Slashdot Mirror

Really?

Seems that the ones clamoring for everyone else paying for it are the ones spouting hateful attitudes.

http://twitchy.com/2012/06/06/kill-scott-walker-angry-libs-flood-twitter-with-death-threats-after-wisconsin-recall-defeat/
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/police-investigating-death-threats-gov-scott-walker-recall-victory-article-1.1090894
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/06/Kill-Scott-Walker-Angry-Dems-Twitter

Yeah, it's unacceptable, all right. The problem is...he's not really being "hateful" and YOU and people like the above referenced links.

If you want to understand what the "Southern Strategy" really meant, read this.

Again, any argument that the Southern Strategy is racist against blacks is inherently flawed when the Republicans enjoyed a massive increase in the black vote because of it.

I have no doubt you'll ignore the article because of where it is stored, but the inability to learn where knowledge is to be found is your own problem that I cannot solve for you.

Because when islam was the progressive religion driving greatest scientific minds of its time, christian Europe was hell bent on killing and enslaving as many muslims as possible. Crusading was a great way to earn money, fame and reputation. Read about that stuff sometime.

Let's see what some other sources say:

'Tyranny of Clichés' Excerpt: The Truth About the Crusades

. . . Until fairly recently, historically speaking, Muslims used to brag about being the winners of the Crusades, not the victims of it. That is if they talked about them at all. “The Crusades could more accurately be described as a limited, belated and, in the last analysis, ineff ectual response to the jihad—a failed attempt to recover by a Christian holy war what had been lost to a Muslim holy war,” writes Bernard Lewis, the greatest living historian of Islam in the English language (and perhaps any language).5 Historian Thomas Madden puts it more directly, “Now put this down in your notebook, because it will be on the test: The crusades were in every way a defensive war. They were the West’s belated response to the Muslim conquest of fully two-thirds of the Christian world.”6

At first the larger Muslim world didn’t much care about the Christian reclamation of Jerusalem and the Holy Land. The jihad to repel the crusaders didn’t start in earnest until the European forces pressed on into the Muslim Holy Lands approaching Mecca and Medina. Even then the Muslim world considered the fight to reclaim Jerusalem a sideshow. The real fight was in the East, where caliphs were rolling up victory after victory in the old Byzantine Empire. In 1291, the Muslims expelled the last of the crusaders, and all remaining Christians and Jews in the Islamic world lived as second-class citizens (though often better than Muslims or Jews might have in many parts of Christendom). By the sixteenth century, Islam’s empire covered all of North Africa, Asia Minor, Arabia, and much of southern Europe. Had Islamic forces not been turned back outside the Gates of Vienna, Christianity itself may not have survived. (The battle ended in victory for the Christians on September 12, but it was the day before, marking the apex of Muslim rule, that would stick in the minds of many Muslims for the next 318 years.)
   

The Truth about Islamic Crusades and Imperialism

The Status of Non-Muslim Minorities Under Islamic Rule

The Golden Age of Islam is a Myth

Islam has a reeeeeeeeeeally long way to go if it actually wants to even compete for #1. Even discounting WW1 and WW2, christians have long held the trophy, and they're not going to be relinquishing it any time soon.

a rough estimate of 270 million killed by jihad.

The atheist Communists killed 100,000,000 people in the last 100 years.

There are two problems with this argument -

(1) He was treated by EMTs before being brought into custody. This is standard procedure - the cops don't want a suspect dribbling blood all over their police station and moaning in pain while trying to piece together events.

(2) A higher resolution video has been released that seems to show evidence of injuries: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/03/31/New-Hi-Def-Vid. (You may disagree with Breitbart, but the video is relevant regardless of who posts it).

What about Jesus Christ?

I'm not sure I see the flaw.

TSA's job is to prevent passengers from bringing weapons onto the airplane. They have some successes and notable failures in doing this. Apple's job is to prevent malicious code from running on our iPhones and iPads and I'm sure they have some successes and failures.

What you're saying is that it's okay that the TSA might fail every now and again because the passengers will spot the malicious person and prevent him from performing his dastardly task. Of course, passengers tend to generate more false positives because they are not trained in security.

But if you want to go with this analogy, Android would be a better secure environment than iOS. Android has various tools that smart people can use to find malicious software So, to carry this into your analogy, using Android is like flying on airplane with a group of passengers who understand security and can spot the evildoer and warn others. iOS is like flying on an airplane where everybody says, "Oh, they made it through the TSA checkpoint. They must be okay."

Capitalism

vs

Socialism

Capitalism

vs

Socialism

Capitalism

vs

Socialiam

The TSA should engage in profiling, as the Israelis do. Although it's controversial, the Israelis have managed to prevent any hijacking incidents since 1969 so they must be doing something right.

When was the last time they actually caught a hijacker at the airport? Or, indeed, a terrorist of any description?

You may be right, but I can't think of any news reports in the last twenty years or so.

I wish the TSA was more transparent and honest about the technologies and processes they use. I get the impression their imaging technology and their processes such as their rules for liquids were better thought out and better supported by real world facts. After the attempt to smuggle explosive liquids onto flights in the UK, many airports limited liquid size to 100 ml, or 3.4 ounces. This somewhat arbitrary amount is just under the size of many 4 ounce mini-drinks and mini-yogurts and baby foods in the U.S. So why not allow 4 or 5 ounces. Does that .6 ounce truly make the difference between life and death?

The TSA should engage in profiling, as the Israelis do. Although it's controversial, the Israelis have managed to prevent any hijacking incidents since 1969 so they must be doing something right. Even the Israelis aren't perfect and sooner or later it's possible someone will slip through and cause a calamity, but so far they have demonstrated a more intelligent approach to airport security that does not require body scanner imaging technology such as the TSA has enthusiastically promoted.

China's airport security is efficient and thorough, as well. A friend traveling there recently told me that when he came back to the U.S., it felt like going from a developed country to a 3rd world country in the airports. I suppose China has certain other problems having to do with civil liberty, not to mention a serious attitude problem on the part of one of their private airlines, but they seem to be doing something right with some aspects of the flying experience, anyway.

How's that?

Rescue workers and even the Japanese military have said that the meltdown has hindered their efforts. Source: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9M57OR80&show_article=1

Now, the article was written almost 2 weeks after the earthquake and talks about "missing bodies." But it's clear that the nuclear accident tied up resources that could otherwise be used to search for survivors in the days after the accident and therefore increase the chances of those buried under the debris to be rescued.

But since there is no hard data, it is easy to discount this assessment if one holds pro-nuclear views.

BBC is the closest as it comes to doing that. Perhaps I'm giving them too much credit however.

Although it is a venerable institution, the BBC has struggled with bias over the years.

BBC had "massive bias to left:" director general

The director general of the BBC admitted Thursday that his organisation had been guilty of a "massive bias to the left" but said "a completely different generation" of journalists now works at the broadcaster.
Mark Thompson told the right-of-centre Spectator magazine that there was an institutional bias when he joined the organisation, reinforcing the findings of a 2007 internal report which concluded that greater efforts were required to avoid liberal bias.

"In the BBC I joined 30 years ago, there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people's personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the left," Thompson said.

As far as I know, there have been a number of people who were quite mad that weak cases were prosecuted and strong ones weren't, but I've never once heard of a DA being in any legal trouble at all for the choices in cases taken

Really? You haven't been paying attention.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RCITJ00&show_article=1

And I remember the court cases where the police sued to have "discretion" mean that they don't have to apply the law, ever.

The Supreme Court has ruled that police can't be held civilly liable for failure to enforce the law. They can, of course, lose their jobs though. Which would naturally lead most to err on the side of over-zealous enforcement.

Environmentalists have a bad name because the industries that are doing all the damage find character assassination easier than actually cleaning up their mess.

Rigggght.... It's all a big conspiracy against environmentalists perpetrated by the big bad corporations. Environmentalists have never done anything to damage their own character

Really? Americans sold them fully automatic AKs and hand grenades?
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_mmBw3uzPnJI/TDL6TdwOQuI/AAAAAAABaVU/B1QMkH2PuQw/s1600/weapons_of_mexican_drug_cartel_17.jpg
http://www.deseretnews.com/photos/midres/874557.jpg

Those RPG's came from the US?
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_mmBw3uzPnJI/TDL5zWaiA5I/AAAAAAABaT0/cpJghwohg9c/s1600/weapons_of_mexican_drug_cartel_29.jpg
http://ppjg.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/picture5.jpg

That M60 was probably made in the US, but sure as fuck didn't come to cartel hands thru Texas!
http://stylemens.typepad.com/details__details/images/2008/11/17/power10.jpg

M1919 wow!
http://img.breitbart.com/images/2009/4/14/ap-p/9d90422f-c905-457a-8e1a-3f3d9f401f9f.jpg

The argument that all those firearms comes from the US is a red herring from Mexico to place blame on the US, which anti-gunners, the media, and power-hungry politicians latched onto like rabid dogs.

On one hand you have South America which has been at the center of cold-war proxy wars for decades with all kinds of ordanance.... on the other hand, maybe cartels prefer semi-auto rifles and revolvers for twice the price?

Think critically some time.

Besides, where the hell do you get something like THIS in the US?
http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Mexican-Drug-Lord-Guns-Diamonds-5.jpg

Not only that, but for all the people applauding Ecuador, have they noticed that Ecuador declined to renew the US lease at its Manta air base, and turned around and offered it to China? Here's a story from two years ago predicting this, something that has gotten utterly overlooked in this debate.

Does anyone really believe that as China presses its advantage in these areas that the Chinese Communist Party is going to be a better steward of the interests of freedom and democracy, even in light of anyone's opinions on US errors and missteps in foreign policy?

Your bias is showing.

So, it is bias to recognize Soros is a billionaire and a leftist activist? Hmmm. OK, I'll meet you half way.

1.5 million people have died as a result of our attack on Iraq. ... many of them not from bombs but from starvation after the infrastructure needed for their water, food, and medical care was destroyed.

There is nothing within your links that makes the study 'almost certainly' anything.

Your bias and ignorance are showing. You also clearly aren't giving Saddam his due in neglecting and misusing the Iraqi infrastructure which has greatly added to the misery in Iraq.

How much better off would the Iraqi people have been if Saddam had built water, sewage, and power plants instead of a series of palace complexes, and smuggled luxury goods and weapons? The Iraqi people were not helped by the abuse of the Oil for Food program / scandal. We helped lift the yoke from the Iraqi people and are helping them rebuild their country. They are likely to end up far better off than if Saddam had continued in power, and probably with many fewer dead. (What's that? Oil?)

Original Article that TFA links to: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9HVCJF00&show_article=1 "[the FCC] has rejected M2Z's request that the agency demand that the winner of an auction for the radio spectrum provide free Internet service to anyone who connects to it. " It didn't have anything to do with M2Z....but I can see why they shot down the "requirement that it be free"

Well, you just made a racist comment and provided fodder for all the black-hating racists and called black people racist all in one comment.

Congratulations.

And, tell me, how do you know those making racist comments aren't agents provocateur.

Progress in the war is optional.

Weird Al is parodying the original song in most cases, not just making up different lyrics. There's a big difference, and that's what lets him continue, while Don Henley sued Chuck DeVore for making up different lyrics to one of his songs and using it for a campaign. Below is DeVore's response, but you can search for the rest.

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/cdevore/2010/04/05/henley-lawsuit-update/

It's not objective, and Weird Al sometimes blurs the line. The difference is, Weird Al asks for permission (which he does not have to do if it's objectively a parody*). Once given permission, it doesn't matter whether it's a parody, he has permission.

"Bad" by Michael Jackson became "Fat" by Weird Al. Not only did the music video make it very obvious he was making a parody of Jackson, he even made fun of MJ's vocal inflections. Something that sounded like "Ja-mo", which was probably an out-of-breath version of "you know it", became "Ham-on, ham-on, ham on whole wheat" in Al's version. That's as clear of a parody as you can get, and if only one of Al's songs is protected that one is it.

Now, sometimes he just makes up random words that kinda sound similar, and it's not clearly parody, so a judge would have to decide. But he has permission.

Don't agree with me? Fine, but I'm spending energy to convince you otherwise, so do a little reading on differing opinions. I just gave you the *opposite* opinion above, feel free to read Don Henley's take on it.

Downfall parodies are about taking an actor's most intense scene in the film, start to finish, unedited, and with the original sound. It's not the entirety of the movie, but it is a pivotal moment. On the other hand, the ones I have seen are pretty funny. They do a good job contrasting the seriousness of the Third Reich and all of the problems caused by Hitler's drive with what the world might be like for him today. It's not a great defense, and it's not clear, and it's not Weird Al.

If you re-acted the whole thing verbatim and put subtitles on *that*, it's more clearly fair use. But only a judge can decide, since the law isn't clear, and nobody asked for permission.

The majority of the Senate voted to block funds necessary to transfer detainees. The Republicans then made a huge deal about it and turned into a political nightmare. Obama has pressed forward with preparing facilities in the US and on trials, regardless.

Also, do I need to post sources or are we just ignoring those now? Here's the senate block, here's Obama pressing forward with a memorandum.

Given how quickly almost all of the Senate blocked the transfer of prisoners, I think he's doing quite well. Unfortunately, the President can scoff at Congress' decisions only to a certain degree, and it takes a lot of legal wrangling to get around Congress denying funding for transferring inmates.

I promise you I'm not violating any agreement, and it's not in the contract. If you have a business account then the data plan costs $45, if you have a normal account, it's $30. You have no reason to get a business account, since it doesn't provide you any benefit.

I know everyone pretty much has that 5GB limit on the wireless broadband plan (which IS ridiculous if you want to download even 2 large files in a month), but here were my sources on the broadband caps:

Everything but personal has a 5GB cap: http://www.wireless.att.com/businesscenter/popup/dataconnect-comp-table.jsp
5GB soft limit: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9CFS57G0&show_article=1

If you tether, you definitely have a cap. Otherwise, it's up in the air. Looks like mostly rumors and bull on the internet, so I could be completely wrong. I have anecdotal evidence from friends about them getting a note about using too much bandwidth and to "consider another plan", but there's nothing other than those 2 links that I could find.

Some of my family members in Dallas have AT&T, and friends here outside of Philly/Delaware have AT&T. In both areas they go back and forth between 3G and EDGE all day, whereas the Verizon lads and lasses stay on 3G except in rare circumstances.

Sorry, you have been dethroned by the australians.

seeing an "emergency" someone will step in with government money, more regulation, etc, and it just goes downhill from here.

Democrat Henry Waxman says that our imperial federal government will be involved in shaping the future of journalism in this country. He claims that it is "essential to U.S. democracy." John Leibowitz, the Chairman of the FTC says, "News is a public good ... We should be willing to take action if necessary to preserve the news that is vital to democracy."

See one story at http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9CAJBQ80&show_article=1

I am far less worried about big media companies and the like. I am more than inclined to fear the Federal Government getting involved. Worse, they will twist the meaning to lay claim that any press other than "printed" is not covered "exactly" by the Constitution thereby allowing them to "help" out by providing some regulation. Very similar to how they exploit the fact that Radio isn't specifically listed in the Constitution/BOR and therefor they have a right to affect them. Sad is how many cheer it on who don't like AM talk radio without understanding that giving the government a foot in the door opens all to the affect.

Speaking of "innocent until proven guilty:"

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9C1VP3O0&show_article=1

So Obama says that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be found guilty in a criminal court in NY. What then is the point of putting him on trial there instead of in front of a military tribunal (you know, where wartime enemies of the US have always been tried)? Why the dog-and-pony show if there is no presumption of innocence? If we put him on trial in a criminal court, then he is entitled to a presumption of innocence, and all the rights that go along with that (such as confronting all of his accusers, be they deeply embedded spies or not). If he MIGHT be innocent, then why the heck are we blowing up his country? The answer is that this is more of the same political posturing and gamesmanship that Obama promised to put a stop to. Once again, Obama has proved himself to be all hat and no cattle. Mr. Obama, why are you wasting the taxpayers' time and money with what you have already acknowledged is a show trial, put on solely to make the rest of the world feel all warm and fuzzy about us?

This happened like a month ago. The only reason it didn't produce any pro-government art is because they got caught.

What exactly does "ridiculously high" mean? Is there a definition, or is it more of "I know it, when I see it" kind of thing?

And what is there to do, if, indeed, the costs (rather than the deplorable thirst for profit) make something too expensive to buy?

Does United States get to publish a "study" describing establishing a base on the Moon as "ridiculously expensive"? Can we then shame the rest of humanity into paying for it?

Tyranny-loving politicians always try to scare the shit out of you to make it seem like they have no choice but to take your freedoms away. And it is always something horrible, like kidnapping or child rape. That way, if you don't give them what they want, then *you* must be responsible for their kidnapping/rape/death since you stood by and didn't let them do anything.

That's right - and we saw it again last week. Somehow it's OUR fault that Roman Polanski avoided justice all these decades. "We", the peons, don't "get it".

Fortunately, the power of the Internet is able to route around the brain-damaged "celebrity types" who signed that stupid petition expressing outrage that a pedophile should actually be arrested. counter-petition

Maybe we need to charge public officials with corruption or fraud when they try to lie so blatantly. "That statement is no longer operative" is just one more fuddle duddle.

True, texting has been proven to be much more distracting.

Link

Only for the British.

True, texting has been proven to be much more distracting. Link

It's more than 8 million, almost for certain.

Let's say there's 300 million people in the US, and 1/3 of them work, 1/3 are kids, and 1/3 are old folks who retired. Which is generously low considering this population curve, but for the sake of easy numbers and argument let's leave it.

That's 100 million working people. 16% of 100 million is 16 million people (16% being the estimated current unemployment rate). Which is higher than the Labor Department's 9% estimate, which is also higher than your 7% "in between jobs" estimate. I'm also pretty sure that 50% of unemployed are not covered by CORBA considering it's private companies dropping people from their jobs, and unemployment benefits do shit all for healthcare when it's barely enough to keep your family fed.

Also, not every senior citizen and kid is covered, so that would boost the number even higher. Don't know how much, but that 8 million is starting to look pretty small.

And if you're insured, but you don't know it, isn't that the same as being uninsured, since you won't go to the doctor since you think it won't be paid for? Why not give those people the certainty they are insured, and stop small health problems before they become big ones? Make preventative care cheap, and health care costs go down almost automagically.

Did you read the article I linked to? The Aussies have the US beat.

Specifically you mean the United States world... Other developed nations do not have our problem for one reason or another.

Let's be fair here. It's not just the United States. I think there's a disproportionate number of predominantly Caucasian Westernized countries that are of expanding waistline girth.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.d672f9d7f0f64fefdf0b21e696b41e21.7a1&show_article=1

Funny, the "study" claims that commercial fishing isn't a significant factor in the shrinking of the average fish size, yet it was just last night that I was watching an Animal Planet show that claimed the opposite! I am tired of these contrived "studies" with predetermined outcomes. No, you may NOT use Church of Gaia dogma to revoke my God-given rights as defined by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Neither the federal government nor some international shadow government like the UN has any business trampling on states' rights.

Left in the US to shut down, since they sold off or are going to sell off most or all their US operations...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7828483.stm

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96MR0NO0&show_article=1

Also, frrom what i heard from a source, they made so much cash selling the Times Square location that they just happily threw in the other US locations just to be done with them.

The problem here is that it isn't an extra task. It's a new concept on the same task. Fraud, Child porn, and everything else is already one of the 5 tasks. Adding the word internet may change the expertise needed to affect those tasks but it doesn't change the task. Take all of them and apply the existing wire or mail fraud charges and poof, you have the exact same effect of an "internet crime".

Maybe the problem isn't being expressed properly. Maybe the state should be saying that with the internet, the amount of crime covered by the existing tasks has increased to a point that more funding for enforcement is needed. I could buy that justification even though I wouldn't support a tax. But as it stands, it is being presented as the parent said, as a new qualification for an existing job which in every other industry, the employee would be required to cover the expense of most of it for the same pay or be replaced by someone who is qualified. On occasions, profitable companies will provide training to those less likely to be able to afford it, some companies roll the cost into the entire change over knowing that new machinery or menu changes or whatever will require some levels of retraining. But the police isn't a profit center, and the state isn't supposed to be one either.

With the usage of computers, the requirements for internet crimes already cross over into other crimes like Murder, regular fraud and so on. So creating a separate task that already falls within an existing task would be like claiming that collecting evidence of someone searching how to kill someone and viewing pages on how his wife was actually killed a week before her death would be an entirely different task the murder investigations itself. Just because the internet or a computer was used, does not make it another task, it's just a new aspect of an existing task.

Rupert loves his Fox News and has plenty of assets to support this no matter what happens.

Fox News needs no such support, for it is gaining viewership and turning profit — unlike the other outfits, which have exposed themselves as liars last year.

Sesame Street is better WITHOUT McDonald's commercials in my humble opinion.

I don't appreciate NPR's constant begging for donations "from listeners like you" any more, than I like commercials.

But letting the government run TV or radio (and thus free us from all solicitations) is gravely dangerous and may lead to totalitarianism within a generation. After a short thaw, for example, Putin's Russia has retaken control of all TV stations — it is not a pleasant place. Similarly, Chavez will soon eliminate the last dissenting TV channel. Do you, seriously, want an "official" government channel to be controlled by the Executive?

Capitalism is great, but we needn't prostrate ourselves to it. Nor should we have blind allegiance to it.

For you, evidently, Capitalism exists to provide us with great things (and be discarded, if it fails — or appears to). In fact, its existence derives from Human Rights — those, with which we are endowed by our creator. It is my right to bake pizza, write software, issue stock and buy it. The society is not suposed to allow me to do it merely for fear of not having pizza — it must allow me to bake it, because it is my right as a free man to do so, or anything I please (which is not actively harming others).

Sadly, this view is getting eroded over the years, and we are worse off because of it. But that's why the US is Capitalist to begin with — it is not written anywhere in the Constitution, that we must be such, we just are. China, for a counter-example, became Capitalist deliberately, because they've decided (correctly), that it is the most efficient way of running an economy...

yet a smart government that is investing in our future is my dream.

The better term is "utopia". Whether it is nice or not, the Government, however smart, is simply not allowed by the Constitution to "invest in our future". There is a fairly limited number of things they are allowed to do, while all other power are left to States and the individuals. If you like the idea so much, push for a Constitutional Amendment — until then, you — and your President — are "shredding the Constitution"...

"Failed" implies the scheme has been abandoned. That is most certainly not the case - it's still operating and has been expanding.

You might have been hearing the propaganda being spread around by JCDecaux (the commercial arm) that was being used as a bargaining tool.

No kidding. I've seen as many NEWS outlets online and on TV making a bigger deal out of things on this than they needed to be.

US 'very concerned'about Swine Flu
WHO Raises Alert Level on Swine Flu
WHO raises its pandemic alert level on swine flu

Weigh in amongst the items in the online news, which match some of the same goings on in the print and video media on the subject.

If it's not sensationalized, it's not news, it seems.

"the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."

Moses had nothing on this guy. He only parted one measly sea, let alone oceans.

First, taken in context it's pretty clear that he was talking about taxes coming out of your paycheck. Even politifact agrees with that sentiment (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/515/no-family-making-less-250000-will-see-any-form-tax/)

From

The Democratic campaign used such statements to counter Republican assertions that Obama would raise taxes in a multitude of direct and indirect ways, recalled Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.

"I think a reasonable person would have concluded that Senator Obama had made a 'no new taxes' pledge to every couple or family making less than $250,000," she said.

Jamieson noted GOP ads that claimed Obama would raise taxes on electricity and home heating oil. "They rebutted both with the $250,000 claim," she said of the Obama campaign, "so they did extend the rebuttal beyond income and payroll."

Now, your second part:

Second, this isn't really a tax increase at all since you're supposed to be paying taxes on online purchase as it is. It's called a Use Tax and just because you haven't been paying it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Besides, there is no reason why purchases made online should be tax free other than it is difficult to enforce. I would even say that it gives online vendors an unfair advantage over local stores.

If Obama said, "No New Taxes", you'd have a point. He didn't say that. He said that taxes would not go up for families making under $250,000/yr. Well, with this, my taxes will go up, and my family makes under $250,000/yr.

But, please, don't let the facts get in the way of the spin.

I wonder if the spammers were taken out on a main street and shot, would that discourage spammers?

A similar experiment was recently performed in an attempt to address piracy, but instead of a main street, it was a small lifeboat. Surviving peers of the dead teenaged pirates are claiming steadfast resolve to continue their pirate behavior.

Seth

Raptor, Schmator. The F15 still in our inventory is more than enough to handle anything the bad guys can throw at us (unless the bad guys are from like Proxima Centari or something). And just because we mothballed about 400 planes recently, that doesn't mean we couldn't put them in the air if a shooting war erupted between us and the Russians or Chinese (and if you don't think the Russians are still a threat, then you must have missed the part where they are threating to put nuclear armed bombers in Venezuela and Cuba) we could have them air worthy again in a matter of weeks.

I found the current BSG boring, meandering, and nihilist. I didn't watch it enough to hear the preaching.

I was a fan of the original series. And I preferred the original Starbuck.

Perhaps he meant 1939 Germany.

Perhaps. Or, maybe, of the 1920, when the country's new Hope was demanding Change?

Seriously, you and I know, what he meant, so let's not engage in hair-splitting. Nazism's racism was just as much of a pillar as their Socialism. They began persecuting Jews in earnest in 1933, and continued on to full-blown genocide.

Nothing of the kind is happening in the USA today. No minority is banned from government employment. When some dimwit offends an Arab or a Muslim, for example, the victim gets compensated. And no group even claims to be a target of genocide.

Can we expect anyone who followed a warrantless wiretap from the Bush administration to also be fired then? I mean, they violated our privacy as well.

As far as is known, they have only listened on some international calls. With the vast majority of Americans never calling into the suspicious hot-spots, their privacy was never threatened. But very little is known — one side wants things to be kept secret, understandably, and the other does not care to separate known facts from the darkest what-if-suspicions...

Who should be demanding justice, is Joe the Plumber whose records (and not just the measly phone-calls, but serious things) were improperly accessed as a result of his sudden fame. Even if one buys the bureaucrat's line, that the searches were justified by the "what if he owes child support?" considerations, there is absolutely no justification for sharing the dirt with newspapers.

(While searching for the links, I found the following gem: "He is also not registered to operate as a plumber in Ohio, which means he's not a plumber." Wow... I must not be a software engineer, and Picasso must not have been an artist... Absolutely not...)

You don't use liquid hydrogen in ICBM's.

I certainly don't... The Chinese very well might.

But why speculate? Already their government is trumpeting the success of their space-program as that of their science and engineering — when, in fact, it is due, at least partially, to espionage. That the theft propped up a fairly evil regime is, in itself, (slightly) hurting the national security of the United States.

squeeze the urine out of the diapers!