Slashdot Mirror

That's right. They should have tagged it Viagra!

Christianity has nothing to do with US foreign policy

I think you don't read the news. Anyway "chritianofascism" was related to your "islamofascism"... You know humor, sarcasm and all... no?

(in one such attack a woman was severely injured)

Please, prove it was a racist act done by muslims as it is the topic here (a hint look for Mama Galledou).

You make it sounds like their actions are just a harmless way of passing time on a Friday night. What's wrong with you?

It is for the lads from the cités... Just as it was for right wing skinheads to drown or burn muslims and jews a couple of years back... Idiocy and violence just passed into the hands of another undereducated part of the society... the part that was repressed before and expresses its blind, pointless rage now. I have been an immigrant and also lived through some difficult moments with some native idiots... but I had a pretty strong education and feel blessed for it.

Jihad is a standing order for all Muslims

Which muslims? Shias or Sunni? Ismailis, Alawis, Druzes, Twelvers, Imami, Zaidiyyah, Ash'ari, Maturidiyyah, Athariyyah... ?
You might ignore it, but there is a large number of currents in Islam just as there are different currents in Christianity and Judaism.

The influence comes from Islamic culture where attitudes towards women and sexuality are different from ours.

I believe Mormons and other sects in our culture are very close to dark ages on that point. But I might be wrong here I am not familiar with these christian sects.
I believe american culture concerning women and sex is very different from mine... I don't consider women as "hoes"... nor do i think you will "burn in hell for being sexually active as a teenager" to quote only two American ideals

There's a dramatic difference between what terrorists and US forces are doing.

You should put more arguments here... I'm not sure what your sources are. Please correct me if I am wrong, but jus ad bellum does not provide any right to preemptive wars and even less to invasions... The US invasion (of Iraq) is therefore a terrorist act (as per broadly any definition). It has never been approved by any international organization. It was organized solely by the US and a couple of accomplice nations. Led by the US without a proper declaration of war, and handled in the most brutal and destructive way for the invaded nation. The only act of reconstruction led by US authorities was that of Oil fields confiscated by the US government. All the rest (judicial system, education system culture, political framework, army and peacekeeping forces, utilities and sanitary installations...) was destroyed to put money into private contract companies during the (never planed) reconstruction. I think that apart from the chaos the worst thing Iraqis are facing now is the prospect of having the same social and health system as the US.

US forces, as a rule, do not deliberately kill civilians, and it's not legal for them to do so.

Again. It might not be legal for soldiers of the regular army... But they had no training nor knowledge when it comes ROE, LOAC or Geneva Conventions. They killed people by negligence and for fun, executing wounded and

most exciting about John McCain? He hasn't kowtowed to the Jesus Crispies

I'm an American Muslim who was born and raised here. While I choose to reserve my opinion over the images of the Prophet I do find a lot of the comments on Slashdot to be disappointing. I've been a part of this community since its very inception and have done my best to contribute my expertise to relevant topics. However, its troubling to see that whenever anything Islam-related is posted, there are endless tirades painting my faith with a broad brush of extremism and ignorance.

Within an hour of the SlashDot article, news broke than an American businesswoman in Saudi Arabia had been arrested because she'd sat at the same table as a man at a Starbuck's. She spent a night in jail, was forced to sign a false confession, and was informed by the "judge" that she was going to burn in hell.

Muslims do not need any tirades to paint their faith with a broad brush of extremism and ignorance. They're doing a fine job by themselves.

How do I figure, I figure because it was on the news, being reported by mainstream media, talked about by candidates and so on.

The media has presented polls. ABC, CBS, USA Today, and others show consistent support for stem cell research.

The reason for denying embryonic stem cell research funding is the same as right to life anti abortion arguments, it kills life.

As before: not all embryonic stem cell research requires the destruction of embryos. And, in the case where embryos are destroyed anyway (such as in vitro fertilization), why not put them to use? For this reason, many against abortion are in favor of stem cell research, including Orrin Hatch and prominent catholics.

Aren't we at war? Doest that involve plenty of killing and plenty of tax dollars?

And you point is what exactly? People rationalize things however they want. Someone saying they don't want to murder or kill innocent life might not see war as innocent. But it doesn't matter to me. I never said I was prowar and anti stem cell.

Right. What you said was that the voting U.S. public was somehow "against killing" and that stem cell funding policy matched this. But that argument doesn't hold water from polling or from inconsistent policy.

I personally object to it because of how close it is to raising people just to haves parts form them in the name of helping others. It would suck 200 years from now to find out that your new born baby is going to be harvested in order to provide a healthy heart for your 140 year old grandpa and no body thinks twice about it.

It sounds as if we both hope that neither one of us will be around in 200 years to find out. I never liked this "slippery slope" argument & can't understand how you live your life that way. One can contrive to make any situation seem to lead to Utopia or to Hell.

There was funding of science well before the government got involved with it.

Government has been funding science for a very long time. Ancient science was driven by agricultural and accounting needs of the state. Pre-enlightenment patronage often came from political and religious leaders. Yes, science has also had a history of self-funding. But I think that commercial funding comes later than either of these other sources (I can't think of anything significant before the industrial revolution).

A good majority of the science that made the world as we know it today was funded by sources other then the government.

If you mean that it came from both the government & other sources of funding, I might agree. If you would contend that most advances had no governmental funding, I'd definitely disagree. A lot of progress is made from militaristic funding. Cryptography and other mathematics; thermodynamics (from cannons); nuclear and other energy research; computing and networking...

Science needs to be communicated to the public so that other researchers can test it and build on it. In commercially-funded research, this rarely happens--everything becomes a trade secret. The vast number of papers in science journals are government funded. Just look at the authors and the acknowledgements to see this. I think many scientists would agree with you that these journals can afford to be more open in-general, but all national labs and funding agencies have a system for internal reports that (assuming that nothing needs to be classified) the public has access to. Preprint and self-archiving is fairly

This is "Flamebait"? Next time, try a little research before you reach for that button, mods. Here, let me start you off:

http://oversight.house.gov/investigations.asp?Issue=Politics+and+Science
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2007/02/72672
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/politics/08climate.html

Science has been bad news for Bush's agenda.

Could this news item from Sweden have anything to do with these possible fines?

It's worse than that. If a city wants to clear out your homes to build something that's not really vital, just more profitable (say, some expensive condominiums), they can claim eminent domain and force you out. But, as you said, mention taking away Intellectual Property to save lives and you get a huge uproar as if the very building blocks of American life are being violated. In my opinion, it should be very difficult for the government to enact eminent domain and eminent domain should apply to both physical property (e.g. homes) and Intellectual Property (e.g. AIDS drugs). If anything, enacting eminent domain should be a bit easier when it comes to Intellectual Property than physical property.

Oh you must be referring to the same independent minded Americans who voted George Bush into office TWICE, of which 37% believe that teaching of evolution in schools should be abolished and replaced with creationism; of which 61% believe that torture is justified in order to "beat the t'urrists". The same Americans who have calmly bent over for the last ten or so years and allowed themselves to be anally savaged by big business and their own government. The same independent minded people that will accept just about any violation of their so-called constitutional rights as soon as somebody mentions the word "terrorism".

Yeah. Real independent. I'll take Switzerland thanks.

those 56% of the people are complacent retards who aren't even trying to improve the process.

How can you "improve the process" when neither of the two choices available to you are worthy leaders? How can you "improve the process" when any votes for someone that isn't a party tool are so marginalized that not counting them is so easily written off (why the fuck would you be rounding votes anyhow?)

There can be no uncertainty over ballots not even cast. Nice strawman.

Ok, who do I vote for that will get us out of Iraq? 40% of the voters want the to pull the troops out but none of the viable candidates are providing that as part of their platform. So that 40% has no one to vote for. The majority of the times that I vote, it's a vote against a particularly bad candidate. If candidate A really really sucks, then I vote candidate B. I'm not actually excited about having candidate B leading my country, but I get counted as a "supporter". My congressional district is so gerrymandered that it doesn't matter who I vote for, so if I'm busy (I often work two jobs) on election day there might well be better uses of my time than registering my ignored, rounded down token of dissatisfaction. What percentage of people that you know actually feel well represented in our government? Among my acquaintances that would be below 25%.

Naturally, the recounts also "proved" there was no fraud in Florida 2000...

Until a media consortium hired independent assessors to evaluate the ballots, and found that the Gore got more than Bush votes in Florida in 2000.

As for Ohio, people went to jail for rigging the recount.

Which demonstrates that official recounts of a limited number of ballots may not tell the whole story.

The U.S. electoral system is no more reliable than that of the Ukraine or Kenya. But Americans are much more complacent about it.

"Art is not simply something that someone made that you like to look at/listen to/read/etc."
Yeah, actually it is.

What phone are they going to use to reserve the book? With what light will they read it after the sun goes down? How are they going to travel 100 miles on foot to the "local library"?

Many of the people targeted with the XO are not living in clean rows of houses with white fences but with no computers. They're living in places where subsistence farming and odd jobs are the employment. They're happy to have clean water and vaccinations, some clothes and maybe some shoes. You don't send these people to the local school library, where there might be 5 books for the village in the one-room school. If they're going to read, a free computer and free content like Project Gutenberg is great. If they're going to write, a free computer is great since paper and pencil is a major expense for some people.

Imagine putting 30 computers in a small village that has one phone for those 30 kids and their families. Now, imagine all the computers can talk to one another, and that another, coordinating charity is putting a 256k or 512k Internet line in for the village. You're talking about not just changing the source of connectivity and reading material. You're talking about introducing those things.

Sure, some of the kids targeted have it better than this. Many don't. You should watch or read the news story on the village in Cambodia where Negroponte gave away a dozen or two regular laptops to the village school, and enrollment in first grade increased by half.

Countries targeted include those in which 50% of children live with no access to schools at all. Where do they go for their books?

You still need room to grow suger cane (which by the way IS used, not everything is corn syrup) or switchgrass. So it doesn't really matter if you can do it right now. They still pollute as well. Even making it is not as friendly as once thought.

Then there are other benefits to the electric car too; the car becomes MUCH simpler. If we're going to make a switch, lets make a clean break that actually gives us a lot of net benefits, instead of trying to patch ICEs.

As for the cheap power in France I cannot get the numbers due to the nuclear electicity generation being part of a defence program so it is SECRET - how did you get that information or are you guessing?

his reminds me of the time President Bush dismissed an EPA http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/03/tech/main510920.shtml? [cbsnews.com] Bush dismisses global warming warning on global sarming as the work of the the bureaucracy.

Oh yeah... that was so funny, I ... eh, eh, what was that you said?

"Earlier characterizations from people who have seen the results said they would show that events like near collisions and runway interference occur far more frequently than previously recognized. Such information could not be gleaned from the 16,208 pages posted by NASA on its Web site, however, because of information that was edited out. "

Your tax dollars at work.

his reminds me of the time President Bush dismissed an EPA http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/03/tech/main510920.shtml? Bush dismisses global warming warning on global sarming as the work of the the bureaucracy.

I love how these coal plants are all Bush's fault when 100% of them existed for 100% of the Clinton administration

On the one hand:

• Bush energy plan includes coal-burning power plants
• Bush: Kyoto treaty would have hurt economy

• Clinton Blasts Bush On Kyoto Pact -- Ex-President Says Current President 'Flat Wrong' On Global Warming
• Barack Star -- Illinois Senate candidate Barack Obama's got green cred

Great points. For those interested here are some links dealing with the many issues surrounding "global warming". http://links.veronicachapman.com/OriginsOfOil.htm http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...9-68c808e8809e http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2871211.shtml http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/New...s/Aerosols.pdf http://nasadaacs.eos.nasa.gov/articl...6_highlow.html http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/?ic http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269886,00.html http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/20_1-2_CO2_Scandal.pdf http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=438 http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/070507martianwarming.htm http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=8gfbewe7&keywords=global%20warming#dest http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211101623.htm

You're probably not counting the 15,000 or so suicides among U.S. troops in the past 2 years alone.

The report said the 99 confirmed suicides among active duty soldiers compares with 87 in 2005 and is the highest number since 102 were reported in 1991, the year of the Persian Gulf War, when there were more soldiers on active duty.

Investigations are still pending on two other deaths.

In a half million-person Army, last year's suicide toll translates to a rate of 17.3 per 100,000, the highest since the Army started counting in 1980, officials said. The rate has fluctuated over those years, with the low being 9.1 per 100,000 in 2001.

-CBS News

There was "limited evidence" to back the suspicion that repeated deployments are putting more people at risk for suicide, the report said. With the Army stretched thin by years of fighting the two wars, the Pentagon has had to extend normal tours of duty this year to 15 months from 12 and has sent some troops back to the wars several times.

Officials found no direct link between suicide and deployments or exposure to combat except in how they affect a soldier's marriage or other close relationships, Col. Elspeth Ritchie, psychiatry consultant to the Army surgeon general, said in a Pentagon press conference.

"Unfortunately, suicide is very often a compulsive act," she said, and the fact that soldiers are armed can make it harder to prevent.

"Very often a young soldier gets a 'Dear John' or 'Dear Jane' e-mail and then takes his weapon and shoots himself," she said.

I'm sure as hell you're not counting the million-odd dead Iraqis, but then you might be considering them all terrorists. Enemy combatants. Like the American citizens kept safe by their own extrajudicial executions. They were enemy combatants too.

The wealth of the US is being systematically removed, and the natural resources of the world are being systematically repurposed. "War on terror" is really a war on the boogeyman, used to play the suckers into selling their children into perpetual servitude.

That's treason and a crime against humanity that makes the Nazi crimes pale in comparison. Really. Pol Pot never had that kind of ambition.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7038348.stm

Wars in Africa wipe out aid gains
Date: October 11, 2007

A report on armed conflict in Africa has shown that the cost to the continent's development over a 15-year period was nearly $300bn (£146bn).
The research was undertaken by a number of non-governmental organisations, including Oxfam.

It says the cost of conflict was equal to the amount of money received in aid during the same period.

This is the first time analysts have calculated the overall effects of armed violence on development.

The report says that between 1990 and 2005, 23 African nations were involved in conflict, and on average this cost African economies $18bn a year.

Likewise,

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/10/11/africa.billions.ap/index.html
Report: African wars cost billions
Date: October 11, 2007

DAKAR, Senegal (AP) -- About $18 billion a year has been drained from Africa by nearly two dozen wars in recent decades, a new report states, a price some officials say could've helped solve the AIDS crisis and created stronger economies in the world's poorest region.

"This is money Africa can ill afford to lose," Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf wrote in an introduction to the report by the British charity Oxfam and two groups that seek tougher controls on small arms, Saferworld and the International Action Network on Small Arms.

"The sums are appalling: the price that Africa is paying could cover the cost of solving the HIV and AIDS crisis in Africa, or provide education, water and prevention and treatment for tuberculosis and malaria," Sirleaf added. "Literally thousands of hospitals, schools, and roads could have been built."

That war makes economies suffer is nothing new, but few have tried to estimate the real cost across Africa.

Compared to peaceful countries, war-battered African nations have "50 percent more infant deaths, 15 percent more undernourished people, life expectancy reduced by five years, 20 percent more adult illiteracy, 2.5 times fewer doctors per patient and 12.4 percent less food per person," the report estimates.

On average, the economies of African nations wracked by armed conflict contracted by 15 percent, and the impact generally worsened the longer a war lasted, the report said.

The report based its figures on the ill effects on ec

Ron Paul has about 104,000 donors. His donor-feed is at:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/webservices/REST/fundraiser?name=liberty

It's not clear to me [and I've searched a bit] if that number is total number of unique donors or total number of donations. Other articles touching on the subject are
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/us/politics/06paul.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/10/12/politics/horserace/entry3362383.shtml?CMP=OTC-RSSFeed&source=RSS&attr=Horserace_3362383

Now... has Ron Paul found the most donors? I don't think so. Barack Obama had 92,000 new contributors in the 3rd Quarter, and has had 350,000+ thus far
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-10-01-fundraising_N.htm

So in short, cut the crap. Regardless if you appreciate Ron Paul's unique perspectives or think he's a crazy foolish man, don't make things up. Use facts. The truth is out there ;), and in this case it makes it pretty clear that Ron Paul has not had more individual donors than any other candidate in the race.

TELLING YOUR PARTNERS TO MAKE DECENT FUCKING MOVIES. Maybe then people might want to pay 30 bucks to see your movie in a theater...

But Fucking Movies are the ones doing well...
http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_6059391
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/21/60minutes/main585049.shtml
And you can use your own partner, or someone else's.

What's it like arguing from such monstrous ignorance?

If you had any background in the debate, you'd know fundamentalist Christians represent a large part of the movement against vaccines, some going so far as to believe vaccines cut you off from God.

In fact, it's the very people he is referencing whom you claim have nothing to do with vaccinations that have recently been some of the biggest opponents of general vaccinations for a variety of reasons.

So, once again, before calling troll because someone said something you don't like, consider educating yourself on matters.

Or defense contracts for companies owned by Nancy Pelosi's husband..

Or billions in subsidies to Fortune 500 agribusiness companies.

There can be no funding for frivolities like the human exploration of space when so many of the needs of the Permanent Bipartisan State of Porkistan remain unmet...

Or defense contracts for companies owned by Nancy Pelosi's husband..

Or billions in subsidies to Fortune 500 agribusiness companies.

There can be no funding for frivolities like the human exploration of space when so many of the needs of the Permanent Bipartisan State of Porkistan remain unmet...

And the fact that Intel is selling the Classmate at a loss - which really is chicken shit when you think about it. During the recent 60 Minutes profile on OLPC, Negroponte went on a quite a rant about Intel and his complaint(s) with them (it's towards the end). The big ugly link:

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=3564316n&channel=/sections/60minutes/videoplayer3415.shtml
c

Travel is down since 9/11 by 17%.

Or you can buy missiles for $5000-$60000 (black market cost that Hezbollah has paid - http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/20/world/main1821335.shtml etc). Those JPL-caliber (completely made-up term) rockets can run into the millions of dollars per unit...the type of groups that can't support indigenous development efforts probably don't care about reliability all too much. Yes, it's rocket science, but not all rocket science is hard and poorly defined!

I wonder if they have a collection or recycling mechanism for the dead/mulfunctioning/washed-up ones, otherwise I can't help point out the irony that in the process of studying the environment (in order to be friendlier to it) you pollute the hell out of it.

While in principal, I'd agree that research devices shouldn't pollute, your phrasing is a bit hyperbolic. Do you realize the magnitude of the junk we toss into ocean? The Argo bots are insignificant. Don't get your knickers all in a twist about little crap like that. Worry about the big stuff. That said, I'd sure like to find one tossed up on the shore. Much more useful than the usual stuff we find.

http://www.techweb.com/wire/mobile/183702832 -- This one in Illinois http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/07/tech/main707361.shtml -- This one in Florida http://web.archive.org/web/20060701105145/http://www.katu.com/stories/87037.html -- This one in Washington http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070522-michigan-man-arrested-for-using-cafes-free-wifi-from-his-car.html -- And another story about the Michigan guy, for those who missed it As dumb as it sounds, to be arrested for using technology the way it was designed, it is happening. Just because computers running Windows automatically do it by default, does not mean you won't get arrested. It's ridiculous, but true. Welcome to the 21st century, where it's considered a felony(by cops and judges) to turn on a standard wifi enabled computer running Windows.

it was the most expensive form of generation then in widespread use

Because nuclear plants emit no greenhouse gases, France has the cleanest air in the industrialized world, and because the price of oil is now around $60 a barrel, it has the lowest electric bills in Europe. In fact, France has so much cheap electricity, it exports it to its European neighbors. French nuclear plants supply power to parts of Germany, Italy and help light the city of London.

US national debt is about $9 trillion http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/06/notebook/main3238787.shtml

You might have been thinking about the federal public debt which was $5.04 trillion.
You get from 5.04 to 9 by adding in intragovernment debt obligations which include among other things, money that individual states owe.

How the Japanese figure is arrived at seems to be less well documented though I'm sure its out there somewhere..

But it's not quite so easy the second time.

This is the second time (at least). Take a look at this article from last year: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/14/world/main2179694.shtml. Clearly, there's a lot of journalistic hyperventilation going on in the current article. Nobody should have been that surprised.

One could ask, of course, whether the sub was truly undetected. One of the objectives of this type of war gaming is to determine the capabilities of the opposing force, so it's not likely that the U.S. Navy would tell the truth, either way. If the carrier group had detected the sub, they'd keep quiet about it, and let the Chinese think what they wanted. In any case, there's nothing the carrier group could--or would have wanted--to do about the sub. We're not at war with China, and the sub had as much right to be where it was as the U.S. ships. Like Somalia, for instance.

My guess is that it would not be that difficult for a modern electric sub to get within torpedo or missile range of a U.S.N. carrier. Carriers exist for two purposes: to provide career advancement opportunities for the naval officers who command them (you have to command a capital ship to make admiral), and to "project force"—against inconvenient third-rate powers that lack the capability to actually damage one of these very expensive ships.

The problem with a weapon as expensive as an aircraft carrier is that one absolutely cannot afford to lose one. That means they can be employed only if the risk of using them is very close to zero. And of course, that's the point the Chinese are making: maybe you'll detect the next sub before it comes into striking range, and maybe you won't. But if you ever go to war with those carriers near the strait of Taiwan, you had better be feeling very lucky indeed. Given the present mentality of the U.S. "defense" establishment, that's a very powerful argument.

Now consider the strait of Hormuz...

You need to do a little homework. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff A communist government OWNS all the companies that originated in that country. A "traditional" communist government will simply not allow retail stores to sell items they don't want sold to their people. Simple. No 'shoring up' the foreign item just doesn't exist.

Oh did you think that in a communist government you can pick and choose what and who you buy from and where your money goes? Nope! If you're not a card carrying party member you can stand in line and get whatever your GOVERMENT offers. There are no private party resellers, every company is beholden to any whim of the government. There is nothing stopping them from saying "You know what? NO INTEL!, and now THIS guy owns your company, and we think you should GO TO A WORK CAMP." That's what WE (the U.S.) are competing against!

The whole reason VIA competing with Intel is unfair is because Intel is bound by the laws and regulations of the U.S., VIA can have sweatshops and dormitories full of farmers daughters manning their plants, Intel is beholden to the EPA, labour unions, and the radical environmentalist movement in the U.S.. VIA is held to no standard, if they were to pay their workers $.05 an hour, nobody would say a damn thing about it. If Intel did the same thing they would be run out of town by the same people that are cheering on VIA. VIA can dump waste into the local waterways or bury hazardous waste anywhere, nobody in China cares, and yes, sorry, even the U.S. recognizes Taiwan as a Chinese colony, and I'm pretty sure everyone in Taiwan is Chinese and at least half of the 'Democratic' Chinese are... communist!

I don't even know why I'm arguing, any computer tech. worth his weight in salt knows that VIA chips are horrible and will crash unexpectedly, not work when you need them, cause random hangups and just plain suck. If you haven't had that experience with them then you haven't really used them. Say nothing about supporting a communist government that is very hostile http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/14/world/main2179694.shtml towards our country.

What is The Daily Mail's agenda in resurrecting a story from 2006 and republishing it with no dates or locations?

http://www.sinodaily.com/reports/Chinese_Sub_Approached_US_Aircraft_Carrier_Undetected_999.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/14/world/main2179694.shtml
http://madhousethought.blogspot.com/2006/11/chinese-submarine-stalked-uss-kitty.html

A lot of military bloggers speculate it's just the Mail's way of trying to embarrass the Bush administration over its China policy.

Also seen in 2006 posts:
http://www.sinodaily.com/reports/Chinese_Sub_Approached_US_Aircraft_Carrier_Undetected_999.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/14/world/main2179694.shtml
http://madhousethought.blogspot.com/2006/11/chinese-submarine-stalked-uss-kitty.html

This appears to be a year old!
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/14/world/main2179694.shtml

Your data shows no connection between the faulty "Iraq-9/11" meme and conservatism

Editing error, mea culpa. I had an additional paragraph in there that I must have accidently deleted, which pointed out (from the same article I linked to above) that 40 percent of Republicans believe Saddam was involved in 9/11, while just 27 percent of Democrats do.

So much for "progressives" being about the "common man"!..."Progressives" represent the wealthy, the white, and the privileged.

Because reality has a well-known liberal bias, educated and informed people tend to be more liberal - for example, being against the Iraq invasion, understanding the illegitimacy of the Bush administration and its actions, and being in favor of public policy based on sound science.

Take the purported connection between Iraq and 9/11. There wasn't one. Educated people are likely to know this, while ignorant people are more likely to believe there was such a link. Eighty percent of college graduates know there's no link, while only 56% percent of people with a high school education or less understand this.

The Bush camp has done this kind of thing before. That document that came out during the 2004 election is a prime example. It was poorly faked, but actually contained accurate information: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/15/60II/main643768.shtml

There is zero evidence that Bush or his team had anything to do with the fake CBS memos. If you have something credible, please share.

Further, to this day, Dan Rather and his producer, Mary Mapes, maintain that the documents are genuine. Are they in on the conspiracy too? The people at dailykos.com think they are real too (but too many of the daily kos people are just nuts).

But all people remember is that the first document that was made public was fake. They forget or ignore that people who were around at the time have testified to the authenticity of the information.

The alleged author (Bush's commanding officer) of the memos died many years ago. His secretary, who is still alive, said she doesn't remember typing them, she said that the documents look fake, she said they don't sound like Texas Air National Guard memos, she said that Bush's commanding officer didn't type, and she said that the Texas Air National Guard had plain regular typewriters.

There are too many nuts who are so blinded by their hatred of Bush that they refuse to believe objective facts:

The CBS memos were written with microsoft word. They are 100% fake. Period.

However, note that at no time did I say that Bush is a nice guy, or whether I support him, or whether Bush fulfilled his duty to the Texas Air National Guard (there is some evidence that he slacked off).

All the kooks who claimed that the CBS memos are real did a great job of avoiding the underlying question: did Bush fulfill his duty to the Texas Air National Guard?

Most of these kooks are left-wing bloggers. Nice job guys.

I'm not sure I trust this source. Not that I don't think this is/was happening, but this guy could be a deliberate plant to discredit any investigations into the NSA's actions. The Bush camp has done this kind of thing before. That document that came out during the 2004 election is a prime example. It was poorly faked, but actually contained accurate information: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/15/60II/main643768.shtml

But all people remember is that the first document that was made public was fake. They forget or ignore that people who were around at the time have testified to the authenticity of the information.

I expect this guy will get "outed" as a crank in the next few weeks and nobody will pay attention to any revelations that are subsequently made.

Replacement batteries for cellphones are often marked up by the devices' manufacturers, while third-party replacements are often available for 60 percent to 80 percent less.

Ummmm... You sure you want to recommend that?

The University of Iowa supported research, later dubbed "The Monster Study," that involved teaching young orphans how to stutter in an attempt to prove that stuttering is a learned behavior. While none of the children picked up stuttering, many began to exhibit the same mannerisms as stutterers (low self-esteem, hesitations, etc.)

The study's main researcher, Wendell Johnson, has a campus building named after him (the Wendell Johnson Speech & Hearing Center). Apparently the Univ. of Iowa still doesn't see anything wrong with conducting research on non-consenting children...

Remember the story about a larger than usual number of people having a winning ticket?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/01/national/main684584.shtml

Still your right, the numbers chosen are not published, but with the "ball" method being used at many lotteries how would knowing what they choose really affect your chance of winning anything substantial?

Is there any way to get off the Watch List?

I was (still am) irritated that companies in the west quite frequently make money by selling arms to dictatorships that use those arms to stay in power against the wishes of the people who live under their rule. Companies like BAe Systems make huge profits by selling to countries like Indonesia who have an appalling human rights record. I know you can always make the argument that if we don't someone else will but that still doesn't make it any less morally wrong.

I am especially against schemes like the Export Credit Guarantee Department which underwrite these sales so that if the people in said country manage to oust the dictator from power before payment has been made then British taxpayers money is used to pay the bill and then the cost (plus interest) is added to the countries national debt.

In this manner the people who get rid of the dictator end up paying for the weapons that were used to suppress them. I think that if a western company is willing to do business with a country that is on the brink of collapse it should do so at its own risk.

One example is various companies supplying Saddam Hussein with arms (and the Falluja 2 chemical weapons plant) shortly before he invaded Kuwait.

Here are some links:
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/040.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,908426,00.html

Although these links only mention British involvement President Reagan was also a supporter of Saddam when he was fighting Iran so American companies were also involved. Here is an interesting photo of Saddam and Reagan shaking hands, not that it proves anything by itself:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Here are some other random links:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52241-2002Dec29?language=printer
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE0DC123DF936A35751C0A963958260
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/31/world/main534798.shtml