Slashdot Mirror

An American liberal (and likely /. poster) is arrested simply for being liberal and owning an axe.

Look at this headline. Bailing out the rich guys. If the economy was doing good and the rich globalists were to be trusted this wouldn't be needed. This is desperation before a general collapse. Anyone who keeps believing those people is gonna lose, bigtime. There's a word the big casino owners have for folks like that, it's called "suckers".

Trying to run a fiat currency scam economy has been tried going way back in history, they ALWAYS collapse, every single time, it is inevitable. You can't printing press your way to prosperity! You CANNOT do it! it will collapse inevitably. Once your economy is based on just keeping the rich guys rich and you steal from the wealth producers-it collapses. Overly inflating the money supply is THEFT from the producers. Kings have tried it, other nations, other central banks. You have to base your money on actual wealth production and that's it, nothing more, all this other paper financial products gambling action is just wealth skimming. It's busting now. It is going to get really, really bad as well, because it's just starting to collapse and they are in panic mode. Once the huge flight away from the dollar gets going in earnest, it will make the first great depression and the one in the 80s look like a picnic.

• They have come out publicly against trains offering drinks to passengers on overnight routes. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QODTIO0& show_article=1
• They have publicly stated that they want all cars to be fitted with electronic sensors that detect alcohol in any person in the car and lock the ignition off if the level is determined to be over 0.0 http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2007/08/wh en_failure_to.html
• They continue to equate the federal statistics for "alcohol-related accidents" and present them as "drunk driving fatalities". Under the former term, if two cars collide and both drivers are sober, but a passenger is drunk, it qualifies as an "alcohol-related accident". If a person has a drink before committing suicide in their car, it's an "alcohol-related accident". This blatantly false method of reporting increases the number of "drunk drivers" by 400-500%. http://www.motorists.org/dui/home/common-dui-dwi-m yths/

We did find WMDs on multiple occassions... they were pretty much all small caches of old shells filled with mustard or sarin and which were probably were no longer effective, but it is a bit disingenuous for the pollster to take those answers and then arbitrarily say "oh, well those don't count... so Fox News viewers are dumb!". If the question was simply "Has the US found Iraqi WMDs?" then the Fox News viewers appear to be the only ones who were properly informed of those developments.

And, of course, there were also incidents where the insurgent groups got ahold of some lingering chemical weapons (mustard gas, I think) and tried to make bombs out of them--luckily, that also was old and non-effective. Those were widely reported at the time.

In other words, get off your uninformed, sanctimonious high-horse. :-)

You're far too quick to predict the demise of one of the biggest, richest and toughest corporate organisations in America. It's very naive.

300 / 12 = 25

US population is 300 million

number of illegals is about 12 million.

The 1 in 20 number probably came from some media report like this one

If you don't understand the size and scope of the problem, and can't even do the basic math to find out, what the heck are you doing proposing solutions?

T

And it is wrong because?.. I'm anxious...

It is wrong because the list only has your name, like the no-fly list, the no-buy list, the no-employ list, and no doubt a host of other lists. It is wrong because the government is composed of a bunch of incompetents that don't have to be right, because they don't suffer when they are wrong by either punishment or loss of profit. It is wrong because 1 in 6 jury convictions is wrong. You don't want to get your nose in the gears, much less what you amusingly refer to as your "fat ass."

Uprisings are by far more abusive, than anything an elected government can do. If you try something stupid like an uprising, I promise, I'll get my fat ass off the couch, call my police, and proceed to whack some sense into your little head until they arrive...

I'd love to have seen you try to tell that to the founding fathers. Uprisings clearly have their place. Your threatening rhetoric notwithstanding.

This country has been this way for a long time -- Roosevelt knowingly authorized illegal eavesdropping of suspected German saboteurs in 1940, for example. Yet any predictions of the "police state" arriving next year have remained just that -- predictions...

No, that was the police state. The same police state that captured and unjustly imprisoned all the innocent citizens of Japanese descent. The same police state that shot (though I prefer to be forthright and just say "murdered") the students at Kent State. The same police state that creates and imposes constitutionally forbidden ex post facto laws. The same police state that enforced prohibition. The same police state that tells citizens they can't display banners. The same police state that tells citizens they can't speak within X feet of privileged events and locales. The same police state that restricts what can be said on the radio, and restricts access to broadcasts to the monied and the government. The same police state that determines what is, and what isn't, a "valid" religion. The same police state that tells citizens what they can and cannot do with their own bodies and with consenting adults. The same police state that forbids assisted suicide. The same police state that did illegal eavesdropping then, and now. The same police state that has held citizens prisoner for years without access to counsel, much less a hearing. The same police state that sterilized people based on "fitness." The same police state that disseminates vile propaganda about sexuality, drugs and more. Predictions of imminent arrival are wrong, but only because they're been in power for quite a few decades now.

Look, maybe you should just grab your bag of chips and sit back down on your couch if this stuff is over your head. Unless you are really serious about threatening me, in which case, you are cordially invited to my martial arts school, where I will be happy to tie you into a knot even a sailor couldn't untie — without even hurting you. It's no trouble really, just a standard ju do and chin na demo I use on street toughs of all sizes to ensure I have their attention when they get mouthy. Sounds like you could use a little lesson in humility anyway.

For one thing, nebulous arguments about "government" like this are always weak. "Government" is rarely a single person or institution operating executively (and when it is, that's usually an abuse of the intended system of representation that needs to be fixed for a whole host of other reasons anyway).

Rarely? A single FBI agent can demand records with one of these, with no judicial oversight.

If this is still too nebulous, here are some numbers: "An internal FBI audit found that the bureau violated the rules more than 1000 times in an audit of 10% of its national investigations between 2002 and 2007. Over 20 of these involved requests by agents for information that US law did not permit them to have." Assuming the audit examined a random sampling of reuqests, that means there were ten thousand rule violations and two hundred illegal requests over that five-year period.

As long as we have a culture where both businesses and governments follow this basic principle (because they are required to by law and that law is effectively enforced), ...

Business culture? AT&T volunteered to help the NSA spy on their customers. They even have a secret routing center of some sort just for this task. eBay goes out of their way to help law enforcement. Verizon hands over customer data to the NSA and outrageously tries to claim free speech protection to do so.

The government and its laws? Go read about the National Security Letters linked above, learn about the USA PATRIOT Act, read about the 2,176 secret warrants were issued in 2006, ...just for starters. The law itself authorizes most of these abuses.

I actually have no problem with my ISP and the hosts at Slashdot keeping sufficient records to identify me in combination as the author of this post, as long as there are sufficient safeguards such as not releasing it without proper legal requirement to do so and only keeping it for a reasonable period of time.

As I hope you can see now, there aren't. One FBI agent can demand data from Slashdot under the authority of an NSL and can get your IP, then he can go over to your ISP and demand your name and address under another NSL. A third request under CALEA to your ISP or their upstream, and your every online move is being monitored for whatever he's looking for. And who knows how long businesses keep IP data around? There are currently no data retention laws in the US -- and if the government ever passes any, I assure you that they won't be to protect you by demanding businesses delete data after n months, they'll be to surveille you by demanding businesses keep data for at least n months. And if a businesses has it, and the government demands it, they have to yield it up.

In other words, the above means of identifying someone only works if all the parties involved are in countries where the law is compatible on these concerns.

Oh, you think being in Canada or the Netherlands or something is going to protect you from all this? That hole has been plugged, too.

Why no outrage over the Juneteenth violence?
3 white kids get accused of rape and it's all over the press (granted it eventually got dismissed and the prosecutor disbarred) yet 3 seperate crowds of blacks act like savages over what is supposed to be a celebration of freedom and it gets back page material.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8PSKSDO0& show_article=1
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/1962.html
http://www.syracuse.com/poststandard/stories/index .ssf?/base/news-10/1182070664184630.xml&coll=1

If anything, knowledge that crowds of blacks are congregating is more relevant to my saftey than what happens on some college campus miles away.

And they wonder why no city wants to host Freaknik.

I'm fairly certain that it is considered scientifically proven beyond doubt that recent shifting in the upper layers of the Earth's crust are in fact due to the drying period we're now entering due to global warming. I can't believe you'd question such things; do you not understand causality versus correlation?

Man, you didn't even read the reports. Your sitting here arguing something that can be contradicted by opening a few PDFs from a international website belonging to a UN organizations. And to boot, your not even arguing the same claims. Did you go out and buy the cliff notes versions instead?

In those reports, it clearly says they found munitions declared as destroyed but were intact. They found forbidden weapons at sites they already inspected and state those weapons weren't there during the previous inspection. They talk about mobile chemical and biological labs that were discovered and some were reported by witnesses that aren't accounted for to this day. In the May29th report, it specifically says that they think the chemical weapons used in modern terrorist attacks came from Saddam's arsenal of forbidden weapons and it specifically lays claim to several sites that where bombed in 2004 and they don't know the disposition of the equipment used to make the weapons or the products themselves.

Here is an article describing some of the degraded stuff that Saddam was trying to hide. And yes, this is talked about and backed up in the UN reports. I figure since your too lazy to read them I would post an article comparative but not directly related to them.

The point is, you cannot say Bush lied about the WMDs since even the UN inspection teams and reporting services claim they thought they were there. They are finding more and more evidence of them and they are finding degrade supplies of the WMDs that while aren't military grade, could be made so easily under the right conditions. Almost every report talks about missing items, intentional misleading or lack of cooperation.

Now, as for working. Are you saying that if they take a part off a nuclear missile and store it somewhere else, it doesn't count now? Somehow because they have it but noit working at the moment, it is now fine? I hope the hell not. I would hate to have two people take separate parts of a bomb onto a plane and sail through security because it isn't working at the time just to have them reassemble it at will and do whatever they wanted to it. Do you realize how stupid that sounds? DO you suggest a kid can play with a gun and ammunition as long as he doesn't do it at the same time? The WMD bans encompass materials used to make them, agents as well as working units. The reports clearly line out that they have parts of it, whether old or new, they were banned and they all follow under the same category. Any claim otherwise is an outright lie. UN resolutions define what a WMD is considered. Not the well, they couldn't use it in the current state department.

"Intent matters."

You're playing dumb and you know it. Say you don't intend innocent deaths as much as you like. If you take actions that are guaranteed to result in innocent deaths, and you're in possession of a mature human mind, then your intent is to cause those deaths along with whatever other goals you've set for yourself. In this case, your stated goal is to reduce terrorism -- but, curiously, even the people you're directly waging war against generally have nothing to do with terrorism. Well, correction: they had nothing to do with terrorism, but since you went and killed their families they've probably been having second thoughts.

"The US spends literally billions of dollars on weapons systems with no other purpose than ever-increasing the precision so as not to destroy or harm infrastructure or persons not intended."

You are so generous with your money! Spending billions of other people's tax dollars, all to ensure that you don't kill quite as many innocent civilians!

You were fretting in your previous post about the billions of dollars of damage terrorists might want to cause. I reminded you, as you might have overlooked the fact, that you have now spent hundreds of billions of dollars "fighting terrorism" in military invasions that don't have anything to do with fighting terrorism.

You've also killed thousands of American soldiers and tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent foreigners (yes, I said tens or hundreds of thousands because I, and you also, have no idea of the actual figure). This cost, in money and lives, far exceeds even the greatest cost of terrorism in your overactive imagination. Meanwhile, it does nothing to reduce terrorism. If anything, it increases its future likelihood.

"Huh? Where? Who? At most, there were hundreds of people in Guantanamo Bay, and dozens in rendition programs, and frankly, I - and thankfully many others - see terrorism and the fights against Islamic radicalism in general as a military issue, not an issue for the courts. Even things like the Military Commissions Act, designed to clarify US response to enemy combatants and their status, DOES NOT apply to US citizens or persons with a valid US immigration status."

Well, in case you've forgotten, the executive branch of the United States government claims it has the right to detain U.S. citizens without trial, and has done so already. Ever heard of Padilla?

As for the number of detainees, this article put the number at over 83,000 just between 2001 and 2005.

You like to pretend foreigners don't deserve trials, and that is an understandable attitude for someone so selfish and delusional. Nonetheless, a person with an ounce of sense and any conscience whatsoever will grant certain ... shall we say, unalienable ... rights to other people, regardless of their nationality. Why is this? Because we grant those rights for a reason. You and your ilk would like everyone to think the right to a trial is rewarded like some lottery prize, only to those born in the Nation of the Free. You don't actually believe in upholding those rights -- you just take them for yourself.

"Whatever. We also kill some. Surprising, isn't it? That throughout history, humans kill others who would kill them?"

Yep, you torture some, and you kill some, and it's not really surprising at all. It's only surprising that you still think you're killing and torturing people who were trying to kill you, when all evidence is to the contrary.

You even want to pretend it's not really "torture" when you waterboard somebody. Well, consider this. Many would think of drowning as a pretty horrible way to die. Now think of drowning. Then, you're alive again. Then you're drowning. Over and over again, experiencing a painful, wracking, struggling death.

Some people would call that torture. Not you. To

Flash is the devil incarnate and Dojo might be evil as well, after all he sounds oriental. Google on the other hand, does no evil. So that's why its better.

People will laugh at this hysteria the same way we laugh at the global cooling hysteria of the 1970s.

You'll note the dead silence at the news that Mars is warming just as fast (or faster), and by just as much, as the Earth is.

People will laugh at this hysteria the same way we laugh at the global cooling hysteria of the 1970s.

You'll note the dead silence at the news that Mars is warming just as fast (or faster), and by just as much, as the Earth is. You'll note that on earth, historically speaking, CO2 rises lag warm periods, not lead them. You'll also note that the evaporative cooling cycle - water vapor, rain, etc . - runs at many times the speed of the CO2 warming cycle and is temperature sensitive so that a warmer environment will make it run even faster. And of course, it is important to observe that the predictions of the climate models have been very, very poor, even completely failing in some regions. And no one can miss the fact that the media pump the idea that GW is anthropocentric without pause.

Here in the USA, it is critically important that the public be kept in the cycle of fuckarosis about terrorists, pedophiles, immgrants, and global warming. It keeps them from realizing their government is 100% in the grip of corporate and wealthy power brokers, that their constitutional rights are being eroded at an ever-faster pace, and that the entire political system is a sham. So don't disturb the rank and file. Shhhh!

We now return you to our normally scheduled, politically correct, hysteria-fest, with special guest, Al Gore.

when was the last time the catholic church officially killed people over ursury? did you see the part i wrote about reformation? yes the catholic church at one time was a dictatorship and to this day the holy see is a dictatorship in the vatican city. That is a political system and not a religion and it was a source of tension un italy for a very long time. At one point the pope was king over the holy roman empire (these issues led to the creation of the vatican). Even then no one pretended papal infallibility applied to the pope ruling over parts of europe. It wasnt religion then and it is not today. Similarly, Islam as it is today is not a religion it is a political system.

Does the catholic church today impose that belief on everyone? Do not try to justify what islam does today by comparing it to the past of other religions. This is the 21st century not the 15th that stuff does not fly anymore.

Salman Rushide has a price on his head for writing a book ( a fucking book). Do other religions do that? The artists behind the danish political cartoons have a price on their head. Theo van gough was killed for making a movie critical of islam.

Please tell me how many other religions still establish theocratic states like saudi arabia, taliban afganistan, iran and soon to be iraq. how many other religions put a price on people's heads for exercising basic human rights?

BTW it think barak obama might have had his scream moment today (lets hope one of many)
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8P0JNR82& show_article=1

I'm not going to end this with and insult It does not contribute to anything.

But the souvenirs are made in China and some of the hotels use Indian call centres to take reservations. And where does the money made by the people-traffickers smuggling in sex-slaves go?

I'm not convinced that the amount of money brought in by tourism is greater than the amount of money being spent. I doubt it's anywhere near what they're spending. It's not like London was that short of tourists before the Olympics. If London is the 6th wealthiest city on the planet, does it really need that much of an injection anyway?

You are about as kneejerk as the man you are trying to hector, and you don't even realize it.

> (and millions of right-wing conservatives) are afraid of what the future may bring

Yeah, because "millions of right-wing conservatives" don't play games. Because gamers are one vast hivemind and march in lockstep to the promised socialist future. What crap -- in a story about gaming! As if Democrats are immune from the knee-jerk "bash gamers" disease.

And oh --

> Who knows what changes the liberalization of the West may bring?

It happened 500 years ago, it's called the Renaissance. And it's produced some mighty good things, but it's also produced pussies who piss their pants in the name of political correctness. And that's just sad.

Iran will not attack its neighbors or the U.S.

Here's a specific example of an armed citizen making the situation better. It happened within the last year right by my sister's house.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8J0MBOG2& show_article=1

Am I hallucinating, or are we really arguing and quibbling about nonstories like "Media Server Manufacturer Wins in Court"?

Here we are, on the eve of Yet Another War in the Middle East, this one apparently planned to be triggered by the '15 British agressors'. Hundreds of thousands will die.

But you'd never know this from Slashdot.

No, in this amazing world of Slashdot, what we really need know about is every piddling detail in the life of a Media Server Manufacturer. Well, I'll tell you what. Ask 10 people on the street what a Media Server even is, and not a single one will be able to tell you.

But who am I to disillusion you all. Go on, get back to your bubble, suckle on that techno-teat, and spend your days concerned about the 'war' between Debian and Ubuntu (or whatever) rather than the real problems facing billions of real people in this world.

Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media:

1.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetosphere ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_fiel d ) due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?
2.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html [space.com])
3.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770)


How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there.
4.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20, than any human caused CO2 combined (source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/i ndex.html)


Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were these caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine? I don't have answers and everyone seems to have an opinion including a Nobel laureate who says the answer is more pollution (source: http://reports.discoverychannel.ca/servlet/an/disc overy/1/20061117/discovery_pollutionsolution_06111 7/20061117?hub=DiscoveryReport)

One last thing. Lets say we all buy into the fact that we're causing the climate change through CO2. Regardless of what actions we (America) take, China will still produce more CO2 than anyone because they want to get rich. There's no stopping it folks.

Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media:

1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature.
2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's).
3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetosphere ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_fiel d ) due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?
4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html [space.com])
5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770)


How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there.
6.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20, than any human caused CO2 combined (source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/i ndex.html)


Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were these caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine? I don't have answers and everyone seems to have an opinion including a Nobel laureate who says the answer is more pollution (source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/16/smog.wa rming.ap/index.html)

One last thing. Lets say we all buy into the fact that we're causing the climate change through CO2. Regardless of what actions we (America) take, China will still produce more CO2 than anyone because they want to get rich. There's no stopping it folks.

Most constitutional rights aren't supposed to come with criminal penalties for their violation.

The constitution doesn't apply to "the people." That's a common misconception. The constitution lays out the hard boundaries that the federal, and in some cases the states, governments must obey in order to remain legitimate. Actions by these government entities that violate the constituting authority - the constitution itself - are illegitimate, not illegal. In other words, there is no justification for those actions, and they are outside the bounds of what the government was established to do.

The government isn't a punishable entity. Only people within it are. So only laws (hopefully based upon the constitution, but that isn't happening lately) written to force individuals within the government to comply with those ideals can affect individuals. A good - no, perfect - example is Bush's oath to defend the constitution. He swore he would; he not only didn't, he has outright damaged it directly by signing the Military Commissions act and authorizing wiretaps without warrants, among other things. But there is no penalty for violating that oath; no law that calls him to account for such acts. The oath, of course, is therefore a completely empty act, like most claims and statement in American politics, I might add. To quote President George W. Bush regarding the constitution: "it's just a goddamned piece of paper."

As far as citizens go, we didn't write the constitution, we didn't sign it, we had, and have, no input into it, and it really only affects us as far as the government obeys it. Lately, that isn't very much. If they aren't outright violating one portion, they're wantonly misinterpreting another. There have been a couple of signs of change in the right direction in the last week or so; 2nd Amendment and habeas corpus but overall, things are pretty bleak.

Talking while driving -- even using a hands-free kit -- makes motorists four times more likely to have an accident, according to David Strayer, a University of Utah psychology professor who led the study, which tracked drivers' brain activity.

Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media:

1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature.
2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's).
3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetosphere ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_fiel d ) due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?
4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html [space.com])
5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770)


How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there.
6.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20, than any human caused CO2 combined (source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/i ndex.html)


Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were thse caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine? I don't have answers and everyone seems to have an opinion including a Nobel laureate who says the answer is more pollution (source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/16/smog.wa rming.ap/index.html)

One last thing. Lets say we all buy into the fact that we're causing the climate change through CO2. Regardless of what actions we (America) take, China will still produce more CO2 than anyone because they want to get rich. There's no stopping it.

Why plug the holes? Blaming "the other guy" for a malicious attack on your web presence makes for such good press.

Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media:

1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature.

2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's).

3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetosphere ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_fiel d ) due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?

4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html [space.com])

5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770)

How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there.

6.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20, than any human caused CO2 combined (source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/i ndex.html)

Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were thse caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine? I don't have answers and everyone seems to have an opinion including a Nobel laureate who says the answer is more pollution (source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/16/smog.wa rming.ap/index.html)

One last thing. Lets say we all buy into the fact that we're causing the climate change through CO2. Regardless of what actions we (America) take, China will still produce more CO2 than anyone because they want to get rich. There's no stopping it folks.

It's not a paranoid reaction, one of those signs actually exploded.
All the bomb disposal man had to do was add a fuse, a detonator and some explosives, connect the detonator, stand well back and boom, up it went. All the rest of a bomb, the wires, circuit board, flashing countdown lights, were all there:

" Authorities said some of the objects looked like circuit boards or had wires hanging from them."
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/31/D8N0HKF80 .html

Boston were right, there was a mad bomber going around blowing stuff up. Trouble is, it was them.

I hope $2 million goes on making little sticky labels, 'this is not a bomb' to minimize the risk of the mad bombers of Boston blowing up more stuff. Someone should warn the department of homeland security that there is mad bombers in Boston blowing anything with wires in it, putting needless lives in danger..

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/01/070201193 232.ooqqhaxc.html
Looks like ATHF isn't the only one to cause a bomb scare with their publicity stunts. LA police blew up a newspaper stand last year cause there was a device attached to play the MI III theme when someone opened the door. Seems to me that bomb squads need to get better training if they can't tell a stupid light or sound show from an actual bomb.... I have 0 electrical training and can tell you if that's a fucking light-brite or a wad of C4.

Here copy and pasted to counter the -1 moderation. Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media: 1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature. 2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's). 3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet [space.com] ic_031212.html [space.com]). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetosphere ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia.org] ) due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this? 4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j [space.com] [space.com] r.html [space.com]) 5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ [space.com] [space.com] mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new [dailymail.co.uk] s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770 [dailymail.co.uk]) How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there. 6.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20, than any human caused CO2 combined (source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/i [fao.org] ndex.html [fao.org]) Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 [breitbart.com] [breitbart.com] 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were thse caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine? I don't have answers and everyone seems to have an opinion including a Nobel laureate who says the answer is more pollution (source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/16/smog.wa [cnn.com] rming.ap/index.html [cnn.com]) One last thing. Lets say we all buy into the fact that we're causing the climate change through CO2. Regardless of what actions we (America) take, China will still produce more CO2 than anyone because they want to get rich. There's no stopping it folks.

Here copy and pasted to counter the -1 moderation. Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media: 1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature. 2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's). 3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html [space.com]). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetosphere ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere [wikipedia.org] ) due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this? 4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j [space.com] r.html [space.com]) 5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ [space.com] mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770 [dailymail.co.uk]) How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there. 6.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20, than any human caused CO2 combined (source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/i ndex.html [fao.org]) Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 [breitbart.com] 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were thse caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine? I don't have answers and everyone seems to have an opinion including a Nobel laureate who says the answer is more pollution (source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/16/smog.wa rming.ap/index.html [cnn.com]) One last thing. Lets say we all buy into the fact that we're causing the climate change through CO2. Regardless of what actions we (America) take, China will still produce more CO2 than anyone because they want to get rich. There's no stopping it folks.

Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media:

1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature.
2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's).
3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetosphere ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere ) due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?
4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html [space.com])
5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770)


How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there. 6.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20, than any human caused CO2 combined (source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/i ndex.html)


Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were thse caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine? I don't have answers and everyone seems to have an opinion including a Nobel laureate who says the answer is more pollution (source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/16/smog.wa rming.ap/index.html)

One last thing. Lets say we all buy into the fact that we're causing the climate change through CO2. Regardless of what actions we (America) take, China will still produce more CO2 than anyone because they want to get rich. There's no stopping it folks.

[Turner Broadcasting] said the devices have been in place for two to three weeks in 10 cities: Boston, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, Seattle, Portland, Ore., Austin, Texas, San Francisco and Philadelphia.

Huh. Apparently nobody's noticed them in Chicago? Does this mean Chicago security is less paranoid, or are we just less susceptible to guerrilla marketing?

this hit the AP news wire today.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/12/31/D8MBUVG80 .html

The US is showing you amateurs how to do censorship correctly.

First you subvert the population, then you censor. None of this "revolution by force", "censorship by edict", oh no. The correct way to do it is get the population on board with a completely bogus set of threats and rationalizations they think are their own -- "terrorism", "homeland" security, "for the children" -- then the population's own representatives willingly subvert the country's founding documents and the people like it.

Everywhere I look, I see sheep.


As opposed to just killing them outright.

Poisoned spy 'had information on Kremlin figure'

At least in Russia, they are given the freedom to protest. I mean, only in the US does the police arrest and detain people who have not committed a crime right?
Hundreds Detained Ahead of Moscow Rally

Yeah, we are so good at taking rights away that the public is actually happier and seemingly better off without them! What's your complaint again?

(Before you mod me OT, keep in mind that I'm responding to a post that is modded well(Score:5, Insightful). How could that post be ON Topic and mine not?)

Sad to see that all of the west's criticism towards the Soviet Union, Iraq, North Korea, etc. is hypocritical considering this form of censorship.
At least in the SSSR you had some kind of social justice...

I guess you mean the USSR? How's that working out for them?

Hundreds Detained Ahead of Moscow Rally

I thought the US was the police state and GWB was the only one infringing on human rights.
(OT I'm sure, but I was responding to a previous post that evidently is NOT OT (Score:2, Interesting). We are either both OT or neither of us are.)

No historians of the day confirm his existence - the only writings we have which support it are those which are contained within the bible.

I've been following global warming for a long time now doing a lot research on the side for the last couple of years. Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media: 1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature.

The word you're looking for here is "thermometers".

3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetic field due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?

No, obviously not. The temperature was falling throughout those 150 years and has only started rising recently. The only correlated factor is CO2.

4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html [space.com])

5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770)

Complete crap. We have absolutely no idea what the temperature history of the other planets is and so we have no way of drawing any conclusions from any changes we see.

6.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20, than any human caused CO2 combined (source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/i ndex.html)

The article you linked to says that CH4 only amounts to 18% of CO2-equivalent emissions. Since the lifetime of CH4 is only 12 years, the cumulative effect is smaller still.

How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there.

See above. However, since temperatures on Earth have only started rising recently, and we've been monitoring the Sun's output longer than that, we can be sure the reason isn't a change in the Sun.

Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were thse caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine? I don't have answers and everyone seems to have an opinion including a Nobel laureate who says the answer is more pollution (source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/16/smog.wa rming.ap/index.h

I've been following global warming for a long time now doing a lot research on the side for the last couple of years. Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media:

1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature.

2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's).

3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetic field due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?

4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html [space.com])

5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770)
 
6.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20, than any human caused CO2 combined (source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/i ndex.html)

How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there.

Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were thse caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine? I don't have answers and everyone seems to have an opinion including a Nobel laureate who says the answer is more pollution (source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/16/smog.wa rming.ap/index.html)

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/24/061124134 543.qth288nm.html
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1162378 474759&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
http://www.iii.co.uk/news/?type=afxnews&articleid= 5870183&subject=economic&action=article

I've been following global warming for a long time now doing a lot research on the side for the last couple of years. Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media: 1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature. 2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's). 3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I keep hearing about the increased activity of our Sun and believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetic field due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth and the Sun is spewing out more heat, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this? 4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html [space.com]) 5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770) How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there. Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were thse caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine?

Donald Rumsfeld Resigns!!! It's true!

In Louisville, Ky., one poll worker was arrested on charges of assault and interfering with an election after he allegedly choked a voter and tossed the voter out the door. Election officials called police, and the voter wanted to file charges, said Paula McCraney, a spokeswoman for the Jefferson County Clerk.

A poll worker was arrested Tuesday and charged with assault and interfering with an election for allegedly choking a voter and pushing him out the door, officials said.
It apparently started as a dispute between the two over marking the ballot, said Lt. Col. Carl Yates of the Jefferson County sheriff's office.
The voter told poll worker Jeffery Steitz that he didn't want to vote in a judicial election because he didn't know enough about the candidates, but Steitz told him he had to vote in the race anyway, Yates said.
Steitz, 42, eventually grabbed the man by the neck and threw him out of the polling place, Yates said.
"The poor guy went back in and he threw him out again," Yates said. "At least it wasn't over a Democrat or a Republican being on the ballot."

Radio Shack did it in August, fire some 400 people by e-mail. So not really a big stretch at this point. http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/30/D8JQV30O1 .html

October 19, 2006

BIG LAYOFFS AT NBC, to the tune of $750 million in cost cuts.

Plus, plunging profits at the New York Times. No wonder the Big Media are acting as if the economy is in dreadful shape. For them, it is.

posted at 04:02 PM by Glenn Reynolds

I'd like to see how privacy concerns stack up in other countries, the UK being a very good example.

Here's the link: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/13/D8KO2H7G4 .html

"4.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 10 years. I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I keep hearing about the increased activity of our Sun and believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetic field due to it being weaker."

Whilst there might be an increase in charged particles this will not affect photons, the mediator of solar light and heat radiation. If magnetic fields had such a strong effect on photons you would be able to see it by waving a bar magnet around between your eyes and the sun.

"What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 826.o0mynclv.html)?"

The recent minimum was in the mid 19th century and temperatures have been rising since, so it is entirely reasonable for glaciers to have been shrinking for this long.