Slashdot Mirror

We know it's gone. But we don't know what they spent it on," said Jim Minnery, Defense Finance and Accounting Service. That was only in 2002.

That was just in one year. If they could somehow misappropriate $2.3 trillion in one year it's certainly plausible to do the same with $5 trillion over ten years.

Maybe some of it went to shills like you.

Everything going on in that region can be traced back to the pipelines. There is billions of dollars to be made. Natural gas is really cheap right now, there is lots of it, so the strategy is to destroy everybody else's pipeline so you can charge monopoly prices for transmission in yours. The US military is used for these energy companies. They are still in Afghanistan because it's an important transmission route for gas and oil. There is bombing and fighting is Homs Syria because that's where the construction of the Arab pipeline is stalled. The US is now supporting the TIPA pipeline, which will go through Afghanistan. The competition would be the TI pipeline, which is the real reason for all the saber rattled over Iran.

Here's a clue: Why is Gohmert trying to carve out an independent province in Pakistan? Because that's where the TAPI pipeline would be built through. The Pakistanis are rightfully pissed about it.

Let's assume that having a DUI on your record is a reason to not be permitted to teach. What else outside the classroom should a teacher be judged by?

Enjoying wine responsibly during summer vacation? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/02/06/sunday/main7323148.shtml?tag=stack

Working a second job at Hooters? http://www.fox4now.com/news/local/135632728.html

How about being gay? http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/BlogtownPDX/archives/2010/09/30/breaking-beaverton-teacher-says-he-was-fired-for-mentioning-in-class-that-he-would-choose-to-marry-a-man

What about having bumper stickers? http://www.care2.com/causes/arizona-teacher-fired-over-bumper-sticker.html

Or being an Athiest? http://mattcbr.wordpress.com/2009/02/06/teacher-fired-for-being-an-atheist/


Seems that teachers can be fired for about anything, but teaching poorly. And the first thing you cite to define a "bad teacher" is having a DUI on one's record.

The tea part is not against taxes. They are against very high taxes

Taxes are lower than they've been in six decades.

...and wasteful spending.

Well, I'm with them there. Stop wasting my tax money on grants to the oil companies, tax breaks for the rich only, bridges to nowhere and other useless pork, war, etc.

The government makes it fiscally irresponsible to not report your charitable donations.

Fiscally irresponsible? In what way?

Are you saying that Liberals give just as much as a percentage of income as conservatives they just are refusing to get the tax benefits?

No, that's just me. I see charitable deductions as a tax dodge, which kind of takes away the charity. As to who gives more, I don't see how that metric can possibly be measured. For instance, there's someone here in town who throws a gold coin worth thousands in a Salvation Army kettle every year. Is he a liberal or conservative? Nobody knows who he is so there's no way to tell, even though he seems to be pretty liberal with his gold coins at Christmas.

Also I have never thought of Newt as an actual conservative. He is a politician. He wants in the end the government to have the power. The difference between big government republicans and big government democrats does not concern me in the least. They are both equally bad in slightly different ways.

I agree with that 100%.

Ron Paul has said he doesn't believe in evolution. You might be right on Newt's count, looking at his statements, he seems to claim to believe in both evolution and creationism, though I suspect his "belief" in creationism is pandering to the religious right in the party.

Huntsman was the only candidate who was willing to take a stand for science and he's out of the running now.

Bitching about Obama's vacations. God you nitwits get old.

Yeah, that's really a big problem.

--Jeremy

here is the original guardian article which helped kick up the stink

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012/feb/13/whitney-houston-album-price

thou to be honest Twitter was where it was originally tweeted about, with people initially blaming Apple.

here is a more recent article

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-57378242-501465/whitney-houston-itunes-prices-hiked-by-mistake-says-sony/

where Sony are saying it was all a mistake by some guy in England.

Your suggestion that we can't do anything is false, public opinion matters, from a few tweets Sony's stirred up the ant nest and now has to back pedal furiously.

Another example
Apple is having to do something to protect its sales due to bad publicity about the working conditions of the people producing its products.

Then there are the various civil wars that are taking place, last summers riots in the UK even the back pedalling on ACTA in Europe. All pretty much a case of a lot of little david's going up against goliaths and kicking arse.

The UK riots were an interesting one social media helped fan the flames but it also helped mobilise people to fight back and clean up with huge numbers of people taking to the streets with brooms to reclaim their communities.

The situation has changed where once the Goliaths could pretty much get away with anything and david pretty much muttered under his breath and was ignored. Now David tweets and posts on facebook and pretty quickly the discontent spreads and Goliath is having to back down.

David probably has more power to change things than ever before and governments and corporations are becoming uncomfortably aware that this is the case and having to act accordingly.

The law is there to protect the kids, not punish them.

Maybe that was the rationale of their inception, but this is Clearly not the case today.

Bush did it and like everything else no laws apply to him. ever. Like Nixon said, its not illegal if the president does it.
Only was caught with a half dozen or so; here is the top google result I found in no time: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/26/politics/main669432.shtml

Does this sound like fly-by-night operations setting up new pill-mills. like the old Florida "Pain Clinics". http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501263_162-2872835-501263.html

from Xanax, to prozac, to Ritalian, psyciatric drugs are especially prone to being used and abused recreationally. All of which are rountinely advertised in spam mail. Is this really any diffrent than illegal online pharamcies, except a grey veneer of legality provided by licensed doctors selling prescriptions(see above).

This is putting a new fancy name on an old dirty scheme.

If your own vote is not verifiable, then there is nothing stopping them swapping your ballot papers for fake ones.

Except the seal on the box that was put on when the polling place closed witnessed by people from both sides of the vote. If it doesn't match or is broken then you know the votes have been tampered and aren't reliable.

Chain of custody of physical things is not hard to maintain with extremely high levels of assurance.

Ever heard of vote rigging.

Only from the right wing trying to drum up reasons to suppress legal voters (who would vote against them). Has it happened in the past? Sure. Is there any evidence of it being remotely significant now? Nope. Zilch. Nada. None.

The voter fraud scheme usually pushed actually does have recent evidence...from a GOP Secretary of State

The Presidential Medal of Freedom is our way of saying "you fucked up"

Because allowing him to watch it is an exercise in free speech or something, that can be argued to be protected (what the whole story is about).

Is it free speech?
"A driver in Schenectady, N.Y., was arrested last month after rolling past police with a DVD titled "Chocolate Foam" playing on the passenger-side sun visor in his Mercedes-Benz, authorities said. The movie also was rolling on screens set into the car's headrests."

Apparently New York has different free speech laws than Washington where this library was located.

I'm actually surprised the Washington Supreme Court ruled showing porn in public is covered under free speech. Guess I know where I'm vacationing this year, I hear Mount Rainier is very nice.

(1) That quote is 17 years old.
(2) That quote isn't a proposal to ban guns, it is an admission of the political impossibility of banning guns.

Really?

""I agree with you. I wouldn't bring it up now," she replied. Feinstein said she's going to hold off, for now, but vowed she would eventually push the issue. "I'll pick the time and the place, no question about that," she told Stahl.""

Article is from 2009. Link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/09/60minutes/main4931769.shtml

You're right, they're no KGB. More like violent versions of Inspector Clouseau.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57369821-504083/fbi-chainsaw-mistake-agents-raid-wrong-mass-apartment-cut-down-door/

I did buy one game by accident...

Is that like tripping and 'falling into a lifeboat'?

I like that people get paid to be creative and provide me with entertainment.

The problem is the 20 industry goons standing in between you and the content creator taking their cut.

As for the lawmakers, they're not really convinced of the shit they say as regards copyright and IP laws. For the most part they're just reading off of a script that comes with a 6 figure check stapled to it. It wasn't until massive opposition by their constituents and the threat of repercussion that they started backing away from it, and that was political self-preservation, not any belief that the people were right. How many legislators have even come out and said "The people don't want this, and they are justified"? No, it's all "We must reexamine this bill" or "We must craft it in a way that protects copyright blah blah", never "Yeah, you're right, on closer inspection the bill was a fucking joke." They're stuck between a rock and a hard place because on one hand you've got people like Chris Dodd saying "Don’t ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don’t pay any attention to me when my job is at stake" while their constituents are threatening to kick their ass out of office in the next election cycle if they jump on board with SOPA/PIPA.

Hell, Steve King (R-Iowa) was sitting in a SOPA hearing and tweets "We are debating the Stop Online Piracy Act and Shiela Jackson has so bored me that I'm killing time by surfing the Internet." What did he find boring? From her remarks:

But there are sufficient loopholes here that would allow innocent sites to be shut down, thereby a loss of jobs. Have we answered the question dealing with national security? And as well are we recognizing the value of the First Amendment?"

Those are the remarks he was so "bored" by. Given that, how the hell can we reasonably expect that these people have even thought about the shit they are doing? The few people actually doing real thinking in the comedy of errors we call congress get routinely ignored and dismissed. They've already decided how they're going to vote before the bill even gets entered. They've been paid to vote a certain way by the same fucking people writing these damn bills. They don't even want expert testimony, they didn't even want to allow anyone in the way of an expert to speak in opposition at the damn hearing. Google gave great testimony as to the problems with SOPA and were themselves dismissed, just as any opposing lawmaker was. I can't find the link to the exact quote, but one of them (I think it was Mike Leahy (D-Vermont) said something along the lines of "I don't see how this will break DNS and I don't believe any expert that says it will". This is what they're being paid for by the pro-SOPA groups, after all.

The only other thing I can think of, that maybe they have thought about it and are just too fucking stupid to see the problems with what they were proposing horrifies me even more.

All in all, I think convincing lawmakers is a fools errand. There are some people trying to pool money to lobby against the media cartels, but fighting bribery with bribery doesn't seem prudent to me. Better to just make their stupid laws as ineffectual as possible. Eventually they're going to get to the point where we really are living in an honest to god Orwellian Police State and the people are just going to overthrow the government entirely. I'm not entirely convinced that we could even prevent it at this point.

People keep saying that it's more than just Apple. This is true, but only ONE company made 14 billion dollars profit in one quarter, directly as a result of paying very little for its parts and labor. Not only that, but Apple is well known for squeezing companies like Foxconn even further to produce more, faster, and for less. Ask yourself, at the point in history when companies like Nokia or RIM sold more phones than Apple, were any of them making 14 billion in one quarter?

Are there other companies manufacturing in China under horrible conditions? Yes absolutely. However, these other American based companies are not held up for all to see as the great American success story.

Someone needs to be boycotted, and Apple is just the obvious choice. Boycotting anyone else wouldn't have an effect. And really, how else can regular people make a statement than with their wallets?

Other companies use Foxconn for their products too, but if Apple says 'enough is enough' don't you think those other companies will follow suit? No company would knowingly commit suicide by backing Foxxconn if Apple goes on record and does the right thing here, by forcing their manufacturer to not treat employees like cattle.

Recently over 300 workers at the Foxconn manufacturing plant threatened suicide if working conditions didn't improve. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57357444/xbox-360-workers-reportedly-threaten-mass-suicide/

Its gotten so bad that the employees are forced to sign contracts when they are hired stating they won't kill themselves while at work.

With 98B in cash, Apple is also the only company capable of effecting a change. As they've always said, "Apple leads the way", so lead on Apple...

I'm a scientist. We live or die by how well our theories explain the natural world. You seem to be suggesting that there's a cabal of scientists who are for various reasons trumpeting "the hoax" for precisely what? Our reward system would make any of us fabulously rich if only we could conclusively prove man-made warming is wrong. It hasn't happened.

Science is an honorable profession, but it is still a human activity. Not everyone engaged in science has pure motives. The reward system in terms of grant and program money directs the money to those who are producing the desired results, generally in programs that already take global warming a given. Some people clearly understand that large emergency programs to take control of economies to curb carbon emissions to reduce global warming before the imminent catastrophe predicted represent two things: power, and enormous amounts of money. Sadly, both will be misused if recent history is any guide.

This somewhat reminds me, and here I'm betraying my own bias, of the controversy over smoking. Does it cause lung cancer or not? It took years and many "scientists" on the take form the tobacco industry to swear it didn't before it was finally resolved. And it wasn't resolved within the scientific community (they were adamant that it did), it was resolved when the public finally decided whom to believe.

And now we have states and localities moving to ban tobacco smoking and permitting marijuana smoking. We're trading off a source of lung disease for a source of psychosis and lung disease. I wonder how many bodies it will take for the next discussion to get through?

Do you feel lucky? Should we wager the planet on, "Gee, I don't think it could happen" when most scientists are telling you it could?

Should we wager our freedom, economy, and way of life on something that could happen? (With the value of could varying greatly from can't reproduce what's happening now to never happen to "Oh my God! We're all gonna die next spring!"* depending upon whose cracker jack model is being used, with what assumptions, with what scrubbed/adjusted/fudged data?) I think we can afford to let the "consensus" die down, improve the science, and make some better choices.

BTW - Good luck with your career.

*Exagerated for effect.

I didn't realize that 22.5 billion is a rounding error for hospitals.

Considering that the total amount of money spent on healthcare in America in 2008 was 2.3 trillion USD, yeah, you should realize it. Especially since that $22.5 billion is over five years - ie, only $4.5 billion per year. If somebody rounds the entire cost of healthcare to the closest 1%, the entire cost of HIPAA for hospitals essentially disappears entirely. Especially since we like to only use two or three significant digits. 2.3 is basically the same as 2.3045, no error required. It's not an unsubstantial amount, mind you, but certainly in line with the GP's point. So - $22.5 billion is a lot, but $2.3 trillion is even more. I think the numbers just get so large that they lose meaning. Perhaps it would be better to say America spent $2,300 billion on healthcare, of which only $4.5 billion was HIPAA related? Just like when purchasing a $2,300 USD server, you probably wouldn't quibbble (much) over a $4.50 USD SAS cable. (Keep in mind, also, the GP is talking about the "Medical Industrial Complex," which includes more than just hospitals.)

But - How come we don't hear the politicians demanding a "windfall profits tax" like they did with Exxon two years ago? I guess it's only bad to make a profit if you're an evil oil company, but if your a tech company it's a good thing to rake-in equivalent amounts of money.

Um because Exxon was collecting subsidies from the US government at the same time they were making extreme amounts of profit. I am unaware that Congress enacted laws to give Apple subsidies. Also Exxon moved their headquarters to Switzerland to reduce taxes than Apple which is still an American company. Now if you go down to Houston, the buildings and workers are still there. They just moved to Switzerland on paper.

Not true. The biggest "subsidy" given to Exxon is the Section 199 deduction. Apple(and other tech companies) take the same deduction. Apple even gets a bigger deduction from it - 9% vs. 6%.

But - How come we don't hear the politicians demanding a "windfall profits tax" like they did with Exxon two years ago? I guess it's only bad to make a profit if you're an evil oil company, but if your a tech company it's a good thing to rake-in equivalent amounts of money.

Um because Exxon was collecting subsidies from the US government at the same time they were making extreme amounts of profit. I am unaware that Congress enacted laws to give Apple subsidies. Also Exxon moved their headquarters to Switzerland to reduce taxes than Apple which is still an American company. Now if you go down to Houston, the buildings and workers are still there. They just moved to Switzerland on paper.

that 23% is also the difference between a successful product line and one shut down.

Should an isolated product suddenly cost 23% more it will suffer badly in the market, therefore domestic manufacturing is not viable. This argument is unrealistic and naive at best, or disingenuous at worst. Trade with China isn't about iPhones. It's about EVERYTHING being manufactured in Asia. All products, all brands. In fact, it's really about all imports that allow you to accumulate stuff while eluding the regulatory burdens imposed by the government you elect and eluding the cost of employing fellow citizens that don't, for some strange reason, care to live in factory dormitories to provide you with low, low Walmart prices.

The net result of eliminating the cost savings of outsourcing to Asia is that the final cost of all products that currently do not incur domestic manufacturing costs will be higher. No one brand or product will suffer an isolated cost increase; everything will cost more.

Will that mean fewer iPhones and Nexus Galaxies sold? Yes. Will the smart phone market disappear? No. Of course not. People will replace their stuff less frequently and be less reckless with their purchasing in general. That isn't a bad thing. God forbid we do not all replace our $500+ phone every 12 months or suffer with only one x-box.

Let's consider the other side effects of not outsourcing our manufacturing base. Read this to understand the consequences of forsaking the working class for low, low walmart prices. US income disparity is accelerating and this is caused by making our working class compete with dormitory housed disposable Asian workers that live, sleep and breath their foreman's whim, on your behalf.

Another effect will be a vast reduction of environmental impact. The US has a regulatory regime with teeth. Some meat packer in butt-fuck Texas dumps blood in the river and it's news, the EPA swoops in and corrections occur. The Chinese have deadened whole regions of their land recycling your electronics and the Chinese government just chases out the journalists. If you actually care about the Earth and it's fate then your path is clear; stop the export of western pollution to the third world. If you're really just a NIMBYist and can't live without disposably cheap stuff swirling around your life, then continue advocating "free trade."

70% of all imports to the US are tariff free. The largest part of the remaining 30% is fossil fuel in various forms. No other nation has anything approaching the abject surrender of its manufacturing base presently occurring in the US. No presidential candidates, incumbent or otherwise, are seriously advocating any change to this situation. Your Secretary of State is a former Walmart executive.

You frequently encounter a sentiment that goes approximately thus; "the days of prosperity in the US for unskilled workers are over; if you fail to incur huge education debt and assume a place among the well compensated elite you should expect to be miserable, and you deserve it." If that's you then you need to look around. Your lifestyle has an expiration date. Part of the coping mechanism we have used to offset working class decline is lowering the tax burden on lower end of the scale. As a result, 51% of income earners in the US are paying no net federal income tax while we're running a $1.3E12 defic

http://www.tgdaily.com/opinion-features/59187-tsa-deploys-on-tennessee-highways

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/15725035/officials-claim-tennessee-becomes-first-state-to-deploy-vipr-statewide

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57318666/tsa-expands-from-airports-to-tenn-highways/

Sheriff Urges All Women To Carry guns

He suggests a .45. Go check your crime stats for NYC again. The data clearly indicates that more crime happens in big cities than in small, rural towns. It has to do with population density.

The short and simple of it is that there is a cash grab by MLK's heirs based in copyright law.

This is what happens when someone is a major public figure, and their kids are nobodies. The heirs have been trying to monetize King's legacy. The heirs have a corporation ("King, Inc.") to manage the assets, and have used Intellectual Property Management, Inc. to handle licensing deals. The head of the Elvis Presley operation, who'd been consulted by King's heirs on marketing strategy, said "There's a distinct difference in the role Martin Luther King played in society and Elvis the entertainer. But the basic mechanisms of protecting, guarding and nurturing the value of the name, image and likeness are the same.":

The heirs have been fighting over the assets for years. There's a long litigation record. The whole thing is embarrassing.

It wasn't spun to make it sound like he supported it; it was pointed out that the White House supported anti-piracy measures and simply opposed certain provisions in this one, meaning he could still approve the legislation once those provisions were addressed.

Hell, it might even just be a token opposition designed to appeal to his supporters but ultimately won't stop the bill. Obama has done that before, declaring that he has "serious reservations" about something he's willingly signing into law. He's kind of an ass like that.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505124_162-57346049/android-crushes-iphone-makes-google-$5-billion/

Why not? One is the innate right of everyone to defend themselves and their loved ones against oppression and murder. The other is a piece of a paper that gives you some tax breaks and lets you visit someone in the hospital. The entire Bill of Rights was considered by the founding fathers to be a list of natural rights, so I'm not sure why you're arguing that the 1st and 4th Amendments are not. They are all rights espoused by the concept of liberty; in that I can speak and be secure in my property, so long as it does not cause real harm to others.

I admit I was too narrow in claiming marriage to be a religious institution only, but it has also not been a government issue through history; as well, you cannot argue that marriage has not typically been the product of religious ceremony in almost all societies. Mostly not until modern society have governments started treating people differently based on their marriage status. My point was that "marriage" itself is not in the Constitution, and therefore is not something any branch of the federal government should be weighing on in. I agree that all federal definition of "straight" or any kind of marriage should be removed, because it is out of the federal purview. The federal government should only be doing a few things: Treaties, defense, inter-state commerce, collecting minimal taxes, protecting Constitutional rights from the states for those articles which are incorporated against the states by SCOTUS case law. Everything else should be a state matter, and to be honest, if you don't like the state you're in, work to change the political climate, or move freely to a state that is a better match.

I didn't state Ron Paul could unilaterally get rid of the IRS, but it is on his platform and moving to a simpler and more fair tax system is definitely something that has been gaining in support over the years.

How do you not believe that Obama is on a war path with Iran? As I said, we have already committed acts of war against Iran by invading their sovereign air space with drones. If China started flying drones over your city to "keep an eye on things", would you consider it an act of war? Thanks for dismissing the entire discussion though because you "don't believe it" and "it's a conspiracy".

Fear mongering? Read on, my friend; this is not from a conspiracy newsletter: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57318666/tsa-expands-from-airports-to-tenn-highways/

There are tons of stories, if you look for them, of police presence in schools, the militarization of the police, police arresting and charging people for recording them... these activities have just started in the past 10 years. I guess it's true that if they whittle away at your rights slowly enough, a lot of people just won't notice.

What is his support like among non-aligned voters, nationwide?

Quite good actually. He scores the most independents and has more democratic sway than any of the republican candidates. He's 2nd in the Republican field in any competition vs Obama. And the really funny thing is that he would be first in the field vs Obama if his own Republican constituents were willing to vote for him: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57355518-503544/poll-among-gop-hopefuls-romney-fares-best-against-obama/

It's rather sad actually -- if the GOP's primary concern is ousting Obama, Ron Paul is the candidate to go with. He has an unshakable base and is very strong on both sides of the aisle. But since he doesn't stand for corporate handouts and unending wars, the GOP is trying their best to crush him.

Look, there is no throughput shortage, at least in fiber. Maybe some wireless spectrum is literally jammed packed and "golly we just don't have anymore or other spectrum we could use or any other alternatives... just running out folks!" .

I'll let people who know comment on that ;)

Somehow I doubt it's ultimately much different than the situation we have with fiber now.

In general, throughput is not a natural resource like oil or gas for which the amount can be said to be finite in any meaningful way.

We can create more fiber throughput at will, and whats more, we could being to use the copious, in fact, excess amount of fiber optic that exists now :

Less than 50% of the fiber-optic lines buried in the U.S. are being used, up from about 3% a decade ago, estimates TeleGeography.

from: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704529204576256541491117496.html

A decade or so ago I happened upon a booklet (at B and N no less) that outlined, in extremely frank language, that the way for cable providers to increase their profits without having to create value or increase investment was to create an artificial "shortage" of bandwidth by establishing a tiered system of throughput for which access to the upper tier was subject to bidding .

In this way, profits could be increased not through reaching more customers or even improving service.

Is this different than what Enron was doing when they were blacking out the West Coast by creating a "shortage" of electricity? Is this not the same sociopathic personality types and the same "captains of industry" doing what they do best- lying, manipulating consumers and scheming to increase profits without adding value?

Just so none of us forget how this scam works; from the Enron tapes: From:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/02/eveningnews/main620795.shtml

Energy trader: "Just cut 'em off. They're so fucked. They should just bring back fucking horses and carriages, fucking lamps, fucking kerosene lamps."

And when describing his reaction when a business owner complained about high energy prices, another trader is heard on tape saying, "I just looked at him.

I said, 'Move.' (laughter) The guy was like horrified. I go, 'Look, don't take it the wrong way. Move. It isn't getting fixed anytime soon."

California's attempt to deregulate energy markets became a disaster for consumers when companies like Enron manipulated the West Cost power market and even shut down plants so they could drive up prices. ...

Consumers like Grandma Millie, mentioned in one exchange recorded between two Enron employees.

Employee 1: "All the money you guys stole from those poor grandmothers in California?

Employee 2: "Yeah, Grandma Millie man.

Employee 1: "Yeah, now she wants her fucking money back for all the power you've charged right up, jammed right up her ass for fucking $250 a megawatt hour."

Another taped exchange between different employees regarding a possible newspaper interview goes like this:

Employee 3: "This guy from the Wall Street Journal calls me up a little bit ago"

Employee 4: "I wouldn't do it, because first of all you'd have to tell 'em a lot of lies because if you told the truth"

Employee 3: "I'd get in trouble."

Employee 4: "You'd get in trouble."

"I'm just -- fucked -- I'm just trying to be an honest camper so I only go to jail once," says one employee.

I was referring to a news item where a baby was thrown out of a car not a movie, well maybe the word movie was wrong of me, .. i'll see if i can find the event. http://boston.cbslocal.com/2011/12/13/little-known-seat-belt-danger-could-claim-life-of-child-in-seconds/ http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=1194767n i'm sure if you check google you'll find several, .. also i'll try and find the news event i was referring to.

Way for both of you to completely miss the point of my question. Right now the German economy is extremely healthy considering the scope of the world wide recession and they have one of the most robust welfare states in the world.

And before anyone even tries, American workers work longer and are more productive than German (or any other nation's) workers, so don't try and pin it on them having a superior "work ethic".

I think he was trying to say that Senators make "only" $175,000 a year but lead lavish lifestyles. That's because they can do stuff like trade on inside information, which is pretty awesome as a fringe benefit.

Iran is running its mouth like it wants to get popped. They're going to look awfully impotent when that carrier steams right back into the Persian Gulf. It'll probably bring some buddies with it too.

Iran warns US carrier to stay out of Persian Gulf
Iran warns U.S. to keep ship out of Gulf
At end of drill, Iran army chief warns US aircraft carrier not to return to Persian Gulf

We also know that fracking poisons the water by dumping 254 chemicals into the ground that find their way to the water table.

Fracking is done 5000+ feet underground. Water wells are, maybe, 500 feet deep. Do the math.

As for your "254 chemicals": http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/08/22/national/main20095719.shtml "Can you drink fracking fluid? One gas exec did"

I can't tell if they have decided yet, but I wouldn't rule out that this is the preparation of a narrative.

Including drinking water. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/14/national/main2358958.shtml

GoDaddy apparently had a material benefit in SOPA.

Shouldn't that be "has"?

By the way, Dump GoDaddy Day (or "move you domain day") appears to be still on for tomorrow, Dec 29 2011. And... even Danica Patrick isn't able to stop it!

Efficiency is generally measured by administrative costs vs program costs, and can be found on Charity Navigator. But I would say pick a cause that really matters to you, then take the time to do your research into what the best solutions are out there, and then pick the charity that focuses on those solutions.

For me, I am passionate about poverty relief. Specifically, clean water and feeding starving human beings. I like Thirst Relief International for clean water. And for feeding starving people, I did some research and found one of the biggest problems was that for many years programs used a dry-milk based food that required mixing with water, which going back to the need for clean water, is hard to come by in these parts of the world.

Turns out there was a breakthrough in France, that eliminated the need for this. The new treatment called Plumpy Nut, is a peanut butter based RUTF (Ready to Use Therapeutic Food) for children who are suffering from Severe Acute Malnutrition, that literally saves kids who are on the brink of death. There is a powerful video that rocked my world reported by Anderson Cooper for 60 minutes.
Story:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/19/60minutes/main3386661.shtml
Video:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4201082n

In addition to other poverty relief charities like Feeding America, my local food bank, and Heifer International, I give now to charities that specifically distribute peanut-butter based RUTFs. These include:

UNICEF (Niger)
You can buy the PB RUTFs specifically:
https://secure.unicefusa.org/site/Ecommerce/1369610601?VIEW_PRODUCT=true&product_id=2320&store_id=4221

Project Peanut Butter (Malawi, Sierra Leone)
http://www.projectpeanutbutter.org/

Meds and Food for Kids (Haiti)
http://www.mfkhaiti.org/

Efficiency is generally measured by administrative costs vs program costs, and can be found on Charity Navigator. But I would say pick a cause that really matters to you, then take the time to do your research into what the best solutions are out there, and then pick the charity that focuses on those solutions.

For me, I am passionate about poverty relief. Specifically, clean water and feeding starving human beings. I like Thirst Relief International for clean water. And for feeding starving people, I did some research and found one of the biggest problems was that for many years programs used a dry-milk based food that required mixing with water, which going back to the need for clean water, is hard to come by in these parts of the world.

Turns out there was a breakthrough in France, that eliminated the need for this. The new treatment called Plumpy Nut, is a peanut butter based RUTF (Ready to Use Therapeutic Food) for children who are suffering from Severe Acute Malnutrition, that literally saves kids who are on the brink of death. There is a powerful video that rocked my world reported by Anderson Cooper for 60 minutes.
Story:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/19/60minutes/main3386661.shtml
Video:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4201082n

In addition to other poverty relief charities like Feeding America, my local food bank, and Heifer International, I give now to charities that specifically distribute peanut-butter based RUTFs. These include:

UNICEF (Niger)
You can buy the PB RUTFs specifically:
https://secure.unicefusa.org/site/Ecommerce/1369610601?VIEW_PRODUCT=true&product_id=2320&store_id=4221

Project Peanut Butter (Malawi, Sierra Leone)
http://www.projectpeanutbutter.org/

Meds and Food for Kids (Haiti)
http://www.mfkhaiti.org/

And they TOTALLY ignored these.
Got to compete with the wily Japanese.

Really? Half the members of the US senate have been convicted of serious offences that are punishable by time in jail?

sigh... I thought this was common knowledge:

60 Minutes
Wall Street Journal

Congress is exempt from insider trading laws.

Talking on a phone is no worse than talking to someone in the passenger seat. Using voice activated dialing systems in a car seems like a reasonable line to me.

Apparently that is not true. Unfortunately I haven't found a primary source yet, but I've seen/heard claims twice today by researchers that talking with a passenger is not the same as talking on a phone.

First on the Diane Rehm Show this morning: http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-12-15/ban-cell-phones-while-driving, one of the guests specifically talked about research testing the reaction time of people in simulations under different conditions.

Second in this CBS article: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57343541/hands-free-phones-just-as-risky-research-shows/
"Of course, drivers do not have to be using cellphones to have conversations — they talk with passengers all the time. But talking to an adult passenger does not involve the same risk as a phone conversation, researchers said. That is because passengers are engaged in the driving experience with the driver. If they see a danger, they'll usually warn the driver. Passengers also tend to instinctively adjust their conversation to the level of traffic and other difficulties confronting the driver."

Aargh... bad link; sorry. My HTML is rusty. Here it is, and I'd charge him with fraud. link

How about we stop passing laws on the basis of "if it could possibly save just one life"?

How about preventing 2600 deaths and 330,000 injuries per year?

Perhaps we should consider the cost of such laws as well... what's the cost of people imprisoned for the sequela of cell phone use while driving (cell phone tickets -> suspended license -> driving while suspended -> prison -> prison rape)?

What's the cost of people imprisoned for the sequela of drinking while driving (DUI -> suspended license -> driving while suspended -> prison -> prison rape)? I see no difference. You would legalize drunk driving?

In real life, anyone with a functioning brain with STFU or just drop the phone if they need to concentrate more or use both hands.

That's not what I've observed; seems like some idiot on a phone is always trying to get in a wreck with me. Pouring down rain at sunset in heavy traffic and the idiots still have that phone glued to their ear.

Not only does the science go against your flawed view, so do statistics.

Harvard researchers estimate about one in 20 U.S. traffic accidents involve a driver talking on a cell phone, but say laws banning cellular phone use while driving would cost society about as much as it would save.

"We calculate that around 2,600 people die each year as a result of this use of the technology," said researcher Joshua Cohen of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis. Another 330,000 are believed injured.

They do that because they're morons. Cell phones didn't make them stupid, it just makes it easier to see.

Wow, you're blind. Every single person I see outside talking on the phone is like that. If you poo-poo statistics, science, and the evidence in front of your very eyes I don't see how this conversation has any meaning whatever.

You might want to turn down that reality distortion field a notch or two.

> If ads were all friendly I wouldn't block any of them. I think many (most?) people probably feel the same way.

Um, no, as in DO. NOT. WANT> I want my surfing speed back so I block EVERY fucking ad.

i.e. http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ and http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm FTW

Well they are not friendly..In this case,it tool a law to make them "friendlier "on tv in the USA. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57342486-503544/govt-asks-viewers-to-police-too-loud-tv-ads/ "The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on Tuesday voted unanimously to approve rules implementing legislation that makes it illegal for advertisers to pump up the volume during television commercial breaks. The law, called the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation (CALM) Act, aims to answer the complaints of Americans who have for years protested that commercials are too loud."

I can't get to the referenced ntsb.gov page but the CNN article states just the opposite. The last line in CNN's article reads: "It would not apply to hand-free devices or to passengers."

The CNN article is simply wrong. The original report and the vastly more detailed CBS article state clearly that the ban would cover all communications uses of electronics.

They* killed a killed a guy for being ... "dangerous terrorist". No trial, no judge, no lawyer, no oversight.

Care to share the name? News reports? Evidence? If you have evidence, go to the press, or Cryptome or...

...

So, back to the point, citations please.

Well, assuming GP was referring to US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, there is no shortage of press commentary. Apparently US citizen Salmir Khan was killed in the same attack, but was not deliberately targeted, being just another collateral casualty. The press reports include statements of concern regarding this extra-judicial execution of al-Awlaki being ordered by the sitting US president. It was not a "heat of the moment" death in a shootout or in an attempt to escape from being arrested. Moreover, was not convicted of any offence, not even in absentia. Although many accusations were made (presumably with justification), no charges were ever laid against him. From what is in the press reports, he was by no means a Mahatma Gandhi, but the ordering of an execution without even going through the motions of a trial (not even a mock trial) should be disturbing to any US citizen. It's easier to slide down the slippery slope than to climb back up.

Oh, here's a few press references, in the Wahington Post, the Huffington Post, and CBS News. Use your Google-fu to find many many more. There is also an interesting comment in the New York Times, which suggests that legal advice given to the president before the execution was that it would be illegal.