Slashdot Mirror

Fox News, on the other hand, actually takes itself seriously.

Sort of like CBS, ABC, NBC, the New York Times, etc., right?

Bias in itself isn't necessarily a bad thing; attempting to claim objectivity when clearly you're not objective is far worse.

I agree

Owning up to your own bias is in my estimation, a very mature thing to do.

I agree.

AOL just cut 1400 jobs in Arizona and New Mexico. Not only that, but in another interesting story -

Internet service provider AOL's sales may shrink for the next two years as it gives away services to win more users and attract advertising, its chief executive said in an interview published on Saturday.

"Maybe another two years, you are right there," Jonathan Miller said when asked by German newspaper Die Welt whether sales would continue to fall. "But it's about profitability for us in this phase." ...

In recent weeks, AOL has sold its Internet access units in Germany, France and Britain for a total of almost US$2 billion as it reshapes itself into a free Web portal where popular email and entertainment services are supported by advertising.

The only, ONLY thing holding AOL still together are people who are less internet savvy and those who cling to AOL email addresses for their lives (certain professionals, businesspeople, et al). Creating a successful and large advertising group sounds like it'd be tricky in such a large market. Most people think of AOL the ISP or the portal than the advertising giant.

Finally, it should be noted that AOL spokesman John Buckley said "Time Warner ``is not considering a sale or demerger,'"

For a (slight) glimpse at the stakes of a game like this, consider the recent Robin Williams film "Man of the Year". The movie was okay, but the truly frightening thing was how likely a scandal like a rigged election, purposefully or otherwise, might take place. However, before I go into some facts I found through surfing about Diebold and electronic voting, I wanted to point out that even if it was demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bush was elected through vote fraud of some kind (not that many of us need any further convincing), it doesn't mean Kerry automatically gets to take the White House and Bush is out. What would most likely happen, along with a series of investigations and lawsuits, is the Supreme Court court would invalidate the election results and declare a new election, at a reasonable time period. Dennis Hastert would assume the throne until the new election results were confirmed but nothing Bush has done would be invalidated, at least, not right away. Even if he was fraudulently elected, he was still the de-facto sitting President and so his actions would be legal (in a manner of speaking). Congress could take some action to reverse some of his doings, but that assumes they want to in the first place. Now, on to Diebold. Found via a Google of "Diebold facts": 1. 80% of all votes in America are counted by only two companies: Diebold and ES&S. http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/ 042804landes.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diebold 2. There is no federal agency with regulatory authority or oversight of the U.S. voting machine industry. http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0916-04.htm http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/ 042804landes.html 3. The vice-president of Diebold and the president of ES&S are brothers. http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/private_comp any.html http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/ 042804landes.html 4. The chairman and CEO of Diebold is a major Bush campaign organizer and donor who wrote in 2003 that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/28/sunday/m ain632436.shtml http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1647886 5. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel used to be chairman of ES&S. He became Senator based on votes counted by ES&S machines. http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2004 /03/03_200.html http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/031004Fitraki s/031004fitrakis.html 6. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, long-connected with the Bush family, was recently caught lying about his ownership of ES&S by the Senate Ethics Committee. http://www.blackboxvoting.com/modules.php?name=New s&file=article&sid=26 http://www.hillnews.com/news/012903/hagel.aspx http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/000896.ph p 7. Senator Chuck Hagel was on a short list of George W. Bush's vice-presidential candid

Now what could he say to get the people and congress to go into Iraq....hmmmmm....what could he say - how about

"Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom. Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror..."

from here His Jan 2002 state of the Union speech.

But wasn't he just getting bad information? Well, no he wasn't getting bad info, it just wasn't the info he wanted.

So he went on the air and *lied* to the american people about Iraq's involement with terrorists. And if he would lie to start a war I have no trouble believing that he would lie about anything else. So, is that enough proff yet?

Sera

When the general population has greater access to high end 3d cards.
All of this has already happened w/ EverCrack, more than 4 years ago
We knew of all the problems back then, no one cared

EverCrack Addiction: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/28/earlysho w/living/caught/main510302.shtml

http://pc.ign.com/articles/356/356673p1.html

Why is this flamebait? I don't want to hijack this story, but I think that we should first look to our own government before starting to criticize others'. We have an election coming up where 80% of all votes will be cast on electronic voting machines operated by a private company. I shouldn't need to mention what kind of affiliation the owner has with the Bush Administration. We're being spied on, can be held indefinitely without a reason why or any contact with the outside world...I hope the people with their heads in the sand realize what is happening around them once they come up for air...

Exactly! It was only three and a half years ago for crying out loud.

Read this carefully people.

The UN inspectors never got to finish their work. After Bush failed to gain support from the UN for the use of force, he issued an ultimatum to Saddam - "Step down in 24 hours". The UN subsequently removed their inspectors, who were still trying to complete their work. The rest is history.

Spin that how you like, but those are the order of events.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/17/iraq/mai n544280.shtml

"Where on the mainstream left are they speaking out against Chavez?"

• Washington Post
• New York Times
• NYT
• Charles Rangel
• Democrats
• The Daily Show

Yeah maybe we shouldn't fire the Arabic speakers we actually have for a start http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/14/attack/m ain529418.shtml just an idea

Do you live in the United States? Cuz round these parts we're still engaged in fierce debate over whether evolution actually happens. Most Americans think it doesn't, so they're not spending much time thinking of the "how".

Patriot surely is effective - http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/14/iraq/mai n549216.shtml (Patriot Eyed In Downing Of Navy Jet)

Ask and you shall recieve...Al Jazeera is getting ready to launch an English language version. I don't think it is exactly what you are looking to find - but I think you will find the fare different than what the U.S. news is serving up.

But... flipping burgers *can* be a manufacturing job....

20 Amazing Facts About Voting In The USA
by Angry Girl of Nightweed.com

Did you know....

1. 80% of all votes in America are counted by only two companies: Diebold and ES&S. http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/ 042804landes.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diebold

2. There is no federal agency with regulatory authority or oversight of the U.S. voting machine industry. http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0916-04.htm http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/ 042804landes.html

3. The vice-president of Diebold and the president of ES&S are brothers. http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/private_comp any.html http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/ 042804landes.html

4. The chairman and CEO of Diebold is a major Bush campaign organizer and donor who wrote in 2003 that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/28/sunday/m ain632436.shtml http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1647886

5. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel used to be chairman of ES&S. He became Senator based on votes counted by ES&S machines. http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2004 /03/03_200.html http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/031004Fitraki s/031004fitrakis.html

6. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, long-connected with the Bush family, was recently caught lying about his ownership of ES&S by the Senate Ethics Committee. http://www.blackboxvoting.com/modules.php?name=New s&file=article&sid=26 http://www.hillnews.com/news/012903/hagel.aspx http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/000896.ph p

7. Senator Chuck Hagel was on a short list of George W. Bush's vice-presidential candidates. http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_28/b3689130.ht m http://theindependent.com/stories/052700/new_hagel 27.html

8. ES&S is the largest voting machine manufacturer in the U.S. and counts almost 60% of all U.S. votes. http://www.essvote.com/HTML/about/about.html http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/ 042804landes.html

9. Diebold's new touch screen voting machines have no paper trail of any votes. In other words, there is no way to verify that the data coming out of the machine is the same as what was legitimately put in by voters. http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0225-05.htm http://www.itworld.com/Tech/2987/041020evotestates /pfindex

It's the government's duty to protect the USA from these attacks by preventing them.

How do you propose they do that? Dig up their cold war psychics?

No, seriously. How do you propose that the governments of the world stop something that might happen in the future? By rounding up a bunch of britons with no plane tickets, no bombs, and no passports, and claiming they were going to blow up planes headed for the US? By stopping everyone who looks vaguely Pakistani from getting on planes while allowing white boys with pipe bombs in their backpacks to pass the checkpoint?

We have systems in place that should be protecting us now. We have no fly lists to protect us from people who we think might try to blow up a plane but that we can't prove this, however they've pretty much been rendered useless by inaccuracy and incompetence. For every Democratic Senator who can't fly because he was on the no fly list or not, how many people are there that are not on the list but that we suspect they might try to blow up a plane? (Or, if you believe the DHS officer when he says it was just "an accident" how many people on the list are "accidentially" let on board planes?) The TSA currently allows people to bring up to 4 books of matches on board, just in case someone has a legitimate reason to set their shoes on fire, but refuses to let people who call them stupid get on the plane.

And now, the government wants to know who's calling who. Tell me, how exactly do you intend to discover terrorists based on call history when you don't already know who the terrorists are, since if you knew who the terrorists are, you'd have already gotten a warrant to listen in on every single call to or from them, and subsequently warrants for those people's call histories as well? What exactly will the government learn from this, beyond the most popular pizza delivery?

Being pissed off at the loss of liberty is only a fraction of the rage I'm feeling now. The rest is reserved for the Republicans who are pissing my tax money away on things like this that they are incapable of justifying.

But the only way for the government to know if I'm calling a terrorist, or someone they suspect of being a terrorist, is to tap my line.

Thus, my rights ARE being violated because they're not getting a warrant to find out if I'm calling someone they should know about.

If you're not and they try something like that, you can sue the living crap out of the people that are doing it, and you'll have lawyers out the door to back you up. And you'll win.

No you won't because the government will say that they were doing so in the interest of national security. Once those magical words come out it is extremely unlikely that any judge will penalize the government for vacuuming your calls.

Yes, a judge recently ruled that the wiretapping, as a whole, is illegal but in this case you're talking about one person. Witness the Canadian citizen who was arrested on U.S. soil because the RCMP claimed he had met with terrorists and was sent to Syria to be tortured.

The Justice Department is trying to claim "state secrets privilege" in his case against them.

So, how far do you think you'd get if you found out your phone was being tapped?

Games and Movies and Music oh my!
Games and Movies and Music oh my!

We can't be exposing our youth to violence and smut now can we?

Won't somebody please Think Of The Children?

Nobody under the age of 18 is allowed to read this post.

On February 19th of this year, CBS News's "60 Minutes" produced a segment on the North Pole. The segment was a completely one-sided report, alleging rapid and unprecedented melting at the polar cap. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/16/60minute s/main1323169.shtml

It even featured correspondent Scott Pelley claiming that the ice in Greenland was melting so fast, that he barely got off an ice-berg before it collapsed into the water.

"60 Minutes" failed to inform its viewers that a 2005 study by a scientist named Ola Johannessen and his colleagues showing that the interior of Greenland is gaining ice and mass and that according to scientists, the Arctic was warmer in the 1930's than today.

On March 19th of this year "60 Minutes" profiled NASA scientist and alarmist James Hansen, who was once again making allegations of being censored by the Bush administration. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minute s/main1415985.shtml

In this segment, objectivity and balance were again tossed aside in favor of a one-sided glowing profile of Hansen.

The "60 Minutes" segment made no mention of Hansen's partisan ties to former Democrat Vice President Al Gore or Hansen's receiving of a grant of a quarter of a million dollars from the left-wing Heinz Foundation run by Teresa Heinz Kerry. There was also no mention of Hansen's subsequent endorsement of her husband John Kerry for President in 2004. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/dai_complete.pdf

Many in the media dwell on any industry support given to so-called climate skeptics, but the same media completely fail to note Hansen's huge grant from the left-wing Heinz Foundation. http://www.heinzawards.net/speechDetail.asp?speech ID=6

The foundation's money originated from the Heinz family ketchup fortune. So it appears that the media makes a distinction between oil money and ketchup money.

"60 Minutes" also did not inform viewers that Hansen appeared to concede in a 2003 issue of Natural Science that the use of "extreme scenarios" to dramatize climate change "may have been appropriate at one time" to drive the public's attention to the issue. http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh 6.html

Why would "60 Minutes" ignore the basic tenets of journalism, which call for objectivity and balance in sourcing, and do such one-sided segments? The answer was provided by correspondent Scott Pelley. Pelley told the CBS News website that he justified excluding scientists skeptical of global warming alarmism from his segments because he considers skeptics to be the equivalent of "Holocaust deniers." http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/03/22/publiceye/ entry1431768.shtml

This year also saw a New York Times reporter write a children's book entitled" The North Pole Was Here." The author of the book, New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin, wrote that it may someday be "easier to sail to than stand on" the North Pole in summer. So here we have a very prominent environmental reporter for the New York Times who is promoting aspects of global warming alarmism in a book aimed at children.

Educate yourself. Read the entire speech here... http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id= 263759

On February 19th of this year, CBS News's "60 Minutes" produced a segment on the North Pole. The segment was a completely one-sided report, alleging rapid and unprecedented melting at the polar cap. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/16/60minute s/main1323169.shtml

It even featured correspondent Scott Pelley claiming that the ice in Greenland was melting so fast, that he barely got off an ice-berg before it collapsed into the water.

"60 Minutes" failed to inform its viewers that a 2005 study by a scientist named Ola Johannessen and his colleagues showing that the interior of Greenland is gaining ice and mass and that according to scientists, the Arctic was warmer in the 1930's than today.

On March 19th of this year "60 Minutes" profiled NASA scientist and alarmist James Hansen, who was once again making allegations of being censored by the Bush administration. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minute s/main1415985.shtml

In this segment, objectivity and balance were again tossed aside in favor of a one-sided glowing profile of Hansen.

The "60 Minutes" segment made no mention of Hansen's partisan ties to former Democrat Vice President Al Gore or Hansen's receiving of a grant of a quarter of a million dollars from the left-wing Heinz Foundation run by Teresa Heinz Kerry. There was also no mention of Hansen's subsequent endorsement of her husband John Kerry for President in 2004. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/dai_complete.pdf

Many in the media dwell on any industry support given to so-called climate skeptics, but the same media completely fail to note Hansen's huge grant from the left-wing Heinz Foundation. http://www.heinzawards.net/speechDetail.asp?speech ID=6

The foundation's money originated from the Heinz family ketchup fortune. So it appears that the media makes a distinction between oil money and ketchup money.

"60 Minutes" also did not inform viewers that Hansen appeared to concede in a 2003 issue of Natural Science that the use of "extreme scenarios" to dramatize climate change "may have been appropriate at one time" to drive the public's attention to the issue. http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh 6.html

Why would "60 Minutes" ignore the basic tenets of journalism, which call for objectivity and balance in sourcing, and do such one-sided segments? The answer was provided by correspondent Scott Pelley. Pelley told the CBS News website that he justified excluding scientists skeptical of global warming alarmism from his segments because he considers skeptics to be the equivalent of "Holocaust deniers." http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/03/22/publiceye/ entry1431768.shtml

This year also saw a New York Times reporter write a children's book entitled" The North Pole Was Here." The author of the book, New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin, wrote that it may someday be "easier to sail to than stand on" the North Pole in summer. So here we have a very prominent environmental reporter for the New York Times who is promoting aspects of global warming alarmism in a book aimed at children.

Educate yourself. Read the entire speech here... http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id= 263759

On February 19th of this year, CBS News's "60 Minutes" produced a segment on the North Pole. The segment was a completely one-sided report, alleging rapid and unprecedented melting at the polar cap. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/16/60minute s/main1323169.shtml

It even featured correspondent Scott Pelley claiming that the ice in Greenland was melting so fast, that he barely got off an ice-berg before it collapsed into the water.

"60 Minutes" failed to inform its viewers that a 2005 study by a scientist named Ola Johannessen and his colleagues showing that the interior of Greenland is gaining ice and mass and that according to scientists, the Arctic was warmer in the 1930's than today.

On March 19th of this year "60 Minutes" profiled NASA scientist and alarmist James Hansen, who was once again making allegations of being censored by the Bush administration. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minute s/main1415985.shtml

In this segment, objectivity and balance were again tossed aside in favor of a one-sided glowing profile of Hansen.

The "60 Minutes" segment made no mention of Hansen's partisan ties to former Democrat Vice President Al Gore or Hansen's receiving of a grant of a quarter of a million dollars from the left-wing Heinz Foundation run by Teresa Heinz Kerry. There was also no mention of Hansen's subsequent endorsement of her husband John Kerry for President in 2004. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/dai_complete.pdf

Many in the media dwell on any industry support given to so-called climate skeptics, but the same media completely fail to note Hansen's huge grant from the left-wing Heinz Foundation. http://www.heinzawards.net/speechDetail.asp?speech ID=6

The foundation's money originated from the Heinz family ketchup fortune. So it appears that the media makes a distinction between oil money and ketchup money.

"60 Minutes" also did not inform viewers that Hansen appeared to concede in a 2003 issue of Natural Science that the use of "extreme scenarios" to dramatize climate change "may have been appropriate at one time" to drive the public's attention to the issue. http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh 6.html

Why would "60 Minutes" ignore the basic tenets of journalism, which call for objectivity and balance in sourcing, and do such one-sided segments? The answer was provided by correspondent Scott Pelley. Pelley told the CBS News website that he justified excluding scientists skeptical of global warming alarmism from his segments because he considers skeptics to be the equivalent of "Holocaust deniers." http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/03/22/publiceye/ entry1431768.shtml

This year also saw a New York Times reporter write a children's book entitled" The North Pole Was Here." The author of the book, New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin, wrote that it may someday be "easier to sail to than stand on" the North Pole in summer. So here we have a very prominent environmental reporter for the New York Times who is promoting aspects of global warming alarmism in a book aimed at children.

Educate yourself. Read the entire speech here... http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id= 263759

However, if Dunn got his hands dirty, it will be a rough ride for HP. Dunn is Wall Streets golden boy

Since we thankfully never fought a full war with the Soviet Union, we never had a chance to use the Tomcat for its intended purpose (in the Gulf War, Iraq refused to face our Tomcats, knowing its air force would be slaughtered).

1) Wouldn't you be saying the same thing if we had spent $100 BN on the F14 instead of $50 BN? Don't we have to draw the line somewhere?
2) It's not like the US was never in a war during the 34 years of the F14, actually there were quite a few: Vietnam (barely), Panama, Bosnia, the Gulf War, invasion of Afghanistan, and the Iraq War. (Any more?) So the argument that our carriers, subs, and air superiority fighters brought peace is a half-truth at best. Some weapons systems, from the Abrahms tank to the A10 Warthog and C130 airplane, seem to be workhorses that carry the load. Others, ironically some of the more expensive and highly capable(?) platforms like the F14 and Apache helicopter, cost a lot yet often seem fragile or inappropriate. I am reminded of this guy (a Democrat I might add), shrieking and red-faced, at Kerry for opposing a buildup in B-1 bombers, F14 air superiority fighers, and Apache helicopters in order to combat (of all things) terrorism. None of those exotic weapons has been worth its weight in tin in the fight against terror!

That's B.S. How did energy companies "rob" California? Oh, was it because California was reluctant to build powerplants for the last 20 years and was thus forced to by power on the spot market?

Um... Notice how very few Israelis are actually disagreeing with that assesment? Victory isn't making piles of rubble. If you look at the larger picture, this was a victory for Hezbollah without a doubt.

There was no way Hezbollah, some rag-tag little militia, was supposed to be able to stand up the IDF.

What happened is that Israel got hit very hard. They lost a lot of soldiers, and worse a lot of tanks.

Hezbollah was able to fight the ground forces of Israel to a standstill,

Sure, Israel destroyed a lot of infrastructure with a little "shock and awe" air power. Doesn't really do much other than harm the citizenry and piss them off. In the end, Israel couldn't do what mattered, and that's occupy the land that was and still is controlled by Hezbollah.

Make no bones about it. Hezbollah lured Israel into a fight at the time and place of their choosing,

...handed Israel an unexpected spanking, and sent them packing without giving up much of anything.

At the strategic level, this was a stunning victory for Hezbollah and all the nations/groups that oppose Israel. It would be very foolish to view it otherwise.

Did anyone see the "Protecting Children Online" link they have on the left? http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/protecting_children_ online/framesource.html

It's not surprising, but always disheartening to see what levels they will stoop to to get some more readers. The paranoia that they are feeding people is disgusting.

To elect a guy who "..actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." Kerry's top Ten Flip-Flops

Compared to Kerry, I'll take Bush anyday. At least he doesn't flipflop on issues. I can't imagine how
Kerry in office would have handled Iraq (total withdrawal??), Katrina (yeah, save the people), the economy
(raise taxe$) and other issues.

Bush may not be perfect, but he's no John Kerry...

Again with the "Bush Lying" crap.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/28/politics /main646142.shtml

...what's changed between then and now?

That's not Jesse Sullivan. The AP report circulating today was in advance of a press conference to introduce Claudia Mitchell, the first woman to receive one of these arms.

From this CBS article:

Brown? Microsoft's design director for the project, Chris Stephenson, explained the shape and scheme is "to make it less cool and sleek, but actually warm and silky."

"Who in their right mind would ... create a brown technology product? Artists will. Musicians would. And Zune will," Stephenson said.

Emphasis mine, but I think he hit it on the head.
 
/actually, I could see getting a brown & wood grain iPod, maybe done to look like some classy vintage audio equipment... but not a Zune, sorry.

TFA was pretty sparse on details, so here's a stab at what I think it was talking/worried about:
<guess>
The concern might be that this is similar to the movement to hold ISPs responsible for their content.

The trick is that sites like myspace.com allow users to post their own content. Now, suppose some randy under-aged teenager posts sexually-suggestive photos or vids of him/herself on his/her myspace page. Technically, this would be considered child pornography and would be illegal (in the US, anyway).

So, the concern might be that the FCC will come down on myspace for allowing this to happen(even if myspace eventually pulls the content once they become aware of it), in the same way that the FCC fined CBS $500,000 for Janet Jackson's nipple slip during the Superbowl.

If that occurs, then that puts a huge burden on myspace to police their content before allowing it to be published. Since that's really not feasible, that means sites like myspace and youtube (et al) might have to pack it in. That would be a shame.

Of course, the FCC would have jurisdiction only over US-based sites, I think, but that would still suck.
</guess>

just use somebody else's or a public wireless connection. That's *all* that I use

Like it or not, this is probably all you can expect if you're clamoring for new "Star Wars" material. Lucas has vowed not to make any new movies for the series.

"I said it might be amusing to come back with Harrison and Carrie when they're 70-years old and make a movie, but I forgot that I'd be 70-years-old, too," Lucas said, referring to people who ask him about more sequels.

Lucas has talked about doing 3D version of all these films, for theaters. They would be released one-a-year. There is also talk of a 2007 "ultimate set" with all six films and new bonus material. There have also been rumors of a TV series, books, cartoons, and video games.

Remember when the leader of China came to America a several months ago and Bush apologized for a protesters interruption. Talk about power.

Of course. Ready to be rudely awaken? Granted, these are sentences handed down from state courts, not federal.

Judge - No prison time for child rapist

Sex Offender ruled too short for Prison

Man rapes child for 10 years. Gets no prison time

Child Rapist gets 60 days in prison

And I could go on and on and on. You want to see how many years the proclaimed "Worst Child Rapists" gets? Twenty years. Not life. Twenty. fucking. years. Worst Ever Rapist gets 20 Years I do write to the senators of my state when things like this happen. I would implore those of you who live in states from these above articles to also write your representatives. I'm sure I'll be modded off-topic, but this is worth arguing over.

Applause.

By the way here is the original of the aforementioned poll commissioned by Channel 4. While I find it disturbing, it is neither suprising, nor new to anyone who had to drive through Luton or Bradford. Also, there was similar material jokingly mentioning Britanistan in the annual threat assessment report by the french intelligence for their president 5-6 years ago which was leaked to the british media. The Sun nearly choked on their bile at the time. I bet that they hate to remember that one because the French have proved right all along.

A large proportion of the British muslim population are immigrants from Pakistan and to a lesser extent other British colonies. It is normal for them to hold these views as they fit their culture and upbringing. It is also normal for them to continue holding these views across multiple generations as a result of the fact that they live in tight communities and there are many of them. But it will end up all the same sooner or later. While their sons may not necessarily be British, their grandchildren will.

[ whether things are necessities... ]

Nor is steak(or any meat for that matter)

Hardly. A pure carb diet is very unhealthy, and a great ticket to obesity and diabetes.

I'm highly skeptical of that claim. I've never seen any evidence that avoiding meat causes weight gain. From what I can dig up, apparently being a vegan not only does not cause diabetes, it's actually an effective treatment for diabetes. Oh yeah, and vegetarianism is a treatment for obesity. Read this summary from the American Dietetic Association and see if you can find any evidence in it that abstaining from meat results in weight gain. Also, my sister is the only one in my family who is a vegetarian, and guess what: she's also the only one who isn't overweight. (Yes, I'm overweight. Not by a lot, but I am.) I've seen a few overweight vegetarians, but honestly, being overweight is less common from my experience, and apparently studies agree with that.

Eating meat is simply not necessary to maintain a healthy weight. Eat a reasonable, healthy diet with reasonable portions, and exercise some, and you should be fine. If you have a medical problem, that's different and you may need to spend some cash to pay for a special diet, but for most people with weight problems, the cause is behavioral and not medical. Many forms of exercise are free, and eating reasonable portions instead of overeating would actually save you money.

Also, for what it's worth, there isn't really any reason you can't have a little meat and still eat for very cheap. Buy meat in bulk and go for the cheap cuts of meat, and you can get the prices down under $1.00/lb sometimes. In fact, in general, you can eat pretty healthy for pretty cheap. For example, try pricing skim milk compared to 2% or whole milk sometime. The skim milk is cheaper. The real reason most people spend too much on food is that they're going for convenience foods, which are often double or triple the price.

While there has been no attack, there was an attempted attack this year: an attempted beheading of high-level officials in Candian govn't.

From 9-11 commission report: "...The U.S. government, however, never moved against al Haramain or pushed the Saudi government to do so until after 9/11. Terrorist financing simply was not a priority in its bilateral relationship with the Saudis before 9/11. ... The Saudi government has also historically provided financial support to al Haramain..,"
Does that answer your question?

How come Bush suddenly got religion after 30 years?

Come on, even when it was PROVEN that the SA Govt. supported terror, Bush didn't raise his voice, let alone raise an army...

Dear distinguished ladies and gentlemen of letters,

Humanity has arrived at an inflection point in our history, one whose influence will steer our course for decades, or, more likely, centuries. The post-millennial rise of both Islamic and Christian fundamentalism tears at the very skirts of the Enlightenment.

Your fellow citizens have twice elected an inarticulate and violent demagogue as President, a man who has expressed deep personal doubts about the validity of the scientific method and its relevance in America's primary-school classrooms. Three-fourths of the adult population profess a belief in angels; two-thirds believe the Christian Bible is the literally-true word of their God. Over half state that humans were created by God in their present form.

One American adult in one thousand can state the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Meanwhile, to the elected representatives of this singularly-unenlightened population, you, America's scientists and engineers, have cheerfully handed control of several thousand thermonuclear weapons.

And now you're bickering endlessly about... whether or not Pluto is a planet.

Cut this shit out. Now. I don't want to live in another Dark Age, or worse, die upon the threshold of one.

Let Pluto be Pluto, whatever Pluto is, and let's put our heads together and figure out how to deal with the delusions we've created for ourselves here on Earth. We need intellectual leadership, not semantic panem et circenses.

Answers? Sorry; you're the scientists, I'm just some obviously-unlaid AC, ranting into the night on Slashdot's nickel. If I had any suggestions, believe me, I'd be making them, but I don't.

But come on. We've got to do something productive here.

Remember these are military ships...

1. Blind spot in watch cameras.

This was simple, obvious, and cheap to address. This "simple" vulnerability was overlooked creating an excellent attack vector. It doesn't look like it would be too hard to storm the bridge of the ship undetected. I hope they don't have to anchor off the coast of Yemen any time soon.

2. FLIR Equipment not rated for -40 deg (or 125 deg probably)

The DoD Inspector General investigates parts that "do not conform to Original Equipment Manufacturer specifications." The fact that the Coast Guard will not talk to the Inspector General tells me all I need to know.

Perhaps the requirement gets more real when it is stated this way "we might have to deploy to Alaska or the Middle East. We really need our systems to work in these regions. If we loose the ability to maneuver safely in bad weather everybody on the ship might die."

3. Use of non-shielded cable in "secure" communications systems.

Is it so hard to believe that you can eavesdrop on unshielded cables at a reasonable distance? Have you tried Tempest for Eliza to broadcast your mp3s to a radio via an unshielded computer monitor?

I would think that it would be harder to believe that the US could create a chain of underwater microphones to track every ship in the Pacific (SOSUS). I find it even harder to believe that film canisters could be ejected from space parachuting to Earth only to be caught in mid-air by an airplane (Corona). Governments make it their business to do what the other guy considers impossible.

With military grade technology the system is the solution. The mission of the crews is not to compensate for the oversights built into the technology they rely on to survive. Whenever classified information is compromised lives are put at risk. Whenever mission-critical military systems fail lives are put at risk. That is why this is a major problem.

Government employees in their respective acquisition offices (AO) have a retirement to protect. Their fate (in part) is tied to the success of projects they oversee. No AO wants to hear about fundamental problems in the system they are procuring late in the process when schedule and cost are affected (remember, contractors build these systems AT COST + an "award fee"). Besides the design was approved... What happens to the career (and pension) of the government employee who approved the acquisition of a product that didn't meet the WRITTEN NEEDS of the Coast Guard for a NATIONAL SECURITY system? There is incompetence; but there is more fear than incompetence.

Lockheed Martin (in Colorado) has had problems executing their contracts. When an organization is not doing well nobody wants to hear about problems. Lockheed emphasizes "ethics" training (he makes reference to three "ethics" investigations). The purpose of this training and the purpose of the investigations (by anonymous hot-line) is to legally cover the corporation. "Ethical misconduct" can be a federal crime. Just ask Boeing. Lockheed doesn't have anything to loose now that they have extensive data from three investigations covering their liabilities.

I'd love to see where your 36% is coming from. I am a college student, but both my parents work in education so I have *some* knowledge of how things work outside my own school. In my experience, both from my school and everything I've heard about where my parents work as well as where my friends are going to school, college bookstores are violently for-profit. For example, my school's bookstore is no longer run by the school itself, but by Barnes and Nobel (someone else in this thread said B&N's college stores pay for their megastores - I don't know enough to comment and would like to see proof, but I could imagine that math working out...)

And I can speak directly both to meaningless changes in editions and to the shoddy quality of books. As mentioned elsewhere on this thread, I've had professors hand out sheets explaining how Version 6 of a textbook is different from Version 7 (the answer being that some essays were moved around but, other than that, no changes were made). Likewise, having been in high school far too recently, textbooks always had tougher binding, at the expense of not looking quite as pretty as the books we 'get' to buy in college.

In addition, your argument that the stores' main complaint is students returning books doesn't ring true to me. The store buys enough books for most of the class to buy them and, with used books, tries to have enough on hand to not run out. Having the extra stock at the end of the buying cycle (as you say, about two weeks into class) cannot possibly be that much less obnoxious than getting returns. Having worked at bookstores (admitedly, not a college store) returns are EASY and, even if I had to go through however many hundreds of returns the college stores undoubtedly get, that cannot possibly be a big dent in their profits.

I'm gonna echo a sentiment I've seen elsewhere on this page: textbooks and the texbook industry is, more often than not, a scam. Now, I have no direct evidence of this, but everything in my experience - the 'updates' which only move things around, the bullshit shrink-wraping to include unneeded things to returns are impossible, the return policies of the school stores themselves, the quality of the actual textbooks - leads me to that conclusion. In addition, everything I've read about textbooks furthers this conclusion.

I just reread your post. In all fairness, you never said that the textbook industry *isn't* a big moneymaking scam. But the tone of your post, specifically that college stores are non-profit (ha!) led to this post. Sorry if it was a bit rambling...
-Trillian
PS - Links:
Students Find $100 Texbooks Cost $50 Overseas (needs reg but bugmenot works) http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/21/education/21BOOK .html?ex=1156910400&en=9c634fe677e1fe19&ei=5070
Textbook Publisher Kickback Scam?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/26/eveningn ews/main585832.shtml
Just What The Professor Ordered (needs reg, talks about 5 publishers control 80% of the market)
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F3 0D15FB35550C758DDDA00894DD404482

it appears only a matter of time before YouTube gets acquired - some speculate for as much as $2 billion

The International Space Station is a novel idea and I've always supported countries working together. After reading the Wikipedia entry on its costs, I have to question its utility versus the cost. The European Space Agency estimates it to be around 100 billion Euros which isn't cheap.

According the Wikipedia entry, NASA spends $5 billion annually on the ISS. I guess I hope to hear more news of discoveries from ISS and scientific advancements once it nears completion but I have not seen much in the news as of late. In fact, Hubble seems to be the best investment we've made next to the ISS. Is this just a proof of concept that we can work together with other nations on space exploration? What do we envision for the ISS in our future?

I know that this is an easy thing to complain about and I'm not the first to ask if it's really worth it. But can anyone tell me what $5 billion of our tax payer dollars has done for us? And why is it that construction grinds to a halt when only one of the member nations involved grounds its shuttles? Is this really an "international" space station? Also, doesn't this leave the United States eternally committed to developing this project? Will we ever be able to opt out of this even after its completion?

With the current administration in the United States, spending doesn't seem to worry them at all. And with the National Debt Clock ticking at around $8.5 trillion these days, I guess I should expect nothing more. Why is it that "small government conservatives" have the knack to make that clock jump by large percentages?

Or the elderly community. 27% of those in the US living with HIV are over 50 and they are the fastest growing group of new HIV cases [ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/18/eveningn ews/main1913646.shtml ]

In 2004 he ran in the GOP primary for state congressman in Michigan. He came in second and lost. So he is indeed a politician - just not a very successful one. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/03/politics /main633681.shtml

My only qubble with this is the shear scope and size of harassment. An individual stocker (or cheer-squad) could be rounded up or curbed, but an unorganized, nation-wide mob can harbor any number of unhinged groups and factions could truly make life hell for someone.

How about the idiot who gave out the address of some "terrorists" in California for public harrasment, only to be revealed that they had moved out 3 years earlier and the current occupants were threatened and their home vandalized. You can't retract your statements and have it filter down through out these mobs.

this is, for certain, an understatement. the director of the vatican observatory, speaking on behalf of the church's scientific understanding, makes clear the position the church takes on science, and specifically, evolution. he actually tears into a "rogue bishop" for making statements otherwise. the vatican even goes so far as to denounce ID being taught in the classroom. seems the catholic church may have done something right.

I listened to the Mike Wallace interview last night (August 13, 2006) broadcast on the CBS program "60 Minutes" (you can order a videotape of the intervew at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/07/08/60minute s/main13504.shtml ) . Mike Wallace specifically asked him the question, and Ahmadinejad evaded answering, time again. Ahmadinejad did not say that he had been mistranslated. He did not accuse the press of mistranslating him.

Roughly seven minutes into the interview (Ahmadinejad's words are spoken by a translator) is the following dialog exchange, which I have transcribed as best as I could by listening to the program.

Ahmadinejad : ...The time of the bomb is in the past. It's behind us. Today is the era of thoughts, dialog, and cultural exchanges.
Wallace (narrating): But dialog and cultural exchanges do not sound like his policy toward Israel.
Wallace (to Ahmadinejad ): Israel, you have said -- time and again -- "Israel must be wiped off the map." Please explain why, and what is Iran doing about that?
Ahmadinejad : Well, allow me to finish with the nuclear dossier first [ed - he is referring to an earlier question of Wallace]
Wallace: No, you've -- you've finished with that, you've finished with that.
Ahmadinejad (smiles): No it's not finished sir. We're not finished. We are just begininng.
Wallace (laughs): Ho ho, that's what I was afraid of! But go on.
Ahmadinejad :The Americans are overly sensitive. And of course the American governement. I don't know why they're opposed to Iranian progress.
Wallace : "The United States is against Iranian progress and development."
Ahmadinejad : That is true. That is what I am saying--
Wallace ; You know that's not so.
Ahmadinejad : --well, I'm going to explain. Before the Revolution, the German, French, American governments, and the Canadian government had signed contracts with us to produce nuclear fuel inside Iran. But immediately after the establishment of the Islamic Republic, their opposition started. Right now, they are opposed to our nuclear technology. Now why is that?
Wallace (narrating): Because the U.S. is convinced that nuclear energy is just a smokesceen -- that what Iran really wants is The Bomb. Then I tried to get the president back to his most inflammatory statement.
Wallace(to Ahmadinejad ): You are very good at filibustering. You still have not answered the question...you still have not answered the question. "Israel must be wiped off the map." Why?
Ahmadinejad: Well, don't be hasty sir. I'm going--
Walace: No, I'm not being hasty.
Ahmadinejad: --to get to that. I think that the Israeli government is a fabricated government. ...

You can find a similar version, produced by CBS (with the benefit of professional transcribers!), at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/09/60minute s/main1879867_page2.shtml .

Ahmadinejad had a chance to say "I didn't say that!" or "I've been misunderstood."

He didn't.

I listened to the Mike Wallace interview last night (August 13, 2006) broadcast on the CBS program "60 Minutes" (you can order a videotape of the intervew at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/07/08/60minute s/main13504.shtml ) . Mike Wallace specifically asked him the question, and Ahmadinejad evaded answering, time again. Ahmadinejad did not say that he had been mistranslated. He did not accuse the press of mistranslating him.

Roughly seven minutes into the interview (Ahmadinejad's words are spoken by a translator) is the following dialog exchange, which I have transcribed as best as I could by listening to the program.

Ahmadinejad : ...The time of the bomb is in the past. It's behind us. Today is the era of thoughts, dialog, and cultural exchanges.
Wallace (narrating): But dialog and cultural exchanges do not sound like his policy toward Israel.
Wallace (to Ahmadinejad ): Israel, you have said -- time and again -- "Israel must be wiped off the map." Please explain why, and what is Iran doing about that?
Ahmadinejad : Well, allow me to finish with the nuclear dossier first [ed - he is referring to an earlier question of Wallace]
Wallace: No, you've -- you've finished with that, you've finished with that.
Ahmadinejad (smiles): No it's not finished sir. We're not finished. We are just begininng.
Wallace (laughs): Ho ho, that's what I was afraid of! But go on.
Ahmadinejad :The Americans are overly sensitive. And of course the American governement. I don't know why they're opposed to Iranian progress.
Wallace : "The United States is against Iranian progress and development."
Ahmadinejad : That is true. That is what I am saying--
Wallace ; You know that's not so.
Ahmadinejad : --well, I'm going to explain. Before the Revolution, the German, French, American governments, and the Canadian government had signed contracts with us to produce nuclear fuel inside Iran. But immediately after the establishment of the Islamic Republic, their opposition started. Right now, they are opposed to our nuclear technology. Now why is that?
Wallace (narrating): Because the U.S. is convinced that nuclear energy is just a smokesceen -- that what Iran really wants is The Bomb. Then I tried to get the president back to his most inflammatory statement.
Wallace(to Ahmadinejad ): You are very good at filibustering. You still have not answered the question...you still have not answered the question. "Israel must be wiped off the map." Why?
Ahmadinejad: Well, don't be hasty sir. I'm going--
Walace: No, I'm not being hasty.
Ahmadinejad: --to get to that. I think that the Israeli government is a fabricated government. ...

You can find a similar version, produced by CBS (with the benefit of professional transcribers!), at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/09/60minute s/main1879867_page2.shtml .

Ahmadinejad had a chance to say "I didn't say that!" or "I've been misunderstood."

He didn't.