Slashdot Mirror

Did you know there was a Greek Orthodox that's nearby and destroyed when WTC fell on it? Do you know that they haven't been given their permit to rebuild but the city has given one to the imam? They've been trying since it was destroyed.. There's that double standard again. How long do we have to put up with it?

No double standard there, you just don't know what you're talking about.

I never thought I'd quote Fox News, but I'm sure you consider it valid news since the mosque offends you..

"St. Nicholas Orthodox Church has always had and will continue to have the right to rebuild on its original location. The question was whether public money would be spent to build a much larger church at a separate location on the site and ensuring that construction wouldn't delay the World Trade Center further," spokesman Stephen Sigmund said in a written statement. "On that question, we worked for many years to reach an agreement and offered up to 60 million dollars of public money to build that much larger new church. After reaching what we believed was an agreement in 2008, representatives of the church wanted even more public commitments, including unacceptable approvals on the design of the Vehicle Security Center that threatened to further delay the construction on the World Trade Center and the potential for another $20 million of public funds."

Sigmund said the "final offer" was made last year, which again included $60 million.

"They rejected that offer," he said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/18/leaders-disappointed-government-declares-deal-rebuild-ground-zero-church-dead/

Why wouldn't I?

You're gambling that a pilot, traveling without a co-pilot, never gets sick, injured or dies while flying the plane. I'm sure that's just an isolated incidence ... or maybe not.

Maybe this one.. but its old:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,253959,00.html (Linking to Faux news feels so odd)

Colonization of the Solar System (to begin with) is a prerequisite for human kind to survive major cataclysms on Earth and should be undertaken before it is too late. Even Stephen Hawking endorses such an opinion.

For example, on the day that Ken Mehlman (sp?) coming out was all over the news on every other channel, it wasn't covered at all on Fox.

Really?

I don't know that that's entirely fair. These things are on a continuum.

You look at an O'Reilly or an Olbermann (to pick two guys with very different politics), and if you're not in line with them politically, you'll probably disagree a lot with their interpretation of an event or its implications, but in some sense their starting point feels based in reality even if where they end up isn't.

I don't get that same sense out of, say, Beck.

Meaning his starting point isn't based in reality either? I know what you mean. I laugh everytime I read what he says about net neutrality, then I stop because I realize how many people actually believe him. Here you go, a transcript straight from his show:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,590506,00.html

Of course, what can you expect from someone who believes "Marxism" and "socialism" are curse words. How he manages to squeeze those words in there 21 times is particularly impressive.

No to avoid Glen Beck demogogery?

Yours In Perm,
K. Trout

There is no "letter of the law" for contempt of court. If the judge thinks you are being contemptuous (and 72pt Comic Sans would certainly qualify) then he can give you jail time. This sucker spent fourteen years behind bars.

Are you honestly telling me that if some group decided that the wiretapping laws Bush made were "going too far" and the decided to start an armed uprising against the president the military would have trouble finding people willing to go and shoot every last one of them dead?

Obviously not. Nobody did that when Bush did order wiretapping. However there was the Waco seige, the Oklahoma City bombing supposedly in response to Waco, and Ruby Ridge. Those were just in the '90s. In the '80s a number of militias sprang up. The Weather Underground began in 1969. Or look at the Senate race in Nevada. The republican candidate is appealing to militia types. Or look at the Tea Party movement. The Jewish ADL or Anti-Defamation League has this on the militia movement in the US. Let's see what the "Telegraph" in the UK says: " The truth behind America's 'civilian militias' Armed and extremely... patriotic. Why a growing number of Americans are preparing for a war against their government." Along a similar vein Foxnews, the conservative news outlet, has the article Militia Accused of Plotting War on U.S. Gov't.

Just look how quickly rumors are spread, then are corrected on the net, even if they don't die. Look at wikileaks, and all those reports from Afghanistan being released. Today it's foolish to believe the US government can get away with military action against it's own citizens. Hell people still denounce McCarthyism. And while you may not know or recall it yourself there still are people who recall J Edgar Hoover and COINTELPRO. Of course Bush did pretty good at rolling back the checks that were put in place to stop stuff like that again. But just as then people will rise up again to denounce and protest it.

Falcon

One of these would solve the problem I suspect-ECM against the govt tracking.

http://www.jammer-store.com/gps-blockers-jammers.html

But are jammers legal? Fox News has the article GPS Jammers Illegal, Dangerous, and Very Easy to Buy but in Are GPS Signal Jammers Legal? Bright Hub says the FCC has "only taken action against one individual who has sold GPS jamming devices."

For those who want a GPS jammer, and have the skills to build one, Phrack explains how.

Falcon

Unfortunately, they also hate the ideas of the left on principle.

Hilariously, when they do come up with reasonable ideas, the left often takes them (The left actually is trying to solve problems, and so if the other side invents a reasonable idea, even if it's slightly worse than yours, you go for it, because it, in theory, should be easier to do.), and the right then reflexively opposes the idea they themselves came up with.

Cap and trade is the most obvious example of that. Cap and trade was the right's idea for a free market solution to pollution. And now it's a 'scam'. (It is a scam, because for some reason proposals seem to give away credits for free instead of charging for them, but somehow I doubt that's what Republicans dislike about it.)

The did the same thing for insurance mandates. That was their solution to the health insurance problem. Require insurance companies to sell to everyone, and mandate people buy a minimal level. It was their solution as recent as the 2008 election! Fun article with interesting quote: "It could have been the basis for a bipartisan compromise, but it wasn't. Because the Democrats were in favor, the Republicans more or less had to be against it."

And with health insurance, it wasn't even corporatism, like cap and trade opposition might be. With cap and trade, perhaps the Republicans are cynically in the pocket of big businesses, but the health insurance companies loved mandates, and have in fact complained they aren't strong enough.

So why did they oppose it? Well, to scare voters, apparently.

People wonder why I say the Republicans can't govern, and that's it. Hell, for all I know, the policy they pretend to have would be good for the country...but for quite some time they've simply been the anti-Democratic party. That's it. That's the entirety of their platform. Hence the recent constant whigning about made-up stuff, like ACORN and Van Jones and whatnot.

F.ear O.ppression X.enophobia.

I hope this helps your Fairness In Journalism coverage.

Yours In Astrakhan,
K. Trout

I get more hits for "Church Burnings" than for "Mosque attacks" and Mosque Burnings" combine

Because Google hits is the perfect metric for measuring how frequent a particular activity takes place. And when attacking an individual, we always write up the story as an attack on the building they worship in.

In case you missed the point, the frequency of the attacks compared to attacks on other places of worship is irrelevant.

"It has reportedly resulted in real-world violence against Muslims" and then has no examples to back it up.

Except, of course, for the example I provided.

Would you prefer a more recent example where they burned a mosque's playground instead?

You give the public way, way, way too much credibility. I'm sitting in a coffee shop right now surrounded by about 20 people, if you had to guess, how many of them do you think know who Julian Assange is? Know what wikileaks is even?

It's been front page news in the UK in the last few days (there's a picture of the Guardian's front page in the Fox News article).

It's currently on the front page of the websites of the Guardian, Independent, BBC, Times, Daily Mail and Telegraph -- that's all the major UK news papers except the Sun, which won't report on Assange until he's sleeping with Victoria Beckham.

The American news sites I checked have quite different stories and headlines. Is the US government behind all the anti-Wikileaks headlines I see?

Don't forget, NASA is also supposed to be a Muslim outreach program.

Wouldn't it be great if NASA did something cool like land some equipment on Mars in preparation for a permanent base? Instead, they're spending millions flying kites.

"Some controversy erupted on March 9, 2001 after an Anonymous Coward posted the full text of Scientology's "Operating Thetan Level Three" (OT III) document in a comment attached to a Slashdot article. The Church of Scientology demanded that Slashdot remove the document under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. A week later, in a long article, Slashdot editors explained their decision to remove the page while providing links and information on how to get the document from other sources.[13] That article, posted on March 16, 2001, is still one of the ten most visited stories on the site, with just over 350,000 hits.[12]

The defensiveness by the moderators always seems to for force / couch position Assange in posts as the underdog ( and not as the Traitor Taliban supporter he is).
Lets try to understand that in 2001 the suppression was about religion and cash flow not about illegally obtained documents where callousness to redact names has a clear obvious measurement of death to those the named in the documents. This blistering laziness and slothfulness of course would be supported by most engineers (were all lazy bastards at heart right?) however in Asanges case HE puts at substantially higher risk the troops fighting against terror and Sharia Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_law In case any one has doubt how unfriendly these people are to the press, freedom and the west consider

1) News of today's Taliban Sharia Murder objective http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/08/17/killed-attack-iraqi-army/?test=latestnews
2) The 275,000 mostly relevant hits on Google for "sharia+stoning" http://www.google.com/search?q=sharia+stoning&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Woman In the death stoning queue for tomorrow http://scj.msnbc.com/id/38146472/ns/38149201
Couple confirmed stoned to death on 8/16 http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/08/16/taliban-stone-couple-adultery-afghanistan/

This is the normal operating procedure for thoes targeted by the FOA's Friends of Assange

3) Support of everything Islam http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/17/ground-zero-church-archdiocese-says-officials-forgot/
4) Despised New York Governor David Paterson puts his foot into it. The man who's party hates him draws another target on him regarding him being Anti Islamic http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38740806/ns/politics-more_politics/
The friend of my enemy is Assange. Asange could only be thought of as good friend to Islam Sharia terrorists and those who plan to turn a handsome profit from the coming war. Yes were at war now, but you aint seen nothing yet with the likes of Asange running free loose and supported by his army of media pimps.

We've seem to forgotten 911 and forgotten you can not come to a mediated peace with folks who think of you as nothing better than a dog to be stoned to death. Folks who expressed no outrage at 911 and call us too thin skinned for wanting named redacted, or a mosque to go elsewhere, or not supporting the corruption and perversion of our government to debt and phobias delusional psychosis about bei

"Some controversy erupted on March 9, 2001 after an Anonymous Coward posted the full text of Scientology's "Operating Thetan Level Three" (OT III) document in a comment attached to a Slashdot article. The Church of Scientology demanded that Slashdot remove the document under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. A week later, in a long article, Slashdot editors explained their decision to remove the page while providing links and information on how to get the document from other sources.[13] That article, posted on March 16, 2001, is still one of the ten most visited stories on the site, with just over 350,000 hits.[12]

The defensiveness by the moderators always seems to for force / couch position Assange in posts as the underdog ( and not as the Traitor Taliban supporter he is).
Lets try to understand that in 2001 the suppression was about religion and cash flow not about illegally obtained documents where callousness to redact names has a clear obvious measurement of death to those the named in the documents. This blistering laziness and slothfulness of course would be supported by most engineers (were all lazy bastards at heart right?) however in Asanges case HE puts at substantially higher risk the troops fighting against terror and Sharia Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_law In case any one has doubt how unfriendly these people are to the press, freedom and the west consider

1) News of today's Taliban Sharia Murder objective http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/08/17/killed-attack-iraqi-army/?test=latestnews
2) The 275,000 mostly relevant hits on Google for "sharia+stoning" http://www.google.com/search?q=sharia+stoning&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Woman In the death stoning queue for tomorrow http://scj.msnbc.com/id/38146472/ns/38149201
Couple confirmed stoned to death on 8/16 http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/08/16/taliban-stone-couple-adultery-afghanistan/

This is the normal operating procedure for thoes targeted by the FOA's Friends of Assange

3) Support of everything Islam http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/17/ground-zero-church-archdiocese-says-officials-forgot/
4) Despised New York Governor David Paterson puts his foot into it. The man who's party hates him draws another target on him regarding him being Anti Islamic http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38740806/ns/politics-more_politics/
The friend of my enemy is Assange. Asange could only be thought of as good friend to Islam Sharia terrorists and those who plan to turn a handsome profit from the coming war. Yes were at war now, but you aint seen nothing yet with the likes of Asange running free loose and supported by his army of media pimps.

We've seem to forgotten 911 and forgotten you can not come to a mediated peace with folks who think of you as nothing better than a dog to be stoned to death. Folks who expressed no outrage at 911 and call us too thin skinned for wanting named redacted, or a mosque to go elsewhere, or not supporting the corruption and perversion of our government to debt and phobias delusional psychosis about bei

"Some controversy erupted on March 9, 2001 after an Anonymous Coward posted the full text of Scientology's "Operating Thetan Level Three" (OT III) document in a comment attached to a Slashdot article. The Church of Scientology demanded that Slashdot remove the document under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. A week later, in a long article, Slashdot editors explained their decision to remove the page while providing links and information on how to get the document from other sources.[13] That article, posted on March 16, 2001, is still one of the ten most visited stories on the site, with just over 350,000 hits.[12]

The defensiveness by the moderators always seems to for force / couch position Assange in posts as the underdog ( and not as the Traitor Taliban supporter he is).
Lets try to understand that in 2001 the suppression was about religion and cash flow not about illegally obtained documents where callousness to redact names has a clear obvious measurement of death to those the named in the documents. This blistering laziness and slothfulness of course would be supported by most engineers (were all lazy bastards at heart right?) however in Asanges case HE puts at substantially higher risk the troops fighting against terror and Sharia Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_law In case any one has doubt how unfriendly these people are to the press, freedom and the west consider

1) News of today's Taliban Sharia Murder objective http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/08/17/killed-attack-iraqi-army/?test=latestnews
2) The 275,000 mostly relevant hits on Google for "sharia+stoning" http://www.google.com/search?q=sharia+stoning&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Woman In the death stoning queue for tomorrow http://scj.msnbc.com/id/38146472/ns/38149201
Couple confirmed stoned to death on 8/16 http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/08/16/taliban-stone-couple-adultery-afghanistan/

This is the normal operating procedure for thoes targeted by the FOA's Friends of Assange

3) Support of everything Islam http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/17/ground-zero-church-archdiocese-says-officials-forgot/
4) Despised New York Governor David Paterson puts his foot into it. The man who's party hates him draws another target on him regarding him being Anti Islamic http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38740806/ns/politics-more_politics/
The friend of my enemy is Assange. Asange could only be thought of as good friend to Islam Sharia terrorists and those who plan to turn a handsome profit from the coming war. Yes were at war now, but you aint seen nothing yet with the likes of Asange running free loose and supported by his army of media pimps.

We've seem to forgotten 911 and forgotten you can not come to a mediated peace with folks who think of you as nothing better than a dog to be stoned to death. Folks who expressed no outrage at 911 and call us too thin skinned for wanting named redacted, or a mosque to go elsewhere, or not supporting the corruption and perversion of our government to debt and phobias delusional psychosis about bei

PRQ - the network cum ISP created to serve the Pirate Bay (and still doing so) - has been hosting much of Wikileaks since 2008.

Lots of people give the Pirate Bay guys shit for being a bunch of thieves hiding behind big words, but when it comes down to it, they walk the walk too. A lot more so than the MAFIAA has.

The ATF conducted about 1,800 successful traces last year of crime guns recovered in Mexico. Ninety to 95 percent of those led to American gun dealers according to Javier Ortiz. In October 2003, ATF traced seven assault weapons belonging to a murdered associate of drug lord Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman to Simon's Trading Post(ph) in Pasadena, Texas. The dealer, Simon Garza, pled guilty last year to selling weapons to prohibited individuals. His punishment? Five years probation, a $100 fine and he lost his license to sell firearms. That was one of the few traces that led to a conviction. Fewer than half of all traces are successful and only a fraction of those lead to the most recent purchaser

In the Firearms Trafficking Report the American Government Accountability Office stated that

While it is impossible to know how many firearms are illegally smuggled into Mexico in a given year, about 87% of the firearms seized by Mexican authorities and traced in the last five years originated in the U.S., according to data from Dept. of Justice’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. According to U.S. and Mexican officials, these firearms have been increasingly more powerful and lethal in recent years

Fox challenged the selection bias of the numbers, finding that "83 percent of the guns found at crime scenes in Mexico could not be traced to the U.S." I should probably have done a little more digging for a better source than Fox but if you're interested some google mining should uncover something more reliable.

That'd be because you tax the hell out of it.

If we (Americans) were to internalize all the negative externalities into the price of gasoline, how much would it cost? Add $20 per ton of CO2, which comes to 19 cents per gallon, for global warming. Add in the cost of air pollution, up to $1600 per person annually. Because gas taxes and user fees only make up 65% of the cost of the roads, add the other 35% into the cost of gasoline. And so on.

With all the externalities added to the price of gasoline, I think we would see gas prices similar to Europe's, and we would find that their gas taxes are more fair than ours.

"Are you asking about Vice President Biden?" McChrystal says with a laugh. "Who's that?" "Biden?" suggests a top adviser. "Did you say: Bite Me?"

At one point on his trip to Paris, McChrystal checks his BlackBerry. "Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke," he groans. "I don't even want to open it." He clicks on the message and reads the salutation out loud, then stuffs the BlackBerry back in his pocket, not bothering to conceal his annoyance. "Make sure you don't get any of that on your leg," an aide jokes, referring to the e-mail.

The president said he had no disagreements with McChrystal's policy or conduct in the war in Afghanistan, and the change in personnel does not mean a change in policy. He said the two were on the same page in terms of war strategy, but no "diversion" to the mission was acceptable. "I don't make this decision based on any difference in policy with General McChrystal, as we are in full agreement about our strategy. Nor do I make this decision out of any sense of personal insult. Stan McChrystal has always shown great courtesy and carried out my orders faithfully. I've got great admiration for him and for his long record of service in uniform," he said.

If not insubordination, the remarks in the Rolling Stone magazine article were at least an indirect challenge to civilian management of the war in Washington by its top military commander. Military leaders rarely challenge their commander in chief publicly, and, when they do, consequences tend to be more severe than a scolding. -FOX article

What was that again? Even according to FOX it had nothing to do with the strategy being used in the war, or the comments about the war, but rather the insubordination of a superior office. Obviously you missed something.

It's here Faux News

Exactly.

Also, wasn't there a possible-but-unlikely major-impact event a few years back? My memory of the thing is hazy. Just because we can see it coming, doesn't mean we can do anything about it at this stage. All we could do was sit back and pretend it wasn't coming.

A quick google search brings up this recent event: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,503164,00.html

Your link doesn't work. Goes to Library of Congress and says "Thomas". Nothing else loads. But just looking at what you posted, it is clear in the title of SEC. 401. TAX on individuals... It's a tax, not jail.

In any case, a simple google search of "Obamacare" and "jail" turns up plenty of evidence that it is a myth that you'll go to jail if you don't get insurance. It's clearly documented as a right-wing blog tactic of disinformation.

It seems even Fox News acknowledges that there is no "jail" clause in Obamacare:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201004160081

Instead, Fox likes to keep posting stories about the bill(s) that WOULD have had a jail clause in them HAD they passed. It's all part of the disinformation campaign.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/26/baucus-mandate-penalty-lead-prison-congressional-analysts-say/

And if you follow the deception further, you'll notice stories like this one:

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0909/Ensign_receives_handwritten_confirmation_.html?showall ...with the same $1,900 penalty introduced in the Baucus bill that was not passed. But that's ok, leave out the fact that this story is about the Baucus bill, add a story about the Baucus bill that says you'll go to jail, then loosely tie it to the ACTUAL bill that does not have a jail clause and you get discussion forums rife with misinformation and rash leaps of logic (like this one)

Try Fox News.

It's fair and balanced, with none of reality's liberal bias.

FTFY

Try Fox News.

It's fair and balanced, with non of the media's liberal bias.

I for one, relish a foxnews site that loads quickly.

Aw, come on. People trust in The Sun. Well, as much as they trust in The National Enquirer, Fox News, and The Weekly World News.

the ice caps are not melting. One is in a decline (the Arctic) and one is growing (Antarctic)

I wonder by which definition you say the Arctic ice cap is in "decline", but not melting?

The Antarctic ice sheet is shrinking, not growing. It's losing volume, which is the only significant definition of size when one considers climate issues. It's losing volume the only way a polar ice cap can lose volume, by melting. But, of course, you'll never know this if you have only one news source.

Warmer oceans cause increased water evaporation, which then precipitates as snow or rain. Considering that a large part of Antarctica is still well below freezing point, it's only natural that *some* regions of Antarctica have had more snowfall caused by global warming. Yes, global warming does cause both more snowfall and colder winters. Which is more than offset by hotter summers and increased ice melting.

"Is he paying attention?"

No, he isn't. He does not have the social ability to handle the enormous conflicts inside the U.S. Department of Energy. I sent him a long letter before he decided to take the job expressing that opinion.

He doesn't give politics or social conflicts much attention: "Mr. Secretary, I would say I'm worried that you only know what you read in the papers about what's being approved."

There is more about my opinions concerning the DOE on my web site.

Dr. Chu is, however, FAR better than the Secretary of the DOE under President George W. Bush.

My thoughts exactly. This is why Obama is so brilliant - he knew NASA would have this problem and that's why he made NASA's #1 priority mission improving relations with Muslim nations. The guy is brilliant! http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/06/nasa-official-walks-claim-muslim-outreach-foremost-mission/

The Telegraph - 2nd March
New Scientist - 2nd March
Fox News - 2nd March
Popsci - 3rd March
Huffington Post - 2nd March
The Economist - 22nd April
The Daily Mail - 2nd March
Time - 10th March

Etc etc.

Man, this is a big deal. It's a tragedy that we haven't heard about this in the news before. It seems like the kind of thing Slashdot would have reported on years ago.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/05/nasa-chief-frontier-better-relations-muslims/

Next up: NASA is tasked with helping Muslims to feel good about their contribution to women's rights and religious tolerance.

Dude, by definition, if there is a conspiracy going on among "peers", then there will not be any dissenting papers that are "legitimatized" by accepting them in peer reviewed journals.

If there is a conspiracy, how come skeptical scientists like Richard Lindzen are actively getting their research published in these peer-reviewed journal?

The answer is of course that there is no conspiracy. But those whose political ideology is threatened by the facts will stop at nothing to hide those facts.

One minor flaw? Try this one http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/11/years-global-cooling-coming-leading-scientist-says/

He said no such thing. Latif was quote-mined. It's a well-known creationist tactic. How predictable. In fact, he predicted exactly that in the exact same speech. Yes, the denialists quote-mined the very speech where he pointed out that what he just said would most likely be quote-mined! Amazing, isn't it? The sheer dishonesty of the denialist crowd is just getting worse and worse.

The more respected global warming papers have been published and accepted in peer reviewed journals. Point out any global warming denialist papers that have done the same.

Dude, by definition, if there is a conspiracy going on among "peers", then there will not be any dissenting papers that are "legitimatized" by accepting them in peer reviewed journals. Come on. You can do better than that.

Your fundamental problem in arguing with a person who denies global warming is that they use erroneous logic. They find one uncertainty or minor flaw in a study and suddenly volumes of studies -- even those unrelated -- can be thrown out and dismissed.

One minor flaw? Try this one http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/11/years-global-cooling-coming-leading-scientist-says/

If you think this is the 'final days' of this mess, you are sadly mistaken.

Wellyou got one right.

With all of the big corporate entities buying and merging, your radio, newspaper and television media is increasingly controlled by fewer and fewer people.

With the internet it's relatively easy to join the media, the hard part being getting found.

At least in government there's always the threat that a politician will lose his or her job if they displease the people.

Bush only lost his job because of the term limit presidents have. That despite the fact that he started a war many people opposed. I'm still waiting to see those WMDs it was claimed Sadam had. Obama's approval rating isn't good, actually 45% strongly disapprove while 44% approve of Obama's performance as president.

With a corporate entity, they don't have to appease anyone as long as they make money.

Corporate entities, most anyway, only make money when they appease enough to have enough buyers.

Personally as I've been saying for years I want the FCC abolished and people allowed to homestead the airwaves. If I wanted to and could afford it I should be able to start a radio station that is for say model railroad enthusiasts, who were some of the first computer hackers.

Taxpayer-funded national broadcasters, like ABC (Australia), BBC or CBC can be critical of the government in a way that corporate broadcasters cannot be critical of their parent company.

I can't speak about elsewhere but in the US the national broadcasters can be, but aren't always, critical of government. Fox News is pretty critical of Obama, just as it was about Clinton. On the other hand I haven't heard any national news broadcaster, including Fox, ask Bush where all those WMDs Bush said Saddam had are. And with the airwaves homesteaded there could be even more voices to listen to.

Falcon

And yet, the Government of the US, lead by the President of the US, fought a battle all the way to the Supreme Court of the US, arguing that they had the right to detain US citizens indefinitely without recourse to the courts simply because they called the citizen a name - "Terrorist" and "enemy combatant".

And the courts of the US haven't yet issued a ruling that this is against our precious constitution. Nor has our president, running on a platform of change, spoken out against this travesty:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_(prisoner)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,506265,00.html

So, if a Police official steps up to you, and says "I think you are a Terrorist and an Enemy Combatant; please give me your encryption keys to prove your innocence", your refusal means indefinite detention in a military detention facility, subject to military interrogation methods which include those which we ourselves have called war crimes:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html

A piece of paper protects no rights.

It takes a good while to set in, but like a burn you feel the #@%&er nice and good.

Glenn Beck was right about you! When he has his speech on the anniversary at the same place that Martin Luther King Jr. gave his "I Have a Dream" Speech then you'll see the light!

Holy crap, I missed the 2007 update to this story. The dude's turned into the Trashcan Man. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299362,00.html

Well, non-ionizing radiation can be detrimental, but only at high levels and/or at close proximity. There was an excellent news story quite a while back, about a school that had been built under high tension power lines. The power company donated the land to the school district, and the district spent a few million dollars to build a nice school there. In the first few years, a significant number of students who spent a year or more at that school were diagnosed with leukemia. The district had to abandon the new school.

    When I was in high school, I started a science fair project on the effects of the high tension lines. Under the right conditions (high load in hot weather, where lots of air conditioners were running), A fluorescent light bulb would glow if held up towards the lines from ground level.

    That's a long way from the amount of radiation put off by cell phones. I know some people have freaked out about wifi AP's and cards, but there are no legitimate cases of medical problems from them that I'm aware of. I do love the folks who say they're allergic to RF. There was a case where the a whole group of people brought a class action suit against a provider because of the detrimental effects of RF, caused by antennas on his tower. He played that perfectly though. He had shut down the tower shortly after the complaints started. When it got to court, and the people were all bitching that they still had adverse effects, the provider stated (with supporting paperwork) that the tower had been completely shut down for months. :)

    I personally had an experience with household stuff causing medical problems. I was born with a cataract, which caused my vision in one eye to be 20/40. I bought a new CRT monitor back in 1991. In the first 18 years of my life, the condition didn't change. Within 2 years of using that monitor, the cataract caused my vision to go from 20/40 to 20/200. There was some news about the possibility back then, and CRT monitor manufacturers worked to decrease the tube radiation, so 18 years later, we barely remember that it ever happened. In looking around, that may have not only have been non-ionizing, but ionizing (x-ray). The monitor has long since been tossed (who would want a 14" CRT now?), and I don't even remember the model.

    That's a long way from what ionizing radiation can do though. If I had been exposed to ionizing radiation for the same duration as the non-ionizing radiation, I would have had severe radiation burns, my hair would have fallen out, etc, etc. Well, I don't have to explain it, all you have to do is look at the 2007 arrest photo of David Hahn. That's not acne. :)

    I worry more about getting hit by a stupid driver in traffic, than I do about the RF floating around. I did consider building a faraday cage into the master bedroom of my house, but that would be for the pure entertainment value (and to block my cell phone from working), than for any real reasons.

I'm sorry to reply twice, but I posted my reply and then went to another aggregation site and came across this story. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/11/naacp-urges-hallmark-pull-racist-card-shelves/

Obviously you haven't heard his "kick-ass" comment. Last week the Pub's mantra was "No Drama Obama" and how he wasn't "mad enough".

Comments on his kick-ass statement

So now he will be crucified for saying "ass" by the Pubs. "uncouth" "can't master the english language" are now the comments. I remember during the election one Pub I know kept saying all he could do was "give speaches and read a teleprompter".

Earlier this week FOX was talking about how Obama was at the gulf in "fancy pants". Seriously, I don't think there is anything he will be able to do to get the right off his back.

None of what you've said has anything to do with Arizona.

Read the bill. The OP made an ignorant comment implying that Arizona SB-1070h (House Engrossed) has something to do with looking Latino. You've furthered that ignorance by giving out misinformation in regard to identity. To be honest, it took me a while to figure out why everyone was so riled up about this. As it turns out, the people inciting the masses were pointing to a draft bill, Arizona SB-1070s (Senate Engrossed). Further evidence of that is given by simply googling SB-1070. You won't find the actual bill -- you'll just find the draft bill. The draft bill was an egregious violation of anything anyone, other than perhaps a Latino dictator, might want to think of as civil liberties. I would tag it "POS". As such, it wasn't passed into law. The House version of the bill did pass. It had extension revisions to ensure that Gestapo tactics weren't being passed into law. Since then, it has had additional revisions to clarify "legal contact" because people weren't satisfied that the Supreme Court's decisions regarding "Terry Stops" were being spelled out. Well, that's probably not true: in all likelihood, they hadn't read the correct bill, but I digress. The main point is that any ambiguity was (hopefully) clarified.

Again. Read the bill. ANY government issued identification is proof of citizenship in the eyes of Arizona. Don't mix the US Federal Government in with this -- they're the ones with the onerous requirements. If you want to criticize, put it where it belongs: the Federal Government. Attacking Arizona for having a more lenient law than the Feds is silly.

Finally, if after having read the actual bill, you're still not convinced, consider this: the Obama administration is fighting Arizona on two fronts.

1. They're challenging Arizona's ability to prevent employers from hiring illegals. This law was signed by the current Secretary of Homeland Security. Yes, I know. It's an "untrusted source" in these parts (the evil Fox News), but find a link telling me they aren't challenging the law before you bitch about the source.
2. The Justice Department is challenging the law "because it impinges on the federal government's authority to police the nation's borders..."

Now, where in the Obama Administration's attacks does the Bill of Rights appear? Answer: nowhere. That's pretty much the proof in the pudding. If the law had any conflict with the Bill of Rights, they'd be all over it. It would be the easy path. Instead, they "acted stupidly" by reacting to this without any facts and, in the light of day, are finding any path they can to attack, regardless of how thin that path may be.

I pirated I am Rich for my iPhone, so I guess I'm responsible for about $1k of this.

Fox News was the first to come up in search, sorry!

Wow, don't remember hearing about this before. So, not so Anonymous then. Shame.

http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/06/03/last-stand-battle-against-eminent-domain/

Blizzard vs. Bnetd wasn't the case name, it was Vivendi vs. Bnetd and it had nothing to do with virtual property. It was only a small part about the ability to enforce the EULA, and it was much more about supposedly copying and reverse engineering, sections of the EULA, to make a compatible server.

ProCD vs. Zeidenberg was also about EULA's and if a list of phone numbers can even be copyrighted, which they held they can NOT. The case was around the EULA's ability to limit people from redistributing the data.

So actually both of the cases you cite have nothing to do with virtual property and they don't make it clear that such a thing would hold up. You have to remember that these cases are about specific EULAs and if those clauses are legally enforceable. There is nothing saying that the Haboo's EULA would be legally enforceable until it gets before a judge/jury.

If fact I seem to recall a few cases with Ultima Online and Linden Labs about how you can actually sue over loss of virtual property at least in the US and other countries it appears.

Bragg v. Linden Labs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bragg_v._Linden_Lab

Virtual Currency Extortion
http://www.pcworld.com/article/165447/china_sentences_virtual_currency_extorter_to_prison.html

http://services.martindale.com/internet-law/article_Sheppard-Mullin-Richter-Hampton-LLP_689960.htm

Dutch Teens Convicted of Virtual Theft
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,442322,00.html

So it is clear that you can say in a EULA that virtual stuff has no value, but the courts are not seeing it that way at all.