Slashdot Mirror

It's Islam Shariah Law. The rich are always favored over the poor.

I don't know, the Iranians just hanged a banker.

That might be less an example of Iran's courts remaining neutral between rich and poor, and more an example of a rich person who either ticked off even richer people or who failed to spread his wealth around (bribe) correctly.

But then they surely would start some elaborate plot to fatten us up in some sneaky way before they invade.

Motorola because having Jobs launch it would make big news, as it did. Jobs maybe wanted more licensees, or had something to prove to record companies

Please correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Apple claim that they had already started working on iphone concepts in 2005? If so, what were they doing looking for licensees? Also, what did Jobs have to prove to the record companies? By this point in time the ipod was almost synonymous with music players.

I mean the patents that they won with in a court of law. Leaving your opinion worthless.

Oh you mean like in Netherlands where the Dutch Supreme Court limited the applicability of that design patent, claiming prior art? Or maybe you meant UK where as a result of a High Court ruling Apple had to run ads saying Samsung had not infringed its rights? Apple's claims were also denied in several other courts across the globe but I'm not feeling like looking up all the references for you. The only courts which have ruled in favor of Apple are German and American (tbh that particular fiasco should have been classified as a mistrial what with the jury foreman's vested interest and the jurors getting manipulated). So which court of law were you talking about? I think I'll go with the British court, if that's alright with you.

The G1 iPhone wasn't even a smartphone. As it didn't have third party apps, there was no such thing as a bar on multitasking. iOS certainly was a multitasking OS even back then, and the in-built apps certainly multitasked.

If the iphone 1st gen wasn't a smartphone, how did it set the bar for smartphones like so many Apple fans continuously claim?
There definitely was a bar on multitasking for 3rd party apps and the only apps exempt from this bar were the pre-installed apps. While the OS itself supported multitasking just fine and jailbreaking an iphone gave it the ability to multitask, officially the bar on multitasking was lifted with the release of iOS 4.0 and iPhone 1st gen and iPhone 3G never had multitasking for 3rd party apps.

As for all Symbian phones, you yourself claim that Symbian was almost an embedded system with huge constraints wrt power and memory, with powerful hardware getting cheap enough and becoming a viable alternative as it did, the direction the industry headed in was inevitable. Apple releasing the iPhone was irrelevant since Apple wasn't the only one learning from the mistakes and missteps of every phone manufacturer on the planet, most phone manufacturers were learning and their designs were evolving in pretty much the same direction or did Apple design the iPhone in a vacuum with Jobs pulling a 'let there be light'?

Symbian definitely had some great ideas, every phone manufacturer (including Apple) learned a great deal from the experiments in UI design that went into making smartphones in the late 90s to the mid-2000s, Symbian, WinCE (with all its custom OEM skins) and Blackberry were all pioneers. Learning from others while you sit on the sidelines and then trying to push everyone off the playing field through legal shenanigans when they were the ones who did all the pioneering work is downright skulduggery but since it's Apple doing it and apparently Jobs' reality distortion field is still alive and kicking even after Jobs kicked the bucket so lets cheer the douchebags on!

Frankly,. I would like to see min. wage doubled and tipping ended.

- this is how I know you are dumber than 76% of the Swiss.

There shouldn't be a minimum wage at all. I hired 4 people just in the last month (all students) and the condition was that they come in for free for a few weeks to learn until they can be put on a project. 3 of them are already on a project, so they are now getting paid. 1 of them is not and I talked to the guy and told him that I like his effort and ethic but his performance is god awful. I will pay him 1/3 of what I pay others and that would be at least 30% less than minimum wage in USA for example when compared in across currencies.

But I have a choice to do this or not, however if there was a minimum wage law and I had to abide by it, I would send the kid home, I would NOT hire him and NOBODY would.

The people that are rallying the troops behind minimum wage and increase of minimum wage believe that the minimum wage workers are supposed to be paid a 'living wage' for some reason, but that's pure nonsense. Nobody is entitled to any such thing, you are only as good as your productivity and ability / experience, etc., but most importantly productive output of-course. If you are skilled and are able to use complex tools to perform complex tasks in an efficient manner, you will be making much more than the minimum wage.

If you have no skills and the only job you can get in your economy is an ENTRY level job then you can either have that job if there is no minimum wage law or you can without a job because you are not going to be paid more than the money you can make for the employer.

WM, McDonalds an other jobs of that type are all entry level jobs. The fact that your economy is fucked so bad that other jobs are unavailable is only an indicator that your economy and policy is just as stupid as you are, because your type of policy is what destroyed that economy.

Indeed

http://www.bbc.com/news/techno...

With these cars the insurance would be cheaper and obviously the manufacturer would be liable for any crashes due to 'defects' unless the car was sabotaged. I wonder how long it will be until someone works out how to chip one of these cars. Maybe google should make the AI open-source.

It's Islam Shariah Law. The rich are always favored over the poor.

I don't know, the Iranians just hanged a banker.

In some cases, these problems are also created by Australian companies shipping their toxic production processes overseas where they can cut costs by cutting corners, and politicians refusing to accept the waste back.

I have no experience in this field but instead of asking her to blink her eyes, I'd ask her to move something that's easiest for her, in response to questions. Observe carefully. Maybe it's easier for her to wiggle her toe.

Here's an interesting article: http://www.bbc.com/news/health-20268044

Here are some European experts: http://www.coma.ulg.ac.be/

Good luck, and don't disconnect just yet...

And please post a follow up in a while.

You keep talking about the danger of the things as if every ER in America is packed full of related injuries.

The burden of proof rests on you to show why drone aircraft are 'not dangerous' or so special that no licensing or safety precautions should be required.

Drones are not very widely in use yet; this is expensive advanced technology that the 1% owns, so even ONE incident shows a high accident rate and high proportion of risk from each operator, and there have been plenty of near misses, accidents involving illegal operation in proximity to fatal crashes, drone crashes causing injuries and unlawful interference with emergency medical flights.

You could get statistics by scrapping this page list of British police officers killed in the line of duty. I think it is roughly 71/248 or about 30%. I would not be surprised if the GP was correct and the percentage of British police officers killed by guns is greater than the percentage of US police officers. This could be due to the fact that British police don't have guns.

But the percentages are terribly misleading if you don't look at the absolute numbers or per capita numbers. In the US, 500 people per year are killed by the police while in Britain only 30 people total have been killed by the police (up until 2005). Since Britain has 1/5th the population of the US, the total (over all years) per capita number of people killed in Britain by police is less than 1/3rd of the per capita killed in the US every year.

Over 100 US police officers are killed in the line of duty each year while according to the page linked to above, the number of British police officers killed in the line of duty is 2 per year (this century). So on a per capita basis ten times as many US police officers get killed on duty than British police officers. If, as the GP states, roughly 30% of US police deaths on duty are due to firearms then it is 10 times more likely for a person in the US to gun down a police officer than someone in Britain.

Whatever the exact numbers are, it is clear that the amount of police related gun violence in Britain is drastically lower than police related gun violence in the US on a per capita basis.

If it was easy for Scientology to do these things, why don't you show me some examples of it being done?

How Scientology changed the internet.

There ya go.

"Scientists at the British Antarctic Survey say that the melting of the Pine Island Glacier ice shelf in Antarctica has suddenly slowed right down in the last few years, confirming earlier research which suggested that the shelf's melt does not result from human-driven global warming." Read more here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2... Here's the story of the ship stuck in Antarctic ice which had to be rescued, then the rescue ship got stuck. This article is dated Jan 3, 2014. In the southern hemisphere, IT WAS SUMMER. July 3 is the northern hemisphere equivalent of that date. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...

"You do realize stopping the flow of gas to Europe would hurt Europe more than it would Russia, don't you?"

No it wouldn't. Russia's entire economy is founded on it to the point it simply cannot service it's debts without it and so would default resulting in a collapse of it's economy. Europe in contrast can get gas from elsewhere, including fellow European countries like Norway.

The reason Europe hasn't stopped buying Russian gas yet is two fold:

1) Causing economic collapse of Russia is a last ditch option, Putin is, if nothing else, a known quantity. If Russia collapses who takes over the world's largest/second largest nuclear arsenal? Who makes sure Russian commanders don't go shipping nukes off to batshit crazy lands like North Korea to make themselves insanely rich? It's probably containable, but it's a risk that shouldn't be taken if necessary.

2) Although Europe can live without Russian gas it would cost more to switch suddenly to other suppliers, that would reduce economic competitiveness to a degree and reduce the disposable income of Europeans due to higher fuelling costs. This wouldn't cause economic collapse in Europe like it would Russia but it would leave people unhappy as it'd likely mean a few more years of recession or negligible growth until supplies of gas to increase competition and reduce prices again came online such as that to start being shipped from the US.

Europe has the power to crush Russia and bankrupt it, but right now it's an option that has risks and has burdens that people do not want to suffer unless absolutely necessary.

See here for how utterly dependant on trade with Europe Russia is:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...

In contrast Europe isn't as dependent on Russia for trade, it can easily live without it. In fact, only one or two countries in Europe actually make more from Russia than Russia makes from the (again, largely because of Russian energy imports), one of those countries is the UK who now has one of the strongest Western economies and could most afford to foot the loss anyway.

The UK also introduced regulation of larger commercial blogs that publish "news type" material, part of the recommendations of the Leveson enquiry into press standards. Large blogs have to sign up to a press regulator, if not they get fined. It does not matter where the Blog's servers are located, if someone downloads content in the UK, it is published it in the UK and they can be held responsible ("Downloading here can count as publication in the law.").

Links:
"Press regulation deal sparks fears of high libel fines for bloggers - Websites could have to pay exemplary damages if they don't sign up to new regulator, claim opponents of Leveson deal "

BBC News: Will websites/blogs etc be covered?

You all clamored for a tightly-corperate-coupled government to control the internet.

Then it happened, the FCC decided it could do what it wanted.So now instead of back-end interconnects being negotiated between an ISP and a content provider as had been the case, the government by fiat has declared the "winner" - the ISP.

Don't be obtuse. The government should have, but failed to, control the internet. That is why the ISPs are charging you and arm and a leg. One example- the FCC wanted net neutrality, which by all accounts most consumers want. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and the ISPs however killed the idea :-

Any semblance of net neutrality in the United States is as good as dead. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on Tuesday struck down the Federal Communications Commission’s 2010 order that imposed network neutrality regulations on wireline broadband services. The ruling is a major victory for telecom and cable companies who have fought all net neutrality restrictions vociferously for years.

You are doing the ISPs work for them. Every time one of you should "less gov'mt" and burn flags, they rub their hands in glee. Less government = more freedom in them deciding how to skin you.

Also explain to me how is it that you can get cheaper broadband in countries even heavier regulated than the US .

Say I told Comcast to fuck off. They'd cut me off. Sure, short-term revenues would go down because I lost all those customers. Long-term, though, I would win because those customers would not remain silent. I would let everyone know that I am quite willing to give them access, but it is their cable company that is blocking the service. Cut off from a service they want by an ill-behaving monopoly, they would kick up a fuss and - doubtless unwillingly - the politicos would have to regulate properly or they would lose their seats.

I'm sorry, I don't have your faith in "the people".

Case in point- US consumers have been paying through their nose for broadband access for years.

Home broadband in the US costs far more than elsewhere. At high speeds, it costs nearly three times as much as in the UK and France, and more than five times as much as in South Korea.

I don't see this rising tide of angry consumers you speak of. Most of them will shrug their shoulders and keep on paying. With Netflix cut off, they will just switch to cable.

Well you're half right but there's no money other than building the containment hut now. The hope is that they'll get some money and do something else with it later.

So, for now and the near future they're just burying the shit. Maybe in 100 or 200 years they'll have the tech to actually remediate the site.

You mean like this?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-sco...

The global warming clan is shouting loudly about some uncertain predictive models based upon imprecise historical measurements. The global climate was changing long before man started mining coal and pulling oil out of the ground, as you can see for yourself from that link.

Perhaps the reason the public doesn't get involved is because no one has shown them their choices will have any appreciable effect. If the oceans have been rising multiple meters in 8,000 - 10,000 years (at least as compared to a prehistoric land mass comparable to the size of the British Isles), no one's going to notice a few centimeters in a century due to "global warming". For the majority of the people out there (who either live inland or in places where climate change won't have an adverse effect), their lives will not change much.

People worry about where their food is coming from tomorrow, not about what might happen 100+ years in the future, and that is IMHO a very rational approach.

I'm sure a cyclist's efficiency drops dramatically with 60mph of wind! You could mitigate that with a fairing and a fancy recumbent bicycle. (Cyclists have actually achieved that speed, with such equipment.) But they kept that up for a matter of minutes, not hours.

That said, you can always put your chosen system on top by messing with the parameters.

For example: BMW's 2014 i3 has a 38 mile range, but I've been known to go over a hundred miles on a bicycle in one day. So, factor in two charge cycles, and not only use less fuel, I might actually outrun the vehicle as well.

Fun aside:

Cheetahs are significantly faster than humans, but over a long range, humans on foot can actually catch up with a cheetah and overtake it. Somali tribesmen recently did this to catch a cheetah who was attacking their livestock. (Reference: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-... ) Walking on two legs is a hell of a lot more efficient than walking on four.

"If you do not work you do not eat"? Spoken as a true corporate tool. Who defines what "work" is then? Guess what: the people with money do, as they always have. Ask a rich CEO why they deserve the highest compensation multiple of workers ever today, and they'll tell you all about how their work adds value!

There's only place this road has ever led toward: rich people get so much negotiating power over poor ones they force them into inhumane working conditions, knowing they have to accept that or starve. You don't get a wonderful world--instead you'll just keep reinventing the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire for modern workers. Gotta lock the doors, can't have people in the factory stealing our precious iThings to sell them for food!

The same thing here. All the poor live in homes with lead contamination. And the government will not force landlords to take care of it. Lead poisoning makes kids dumber and violent. Simply forcing slumlords to remove lead from all homes they rent, would make a huge change, as large as we saw by going with lead free fuel.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazi...
http://science-beta.slashdot.o...

Oligarchies don't have to listen to anyone, sadly. Everyone needs to learn how to do everything for ourselves or we'll become extinct when all the resources run out. (sooner than you think)

We'll all have to learn how to adapt to space without governments if we are to survive as people. If you were to set a course for a distant nebula, nobody could catch you as long as you kept your heading.

But that kind of travel is very far off. One breakthrough could trigger a chain reaction... a singularity.

Yeah, he is a bit pissed off.

Perhaps you could clarify. Im not clear how putting all of Europe and half of South America between you and Ecuador makes it easier to get there. Its a ~15 hour flight to China, and he got all the way there before they began the process of revoking his passport. How exactly would he not have already been in Ecuador if he had gotten a direct(ish) flight?

More to the point, theres a timeline here that you should acquaint yourself with.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...
Big details are that Snowden was in Hong Kong before we were even looking for him, and he remained there for a full FOURTEEN DAYS. Thats an odd way to get to Ecuador-- particularly considering he didnt even broach asylum with Ecuador until he arrived in Moscow eighteen days after the June 6 revelation.

The idea that he was taking a circuitous route because the goal was Ecuador is pure fantasy.

And yet the reality is, as an American living in Europe, I'm free to walk down the fucking street without being threatened by guns.

I bet this guy is so relieved that he can safely walk down the street without being threatened by a gun.

Did anyone actually die from that?

Hard to say which "mass violence spree" involving a knife the GP has in mind.

Perhaps he is thinking of the one from 9 hours ago where five students were stabbed to death in Calgery, Canada.

But who knows.... Outlaw Guns! herp derp

often get 90%+ participation. For example, just last month Putin has obviously orchestrated a non-binding independence referendum in Venice: 89% of participants voted for independence with

That's actually a very insightful (and it turns out informative) refutation.

You see, it turns out that Venice poll was not actually a proper plebiscite, but rather an online poll. Online polls aren't exactly famous for being accurate representations of popular opinion. I can't find any official number for participation, but it looks like they were "expecting" no more than half the electorate to vote.

So what would they have found in a real vote? Actual opinion polls on the question were apparently finding about 2/3 support for the idea. A 66% vote for a popular measure in a Democracy would be perfectly in line with what one would expect to see in a real vote.

But maybe you're right, and I should look at a real independence referendum. They are preparing to have one of those in Scotland soon, right? What are the predictions for numbers there? Well, current opinion polls seem to show the electorate running at about 50% to 33%, with the rest undecided. So we can expect that when election day happens, whichever side wins, it won't be by larger than 77%, and likely far less.

Or how about we look at actual numbers from an actual vote? Puerto Rico had a referendum on statehood/independence/etc. again two years ago. 78% of those eligible voted (so indeed high by western standards, but not ridiculously so), and the results were about 54% to 46%.

So I may have to grant you that turnout numbers may be a bit higher than normal during a referendum like this, but that's still worlds away from making the "results" the Russians reported from Crimea look anything like a real vote.

Well, not blindly trusting the medicine men seems like a pretty reasonable stance.

At least to anyone not subscribing to the church of sciencetology. (No, I didn't misspell that. It's called being sarcastic.)

When it's the "UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change". Here's the BBC's description of IPCC: "The IPCC itself is a small organisation, run from Geneva with a full time staff of 12. All the scientists who are involved with it do so on a voluntary basis." http://www.bbc.com/news/scienc...

Relax, people. There's no U.N resolution here; there's no consensus of nations here recognizing the urgency that requires this "tripling" of non-carbon-based energy. It's easy for the press to say this is the report from the U.N., when it's not.

If you get 12 scientists in a room that have volunteered to produce a report on global warming, what would you expect them to produce? Something that says everything's peachy?

You won't see this old boy freaking out over something dumb like this.

Well, at least they had the extra money to put two seats in one bathroom stall...

http://www.bbc.com/news/techno...

It's not a law per se but a branch agreement between employers and labor unions in part of the IT industry. Even for a french speaker the wording sounds bizarre, as if the 2 parties had only managed to come to a wobbly, half-baked agreement.

Translated form the original agreement :

"Effective respect by the employee of these minimal rest hours implies that they compulsorily disconnect from remote communication tools.

The employer will make sure that a tracking tool is set up to enforce employee daily and weekly off-work times.

They will also put into place any necessary means to ensure that the employee can disconnect from remote communication tools at their disposal.

It should be noted that, in this context, employees with annualized working days, in agreement with their employer, can freely manage the time necessary to accomplish their mission."

While it appears some unions wanted strict obligation to remain off-line between 10 PM to 7 AM (in French), it was finally agreed that it was not feasible due to multi-timezone bound jobs.

My interpretation is that the first sentence is here to allow employers to deny any responsibility if an employee was to work long hours from home on their own initiative and blame that on the company later.

All in all it's not such a big deal, just :

We make sure you can disconnect
You disconnect
You don't sue us for pressurizing you if you don't

As a side note, this isn't unseen before in Europe - in 2011 Volkswagen had already established a daily "truce" in email communications, stopping their Blackberry servers after work hours.

Actually, the jury foreman stated in a post trial interview that he told the rest of the jury that because the code from one example of prior art couldn't be dropped into the iPhone and run, it wasn't valid as prior art. This was against juror instructions, and the rest of the jury went along because he claimed to know what he was talking about. http://www.bbc.com/news/techno... http://www.groklaw.net/article...

Uh, hate to break this to you but the US has been selling arms to Japan for decades as part of the 1951 Mutual Cooperation and Security Treaty between the US and Japan.

I think you're referring to the recent change in Japanese policy change that will allow Japanese weapons manufacturers to export weapons. While I'm not a fan of weapons sales it is a business that can't be outlawed unilaterally because even if nations would agree to ban weapons exports and sales to other nations, there will be still nations like North Korea or Cuba who have a vested interest in selling their own weapons in violation of sanctions imposed by the UN. If your neighbor next door is ramping up their military in what you believe is going to negatively impact your nation, then you'll look to buy weapons yourself. If you can't buy them through normal channels, you'll buy them from illegal channels and that's where the North Koreans and Cubans come into play. Even the Ukraine has been caught pushing weapons into Africa for example.

You know, it could be that Tesla enlists the help of elite hackers who have compromised other high-flying products to harden their systems before somebody gets killed?

USA invaded Iraq and scared and killed thousands of people. Then it controlled its territory while people of Iraq went to polls to vote. The vote was considered democratic and the results were recognized.

Russia invaded Crimea in a peaceful way and didn't kill anybody. Then it controlled its territory while people of Crimea went to polls to vote. Despite numerous international observers and absence of any concerns from them, US doesn't want to recognize this vote.

Looks like hypocrisy and double-standards.

Russia chose the international observers that were allowed to attend.

"International observers from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) were prevented last week from entering Crimea. Pro-Russian forces fired warning shots in the air as the OSCE convoy approached a checkpoint leading from mainland Ukraine into the peninsula."
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...

Those allowed by Russia to 'observe' are Anti-American far right nazis:
"Concerns have been raised about the objectivity of the international observers and the fact that the Eurasian Observatory for Democracy & Elections (EODE), the election monitoring organization, is a partisan institution, with ties to far-right and neo-nazi groups.[133][134] The mission leader Mateusz Piskorski is a well-known antisemite and admirer of Adolf Hitler,[135] and the EODE leader Luc Michel is an antisemite and neo-Nazi as well."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

Russia's actions in Crimea are just as wrong as America's actions in Iraq.

I guess you have no knowledge of the Indian Parliament.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...

6 killed as huge 8.2 earthquake off Chile. Here is one of the Earth Quake video at Chile Super Market..BBC Broadcast this http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...

Last week the BBC had this article on autism which says whatever is causing autism happens long before birth.

From the article:

Patchy changes in the developing brain long before birth may cause symptoms of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), research suggests.

In other words, vaccines have NO relation to who does or does not develop autism.

You should read up on second sleep: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazi...

The whole "we are meant to sleep for 8 contiguous hours" might just be an invention of the industrial age. Now that'd be interesting for the paleo folks to embrace, as well...

NPR and the BBC in the first week following the disappearance but here's some BBC magazining of it: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-... Besides, plainly if you were correct they would have to have completely failed for the search to have taken three weeks. Also, if they were "released" on a salt-water crash then if they floated they would not remain at the location of the crash even though the recorders would unless the beacons didn't float and if they didn't float they would be exactly what I described anyway.

The nice thing about (bayesian) statistics is that you can combine information from different sources and form a coherent statistical estimate based on everything you have. So given they have a model about debris occurance in this part of the ocean, they can very well increase the probabilities based on the sighting of debris.
The BBC had a nice article about bayesian search methods some days ago: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazi...

And there's your difference. Kosovo carved *itself* out of Yugoslavia. *Russia* carved the Crimea out of Ukraine.

No! You lie! The Crimean people [democratically] voted to join Russia.
Want a link? Here you go.

The electrical fire theory is simple, compelling, and wrong!

Even Ukrainian citizens don't want to support current antidemocratic regime in Kiev.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26653295

http://www.bbc.com/news/busine...

Look, people are involved and people are fallible and technology can't really prevent that. BTC as a protocol is solid and wasn't comprised. The very immature institutions that have sprung up around BTC are currently failing at their task that you have every right to criticize them. Hopefully the market will sort out some winners that can function in their institutional roles in the BTC ecosystem safely and securely.

But don't confuse BTC for a bank and right now don't confuse it for a currency. Currently, BTC is a commodity because of its volatile value against fiat currencies. Someday that might change at which point BTC begins behaving like a currency. It fills/will fill a real need for many people, probably not you but others and that's what really matters here. When the BTC institutions can behave in as secure and trustworthy a way as other financial institutions (and really is that a very high bar anymore) then it will be very much like any other currency with a measurable market cap and liquid exchanges. Until then its volatile and probably only for miners and speculators (and gamblers).

And a ponzi scheme always needs an increasing amount of money to keep going (ie next year more $$ needs to go in than last year). That doesn't seem to be a feature of the Bitcoin ecosystem. Ask any miner and they've gone through peaks and valleys due to volatile prices and changing difficulties that brings the system into balance. It always balances out, the good and the bad (ie bad you paid 47 BTC for a ASIC miner in August 2013 that probably will never mine 47 BTC, good your other 147 BTC are now worth 80k USD). Its hard and rare to get rich honestly with BTW but you can make a bit of extra cash right now and that's a feature of a healthy and growing market.

So, then, what you're saying here is that every Newsweek article written in the past 80 years is suspect? Having read Newsweek more than never, I can't say I disagree.

Actually that just means that every Newsweek article written since the launch of the magazine under the current owners and with the current writers is suspect.

That adds up to... one issue, with a handful of articles of questionable veracity.

you seem to underestimate the gravity of situation.

Russia was perhaps "loser" in the 1990s, but for over a decade Putin has done what he could to grow european dependence on russian natural resources and capital.

And Putin mastered the art of "dividing the EU". It is only a couple of years that EU finally decided to try to speak with one voice. Still, Putin knew what he was doing buying people where needed.

I heard a diplomat who spent some years in Moscow said, that Clinton's major failure was not making Russia democratic state. At that time Yeltzin was "a modelling clay". Even later, Putin at the very start of his presidency has even asked if Russia could join NATO. Clinton's error no.2.

How about this protest against gypsy crime organized by the Jobbik party Maybe this article.