Slashdot Mirror

Not really. Having a plane go down and THEN having a grounding is as bad as it gets.

Having a plane with a structural failure is far worse than having a subsystem failure like this. Like the time back in 2005 when an Airbus 310 rudder came off over the Caribbean.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2005/mar/13/theairlineindustry.internationalnews

Or the cracks in the wings of the Airbus 380:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16452878

Or engines blowing off the Airbus 380 in 2010.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2010/1104/Airbus-A380-fleet-grounded-after-Qantas-jet-engine-blowout

Or a cockpit electrical failure on the Airbus A320 during take-off.

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_21378229/airbus-a320s-cockpit-problems-continue-since-faa-order

There are many things that are much worse than a battery fire.

Full 1080p (or 4320p-3D in the near future.) drm free videos for just 0.99c will stop 99.9% of piracy. Also Blockbuster just gone into administration in the UK

For just under one penny, you can't even afford the bandwidth to distribute the content. That being said, yes I suspect that .99 cent downloads would stop piracy.

I think he was using Verizon Math and really meant $.99 or 99 cents.

Full 1080p (or 4320p-3D in the near future.) drm free videos for just 0.99c will stop 99.9% of piracy. Also Blockbuster just gone into administration in the UK

For just under one penny, you can't even afford the bandwidth to distribute the content. That being said, yes I suspect that .99 cent downloads would stop piracy.

Full 1080p (or 4320p-3D in the near future.) drm free videos for just 0.99c will stop 99.9% of piracy. Also Blockbuster just gone into administration in the UK

The problem with science and scientists is that they are money losing ventures. Scientists are not rich, they talk in very complicated manners, and do not come to conclusions! Scientists know the world is complex and all problems are complex and solved in a piecemeal manner.

Its much easier to say, "And I am here to tell you 1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms!"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/video/2013/jan/08/alex-jones-pro-gun-tirade-piers-morgan-video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtyKofFih8Y

There is nothing factual about this. Nothing of value, but gee it sure sounds good and makes a good impression. This is what American society and many other societies have degraded to. So yeah no politician wants to listen to a scientist because this is what a scientist sounds like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anfbjiShjP8

Compare the Youtube count, 6 million vs 100K. Yeah people are interested in facts!!!

You're right, more gun laws would just turn America into a police state.

What needs to happen is for academics themselves to oppose the whole "expensive paid access" model, like they are doing here in the UK.

As to the geoengineering question, I would think it rather obvious why we are not doing it. It is not necessary yet, and playing with the climate is risky.

Well, no. Actually, we are geoengineering. China, the USA, and other nations openly engage in weather modification. In particular, there are no federal laws against cloud seeding, and only some states have laws against it.

I bet that deliberate geoengineering with measurable effects will happen, perhaps even within 10 years.

When did you write this comment, the 1940s? You're out of date in every way.

with a side order of willful obtuseness thrown in for good measure.

The US Justice System is there to enforce the law.

Where the hell is the wire fraud in this case? And where the hell are the prosecutions for the banks and Buscho torturers?

Over 100 people were tortured to death under the Bush Administration. Banks stole millions, billions, trillions of dollars and none of them have faced any prosecution. HSBC laundered billions for drug cartels and Al Queda, and they're not prosecuted. Meanwhile, a mother who is found to have 5 pounds of cocaine in her attic - possibly left there by her drug-dealing ex - is sentenced to life in prison for her priors, and because she had no information to give prosecutors. The actual drug dealers were able to cut deals and are now out of prison.

"Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigor of penal law is obliged to give way to the common feelings of mankind." - Edward Gibbon

He was charged with wire fraud, computer fraud among other things and when someone alerts the authorities that this may have taken place, they investigate it. If I bypassed your home's security and installed a laptop in your home that connected to your network and took all your files, would you want there to be laws against that?

Would I want you charged with trespassing, or hit with terrorism and home invasion charges and threatened with 30 years in prison? Are you really so obtuse as to not see the draconian response to the actual offense? Are you filling out visa applications so you can see some shoplifters hand cut off for allegedly stealing a pack of gum in Saudi Arabia?

You know, that almost sounds like an endorsement for suicide which is probably one of the most disgusting and vehement posts I've read here so far.

You almost sound like your priorities are fucked up on a galactic scale. Threatening someone with 30 years in prison for what is, at worst, breaking and entering: not a problem. Talking about suicide to avoid 30 years in prison, probable rape in prison, bankruptcy, and a felony record that makes you neigh-unemployable: now that's a tragedy.

You almost sound like the Church Laddies that were more upset that pictures were published of bodies floating in New Orleans then the fact that a major American city was allowed to drown by a careless and indifferent government.

What actions of theirs do you find culpable for forcing Aaron Swartz into no other choice than to take his own life?

Gee, maybe not make a literal federal case out of it to begin with? Or if they do, make the charges fit the alleged crime? Simple answers for bloody stupid questions...

"Recent estimates suggest that 16 per cent of the energy consumed in the US is used to produce food. Yet at least 25 per cent of food is wasted each year..."

"There are nearly a billion malnourished people in the world, but all of them could be lifted out of hunger with less than a quarter of the food wasted in Europe and North America. In a globalised food system, where we are all buying food in the same international market place, that means we're taking food out of the mouths of the poor."

In this context, a food evacuator for pampered fat people seems like the height of absurdity as if were something taken directly off the page of a Monty Python or Yes Men script.

I have worked with a remote telepresence robot for over 5 years now: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/sep/13/guardianweeklytechnologysection.news It's quite an interesting social experience. There are many technical challenges to consider (batteries still being what they are). Admittedly, our implementation is more "hobbyist" than anything else, but it's a very functional POC.

About 30 days in jail and a hundred bucks for trespassing. That'd be the going rate.

Timothy Lee wrote the definitive article in 2011 explaining why, even if all the allegations in the indictment are true, the only real crime committed by Swartz was basic trespassing, for which people are punished, at most, with 30 days in jail and a $100 fine, about which Lee wrote: "That seems about right: if he's going to serve prison time, it should be measured in days rather than years."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/12/aaron-swartz-heroism-suicide1

You don't understand much about Greece, and neither does the BBC. Greece is all about corruption. When you read 'self-employed' it means that they are receiving benefits for their 'rural' activity, chosen not out of self-preference but because it's easy to rip the state off with aid, it means they are cashing government checks to 'care' for elderly people and when the social workers go to check up on them the 'bait' is shuttled among households before the workers arrive. It means they keep cashing pensions for dead people. It means taxi drivers cash money for disabilities like blindness while wroking, of course getting paid black money for the rides. Most never report any positive income. The corruption was and is widespread because a very significant portion of them are uneducated and grew up in a culture of corruption. They will never be able to compete with central/northern europe in less than two generations (more, realistically, knowing that other societies will likeliy not keep static) because even the young know that a university degree means no security at all, or a better job, and that being the son or the fiancee of someone popular and powerful is the way to go. This is the real situation in those countries and it doesn't register with more productive and sophisticated societies because they can't comprehend that corruption is locally better than clean business and public transparency.

This cultural mismatch between the south and the north is to blame in part for this crisis' impact here because since the beginning it's been known that Greece cooked their books, first to get into the EU, then diverting the enormous amounts of money received from the EU that never went into increasing productivity, R&D, infrastructure or education at any level. The EU officials believed, in their cultural blindness, that the outpour of money would turn them into little germans. Just like the swedes did with immigrants coming into their country, where there are now ghettos in which foreign people have lived off government money without even learning the language, for two decades. We in the developed world take it as a little bit of an affront to receive public aid and we don't want to stay long in that situation. We raise on our feet and find a job and that's cultural. Other cultures think we are stupid for getting up every weekday at 7 and working harder than they will ever be able to understand. They just take the free checks and keep on living in the ghetto because money is not enough. Education is needed also and this is what you are not getting about greeks: they think corruption and ripping each other off are okay. It really works as long as there is free money and now they are a disheveled society running around with little direction, with a nazi (yes, nazi) party almost getting a majority in last year's election. Look it up. After everything that's happened they are still okay believing it's *immigrants* that rob them of their 'wealth'. If someone calls the police in Greece they are so overworked that they will recommend calling the nazis if you are a native. Look here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/28/greek-police-victims-neo-nazi and here: http://greece.greekreporter.com/2012/05/11/more-than-half-of-police-officers-voted-for-neo-nazi-party I repeat: *NAZIS* almost got the parliament in lats year's elections. This is how unsophisticated and delusional the society is.

It's interesting how any time a self-professed Christian does something incredibly stupid, it makes it onto Slashdot. You'd almost think the editors are trolling or something.

For the record, there are many Christian sects, and most of them have nothing against modern medicine. Mine is entirely fine with science in general and indeed my church's primate is opposed to teaching creationism in schools.

So how exactly does taking fingerprints help with national security? I can see how it would help identify (after the fact) visitors who commit crimes, but while useful that has little to do with national security. Beyond that all I can see it doing is possibly making life difficult for any known spys or terrorists whose prints are already in the system. But frankly the spys can probably fake their fingerprints easily enough, and the terrorists are probably just as happy to use unknown stooges in their stead anyway, they were already doing just that long before any of the current security theater was put in place.

It identifies people travelling on stolen or borrowed passports

And you are jumping to conclusions calling me anti-science. I am very much pro-science. There have been studies already done that show a potential for harm when ingesting GMO crops, such as the Pusztai affair and the recent study by the French scientists. And before you go off discounting the French study, read this rebuttal first. And no, I don't fear hybrid plants. They're not making DNA combinations occur that are completely unnatural. So how is it irrational if there are studies that show a possibility that these plants can cause health complications but no one has attempted duplicating the studies to show otherwise?

It's probably worth noting that the Tea Party also did not have any widespread criminal side effects

Damn straight! I searched high and low for the usual felonious shenanigans associated with protest movements, and suddenly find none. I find it pretty fucking hard to imagine my FBI failing in their self-appointed mission of Constitutional violation as if the Tea Party was somehow exempt.

to where its money is coming from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/mar/29/google-earns-more-iphone-android. Way more money per iPhone user than Android user.

When that pretty blond western journalist was brutally raped in Cairo during the Egyptian uprising against Mubarak, Al Jazeera deleted all posts that mentioned it.

I assume you're on about Natasha Smith, who's recently published a piece on sexual harassment in Egypt, and the wider area. Other outlets cover the problem more generally BBC, Guardian

I'll have to take your word about Al Jazeera's censorship, but it's interesting that there's surprisingly little coverage of this case. The BBC doesn't have any mention of a british citizen being attacked in this way. it's cropped up in reputable sources (the independent and CNN), as well as the sensationalist tripe that is the daily mail. The coverage that Lara Logan got 15 months earlier was much more extensive coverage world wide, but it appears Al Jazeera didn't cover it. They later ran a story on sexual violence in Tahir Square in general, mentioning both women, linking to abc news for the Logan assault.

A lot of the blame can be put at the backwards society that prevails in the middle east and south asia, men are brought up to think of women as objects to be possessed and conquered, and they're asking for it if they're not hiding under a blanket, or dare to go out on their own. Sadly this society is infiltrating the more enlightened parts of the world, like Europe and the U.S.

We can only hope that main stream muslims will eventually grow out of these views, like christians eventually stopped genocide in south america and burning "witches"

Just pointing out a Troll here folks.

People. Don't be willfully ignorant. Check out Al Jazeera for yourself and decide:
http://www.aljazeera.com/watch_now/
http://www.aljazeera.com/

I will tell you first off a little bit about myself to point out any biases that I may have: I am a white Canadian man who is in his 40's who hates Muslim zealots and Jewish zealots. Yes I can't stand Christian religious fundamentalists either. I'm also a highly analytical person. I hate political correctness, and I hate yellow journalism. I'm finding a lot of ignorant and prejudiced comments here, so I'll start off with this Troll who proclaims to be knowledgable about Al jazeera, and who seems to imply that it is NOT so much a news company but rather a propaganda organ for religious extremists. Think moderators: before you up-moderate Trolls!

Parent said:

If you look at their English edition and track the history of reporting on different countries you'll notice that articles about the US are far more likely to have the comment system enabled, while articles about Middle East countries, Russia, or China almost always have the comments disabled.

OK I admit I don't track the history of comments. Lets be serious though; nobody except for somebody with an agenda would track comment history. Even if the parent's comment is true, it is still a Troll because it implies malfeasance without any proof but the authors own speculations. Also realize that people often see patterns where there are none (this is a psychological phenomena of the mind). Also notice that this person gives no statistics and doesn't back up his claim in any way. Most people who would do this kind of research, even on an amature basis would at least post their details on a public Website: and there are lots of free services to do this.

For that matter, who cares? Not having comments enabled has NOTHING to do with journalistic standards. This is a red herring argument.

Also: think of the logic here. Al Jazeera English WANTS to have a Western audience. This is because it is a business that is owned by a businessman. It doesn't make business sense for them to post Islamic religious propaganda because they know that they will be very carefully scrutinized by the Right Wing in the West and especially the Christian Fundamentalists in their largest potential market: the United States.

Also, look at Al Jazeera's journalists. They have quite a few award winning journalists that have (and had) worked for prominent Western news agencies like the BBC, CBC, etc. These professionals are not going to ruin their careers and reputations by working for a propaganda organ of the Muslim Brotherhood or some other political or religious organization. Of course, and for some perspective, politics will always play a role in journalism, for example Al-Jazeera English journalists protest after being ordered to re-edit UN report to focus on Qatar emir's comments on Syria. But at least there is transparency here. And lets not lie to ourselves or be hypocrites: Western news agencies, especially the for-profit ones like CNN and Fox News have their own biases and are subject to the editorial control of their commercial sponsors.

When you see that most of the comments are anti-US and anti-Jewish, you will wonder whether it's an underhanded way of maintaining a veneer of neutrality while still guiding opinion.

You mean like on Slashdot, and on many Canadian and European news sites?

And YES I know what you mean by "anti-Jewish": anybody who criticizes Isreal or Zionism is an anti-semite according to Christion Fundamentalists. Using "hate crime" language to try and stifle speech and to censor news is wrong. I've seen Al Jazeera report bad things about Isreal, and I've seen Al Jazeera report bad th

"Yet people are still pissed off because AJZ played Osama Bin Laden videos?"

No, they are pissed because they supressed some of the tapes, edited or delayed the release of others.

From the linked-to article:

The network even canned an interview with Bin Laden conducted in October 2001, the month after the September 11 terror attacks in the US, because it did not consider it to be in al-Jazeera's style.

I bet many would have liked to have seen that interview one month after the September 11 terror attacks...

I would suggest these are the most directly attributable contributions of the (catholic) church to mass death and misery in contemporary times.

The position on the use of barrier contraception to prevent spread of AIDS:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/17/pope-africa-condoms-aids

The position on the vaccination of children against diseases which have caused massive birth defects and deaths prior to vaccines being discovered, have been practically eliminated since introduction of vaccines and which of course could potentially re-emerge in populations which are not vaccinated:

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0504240.htm

In both cases, the conflict is caused because the obvious benefits to life and health brought by scientific progress are being held back due to the acceptance of the population of moral guidance from an organisation who draws it's position in the matter from the bronze age.

Maybe you should read this before you completely discount that French study...

Although the French study might not meet scientific standards, apparently neither do Monsanto's studies that show GM crops are safe http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/28/study-gm-maize-cancer. I think if anything, the French study warrants further investigation.

The rat study done in France seems to be bad science.

Seems to be, but is it?

Then we get the ill-cited references to people being sued "left and right" for supposedly doing nothing wrong.

That is laughable. It does not take a rocket scientist to use Google and see how many lawsuits for patent infringement monsanto has slapped on people.

The labeling nonsense was just a away around the lack of any good science against GMO. If you can't prove they're harmful, you'll just use scare labels to confuse people.

Confuse them? How about give them knowledge that it's genetically produced so that they at least know they are unpaid guinea pigs. The CA law is that they label products "Made with GMO" so people know what they are ingesting. People realized long ago that certain preservatives are bad for them, as are numerous artificial sweeteners. They must be labeled because.. they were found to be harmful to people. GMOs are relatively untested. The overwhelming majority of testing is coming from Monsanto. Don't you see the obvious conflict of interest? I'm picking on Monsanto here, but they are not the only company providing their own testing for their own products claiming they are safe. Red die number 5 was also safe according to the manufacturer. It took years to get it pulled, at the cost of thousands of lives and millions of dollars in lawsuits.

Name some of this "science" showing how bad GMOs are. Maybe you'll reference the French study, which pro and anti-GMO alike soundly criticized.

Google is not that hard to use, quite honestly you should be ashamed to ask. Here is a link by searching for "GMO bee death", and here is an interesting read about the French study which you claim is bad. Follow up, smearing a study is not the same as providing another study to show the French study was wrong in it's findings. How much money has Monsanto spent smearing the team compared to how much it would have cost to fund an additional independent study?

My "usual nonsense" is not quite usual nonsense. I wish I could say the same regarding your response.

Lamo can't write a coherent message to save his life.

If you liked the Q&A interview, don't forget to read his lengthy, rambling, and confusing essay about it!

Personally, I believe we should be very careful with the use of genetically modified crops, especially considering historical evidence of what can go wrong with new discoveries, scientific consensus can change drastically, the impact of greed and backroom politics.

This is great and all that he saw the light when it comes to science... but with technology and science comes responsibility as well. Two key issues come to mind:
(1) Cross pollination of farmers crops, and then demanding royalties from the seed owners,
(2) and engineering the crops to disable re-planting the same seeds for the purpose of profit.

One actual example would be allowing a patent to monsanto on basmati rice...
link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2004/jan/31/gm.food

Those most be some really expensive cigarettes then.
"The coveted rifles they fled with from the Syrian military, worth at least $4,000 each on the black market, hang on nails driven into a dirty white wall."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/09/burma-ethnic-tensions-escalate

You can cross Buddhists off your list of 'holier than thou's, harder to say about Pagans, not many about these days.

Ironically, The Guardian has the best coverage. The problem is getting things through congress, the Senate and SCOTUS agreed to a general compromise and a 2 month delay, but it has to get through the House.

"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it".

"using Windows is like living in a communist bloc nation circa 1981" Charlie Brooker

Step 0: Control media outlets and discredit all that are not under your power, Propaganda!!!
Why is this step 0? Because with the media intact and doing what it is required by society, none of the other crap would have happened, however the buck stops with the people, if the people aren't going to do anything about it then they get what they get.

Step 1: Create a crisis or allow one to happen.

"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
-Rahm Emanuel

Create an enemy that will never go away (terrorist) and wage a war that will never end (terrorism) and define the enemy as "those without any rights" and can be held indefinitely (National Defense Authorization Act)

Step 2: Promise to protect the populace from said crisis/enemy by any means necessary, begin by restricting rights in the name of security.

Step 3: Implement a massive trillion dollar (data from The Economist) surveillance network HLS, TSA, NSA, DIA OMG, WTF, BBQ ), record all calls, maintain facial recognition database (thank you Facebook) fill the air with drones and the ground with cameras.
Monitor for dissent. (see: fbi-coordinated-crackdown-occupy below)

Step 4: Dis arm populace (http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons)

Step 5: Tighten grip further via martial law or other "required security protocols", rename political protest groups as "terrorist" deregulate corporations, dismantle workers rights, remove environmental protections, and finally ammo up. (Department Of Homeland Security Is Buying 450 Million New Bullets)

Anyone not complying or protesting is a terrorist. (see step 1)

http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2011/09/costs-homeland-security

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/12/fbi-treated-occupy-terrorist-group/60289/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/29/fbi-coordinated-crackdown-occupy

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-03-28/news/31247765_1_atk-rounds-bullet

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/27/5079151/california-gun-sales-increase.html

Wow, yet another "crazy Mooslims" story. Meanwhile, the United States government has just re-upped warrantless wiretapping and indefinite military detention of Americans. And a recent document release shows the collusion between the banks and the highest levels of government in crushing the Occupy movement.

Meanwhile, both sides of the coin, I mean aisle, are thankful for the media/public fixation on the Sandy Hook shootings. Democrats, because focusing liberal rage on mass shootings distracts from FISA and the NDAA and cuts to Social Security onto the issue of gun control, which will go nowhere. Republicans, because it will get the NRA and the teabaggers all poutraged about "taking their guns away" rather than the Fascism of the combination of government and corporate power. But hey, I guess it's a change from threatening Iran with armageddon over the nuclear weapons program our own government admits they don't have.

But hey, lets forget about Bush's worldwide torture regime, forget about Obama's drone wars and violation of the War Powers Act, and focus on what those Crazy Mooslims are doing this week. Nevermind when those corrupt theocratic governments are to our left on fundamental civil liberties.

No, for the willfully obtuse, that's not saying that the U.S. == theocratic third would countries. It's saying we should not throw stones in fucking glass houses until we've taken steps to ensure our own shit does not stink. Stop the fucking shrieking about their molehills from on top your mountain.

• Meg Whitman is doing something that competent CEO's do routinely, and HP hasn't done in decades, which is cleaning up the books and writing down the value of non-performing assets, like brand names that will never be used again, such as "Compaq", "EDS", "Palm" and now "Autonomy". There's still "3Com" left to go...
• Whitman is also playing the CEO spin game, which is that when you have bad news about profitability, you pair the announcement with some other announcement to act as distracting red meat to all the short-attention-span tech journalists who can't follow more than one story at a time. If you're Apple, you just need to mumble about some innovative new interaction modality and everyone goes crazy, if your're HP's CEO, you can actually demo a slick new product and everyone ignores you. Unfortunately HP's heritage of selling sushi as "cold, dead fish" has not been purged from their DNA.
• The actual Autonomy core software is an undeniably superior technology for doing multimedia search and unstructured text search, but it was never actually productized. Apparently every sale was a bespoke one-off, never to be reused or broken apart and recycled the way most complex software is handled. This means that the combinatorial growth of value to expanding customer bases that potentially existed in the software base turned out to be extremely difficult to realize. HP didn't discover this until the deal was closed and HP engineers had spent some time with the code.
• Nevertheless, during the sales negotiations with HP, the future cash flow of Autonomy was apparently computed as if the future growth of revenue was assured to be as exponential as the combinatorial math of modular software recombination would predict. Autonomy founder Mike Lynch is brilliant enough to make such a prediction in just those terms, and it surely would have gone right over the heads of then-CEO Leo Apotheker and most of the HP board, maybe including Shane Robison, chief strategy officer at the time. Now, is a statement about the finances of a software company based on whether that company's code is an impenetrable rat's nest, or not, a legally actionable, material misrepresentation? Is it something that would be expected to be uncovered by the legions of high-priced accountants deployed by the big name accounting firms during the "due diligence" phase of negotiations? I'm not a forensic accountant or a securities regulator, so I wouldn't venture to guess.
• There were numerous other red flags http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/21/hewlett-packard-red-flags-autonomy around Autonomy that led HP's CFO Cathie Lesjak to vote against her boss and all the rest of the board on the purchase, but she was overruled.
• Finally, HP claims that while there were accounting irregularities having to do with the way future revenue streams for software support were booked all at once, right now. Lynch claims that this is allowed under European rules even if it may be illegal under US GAAP rules. How would that change when Autonomy becomes owned by a US company? Should those high-priced accountants have caught that? Even so, HP claims to have testimony from a former Autonomy executive that those numbers were not merely tweaked, but were completely wack. HP is saying "nyah, nyah, we're not giving out details, and we're not saying who it is" and Lynch must be furious that he doesn't have enough information to try the case in the press and prejudice any legal outcome. HP wants to get Lynch under oath, so a jury can decide who's lying and who's not.

The wheels of the law grind exceedingly slow, so this will take years to play out. Meanwhile, HP has some decent software to play with, and they are already doing innovative things, like building search into the printers themselves

Peter Higgs was awarded the Companion of Honour but he was the exception to the rule, Scientists and Engineers are routinely ignored in favour of those with a large media profile such as Sports stars and Fashion designers.

As the song goes, you ain't seen nothin' yet. Welcome to the oppression of legitimate protest and criticism.

Again, you seem to take the polar opposite here by saying that censoring pornography will cause extreme political ideaology to prevail and we will go through other Holocaust.

No, that's not what I said or meant.

You argued that we should ban pornography due to its harmful nature to society.

I'm saying that political speech has itself caused much more harm, therefore by your argument, it should be censored too.

Those who advocate censorship are not all Facists and Maoists - they just want their future generation to have a higher view of women and more respect for them.

Sure, and I don't doubt that.

But the issue that renders censorship to be so dangerous is that there was never an implementation of it that wasn't abused by those who chose what was censored, either by incompetence or malice.
Even in Australia, a democratic country by all accounts, had plenty of innocent sites banned by their online filters.

The fact that the classification is usually extremely murky (just try to get ten people to agree on a definition of "pornography") just makes things worse.

Furthermore, I have an issue with banning pornography being a women respecting action.

When women enjoy making and publishing their own porn for other women, which focus on their needs and pleasures, and we tell them to shut up because what they're doing is "forbidden", are we really respecting them? Or are we being patronizing and actually disrespecting them even more?

Frankly, I find the idea that we should decide for women if they should do pornography or not to be abhorrent and extremely disrespectful of their will as free individuals.

Read and reflect on reports on how young boys are watching extreme pornographic, and then getting a girlfriend and trying the same things they have seen, which can cause the girl pain and emotional distress.

Sure, and I find that terrible. But why did the boy try that, if it caused pain on the girl?

Either he didn't know it would - and then I argue the real problem is the lack of education that ensure the kids remain completely ignorant about such issues, and that porn is the only source of "knowledge" they have, and the solution is not to ban porn but to teach and make more, good porn which respects everyone involved.

Or the kid didn't care about the pain it would cause, in which case I think it's obvious why porn is not the real issue.

In either case, pornography seems like a scapegoat we use to avoid seeing the flaws that the parents and other educators in our society have, and the harm they are imposing.

When is comes to moderation, pornography will always lead to excess as it encourages a quick-route to satisfaction which will always be addictive. A quick route to pleasure without very little effort is very addictive regardless of the vice.

Maybe; but that doesn't mean it should be banned.

Age is definately a factor in determing how people think and view life. Our thoughts evolve everyday - this doesn't make me "ageist" as you describe

No, the fact that you think people of a certain age are necessarily "more right" does.

it's not suprising a pro-pornography person such as yourself will be quick to make me out to be discriminatory and try make yourself out to be the hero. Now I guess im "anti-liberalist" for pointing out your modus operandi.

I'm not pro-pornography, I'm anti-censorship. I defend the right of people expressing themselves, regardless of whether it is by having sex or by wearing a Swastika, as long as they don't violate the rights of others.

And of course you're discriminatory. So am I, so are all of us, it's part of the human condition. But we should point it out when we see it, and try to correct it.

However I

Now could you look at knive/stabbing crimes and compare those:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/datablog/2012/apr/12/london-knife-crime

A Knife attack every 4 minutes:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1036154/A-knife-attack-4-minutes-130-000-year--ministers-insist-crime-rates-falling.html

No, it's not more embarrassing.

Yeah. It is more embarrassing when you decry other countries for their lack of freedom, while re-affirming endless military detention of American citizens and warrantless wiretapping in direct violation of your own Constitution. It is more embarrassing when you have more prisoners in both raw numbers and as a percentage of your population, when most are locked up for petty Prohibition offenses. It is more embarrassing when you're fighting corrupt theocratic governments because they give their suspects too many rights.

The USA makes an effort to provide a decent standard of living for everyone.

You misspelled "socialist Europe", since the U.S. stopped pretending to do any such thing when Dems and Republicans got together to gut welfare back in the 90's. In other countries, the poor have the right to secondary education, housing, food and health care. Here, they have the right to purchase junk health insurance.

Glenn Greenwald has some great analysis on this vote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/28/fisa-feinstein-obama-democrats-eavesdropping

Wyden yesterday had two amendments: one that would simply require the NSA to give a general estimate of how many Americans are having their communications intercepted under this law (information the NSA has steadfastly refused to provide), and another which would state that the NSA is barred from eavesdropping on Americans on US soil without a warrant. Merkley's amendment would compel the public release of secret judicial rulings from the FISA court which purport to interpret the scope of the eavesdropping law on the ground that "secret law is inconsistent with democratic governance"; the Obama administration has refused to release a single such opinion even though the court, "on at least one occasion", found that the government was violating the Fourth Amendment in how it was using the law to eavesdrop on Americans.

But the Obama White House opposed all amendments, demanding a "clean" renewal of the law without any oversight or transparency reforms. Earlier this month, the GOP-led House complied by passing a reform-free version of the law's renewal, and sent the bill Obama wanted to the Senate, where it was debated yesterday afternoon.

This is of course in contrast to his pre-election 2008 promise to oppose the original bill (which he didn't do, voting for it instead). Now he loves it so much, he won't countenance any modifications.

Democrats: The New GOP.

Actually, all of what you wrote is nonsense. Eight villages are to be destroyed next year alone: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/24/palestinian-villages-demolition-idf-hebron. There's no doubt in anyone's mind, including the Israeli military's, that the Palestinians own the land, and have done since the late 1800s, well before Israel existed, let alone started expanding. That doesn't matter to Israelis, demolishing Palestinians' homes does.

It's also the case that, where Palestinians have land, they are never allowed permits to build, but that's just a by-product of a racist society that doesn't believe in equal rights or the rule of law. Institutional racism is common and encouraged by successive Israeli governments, who then brag about it to get re-election. The Arab 20% of Israel don't get 5% of the education budget, for example.

Where there is illegal construction by Jews and non-Jews side by side, the non-Jewish buildings are demolished at a rate of 5 times more often than Jewish buildings, for example in East and West Jerusalem, even though there are more illegal Jewish-built buildings in West Jerusalem than there are in East Jerusalem.

I could go on, but as you're either woefully mis-informed or lying your teeth off in an effort to hide the truth about Israel, you'll never admit that what you posted was utterly and completely wrong, so I'll just sign off and hope you don't demolish too many more Palestinian houses in 2013...

Insane.

Put the phone away. Talk to the child. You know: teach human interaction? This is a child, not your personal experiment.

A review of the evidence in the Archives Of Disease in Childhood says children's obsession with TV, computers and screen games is causing developmental damage as well as long-term physical harm. Doctors at the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, which co-owns the journal with the British Medical Journal group, say they are concerned. Guidelines in the US, Canada and Australia already urge limits on children's screen time, but there are none yet in Britain.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/oct/09/ban-under-threes-watching-television

Why would you substitute the acquisition of developmental language skills and the attendant ability to relate and empathise - with a fixation on shiny lights and noises?

I understand that this is Slashdot - but value of the concept cannot be completely alien...

We have several generations that have grown up with the TV as babysitter from age 0, and in the last 3 decades years we have increased the load with computers and other gizmos. The consequences are evident for any experienced teacher. Now we even have research that backs what they have been saying for years. So put away the gizmos until the kid is at least 3.

A 186mph crash looks like this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenzhou_train_collision

The amount of corruption involved is staggering, and the blind push to build the line and breakneck speed has already led to deaths like the above; substandard materials, design, construction, and components (like the signal systems that failed above.)

I'll be astounded if there isn't another major crash within 6 months.

Iran has funded and controlled terrorists in Argentina, Israel, India, Iraq, Kenya, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia.

You mean accused of funding terrorists. There's a big difference between claims and proof - or have you forgotten about "Nigerian yellow cake" and "aluminum tubes?"

But, lets go ahead and say that the worst things you claim about Iran are true - they'd still be the molehill next to the mountain of U.S. and Israeli aggression. Iran hasn't launched two bogus wars of choice in the last ten years or set up a world wide torture regime. Iran isn't running an apartheid state against half it's population.

As for terrorism again, wake us up when giant banks that have laundered money for Al Queda aren't granted sweeping immunity from prosecution, along with American shills for the terrorist group MEK.

For a moment there, I thought you were talking about Salman Rushdie, but then I realized that he just wrote an unfunny 'let's stir some shit up' book, not a movie.

My bad.

So wait, which one do you think deserved to die again?

(I think I still have Satanic Verses in the bookshelf somewhere, just that I can't be arsed to crack it open.)

And so you illustrate the problem. For Muzzies almost anything is blasphemy. being an atheist, holdin a bible study group, or writing a love poem that quotes from the Qur'an. This is why restricting anything that makes the Muzzies riot will end up in us not being able to say anything or express our own beliefs.

"The jig is up" was used in their headline on this "leak". Thankfully the Guardian has republished Dana Nuccitelli's excellent piece on the matter.

Insane.

Put the phone away. Talk to the child. You know: teach human interaction? This is a child, not your personal experiment.

A review of the evidence in the Archives Of Disease in Childhood says children's obsession with TV, computers and screen games is causing developmental damage as well as long-term physical harm. Doctors at the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, which co-owns the journal with the British Medical Journal group, say they are concerned. Guidelines in the US, Canada and Australia already urge limits on children's screen time, but there are none yet in Britain.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/oct/09/ban-under-threes-watching-television

Why would you substitute the acquisition of developmental language skills and the attendant ability to relate and empathise - with a fixation on shiny lights and noises?

I understand that this is Slashdot - but value of the concept cannot be completely alien...

This. A thousand times this. It doesn't matter that they like it, it is still a bad idea to encourage it at that age. Too lazy to cite other sources, but they exist.

Insane.

Put the phone away. Talk to the child. You know: teach human interaction? This is a child, not your personal experiment.

A review of the evidence in the Archives Of Disease in Childhood says children's obsession with TV, computers and screen games is causing developmental damage as well as long-term physical harm. Doctors at the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, which co-owns the journal with the British Medical Journal group, say they are concerned. Guidelines in the US, Canada and Australia already urge limits on children's screen time, but there are none yet in Britain.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/oct/09/ban-under-threes-watching-television

Why would you substitute the acquisition of developmental language skills and the attendant ability to relate and empathise - with a fixation on shiny lights and noises?

I understand that this is Slashdot - but value of the concept cannot be completely alien...