Slashdot Mirror

AUGH. Stop with the Professor Jones thing already! The whole question was *designed* to get a talking point for people who don't like global warming.

Question: "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?"

Jones: "Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."

This is a total no-brainer: statistical significance is a measure of how likely it is that your results are due to variance in the sample--broken stations, noisy data, rounding errors, and plain-old weather. In ANY time series involving short-term variations, measurements over a short period of time have lower significance in predicting a long-term trend because the data is very noisy.

You couldn't, for example, tell me with much confidence whether the earth is warming over decades based on a single hour's observation, or samples running from June to January. It's like trying to predict how much you'll weigh in ten years by measuring your weight for a week.

Because of the extreme seasonal and year-to-year variability of climate, it takes about *thirty years* to extract a statistically significant measure of a small-scale (relative to seasonal change) trend like global warming. The question is therefore meaningless--even though the data is consistent with global warming, the probability that that consistency is due to chance is too high given limited time. More importantly, when you *do* include enough samples to reach two-sigma significance (that 95% confidence he's talking about), those data *do* indicate global warming.

The question was clearly intended to confuse those who don't understand statistical significance--and it clearly worked, as evidenced by Fox:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/15/global-warming-insignificant-years-admits-uks-climate-scientist/?test=latestnews

For instance, take a peek at these two articles on Net Neutrality that have come up in the past year.

The first one about Senator Mc. Cain. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/22/fcc-approves-proposed-net-neutrality-rules/ He states, "These new rules should rightly be viewed by consumers suspiciously as another government power grab over a private service provided by private companies in a competitive marketplace". He also states it will stifle innovation and kill jobs. He clearly does not have a coherent understanding of Net Neutrality as one of the goals is to increase innovation through the unrestricted, unfettered access to the internet. In this case, the government is providing deregulation to a market by disallowing private companies from restricting content.

Another Politician, Senator. Feinstein believes we should allow ISPs to restrict access to the internet to abate the spread of child pornography. In her words, changing the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program "allows for reasonable network management practices such as deterring unlawful activity, including child pornography and copyright infringement." While removing child pornography from the internet is a noble goal, she doesn't understand how much more harm will come of this through abuse of the policy. Halting the spread of child pornography can be combated through our legal system instead of giving ISPs complete control over what we can view. The article can be viewed here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/11/feinstein_stimulus_amendment/

While allowing ISPs to restrict our internet access would stop the spread of child pornography and could be construed as a government intrusion of a private sector that doesn't need it, consider China and Iran. The governments of these countries are completely against Net Neutrality in every way so they may control their populations by restricting anything that collides with their views. While our private ISPs might not have the kind of power these governments do, would you want our ISPs to be allowed that power?

On a totally unrelated note I am going to live on fat and sugar from now on so I can get Too Fat To Die!

Nice try. I think your idea might work:

fat chance

Can you say "Epic Fail?"

The main thing with the Obama peace prize is that it was all based on his first 12 days in office. Fox News (yeah, not fair and balanced, but this one is purely factual and based on the President's public schedule, and good for a laugh) did a rundown of what all Obama did in those 12 days.

The dumbest thing the man ever did was accept the prize. He would have won a lot more support and respect from both his constituency and the world at large if he had politely declined it for being too soon. I am more than a little disappointed at the growing list of faux pas that he's headed up in just a year, and I'm far from alone.

Although I agree with the sentiment, the BSA was likely never a strictly secular program. I can't say for sure about the first few months after its creation, as it was a private organization from February 1910 through April 1910, at which point control was taken over by the YMCA, emphasis on the C for Christian. The Scout Oath includes the line "To do my duty to God," and thousands of packs, with hundreds of thousands of members, are organized by churches.

Again, while I disagree with the anti-gay rhetoric of the BSA, it's important to note that this is a case of secular society attempting to "hijack" a semi-religious program.

If they're semi-religious, then why are they getting government funding? If they're private then they can discriminate all they want, but you don't have that right when you're taking taxpayer money.

This is a very different kind of 'acquisition' as the genes for making chlorophyll acquired from the algae are not transferred to its offspring..

According to this article, the genes are transferred, but the offspring, like the parents, can't produce their own chloroplasts, so have to eat enough algae to acquire the necessary chloroplasts before they can survive like that.

Sorry to link Fox News, but it was the first news report on this slug I could find: link

The US doesn't want to face up to the fact that the only way to keep very serious, proprietary technology out of the hands of hostile states is to severely punish those in the US who facilitate the transfer. So instead, it adopts security theater here much like it pretends that it is fighting child exploitation by posting cops all over chat rooms to entrap people who have a passive interest in jailbait at best instead of actually hunting for real, serious child molesters. This allows the national security hawks to believe that we're "being tough," when in fact if we were tough, we wouldn't give a shit about SF.net, but would instead be executing men like this (just read it before attacking me, it was the first Google search result) without a second thought.

This won't do **anything** except deter some students in these countries who don't know how to find a foreign proxy. It certainly won't stop foreign intelligence officers who try to get actual weapon systems and other serious munitions.

This isn't a left or a right thing. Both "sides" seem perfectly comfortable with it.

"We don't need to give any more voice to the powerful interests that already drown out the voices of everyday Americans."

-- Obama on recent SCOTUS Ruling

Yes, except that it's A) The Washington Post, not FOX, and B) between 2002-2006, solidly in Bush's term. FOX is also carrying the story, and they also say--right up front, in the lede--that it was 2002-2006, and goes on to make it explicit in the first sentence: "The FBI violated the law in collecting thousands of U.S. telephone records during the Bush administration, The Washington Post reported Monday [emphasis mine]."

But don't let a silly little thing like fact get in the way of FOX-bashing.

Well, with top Baidu officials resigning there should be some openings... but it's got to make you wonder why the rats are jumping off the ship.

"Fox News has a long "enemies list" of people it believes should be forced to resign from public life. This is how they work."

Seems they (FOX News) have a friend. My guess is Alex Jones.

"megamerican", the submitter of this story, also submitted this ( http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/10/1320211 ) to Slashdot.

The PDF linked in that story came from this ( http://www.infowars.com/ ) website. That same website is also running several headline articles about this very subject--Sunstein--and does so in a very dim light.

This is a smear job, folks.

If you look at the wikipedia entry for the "Fairness Doctrine", it states that Obama is against any revival of this doctrine. Oddly, the citation for that statement is from a FOX news article from a year ago.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/18/white-house-obama-opposes-fairness-doctrine-revival/

Look at the wording. It is intentionally vague on the issue, to the point of simply asking more questions then it answers. It also attempts to make it look like Sen. Henry Waxman is on the same boat (in favor of a return of the Fairness Doctrine).

Short of a paper DISCUSSING the issue, I have to agree with PopeRatzo on this. Nowhere can I find a single statement that either Waxman, Obama or Sunstein actually endorse the revival of the Fairness Doctrine.

Again, this is a smear job, folks.

....look at the US: They don't give black people chicken McNuggets!" http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,504125,00.html

You're saying only black folks eat Chicken McNuggets????? THAT"S RACIST!!!!

MSNBC and Fox News are equally biased for instance, but it seems Fox News gets called out for it considerably more.

Fox News gets called out for it, and deservedly, so, because their slogan is "Fair and Balanced", when they are not even close to it. I mean, go to their home page and what's the first thing you see next to their logo?

Bias in a news organization is normal. But no other news organization fraudulently claims to be fair and balanced. Fox News is vile because they are deceitful liars, not because they are biased.

>So I stopped after the first page, but none of those had anything to do with the OP or the subject at hand.

First link.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312948,00.html

You lose, Pumpkin.

--
BMO

again!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/05/c-span-challenges-congress-open-health-care-talks-tv-coverage/

Technically, since Harry Reid DID say precisely that after Grayson entered Congress, your statement is true.

To wit:

"Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let's start over.' If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right," Reid said Monday. "When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough.'"

That's really an ironic thing for Reid to do, seeing as it was the Democrats that were opposing the end of slavery. It's like 1984 and he's trying to rewrite history.

Technically, since Harry Reid DID say precisely that after Grayson entered Congress, your statement is true.

To wit:

"Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let's start over.' If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right," Reid said Monday. "When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough.'"

He continued: "When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn't quite right.

"When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today."

According to the article, the blogger criticized the congressman for his "childish approach" towards governing.

Of course that's the rub. The article and the Slashdot summary misrepresent the complaint that is in the letter. It is actually about the Political Committee the woman organized to raise funds to support election campaigns. And while she is referred to here as a blogger, she was a former employee of the Republican National Committee. One of the things Congressman Grayson points out in his letter is that it seems a bit disingenuous of her to claim to just be a "private citizen" unconnected with any other political organization when she formerly worked for the RNC.

Further, the fraud he accuses her of is related to raising money for supporting a candidate in an election. Her claim to be his constituent is criminal, not because she is criticizing him, but because she is using it to raise money for an election campaign. At least that is what the congressman is asserting. Further, despite what the summary indicates, it is not his only or even his chief complaint. Rather the chief complaint is that she claims that her organization is a PAC (and raises money for multiple candidates in several campaigns) but in fact appears to only be concerned about one campaign. This would effect who could donate to her committee and how much. It is certainly not a trivial accusation, and there are really laws that govern how much money you can contribute to politicians and political committees.

Whether Congressman Grayson's accusations have merit or it is all a ruse to silence a vociferous critic, I can't say. But I'm very leery of anyone who starts down the path of criticizing someones actions by first misrepresenting what they were. (Why didn't the submitter include a link to the letter [primary source] as opposed to, or at least in addition to, a rather opinionated report on it?)

As explained below, Ms. Langley and the Committee falsely represented to the Federal Election Commission that the Committee "supports or opposes more than one candidate." In fact, however, the committee name corresponds to a website that attacks me and only me, while soliciting contributions to be used against only me. Moreover, Ms. Langley has falsely depicted herself as a constituent, in order to further this scheme.

Although you may claim it's just another stupid technicality that Florida Rep. Alan Grayson clings to in order to shut down a website that is probably too painfully close to the truth for his comfort, there is another complaint other than the use of the word 'my.' Now, if you visit the about us page on the committee in question's site you can find:

Central Floridians formed My Congressman Is Nuts PAC as a response to the outrage and embarrassment within Central Florida over Alan Grayson's liberal positions and childish approach in Washington, D.C. We could no longer sit by and accept his inappropriate behavior and leftist big government agenda. He does not represent the values of Central Florida.

Emphasis mine. Now a key part to the argument is that since it is a PAC with pac registration, it receives taxation status benefits from the government making it subject to the law of United States Code Title 18 Section 1001.

I mean, he might have a case here if that US code applies to PACs. I'm not sure. Were I in his shoes, I would have instead taken the angle of attack related to the title line of the site which is "Alan Grayson is Nuts" and proven that I am not legally insane. Actually, I wouldn't have done anything. As Barbara Streisand might have pointed out that before this news I had never heard of nor visited My Congressman Is Nuts but now I have scanned the entire site out of curiosity.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/study_cell_phone_cancer_link_D1uu62C2zscTFCnzQTeZwO
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,569465,00.html

As I said - jumping to conclusions . . .

There are no studies that prove things either way, but the WHO thinks there is enough correlation to be concerned.

It's hard to take one study really seriously, when similar studies by another group of people find reason to worry.

As for me, I'll not be holding anything up my ear that emits energy. If it has speakers and microphone that I can hold at arm's length, I'll consider using it.

Your cell phone, if it's in the US, probably operates at one of two ranges: 900MHz or 1800MHz. I think most of the newer ones use 1800MHz. So if you're worried about the frequency differential, there isn't THAT much of a gap between 1.8GHz and 2.4GHz, so if you've got a newer cell you're already soaking in higher-frequency RF. Especially in Europe, where the 3G networks switched from the old 900/1800MHz frequencies to 2100MHz (2.1GHz) years ago.

The real concern, as others have mentioned, is power. Your cell phone puts out enough power to be heard by a tower that can be a couple of miles (a few KM) away. Your Bluetooth headset uses enough power to reach about 30 feet (10 meters). That's a very large difference in power. A Class II Bluetooth headset is probably on the order of 2.5mW (.0025 watts), while your average cell phone can be hundreds of times that amount.

As far as the studies that debunk the cellphone - cancer link, especially the oft-cited Scandinavian one... Unfortunately, most of them I've seen cited are based on analog cell phones. The Scandinavian study cited above ran until 2003, which is the first year that EDGE came out. Coincidentally, the introduction of EDGE was also when the 2100MHz frequencies started coming into heavy use. So the Scandinavian study doesn't cover the time period that includes any EDGE or 3G services.

So, while I don't know the current state of the science, keep in mind that the biggest, most cited study supporting "no link between cell and cancer" is a large-scale informal data aggregation that does not include data on the technology the phone you actually carry actually employs. It's rather like saying that airbags don't save lives because the horses that draw our carriages can't run fast enough to hurt anyone if there's a crash.

The nature of the data aggregation in the oft-cited Scandinavian study also didn't attempt to track who actually uses cell phones and whether those individuals got cancer, it tracked the rate of two specific types of cranial cancer over 30 years and generically explained increases in certain age groups until it found there were enough explanations to cover all the reported cases of that specific cancer and called it good. No attempt was made to:
- determine whether cases happened in younger groups (you only generally get terminal brain cancer once, depriving you of the chance to get it when you are older),
- determine whether other cancers went up (or not),
- or whether there was a higher incidence of cranial cancers among actual cell users (and especially heavy cell users) as opposed to the general populace.

They dismissed the actual measured and documented increases as a result of better detection, but I saw no sign that they compared those increase rates so, say, some other cancers that couldn't be cell-related. Not that it would be that meaningful, but it'd be nice to see how the better detection rates affected other cancers during the same period.

So we have an aggregation based on non-current technology that indicates a clear increase in cancer. The increase is then explained away by better detection technology. Pardon me if I'm not ENTIRELY convinced by it. I'm not saying there IS a link, I'm just saying the data analysis done doesn't appear to support such a conclusion.

More recent and formal studies (in other words, those that actually study current technologies and use a control population and a study population) have somewhat more concerning, though not entirely conclusive, results. (WHO Example http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,569465,00.html ).

Is there a link? I, for one, honestly don't know. I tend to use my cell stuck up next to my head, which is probably not the best idea, and I'll probably start using a bluetooth headset more often for calls just because of the lower RF output and my deep and abiding desire to live forever (so far, so good). But since I used to use

Filing a false notice is a fucking FELONY (17 USC 512).

No, it isn't. Deliberately filing a false notice when you know you're not the rightsholder is perjury. However the problem is that you'd have to *prove* that they filed it deliberately. If they say "whoops, we thought that file labeled 'Usher221.mp3' was ours" then there is nothing you can do about it.

Call the police and press charges.

What are the odds that a DA would take on a case like that, when they could instead focus their efforts prosecuting people for "creating child pornography" so they can get re-elected?

Is there any reason to think they are NOT developing WMD?

No, they've been plenty evasive about their research and deserve the scrutiny, but for people like me, it's also a matter of sovereignty and nationalistic pride. Does anyone ever question the U.S. when they develop high-tech weapons systems that later gets used to kill people on the battlefield? Nope. And if they do, they tell the world to fuck off, and rightfully so.

Part of me really wishes that the Iranians would just quit screwing around and focusing solely on nuclear research for energy purposes only. Like I mentioned in a previous post, their population has doubled and they cannot afford to rely on petroleum.

Last I checked they've claimed to launch a satellite twice. I don't recall much of an "uproar" with regard to that.

I do.

And that's what baffles me the most. Everyone is under the impression that the Iranians are living in the stone age, but when they try to do something in the field of science, they get branded as terrorists with nefarious motives.

When the Ayatollahs claim, however, to "wipe Israel of the map" there was lots of whining from Israel, some from the US.

Ahmadinejad never said anything about wiping Israel off the map. It was a misquote, and some speculate that it was done on purpose to muddy the waters. Also, the President of Iran has no authority to wage war or mobilize troops. Only the Supreme Ayatollah can do that, and he knows he'll be in a world of trouble if he ever directly threatened Israel.

I won't begin to try to defend the President of Iran, I mean, take a look at the link that I posted above. He's said and done plenty of things to be critical of, but it's very dishonest to misquote someone. Those kinds of things can start wars, heh.

But then again take it with the caveat that I'm an Israeli.

Let me take the opportunity to wish you and your people peace and safety, and hope that no more wars break out between the Israelis and their surrounding neighbors. That's all I can ever hope for.

because I heard the fad was started by hotel chains to increase business. Source

What recent global cooling? If you think it's been cooling since 1998 you're wrong. AP gave the temperature data to several statisticians without telling them what the data represented and asked them to analyze it for trends. They found no cooling trend over time. Read the story here.

Where have you been? The first salvo was fired even before Obama was sworn in. That would be when he persuaded Defense Secretary Robert Gates (who used to literally count the days until he was replaced) to stay on. I've often wondered how and why Obama did that. My best guess is that they agreed on an agenda of cost cutting and procurement reform.

When Gates announced his program, the defense special interests fought back — hard. And yet they lost. Mind-boggling, but true. Now that's change I can believe in!

I'm all for space travel, but I want to see the same thing happen at NASA. Anybody who really believes we're going to start a moon base and travel to Mars using Apollo-style space capsules is fooling themselves. The program is pure pork, USDA approved.

I don't see anthropogenic global warming as a condemnation of civilization.

That humans — especially the wealthy humans — are destroying the planet with their consumption is explicit in many "save the Earth" pieces, and implied in nearly all of them. I'm going to believe here, that you aren't feigning your ignorance of this wide-spread opinion and give you some examples...

This recent video attempts to instill guilt in people flying by showing bloodied polar bears falling from the sky. Each passenger, we are told, causes the amount of CO2, that's a weight of a polar bear. It is implied (with plausible deniability, of course, because the idiotic connection would only work on a weaker mind), that each passenger is thus responsible for a dead polar bear... Every time.

For another example, here is criticism of Ford's recent ad, that shows Ford's SUV among polar bears. The critic states, the ad "might upset a few people". Now, it might not be upsetting to you, but it is evidence, that large number of people consider SUVs a crime against nature.

Violent assholes from Earth Liberation Front will happily burn a business to stop it from "destroying the environment". The threat is not theoretical: "If you build it, we will burn it." The ideology has many sympathizers and represents the number one terrorist threat in the US.

More examples exist, of course... I hope, you will be able to find them yourself now.

Now I see why the deniers are so hot and bothered.

I don't think, it is fair to label us "deniers". The burden of proof ought to be on those, who want to make civilization change its ways. For over a decade, we were told "the science is settled" — that not only does global warming exist, there is a significant anthropogenic contribution to it, which ought to be stopped.

Thanks to this whistle-blower (or a hacker, or whoever), we learned, that the consensus in this case achieved in a Marxist manner: through elimination of dissent. We read these "scientists" discussing boycotts against peer-reviewed journals to prevent publishing works of "sceptics". All so that the foot-soldiers on forums such as this one could continue to claim, that "no peer-reviewed journal published anything by this guy, so he must be a fringe lunatic."

We also read, how frustrated they became, faced with the actually lowering temperatures, which their computer models failed to predict. Where I'm from, a scientific theory, that fails to predict what's observed in life, is discarded. But, I guess, these guys stood to lose too much government funding, so they "massaged" their data until they got the pre-determined result.

The answer to AGW will be a combination of adapting ourselves to inevitable changes

Every proposed answer to AGW (which might not even exist) involves large tax increases and increased government control over citizens' lives. The Big Brother watching is Ok, because it is for "a greener planet" (the modern era's "Greater Good" (TM)). Scratch any advocate of AGW, and you'll find a Che Guevara T-shirt underneath... That alone ought to turn a reasonable human being into a "denier".

Although voluntary for now, starting 2017, Columbia University plans to have a compost bin in every dorm room. I sure hope, my daughter is not forced to live like that, when she goes to college, over junk science

How about a heartbeat sensor from Modern Warfare 2?

Games are a goldmine for these sorts of wacky ideas which just might work.

And instead of side of weapon, add that to the in-front-of-eye see-through monitor. Why we don't actually have such already? The technology is there. But even US army is testing with things that will actually take away the whole view from your other eye.

The WSJ, owned by Rupert Murdoch, also owner of Fox News, can be assumed to to take the climate-denialist position on everything.

You mean like the hour long special from 2005, The Heat Is On: The Case of Global Warming where they were praised by the greens for being biased in favor of AGW?

I know it's hip to bash Fox News and all, but maybe you should actually watch it before you repeat what other pundits have said about it. You know, kinda like you should look over the source material for AGW before blindly accepting someone else's interpretation of it.

hy don't other nations' militaries take a similar hard-line approach?

They do. Maybe you'd better check your news sources.

BBC NEWS | Special Reports | Frenchman dies in Somalia rescue 11 Apr 2009
French frigate seizes Somali pirates | World | Reuters 15 Apr 2009
French military fends off Somalia pirate attack - CNN.com 13 Oct 2009
French Navy Captures 12 Pirates Off Somalia - International News ... 13 Nov 2009

Heck, a single aircraft carrier in the region, launching planes to fly patrols which would respond to distress calls, would go a long way to securing the region.

Wah? What you going to do, bomb the ship the pirates have captured? This is a job for marines in helicopters and small boats, not flyboys.

He's already working on that. He recently introduced legislation that would grant the Attorney General the right to infringe on your constitutional rights without due process. He thinks the Federal Government should have the right to put your name on a list and take away your right to keep and bear arms without any burden of proof whatsoever.

What's wrong with that picture?

Nothing! How long would it take to put everyone on the list? That would be the biggest life-saver in the US. And it would be the biggest contribution to world peace since long.

Men like Peter King would gladly usher in fascism just for the warm and fuzzies it would give them.

He's already working on that. He recently introduced legislation that would grant the Attorney General the right to infringe on your constitutional rights without due process. He thinks the Federal Government should have the right to put your name on a list and take away your right to keep and bear arms without any burden of proof whatsoever.

What's wrong with that picture?

Really, just look here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576786,00.html

It's Fox news, if it's really leftist propaganda then why the fuck is the most right wing news station in the US putting the exact same slant on it? Do you think Fox has been taken over by the left too now or something?

It might have something to do with the fact that it's not Fox News report—it's an Associated Press report; just look at the by-line. Foxnews.com, like most high-volume news websites, has most of its reporting done by third parties. I am just guessing but I would guess less than 10% of stories on Foxnews.com are written by actual Fox staffers.

P.S. And when you have learned to read by-lines, you might want to learn to read the news for bias—the only reason Fox News is "the most right wing news" outlet is because the rest of the mainstream media is so damned liberal. Look for fairness and facts (and non-distortion of facts or blackout of coverage of particular news item, such as the global warming fraud story in the last couple weeks), and you will see that even though Fox does lean right somewhat (especially in opinion media like Beck and Hannity), they are mostly fair and they don't make up stuff.

Some might think fag, feminazi, devil worshipper, traitor, and all those names are all in fun, but ask yourself if you like to be called names. Even Rush,that bastion of free speech, has gotten to the point where he can no longer has the courage to stay in the kitchen. Some of y'all may say that the truth matters, but really, what is the slogan, we report, you decide?

In any case,insulting professors and teachers is not a huge thing. It is really a response to the perceived powerlessness that the adolescent, and too many adults, feel in response to an authority figure. It is the only way that these people know to react. They do not yet have the maturity, or intellegence, to know how the world works. For instance in High School and college they are rules, and one can do well by following the rules and learning. Yet most in high school, and too many in college, still see grades as arbitrarily given by the authority figures. This then leads to comments made our anger and ignorance.

College is supposed to help people move beyond such lack of control. Understand that by planning and research on can have some control. That one does not have to react,but can in fact somewhat deterministically act to maximize one's own position, instead of always maximizing other's position. One expects maturity to help everyone else. Unfortunately, college, maturity,even the holy scripture, cannot stop the name calling that has seems to characterize certain parts of our media.

Call it PC or whatever. It is simply matter of proper social behavior. Some people got it. Others don't.

Did you actually bother to read my post? You're basically just spouting the same thing the person I was responding to said.

The problem is that you're falsely assuming it's all political because you're taking it as an attack on your own political beliefs rather than seeing it for what it is- these images have no political relevance, they are effectively a visual commentary of the person underneath. They get attacked and defended by the media based on who they are, not what their policies are- do you think people made charactures of George Bush as a monkey because he went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan or because he was very prone to comical blunders? If you really believe it's the former then you're still failing to separate your own political bias from the problem and that's your own issue to deal with.

The real hypocrisy is that the attitude of "oh it's all the left's fault" is really no different to the attitude used by racists to justify their hatred of people of a different colour.

Really, just look here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576786,00.html

It's Fox news, if it's really leftist propaganda then why the fuck is the most right wing news station in the US putting the exact same slant on it? Do you think Fox has been taken over by the left too now or something?

What the current government want so far [...] Increased government regulation of aired political opinion through the Fairness Doctrine.

Even Fox News says that President Obama opposes any move to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine and even clarified that their stance was "definitive".

Yeah, a couple other legislators including pelosi want it, but let's be clear that even Fox News claims that the Obama Administration definitively opposes it.

he already uses a robots.txt file,

User-agent: *
Disallow: /printer_friendly_story
Disallow: /projects/livestream
#
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_news_news.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_news_entertainment.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_news_opinion.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_news_politics.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_search_news.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_search_entertainment.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_search_opinion.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_search_politics.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_search_sections.xml

he already uses a robots.txt file,

User-agent: *
Disallow: /printer_friendly_story
Disallow: /projects/livestream
#
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_news_news.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_news_entertainment.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_news_opinion.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_news_politics.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_search_news.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_search_entertainment.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_search_opinion.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_search_politics.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_search_sections.xml

he already uses a robots.txt file,

User-agent: *
Disallow: /printer_friendly_story
Disallow: /projects/livestream
#
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_news_news.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_news_entertainment.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_news_opinion.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_news_politics.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_search_news.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_search_entertainment.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_search_opinion.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_search_politics.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_search_sections.xml

he already uses a robots.txt file,

User-agent: *
Disallow: /printer_friendly_story
Disallow: /projects/livestream
#
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_news_news.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_news_entertainment.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_news_opinion.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_news_politics.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_search_news.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_search_entertainment.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_search_opinion.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_search_politics.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_search_sections.xml

he already uses a robots.txt file,

User-agent: *
Disallow: /printer_friendly_story
Disallow: /projects/livestream
#
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_news_news.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_news_entertainment.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_news_opinion.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_news_politics.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_search_news.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_search_entertainment.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_search_opinion.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_search_politics.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_search_sections.xml

he already uses a robots.txt file,

User-agent: *
Disallow: /printer_friendly_story
Disallow: /projects/livestream
#
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_news_news.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_news_entertainment.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_news_opinion.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_news_politics.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_search_news.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_search_entertainment.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_search_opinion.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_search_politics.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_search_sections.xml

he already uses a robots.txt file,

User-agent: *
Disallow: /printer_friendly_story
Disallow: /projects/livestream
#
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_news_news.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_news_entertainment.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_news_opinion.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_news_politics.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_search_news.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_search_entertainment.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_search_opinion.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_search_politics.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_search_sections.xml

he already uses a robots.txt file,

User-agent: *
Disallow: /printer_friendly_story
Disallow: /projects/livestream
#
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_news_news.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_news_entertainment.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_news_opinion.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_news_politics.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_search_news.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_search_entertainment.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_search_opinion.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_search_politics.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_search_sections.xml

he already uses a robots.txt file,

User-agent: *
Disallow: /printer_friendly_story
Disallow: /projects/livestream
#
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_news_news.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_news_entertainment.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_news_opinion.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_news_politics.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_search_news.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_search_entertainment.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_search_opinion.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_search_politics.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_search_sections.xml

For myself I think at least in USA the follow-on question is how is there a vaccine for something that by political reasons generates so much revenue in taxes, something like 33 billion?

Yes indeed the health care costs for emphysema and COPD and cancers of lips,gums, larynx, tongue, esophagus and others are like 133 billion.

How far is the concept of vaccine taken if Brazil, China, Turkey, India and USA are still the 5 largest producers of tobacco? Wouldn't the recognition be that this harvest, about 20 billion worth of it has to be ended at least for human luxury use?

It's like after Fleming inventing penicillin somehow we are deluded to think its OK for products full of bacteria to be still on the store shelves and saying well we got penicillin we can also have these too - the penicillin will save us when we want it. That's not the concept of vaccination.

These are the same people who have no problem imprisoning others based on hearsay, and cops beating someone up because someone didn't look right.

It's much worse than that. Since this is Chicago we're talking about:

Official proceedings to remove Anthony Abbate from the Chicago Police Department began Tuesday with the airing of about 30 minutes of video showing the disgraced officer showboating and harassing patrons of a Northwest Side bar before he turns on the bartender, beating and kicking her.

The infamous recording -- played around the world -- largely has been seen in shorter snippets.

On Monday, city attorneys aired lengthy portions of the recording to highlight how events unfolded at Jesse's Short Stop Inn in the afternoon and evening of Feb. 19, 2007. The additional video shown in the hearing has not been released because Abbate's case is ongoing.

During two visits to the bar, Abbate consumed large quantities of alcohol and persistently harassed and physically abused patrons and the bartender, Karolina Obrycka, according to the attorneys and the charges filed against him by Police Superintendent Jody Weis.

Abbate, already convicted in criminal court for the felony aggravated battery of Obrycka, faces dismissal from the department before the Chicago Police Board. The board conducts hearings and determines punishment. Weis is seeking his dismissal.

Abbate invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination at least 75 times during questioning by city attorney Anna L. D'Ascenzo, who repeatedly asked Abbate to identify himself on the recording.

"You pounce on Karolina Obrycka," said D'Ascenzo, referring to the video. "You throw her to the ground. ... You grab fistfuls of hair."

The cops claim it's an "isolated incident". Riiiiight.... Yeah, isolated. Stuff like that seldom happens. BTW, those links are from Google's first page of a search for "Chicago police beatings". One of them has a video of a cop beating the holy shit out of a "special needs" student for refusing to tuck his shirt in.

Is it any wonder people in the ghetto have nothing but fear, loathing, and hatred for the police? Anybody who says "but if I'm not brealing the law" are woefully ignorant.

Don't click thoise links if you're easily pissed off, or are one of those "law and order" folks. There is little law and less order.

Dude, I don't know where you get your figures, hell I wish they were true, but according to this and this and every other thing I've read Intel made sure that AMD never rose above 20% of the CPU market. Sure they were popular with small system builders, that is what I'm typing this on as a matter of fact, but you have no idea how many boxes a Dell or HP cranks out in a year. I would argue that AMD wouldn't be in the shape they are now if Intel hadn't rigged the game.

As far as if Intel VS Google is a perfect comparison, no. At least not yet. We'll have to see the exact wording of the contracts (which I'm sure will be kept secret barring some whistle blower) to know for sure. I'd personally like to see EXACTLY how the payments are structured. If they offer X for selling...say 20% Android, and X+Y for 50% and X+Y+Z for 80%+? Then I would say that it is NO different than Intel, whose deals for buying only Intel were so good one likened it to cocaine. Don't think that just because Android is FOSS that makes it magic fairy dust that keeps it from doing evil.

When you are talking about the stakes here, nothing less than dominance of one of the biggest sources of news, info, and potential revenue, then the temptation by players to try to "hedge their bets" WILL be high. And until/unless we get to see the contracts I doubt we'll know for sure whether Google has crossed a line or not. But I wouldn't be surprised if the EU is already starting to take a look at Google, simply because of the enormous power they wield. In the 90s MSFT was the 800 pound gorilla, now it is Google. It remains to be seen if having that much power will corrupt them or not.

Of course it is a bad scam preying on old people. But there are many such scams.

Burial is a bigger scam. We don't have an infinite supply of land or the labor to maintain deathways. Is cyro better? It would be hard to be worse. When I write my will (no wife/childrent) I will specify cremation and scattering. Ashes to ashes...