Slashdot Mirror

Words pop in and out of our language as social conditions change. The American gangster, which is still with us, has been around as a noun and a reality since 1896 according to my Shorter Oxford, but it seems to have dropped another Americanism from the 1930s and I think now is the time to revive it.

The word is bankster, derived by a marriage of banker and gangster.

It was coined, as far as I can deduce, by an American immigrant, a fiery Sicilian-born lawyer by the name of Ferdinand Pecora. He was the chief counsel to the US Senate Committee on Banking set up in the early 30s to probe the origins of the Crash of 1929.

He exposed quite a lot of the Wall Street practices that Harvard's Professor William Z Ripley had condemned in 1928. The believable Ripley called them - get ready for these Americanisms - "prestidigitation, double-shuffling, honey-fugling, hornswoggling and skullduggery".

The professor had vainly tried to warn President Calvin Coolidge that Wall Street was full of gas and was bound to blow up. To great discomfort all round, Pecora identified Coolidge himself, by then out of office, as one of those who'd been in on the honey-fugling.

The great banking house of JP Morgan had the president on a "preferred list" by which the bank's influential friends were given a chance to buy stock at half price. Shall we say, they made out like bandits?

Today the term bankster perfectly fits Bernard Madoff, whose crooked Ponzi scheme lost $50 billion of what the trade calls OPM - other people's money - invested with him.

And p0wnage is a term well-understood by the community, which perfectly describes what the lobbyists have done to the political process.

The easiest/efficient way to protest Govt hegemony is to print/circulate/use your own banknotes exclusively among your community.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14774526

Brazil had this idea:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4059147.stm

Changed a single thing like making it a completely different shape? Oh, that must not count since Apple falsified evidence to remove that detail from their document. The Tab is shaped completely differently from the iPad due to a different aspect ratio -- Apple clearly knows they don't have a case since they deliberately altered the image to make it look more like the iPad.

Yeah, it has nothing to do with the general shape. That must be why Apple altered images in a legal document, falsifying evidence to make the Tab look more like the iPad. The Tab has a markedly different aspect ratio and is therefore longer and thinner -- so Apple's lawyers photoshopped it to remove that distinction. Well, yeah, if you lie about what a product looks like, I guess you can claim it looks like anything.

I'd say C+D+G+X+Q would get you in trouble, too, since Apple falsified evidence in legal documents submitted to the court, altering the significantly different aspect ratio of the Tab to appear more like the iPad. It's like they know they don't have a case, because they have to invent problems that don't exist.

Is that why Apple falsified evidence to make the Galaxy Tab look more like the iPad in legal documents? (They significantly altered an image of the Tab to change the aspect ratio, since it's actually quite different from the iPad.) They obviously know that their whole case is without merit when they resort to forging evidence to invent problems that don't exist.

There is no evidence of this.

Really? You mean besides the US admitting to it?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16043626

To your example, Apple, in your Ford Scenario, would not be out there suing every manufacturer of a vehicle that relied on a gas engine and had four wheels. They would, though, take the manufacturer of a vehicle that, from every angle viewed, would pass for a Mustang to a casual observer.

This comparison of five tablets (Samsung Galaxy, and Galaxy 2, the Xoom, Playbook and iPad2) really shows in my opinion that there are certain things that every tablet will have:
1) Minimal design - something neat, something clean where the touch screen is the focal point.
2) Some sort of border around the screen - which is due to engineering constraints.
3) Will probably have rounded corners. (My monitor has rounded corners, so does my laptop, so did the ruler that I had in primary school.

To say that the Galaxy Tab 2 from every angle viewed, would pass for a [iPad2] to a casual observer is a stretch. To a casual observer any of those devices could be mistaken for any other. To a casual observer, a HP laptop could be mistaken as a Dell and vice-versa.

I'd say the case design should be copyrighted or trademarked, but we all know how most slash dotters feel about copyrights.. :)

You can't trademark something that in itself is so broad - that's the whole point of most of the people that you seem to think are attacking Apple here. No company should be allowed to make a tablet (and have a design trademarked) that says "Screen, small border, rounded corners, one button" and stop anyone else making a tablet that had a screen, small border, rounded corners and a single button. Don't paint with such a broad brush. Would I support Apple if Samsung was putting an Apple logo on their tablet? Absolutely. They aren't. Apple generally uses a minimalist approach to presenting their products visually. That's fine, a lot of people like a clean, simple, minimalist approach. However, they cannot stop others using a minimalist approach.

Lastly, when Apple pulls this sort of shit it really makes it hard for someone like me to try to be understanding towards them in this case.

No worries. BBC says "Astronomers confirm 'Earth twin'"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16040655

Let's get going.

Greece's 'democracy' may not have been as people generally believed it to be.

Someone with the reading comprehension of a eight year old would note that article quoted is by a US government agency for US residents. Hence, the time is quoted in the relevant zones. So, until you graduate elementary school, piss off.

So what?

There was another eclipse earlier this year. This article is from the BBC, which is funded by British people. The time given was GMT, even though the UK was using BST (GMT+0100) during the summer. The equivalence is given: In the UK, observers were able to view the eclipse from 2100 BST (2000 GMT). It's usual for articles containing time-sensitive events in another country to give the timezone, at least for the first mention, e.g. "The explosion occurred at 1234 local time (1034 GMT, 1134 BST)." UK-centric articles expected to be of wider interest often give the timezone too: "The result will be announced at 1234 GMT" (winter) or "...at 1234 BST (1134 GMT)" (summer).

"The action begins around 0345 AKST (1245 UTC)" is all that was required (noting that Alaska is the only bit of USA that gets to see the full eclipse).

Lose the xenophobia, please.

Coverage of election results on BBC

... and given that Iran is theocracy ...

I am driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did. ~ George Bush

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2005/oct/06/georgebushgod

Make something yourself or band together with people to make something. That's the difference between the 'market' and 'government'.

Now, in some cases this is simply not possible.. or at least very unlikely. You're probably never going to get the ability to make a nuclear power plant.

But you'd be amazed at what you can actually accomplish in a market if you actually decide to do something about it.

Remember that story a while back about some kid in Africa whose village didn't have electricity... so he started making wind mills to provide power. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8257153.stm

Now contrast that to the maddening people who sit around ranting about big oil and corporations and global warming who just don't do anything... except demand other people do things. If this kid can build wind power with virtually no resources... you don't think most people could organize and get wind power in their own neighborhoods?

You don't think a group of people could organize and provide a decent community software stack... oh I don't know... something like Linux?

Even hardware... most companies still source their companies... and external foundries exist. In this day and age of technology, the internet... you could easily band together to start making your own non-profit computers.

Churches and other religious organization manage to raise billions of dollars. You don't think you could raise money for a common interest? Maybe purchase a chip foundry?

You could even start your own ISP today. Local community internet.

We should all remember just how much people can do via cooperation.

This of course is all possible due to freedom. Not so much with government run system. All it takes is a little effort on your part and a little effort by people to get things done. And I don't mean the OWS effort of complaining. I mean actually doing things cooperatively.

Want to feed the poor? Start a farm.
Want to bring good food to inner city neighborhoods? Start a coop grocery store. ...

All these things are done in various parts of the world. They're not so technologically complex that you couldn't do them with a little effort and cooperation with your fellow human being. And in many cases, your biggest obstacles will in reality be government as in many cases like community internet.

And why doesn't Green peace protest against BP? Gulf spill comes to mind.

You think they don't?
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/files/bp/rebranded/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-10771805

China may have lots of dirty industry, but it's per capita emissions are several times less than those of the U.S., Australia, Canada and Western Europe. In fact, China's emissions per capita are below the world average, and it has stated that it won't follow the U.S. path of increasing emissions, they acknowledged to let emissions rise that high would be a "disaster for the world". Hopefully they will be able to do this.

We also need to be honest here: the problem of increased atmospheric CO2 is mostly our fault, especially when you consider the cumulative emissions we made over the last century, which dwarf those of China.

This graph show current emissions per capita. The author insightfully points out: "So, assuming that “something needs to be done” to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, who has a special responsibility to do something? As I said, that’s an ethical question. But I find it hard to imagine any system of ethics that denies that the responsibility falls especially on the countries to the left hand side of this diagram – the countries whose emissions are two, three, or four times the world average. Countries that are most able to pay. Countries like Britain and the USA, for example."

The next page has a graph for historical cumulative emissions of CO2. CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 50 to 100 years. Guess who is responsible for putting most of the extra CO2 that is currently in the atmosphere there? Not China.

The alternative 'just use less' philosophy is based upon some crazy idea that 7 billion people can just live in yurts.

Not true. Energy costs are rising. People are using less. We aren't all living in yurts. Ultimately, it is not sustainable (barring some amazing scientific advance) to have 7 billion people living the current lifestyle of the average westerner. It isn't even sustainable for us westerners. I would encourage you to read the book I linked to (there are PDF, epub etc. versions). You'd be surprised how much energy we use. The author is pro-nuclear, but even there his sums show we will have to build new nuclear plants at a rate faster than ever before to match the decline in fossil fuel supplies, and rely on technology that doesn't exist yet (industrial processes for seawater extraction) if we are to maintain our current western energy usage.

Here is a nice example.

"Just like any profession, there are people who are underperforming and even incompetent, but there are certainly procedures in place to deal with them. The GTC and GTCS bar several people each year for various professional misconducts, including not being bothered to do the work properly."

Actually you're wrong, but have touched on yet another problem at the core of what is wrong with the teaching profession:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10464617

I'm actually shocked that the number is that low. I may have been affected by recall bias as I remember seeing several stories in the teaching press about GTCE professional misconduct hearings while I was a teacher. That was the best part of a decade ago, though.

As to your suggestion of cutting pay because tightening up on standards would cause strikes, I think the teaching unions would be far more likely to strike over pay cuts (as indeed they did, yesterday) than a properly implemented programme of professional standards reform. I doubt any of the current government would have the sensitive touch that would be necessary to get something done without screaming tabloid headlines pissing the teachers off and making them unwilling to work towards reform.

There is a shortage of willing, able graduates wanting to go into teaching, though - cutting pay would mean that you would continue to disincentivise these people to teach rather than working in say, engineering or law.

Not any more
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15510467/

If you're interestes and able to watch it - On the BBC they've just shown a programme about satellites being made by Astrium. I'm glad to say we still have the skills in the UK to get this project done.
// As an aside I'm happy for tax money to go towards make work project to keep those skill alive; but I'd rather the tax was used for travel infrastructure. //
But that's not the point. Watch the show. It's interesting.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00lysc9

"Just like any profession, there are people who are underperforming and even incompetent, but there are certainly procedures in place to deal with them. The GTC and GTCS bar several people each year for various professional misconducts, including not being bothered to do the work properly."

Actually you're wrong, but have touched on yet another problem at the core of what is wrong with the teaching profession:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10464617

Of course these are the genuinely incompetent ones who really are awful, we're not talking about the general low standard of teaching the UK suffers - those teaching at that level aren't even classed as incompetent because the level of competence is so low, the idea of 15,000+ teachers not even competent enough to achieve even the mediocre standard we accept is pretty scary.

"By reducing the wage of teachers, you reduce the incentive for talented people to enter the profession, given that people with better classes of degree can earn more in the private sector. You then enter a downward spiral, where the losers are the children whose education is damaged."

But this is already the case, teaching is in a no man's land where we're not getting rid of the incompetent on the current wage, and where whilst wages have risen the level of competence most certainly hasn't. We can't implement stricted controls on competence because the teaching unions wont allow it thus we've settled for our current mediocre standard, and if we've settled for that then there is no justification for the current pay, we should pay to the standard we've accepted or up the standard - but with no political ability or will to up the standard only the former option is available.

"A better solution would be to tighten up on entry requirements, encourage employers to take more action against underperforming staff (the procedures are certainly there, if managers are willing to use them), and make teaching an attractive profession to go into, rather than one which is blamed for all of society's ills (at least until the bankers fucked up so spectacularly) and which people unfairly deride as being easy or full of lazy chancers who are only in it for the holidays."

But this is currently the case - many current teachers really are lazy chancers in it for the holidays, it's a sad truth. I agree that improving the profession is the best option for the country but incompetence is so deeply embedded into the profession now how do we do that other than introducing new standards and forcing every practicing teacher to re-apply for their jobs whilst also avoiding crippling strikes from the teaching units? Sorting the profession out now would require writing off a generation or two of kids altogether due to the turmoil fixing the profession would require, perhaps that's a price worth paying but as this isn't even on the political agenda right now, we might as well stop throwing money to people entirely undeserving of it and spend it where it can be of benefit - i.e. improved secondary school wages (where that segment of the profession is salvageable because the increased difficulty of secondary teaching does put off many of the wasters plaguing primary teaching), improve other services, or simply cut taxes.

Disprove the documented current facts from reputable sources I used here http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2551740&cid=38218414

Funny you avoid doing that eh? Can't be DONE is why!

---

* And, Yes, I freely admit that I've been banned from sites (the majority not, but a few over a 17++ yrs. long time online since 1994, & for a few years with a gap before it in academia in the 1980's)...

See, this will doubtless "escape you", since you troll as AC, but...

I figure you haven't LIVED until you have been banned from a forums!

OR

Rather, lived LIKE A MAN with some balls + faith in what he says!

(E.G.-> One like myself that doesn't try to hide behind AC trolling posts like yours, or using multiple 'usernames' rather than being himself!)

Heh - Trolls do that latter & it's widely known:

---

BBC News - Fake forum comments are 'eroding' trust in the web

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15869683

---

OR HERE too (HBGary caught doing it)

An HBGary email that should concern you all:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/16/945768/-UPDATED:-The-HB-Gary-Email-That-Should-Concern-Us-All

PERTINENT QUOTES/EXCERPTS:

"According to an embedded MS Word document found in one of the HBGary emails, it involves creating an army of sockpuppets, with sophisticated "persona management" software that allows a small team of only a few people to appear to be many, while keeping the personas from accidentally cross-contaminating each other. Then, to top it off, the team can actually automate some functions so one persona can appear to be an entire Brooks Brothers riot online... And all of this is for the purposes of infiltration, data mining, and (here's the one that really worries me) ganging up on bloggers, commenters and otherwise "real" people to smear enemies and distort the truth... "

and

"They are talking about creating the illusion of consensus. And consensus is a powerful persuader... And another thing, this is just one little company of assholes. I can't believe there aren't others doing this already. From oil companies, political campaigns, PR firms, you name it. Public opinion means big bucks. And let's face it, what these guys are talking about is easy."

and

"To the extent that the propaganda technique known as "Bandwagon" is an effective form of persuasion, which it definitely is, the ability for a few people to infiltrate a blog or social media site and appear to be many people, all taking one position in a debate, all agreeing, for example, that so and so is not credible, or a crook, is an incredibly powerful weapon."

---

* Nuff said, proofs in the pudding (via my usual style, documented proofs thereof of things I state, which you are welcome to disprove!)

APK

P.S.=> In the end, as per your stalking/trolling off-topic illogical adhominem attack using methods?

You're VERY easy to "dispatch" via documented facts + truths I use, & you only vindicate me vs. your off-topic illogical adhominem attacks even moreso, which ruins that for you also, easily (which only make you look a fool)...

... apk

Submitted by RockDoctor on Sunday November 27, @07:40PM

RockDoctor writes "The Beeb [LINK http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15888843%5D are reporting a rather complex case with potentially quite deep implications for social media.

The case stretches back to the end of the First World War, when the well-established German drug company Merck was split up by the victorious powers, leaving a German rum company (Merck KGaA) and a multinational (Merck & Co). Both companies still exist, and as the preceding links show, have managed to deal with the potential "namespace" collisions on the general Internet.

Merck KGaA entered into an "agreement" (by implication, a contract) with Facebook to use the page http://www.facebook.com/Merck in 2010, and they were getting some use out of the page, needing to get administrative rights for several employees. So far, so good ; Merck KGaA are obviously relatively savvy to how the Internet works and have done "the right thing" (including, from a typical-Slashdot-user's IT-worker-friendly perspective, assigning a budget and staff to this part of their IT and internet presence).

But on October 11, 2011, Merck KGaA's staff found that the page now pointed to content from their competitors Merck & Co, and that they had lost administrative control of the page.

So, what is going on? Well, it's not clear. The staff at Facebook are not responding in any meaningful sense (according to the Beeb's report). There are a number of possible scenarios where genuine mistakes have been made, or seemingly-reasonable policies have had unintended consequences While researching for TFS (This Fucking Summary) I originally got to the Merck KGaA website by guessing "merck.de" , at which point I got a redirect ; which is what you'd expect. Equally I got to Merck & Co by guessing at [drum roll] merck.com ; which is again what you'd expect to happen. This reflects the essential separation of the .de and .com TLDs.

In effect Facebook has itself become an important TLD. So collisions in this new namespace are to be expected. And what policies Facebook applies to resolve namespace disputes is a matter of general interest."

To reiterate one of my questions : it is possible for this to be either a genuine misunderstanding, or a mis-applied policy, or an unintended consequence of a seemingly reasonable policy. However, after an initial period of "WTF has happened?", silence is not an appropriate response from FB.

Here in the UK, drones have already been used by civilians to survey the masonary of the Stirling Bridge

The civilian contractors, however, appear to be more adept at handling the technology than Merseyside Police, who forgot to get permission from the Civil Aviation Authority to use their drone, before crashing it in to the River Mersey a year later.

Here in the UK, drones have already been used by civilians to survey the masonary of the Stirling Bridge

The civilian contractors, however, appear to be more adept at handling the technology than Merseyside Police, who forgot to get permission from the Civil Aviation Authority to use their drone, before crashing it in to the River Mersey a year later.

Seriously, we hear more concern out of our Religious leaders about allowing same sex marriage than we do the killing of 10's and sometimes 100's of women and children!

Most of your Religious Leaders are in fact political creatures just like most politicians. They might internally be thinking about the killings of 10's and 100's - but they preach what will be most likely to generate attention.

The average US citizen doesn't care about 10's or 100's of people dying in some other country at their hand. To make a point, where was the US outrage about the NATO strike that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers. Pakistan is taking this latest attack so seriously that is has given US forces two weeks to vacate their main drone base!

It's a sad world these days, but leaders of just about all things, be they political leaders, religious leaders, business leaders - all have their own little agenda and they make just the right soundbytes and bring up just the right things to get to where they want to be. Sadly, those agendas very rarely seem to have the improvement of the world in general anywhere in the list.

No wonder the Xbox 360 is in last place.

Last place compared to what exactly?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12697975
http://www.winrumors.com/xbox-360-tops-u-s-charts-in-september-rules-2011-sales/

No. It's for real. "Doctors studying the placebo effect have noticed that large pills work better than small pills, and that coloured pills work better than white ones." http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathy.shtml

Sorry, don't have the original citations.

And since it is from a homeopathy site it must be true (complete sarcasm).

No. It's for real. "Doctors studying the placebo effect have noticed that large pills work better than small pills, and that coloured pills work better than white ones." http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathy.shtml

Sorry, don't have the original citations.

Australian law says nothing of the sort. Have a look at the full act, it clearly defines the word "harm" as:
""harm" means physical harm or harm to a person's mental health, whether temporary or permanent. However, it does not include being subjected to any force or impact that is within the limits of what is acceptable as incidental to social interaction or to life in the community. "
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cca1995115/sch1.html

So yes you're perfectly able to insult the Queen, the GG, the PM in Australia with no fear of either civil or criminal penalties.

That may not be exactly true in the UK since by the sound of it you're still lumbered with un-repealed laws dating back to 1351: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7288516.stm

Then this should be a spectacular success.

Yes, they would also never infect Guatemalans with Syphilis on purpose.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11457552

No, it didn't work for acid rain. It reduced acid rain, in the US, and created more of it, elsewhere, like in China, where noone gives a shit. It swept the 'dirt' that is acid rain, under the rug that is China.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5290236.stm

"The best solution there is to not rip things off."

Yes, and if people do copy a few dollars worth of music rather than buying it it's obviously worth making them lose everything over.

"Yes, unfortunately the Obama administration really did screw that up."

Ah, you're a Republican, that explains a lot. You do realise that it was Bush who put them all their in the first place and held them without trial for the first few years before Obama took over and continued the fuckup don't you?

"But things are getting straightened out so that enemy combatants, terrorists, and the like who fit into the awkward space between domestic arrests and uniformed soldiers in combat elsewhere can go back to being tried in a military venue."

So which category do you put the innocent ones into who haven't ever been charged with anything and for which no evidence of them ever being wrongdoers go into? are they the ones you say "the like"?

"In the meantime, your assertions about conditions in Guantanamo are, of course, made-up BS, and you know it."

Really? Which ones? Are you telling me Cuba doesn't actually reach extremely high temperatures? are you suggesting the people at Guantanamo are allowed to walk pretty freely around the prison? That doesn't stack up to even US provided film of the place.

"And endless parade of journalists, Red Cross people, and the like disagree with you, having been there themselves."

Well, no actually:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3179858.stm

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/politics/30gitmo.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/07/cia-medics-guantanamo-torture-red-cross

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6526589.stm

Still, nice try at outright making things up to cover the fact that once again you actually don't have a clue about the topic at hand.

"Who cares where they are? If they're in the middle of plotting, executing, or supporting efforts to kill us, and the country in which they're hiding has no will or ability to do anything about it, it's exactly the right thing to do."

So what you're saying is that al Qaeda was justified with 9/11? they were after all attacking a country that had for some time been plotting it's downfall. Similarly, I assume you'd be okay with an Iranian nuke hitting Washington for the same reason? Or is this another one of those issues surrounding your misunderstanding of "neutral" as in "It's fair if the US does it, but no one else".

"Ah, I see. So when a campus cop goes ove the top dealing with people blocking the street, that's a sure sign of actual, nation-wide policy, right?"

I think you need to stop watching Fox news. You seem to genuinely believe that it's okay if beatings/abuse/killings by people in positions of authority happen all over the US regularly as long as their superiors can deny responsibility, whilst if the Iranian government denies responsibility for some of the actions of the republican guard, it's different? Again, you really don't get this neutral thing do you?

Look, if I'm honest, I'm not really disagreeing with you that the Iranian leadership is pretty awful, I'm being difficult to make the point to you that it's not as simple as you think. I'm making the point that it's hard to criticise Iran on the human rights board when the US does have a far far less than perfect track record on it. By letting Iran onto the board, to call out the US on it's abuses it keeps Western governments in check - the last thing they want is to be embarassed over fuckups in their own country and get called out on it by someone as hypocritical as Iran, but without Iran being put in this position it would just mean countries like the US could continue with their abuses uncontested. A bit of international em

"The best solution there is to not rip things off."

Yes, and if people do copy a few dollars worth of music rather than buying it it's obviously worth making them lose everything over.

"Yes, unfortunately the Obama administration really did screw that up."

Ah, you're a Republican, that explains a lot. You do realise that it was Bush who put them all their in the first place and held them without trial for the first few years before Obama took over and continued the fuckup don't you?

"But things are getting straightened out so that enemy combatants, terrorists, and the like who fit into the awkward space between domestic arrests and uniformed soldiers in combat elsewhere can go back to being tried in a military venue."

So which category do you put the innocent ones into who haven't ever been charged with anything and for which no evidence of them ever being wrongdoers go into? are they the ones you say "the like"?

"In the meantime, your assertions about conditions in Guantanamo are, of course, made-up BS, and you know it."

Really? Which ones? Are you telling me Cuba doesn't actually reach extremely high temperatures? are you suggesting the people at Guantanamo are allowed to walk pretty freely around the prison? That doesn't stack up to even US provided film of the place.

"And endless parade of journalists, Red Cross people, and the like disagree with you, having been there themselves."

Well, no actually:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3179858.stm

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/politics/30gitmo.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/07/cia-medics-guantanamo-torture-red-cross

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6526589.stm

Still, nice try at outright making things up to cover the fact that once again you actually don't have a clue about the topic at hand.

"Who cares where they are? If they're in the middle of plotting, executing, or supporting efforts to kill us, and the country in which they're hiding has no will or ability to do anything about it, it's exactly the right thing to do."

So what you're saying is that al Qaeda was justified with 9/11? they were after all attacking a country that had for some time been plotting it's downfall. Similarly, I assume you'd be okay with an Iranian nuke hitting Washington for the same reason? Or is this another one of those issues surrounding your misunderstanding of "neutral" as in "It's fair if the US does it, but no one else".

"Ah, I see. So when a campus cop goes ove the top dealing with people blocking the street, that's a sure sign of actual, nation-wide policy, right?"

I think you need to stop watching Fox news. You seem to genuinely believe that it's okay if beatings/abuse/killings by people in positions of authority happen all over the US regularly as long as their superiors can deny responsibility, whilst if the Iranian government denies responsibility for some of the actions of the republican guard, it's different? Again, you really don't get this neutral thing do you?

Look, if I'm honest, I'm not really disagreeing with you that the Iranian leadership is pretty awful, I'm being difficult to make the point to you that it's not as simple as you think. I'm making the point that it's hard to criticise Iran on the human rights board when the US does have a far far less than perfect track record on it. By letting Iran onto the board, to call out the US on it's abuses it keeps Western governments in check - the last thing they want is to be embarassed over fuckups in their own country and get called out on it by someone as hypocritical as Iran, but without Iran being put in this position it would just mean countries like the US could continue with their abuses uncontested. A bit of international em

No, you are wrong, the OP is correct: there have been Jewish religious courts in England for centuries. Religious courts already in use. A London woman this week expressed shock at the prospect of being divorced by a rabbinical court against her will — in part because she allegedly wore clothes it deemed “provocative”.

UK story on a pharmacist refusing contraception: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/8557816.stm

(I really wonder what the pharmacist does if someone tries to buy a box of condoms. "Sorry, you'll have to be served by my colleague!")

It seems it's allowed, although I haven't found a better source than this. I don't think it should be allowed -- for example, a women who has been raped should not need to explain that to the pharmacist (if that would make them change their mind) or be inconvenienced by having to go elsewhere -- if that's even practical.

I can't speak for everywhere in Europe, but in the UK it's illegal to do, say or post anything threatening, abusive or insulting if you're likely to cause "harassment, alarm or distress", and it's also illegal to use a "public electronic communications network" (i.e. phone or Internet) to send a message that is "grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character" or do certain stuff online "for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another." And yes, these laws do get used.

Of course, it should be harder to convict someone for offending a public figure like the Queen (or senior politicians) because Article 10 ECHR should get in the way, but that doesn't seem to stop the police barging into people's homes and threatening them with arrest...

I though you were joking at first but then I searched around and I found this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10394970

in short, to people with Anglophile backgrounds, Filipino names are just plain wacky:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/9435751.stm

But the main thing Spain gave to the Philippines was Catholicism, and with it, tens of thousands of newly-christened Marias and Joses.
With the Americans came names like Butch, Buffy and Junior - and the propensity to shorten everything if at all possible.
Perhaps it is the combination of these two influences which has led to names like Jejomar - short for Jesus Joseph Mary.
The current vice president is called Jejomar Binay.
Even the large Chinese community here has not escaped this national name game.
Their surnames are often a form of Anglicised Chinese, but sometimes the Philippine penchant for fun shines through.
I have heard of a Van Go, a John F Kenneth Dee and an Ivan Ho.
But there are some names that just defy explanation.
Why would you call your children after the days of the week or your favourite desserts? To many Filipinos, a better question to ask is: "Why wouldn't you?"
I have been living here for a while now, and I have got used to all these names.
When I'm introduced to a Dinky or a Dunce, or read about people called Bing and Bong, it seems almost normal.
In fact, if anything, I rather like the fact that Filipinos are self-assured enough to use these names, no matter how odd they sound or how senior the person's public role.
But my assimilation is not quite complete.
While I think it is great that BumBum can wear her name badge with pride, I'm not quite ready to adopt a Philippine nickname myself just yet.

my favorite is the very influential previous archbishop of the Philippines: Cardinal Sin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaime_Sin

His title and surname as Cardinal Sin (another term for a deadly sin) were the source of many jokes in the Philippines and the Philippine Catholic community, such as "The greatest sin of all...Cardinal Sin", and his own pun: "Welcome to the house of Sin" referring to his official residence, Villa San Miguel.

Some more usefull info can be found in this article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15850516

Basicaly ESA lowered the signal strength of their antennas, so when the signal was picked up byt the probe, it had strength as if it would be near mars.

Some other rummors:
A source from the aerospace industry explains that P-G is possibly in safe mode and it always turns off each time when it goes into shadow of Earth.

The unnamed person also thinks why it was impossible to contact P-G with Russian space antennas - the spacecraft is above then only when it's in the shadow of Earth.

But the European station in Pert has contacted P-G when the spacecraft was in the sunny side of the Earth. It's the only period when there's electricity on board.

Up to date info about teh mission can be fount at http://www.russianspaceweb.com/phobos_grunt_launch.html

Latest entry states:

November 24 developments

Around 01:00 Moscow Time (4 p.m. EST on November 23), a poster on the forum of the Novosti Kosmonavtiki magazine reported that the telemetry from the spacecraft had been received as well. A data set was reportedly downlinked to a European ground station and transferred to NPO Lavochkin for analysis. Shortly thereafter, the official Russian media quoted a European representative in Moscow as saying that ESA ground station in Perth had received telemetry from the spacecraft. According to Novosti Kosmonavtiki's Igor Lissov, an emergency telemetry frame from the radio-system onboard the cruise stage, PM, had been received, confirming normal power supply and the operation of the communication gear. During the next communication pass starting at 03:30 Moscow Time, ground controllers hoped to downlink telemetry via probe's main flight control computer, BKU, essentially a brain of the mission.

Have I ever known anybody to get a ticket for this? No... still best not to give a reason.

A lorry driver who was caught watching a cult television show at the wheel of his cab on the M6 in Cumbria has been given 225 hours community work. Benjamin Trotsman veered across the road while watching 1970s sci-fi show Battlestar Galactica on a laptop computer, Penrith magistrates heard.

That's your line?

1. No statistically significant warming since 1995. BBC interview.
2. BEST confirmation of no global warming for 13 years. Prof Curry confirmed her objections to Prof Muller's assertions, and the quotes used in the published interview:

   ‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’

   .

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/29/uh-oh-it-was-the-best-of-times-it-was-the-worst-of-times/

Well in the U.K. I guess yes you do attempt to ban all pointy knives. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4581871.stm

it's the speed at which it is happening. It's way faster than any natural warming or cooling that we've experienced - those took at least centuries to significantly change climate. We're looking at decades

The Old Egyptian Kingdom fell because of very rapid climate change that happened in just a few decades:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/egyptians/apocalypse_egypt_01.shtml

The fact that our historical proxies have low granularity does not in any way suggest that swift changes happened before - only that it's hard to detect them with the proxies we use.

"Crazy? Since I am the subject of your link, I would have to take offense at that."

That's great, I'm sure Gaddaffi would've taken offence to being called crazy too, but it really wouldn't make it any less true. So offence or not, you'll be seen as you make yourself seen, not as you wish to be seen.

"But if you want to talk facts, let's talk facts rather than distort the picture or take comments out of context, shall we?"

But that's the problem with crazy people, much like how they think they are seen or would like to be seen being quite different from how they are actually are seen, what they think are facts is quite different from what are actually facts. The fact is the science that has stood up to peer review overwhelmingly demonstrates a warming trend.

"I'd rather be a crazy than some kind of ass who quotes other people out of context."

Yeah, there's a slight problem there, I didn't actually quote you. I linked you. What is behind that link is your posting in it's entirety and the thread that follows from that. There's no cherry picking there, simply what you said in it's entirety.

Still I have to wonder why exactly you would quote the Daily Mail - a well known far right site with a distinct anti-global warming bias to it and which has been known to outright lie in it's articles on a regular basis to try and push it's point.

But wait, the other guy responding to you already pointed it out, you said dispute the science, not the source! Well, apart from the fact source credibility is kind of important - I mean, surely you wouldn't blindly believe anything Phil Jones from the CRU says nowadays without proper peer reviewed evidence would you? - doing what you told the other guy to do is pretty simple, in fact, the BBC has done it nicely for you:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15538845

You see you could've found this yourself, with a 2 second Google, and could have understood why the Daily Mail article is completely wrong from the outset, but you didn't. Why is that? It's okay, I can answer that for you - it's because you're incapable of objectivity.

You can hide behind your "But I only said in the last 2 - 3 years" all you want, but your agenda is obvious, plenty of your posts betray that falsehood.

You're crazy, you're stupid. It really is that simple. The saddest part is you're too caught up in your own toxic blend of bias and ignorance to even realise it.

Protein folding requires all the CPUs in the world and then some more. So to get the most out of all those you'll need a decent understanding of network programming. A while ago on here I recall a problem of non Computer Science students writing awful programmes to do their work. so its a real problem
Biological student need high level programming and stat skills to be effective Biological Scientists in day to day life. So yes Biological Sciences needs Biological Sciences.

If you get a chance watch this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00s0ggv/episodes/guide
Sir Tim Hunt gathered large amounts of data for his discovery of the mechanism of cell division. Sciences needs data - that data needs to be lifted. Programmers are lazy when you need to lift things and the best ones know how to lift the most with as little effort as possible. / getting my train - above not proofed - sorry.

Let's take your points as they are:

Hans Blix:
- Iraq was impeding his mission deliberately.
- Iraq was playing cat and mouse games.
- Report to UN on Janurary 27th, 2003: "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it."

ElBaradei:
- was relying on Iraq themselves to provide evidence.
- report to the UN from ElBaradei was that Iraq was withholding evidence and materials, that their Dec. 7, 2002 document dump “did not provide any new information relevant to certain questions that have been outstanding since 1998."

At the time, they were NOT certain what was present, because Saddam was deliberately not cooperating. So we had three theories. We had the theory (which turned out to be correct) that there wasn't anything left and Saddam was just blustering. We had the theory, which the US had, that Saddam's weapons program had gone underground into storage or hidden operation. And we had the theory, proposed by the Weenie French, that we shouldn't attack Iraq because Saddam would use WMD's to retaliate.

Oh, and let's not forget that the UN high mucky-mucks, particularly those like Hans Blix and ElBaradei, were already under heavy suspicion related to Kofi Annan and the oil-for-food scandal and all the bribery Saddam's regime was tossing around from it.

Most studies (such as http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7910075.stm) have shown that texting actually increases skills.

So in your version of newspeak "most" means just the one article I found on the BBC website. That's not the same as my definition of most.