Slashdot Mirror

Microsoft did no such "bailout." Although Apple had experienced a single quarter of posting a loss of $67 million, at the time of the so-called bailout, Apple had been operating in the black for two quarters, had more than $1.2 BILLION in cash and liquid assets, and had never been in danger of insolvency. There was no "bailout"... what happened was something else entirely... a settlement of cross complaint lawsuits involving intellectual property that Microsoft had misappropriated from Apple's Quicktime, without removing the serial numbers, so to speak, to create their own media player software.

Microsoft paid Apple $150,000,000 for some restricted, non-voting, preferred stock as part of a lawsuit settlement which Microsoft basically LOST. In addition to the stock purchase, as part of the settlement agreements, MS had to continue development and marketing of MS Office for Mac for an additional five years, they had to license certain software patents FROM Apple for an additional undisclosed yearly amount for five years, and, in addition, license TO Apple, in perpetuity, certain software patents that MS owned at NO COST to Apple.

For its part, Apple had to issue 10,000,000 shares of stock (i.e. printed up a stock certificate), license the software patents to MS (and made a profit), and install Internet Explorer along with Netscape Navigator on new Macs (but not make it the default browser) for five years.

This settlement was published in the contemporary computer and business press at the time it occurred The three interlocking agreements implementing the settlements, and the Judge's dismissal of both Apple's and MS's lawsuits in light of the settlement, are available on line for those caring to seek them out.

So can we just drop it?

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree - a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states. To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.

Note the kinds of evidence they use: they cite scientific consensus (even though there really wasn't any), anecdotal evidence that is probably not related, and the fear factor of starving people.

Now, this was in 1976, and the scientific community was already starting to the global warming idea, but it obviously the popular literature hadn't caught up yet. If you go back farther, scientists were talking a little more about global cooling (although as a somewhat distant thing, ice ages and all that). I had a textbook from the late 50s that mentioned global warming, and suggested some methods to mitigate the problems (cover glaciers with black fabric, etc).

Regardless, anyone who lived through the 1970s and remembers people worrying about global cooling is justified in their belief, because there were people trying to spread global cooling hysteria.

"It works very much like public schools. People will bemoan the fact that schools are not doing well, except the school their child attends."

Around here, people complain a LOT about the school their child attends. Complaints include:

- No money for teaching French, but money to teach Spanish to kids that ONLY speak Spanish.

- No money for the arts, but money to fly a Mexican flag out front.

- No money for sports, but money to accept students from Mexico that take a bus across the border every day. Yes, every day of school. Yes, from Mexico. Oh, wait, they stopped that. Oh, wait, they didn't yet.

I don't know where you got your $1-$3/h for panhandling. Beggars make $50 a day from less than 6 hours of "work", depending on how good they are. Alcohol and drugs cost a lot of money if they aren't buying new cars like the Shaky Lady.
I know of a few who go into some shops daily to convert their change into bills. I've never seen anyone come in with less than $40 by the early afternoon.

The incident that spawned this database of children:

In spring 1999, Victoria Climbié (born 2 November 1991 in Abobo, Ivory Coast, died 25 February 2000 in St. Mary's Hospital, London) and her great aunt Marie-Thérèse Kouao arrived in London, sent by her parents for a chance of an education. A few months later, Kouao met Carl Manning on a bus which he was driving, and she and Victoria moved into his flat. It was here that she was abused, including being beaten with hammers, bike chains, and wires; being forced to sleep in a bin liner in the bath; and being tied up for periods of longer than 24 hours. Up to her death, the police, the social services of many local authorities, the NHS, the NSPCC, and local churches all had contact with her, and noted the signs of abuse. However, in what the judge in the trial following Victoria's death described as "blinding incompetence"

- Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contactpoint

I can guarantee you that if this child was not physically abused, but instead had a picture taken of her with her clothes off (like in a bathtub) then those guardians would have ended up being arrested immediately and the child taken into protective services.

Because in this day and age violence is acceptable (to a degree) and excusable (for "punishment"), but nudity and sexuality are considered threatening and abusive. It is a perverted society that we live in.

Actually, I'm under the impression that some of the bleeding obvious warning have little to do with "nature designing a bigger idiot" as with basically a law system where people can pretend to be idiots to sue for millions. And where juries of disgruntled anti-corporatist can actually decide to award an idiot that a company pays his medical bill, even when essentially ruling that the idiot is to blame for his own misfortune. Just because, you know, it would be somehow mean to tell a little old lady to pay for her own skin graft, when you can just take some money from a corporation to cover those costs.

E.g., "Wanda Hudson, 44, of Mobile, Ala. After Hudson lost her home to foreclosure, she moved her belongings to a storage unit. She says she was inside her unit one night "looking for some papers" when the storage yard manager found the door to her unit ajar -- and locked it. She denies that she was sleeping inside, but incredibly did not call for help or bang on the door to be let out! She was not found for 63 days and barely survived; the formerly "plump" 150-pound woman lived on food she just happened to have in the unit, and was a mere 83 pounds when she was found. She sued the storage yard for $10 million claiming negligence. Even though the jury was not allowed to learn that Hudson had previously diagnosed mental problems, it found Hudson was nearly 100 percent responsible for her own predicament -- but still awarded her $100,000."

Source: http://www.stellaawards.com/2003.html

Roll that around in your head. Even after ruling her responsible, they _still_ awarded her $100,000. God knows what for. Apparently just because it would be heartless _not_ to rob a company to pay for a trespasser's misfortune.

More worryingly, even warning signs really don't matter any more.

E.g., "Hornbeck volunteered for the Army and served a stint in Iraq. After getting home, he got drunk, wandered into a hotel's service area (passing "DANGER" warning signs), crawled into an air conditioning unit, and was severely cut when the machinery activated. Unable to care for himself due to his drunkenness, he bled to death. A tragedy, to be sure, but one solely caused by a supposedly responsible adult with military training. Despite his irresponsible behavior -- and his perhaps criminal trespassing -- Hornbeck's family sued the hotel for $10 million, as if it's reasonably foreseeable that some drunk fool would ignore warning signs and climb into its heavy duty machinery to sleep off his bender."

Source: http://www.stellaawards.com/2007.html

E.g., a woman sued Burger King after spilling the coffee onto her own lap, because, get this, although the cup did warn that the coffee is hot, the employee didn't also warn her verbally that it's dangerously hot. Because, you know, apparently otherwise it doesn't matter.

Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/806345/posts

Worse yet, in some parts you can even get to pay big bucks for something you didn't personally cause or had any way to cause or prevent.

E.g., when a hare-brained pyrotechnics stunt went wrong in a bar and resulted in a deadly blaze, it wasn't just the owners that had to pay. The list of those who were made to pay millions or had to reach a settlement (again in the millions), included the radio channel which aired an ad for the event, and the manufacturer of the beer they served there (and literally had no other involvement with the event, and likely only heard of it when they got sued), and the importer of that beer, and Home Depot who sold the material they used as insulation and which was ignited by their hare-brained pyrotechnics. (Although Home Depot never sold it as fire-proof or anything.)

Source, for example: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-02-13-540

Further reading on the Drake Equation "Religion".

Media Matters [mediamatters.org] is a media watchdog that is certainly politically motivated but frequently includes actual facts in their analysis. So it's a valid reference, and we can hope that readers will be intelligent enough to make up their own minds.

Media Matters is wrong. All you need to refute them is the recent list of sites that are being sued:

Conservative website among 3 sued over R-J copyrights

The article identifies Free Republic as one of the recently targeted websites.

To be fair, Media Matter's article pre-dates the suit against Free Republic.

Another pace car attempt http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/678348/posts

washington times = a list of individuals often labeled "right wing" (white supremacist), when chances are, they aren't "right wing" by any other definition than lumping bigots into that group. Except when bigotry is on the left (Black Panther, Nation of Islam etc) it is excused or marginalized where no such thing is afforded to the "right".

Gawker is just a repeat of the big "three" individual offenders listed in the WT article. If that is all the left has... that is pretty sad.

Daily Kos is nothing more than "faux news" for the left.

MN Publius article is interesting in that it simply ignores that violence against (R) offices. Again, for every alleged infraction of the "right" I can easily point to one from the left.

http://www.channel3000.com/politics/3776992/detail.html

not to mention all the "Fake" hate crimes that never happened ..

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/516936/posts

http://www.nationalreview.com/phi-beta-cons/39720/godmother-fake-hate-crimes

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/partial-list-of-fake-hate-crimes-2006-2007

Or the nice young man who was just guarding the polls

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/06/video-the-nice-young-man-eric-holder-left-off-the-hook/

Yeah, you can repeat the three "massive hate crimes" by large groups (meaning idividuals) of angry Right Wing Extremists (Lone Fringe kooks), but that is all you got.

I'm sorry that happened. I'm glad you were able to defend yourself (and your girlfriend).

    I did some hunting online about MAMAA (god, who thought of that name?). Lots of bitching about crime and even non-crime.

    I'm an advocate of self defense. My father started training me with them when I was about 8 years old. I've only had a few situations where I needed one handy (it may escalate), and have yet needed to use one.

    If the day comes where I need one, I'd rather have one, than be a victim.

    As I've known it, it's been safer to be in areas where you know everyone is armed.

    Places were people aren't legally armed, then only the criminal element has weapons (and the advantage). I know folks like MAMAA would counter that with "but the police are armed, and they're there to protect you." The police aren't everywhere all the time, and even a 5 minute response may be 4 minutes too late.

If we wanted to, we could start operating a bunch more of those fission reactors; they don't necessarily make economic sense given current market prices, but those markets probably don't accurately capture the consequences of other forms of energy production, and fission is certainly still energy positive (and it is probably energy positive to pull uranium out the sea).

Fission or fusion. Don't need either of them. I think nuclear fuels make perfect sense to run submarines, but for consumer use they are unnecessary. Algae biodiesel could supply our entire energy need. And has the added advantage of not making radioactive waste.

Don't get me wrong - if fusion pans out that would be fantastic. I did the math once and figured that you'd need about two olympic sized pools worth of water to separate into hydrogen to fuse into helium to handle north america's energy needs for a year. That would be magnificent. But the best source of power anywhere nearby is the sun.

Here, read this.

Also pretty great.

I would love to see something good that would move us away from the current paradigm of coal and oil.

Oh you joke, but my hometown (Southern OH, just North of Piketon on US 23) got in a little trouble a couple of years ago for accepting donations to the tune of something like $1000 to make your ticket disappear. Wish I could find a better source...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1894060/posts

Roland Wright speaks eloquently of another tragedy of the commons involving timber. This one took place on Easter Island, and it is a stark reminder to us all of what may come from presuming that our resources are infinite or necessarily renewable.

Easter Island is barren now. It was once heavily forested. But, as Wright recounts, "The people who felled the last tree could see it was the last, could know with complete certainty that there would never be another. And they felled it anyway."

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1285440/posts

Republicans have spent much more of your money, and committed you to spend way more (in debt payments, in unfunded mandates, in catastrophic misadventures like wars and deregulation) than Democrats ever have.

Um, as a "Doc", you can read right? Go read The Constitution and report back to me with which branch of the government controls spending.

In the mean time, here is a graph showing the party in control of congress vs the deficit. It came from the article here (so you can check the references and data).

There are numerous inaccuracies in your posting. The first is that US aircraft carriers are vulnerable to Sunburn antiship missiles. This seems quite unlikely given the rollout of the SeaRAM anti-missle system and the known effectiveness of Aegis systems.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/tilted-weaponry/30202-sea-ram-enables-improved-reach-out-touch-somebody-capability.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/966345/posts

And that assumes that the carrier even gets in range before the potential ASM launch sites are annihilated.

Oh, yes, this is fun, while doing some searches to find out the current status of this bill I ran across this thread.

Some choice quotes:

Five Republican representatives - Chris Smith, Frank Wolf, Joe Pitts, Trent Franks and Anh "Joseph" Cao - have written a letter to Ugandan President Yoweri Mouseveni pressing him to stop pending legislation that would severely criminalize homosexuality and sometimes impose the death penalty for homosexual acts.

replies:

To: markomalley
Are these Log Cabin Republicans ?
4 posted on Wed 23 Dec 2009 02:58:08 CET by libh8er

To: markomalley
I'd like to get a copy of the bill and introduce it here...
7 posted on Wed 23 Dec 2009 03:05:28 CET by maddog55 (Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.)

To: maddog55
And they wonder why they lose elections and constituents
TEABAGGER or FISTER you decide
9 posted on Wed 23 Dec 2009 03:10:48 CET by eyeamok

To: eyeamok
Republicans have become so gay.Pray for the Republic.
11 posted on Wed 23 Dec 2009 03:14:10 CET by MotorCityBuck ( Keep the change, you filthy animal!)

To: ElectronVolt; darkangel82
If these congressmen or whatever they are wrote strongly worded letters to every government around the world for every repressive law, then their actions, if not making sense, would at least be consistent.
Do they write letters to all the Muslim countries protesting their laws against freedom of speech and religion? Making it a crime to be a Christian/Jew/Buddhist/Hindu?
No?
Then they should STFU about Uganda's internal business.
Are homosexual acts so sacred and worthy that protesting laws against them should be more important than other laws in other countries that legalize torture and death for all manner of freedoms we take for granted?
This is just a sop to their pevert constituency.
16 posted on Wed 23 Dec 2009 03:39:11 CET by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)

To: markomalley
Bravo for Uganda for not allowing the homosexualization of their country.
35 posted on Thu 24 Dec 2009 01:38:58 CET by Neoliberalnot ((Freedom's Precious Metals: Gold, Silver and Lead))

A genocidal hell hole indeed.

You forgot that the founder of the ACLU proudly proclaimed that they functioned as "a transmission belt" for the communist party.

No, the General Secretary of the Communist Party said that. In the 1930s. (source)

Yes, but it make hunting them much easier.

[citation needed]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1924058/posts

I FAILED

Were you seriously to expect liberals to respond to insults towards someone who will not hurt them in revenge ? Why ? Sure it would be immoral to aim gratuitous insults at someone who will not respond to them, but you know, there's no such thing as moral or immoral. Besides you're such a depressing medieval white male to say such a thing, right ?

Now if Bush would have ordered the killing of a journalist or some such. Then, obviously, you would have seen them falling over their own feet censoring themselves, apologizing and groveling. But attacking Bush was cheap. Whatever else Bush was, he is a man of principles, and will never attack an American for any speech whatsoever. Even if it's personal slander he would not do so. So all shots at Bush are cheap shots, certain to go without retribution. Of course that sort of thinking means liberals think Obama's capable of attacking and destroying individuals. Of course they want him to do so. Too many people in America are defending obvious facts or truths, like that communism, and communist policies like national health care, don't work. Lower quality, more expenses, "government cutbacks" and so on are the obvious results, and in medicine such things lead to deaths for obvious reasons. Evident. Proven time and again in economics. Forbidden to say in any liberal paper.

Besides, liberals are right ... Obama, the president of America, does attack individuals and companies, and even the sort of departments he doesn't like (ever notice how liberals complain to no end about ignoring "inconvenient truths" and then their elected candidate does this). Singling them out and using the office of the president to attack political adversaries.

And of course, here's exactly how Obama won't raise taxes for his friends : all his friends are criminals, tax evaders to be precise. Perhaps we should get his message.

It's not that I care all that much about these people or companies. I just worry who's next. I get the impression more and more people do so.

Here you go: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/867178/posts

That link has information about America's initial support for Saddam Hussein. Although that man, certainly, does qualify as a butcher of generations, the US did not install him — we merely supported him once he gained power on his own...

Your example thus does not qualify... Want to try again? Remember, you have to find an example of America killing a Socialist leader and installing in his place "a brutal military dictator who will slaughter his people for generations to come."

People are leaving that organization in droves.

I would beg to differ. Several top Google hits suggest that they are growing, but at a rate less than the world population. Thus, as a percentage of world population, Catholocism is shrinking, but it's still growing in numbers. People are not, as you suggest, leaving it in droves.

Another great statistic I just found was that an average of 171,000 Christians are "martyred" for their faith every year. That's pretty wild! I'd make a joke about some well-fed Roman lions, but that would be in very poor taste.

we will kill you and install a brutal military dictator who will slaughter your people for generations to come.

Citations needed

Here you go:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/867178/posts

Maybe what the GP is trying to say, is that, by mining, some fields were leveled?

Nothing makes me happier than to realize we are taking the lead, by plundering 36 thousand acres to put up some windmills that can only serve 150 thousand houses (WHEN THERE IS WIND), and will pay for it to a foreign government down the road.

Build a nuke plant. That will bring money to America, and it will create real jobs, take up far less area, and provide for more houses.

This nuclear plant in Ohio is on a 953-acre plot, which uses 733 acres as a wildlife refuge. Therefore, (953 - 733 = 220) acres are used for the actual nuclear plant, and it provides 879 MW, which is (879 - 600 = 279) MW more power than the wind mills. For (36,000 - 220 = 35,780) fewer acres, you can provide for more houses in a reliable manner, as well as a clean one (nuclear plants are just glorified boiling water plants with a radioactive byproduct that can be safely stored on, or off site in a place smaller than the size of a football field for all plants across the US; also, the byproduct could be reused if the government would rewrite a law that blocks that very act).

So, one is going to destroy a huge amount of the planet to make (hint: wind turbines), and one will be better in ever other way, except the production of a byproduct that can be easily stored in a very small location.

A rebuttal to the "socialist agencies" comment I quoted is here by "hiram":
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2009/08/a_savage_mob.html

Hiram makes some good points. Still, is not regulation of monopolies something you need a government for? Also, much drug research is fundamentally based on publicly funded (NIH) studies. Also, broadcast media was in general much better for families when there was an equal time law and restrictions against advertising to children. So, some of the problems he points to are the result of deregulation as well as shifting government resources away from "butter" and into "guns". I agree public schooling is a big problem (see John Taylor Gatto and my other post).

We need to separate out various functions of government like regulation and oversight or taxing and redistributing wealth for legitimate public purposes (including avoiding a concentration of wealth that is bad for democracy, like with a progressive tax up to 91% under Roosevelt after WWII) from the issue of who actually provides the services.

But, as I said earlier, take a look at this video of a high speed robot hand from Japan and tell me *anything* about our economy will make sense as-is in ten or twenty years:
http://www.hizook.com/blog/2009/08/03/high-speed-robot-hand-demonstrates-dexterity-and-skillful-manipulation

Or even this:
From:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2159038/posts http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/02/AR2009010202191.html
"Armed robotic aircraft soar in the skies above Pakistan, hurling death down on America's enemies in the war on terrorism. Soon -- years, not decades, from now -- American armed robots will patrol on the ground as well, fundamentally transforming the face of battle. Conventional war, even genocide, may be abolished by a robotic American Peace.
The detachment with which the United States can inflict death upon our enemies is surely one reason why U.S. military involvement around the world has expanded over the past two decades. The excellence of American military technology makes it possible for U.S. forces to inflict vast damage upon the enemy while suffering comparatively modest harm in return. ...
The rapid emergence of the armed unmanned air vehicles (UAVs) that roam over Pakistan is a sequel to Moore's Law. Onboard computers became far more powerful, so automatic pilots became far more competent. Signal processors became more sophisticated, facilitating collection and processing of more interesting intelligence. Global Positioning System receivers shrank and could be economically employed on small robotic aircraft. Precision-guided munitions could deliver lethal firepower. And so forth. ...
The U.S. Navy has arguably moved farthest toward substituting treasure for blood. A generation ago the Reagan administration brought World War II-era battleships out of mothballs to provide gunfire support to onshore operations. With a crew of more than 1,500, these ships were designed to be manned by the low-paid draftees of the 1940s, not the more amply rewarded volunteers of the 1980s. The Navy couldn't afford them, and the ships were soon returned to mothballs. In their place, the Navy came up with the new DDG-1000 Zumwalt destroyer, an automated warship with a crew of only 150."

I came across that while looking what the freepers say about robots:
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/robot/index?tab=articles

Anyway, many conservatives don't get it about technology invalidating muc

A rebuttal to the "socialist agencies" comment I quoted is here by "hiram":
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2009/08/a_savage_mob.html

Hiram makes some good points. Still, is not regulation of monopolies something you need a government for? Also, much drug research is fundamentally based on publicly funded (NIH) studies. Also, broadcast media was in general much better for families when there was an equal time law and restrictions against advertising to children. So, some of the problems he points to are the result of deregulation as well as shifting government resources away from "butter" and into "guns". I agree public schooling is a big problem (see John Taylor Gatto and my other post).

We need to separate out various functions of government like regulation and oversight or taxing and redistributing wealth for legitimate public purposes (including avoiding a concentration of wealth that is bad for democracy, like with a progressive tax up to 91% under Roosevelt after WWII) from the issue of who actually provides the services.

But, as I said earlier, take a look at this video of a high speed robot hand from Japan and tell me *anything* about our economy will make sense as-is in ten or twenty years:
http://www.hizook.com/blog/2009/08/03/high-speed-robot-hand-demonstrates-dexterity-and-skillful-manipulation

Or even this:
From:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2159038/posts http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/02/AR2009010202191.html
"Armed robotic aircraft soar in the skies above Pakistan, hurling death down on America's enemies in the war on terrorism. Soon -- years, not decades, from now -- American armed robots will patrol on the ground as well, fundamentally transforming the face of battle. Conventional war, even genocide, may be abolished by a robotic American Peace.
The detachment with which the United States can inflict death upon our enemies is surely one reason why U.S. military involvement around the world has expanded over the past two decades. The excellence of American military technology makes it possible for U.S. forces to inflict vast damage upon the enemy while suffering comparatively modest harm in return. ...
The rapid emergence of the armed unmanned air vehicles (UAVs) that roam over Pakistan is a sequel to Moore's Law. Onboard computers became far more powerful, so automatic pilots became far more competent. Signal processors became more sophisticated, facilitating collection and processing of more interesting intelligence. Global Positioning System receivers shrank and could be economically employed on small robotic aircraft. Precision-guided munitions could deliver lethal firepower. And so forth. ...
The U.S. Navy has arguably moved farthest toward substituting treasure for blood. A generation ago the Reagan administration brought World War II-era battleships out of mothballs to provide gunfire support to onshore operations. With a crew of more than 1,500, these ships were designed to be manned by the low-paid draftees of the 1940s, not the more amply rewarded volunteers of the 1980s. The Navy couldn't afford them, and the ships were soon returned to mothballs. In their place, the Navy came up with the new DDG-1000 Zumwalt destroyer, an automated warship with a crew of only 150."

I came across that while looking what the freepers say about robots:
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/robot/index?tab=articles

Anyway, many conservatives don't get it about technology invalidating muc

The Coral link isn't loading for me, either... I found a scaled down version that gives readers a decent idea of what it looks like, though.

Venezuala is almost totally dependent on American refineries to process it's sour crude. The US could cripple the country tomorrow if it wanted.

Maybe that's why they're making deals with the Chinese to process their crude.

Although watermelons and corn can make biofuels: I offer you a much better alternative: Kudzu vine. It's already been synthesized into kudzuhol Kudzu grows up to a foot a day, it's the vine that ate the south. It just seems a waste to convert perfectly good food to biofuel.

Home to the worlds largest watermelon!

Actually, a number of ex-Iraqi military officials claimed that Russia flew them out of Iraq and some were moved to Syria.

This claim was made in a book as well as taped interviews with a couple different people. I'm not sure that it's possible to verify the claims, at the time frame it supposedly happened Iraq was supposedly sending aid to Syria due to a damn breaking and a massive flood whcih was an increase in both air and land traffic from Iraq.

Here is another link with a little more detail about the claims but it seems to be just as biased. It has a few more references though.

How about smaller convenience store chains that purchase huge life insurance policies on employees and then station them in neighborhoods where there is a good chance that they will be killed on the job? There is more than one way to profit on the backs of your employees.

It's been done.

I don't know. I think maybe you are falling for the because I saw it, it must be true logic problem. Education is actually controlled by each state and the territories by the federal government. Some states write broads guidelines and leave it to the counties to fill in the gaps. This is something the NCLBA was supposed to address by creating a guideline of what should be expected for a student to know after each grade level and supposedly if the states created a standard similar enough, tested the student's abilities and then showed progress when they didn't meet that, they were going to get a certain amount of federal funding to be used. Of course this was met with mass resistance when the teachers couldn't pass the performance tests.

The problem is that I do remember getting an overview on the rules of logic in the course before advanced geometry. We had to take pre-algebra for half a year and intro to geometry the other half in 7th or 8th grade, then two algebra courses, then an advanced geometry course another algebra course, pre-calculus and if you were advanced enough you moved on to calculus and AP courses. Of course there was other math course options like Statistics and what they called integrated math which focused generic math skills until you got to career tech integrated math that focused more on specific aspects and formulas for various industries like carpentry and house building, electronics, drafting, auto repair, and so on. So the problem isn't the HS math curriculum in the US, it's the HS math Curriculum in certain states or counties within the US.

There is no one place to make any change to the schools procedures or curriculum.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/930731/posts

Most of the younger Chinese I've met knew about a lot of this, or learned rather quickly (and I've had a number of Chinese friends over the last few years). However the young seem more inclined to disbelief of propaganda, whereas the older ones I've met seem to have grown to accept it.

Of course many of my Chinese friends also believe(d) that ducks can't fly (not my blog). It seems that without experiencing something directly when caught between sources of (mis)information, many will rely on what they see.

Populating the Internet probably wouldn't hurt things. However, one thing that I must admit is that while few in the know deny that the T Square events DID occur, I've heard some very mixed stories about how things came to that point, and many of the controversial ones mention meddling in Chinese politics by certain overseas governments/entities, which isn't an entirely new concept these days either.

Manifest Desitny? Surely you jest. Tanks for the reading comprehension fail. Also, you need to get out of your ghetto more. Head on over to the GOP base HQ and find out all kinds of interesting things about your country.

Oh, snappy comeback with the tired and cliched /. "fail". You forgot to throw "profit" in there somewhere.
I don't get all my "info" from a single website or blog; so who needs to get out of their ghetto more?

Manifest Desitny? Surely you jest.

Tanks for the reading comprehension fail. Also, you need to get out of your ghetto more. Head on over to the GOP base HQ and find out all kinds of interesting things about your country.

I see a hell of a lot more of that attitude coming from the EU

Funny, I haven't. Unless you're talking about differences in opinions vis-a-vis what constitutes torture and war crimes. And frankly, they're right about that.

Yes, I do.

Freaking hilarious. While it's possible that original troll is just an imitation of stupidity as opposed to the real thing, your reasoning is tortured.

— not GP AC

I'm not sure which part you're referring to, but as with many others, I didn't care, I use djbdns, not bind.

If there's a rash of break-ins in your hometown you don't recommend that every home owner goes out and buys a gun.
You're correct; you don't recommend it, you make it mandatory! It has been very effective, at least in Kennesaw, Georgia. In fact, I'm pretty sure if we declared open season on pirates and turned enough rednecks loose on them with a sufficient supply of bullets and beer, the piracy problem would be pretty quickly resolved.

All the testosterone and gung-ho aside, how about not giving them a reason to pirate? It seems that nobody here realizes that the Somali pirates are doing what they do because other nations illegal fishing (worth an estimated 300 million) in the region have depleted their fish stocks while the UN turned a blind eye. To add insult to injury, there's been some toxic waste dumping off the coast.

So while the media distraction du jour clearly has many of you foaming at the mouth, try to realize that Somali pirates, much like our own domestic media pirates, are doing what they do because they system has failed them and they see piracy as the most feasible method to force change. The only difference between us and them is that they do it to put food on their table.

If there's a rash of break-ins in your hometown you don't recommend that every home owner goes out and buys a gun,

Actually, yes. And it works too. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1818862/posts

"The Joint Strike Fighter, also known as the F-35 Lightning II, is the costliest and most technically challenging weapons program the Pentagon has ever attempted. The plane, led by Lockheed Martin Corp., relies on 7.5 million lines of computer code, which the Government Accountability Office said is more than triple the amount used in the current top Air Force fighter"

Ohh, fuck .. Lockheed's F-22 Raptor Gets Zapped by International Date Line

I recall one where the pilot wondered what would happen if he pressed the 'gear up' lever while still on the ground. The gear retracted and the aircraft was severely damaged.

My favourite false information story. KABOOM! :)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1071087/posts

The sixth generation aircraft is already in the drawing boards. Check this link.
The fighters are not going anywhere and the only thing going to the sidelines is manned fighters and that is not about to happen anytime soon (given the present state of technology).

Getting a bullet through the head does NOT mean you die

depends on what you shoot - AK47's 7.62x39mm will take your head apart.

I haven't seen a BSOD in almost a decade.

OK, here's one to refresh your memory.

No, they haven't changed that much.

Where are the posts comparing Obama to Hitler? Would Stalin be a better comparison?

I can't stomach the idiocy, but feel free to dig around Free Republic, WorldNet Daily, Powerline, Patriot Room, etc.

You'll find all manner of unpleasant things compared to Obama as well as cute backronyms of his name and the cold creeping realization that some people actually believe the batshit crazy things they are saying.

I was once told, point blank, by a captain of the New Castle police department that, quote "his job was not to protect me from criminals, his job was to arrest me for not toeing the line."

He probably told you that because he is a psychopath with a badge and a gun.

But, according the the Supreme Court, he is correct.

The seminal case establishing the general rule that police have no duty under federal law to protect citizens is DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (109 S.Ct. 998, 1989; 489 U.S. 189 (1989)).

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1976377/posts:
"Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole."

"It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."

Sources:

7/15/05 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES
On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Mrs. Gonzales' husband with a track record of violence, stabbing Mrs. Gonzales to death, Mrs. Gonzales' family could not get the Supreme Court to change their unanimous decision for one's individual protection. YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN FOLKS AND GOVERNMENT BODIES ARE REFUSING TO PASS THE Safety Ordinance.

(1) Richard W. Stevens. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Hartford, Wisconsin: Mazel Freedom Press.

(2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).

(3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).

(4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).

(5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).

(6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).
"...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)

(7) "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her."
Riss"Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your f