Slashdot Mirror

clearly flase.
Even if you were telling the truth, it would just show all the other reporters commonly (always?) 'dumb things down for Americans' too. Exactly like I've been telling you all along. The cognitive dissonance must be very strong with you, is your ego really so weak that you can't admit the truth, even to yourself?

What's you alternative theory for the changes if it's not exactlly like I told you? Does your denial stretch far enough to come up with another explanation?

you do realize not more than 15 years ago you could fly with ...

Do you realized that 15 years ago Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi were still alive?

Do you realized that they were the ones who did their best to suppress the Islamic terrorism?

Do you realized that it was the West who is responsible for unleashing the Islamic terrorism monster?

Unfortunately most of you guys in the West still don't get it - and you guys are still open the door and allowing millions and millions of them savages to go into your countries, to live among you, to enable them to carry out their Islamic Terrorism whenever they like, wherever they like, however they like it

Also let the terrorism organizers get away with it.

The price of uranium is about $35/lb ($77.16/kg) at the moment, and it costs about $40/lb ($88.18/kg) to produce the stuff at the moment[1]. 1kg of uranium gives you 83TJ of energy, the same as 3464 tonnes of coal. Coal costs $71.34 per tonne[2], so to get the same amount of energy from 1kg of uranium in coal, you would need to spend $247,133.65.

The fact that uranium is currently selling for less than the cost of production suggests that there is a massive surplus of inventory in the channel at the moment, not that resources are limited.

Sources:
1. http://www.businessinsider.com/uranium-is-set-for-a-violent-move-higher-2013-10
2. http://dawn.com/news/1053697/rising-coal-prices-to-hit-profit-margins

Is this the same cable cut which effecting the internet services in the region?

The linked article doesn't say it, but other articles say Google may appeal this decision.

I hope they do appeal and don't let this sit as precedence, although it will likely cost them more than $200K just to try to fix this.

Especially when those same people are all to happy to murder innocent people by remote control and guilt it measured by, seems like they might be up to something,

Not quite.

Most of those killed in drone attacks were terrorists: military

Coming from an educated man such as you, I'm intrigued. I would love to review any link, reference, or citation you care to provide since I'm sure you must have some facts to back that up.

By now it must be well over a thousand terrorists killed by drones in Pakistan by the US, few if any high value terrorists captured recently, and a decade ago three terrorists waterboarded.

This is no surprise, but a natural outcome.
Detainee Madness
Washington Post Confirms We Are No Longer Capturing & Interrogating High-Value Terrorists

On the other hand the Pakistan Military allowed the US to use Pakistani airbases for the drone strikes until 8 months ago, requested increased use of drone attacks in 2008, still offer tacit support for the drone attacks, and have themselves said most of those killed in drone strikes were terrorists, despite the political inconvenience of admitting this (by contrast, Pakistan always denied their connection to terrorists working against India in Kashmir, even when the connection was obvious).

The souring of relations with Pakistan centers on the raid on bin Laden, and just the natural friction between the US and a nation with a record of selling nuclear secrets on the black market, supporting the Taliban, and supporting terrorist actions against India.

A simple google, for "twitter pakistan $Your_Fav_Pak_Newspaper" would have cleared it up. I absolutely hate it when the Pakistan card is pulled in India or vice versa.
 
The block was lifted in 8 hours. Here is a source from Pakistan - http://dawn.com/2012/05/21/twitter-banned-in-pakistan/

The link in the summary only shows a real crab photo. Clearly this device is not a real crab. Anyone else curious to know what the ACTUAL device looks like can see in this other article, first google search link.
http://www.dawn.com/2012/02/02/experts-build-crab-like-robot-to-remove-stomach-cancer.html

Go read this page about how "The humble old rooftop TV aerial could bring superfast Internet to even the most remote shack in the Australian Outback and help solve the problem of how to connect isolated communities across the globe."

Yes, they had them and they destroyed them all under the supervision of the UN. If you bothered to read anything at all that wasn't on Fox News in the runup to the Iraq war, you would know this. The UN even made them produce an accounting of what happened to the WMDs, and once they had, the US promptly ignored it and invaded anyway.

>The thing is, if you keep saying "I HAVE WMDS, GIMME MONEY OR ELSE!", eventually *somebody* is going to call your bluff.

Sure, but the thing is, they *didn't* say that. In fact, they were saying exactly the opposite.

"December 5, 2002..."The declaration will repeat that in Iraq there are no weapons of mass destruction," Hussam Mohammed Amin, head of the Iraqi National Monitoring Directorate, said at a news conference.

Iraq's denial that it possesses any such weapons puts it on a direct collision course with the United States, which insists it knows Iraq has them, demands a full and frank confession from Baghdad and warns it will disarm Iraq by force if necessary."

Security Council? No. Because the Zionist Enabler USA has blocked this motion, every time it is raised.

UNHRC? UNRWA? UNGA? Yes. I suppose you call the moral authority of Desmond Tutu into question? In favor of a government established though murder, forced expulsion and the torture-killings of British soldiers?

Israel's blockade of Gaza illegal: UN rights chief
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/world/13+israel+blockade+of+gaza+illegal+un+rights+chief-za-05

UN envoy Tutu calls Gaza blockade illegal
http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3549068,00.html

Head of UNRWA says Israeli blockade imposes illegal economy on Gaza
http://www.unmultimedia.org/radio/english/detail/92037.html

UN leaders blast Gaza blockade in wake of flotilla raid
http://story.irishsun.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/45d771c7290844e9/id/641854/cs/1/

They could try getting glaciers to "marry" and produce children.

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/in-paper-magazine/sci-tech-world/glaciers-at-risk

http://www.umb.no/statisk/akrsp/06_publications_and_presentations/03_phd_and_masters_theses/5_ingvar_tveiten.pdf

The scientific bunch call it seeding. But the bunch who've been doing it for generations (way before the scientists figured it out) call it marrying.

"the country would be just as safe as it is today if airport security were rolled back to pre-9/11 levels. 'Spend the rest of your money [elsewhere, for better effects.]'"

Like this was an original conclusion. This has been widely documented elsewhere, many times, and over a period of years. For example:

http://www.dawn.com/2002/03/28/int8.htm

Like I said, Bruce is missing something here. His conclusions are not original, and their is much he is missing, including the problems of identity matching that are at the forefront of much research in the area.

http://www2.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/MSP.2006.169

I would be much more impressed if he added something new and meaningful to the discussion.

In a lot of the developing world, they are skipping conventional and expensive and now old-fashioned ast century tech infrastructure roll-out and going to the next generation tech, decentralised (and alternative energy, solar, etc) electric power and wireless networks instead of fixed wires. Here is an article on what India is doing to bring electricity to the 1/2 billion people that don't have it yet.

http://www.dawn.com/2006/06/14/int6.htm

And just because apple puled out doesn't mean any number of other tech giants aren't going in. Intel, IBM, MS, HP etc, etc are all dropping serious folding cash into India right now. Apple is one of the few that *aren't*. Apple has pulled some lame biz decisions in the past, this is probably one of them, IMO.

1. Returning democracy to the people of Pakistan (instead of their usual military dictatorship)

2. Stop proliferating nuclear weapons

3. Control those madrassas where foreign born British Pakistanis get training (i.e. London bombing July 7th 2005)

4. Stop allowing the Taliban and Al-Qaeda elements refuge in Western Pakistan

5. Stop interferring with the internal affairs of Afghanistan as they have done in the past

... is nonsense, fallacious, propaganda as you allege? Are you smoking crack or are you simply in complete denial? Excuse me but I happen to read a really broad spectrum of newspaper and even read the crappy Pakistan newspaper Dawn (lousy standards of journalism) where 3 out of 5 of the above where reported on Dawn itself and different Pakistani analysts working at think tanks across the world have talked about #4 and #5 on my list. So before you call me a bloody parrot I suggest you start grounding yourself if fucking reality buddy.

The U.S. Navy has a long history of tapping underwater communications cables on behalf of the NSA (and others). With the emergence of fiber optic cables this method of spying was put into jeopardy.

Apparently it isn't a problem any longer.

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-529826.html

Pakistan might be one of the first examples of this technique.

Assuming that the NSA splice is going to have all or part of the cable down for a period of time, it would make sense to damage the cable far from where you intend to splice the cable, and then use that opportunity to make your splice.

http://www.dawn.com/2005/07/07/top6.htm

So now that we all know what this device is intended for, can we move along with the lawsuit?

The chinese set their exchange rate, it doesn't (really) float on the markets. They set the rate so that chinese people are very very cheap. World businesses flood in to China.

In the meantime, the dollar decreases in value as the trade deficit increases, China buys dollars to keep the exchange rate the same driving exports to the US, increasing the deficit this further depresses the dollar making Americans cheaper on the world market. To the detriment of Europe and the UK BTW.

It's an unstable situation which cannot continue forever. It *will* change sooner rather than later. The yuan will be allowed to move more freely, chinese people will become more expensive as their economy modernises and the trade deficits will sort themselves out.

e.g.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4560371.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4521969.stm
http://www.dawn.com/2005/05/06/ebr8.htm

Of course, on the down side there are still 800 million chinese who are going to need jobs as their agriculture is modernised.

I am sorry to say but you could not be more wrong. I have visited India on numerous occasions and have never seen these shackles that you speak of. Women in India are open, work as they please, date as they like and earn as much as their male counterparts. There is NO repeat, NO discrimination at all in India based on gender. I have seen it first hand in many places so I do know what I am talking about. I have never been to pakistan so cannot really say much, but suffice to say that the cases reported by Pakistani Media where a women was sentenced to be raped because of a crime committed by her brother tells about the levels to which the pakistani society has descended. This is nothing but barbaric.This link is from a Pakistani newspaper. Please read it.Educated women like Dr . Khalid are also raped by soldiers with impunity regularly in Pakistan as the soldiers are protected by a military dictatorship. The only reason is that they are seen as a threat.So Sir, to reply to you, there cannot be any comparison between India and Pakistan. One is a slowly but surely rising superpower, while the other is a failed state.

To be on topic, the LeT is mostly comprised of Pakistani extremists and is a declared terrorist outfit by the USA and one of the first Kashmiri terrorists outfits to be banned by Pakistan. To end on a positive note, read this editorial in the pakistan newspaper Dawn.

"I don't really understand the rationale behind points 2 and 4. I agree that it's important to have respect for foreign powers, but we shouldn't let that respect for foreigh powers dominate our own policy decisions. (Hopefully, most of the time, they'll coincide, but that's far from guaranteed.)"

If we're not careful managing the world opinion of our country, the oil market could change from using the dollar to using the euro. That could be devastating to our currency, because we are (unfortunately) very oil dependant.

You forgot the one off Thule in Greenland lost during 1968

Ok, so living in a city is "keeping human shields around you".

They don't merely "live in a city". Here is one example of Rantissi using human shields. And this photo offers another. Hiding in the crowded apartment block, you mention, is another.

What is the proper term for "blowing up a crowded apartment block to kill one person"?

Two words: "collateral damage". The scumbag, they were after, had the option to surrender, but chose to hide in the apartment block thinking, Israelis wouldn't dare to do, what Palestinians wouldn't think twice of doing. He bluffed and they called...

Here, I'll help you out:

• What's the proper term for killing a 67-year old blind quadriplegic? (Never mind over 400 bombings he organized and encouraged.)
• What's the proper term for killing a 12 year old boy? (Never mind the rocks and Molotov cocktails he and dozens of his friends were throwing.)
• What's the proper term for running an unarmed (American!!) woman over with a buldozer? (Never mind the countless attempts to convince her to leave and to phisically remove her.)
• What's the proper term for preventing the ambulances from getting to the Palestinian wounded? (Never mind the countless occasions, when this ambulances were discovered carrying weapons, ammunition, and even the perfectly healthy reinforcements to the battlefield.)

One can always make a catchy rhetorical question, like you did, but once you bother to learn the details of the story, you realize, you can't blame Israelies for much -- if you accept their right to live there at all, of course.

That agreement was with the U.N. Are we the U.N.?

Attempt to assassinate Bush Sr.

Was that a response to us attempting to assassinate Saddam? Or, Kaddafi, or Castro, or [insert long list of U.S. successful and unsuccessful attempts to assassinate foreign leaders from South America to Asia]?

Giving aid and comfort to terrorists

Who? The U.S.? If it were that, then why not invade North Korea, or Iran, or Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia...etc? The answer is below.

Refusing to cooperate with the UN.

Again, are we the U.N.?

Being a rat-bastard tyrant

Finally, the honest answer. But, only partially honest. His daddy was made a fool by Saddam, and everyone knew that if Shrub got into office, the Iraqis would pay. Shrub's Secretary of the Treasury reports that plans for invading Iraq were in the making only within a few days of Shrub's theft of the election. If it were simply a matter of being a rat-bastard, there are plenty of others further along the road to bastard-hood: North Korea's loony leader for one. The problem is, no oil there, so no business drive to get there. Afghanistan proved a perfect, inarguable cause. Not for the one you think. True, Bin-Loonie was there, but that was simply the inescapable argument for invasion. If we could tame that country (only an asteroid dropped from space could achieve that), we could finally lay that oil pipeline we've been planning on for the past 30 years. Unfortunately, CNN and FauxNews channels don't cover this little bit of history, but we've been in a chess game with the Russians and Chinese for this bit of inhospitable land for quite a while. By the way, this is also why we're "friends" with Pakistan.

Simple failture of Washington/Baghdad diplomacy

No. Simple failure of Shrub Administration/U.N. diplomacy. His daddy was better at it, but this numbskull couldn't control his trigger finger. His only half-way feasable argument (even Powell had to excise some of the outright lies from the deceptive rhetoric he was forced to spew to the U.N.'s collective face) of Weapons of Mass Destruction have vanished into thin air, leaving a unpleasant odor that the rest of the world blames us for.

'they're trying to get nukes'

Again, why not invade Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, or Pakistan? They're the biggest terrorist threats outside of Afghanistan. They've been attempting to get nuclear long before Iraq, and have actual terrorist ties. The reason is this was a personal vendetta and business agenda, and he used to this country to fulfill it. If he should force Iraq's oil wells within U.S. corporate controls in the process of taking revenge, all the better. This monkey has to go come November.

You're right in that Shrub didn't attack Iraq simply for Weapons of Mass Destruction. That's just what he used to sell it.

The truth is, the rest of the world was behind us going into Afghanistan because that's where t

> the bible claims Jesus said "I came not to bring peace, but a sword. "
To suggest Jesus is counselling violence is to suggest Jesus tells men to murder their fathers... for the very next verses say:

"For I have come to turn
a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--
a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'
"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me..."

Jesus is speaking about the high cost of following him - are you willing to pay it?
Responding more directly to your allegation - when soldiers came and arrested Jesus for his crucifixion, his disciple Peter drew his sword and injured one of them. Jesus then expressly forbade him saying: "put the sword back in it's place - those who live by the sword shall die by the sword." Jesus later said "my kindgom is not of this world, if it was of this world, then would my followers fight". He also said "when someone slaps you on one cheek, turn the other cheek". Never are we permitted to violence. God has left *ALL* judgement to Jesus at the end of this age.

Don't get me wrong - the punishment for murder is still death and hell, as is the punishment for rejecting God, for adultery, for sexual immorality, for theft and lies, homosexuality... However God in his loving kindness to all allowed his Son to be a sacrifice for all who would repent, even the most wretched of murderers. We are forbidden to inflict God's judegement on them - that is left to Jesus - we are *commanded* (NOT "requested") to forgive those who even kill and persecute us.

> If you are a polytheist or a Hindu or Jew or Christian,
> they will allow you to keep your religion and worship whatever you want.
> That's mandatory according to what the Muslim leaders say.
The level of tolerance varies with the verses as this link points out. However, Islam takes God's commands (remember what Jesus said about turning the other cheek), and takes it and changes it so that it appeals to our earthy nature ("if someone slaps me, I *should* be able to slap them back").

> Islamic states offer a degree of freedom of religion,
All Islamic countries offer non-Muslims is a very superficial tolerance as long as they stay "subdued". But God help non-Muslims who preach their faith, or a Muslim who converts away from Islam -- death sanctioned by Islam (i.e. Murder) is what follows quite often. Why do you think so many Muslims avoid even listening to other teachings so much?

> Eh, I'm sick of hearing how one side teaches hatred of the other side in schools.
> I want to see proof. I hear Hindus teach hatred of Muslims,
> and Muslims teach hatred of Hindus.
Well, I have just the proof you need.

I was raised a Hindu in Bombay, India. When I went to school in the 80s, the state syllabus never said one word about religion - neither Hinduism nor Islam - because the state was secular. There are, and have always been violent Hindu fundamentalists, but do you think this man would permit irrational hatred to be taught in Indian schools? (he's Muslim)

However, Pakistan is another story...
Let a prominent Pakistani English newspaper describe the problem:...:
One should perhaps be 'shocked' to read in Professor A.H. Nayyar and Ahmad Salim's report on the State of Curricula and Textbooks in Pakistan (pub.2003 www.sdpi.org) that the intended perversion of Pakistan's education system and national curricula came about as early as November 1947, even before the death of the country's founder ....
It was during [the 80s] that hatred of India, Indians and Hindus, and of all other things not Islamic, was firmly

Don't be so sure -- a quick Google search on "commercial free speech amendment" gives a number of articles suggesting commercial speech is protected:

On the pro side: Over the past few decades the courts have taken a different view, granting free speech rights to commercial interests

On the con side: the US Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by the athletic apparel giant of a California Supreme Court decision last year that shocked the corporate world by saying basically that "commercial speech" is not entitled to the same degree of protection as "free speech"

I don't think it's as clear-cut as you suggest.

KARACHI, May 30: A Washington-based news website - South Asia Tribune - has claimed that the government has blocked access to its URL. A press statement issued by the Tribune on Friday said Internet access to their website, www.satribune.com, "has been blocked" by Pakistan Internet Exchange (PIE), the Internet backbone provider for Pakistan. But Federal Minister for Information Technology and Telecommunication Awais Ahmad Khan Leghari expressed his ignorance about the development when asked to comment about the alleged denial of access to the website.

Umm, you said we are the first generation with a lower standard of living, not that we WILL be the first generation with a lower standard of living. I'll bet your current lifestyle is better than what your parents had at the equivalent point in their life.

I didn't say standard of living, I said worse off... that meant economically. My parents are from a time where both parents didn't have to work to make ends meet. They also come from a time where the disparity between the have's and have not's wasn't so wide. The middle class is shrinking and another article. Unless you squeak into the wealthiest 5% of U.S. citizens, then you're either considered impoverished or a dying breed.

I agree with your old fogie rant. My first salary out of college was $18k, when most of my friends expected to hit the work force running at $30k'ish. THey all thought they should have nice new cars (while I drove an old beat up pickup truck to work), wear expensive suits to work (I shopped at the discount stores), and live uptown. They were all living check to check and barely getting by, because they thought they deserved nice things like their parents had. Fast forward 12 years later, and I have a nice savings account, a nice 401(k), have maxed out on social security (not that I'll ever see any of it), and have extra investments to boot. Mainly because I lived within my means. Which, by the way, were lower means (if you compare using CPI) to how my parents lived when they started out.

I'd hate to give up my chance for a share of a higher standard of living in order to preserve your current standard of living. Sadly, this comment is the case for many people... at least those who work for mid to large companies. I now write HR software, and am privy to the extra monies the senior execs rape from companies, including this one which hasn't seen a profitable year in the last three. There have been paycuts, cuts in the bonuses, and cuts in benefits. Meanwhile, the senior execs have seen increases in their bonuses. So the effect of this is exactly what you said... my standard of living is suffering because theirs is increasing... drastically. This is not the only company I've seen this happen at. Hell, just watch the news... we saw this with Enron, Dynegy, El Paso Oil, WorldCom......
You, however, shouldn't have to worry about my standard of living affecting yours... and only I should worry about my standard of living. But I would love to see examples of "every other change in history has resulted in a higher average standard of living." How about the new bill that expands the definition of exempt employees? Millions of Americans will not be able to bill overtime (such as police officers). Their standard if living will decrease... all in the name of corporate greed.

What disturbs me even worse than the fact that the article is a dupe is that one of timothy's links, here(2), is an article on SARS, which is to the best of my knowledge completely unrelated to the mimivirus. Either there is a serious lack of editorial control or wild speculation.

The sad truth is that every time you call Dell tech support, you are now most probably supporting terrorists.

Don't believe me? Read this article.

I have found that in such situations, the best that one can do is look for news sources which you expect to be biased towards both sides of the issue. I mean, read BBC and, say, DAWN, a pakistani newspaper (a rather respectable newspaper, very balanced, relative to most others that i have found from islamic countries).

So both of these are mostly very unbiased, but on such a issue, probably leaning to opposite sides. one can expect them to report pretty much all relevant points to the issue between them, and then, once u have all the information, build your own opinion...no, not as easy as getting your opinion ready made for you by a single source, but i think the only way one has any chance at knowing even a part of the truth. I know this is what i am going to do.

One thing i am not going to do is read CNN, though. CNN has recently been a major dissapointment in its over all coverage of ALL issues, from the ENRON and co. scams, to the IRAQ issue. I think they are guilty of fraud, the way they omit an anti-goverment viewpoint, eg in the case of the hugely edited UN weapons inspector transscript posted on CNN (read about it on that other site )...thats just one example. Their coverage of the worldwide anti-war protests could have made one feel that it was just a dozen hippies who made a bit of noise, not the 10 million plus who marched all over the world. What good is the guarentee of freedom of press when the press is unwilling to use that freedom? Its weird that a govt. owned news channel (BBC) manages a much more balanced reporting that a completely independent and very powerfull entity like CNN. The irony get worse when you consider that CNN gained most of its worldwide popularity during operation desert storm, when it was the only international news network allowed to operate from inside iraq by saddam, because, as the iraqi govt put it: "they are the only ones we trust to objectively report the truth".

Its a weird world.

Ghoul2

Retard.

Retard.

Retard.

Your support for the Bush administration does not make you smart, cool or a rebel. It makes you a fucking tool.

This is a good article on linux in the sub-continent, on dawn - a pakistani newspaper, though it's long & not so new to us geeks. BTW,Frederick Noronha is a sort of Indian RMS, with less zealotry & is a free-lance journalist whose main area of concern is, no guesses, free software.

Muslim doesn't represent terrorism to 2/3 of the world, only the US and the Jewish states (oh that includes the US i think).

And New Yorker stock analysts don't represent oppression to 2/3 of the world, only Marxists (speaking of REAL knock on the door in the middle of the night jackbooted, "workers paradise" gulag opression) and Klansmen/Nazi's (ditto) Ever notice how close either extreme really are to each other? Either way the state will MAKE you be what it wants you to be and all your problems are caused by "The international Banking Conspicary" not your own irresponsible decisions or the failings (corruption, oppression, etc) of your own government.

I won't argue that *some* banks and corporations aren't complicit in oppression around the world but it is governments that are DOING the oppression - gulags, "dissapearances", murders, genocides etc. The argument against those businessmen is NOT generally that the oppress anyone themselves but that they are willing to do business with or aid or seek the aid of those who are. But just as most Arabs are NOT terrorist most businessmen (and certainly most of their employees) are NOT oppresing anyone outside of the fantasies of losers like the KKK (& their islamic equivalent) or other sad little extremists that are upset they are not the ones that get to do the oppressing.

As for Arabs & Muslims not having a reputation outside of the US and the Jewish states (aside from Israel which other state(s) are jewish?) I think you could find a few Pakistani's Indians Filipinos Indonesians, Susanese, Kenyans & Tanzanians, Germans, Brits, Egyptians, Turks, Swedes, French, Austrians, Romanians, etc. etc. etc. that have fairly sound reasons to disagree with you. The point is not that Muslim==Terrorist but that SOME muslims are and the argument you made that because SOME businessmen (or Muslims) are guilty of oppression (or terrorism) that means ALL businessmen (or Muslims) are guilty and deserve to have a plane flown into their office (or drop bombs on their village). If your argument is collective guilt fine - but it is a two-way street and you have no basis if you adhere to it to protest even *intentional* civillian deaths.

BTW what would I want with a loan?

I don't know, I didn't suggets that you did. Just that not getting one, or having to pay it back if you DID get one is not being oppressed. Two contradictory reasons bankers are often accused of "oppressing" people.

At the beginning of the 20th century, nearly every single Muslim intellectual was in love with the west, admired its modern society, and campaigned for democracy and constitutional government in their own countries. Instead of seeing the West as their enemy, they recognized it as compatible with their own traditions. We should ask ourselves why we have lost this goodwill.

In the current Afghanistan hooha, I've found Dawn (the biggest English-language newspaper in Pakistan) to be excellent. Don't miss the editorials -- what you read here is *not* what you're getting from the US media. Take a look at America Under Siege for an example.

In the current Afghanistan hooha, I've found Dawn (the biggest English-language newspaper in Pakistan) to be excellent. Don't miss the editorials -- what you read here is *not* what you're getting from the US media. Take a look at America Under Siege for an example.

Instead of reacting with your instincts, which I acknowledge as valid, and maintaining the first view, gather more facts along the way and review. Unless you're in the diplomatic dog pit that's been going on, we don't have the facts and you've got to think about things a little. Judgement should be the last thing you do before criticism or action, not the first.

Also check out Major English Papers in Pakistan at The News and Dawn for up to the minute coverage.

Seems this is an appropriate place to toss out a couple of new attack-related sites.

First, Jane's Security has some ideas about who may be behind this attack... and it ain't bin Laden.

Second, Political Cartoons, a collection of attack-related cartoons. Some are worth a second look: you can draw opposing interpretations from them.

The Dalai Lama's letter to Bush. Worth reading twice: it's short, and important.

Bush's Language: why calling this a "crusade" is rather foolish.

Also, I'd like to apologize for a previous post in which I used the word "accident" in lieu of "attack." My mind was somewhere else, and I think it was trying to fool itself about the atrocity of the attack.

This can be a sick and cruel world, or a world of joy and life. I encourage you to encourage others to choose the latter. Let's stop the hatred within our own communities, as we try to stop the hatred between nations.

US news sites may be clogged, so here are some non-us sites.
Reddif USA
times of India - Lots of photos.
Dawn - check out the editorial on Afghanistan. BTW, this is a pakistani newspaper, but very credible.
This is the text version of their site.

US news sites may be clogged, so here are some non-us sites.
Reddif USA
times of India - Lots of photos.
Dawn - check out the editorial on Afghanistan. BTW, this is a pakistani newspaper, but very credible.
This is the text version of their site.

According to this an earlier eruption may have almost wiped out the human race.

IANA chemist, but IIRC biological molecules sometimes appear in left-handed and right-handed versions, but the two versions do different things. For example, one of the molecules that gives oranges an orangey flavour - its mirror image is found in lemons, giving them a different flavour. Also with some drugs, the right-handed version might be beneficial and all the side effects come from the left-handed version. But it's difficult to manufacture one without getting an equal amount of the other. See the article Happily, it's an asymmetrical world for more.

(As for polarizing light in two different directions, I don't see why that's such a big deal. Liquid crystals do this already depending on what voltage you apply to them.)