Slashdot Mirror

Naughton is also the author of A Brief History of the Future, which is an excellent read.

I just know this will get modded down to minus 1000, but I can't resist:

For over a year or so I'm thinking of moving from Linux to windows. Why? Because of the stability and usability. Windows 2000 and XP appear to be very stable and no one can deny that they are lightyears ahead of anything on linux when it comes to desktop comfort.

For the last couple of months I've noticed an increasing amount of posts on Slashdot from people subtly promoting Microsoft and putting down Linux. They say just the right things to make sure their posts don't get modded down, but essentially try to persuade people to think the types of things Microsoft wants them to think.

Here's a very interesting article from the UK Guardian about corporations using fake people on newsgroups and email forums to rubbish their opponents. They use companies who promise to be very discrete and do it in such a way that it is very difficult to link the individuals back to the company concerned. The article cites the case of this type of tactics being used by Monsanto. Is it really so difficult to believe that Microsoft might pay one of these companies to post anti-Linux comments on sites like Slashdot? Read the article.

Press reports of private censorship:

The London Daily Telegraph: High clearance fees inhibit the work of art historians.(John Whitley, "Protection - or racket? How they're keeping art out of sight--Art historians and biographers are going to the wall as the high-finance stranglehold on copyright tightens.", The Telegraph, "11/09/1999" -- I think in a UK context that means September 11th, not November 9th.)

The Irish Times: The James Joyce estate prevents the performance of a song. (Medb Ruane, "The war of words over Joyce's literary legacy" Irish Times, June 10, 2000.)

The Irish Times: As a result of Joyce estate threats, Cork University Press decides that it must excise Joyce's works from a "comprehensive" anthology of 20th century Irish literature. (Terence Killeen, "Copyright row over Joyce excerpts", Irish Times, February 19th, 2001.)

The Irish Times: The Samuel Beckett estate suppresses a 1988 French production of Endgame and a 1994 London production of Footfalls. These incidents are mentions in the article's next-to-last and 4th-to-last paragraphs.(Louise East, "All Beckett's plays to be filmed here for millennium", Irish Times, July 17th, 1999.)

The Guardian: Peter Schaufuss rewrites a ballet under pressure from the Elvis Presley estate.(Jann Parry, "Thin Elvis--Copyright problems have made rock'n'roll spectacular The King a pale shadow of its subject", April 30th, 2000.). Richard Morrison of The London Times comments on the same incident here. (Richard Morrison, "Why Elvis will never leave the auditorium", London Times, April 20th, 2000.)

The Shawnee (Oklahoma) News-Star: The Martha Graham Trust suppresses the production of Graham's Panorama at a Frostburg State University summer workshop. ("Officials try to shield school from fight over dancer's, legacy", Shawnee (Oklahoma) News-Star. The web page's graphics give a date of May 2, 2000, but the story's correct date is July 18th, 2000, as can be verified by examining the page's html source.) The New York Times article (free registration might be needed) is here. (Doreen Carvajal, "Symposium's Vision Fades in Fight Over Martha Graham's Legacy", New York Times, July 17th, 2000)

Animerica Magazine: Special Sailor Moon issue delayed due to rights clearance complications.(Julie Davis, "Sailor Moon Blues", Animerica Magazine, Volume 9, Number 5.)

It'll take some very clever screenwriting (and this hasn't been suggested by the summaries I've read) between this and the next episode to prevent viewers reacting to the line "I am your father." with the phrase "Well, duh!".

Lucas has been over in the UK promoting Episode 2, and in the middle of defending Episode 1 in a press conference, let slip that an episode 7 might be in the works... It's near the bottom.

Also, there's an interview with Lucas here.

Lucas has been over in the UK promoting Episode 2, and in the middle of defending Episode 1 in a press conference, let slip that an episode 7 might be in the works... It's near the bottom.

Also, there's an interview with Lucas here.

Since submitting the story, yesterday I went to the press launch of the exhibition, and it's extraordinarily good. Basically, imagine dying and going to videogame heaven, because that's what this is like.

The exhibit doesn't have much in the way of "how games are made" filler - this is about games, games, games: 150 playable games! Woo hoo! If you're looking for an excuse to go on holiday to London, let this be it.

Going in the door there's an actual DEC PDP-1 unit on which the original Spacewar! was played. Then it's a gentle stroll through the development of games and the consoles, with almost all of them working models, some of which are hardly seen outside of Japan (the Nintendo Famicon, for example). There are some games looked at in-depth: sections on GTA3, and the making of the Sims, as well as Pokemon - there are copies of ancient GameFreak magazines - and some incredible Final Fantasy lithographs by Yokshitaka Amano. The "sound" of videogames also gets some recognition, and obviously the influence of Japan (including a couple of working Pachinko machines). The multiplayer section's cool, with a five-player playable Bomberman set-up.

Criticisms? Well, not many, unless you want to know how games are actually developed, but who cares? The "new release" section is a bit weak, with just PS2's Harry Potter game and XBox's motogp, neither of which are cutting edge. And there's no Doom, which is a serious omission given the game's historical importance in the growth of the industry (although there is Wolfenstein 3D). It would have been good (from a personal point of view) to have had the whole Metal Gear series on show, rather than just MGS2, but hey.

Strong-points: the exhibition is "platform neutral" - it's not sponsored by Sony or Nintendo or Microsoft (the organisers told me they resisted a bit of pressure from the console makers to get involved - at the cost of pushing out their rivals), and the consoles themselves are dealt with even-handedly.

The exhibition's in London until mid-September, then goes to the National Museum in Scotland. It's signed up to go to Helsinki next autumn/fall - and negotiations are going on with venues in the US and Japan. All the games are free, it's £11 entry (about $16), and at the moment it's all-day entry, but they are talking about a two-hour time limit - so get in there before the school holidays kick off. There's also a £20 exhibit guide book, but it's not worth the money (or indeed the paper it's printed on).

The Guardian newspaper had a review here.

See article in The Guardian Online section today.

I just saw this:
The Guardian newspaper has a short piece about Lucas defending Phantom Menace [also annoying popup].

Quick plug:
Why not compare all the Star Wars episodes in one swell foop! (You can also try terms like: lame, merchandise, thrilling, classic etc...)

Moreover, Anakin not only has a ponytail, but also a thin length of braided hair trailing winsomely over his shoulder. As the mighty Yoda would say: "Like a wussy 12-year-old girl he looks."

Moreover, Anakin not only has a ponytail, but also a thin length of braided hair trailing winsomely over his shoulder. As the mighty Yoda would say: "Like a wussy 12-year-old girl he looks."

here and here.

Hmm. Wasting taxpayer money in these pointless lawsuits.

If you want examples of government intervention in the economy, there are plenty. The links I just provided are examples where the government is subsidising american industries that are unable to compete with foreign exporters. Should the govt. also be subsidising tech companies that are unable to compete with microsoft? If there were more companies than microsoft providing OSs, there certainly would be more jobs available for supporting those OSs and applications.

This lawsuit is about protecting consumers from the perils of the microsoft monopoly just as the texas lawsuit against the tobacco manufacturers was intended to protect the funds spent by the taxpayers on all the medical expenses created by their product.

So what are the perils? How about the lack of competition prompting feature-rich products at competitive prices? In normal markets, competitors have to keep their prices low and continue developing features that are better than other products. Is that pressure on Microsoft? No. Microsoft has the freedom from competition, so it can dedicate all its attention towards how to bilk more money out of consumers.

Hmm. Wasting taxpayer money in these pointless lawsuits.

If you want examples of government intervention in the economy, there are plenty. The links I just provided are examples where the government is subsidising american industries that are unable to compete with foreign exporters. Should the govt. also be subsidising tech companies that are unable to compete with microsoft? If there were more companies than microsoft providing OSs, there certainly would be more jobs available for supporting those OSs and applications.

This lawsuit is about protecting consumers from the perils of the microsoft monopoly just as the texas lawsuit against the tobacco manufacturers was intended to protect the funds spent by the taxpayers on all the medical expenses created by their product.

So what are the perils? How about the lack of competition prompting feature-rich products at competitive prices? In normal markets, competitors have to keep their prices low and continue developing features that are better than other products. Is that pressure on Microsoft? No. Microsoft has the freedom from competition, so it can dedicate all its attention towards how to bilk more money out of consumers.

Part of the problem is that the US government has had a long practice of suppressing the powers of foreign governments. (When you're at the top, you will do everything you can to stay where you are).

The most recent event was the current administration's attempt at ousting Chavez, the President of Venezuela. He is a democratically elected president supported by the majority of the people in the nation. However, he has the potential to lead to major problems for the US. Unlike prior leaders, he has a strong leaning towards doing what is best for his people rather than for the US. Specifically, he wants to raise oil export prices against the wishes of the Bush administration. He is trying to pull the nation out of poverty. Think about it, the US, the crusader for the spread of democracy trying to oust a democratically elected leader to install a puppet regime.

This isn't the only incident of this type that has happend. If you look at Fidel Castro, he was a puppet regime installed by the US government back in the 60s. Castro currently has a thriving biotech (medicine) industry which they sell cheaply to third world countries. The US sees this as a threat and is calling Castro a terrorist that is developing bio-weapons.

Lastly, the US has criticized China for protectionist strategies and such. Earlier this year, the Bush administration has instituted a huge tariff on the import of steel from foreign nations (including Europe), which will hurt the economies of a number of foreign nations. This has set the entire world in an uproar and Europe has brought this to the World Trade Organization.

Lastly, you mentioned that we should give up some power. Ideally that would be best to equalize the world. But that will NEVER EVER happen. The distance between the US and the third world countries will become ever increasingly larger which will further spawn off hatred towards the us, not out of jealousy, but of the techniques that we are using against the rest of the world.

You do see Judaeo-Christian bombers sometimes.

Jewish extremists in Israel tried to bomb a school

And Christianity has inspired extremists in the US and other countries to violence - against abortion clinics, or in the militia movement for example.

Don't forget that Hinduism has inspired anti-Muslim violence in India too.

"Other religions like Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Wicca and probably a lot more allow for secular coexistance and equal rights"? The societies where those religions are dominant do, perhaps. But don't forget that the social changes in Western society which promoted tolerance weren't necessarily inspired by religion.

Look at Christianity in the UK - the Church of England was hardly active in promoting social change, even in the 20th century. It was decades behind the rest of society in female equality (as far as actually allowing them to be priests, anyway).

Arguably there is more glorification of terrorism and acceptance of propaganda in the Islamic world.

What will hopefully happen as Islamic countries get more prosperous is a secularisation process where religion becomes less influential.

Got any evidence of the nuclear industry EVER making that claim? I didn't think so.

No, not on me, but I definitely remember seeing a British Public Information Film from the 50s that did indeed make that proud boast.

Of course, whether that was a genuine opinion from within the nuclear industry, or just deliberate false propaganda to keep public opinion onside while they built their nuclear-bomb factory (Windscale, now known as Sellafield), I don't know.

Talking of Sellafield, I'm no hippy, and am not always comfortable with everything Greenpeace do, but nevertheless this makes rather worrying reading...read the note at the bottom.Also, it looks like the U.K. needs to build its own version of this site to deal with all our own waste.

But back to the original question. One quick Google later, if this rather dodgy looking webpage is correct, the phrase was used by the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission on 16th Sept 1954 in a speech to the National Association of Science Writers, although to be fair the nuclear industry was already retracting it within four years.

Does that answer your question?

Saw this linked to in an article about the merger on The Register. Quite an interesting point of view, basically asking if companies which only look at share price are actually that successful in the long run.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,706810,0 0.html

While the fatal anthrax attacks of last year remain unsolved, the flippant tone of many of the comments on this seems inappropriate to me. It is clear that the anthrax attacks were not carried out by Islamic terrorists, and that the main suspect is still at large and is a US government employee.

See for example this Guardian story.

This in itself is chilling enough, along with the fact that the suspect is apparently being protected. This does not of course prove that these deaths are all part of some conspiracy: it does suggest, however that there are some very disturbing unanswered questions which could be related to this story.

If you watch US television for long, you will start to understand the obesity levels. Stuck between 10 minutes of inane rubbish featuring potentially beautiful but dangerously starved people, you are subjected to 5 minutes of carefully crafted manipulation inviting you to go further into debt, then pig out on sugered drinks and ultra high fat junk.

Simply by increasing obesity, TNT's advertising is responsible for more deaths than heroin. See this. One could argue that it should be banned entirely, like heroin. Personally I think dangerous and destructive things (like adverts or heroin) should be regulated rather than banned outright.

One valid argument against legalised heroin is that sometimes people's choices harm others. For instance, if I end up having to foot the medical bills of heroin users, then it *is* my business what other people do in the privacy of their own homes. So, along with legal drugs I would also support education to warn people of dangers.
It would seem a bit off to me if far more effort went into trying to persuade people to take heroin than was being spent telling them it might not be such a good idea. I don't believe in stopping people from doing stupid things, but I do have a problem with relentless propoganda telling them that stupid things are a good idea.

The existence of adverts on TNT effects me adversely even if I don't watch it. For instance, the advertising for PizzaHut leads to increased obesity, the additional burden on medicaid and welfare which increases my taxes. I would be willing to pay money to educate people about dangers of eating high-sugar high-fat diets because education is cheaper than cure. By the same token, I would be prepared to pay extra not just to avoid adverts myself, but to avoid your exposure to adverts.

In general advertising leads to increased consumerism: more roads, driving, shops, stress and pollution. In fact, it leads to what is hilariously called "progress". The direction it leads people in has only got the faintest association with this idea of "choice". The only "choices" proposed in adverts are ones which will make the advertiser richer.

The desires of humanity are being manipulated and shaped by those with a short term money making agenda. If you want a purely capitalist solution, you need to somehow calculate the true costs of advertising. So, by all means: persuade people to buy that new BMW or pizza, that is perfectly fair - just make sure that the full cost of the extra death, pollution, congestion, noise, road accidents, etc is paid by the advertiser.

In summary, PVR's should be subsidised by extra taxes on advertisers, and TNT can go fuck themselves.

On behalf of the Communist Party, I want to
wish a Happy May Day to everyone at
Slashdot.

Impeach The Cheney-Rumsfeld Administration !

Thank you.

This get modded to insightful? Did you know 90% of all statistics are made up on the spot? Desensitization from FPSers is normally a load of bollocks trotted out by people with a political agenda. Here's just one article, pointing out that anything can desensitize: Link here.

Google has plenty more. I'm not saying games don't desensitize, but to moderate a comment with no real content as insightful is crap. If what the poster said is true, show some evidence. Whoever moderated the comment, be a bit more critical next time, don't just click randomly.

Just read an interesting article (excerpt from his new book) by Will Hutton, noted UK economic chin-stroker & pundit to the stars (well, new Labour anyway.) He points out that many European companies which have rejected US-style, red-in-tooth-and-claw capitalism aimed at maximising shareholder value at all costs has lead to rampant short-termism in US industry, with the predictable result that they have begun to fall behind their competitors. There are some other pretty interesting stats in there on management and exec remuneration, too... did you know that the CEO of Nokia earns less (much less!) than a million a year? Meanwhile in the US, board-level execs commonly pull multi-million dollar packages, with the excuse that this is the market rate that must be paid to attract top-class talent. Of course, all they're really interested in is boosting the share price so they can cash in their options and make another truckload of money. Read the article, it's food for thought.

...coincidentally made earlier today by Will Hutton (a British economist and newspaper editor) about the pointlessness of big money mergers like this.

He produces some very interesting statistics about how they almost always lose money, for example;

The management consultant McKinsey's, for example, reviewing 160 mergers between 1992 and 1999, discovered that only 12 of the merged groups succeeded in lifting organic growth above the trends before the merger; the other 148 failed.

Well, there may indeed be better books. However, I don't think it's fair to say that the poll was skewed because of the movie, if you will notice that the article in question is dated Monday January 20, 1997. This is, of course, over five years ago, when Peter Jackson's film version was merely a rumor, and had not touched the conciousness of the common film goer.

Fact is, the common reader, such as myself, probably has different reasons for liking a book than does a literary critic, or other professional of that sort.

Sorry, but I think you've been had there.

The "Lord Of The Rings" movie trilogy isn't your average Hollywood "gee-what-kind-of-ending-did-the-test-audiences-li ke-the-most?" film series. It's a pretty faithful (so far) movie adaptation of what's commonly regarded as the best book of the twentieth century.

The second book in the trilogy is called "The Two Towers". And the title isn't a prescient, Nostrodamus-like reference to the September 11th attack on the World Trade Center but (shock, horror) a reference to two, uh, towers, that appear in that book as Frodo and Sam continue on to Mordor and the rest of the fellowship take part in an assault on Isengard.

Now, unless I'm truly living in an Orwellian society (which, ironically, is how I perceive the revisionism that Hollywood seems to be obsessed with whenever it turns its hand to historically-based entertainment), those are the historical facts. (Unless, of course, the Ministry Of Truth truly has tracked down every copy of LOTR, had them destroyed and replaced with "corrected" copies that aren't as offensive to The Party. Who knows, this could have happened. It might explain why my copy of LOTR has gone AWOL.)

I can't vouch for him personally, but Peter Jackson strikes me as a man of integrity. In every interview I've read or seen his love of the original text and his desire to bring it to life as faithfully as possible is clear. And I very much doubt that he's going to presume to meddle with Tolkien's masterpiece by changing the title of the second film.

The irony that he'd even be asked to do so is dripping - is there any way the world of Tolkien could possibly be further away from the world of September 11th?

The Hollywood suits asking for a name change are probably the same ones that were so vocal in the aftermath of last year's tragedy, spouting (script-written?) lines about how they couldn't produce another violent movie after what had happened yet barely waiting more than a heartbeat before rubber stamping the release of movies like Black Hawk Down and Collateral Damage.

All this while the Israeli army, funded by the US tax payer ($4 billion of US military aid per year, total military expenditure $7 billion per year), murders people in their homes with US-built, US-supplied hardware while the Bush administration vetoes any attempt by the United Nations' Security Council to condemn Israel's actions.

(When Israel kills, the world complains but the US pretends that nothing's happened. Ditto when the US military kills allied personnel in "friendly fire" incidents.)

Change the title of "The Two Towers"? How about changing the damn record instead?

(Go ahead, mod this down. Like I give a damn about karma.)

The book's just been published here in the UK, and the weekend's papers have got reviews - including one that makes the same point (sort of) about Deep Blue. There's a good review here by Simon Singh, the guy that wrote Fermat's Last Theorem; he mentions that Edmund Cartwright set about building the first power weaving loom after seeing the Turk, reasoning that if a machine could play chess it must be possible to build one that could weave, and so contributing to the start of the industrial revolution.

BTW, the author of the Mechanical Turk is the technology correspondent of The Economist magazine, I see from his website.

Allegedly though, they are not very fire resistant.

Picture of a flask train for the curious (uk).

From the UK's Guardian: A lawsuit filed in Manhattan accuses Columbia Pictures, producers of the new Spiderman movie, of digitally manipulating shots of Times Square to block out an advert for Samsung, arch-rivals of Sony, which owns Columbia. So, this seems more like Columbia censoring daddy's rivals than just removing an ad because the director didn't like it's artistic qualities. Now the question of whether the removal is warranted or ethical I will leave to the philosopher and lawyers; I'm just an engineer.

The risk of a broken man with no place to go who can't find a job because he was blacklisted ...

Actually, I believe they are more likely to commit suicide. All of the cases I know of where an employee went postal, the firing appears to have been justified.

1. BT monopoly. There are tales of people 'phoning BT to get broadband and being signed up for unmetered dialup (56k) instead due to BT customer service idiocy. The BT/ BT OPenworld/ BT whatever split makes Railtrack's look sensible.
2. UK Cableco current funding. This does *not* indicate any future network upgrades will be forthcoming soon. I am with Telewest Blue Yonder - my service is excellent for what it is (>60 days same IP, between 100-250k down, 40-80k up) but does not come close to US definitions of broadband. I pay 25 UKP/ month for this. NTL are bringing in 1mps for 50 UKP/ month (!) in selected areas, but have many pockets of analogue only TV / dialup subs.
3. 3) The UK government's terrible record on encouraging broadband - hell, even dial up - access. Last year the Guardian reported reported that the UK has committed

   £30m to extend broadband technology outside metropolitan areas. Sweden is committing £1.19bn.

   This despite the UK 'e-zar' loudly boasting about how good things are.
4. Basically, the UK gets whipped at non-LANned betwork gaming evry time :(

this will probably take another 5/6 years

NTL, Telewest and Marconi have no money and could go bankrupt so they cannot invest in purchasing ADSL equipment. Thus there *IS* something to see here, this is big news. BT is either very clever and striking gold now by stealing NTL & Telewest's customers (revenue stream) at the time they are most vulnerable to bankruptcy, or BT is very stupid. After 3G BT is under pressure to make ruthless decisions. Don't forget MCI gives bad service as well but they are a multi-billion dollar company. Plus remember Bill Gates is stupid, he dropped out of his education.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,682 031,00.html

Curiously, the expedition does not seem to include any professional archaeologists:

http://www.india-atlantis.org/

Graham Hancock, the most prominent member of the expedition, is well known for what might kindly be described as 'fringe' theories of ancient civilizations, Faces on Mars, etc:

http://www.grahamhancock.com/

For a critical view, see:

http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk/

"Mr Hancock admitted yesterday that the submerged ruins might not be old enough to relate to the kind of post-ice age flooding that destroyed the supposed civilisations of his books."

First, the surviving temple is certainly not 5000 years old: it dates from the 7th or 8th century AD.
Second, Hindu civilization itself is old but not that old. For temples of this kind, 1000 BC would be an optimistic early limit; 3000 BC is out of the question.
From this article it seems that the claim of 5000 years comes from Graham Hancock, a controversial writer about "lost civilizations". I'd like to see the opinion backed by some credible evidence.

Driven by al Qaeda's atrocities, the US charged into the classic quagmire of Afghanistan, legendary death trap of military ambition. With the customary roll of thunder, out came the full routine of the modern American expeditionary force. First, a cautious, methodical, widely televised suppression of local air defenses. Then, once CNN became accustomed to the violence, some leisurely and terrible precision targeting throughout the theater, around the clock. In Serbia in 1999, US aircraft smashed stationary targets, like buildings and bridges. In Afghanistan, thanks to much faster satellite relays, they demolished rapidly moving tanks, fleeing Toyota trucks, and amazed guerrillas. It took only two weeks to chase Taliban and al Qaeda forces into Pakistan, Iran, and beyond.

"Driven by al Qaeda's atrocities", they decided to go create a few atrocities of their own. Seen any estimates of civilian casualties on your TV news lately? A few dozen? Hundreds even? No, thousands. Professor Marc Herold has put together the only methodical public attempt to date on casualty estimates, and his figure is between 3,000 and 3,400.

"Terrible precision targeting"? Yes, the precision was pretty terrible alright. But the carnage isn't over yet, and won't be for decades: the UN estimates that around 14,000 unexploded cluster bomblets are still on the ground in Afghanistan. They're bright yellow, the same color as the food parcels the US very kindly dropped, while all the aid agencies pleaded with them to stop. So thousands more will die, long after you've had all your parades and pinned on all your medals.

Slow, careful police work was far too unglamourous. Much more sexually satisfying to bomb the shit out of the country harboring the prime suspect. Do you really think that the strikes against the US will stop, simply because the Taliban have been chased into retreat? How many more young suicide bombers are being created daily, thanks to these atrocities and all the others supported and funded around the world by the US? Will they all just give up and go home, awed by superior US satellite technology? Use your brain, for God's sake. You will reap what you sow.

Saddam Hussein has a bunker 75 feet under Bagdad.

We are seeking a way to use tactical nuclear weapons in the field.

Tactical nuke plans call for penetration into the ground so they can destroy bunkers.

Iraq is cutting oil production.

The Carlyle group uhh ... nevermind.

Former Pres. George Bush's career began in the oil industry.

Bush Sr. was President when we went to war with ... Iraq.

G. Dubya is President now and threatening Iraq ...

Saddam better duck.

I assume you are refering to Western Europe or the United States in you weapons argument. There are several international bans on biological weapons...

I was referring to the United States military, primarily. I was raised in a military family, and played soldier for a while. If something is weaponable it will be used. In the early 80's I was into RC planes in a big way. We had a squadron of planes - mostly junior NCO GIs and brats - and discussed military applications of the technology. I should have wrapped the whole post in <rant></rant> tags. :)

(the United States has not engaged in offensive microbiological weapons since the Nixon administration)

Uh, right.

Also I must ask what you mean by "targeted" bioweapons. We do not posess the technology to "target" a weapon beyond the scope of what species it effects (which is usually a trait inherited from the natural stock microbe). It is (and will remain) impossible to target a virus or bacterium to kill one man or nationality.

Thanks, I didn't now that. I'm not a microbiologist so I will defer to your expertise. I had assumed that it would eventually be possible to target specific individuals via a DNA fingerprint of some sort.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for stem cell research. I'm happy and amazed that Rhys Evans aka "Bubble Boy"was cured. I hope it advances medical science by an order of magnitude on the technology scale.

However, I do believe that if it's practical to weaponize something, it will be done. Technology in and of itself is neither good, nor bad. Ethics can only be applied to how it is used.

No doubt, we will do great good with biotech. Hopefully we will avoid any potential catasrophes along the way.

I do believe that the reason Sadam Hussein is the enemy of the year is HIS desire to develop bioweapons.

Yes, that and other things. Saddam Hussein is not a warm and fuzzy teddy bear. He's an asshole, but an effective and powerful dictator. He stood up against the United States and a "coalition army" and remains in power. He's well-respected for that - even if he's not loved.

There were political reasons why we didn't knock him out the last time. We would have pissed off his neighbors who are already massively supsicious and resentful of our military presence where they live.

The Guardian, and Yahoo

Hey dipshit, read the fucking history. And I quote from the Guardian:

"1947: Britain gave up its mandate and the United Nations took over supervision. The UN suggested two states: one Arab, one Jewish. The Jews accepted; the Arabs rejected the plan. David Ben-Gurion ... declread the foundation of the state of Israel on May 15, 1948. Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan invaded but were beaten back."

Yeah, poor Jews being invaded by other fucking countries. Why would they ever thinking about fucking fighting back?

*Handing ass back to you* Here is your ass. Now, if you would like to make an intelligent statement, support it with some facts (links to "creditable" news sources would be good) and add some objectivity. Neither side is angels hear, but you are making it sound like they are completely fucking evil. I doubt the suicide bombers are fucking angels, killing innocent civilians.

Well...actually no.

Economic progress has occured for a long time without the existence of Intellectual Property. In Industrialisation without National Patents, the economic historian Eric Schiff tells the story of how some of Europe's biggest corporations owe their existence to the absence of patent law in their home countries, such as the Netherlands and Switzerland.

There is an interesting review of his work by Guardian columnist George Monbiot, who discusses this, in the context of pharmaceutical patents.

So you're actually assisting in the battle against evil when you deal harshly with cats.

FWIW, my sister's cat has almost convinced me that Ashcroft is right.

I think this is the final evidence that the libertarians have had it wrong for decades. They're always bugging out about the government this, government that. Turns out the CIA was uploading cookies and even they didn't know about it, for Christ's sake. I've worked in government, and I'm not going out on a limb when I say that the government is too damn incompetent to get anything useful out of tracking our M&M consumption habits, as it were.

It's the private sector that poses real risks to privacy. Uncle Sam is not about to track your damned underwear size so they can focus-group test when the ideal time to offer you a rebate on the 10-48 diet drink.

Then he sobered up, moved to (I think) Alberta, where he was going to run for parliament...Somehow, that didn't work out

Well no wonder it didn't work out - you don't get far in Albertan politics by being sober

The St Roch, commanded by Sergeant Larsen, needed 28 months to complete its first traverse of the NW passage, during WW2. (Basically defending the Canadian Arctic from our insensitive American allies.) The recreation of its voyage, in 2000, encountered clear sailing in waters that had been choked with ice sixty years earlier, providing very clear evidence of global warming.

A buck each for CDR media? What?

Ninety pence a litre (five bucks a gallon) for gasoline? What?

The last batch I bought was a spindlepack of 100 for $17 at Microcenter. Even Office Despot sells 100 packs for $34. Before you complain about the quality of cheap CDRs

How long do you think those prices will last in the face of heavy RIAA lobbying? It's already happening in Canada; see my other comment.

That would be a pretty vast amount of paper/trees saved.
Might actually help re: Greenhouse Gas emissions.

Nice to see that some parts of the government are doing something (even if it's not deliberate),
seeing as the Bush-Bot Mark 2 doesn't give a damn.

(Remember the Kyoto Climate Change Agreement - which everyone else in the world signed?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,526607 ,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/07/23/kyoto.t alks/

This was in the same issue.

Didn't you get the memo?

Taste in video game advertising died with Daikatana.

And where did this writeup come from? Here. Just a cut-n-paste job

F'ckin karma whore..
Mod the parent down!

How about invading them?
Of course it's never phrased as such...

Case in point:
Kosovo.
People were killing each other, but before the US & UN got involved, it was still less than in Northern Ireland.
(And how would Britain and Ireland react if the US invaded Ireland or started lobbing missiles at London?)

*sigh*
The UN has still got peacekeepers in the area - and yeah, some of them protecting Serbians from Albanian guerrillas.
( http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,2763,4484 04,00.html )

Grrrr!
Yeah, I'm Grumpy the Bear...