Slashdot Mirror

Mind you, I haven't noticed public confidence in the British electoral system plummeting since the Guardian published an article on vote-rigging in Britain in 2001. This could be because no-one reads the Guardian.

According to this article on The Guardian there are already questions about certain e-elections. The problem, as I see it, is that allegations like these can be made but it is impossible to refute them. Once the integrity of the process comes into serious question public confidence and participation can be expected to plummet.

It's not a bad url. perhaps you didn't remove the space? Try this.

The "Patriot" Act was passed without some Congressmen and women even reading it. It was named that to intimidate members of Congress. Vote against this bill and you will be against patriotism!

The "Patriot" Act was supposed to protect us against people who want to destroy our entire society. Now its being used to harass citizens who do something stupid, and have no political motive. If they get away with this, you will see more and more extensions of government police power. History has shown that, even if they don't get away with it, they will try again.

More and more we are seeing examples of prosecutors who don't want sensible justice, but who just want other people to hurt, because of their own personal mental issues. Last week the Oprah Winfrey show provided another example: An 18-year-old man had sex with a 16-year-old woman at his school. (Big surprise, there.) Later she accused him of rape, and he was found NOT guilty. But he was put into prison for 10 years anyway. The prosecutor said that was entirely justified, and that he had no problems with the punishment.

The U.S. government is rapidly becoming more corrupt. Here are just a few examples:

Killing people and destroying their property:
N.Y. Times editorial
"... Americans paid Ahmad Chalabi to gull them into a war that is costing them a billion a week and a precious human cost."

Lying about scientific facts:
"The Bush administration has deliberately and systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals..."
N.Y. Times
The Guardian
Wired News
Union of Concerned Scientists

The present terrorism against the U.S. people is partly the result of the U.S. government's secret violence:
About a year ago, I hastily put together a short, incomplete history that shows what has happened: History surrounding the U.S. war with Iraq: Four short stories.

The real reason

That would seem ironic, considering it's apparent origins:

From the Guardian

Ms Fonda is reviled by many Vietnam vets for her wartime visit to Hanoi, and the image was widely aired over the internet by a fringe group of Vietnam veterans who have pursued a vendetta against Mr Kerry for years.

In less than a week, the forgery travelled from a message board on a rightwing website to a Vietnam veterans' mailing list to mainstream organisations. Two British national newspapers - the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday - used the photograph in editions on Friday last week and at the weekend.

Fair comment. Do they?

Britain should have been bombed even more then, because not only do our women vote, and most of the rest also apply, but we even had a woman Prime Minister (Margaret Thatcher). And there's the Queen of course.

I realise your last line is probably a signature, but imagine the following hypothetical conversation:

Arabs: Here are our problems.
Americans: (fingers in ears) La la la I'm not listening!
Arabs: Here are our problems.
Americans: (fingers in ears) La la la I'm not listening!
Arabs: Here are our problems.
Americans: (fingers in ears) La la la I'm not listening!
Arabs: Right, we want you dead.
Americans: Blimey, there's no reasoning with you people!

As I said, purely hypothetical. Who, exactly, can't be reasoned with in this completely made up, imaginary, hypothetical, and probably thoroughly inaccurate scenario?

There are 5 standing D-Notices:
1. Military operations, plans and capabilities
2. Nuclear and Non-Nuclear Weapons and Equipment
3. Ciphers and secure communications
4. Sensitive Installations and Home Addresses
5. UK Security and Intelligence services and special forces

In addition, the government tried to bury stories relating to the northern Irish spy Stakeknife after it was discovered that the UK armed forces had been targetting irish nationals for assassinations. This was around 2000-2001 and I don't have urls to hand but cryptome files many of the stories.
More recently the army stopped a radio 4 interview from going ahead.

They never said they hate the idea of a free, tolerant, pluralistic society - they hate the result brought to them because of it....

Did ANYONE EVER read the letter from Bin Laden to the "United States".

Here's an article from the Observer containing the full translated text.

Here's some key pieces of the text for those who are too lazy to click on the link:


Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:

(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.

a) You attacked us in Palestine:

(i) Palestine, which has sunk under military occupation for more than 80 years. The British handed over Palestine, with your help and your support, to the Jews, who have occupied it for more than 50 years; years overflowing with oppression, tyranny, crimes, killing, expulsion, destruction and devastation. The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its*price, and pay for it heavily.


And here's a part regarding liberty and freedom...


(3) You may then dispute that all the above does not justify aggression against civilians, for crimes they did not commit and offenses in which they did not partake:

(a) This argument contradicts your continuous repetition that America is the land of freedom, and its leaders in this world. Therefore, the American people are the ones who choose their government by way of their own free will; a choice which stems from their agreement to its policies. Thus the American people have chosen, consented to, and affirmed their support for the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, the occupation and usurpation of their land, and its continuous killing, torture, punishment and expulsion of the Palestinians. The American people have the ability and choice to refuse the policies of their Government and even to change it if they want.


Again, it's out of context, you need to read the letter to understand the point he's making.
I don't necessarily agree with what he's saying, but let's get the facts straight. It's not that they hate a free society, but they hate the fact that this free society allowed the oppression they've supposedly felt.

I have a feeling that if history occured differently, there would be a bit more acceptance for the things he argues against later in the letter (such as gambling, drug use, ... things he considers sins against Allah). If you read the whole letter you'll notice a lot of it has to do with Palestine....

It's the younger generations who will have to keep an eye open for such things, and I'm afraid (quite literally) that we're doing a terrible job. (Reading things like this doesn't exactly brighten our future either.)

The problem is, I think, that while a lot of people know what Hitler & friends did, very few young people are aware of how exactly he managed to obtain a position of power.

"Pyongyang has issued a series of threats, including one to 'destroy the earth'"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,865 094,00.html
http://nuclearno.com/text.asp?4681

It was on a couple television channels etc. It was hysterical for awhile (I think either Dennis Miller or Jon Stewart had a particularly witty comment on it but I can't remember it). The point was taht due to the fact that they routinely threaten to destory the world anyway, they wouldn't get much symapthy if ti suddenly turned out that they themselves were about to get destroyed. Sort of like the bully who suddenly is begging for protection from a bigger bully - most people even if they had an obligation wouldn't go out of their way to protect them.

Courtesy of Amerikans Support TV Executions

Poll: Many Americans Support TV Executions

Monday February 23, 2004 8:46 PM

NEW YORK (AP) - Two-thirds of Americans polled last month said they support the idea of televising executions and 21 percent said they'd pay to watch Osama bin Laden put to death.

Eleven percent said they would pay to see Saddam Hussein executed.

The opinions on executions came in a poll taken by Harris Interactive for the Trio cable channel.

Even though the poll found support for the idea, 54 percent said they wouldn't watch an execution on television.

Harris Interactive interviewed 1,017 Americans aged 18 or older at random Jan. 24-26. The margin of error for the sample is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

Not suprising, given that over 50% of adults in the
U.S. read at or below the Grade 5 level.

Cheers,
Kilgore Trout

But the power was never in the parliament anyway, which is why the reformers boycotted the elections and the conservatives won in a landslide. The power is in the hands of the Guardian Council, which are the ones that brought matters to a head by banning hundreds of reformist MPs from standing for reelection.

According to a recent Pentagon report...within the next 20 years.

Philippa Forrester was hotter. And Robot Wars hasn't been the same since she left either. The Guardian interview she discusses her techy gadgets.

Courtesy of
The Guardian

Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us

Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years
Threat to the world is greater than terrorism

Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York
Sunday February 22, 2004

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'

The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority.

The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.

An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is 'plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately', they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.

Last week the Bush administration came under heavy fire from a large body of respected scientists who claimed that it cherry-picked science to suit its policy agenda and suppressed studies that it did not like. Jeremy Symons, a former whistleblower at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said that suppression of the report for four months was a further example of the White House trying to bury the threat of climate change.

Senior climatologists, however, believe that their verdicts could prove the catalyst in forcing Bush to accept climate change as a real and happening phenomenon. They also hope it will convince the United States to sign up to global treaties to reduce the rate of climatic change.

A group of eminent UK scientists recently visited the White House to voice their fears over global warming, part of an intensifying drive to get the US to treat the issue seriously. Sources have told The Observer that American officials appeared extremely sensitive about the issue when faced with complaints that America's public stance appeared increasingly out of touch.

One even alleged that the White House had written to complain about some of the comments attributed to Professor Sir David King, Tony Blair's chief scientific adviser, after he branded the President's position on the issue as indefensible.

Among those scientists present at the White House talks were Professor John Schellnhuber, former chief environmental adviser to the German government and head of the UK's leading group of climate scientists at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.

Courtesy of The Guardian :

Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us

Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years
Threat to the world is greater than terrorism

Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York
Sunday February 22, 2004

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'

The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority.

The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.

An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is 'plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately', they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.

Last week the Bush administration came under heavy fire from a large body of respected scientists who claimed that it cherry-picked science to suit its policy agenda and suppressed studies that it did not like. Jeremy Symons, a former whistleblower at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said that suppression of the report for four months was a further example of the White House trying to bury the threat of climate change.

Senior climatologists, however, believe that their verdicts could prove the catalyst in forcing Bush to accept climate change as a real and happening phenomenon. They also hope it will convince the United States to sign up to global treaties to reduce the rate of climatic change.

A group of eminent UK scientists recently visited the White House to voice their fears over global warming, part of an intensifying drive to get the US to treat the issue seriously. Sources have told The Observer that American officials appeared extremely sensitive about the issue when faced with complaints that America's public stance appeared increasingly out of touch.

One even alleged that the White House had written to complain about some of the comments attributed to Professor Sir David King, Tony Blair's chief scientific adviser, after he branded the President's position on the issue as indefensible.

Among those scientists present at the White House talks were Professor John Schellnhuber, former chief environmental adviser to the German government and head of the UK's leading group of climate scientists at the Tyndall Centre for Clim

It should also be made available via the Freedom of Information Act because we have a right to know that our information is being protected. Good luck. Hell if non top-secret energy documents are kept from the public, you should know that they'll throw a "We're protecting the infrastructure from terrorists... Even mother nature (sorry I can't get over the mother nature humor)

Geez I feel safe already. It's not like any teenager could break into a gov website or anything. Makes me warm and fuzzy inside. And in more "E"lated news... The US government announces the greatest terrorist to walk the planet... Mother Nature, and her Weather of Mass Destruction

Looking up "security" and "stolen passport" in Google leads to interesting stories. Looks like some EU countries have "misplaced" tens of thousands of blank passports, which got stolen right from the storage rooms of passport offices. What good is it to have holographic imprints in the paper if you put the blanks it in a badly protected drawer? And remember, boys and girls, such a passport gives you access to all the EU, 'cuz Europeans don't need no big bad borders no more. You cannot more clearly proclaim "Scum of all Earth, come deal and traffic in our countries!"

In this story, British journalists demonstrated how easy it is to claim your passport has been stolen and to get a new one issued to a fake identity. And still in sunny UK, another story shows that about 3000 passports a year, sent through 1st class mail, get lost or stolen in the mail. And there are tons more.

So before they start retina-scanning people in public places, maybe the EU gummints could tighten their abysmally unsecure procedures just a tad?

It turns out that more than 80% percent of the worlds research studies and almost all of the long term studies recomends that sugar should only should account for no more than 10-15% of a healthy diet. WHO recomends 10% based on their own studies, other university studies recomends 15%
Despite this, the Bush administartion and the official US position on this is that a 25% limit is "better". They site their own researchers; most of them are sponsored by sugar companies and their lobby organizations.

Some links:
Sugar industry threatens to scupper WHO
US accused of sabotaging obesity strategy
US sugar barons 'block global war on obesity'

So just because the current presidents whants to get reelcted thousands of americans will die in the future from diabetes and hearth problems.

It turns out that more than 80% percent of the worlds research studies and almost all of the long term studies recomends that sugar should only should account for no more than 10-15% of a healthy diet. WHO recomends 10% based on their own studies, other university studies recomends 15%
Despite this, the Bush administartion and the official US position on this is that a 25% limit is "better". They site their own researchers; most of them are sponsored by sugar companies and their lobby organizations.

Some links:
Sugar industry threatens to scupper WHO
US accused of sabotaging obesity strategy
US sugar barons 'block global war on obesity'

So just because the current presidents whants to get reelcted thousands of americans will die in the future from diabetes and hearth problems.

It turns out that more than 80% percent of the worlds research studies and almost all of the long term studies recomends that sugar should only should account for no more than 10-15% of a healthy diet. WHO recomends 10% based on their own studies, other university studies recomends 15%
Despite this, the Bush administartion and the official US position on this is that a 25% limit is "better". They site their own researchers; most of them are sponsored by sugar companies and their lobby organizations.

Some links:
Sugar industry threatens to scupper WHO
US accused of sabotaging obesity strategy
US sugar barons 'block global war on obesity'

So just because the current presidents whants to get reelcted thousands of americans will die in the future from diabetes and hearth problems.

Here is some already formatted HTML you can copy into your email client (preferably Mozilla). Remember to remove the blank spaces Slashdot puts in URLs.

U.S. government corruption: Two Stories

Killing and destroying property
N.Y. Times editorial:
"... Americans paid Ahmad Chalabi to gull them into a war that is costing them a billion a week and a precious human cost."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/15/opinion/15DOWD.h tml?ex=1077956111&ei=1&en=a6370df01dc83363

Lying about scientific facts
"The Bush administration has deliberately and systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals..."
N.Y. Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/18/science/18CND-RE SE.html?ex=1077771600&en=fe9176d8d470477b&ei=5062& partner=GOOGLE
The Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,115118 7,00.html
Wired News:
http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,62339,00. html
Union of Concerned Scientists:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/rsire lease.html

Well considering that only one of the examples had anything to do with christian moral issues, I don't think it is fair to jump to that conclusion.

Hawking thinks that humanity needs to genetically engineer ourselves to pre-emptively keep machines from taking us over.

Here's the article

Interesting observation. I've seen videos of the side effects on cows with Posilac. I'm not sure what would be mastitis, per se, but I can tell you that what I saw was cruel and repugnant.

The udders would sometimes be swollen and almost dragging on the ground, impeding the cow's ability to walk, and there would be so much pus around the teats that the milking mechanisms would just slide off. There were an assortment other side effects as well.

Mind you, I do not know how often these things occur in untreated cows. The Canadian drug administration indicated a 25% increase in mastitis, among other symptoms (lameness, infertility, reduced life expectancy), and pointedly indicated a nominal increase in milk production. Indeed, from what I recall, the FDA had similar claims, which were erased from the final document.

There are other affects upon humans, that are equally absent from American publications.

That's fine. With the White House devaluing the dollar so quickly the upgrade will cost us the same as a Big Mac.

The end product will taste the same aswell.

Anyway, there are still three main candidates.
Some count Dean out, but he's still got plenty of money and is second in delegate count. Some count Edwards out, but I don't think that's fair either.

72 delegates tomorrow, 60 a week after that, and some 1200 on March 2nd, when California and New York finally get to weigh in. None of the home states of the three main guys has even voted yet!

Remember to check their Terms :
By submitting, posting or displaying any Materials on or through the orkut.com service, you automatically grant to us a worldwide, non-exclusive, sublicenseable, transferable, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right to copy, distribute, create derivative works of, publicly perform and display such Materials.

They invented their own licencse. What do you think if Micro$oft buyes Google ?
And its based on .aspx files....

I dont want to know how they care about data privacy

Well, the moral of the story, boys and girls, is that you shouldn't trust information you find on-line if you can't verify the source as someone you trust. Simple as that, really...

Online or offline. This isn't anything new here kids. If you put your trust in information whose source or quality can't be confirmed - you are an idiot.

Let me put this into terms that even a slashdot geek could understand:

Would you buy a dual Opteron workstation from some mysterious Romanian in a dark alley? Of course not, because its probably full of potatos. Would you buy a dual Opteron workstation from here or from here? Of course, because these are trusted sources.

Get it now??

Trust us Brits to come up with this - we had a news article on TV a while back about getting the ashes of your cremated loved ones turned into yellow diamonds ! The coloration comes from the nitrogen content of the ashes apparently.

It seems like the smartest people in the world has a large head and wears glasses.

Top secret Microsoft code leaked
Software giant Microsoft was today facing new embarrassment after it emerged that a portion of confidential source code for its Windows operating system had been posted on the internet.
The leak of the closely-guarded code to the Windows 2000 and Windows NT 4.0 operating systems, used in hundreds of millions of homes and businesses around the world, could leave users vulnerable to attacks from hackers.

Even if hackers choose not to use the code to cause chaos with private computers, its leaking could offer rivals a competitive edge against Microsoft, which has always maintained strict security over the coding at the heart of its product.

Source code is the intellectual property and lifeblood of any software company, because it is the basic language used to create software programs. The security level surrounding it is similar to that for the formula used in Coca-Cola's soft drinks.

Microsoft has only shared its source code with close partners and carefully-chosen organisations, and threatened legal action in the event that any of is leaked.

The leak is the latest worry to hit the company, which earlier this week admitted that there were serious security flaws in its latest edition of Windows, XP, which is popular with home users who are often unaware of security issues.

Microsoft released a "patch", or software upgrade, on its website, and urged all users to download it and secure their machines against hackers.

Last week, the company's servers came under attack from an email worm, MyDoom, which spread around the world and infected millions of computers running Windows operating systems.

In a statement posted on its website, Microsoft said: "It's illegal for third parties to post Microsoft source code, and we take such activity very seriously. We are currently investigating these postings, and are working with the appropriate law enforcement authorities.

"At this point, it does not appear that this is the result of any breach of Microsoft's corporate network or internal security. At this time, there is no known impact on customers. We will continue to monitor the situation."

Analysts said that such a leak had been likely to happen at some point. "I don't understand why it hasn't happened sooner, because there are so many organisations out there that have access to the source code," Marc Maiffret, of Californian firm eEye Digital Security, told the Associated Press.

Security experts today warned that it was hard to assess what damage the leak could cause, because so few details were available. Technology analyst Rob Enderle told AP: "It seems unlikely that this is going to create a material, significant security problem. It's more embarrassing than anything else, because it makes it look like Microsoft can't control its code."

~phy
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer

Microsoft does use its own products and would probably fix this stuff if aware of it

"The company, which learned about the flaws more than six months ago from researchers, said the only protective solution was to apply a repairing patch it offered on its website."

The CBC has a (superhumanly polite) profile of Conrad Black here.

Anyone who's interested should have a look at this big blurb about irony. It discusses the philosophical roots and modern usage, and takes the mandatory swipe at Alanis.

As cake recipes go, it's almost as confusing as this paper, described by one observer asentirely equations and symbols, with the word "clearly" here and there

George W. Bush: "I am going to limit the proliferation of nuclear fuel; however, those with nuclear WMD need not worry".

I understand. Pakistan is a U.S. ally because it has nuclear WMD.

Courtesy of More bums and deceit :

AL Kennedy
Wednesday February 11, 2004
The Guardian

Well, I've been having a Dyke of a time - oral surgery, stitches, swelling, antibiotics - all the fun a Calvinist could wish for. And when you look like Barbra Streisand after three weeks under water and your pain relief is preventing you from tying, or even recognising, your own shoes, then you're in the perfect condition to stay at someone else's house and watch cable TV.

So now I finally have a proper grasp of what's important in modern life. And mainly it's tits - big tits, cheap tits, posh tits, Germans pan-frying tits with their consent, plastic tits, real tits, squint tits, famous tits and the unfortunate tits of strangers. If I'd known how fascinating tits were I'd have spent quality time with mine much more often. But if tits don't do it for you, I've seen more arses in these last weeks than I would have if I worked on an arse farm. Why do arses matter? Well, I'm still unsure, but I think it's because you can siphon the fat up out of them, then inject it back into your face.

Never mind the rollingshite news channels and their inability to notice when EVIL IRAQI DEATH DRONES WILL RAIN HORROR ON AMERICA IN MINUTES turns seamlessly into "WMD-related programme activities". They're just really happy that Mr Bliar - in all good faith, with an open and Christian heart and not a naughty thought in his head - accepted and promoted "intelligence" that professionals were loudly finding laughable long before the first coalition cluster bomb liberated the first Iraqi child's fingers.

No, let's get into some proper journalism about Hitler - Hitler's arse, Nazi arses, Hitler's plans to inject Aryan arse fat into plucky British lips, Hitler manipulating the media, creating a climate of fear, claiming draconian emergency powers and pre-emptively invading well-endowed countries in order to strip them of their wealth. Or maybe not that last one - a bit irrelevant.

Because I am now completely up to speed on the vital issues of the day. Is your sofa new enough? Are your teeth white enough? Is there enough fat in your arse to inflate your head in case of emergency? And are you spending enough? Because if you're only spending what you've got, that's not enough - you need to be IN DEBT. Not just a little bit overdrawn, I mean proper, wake up screaming, selling your underwear, Russian roulette in Soho basements to win back your kidneys debt.

Because we're going all out to reproduce the US economic miracle and you must play your part. Bush lowered interest rates, cut taxes for the super rich, slashed social programmes and solved his nation's problems. Cataclysmic borrowing, soaring unemployment and homelessness, soup kitchens, bankruptcy, increased racial segregation and collapsing access to medical care and education are all signs of a healthy economy; and Gordon Brown is so confident that Britain will thrive just as spiffingly under a Bush-style regime that he nobly helped keep the PM in place, ensuring Tony will be in charge when the arse fat hits the fan.

But because many important people's money is slightly theoretical and much of the profit Operation Iraq Rip-off was to make hasn't quite materialised, it's important for you little people to support the economy by paying to borrow more money than you can manage. And if your loans are out of control, take out more loans to cover your loans. Above all, don't save - and don't wonder why you'd only get 0.04% interest and a free tea towel if you did save, when you pay out 25% for borrowing.

And the best thing to spend your money on? A car. A large car. A 23 yards to the gallon, 12ft wide, 40ft long unparkable multisportsperson luxury

This is a reference to John Lydon (of Sex Pistols fame) on ITV's "I'm a celebrity... Get me out of here". ITV is funded by advertising revenue and is nothing to do with the BBC. More details here

I read this article on BBC a last week. If you would like to, you can read it here.

CNN also carried a story on this.

Some more news sites that carried this news are
How do homing pigeons navigate ?

Pigeons navigate 'by following roads'

Pigeons take the highway

The homing pigeon's ploy: follow that road

Pigeons home in on the roads

I was a little surprised that out of all the news sites, someone picked it up on Al jazeera... Not that I have anything against any news channel....

I think AC, your post comes from one who does not get it, and by rushing to the defense of religion where no assault is being perpetrated, you miss the mark completely.

Well, it turns out that parent was responding to this:

Excellent response. It's too bad religion isn't as honest in their theories.

which is certainly an attack -- it's a charge of dishonesty. Mild by /. standards, but also typical fare for this site. So, yes, there was an attack.

It is human nature to "know" how or why things are the way they are. You choose your explanation to be God. It is a nice and easy way to go about life, believing that everything has a purpose, but you do not need know what that is because you have God. Scientists, on the other hand, have a driving desire to learn. This has nothing to do with "anti-religion" or a desire to prove there is no God. In fact, you may find that quite a few scientists do believe in God or a "creator" or what have you. They just don't try to use this "God" concept to explain away the unexplainable.

I think this severely misunderstands the state of Christian thought. If you look at the work of, for example, J.P. Moreland or Alvin Plantinga, you will see that they do not appeal to God as an explanation for the inexplicable. Instead, they believe in God because they believe that the evidence points firmly in that direction.

I teach science: H.S. Chem and Physics. I have a driving desire to learn, and I try to spark in my students a driving desire to learn and to analyze carefully, critically, and honestly. I also am an evangelical Christian (to use a loaded, ill-defined term) with an (additional) academic background in theology. I guess I would fit your description of the scientist who does believe in a God. So I have no problem with your suggestion that science and Scripture might converge on "God" as the "final answer to the Theory of Everything", and I heartily endorse your suggestion that science can give us a greater understanding of God. Indeed, I teach my students to think that way.
The problem I have is that you portray scientists as neutral pursuers and purveyers of knowledge. They aren't. It turns out (speaking philosophically here) that everyone has a prior notion of the answer to the "does God exist?" question. This is why the question has been and continues to be unresolved philosophically. Our prior judgment on that question entirely colors our judgment as to what "counts" as proof of God's existence. It's a vicious circle, and philosophers have been unable to untangle it.

Scientists are no exception to the rule, and it comes out in all sorts of ways. For instance, take Richard Dawkins, chair of the "Public Understanding of Science" at Oxford. He has written extensively promoting evolutionary thought. So far, a seemingly neutral scientific question, right? But his books contain not only an scientific defense of evolution, but also several defamatory comments about Christianity. It turns out that he integrates his scientific worldview with his atheistic worldview, and uses his position to promote both simultaneously. And so it goes in the world at large. No man is a neutral player on the "God question"; no evidence is ever evaluated without a priori judgments as to how much proof is enough proof. That is where "faith" comes in. For careful thinkers, Faith is not a substitute for evidence. Instead, it is a willingness to evaluate a certain amount of evidence in favor of God's existence, over agains

Try using a less biased source next time! Don't you think Atheists.org would try to downplay the number of God-fearing/loving scientists?

In the US, according to a survey published in Nature in 1997, four out of 10 scientists believe in God. Just over 45% said they did not believe, and 14.5% described themselves as doubters or agnostics. This ratio of believers to non-believers had not changed in 80 years. Should anybody be surprised?

(from http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,130 26,1034872,00.html

According to this article the internet played a major role in getting the South Korea president elected. According to the Guardian Internet participatory democracy is having major impact on South Korean policy as well.

When such a large change occurs then there are going to be consequences ... which probably wont be good for human beings. What kind of consequences ? OK here is an article describing fears based on a possible slowing / shutdown of the Gulf Stream and perhaps even of the whole conveyor, and here is the article that probably inspired it, and finally here is the Pentagon take on the real world dire consequences.

By the way, I think this change is so large that there is no way it can be stopped. It is just plain too late.

Enjoy.

Are all Texans as offensive as their elected representative?

No, not all of them. Unfortunately, those who dare to express their disgust (especially if CUR_LOCATION != "USA") don't get favorable treatment from certain particularly offensive Texans (who just happen to run country music radio).

Or, so I heard from a friend of my cousin...

Okay, here's an article from the Guardian. In the article cited, seems like quite a few people could have been hurt by these avalanches.

The "friend" that I heard this from was someone not even really an aquaintance: one of the Green Party Candidates for President, Lorna Salzman, who has made global warming one of her key campaign issues. I don't agree with all of her issues, but I share much of her sentiment that drastic work to preserve the environment may be necessary.

I fear, however, that Americans will not be willing to make sacrifices until it is too late. The rise of popularity of the SUV, especially with some owners taking a "I won't take any crap from you holier-than-thou environmental wackos" stance, , and with environmental activists pasting demeaning bumper stickers on other people's SUVs, means that real growth on the issue just won't happen.

Wow, people complain when the US thinks its responsible for the entire world. And complain when it doesn't.

Actually, what I complain about, really, is *what* the US thinks it's responsible for, and for what it doesn't think it's responsible for.

That is, right now the Bush administration is spending billions of dollars of tax dollars, some of which came out of my pocket, in order to fund these wars which supposedly are for my security and protection. But how many future American deaths are being prevented by this growth in military might? Isn't it possible that there's a greater threat coming from possible future environmental catastrophes?

I've heard that one possible result of global warming might be that the alps, which are made mostly of permafrost, might actually melt, causing landslides all over Europe. If water levels keep rising, island nations or low-lying areas will become covered with water. I'd say this is a greater threat to our overall well being. And yet the Bush administration seems hell-bent on increasing the use of fossil fuels, promoting fake forms of alternative energy (particularly so-called "clean" hydrogen powered cars; sure the cars are clean -- it's just that using fossil fuels to make the hydrogen fuel cells is somewhat counterproductive), and undermining environmental regulations left and right.

In fact, the EPA actually removed references to global warming in a report issued last year in response to pressure from the Bush administration. Their reason? Global warming does not present a national threat.

If you do a Google search on bush and global warmiing, you'll see scores and scores of articles detailing how Bush has repeatedly ignored the real threat that global warming poses.

For a long time I was saving money by purchasing US Savings Bonds. I'd still like to do it; from a financial perspective it's very appealing: it offers a higher rate of return than banks' savings accounts, it's very liquid, and requires no minimum investment.

HOWEVER, the money that I put into those bonds is essentially lending money to the US government to cover its defecit that comes from reckless spending in directions that I disagree with: increased national "security" in the form of increased police presence and the use of the Patriot Act; military spending; and to faith-based charities.

If possible, I'm going to look into purchasing bonds elsewhere. If not, I'll probably just save in a CD or Savings Account.

Well, they must be too busy with their own problem to pay enough attention to such a minor article.

You might be interested in another UK news outlet's take on the story, here.

The BBC, although trusted and mostly accurate, is becoming more and more tabloidy. Just look at how many of their main stories are 'in quotes like this'; a sure sign they are reporting second hand news, press releases and suppositions.

The Guardian has always offered a fairly good view of issues, and I would happily recommend it to those in the US who are keen for an outsider's view of the US.