Slashdot Mirror

i don't deny that iraq has had chemical or biological weapons. but an april, 2002 interview with a former UN weapons inspector convinced me that the last inspections proved over 90% compliance and the remaining percentages were mostly due to iraq's poor documentation of weapons destruction. he went into great detail on all sorts of weapons. i don't have links but IIRC, he said "weapons grade anthrax", kept under ideal conditions, is only viable for 3 years and the last facility capable of producing it in reasonable quantity was destroyed in 1996 (the Halabja incident was in 1988). also, the missiles capable of distributing chemical, biological or nuclear weapons were destroyed -- the missile remains were dug up and serial numbers checked. only 2 missiles were missing but he claimed that this could easily be due to the serial numbers destruction and, among the rubble, extra parts were found (possibly from the missing missiles).

i don't think my political bent blinds me to facts, i just get my facts from 'alternative' sources. i am skeptical of all news sources (including those i cite) so i admit that there may be some (very little) 'bad stuff' in iraq. but i also precieve a historical US attitude of 'US uber alles'. this and the fact that iraq would be foolish to actually challenge the US lead me to seriously doubt that iraq has nearly the power that our president says they have. also, there is the (sorry) slippery issue of oil and a president with a possible conflict of interest.

i read the guardian's world dispatches daily, espically those from brian whitaker and his reports on al-bab. he claims that US papers are preparing US citizens for war by seriously distorting the facts. if you read one of those, read the last link.

as for the mickey mouse war, yes the example i cited (radio sawa) is infecting culture but really, the damage is already done. the middle east as we know it was created by European imperialism and has been proped up ever since by US and European intervention and military aid in return for cheap oil. radio sawa isn't playing brittany spears, it's popular music of the region with some educational messages meant to empower the listeners. i see sawa (IIRC, means 'together') on a fine line between the alternative views that should exist in a free people and waging a mickey mouse war. the program is commercial free, and free of any obvious US influence -- it is run by former citizens of middle eastern countries. it's not perfect, it's not everything, it's the beginning.

the reasons that we are hated are many, complex and different depending on where you are talking about. but US media isn't it. to skim the shell of the nut(?), i'll say that the saudi royal family making millions off oil and none of that money making its way to the populace and the horrid human rights and squalid living conditions would cause more anger.

it's a large complex knot that can't be blasted through.

more likely he would have acted on his plan to attack Al Qaeda:

The Bush administration sat on a Clinton-era plan to attack al-Qaida in Afghanistan for eight months because of political hostility to the outgoing president and competing priorities, it was reported yesterday.

Rather than sit on it.

Meanwhile, Clinton, with the Legislature spending most of their time sniffing blue dresses for presidental spunk, lacked the support necessary to invade Afghanistan and take out Bin Laden.

Bush's team thus has two major mistakes to answer for: not listening when Berger and Mr Clarke outlined the threat in briefings they provided for Condoleezza Rice and, when they did get around to taking action, letting Bin Laden escape.

However, I agree that one can't really fault Bush for not giving the order to blow civilian airliners out of the sky on 9/11, I don't think even Jack Ryan would have been that on the ball.

Until we get around to editing the old newspapers so that we can replace Iraq with North Korea.

i would suggest that we will not be at war with Iraq when there is no need for oil or no oil left in Iraq. we don't really care about some formerly 2nd world, now nearly 3rd world dictator who has the capability of launching an attack on its nuclear equipped neighbor (Israel) and recompenses the families of anti-Israel suicide bombers with a few thousand dollars and has no specific, government acknowledged links to terrorist organizations threatening the US. it's about the oil.

damn, there i go again. getting all political on slashdot... sorry

John Poindexter hasn't broken any laws

Sure he has, he just can't be tried and convicted for his criminal acts because Congress handed him immunity.

...although I have heard of James Bulger, a british criminal of sorts)

James Bulger? A criminal? Are you sure you're not terribly mistaken?

For non-UK readers, James Bulger was also the name of a two year old, murdered by two ten year olds in Bootle, Merseyside in 1993. The case was, understandably, front page news for a long time in the British press.

Personally, I like weight. Lots and lots of weight.

Trips to McDonald's are much cheaper than SUVs and probably more cost-effective in the long run, too.

'If there had been even one armed guard in the school he could have saved a lot of lives and perhaps ended the whole thing instantly,' Mr Heston said. 'I'm afraid you have to blame their parents.'

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As far as I know, the NEC Powermate Eco is the only computer that has been built with the foresight to have recyclable parts. A look at just how bad things have gotten (re: computer salvaging) can be found here.

I guess the US has already tried to use this as a weapon. I came across this article where rain making was used in Vietnam. The UN has also already banned the use of weather control as a weapon. So much for the weather machine in Command and Conquer.

And here is another one in the uk:

Mobile Bristol

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (which is what gave the money to the AIDS institute in India) is the largest charitable body in the US with an endowment of $24bn. I would claim that this foundation (which is basically setup with his - not Microsoft's money) is worthy of some respect.

I don't personally care whether this money is given so he can get his name remembered, because he's got so much money he doesn't know what to do with it, or because he's a genuine good guy. (In fact, as with most human motives, I guess the answer to 'why?' is 'all of the above'.)

As to charity direct from Microsoft - I would share you suspicion that the main reason for it is to benefit Microsoft (any benefit to the recipient is incidental).

In this case, I feel you're right to show some scepticism as to how altruistic this donation is - and agree with you that the amount of publicity he got for Microsoft as a result was disproportionate. But doesn't that mean we should be criticising the media rather than him?

We get $10 for extracting a cubic metre of uranium. We would get $100 to deposit the same amount of nuclear waste.

It makes more sense when you realize that they already have their own huge radioactive disposal problem, and the marginal cost of a little bit more disposal is much less than what other, far more crowded European countries would be willing to pay to get it off their hands. They are the ninth largest country in the world with a population of 16 million, so there is significantly more room for waste disposal than in nearby Western Europe, which may be the region in the world most sensitive to waste disposal concerns of all kinds.

Just as in other environmental decisions, there are immediate and long-term goals that need to be balanced. Economic factors affect these decisions- an affluent community would rather have an expensive recycling facility, whereas an impoverished community would think it is nuts to spend big bucks on that and would go with the cheaper, traditional solution of a town dump, complete with perpetual tire-fire. These decisions are motivated by economic factors- given ample resources, most everyone would prefer a cleaner environment. But not everyone is willing to pay for it, so there ends up being disparity between decisions that affect the environment based upon local economic conditions.

Internationally, this comes as third-world countries which are happy to exchange cleaner air for lower-cost production which allows essential economic growth. Presumably, residents (or at least political representatives of residents) value the immediate economic boon over the long-term consequences. In the case of disposal, since there are already large waste-disposal issues of their own, the marginal cost of slightly larger waste-disposal issues apparently is outweighed by the massive price other countries would be willing to pay to get it off their hands. Unfortunately, decisions like these (trading in a long-term cost for a short-term benefit), are often political, and political decisions rarely favor long-term sustainable policies over short-term boons.

One if the nominations for the prestigious (or facrcical depending on your POV) Turner Prize was a video taken with a camera strapped to a toy helicopter which buzzed BBC Broadcasting House in London. According to The Guardian it 'had at least two art world glitterati spluttering on their Jimmy Choo shoes'

Maybe the Gates Brothers should try for next years prize?

...Except that, if I own an XBox, and I want to play online, I must subscribe to XBox Live. I can't sign up with AT&T Broadband or Speakeasy.net or Earthlink or Covad; Microsoft won't let me. It's either their service, or tough shit.

Sounds like I can either vote for the democratically elected leader, or not vote at all. Yeah, that's competing on the merits, all right...

Schwab

Oh yeah smart guy? Well what about the plaques that plague society?

"I'm going to make five times as much money as Francis [Ford Coppola] on these science- ficton toys and I won't have to make The Godfather," he boasted to cult filmmaker John Milius. "I've made what I consider the most conventional kind of movie I can possibly make."

Genes do inter-species jumps. Here is one example:

"British scientific researchers have demonstrated for the first time that genetically modified DNA material from crops is finding its way into human gut bacteria, raising potentially serious health questions.

Although the genetically modified material in most GM foods poses no health problems, many of the controversial crops have antibiotic-resistant marker genes inserted into them at an early stage in development.

If genetic material from these marker genes can also find its way into the human stomach, as experiments at Newcastle university suggest is likely, then people's resistance to widely used antibiotics could be compromised. "

Full article:
%lt;http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/S tory/0,276 3,756666,00.html>

Do a Google search and you'll find many more examples.

First of all, it was just an example. Are you next going to tell me that since one of my examples was bad, obviously "product dumping" / selling items as a "loss leader" is a myth too? Maybe my example was wrong; maybe it wasn't. But my point still stands.

Secondly, accounts on this "myth" vary. Some very reputable sources say it's quite true. Who do you believe? Might not be the same folks I believe.

From this page on The Guardian: "All three manufacturers are determined to build up a large user base. The consoles are sold at a loss...".

Part of the resistance is that the US is refusing to label such food and allow people to make a choice about whether they eat hormone-treated or GM foods. The European consumer has shown that they want to know these things - that the US is refusing to do so is both arrogant and misguided. Indeed inside the US, there has been pressure for BST-treated milk to be labelled, the companies have refused. Why shouldn't we be given a choice what we eat and drink?

If the food is better, it will succeed in the market.

What's the big deal? Health organizations were all over this, have scrutinized it, and I can guarantee you (I know people that work in the medical industry) that the FDA is unbelivably uptight about letting *anything* past them if there's even the remotest unfounded possibility that something might have some risk to it. The only reason *not* to eat improved food is because of some irrational gut emotional response.

The problem is that people who work in industry have then taken up positions on the regulatory bodies that are meant to produce independent advice on the safety of these products.

For instance Margaret Miller wrote most of the FDA's regulations on why BST-treated milk would not be labelled, but she was a member of the team at Monsanto which had developed BST. Additionally, Dr Nick Weber of the FDA who had been negotiating with international regulators had passed confidential committee information to Monsanto.

This cannot be considered as satisfactory regulation. All the science in the World will not save you from corruption - and this is nothing more than corruption.

Finally, you have to remember that Europe has many small farms many of which rely on organic production methods. Any GM planting in Europe would result in cross-pollenation between GM and non-GM produce. People would end up eating GM food whether they liked it or not.

I thought the market was all about choice?

Best wishes,
Mike.

In the UK the XBOX has now put itself as the number 2 console , ahead of Nintendo's gamecube.

Xbox wins race of the also-rans
http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/comment/story/0,1 2449,840789,00.html

But if libraries are required to install filtering software, which the "ant-smut" brigade people are calling for, you will no longer be able to look up websites on renaissance paintings on library computers...

The question of where art stops and porn starts is not trivial at all. For example, in the UK there has been a fair bit of controversy about awarding certificates to movies that feature graphic sex scenes, and a turner prize exhibit that is just a synopsis of a porn movie[1]. Where do you draw the line between nudity and/or sex in the name or art and porn? (Obviously this isn't directly related to the kids.us domain, it's just an example of how you can't neatly divide all nudity into "art" and "porn" with no grey areas)

[1] There's a very funny article about that exhibit from a porn actor's point of view here.

See this story which says Xbox has overtaken GameCube, at least in UK.

The truth only happens in a place where there are many publishers of equal weight. A place with one or two heavies is likely to have "news" that's more entertianment, spin and propaganda than information. An old Russian poverb, "There's no truth in the news and no news in the truth," was made fact by the Soviet Union which had only two news services in any media, Tass and Isvestia, meaning Truth and News (order may be incorrect). Both printed up the same nonsense. It can happen elswhere with far less repressive measures.

As far as I could find out, the websites Australia's Justice Minister Chris Ellison wants to block are IndyMedia and unnamed anti-WTO websites. These websites are maintained and used by the "people of seattle", as they are called since the 1999 WTO summit in Seattle, where they demonstrated to draw public attention to the undemocatic ways of the Word Trade Organization and other problems with neo-liberalism.

The so-called anti-globalization movement got a bad reputation with some good citizens when riots broke out in Genoa. Today it is acknowledged fact that Italia's state police infiltrated hooligans or nazi skins into Genoa and equipped them with weapons such as baseball bats.

Meanwhile this movement has met in Florence, Italy, for no other reason that to hold a conference, the first European Social Forum, that was attended by 60,000 people. At the end of it, they were joined by trade unionists and ordinary Italian people for a demonstration of 500,000 people (according to police figures). During the conference and the mass demonstration no one was hurt, and not a single windows was smashed. (More in The Guardian.)

Berlusconi, Italia's leader, had previously predicted that there would surely be violence in Florence. He even tried to move the Social Forum to the coutryside. He has made a fool of himself.

Now Australia's Justice Minister is determined to do the same thing. Not only because blocking websites does not work. He's trying to use a false myth (anti-globalists are rioters) in order to censor political opposition. Also note how the dumb notion of cybercrime is extended into a nonsense notion by trying to create a cybercrime law that bans defamation, calls to protest, and independent analysis all at once from the web.

It would be even funnier if it weren't so true.

As you can see, the only countries that have negative growth rates (a decrease in population) are some of the former Eastern Block countries--because their infrastructure and economy are crumbling.

It's always the physics guys...

Check out the Guardian's top 10 scientific blunders page. They've got psychologists, physicists, chemists... all working to pull down science's reputation.

This is a nice theory, but you should remember Murphy's rule of combat "No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy".

All military commanders have nice thought out plans how they are going to wipe the enemy without a single loss to their troops, but when it comes down to reality, people start to realize that the enemy also has exactly these plans.

Such well thought out scenarios like you paint there only happen in war games when the OpFor is playing especially nice and lets the four star general win to not endanger their military career (unlike this)

In actual combat, you can count on being taken by surprised by some enemy action and having to reform your plans on the go or lose.

Indeed. Here in UK the Labour Party while in opposition (pre-1997) worked out an alliance with the Liberal Democrats, the third party in domestic politics, a central feature of said alliance is the introduction of some sort of proportional representation.

This measure, which would benefit the Lib-Dems (consistently polling at around 20% but obtaining only 8% of the seats under the first-past-the-post system) was scuppered after Labour unexpectedly won a huge landslide in 1997 and kept a large part of its majority in the subsequent election in 2001. The carrot is still being dangled though..

Waiting even 10 minutes for a bus/train when it's below zero just isn't acceptable for most people, and it can be dangerous for young kids and elderly as well.

automobiles are far more dangerous. there is a very interesting article about this guy Mayer Hillman at the Guardian and his ideas. he has some "out there" ideas but if history holds true we will probably agree with him in 30 years.

he talks about the dangers of automobiles (pollution, accidents, etc.) and how bicycles are far safer but should have seperate roadways, seperate from cars. he argues that cycling, even for short distances, improves health (physical and mental), liberates children (they don't have to stay home or ask for rides), and averts potentially global climate change. his opinions on that last point (climate change) are kind of shocking -- he calls for a rationing of carbon. each person can only produce a certain amount of carbon each year but selling carbon rations would not be prohibited. the idea is to reward the conserver.

Waiting even 10 minutes for a bus/train when it's below zero just isn't acceptable for most people, and it can be dangerous for young kids and elderly as well.

automobiles are far more dangerous. there is a very interesting article about this guy Mayer Hillman at the Guardian and his ideas. he has some "out there" ideas but if history holds true we will probably agree with him in 30 years.

he talks about the dangers of automobiles (pollution, accidents, etc.) and how bicycles are far safer but should have seperate roadways, seperate from cars. he argues that cycling, even for short distances, improves health (physical and mental), liberates children (they don't have to stay home or ask for rides), and averts potentially global climate change. his opinions on that last point (climate change) are kind of shocking -- he calls for a rationing of carbon. each person can only produce a certain amount of carbon each year but selling carbon rations would not be prohibited. the idea is to reward the conserver.

Honestly they did

The only people who would consider this a troll are Americans who are so brainwashed and so closed-minded that they can't see the truth. I am an American, but if I had the ability to leave this cesspool, I would. Here are the problems I see:

1. Americans are overweight (so the poster is correct in saying we're fat) with many of them being dangerously obese. I could stand to lose 10-15 pounds myself.

2. Americans have become locked into an obessive and unhealthy relationship with money and property due to the capitalist system. In America, the only value a person has is the amount of "stuff" that they own. This is immoral.

3. Americans are woefully out of touch with regards to the rest of the world due to the lack of true news reporting and cultural education in general. See this link for a great rundown of American failings.

4. Due to the propaganda that passes for news in this country, Americans (incorrectly) think that the rest of the world is out to get them. It isn't true folks. Wake up and join the rest of the world.

5. Americans are too eager to see an enemy around every corner. Even if it is unwarranted. This is evidence of how scared most of our population is. The very fact that so many fools believe they need to own a gun, further illustrates the point.

In general, Americans need to grow up and become aware of what is really going on in the rest of the world. America is NOT the greatest nation on the planet. The American century is over. Accept it.

While capitalism might be the best thing going right now... that doesn't imply that it will always be the best thing. I believe it's nearing the end of it's usefulness because it only encourages greed, ruthless competition and fear. It's time for a change. Keep in mind, the best way to travel used to be a horse drawn coach at one time, I'd challenge anyone here to say that it still is.

The capitalist system is the root source of most of America's problems in and out of the nation. Why did the "terrorists" hit the Twin Towers? Because WE are interfering with their culture solely to make a profit. Why did the "dot.com" bubble burst? Because a bunch of greedy bastards thought that they deserved six figure salaries for having no business model other than "It's really cool and it'll use the internet". Why do we have such a huge disparity between the rich and the poor? Because the rich have the money to pay people to make them richer. The poor actually have to work.

So, as much as I would love to defend this country, I find myself wanting to walk away, quietly and ashamed, from all the things it currently stands for. Until this country and it's populace decide to pay attention to the real world instead of the one they see through the filter of capitalism, we are doomed to be mocked and attacked. America is being controlled by the wrong people: lawyers and business interests. The only people those two groups benefit are themselves. They just throw the illusion of wealth at people like you and me.

I make $45,000 a year working as a network admin/programmer in the non-profit (major metropolitan public library) sector because I believe in doing something for my fellow man. I could have worked in the private sector and made a lot more money, but who would that be helping? It wouldn't help those who really matter (the children in the inner city, the unemployed and underpriveledged). That is how I can view my country this way. The peopple who have been deluded into thinking that they are wealthy and important because they own stuff, are morally bankrupt.

It was a new financial system, and it was a real mess - something like £9m initial cost and £20m due to its flaws. According to Anthony Finkelstein, who's written a very detailed report on the fiasco:

• Significantly more costly than had been anticipated (worse than it appears because of hidden costs)
• Substantial disruption to working of the University
• Placed staff under undue pressure
• Placed the finance of the University at risk and may have prevented the University and its staff from fulfilling their legal responsibilities

You can read his full report here (pdf) or here (google html version). There are also news reports on the system here and here.

Basically, it was bad management throughout... a classic case of a big software project gone wrong.

As for the current state of affairs in Europe, parties are either given seats in direct relation to their voter numbers (proportional representation - used in most European democracies) or using the winner-takes-all system (single-member district plurality system, used in the US and Britain).

Both have downsides, neither is ideal. However having just two major parties does lead to a convergence of policies as both try to appeal to a broad "centre ground" spectrum of voters - as seen in both the US (where both candidates were accused of being in the pockets of business/media corporations) and the UK (the current Labour government being seen as following many of the previous Conservative policies). This results in a denial of choice to the voter, with low turnouts being a typical sympton. Another possibility is that of extremists gaining votes simply by virtue of being of only ones to offer something new.

As for dullards, the US has had an undistinguished record recently with Clinton being the only one who seemed to know what he was talking about policy-wise (as long as he kept his trouser zipper shut). Bush Snr and Reagan had their policies pretty much set by unelected advisors, and as for Bush Jnr...well saying he seems an improvement over Dan Quayle is the only compliment I can pay him. Europe's problem has been more with corruption rather than talent(German ex-Chancellor Kohl, French President Chirac and Italian President Berlusconi being examples).

in the amount of U.S. $10 Billion:

Read about it here Please Continue Sending Bucks

Woot,

Cheers

After 2001/09/11, it took the "hawks" mere hours to come out on TV and go "hey, let's bomb Iraq, because, ummm, we can". I didn't see anyone criticising them at the time. It's only in the last few months that people have been able to "come out" against the warmongers in the administration without being shouted down as "terrorist-lovers". Off the top of my head, have a link.

Earle delivered a snarling treatise on the sidelining of the American ideal by blinkered greed. The song was duly grafted on to the film's closing credits - until the after-effects of September 11 began to emerge. "He [Cassavetes] finally admitted that the film's distributors had decided that it was too critical of the Bush administration," says Earle. "They couldn't include it in the film in this political climate. 'While we're at war' is what they said."

OK, "art media" rather than politics, but you get the idea. Don't say anything that criticises TPTB.

And no, not living in the US, I don't "watch network TV or in general partake of the dominant media in the US". The only instance of such things I see is the NYT, which wasn't always as anti-bush as it is now, and CNN, which is devoid of journalism anyway, preferring pointless interviews with people who have nothing to say or don't want to say anything, and parroting press releases.

The journalists arrested for failing to reveal their sources simply highlights the natural conflict between freedom of the press and the need of the people to be protected from criminals. None of these people have been imprisoned for refusing to reveal *political* sources.

Is that so? Maybe you should tell the people who compiled the report. I was quoting the passage to point out why these people thought the US had a poor record on press freedom, not to make a point.

Oh come on, the Brits have had bomb disposal robots for years (for obvious reasons). Mind you, they sometimes end up like the Daleks did...

Or win back the mark and allow its licensing to third parties, effectively capitalizing on the popularity won for the police box by the Dr. Who series.

A similar suit was recently settled in favor of the London Underground. Perhaps those more familiar with international resolution of civil torts can comment.

Generally you're right, although it's worth noting that both your examples are BBC ones.

Sky News is pretty good from the now and then that I catch it, as is Channel 4 news.

All the broadsheet newspapers generally provide more challenge to the government than the present Westminster opposition do - even The Guardian which is nominally a Labour-supporting paper.

It's actually quite interesting that the one policy theme that the current opposition could successfully pick up on as a basis for the next election is the Libertarian agenda, currently being touted by The Daily Telegraph (which has been the Conservative Party's candid friend for a long time).

However, the Conservative Party has far too many internal interests who are bound to social authoritarianism despite their economic liberalism to go for this. It would be a brave step for them to refocus the party and lose a large part of the existing (small) support in the hope of gaining a larger support elsewhere.

They've started to recognise this - that their authoritarianism makes the country view them as the 'nasty' party - but they'll have to move very carefully to make the move effectively.

From Salon's Aug 2002 article Meet Mr. Anti-Google:

Why would somebody pay $69 a month for an ad on maps.searchking.com, a PageRank 7 site? Because they think they know how Google works: If you get a link from an important site, your own site becomes more important. You don't pay the $69 for the clicks you might get from all the visitors to maps.searchking.com -- you pay it to get a higher rank in Google.

In an interview, Massa didn't come right out and say he is trying to sell higher rankings in Google. "I'm just saying that sites with high page rank have a huge perception of value, and if you want to pay more for that I'm not going to talk you out of it," he said. "When they put it on the toolbar and made it public, they must have known it's going to become a currency."

[snip]

Sullivan, of Search Engine Watch, says that Massa's is the first program he's seen that has been so "brazen about selling page rank" -- and he doesn't think it's going to work, especially since Google knows about the program.

From this Sept 5 2002 story Engine Trouble in the Guardian:

As [google] has become celebrated for taking users directly to the information they want, though, a question has emerged in the minds of internet entrepreneurs who are no longer the recipients of millions of easy dollars: could it be manipulated for much-needed profit? One of Google's advantages has always been its refusal to sell placements in its rankings to the highest bidder, but the PageRank system, some argue, has its loopholes. Because Google measures how many pages link to a site, what if you set up thousands of web pages solely for the purpose of linking to one commercial site?

Some have accused Bob Massa, proprietor of a "search optimisation" service called Searchking, of doing just that. "All I want is for webmasters with small sites to get rewarded fairly," he says. "This is a chance to see that those guys get visitors and put up good content. Google wants good content. I can't see any problem."

From Salon's Aug 2002 article Meet Mr. Anti-Google:

Why would somebody pay $69 a month for an ad on maps.searchking.com, a PageRank 7 site? Because they think they know how Google works: If you get a link from an important site, your own site becomes more important. You don't pay the $69 for the clicks you might get from all the visitors to maps.searchking.com -- you pay it to get a higher rank in Google.

In an interview, Massa didn't come right out and say he is trying to sell higher rankings in Google. "I'm just saying that sites with high page rank have a huge perception of value, and if you want to pay more for that I'm not going to talk you out of it," he said. "When they put it on the toolbar and made it public, they must have known it's going to become a currency."

[snip]

Sullivan, of Search Engine Watch, says that Massa's is the first program he's seen that has been so "brazen about selling page rank" -- and he doesn't think it's going to work, especially since Google knows about the program.

From this Sept 5 2002 story Engine Trouble in the Guardian:

As [google] has become celebrated for taking users directly to the information they want, though, a question has emerged in the minds of internet entrepreneurs who are no longer the recipients of millions of easy dollars: could it be manipulated for much-needed profit? One of Google's advantages has always been its refusal to sell placements in its rankings to the highest bidder, but the PageRank system, some argue, has its loopholes. Because Google measures how many pages link to a site, what if you set up thousands of web pages solely for the purpose of linking to one commercial site?

Some have accused Bob Massa, proprietor of a "search optimisation" service called Searchking, of doing just that. "All I want is for webmasters with small sites to get rewarded fairly," he says. "This is a chance to see that those guys get visitors and put up good content. Google wants good content. I can't see any problem."

Unfortunately, more and more of the new programming consists of either 3rd rate rip-offs of commercial programming, e.g. Fame Academy (Pop Idol), infomercials for the National Lottery, product placement and premium rate phone numbers advertised in kids' programs.

Why you listen to anything that this guys says.

If he isn't being paid by M$ he should be. Read his other articles...

A hard sell for cuddly new XP

The mother of all operating systems

Sun sues Microsoft from inside a glass house

To name a few ... I don't think you'll find a bad word said about Microsoft. Nice to know.

Why you listen to anything that this guys says.

If he isn't being paid by M$ he should be. Read his other articles...

A hard sell for cuddly new XP

The mother of all operating systems

Sun sues Microsoft from inside a glass house

To name a few ... I don't think you'll find a bad word said about Microsoft. Nice to know.

Try searching for "shayler" on the BBC news site...
Looks like public interest in this story officially expired back in March.

Even stranger, the Financial Times [subscription required] reports "No matches" for the same search.

At least The Guardian are on the case, although even they have had some articles censored.
Of course, they can't actually report that this censorship occurred.

Scary.

Try searching for "shayler" on the BBC news site...
Looks like public interest in this story officially expired back in March.

Even stranger, the Financial Times [subscription required] reports "No matches" for the same search.

At least The Guardian are on the case, although even they have had some articles censored.
Of course, they can't actually report that this censorship occurred.

Scary.

Wishing a terrorist attack on Madison because they do not hold the same narrow minded views as you is something I find despicable and ignorant but to flame is not constructive, so I offer you food for thought.

The patriots who setup the American constitution understood tyrants and the human failings of greed and power lust hence the checks and balances therein. If these checks and balances are removed for whatever excuse, I would certainly smell a rat. Members of the Congress & Senate pledge an oath to uphold the constitution when taking office however; they have just granted Bush the ability to declare war which the constitution clearly forbids and I think this spells trouble.

Everything isn't a cut and dried as you or Bush like to make out, this simplistic view of the world where there are good guys in white hats and bad guys in black hats is childish and ignorant yet you tell others to grow up.

Some Americans who have retained some critical thinking abilities are realising the people in the white house hijacked a nations grief to throw the nation in to a perpetual war. People like you label these anti-American but let me ask you this: When has it ever been American to blindly follow a leader?

Real people will die in the upcoming war against Iraq, real families will grieve for the loss of loved ones and for what? OIL.

Here are a couple of links If terrorists did attack Madison, after going against the Ashcroft patriot act, who would it really help? Certainly Would remind me of the Lavon Affair or maybe closer to Operation Northwoods.

African packet radio users will notice faster downloads and less net traffic over the next several years, as half the adults on the continent die of AIDS.

The guy being tried is one David Shayler, who is being prosecuted for breaches of the Official Secrets Act. His defence is that he was whistle-blowing, which is an admissible defence in UK law (see R vs Ponting, where Clive Ponting was prosecuted for a breach of the OSA by the Crown for revealing to an MP (Tam Dalyell) that Ministers were mis-leading Parliament. He was found not guilty, basically because the jury refused to swallow the prosecution line that revealing Ministerial malfeasance was not a justification for breaching the OSA). Shayler revealed, extensively, just how much of a joke MI5 (the branch of the British goverment responsible for "internal security" - keeping tabs on subversives, terrorists, republicans (note the lower-case R), anti-apartheid campaigners and the like) was: among the individuals who MI5 kept files on were about half the members of the current Cabinet, while the organisation itself was a joke: hidebound, locked into a cold-war culture and mindset and staffed by demoralised alcoholics. See this article for a more forensic examination.

Unsuprisingly, MI5 wasn't at all happy about being held up for ridicule in this way and, while denying all the allegations, also pressed for Shayler to be prosecuted for breaching the OSA. Shayler, with the backing of various human rights organisations, has fought this, claiming, amongst other things, that the revelations were in the public interest and did not damage national security, and that the human rights act, which came into law in October 2000, protects whistle-blowers who act in the public interest. Various courts, up to and including the Law Lords, have decided that he has no absolute exemption and must stand trial, which is what is now happening.

So, did Shayler, by his actions, put Britain or British agents in danger. Well, no. Did he embarass the security services? Yes, absolutely. Does this mean he should be tried in camera. In my opinion, no: surely there is an absolute protection for the man who blows the whistle, and this includes (wherever possible) giving him his day in open court in front of the judge and jury, and in the public eye.