to be ashamed to be a westerner! (yeah, I'm not american).