Slashdot Mirror

I don't think any Japanese-Americans interned in those concentration camps were waterboarded.

In fact, very few of those interned in Guantanamo have been waterboarded, too. CIA confirmed it's been used on 3 people, and hasn't been used since 2003.

Dunno if those actual facts figure into your "I'm drawing ridiculous historical parallels that I don't fully understand based on my vague misapprehension of how I imagine things must be working at Gitmo" comment.

Re: Russia's commitment to the free flow of information?
We all know about the press in Russia, the raids, the deaths, the Soviet times, the 1990's...tax problems, Chechnya, the 100's of pictures of staff that where lost...
Russia has learned from the optics of the 1980's via West Germany. TV news from the West got amazing footage of masses of people confronting the state.
Russia now has its young, English speaking, friendly reporters with their press cards walking the streets of the USA been filmed by police as they conduct direct interviews.
Better that Assange gets to talk on topics he wants on a good server, then put on youtube thats got some ability to keep the video accessible.
Also understand the game "freedom of the press" is in the West. Never question the talking points, dont talk to people who have seen things and if given the privilege of access never spoil the event.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/04/cnn-international-documentary-bahrain-arab-spring-repression

Like there was ever "sincerity" in the West? Recall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/29/correspondence-collusion-new-york-times-cia
"CIA's role in pumping the film-makers with information about the Bin Laden raid"

Saw the pic on a blog back in 1997. Stays with you after you have seen it :)
Some more on her work at http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2006/mar/14/2

The British (technically, English) £1 note was abandoned before I was born, but here's an article from the time: http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2012/nov/13/pound-note-replaced-coin-1984

And here's another: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/12/newsid_2518000/2518637.stm

British coins are very easy to tell apart -- low-value (½p, discontinued), 1p and 2p are brown with plain edges, mid value coins are silver: 5p and 10p are thin and have milled edges, 20p and 50p are heptagonal with plain edges; £1 and £2 are gold-coloured and thick.

Hell, even if you forget global warming - humans are raising sea-levels by simply pumping billions of gallons of water out of the ground. It doesn't get replenished on any human timescale.

linky 1
linky 2

Dams have held back some of this, but are reaching their limits for continued storage of an increasing amount.

I can accept the idea that Manning's actions were crass, irresponsible, stupid, and cowardly. Instead of seeing some injustice and leaking information of that injustice to the outside world, he chose to just grab everything he could and dump it. In retrospect, the information that he leaked was probably not dangerous to anyone, and it did, indeed, expose deep tentacles of corruption in the US government. However, there is no way that he read everything that he leaked, and he did, as you say, just send massive amounts of classified information -- most of which he had no idea of the content (because there was too much to read) -- to a foreign third party with a sometimes unclear agenda.

HOWEVER, none of this warrants torture, and as an American I hope that Manning's lawyers win their trial. It is an unprecedented chilling effect and incomprehensibly unjust that, in the United States of America, a foolish whistleblower would be tortured to set an example for future whistleblowers. Torture of any kind, mental or physical, is clearly unconstitutional and is unquestionably both anti-American (as in, it betrays the values that we base our country's existence on) and evil.

Actually, torture is not illegal, it is subject to the definition of Cruel and Unusual Punishment which is subject to interpretation by the U.S Court System or the legislative system. Things once considered normal in the past are now considered illegal or cruel. It was deliberately made vague so that future generations would not be chained down by so strict a writing, which is why the constitution is the way it is.

I can accept the idea that Manning's actions were crass, irresponsible, stupid, and cowardly. Instead of seeing some injustice and leaking information of that injustice to the outside world, he chose to just grab everything he could and dump it. In retrospect, the information that he leaked was probably not dangerous to anyone, and it did, indeed, expose deep tentacles of corruption in the US government. However, there is no way that he read everything that he leaked, and he did, as you say, just send massive amounts of classified information -- most of which he had no idea of the content (because there was too much to read) -- to a foreign third party with a sometimes unclear agenda.

HOWEVER, none of this warrants torture, and as an American I hope that Manning's lawyers win their trial. It is an unprecedented chilling effect and incomprehensibly unjust that, in the United States of America, a foolish whistleblower would be tortured to set an example for future whistleblowers. Torture of any kind, mental or physical, is clearly unconstitutional and is unquestionably both anti-American (as in, it betrays the values that we base our country's existence on) and evil.

Look, the commercials show a Apple knock off that relies on technology people generally don't have yet. The surface side of it may be interesting, but how many of us have touch displays at home?

This is a great point. Unfortunately Apple seems to be going this direction as well with features from iOS creeping in. There's also a potential for an architecture change. ARM 64 might be a candidate.

It prices me to an Apple system pretty quickly and what do I gain? Immature applications? Still the hassle of viruses and security? More lock in to a company that is shit? No thanks.

The Jury is still out on the benefits but if you move to another platform (you mentioned Apple) you'll need to include all the software, if it exists, too. The other thing windows has going for it is a massive library of software. Some vendors might be understanding and let you use your license on the other platform, others may not.

Consumers may generally be stupid, but they are not that stupid.

Are these the same consumers who are the voting public?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2000/may/14/spaceexploration.theobserver

Slashdot editors, kill yourselves.

Looks intentional: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/29/syria-blocks-internet

Then oh my god you guys, Israel will have so much egg on its face. They won't be able to be seen in public any more. It'd be, like, a big deal. How could the IAEA betray them like that without provocation? They were friends!

But actually, they're of the opinion that Iranian nuclear scientists have been getting attacked lately, and they want that to stop. The Israel-criticizing was lower on the priority list. I have no idea how the summary missed this.

Looks like Jimbo going to bat for him generated a bit of bad press.

Not being intimately familiar with the story, I wondered who the 'Jimbo' in the summary was. I should have guessed it was he of the 'please give Wikipedia money' banners, Jimmy Wales. In fairness, there have been a couple of stories on /. about it, and it is in one of TFAs; but some context in the summary from the editors or submitter would have been nice. While I'm at it, The Guardian has some coverage too.

Here ends the obligatory grousing about the article summary.

Re KGB visions:
COINTELPRO (Counterintelligence Program) is the well known one. e.g..
So you http://www.businessinsider.com/richard-masato-aokis-history-with-the-black-panthers-2012-8
In the 1990's you had Code-named PATCON, "Patriot-conspiracy," http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/18/patriot_games
A lot of created groups controlled top down.
From the UK you have long-term sexual relationships with political activists.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/21/met-police-spies-women-undercover
Antiwar groups in the USA seem to face the same old party tricks of facial recognition, OCR of any plates of parked cars near a meeting, the young 20 something who wants direct action, the older louder person with 'experience' who wants direct action... or the young woman who knows someone who has great ideas about direct action...
As for cyber groups - recall http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0306/Anonymous-unmasked-hacker-ringleader-turned-FBI-informant - seems to be the same old turn, top down control, wait, raid ideas.

Remember, this is the BBC, who took a corporate decision in 2006 to pursue an alarmist reporting stance.

Technique one - ad homineum attack on the messenger. A study was done. That study was reported. Attempt to discredit the study by attacking the credibility of the entity doing the reporting. Instead considering the worth of the study itself, the hope is the integrity of the study will be smeared by smearing the entity that reported it.

Technique two- change the topic. We were talking about the effect of global warming on the oceanic food web , now we're going to start talking instead about the BBC and whether they're biased or not.

The original paper says that this is only a pilot study, and that it cannot definitely point to any disadvantage to the animals - 'they MAY suffer increased predation' is a typical comment

Technique three, misrepresent normal and appropriate scientific qualification of results as a license to dismiss the study's findings. The fact is, no single study is definitive. That's normal science. The certainty increases as each successive study is confirmed, amplified, and new studies support the same conclusions using different approaches. Each study considered individually comes with caveats; the picture of reality emerges from an aggregation of such studies. This is called "normal science" and it's how science gets to truth. This study fits into that framework.

Technique four- decontextualize the study from the larger supporting body of related evidence. Closely related to technique three above, the mass of evidence pointing to the devastating effects of oceanic acidification on the food web is incontrovertible. This study reinforces and elaborates this finding with new evidence. Seen in its proper context, this study's relevance increases because its findings are congruent with other studies showing the same disturbing trend- acidification of the oceans is assaulting the food web in the ocean.

The smallest part of the omitted scientific context:

http://www.ocean-acidification.net/FAQeco.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/10/ocean-acidification-epoca

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/19/opinion/acid-test-for-oceans-and-marine-life.html?_r=0

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/02/436193/science-ocean-acidifying-so-fast-it-threatens-humanity-ability-to-feed-itself/

http://oceana.org/en/our-work/climate-energy/ocean-acidification/learn-act/effects-of-ocean-acidification-on-marine-species-ecosystems

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/06/local/la-me-acidic-oceans-20121007

http://www.examiner.com/article/lethal-carbon-dioxide-and-ocean-acidification-threaten-marine-life

And as for libertarians, they happen to be the only poeple to have enough principle to be pissed about Bush's torture AND Obama's drone executions.

Not too fond of Bush or Obama on civil liberties, and concerned that Social Security, Medicare, etc. will get cut. Unless you have a very unusual definition of "libertarian", or by "the only people" you don't literally mean "the only people", your claim appears to be untrue. Even if you argue that by "the only people" you meant "the only political party", there's another party that's opposed to torture, has at least some members opposed to drone attacks, and not exactly fans of free-market solutions for everything.

(Admittedly, what you actually said was "the only poeple", so maybe neither Glenn Greenwald nor anybody in the Green Party are "poeple". :-))

And as for libertarians, they happen to be the only poeple to have enough principle to be pissed about Bush's torture AND Obama's drone executions.

Not too fond of Bush or Obama on civil liberties, and concerned that Social Security, Medicare, etc. will get cut. Unless you have a very unusual definition of "libertarian", or by "the only people" you don't literally mean "the only people", your claim appears to be untrue. Even if you argue that by "the only people" you meant "the only political party", there's another party that's opposed to torture, has at least some members opposed to drone attacks, and not exactly fans of free-market solutions for everything.

(Admittedly, what you actually said was "the only poeple", so maybe neither Glenn Greenwald nor anybody in the Green Party are "poeple". :-))

A garden snail has about 20,000 neurons, a cat has 1 billion neurons, a human has 86 billion neurons.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/feb/28/how-many-neurons-human-brain

I assume there is a reason Google does not enable this by default.
Are the patents licensed? Does their FCC certification cover LTE?
Maybe they just didn't think it was worth the potential confusion, given the limited frequency support. (Compare Apple's "4G" support in Australia.)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2012/nov/20/operation-elveden-charges-live-updates

Try and post one that isn't a hack piece that leaves out details.

They also paid Rebekah Brooks 7 Million Hush Money.

Just not purple unless you want to incur the wrath of Cadbury.

Additional information could include a combination of factors, like whether the passenger paid for their ticket in cash, or if they have ever been on a watch list

Great idea, that way anybody that has ever been put on a watch list can be harassed for ever! Not because a court of law determined they did anything wrong, no, but because they're on a list (or have been on one). You see, they probably did something wrong or else they wouldn't have been on that list in the first place...

Never mind the fact that this is all done in secret, with no judicial oversight, no accountability and no way to appeal those decisions and that people basically end up on those lists for exercising their political rights.

Try working as a journalist/filmmaker and reporting on the global war on terror, try actively opposing the US drone war or try supporting wikileaks (or any organization that the US has secretly decided they do not like) and see how quickly you end up on those watch lists.

Of course, you'll never know you're on one of those lists until the next time you try flying to the US, then you'll be detained and questioned (not to mention laptop seizure etc.). It happened many times to Jacob Appelbaum, a Tor developer, it happened to Imran Khan, one of the most popular politician in Pakistan and it happened repeatedly to Laura Poitras, an Oscar-and Emmy-nominated filmmaker. These people are spied on and harassed because of their political opinions, thanks to the global surveillance state we now live in.

How submissive have we become that as people living in democracies we even accept the existence of "watchlists"?

You might to solder up something like http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/04/12-things-to-make-raspberry-pi

I think the best way I could describe it is: most people, but specifically those under 30-35, consider DPRK as some kind of media fantasy. It exists to them, but they've never been touched by it. Seoul is a huge, rich, confident city and it seems almost (tragically?) comical how close it is to the northern border. But I think that the vast majority of people go about their lives with barely a second thought to what's up there, except when something big happens.

Then the deep seated nationalism of South Koreans shines through (sometimes alarmingly). The shooting of an unarmed 53 year old woman at Mt Kumgang (that I had the honour of visiting two years previously), and the sinking of the Cheonan are the two most recent examples. The invasion drills I mentioned above consisted of sirens, people in yellow uniforms seemingly appearing out of nowhere, and all traffic and pedestrians brought to a standstill. The whole thing would last a couple of minutes, and it was pretty eery each time it happened. These kinds of things, combined with the National Security Law as in the article, make the thought of DPRK and the threat it actually poses ever-present, if not immediate. The nuclear threat is alarming, sure, but I think most South Koreans are aware enough to know that it's still technically unlikely, and also... the Americans are still there, lots and lots of them. The deterrence against North Korea right now is very serious.

I'm cautiously optimistic that there will be some kind of reasonable outcome to this standoff in the long run, perhaps 30 years from now. Koreans tend to think of re-unification as inevitable, and they're in no real hurry considering how much it would cost them. They've been invaded and fought back numerous times in their history, and in their collective heart (and that's quite a collective) they feel it's a matter of time.

Or at least, that's the way I've interpreted all this as well as an outsider can.

Seriously, everybody likes to point to America, yet, our emissions continue to go downwards. OTOH, ALL of the decreases in emissions are overcome by China ALONE.

You serious? Well, if you are serious, how about some facts? To make it easier for you, I'll start
- About 17 percent of China's electricity came from renewable sources in 2007, led by the world's largest number of hydroelectric generators. China had a total installed capacity of hydropower of 197 GW in 2009.
- China leads the world in renewable energy
- China Sets New Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Goals - The newly released Plan aims to reduce China’s carbon intensity – the amount of carbon emitted per unit of GDP – by 17 percent by 2015, compared with 2010 levels.

Your turn now, if you please (hint: start with Renewable energy in the United States accounted for 14.3 percent of the domestically produced electricity)

Wow, lot's of hostility to my comment, and a few good points too.

Boats - I stand corrected, boats have some modest emissions controls. We could definitely stand to see something stronger though:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-pollution, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html

Planes - Yes, I understand that the U.S. is large, but we can start with modern trains that connect smaller distances, like Milwaukee to Chicago, L.A. to Vegas, etc. Trains are more efficient than planes, and can actually travel very fast. I'm also speculating that trains suffer from fewer delays, have quicker security checkpoints, and require less maintenance.

Coal power plants: There is no such thing as clean coal plant. Look at the destruction caused just to GET the coal, let alone burn it. It's dangerous for the workers and disastrous for our environment. Search for images before and after mining, it's unsettling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_power_in_the_United_States, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia,_Pennsylvania

Lawn Mowers - Operating a mower for an hour is the pollution equivalent of driving a car 200 miles. Consider how many lawns are in the U.S. alone. That is not insignificant: http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/community/details/yardequip_addl_info.html.

Excessive Water Consumption - Too many people underestimate the value of clean, fresh water. It takes energy and costly equipment to clean and deliver fresh water to your home. Water is also a limited resource. If/when our rapidly draining aquifers run dry, the consequences will be disastrous to our food supply and economy. We can do some simple things to reduce our usage, without much effort. Front load washing machines save ~20 gallons per use. Low flow toilets can save ~2 gallons per flush. I have no regrets switching to either, and I have a lower water bill. http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/freshwater/water-conservation-tips/

The Israelis Government would *instantly* recognize a Palestinian State.

The current view of the Israeli Government is this one. If the Palestinian seek to be recognised as a State by the UN, Israel will topple their government. If they quit that pretense, they could be granted authority over 40% of the land they claim.

You must ask yourself why it so hard for the Palestinian people to recognize this

Well, if I try to put myself in the shoes of a Palestinian, I think that it would be hard for me to accept a peace treaty involving the loss of 60% of my country, especially if my country was tiny to begin with.

The Palestinians are not dhimmi at all, because the Israelis don't think they own the Palestinians. The Israelis have zero trust of the Palestinians because of the terrorism in the past

You can't deny that the Palestinian are second-class citizens somehow; whether this is because of the trust the Israeli have of them or not, it must not be easy for the honest Palestinian to withstand this (I mean those who would never do a terrorist attack; there must be some!).

To stop patrolling the borders would invite calamity on the Israeli people - and it would simply be so dumb that no rational person should even propose it.

Indeed, I'm not denying that Israel doesn't have the right to self defense, especially given the enemies that loom at its borders. Patrolling the borders is one thing, enforcing embargos is another.

However in Israel the government is not controlled by those people - and that makes all the difference in the world compared to Hamas. Israel is a modern democracy. Hamas is militant and millennial theocracy that no longer allows elections (and tended to throw Fatah supporters off buildings when they got into power - check YouTube for this nastiness).

Yes, but the strained relationships between Israel and the Palestinian were always there, whether Hamas or Fatah was in charge. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but the role of religion in the conflict has increased only recently, it was a more laic conflict before the rise of Al Qaida etc in the Muslim world. I like to call things with their name, so I do understand that Hamas are terrorists, but the problem is upstream, we can't reduce it to a religion clash.

We just have learnt not to follow religious texts to the letter.

This is the fundamental difference between Islam and the other two Abrahamic religions.

Well Turkey, although being an Islamic country in religion, has long been quite "western" in culture and politics. So it's not intrinsic that a country inhabitated mostly by Mulsims must be a retrograde theocracy. Unfortunately, now that the world is foolishly polarising around religions again, this might change.

there is nothing Israel has done or will do that will enable them to satisfy Hamas - the goal of Hamas is simply to remove all unbelievers from Palestine. This is why war breaks out so often - Hamas will never ever agree to a permanent peace treaty, all you get are 'hudna', which are temporary ceasefires until Hamas is ready to fight again.

I could think that people resorted to vote for Hamas because they were unsatisifed with the results they had obtained when voting for Fatah in these years (e.g. Israeli settlements growing into what the Palestinian perceive as their own territory). Moreover, people who live in a state of desperation (I think we can agree that Gaza is a hell, whatever the reasons) easily make severe mistakes, even by means of democratic elections (think about Germany during the Weimar Republic).

Another thing. There was no such thing as a Palestinian country (never was, it was always a province of

Turkey sales of Mein Kampf running high, a major Egyptian publisher mentions Mein Kampf as "being a big part of their success" among young readers, Mein Kampf is among top five bestsellers in Indonesia...

Seriously. I voted for the guy who said he's end the wars

He's started several new ones, and the Iraq "withdrawal" his fans give him credit for was negotiated by Bush. Obama wanted to extend the occupation, but the Iraqis refused Obama's demand of American immunity from Iraqi prosecution.

and raise taxes, because there's a deficit, yo

Extended the Bush Tax Cuts and used the resulting deficit hysteria to push his Catfood Commission's recommendations to slash social spending, particularly on earned benefits. Which in the case of Social Security, has never contributed one cent towards the national debt. As opposed to corporate tax cuts, which he wants more of.

The guy who implemented the Heritage Foundation's plan for healthcare, which was based on the idea of individual responsibility paired with a fair and transparent dealing from the insurers.

It has nothing to do with responsibility, and everything to do with killing the possibility of getting single payer while rescuing the dying insurance industry with millions of new customers.

The guy who overthrew the Libyan government under force of arms with four American fatalities, and didn't do the same in Syria because he thought it was too risky.

The guy who overthrew Gaddafi because he was "killing his own people", but continued selling arms to the Yemeni and Bahrain governments as they led brutal crackdowns on their own protestors.

Oh, and he's on the right side on the inclusion of gays

After kicking a thousand gays out of the military when he could have halted DADT with the stroke of a pen, either using a stop loss order or under DADT itself, which allows the SecDef to declare discharges would 'not be in the best interest' of the military.

And he spent years saying he had to defend DOMA in court, only to turn around and say he would no longer do so. Still enforcing it, though, until it is eventually struck down or upheld.

And, if that weren't enough, his equivocation on favoring gay marriage have also come with statements supporting the rights of states to ban it. Yes, the first black president has taken a full "state's rights" position on another minority.

women

Overruled the FDA on Plan B, exactly the sort of political decision he campaigned against. And there was all that contractor rape from Iraq that he swept under the rug, or the billions he continued giving to Mubarak before he was forced from power, when Mubarak was known for using rape as a torture device.

immigrants

Deported them at a much higher rate than his Republican predecessor, until the election started to heat up and he needed latino support to get re-elected.

other basic-human-freedom issues

Like being worse than "sharia law" countries on the most central of civil rights: the right to a fair trial?

Link to the wiki article? I couldn't find it. I'm also curious to know what the Israeli casualty count is. I'm betting it's in the single digits.

I did find these:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2012/nov/19/gaza-israel-verified-incidents-mapped

I'm not sure about this one, but figured I'd include it.
http://www.rememberthesechildren.org/remember2012.html

My problem is that the terrorists are firing completely uncontrolled rockets. If they're lucky, the rockets will hit the broad side of a barn. It would be comical if they weren't managing to kill people. The Israelis on the other hand are using top of the line ordinance to perform devastating targeted attacks.

I admit I was exaggerating by calling it carpet-bombing, but the whole affair is still very one sided, and assuming your numbers are accurate, are still killing more civilians than terrorists. And how many surviving family members of those killed become so overwhelmed by grief that they strike back at Israel, repeating the circle ad nauseum?

My point is that with this technology, Israel has the opportunity to stop the war cold. They can prevent militant attacks from hitting them, which means they no longer have to retaliate. They can just sot down, cross their arms, and watch as the terrorists flail uselessly. After letting them terrorists do that for a while they can stand up again and say, "Look. It's gone. Can we please stop now?"

But I'm afraid that won't happen.

In legal issues whenever something isn't explicitly mentioned that leaves the door open to any number of interpretations. The best thing we can do now is to update the bill of rights to include technologies and situations that were not possible when the original bill was written. This will slam the door shut on any interpretations that run contrary to the true goals of the bill of rights. Here is a fun bit of info. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-news-blog/2012/apr/13/goldman-sachs-programmer-source-code-theft This was news from earlier this year. A Goldman Sachs employee stole proprietary source code, but walked away a free man after the court cases. Why? Because the source code was not a physical object. The law needs specificity in order to be applied correctly sometimes. This example shows how lawyers could argue, and make a case, that any digital file you have isn't technically covered by the bill of rights. It needs to be extended to support new technologies before lawyers set dangerous precedents.

You heard wrong:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/16/daily-mail-global-warming-stopped-wrong

Care needs to be taken when using global database searches to match DNA, otherwise even if you have only a slight chance of a false positive the chance finding someone who is a match is quite high, because your population is quite high.

see http://www.ted.com/talks/peter_donnelly_shows_how_stats_fool_juries.html (from 10 min) not specifically about DNA but the same principle. also
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/henryporter/2009/may/25/dna-database-false-positive

While I haven't looked recently, what I've seen in the past is that Israel is slaughtering them, and taking more and more land from what used to be Palestine.

I just saw this this morning. Very interesting, and you'll note it's very one sided.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2012/nov/19/gaza-israel-verified-incidents-mapped

It's because universities are overwhelmingly run by a single ideology (in this case, leftism, but in another time or universe, rightism).

Universities are not hotbeds of leftism, and they never really were. A few universities are or were, but for the most part, here is what life at today's universities is like:

1. Don't ask the wrong questions
2. Climb the ladder: you are at school so you can get a good job afterward
3. Know your place
4. Pay!
5. Don't complain about money!
6. Never question how the system works, and make sure you call anyone who does question the system annoying.

Corporations generally don't care at all about what you say - they just want your money

Yes, they care about money. That's why they care about what you say:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2000/nov/24/internetnews.internationalnews

Statelessness in itself abridges human rights. There's no way to travel legally without a passport, nor do you have any standing in courts to redress your grievances.

Jews many times were objected to this kind of insidious degradation that essentially denies your personhood. All the more saddening to see Israel keep Palestinians in this graceless statelessness for so many decades.

To argue that the Palestinians have a state at this point is extremely disingenuous. They have no sovereignty about trade and allegiances. Are not allowed to keep a military, and their administrations are not recognized as national governments.

Gaza's kids are severely malnourished in this small area that is overcrowded with 1.7 millions. No chance that the land can support the entire population (even fishing is prohibited). Yet, given how populous and unprotected the area is, the IDF is essentially shooting fish in a barrel.

The suspicious timing of the IDF assassination attack on the Hamas leader that kicked off the recent fighting does not help.

It leaves the lingering impression that we are witnessing a most cynical wag the dog maneuver. Nothing like a war to distract the people from their economic hardship this close to an election. It'll be rather depressing if the leaders of Israel were indeed betraying their own people in this fashion.

SplashMyBandit -

Israel is taking great pains to avoiding killing children,

Moiz Salhi/AFP -

A Palestinian man carries a wounded child at a hospital following an Israeli air raid in Beit Lahia in the northern Gaza Strip.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/18/gaza-frantic-hunt-safety-israel

You must have missed the part where Israel doesn't want a Palestinian country, recent example :
Israel threatens to overthrow Abbas over Palestinian statehood bid
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/14/israeli-minister-threatens-abbas-un
And yes Abbas is the moderate guy, the only alternative to Hamas, and they want to overthrow him, madness.

2010 - Wikipedia editing courses launched by Zionist groups

Sorry to burst your bias against Bitcoin, but you are simply spreading FUD. The volume of trade does not exist to launder significant amounts of money. Aside from some drug sales (which still pale in comparison the sales made in UNTRACEABLE fiat on the street) I don't think what actually happens on the network is quite like what you think happens.Your highly regulated and supervised system is still the monetary system of choice to launder money. The Internationale crime syndicate really doesn't need the Bitcoin network, they are doing quite well as is.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico-drug-gangs
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/06/29/u-s-banks-still-very-involved-in-money-laundering/

No, he's not.

The man actually posted a picture of a burning poppy on facebook: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/12/kent-man-arrested-burning-poppy. Freedom of speech in Britain: RIP.

Saying something stupid is not a crime. The simple fact that you are not telling the truth does not constitute a crime, nor does your ignorance in making false statements.

What you were probably referring to is saying something offensive or insulting. I think you're right insofar as free speech is indeed under attack in a lot of countries, but that should be all the more reason to defend it. It has been proven numerous times that in practice it is impossible to outlaw insulting statements without harming free speech.

For example, in the UK, a teenager was arrested for calling the "Church" of Scientology a cult. You can't tell me that this is not a ludicrous undermining of free speech laws.

Stay cool, no need to troll like this: the message here, I believe, is "don't even think for a second that internet makes you anonymous: we (the authorities) can and will find you, and make this public as a warning to everybody else".

This is not about the Brits, this is happening all over the world. It is just that in the UK they seem to be a tad more diligent in enforcing the "nobody gets away with it" regime --remember how some rioters that were caught on camera were eventually tracked months later and -perhaps disproportionally- punished a while back.

Only the Daily Mail's article you so desperately want to be a true was, in fact, a lie:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/16/daily-mail-global-warming-stopped-wrong

lol, there is no factor of 5 to 10.
There is a factor of 5, and there is a factor of 10.
Huge difference between the two, which is it?

According to this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/18/china-average-europe-carbon-footprint
Per capita emissions for the EU/China are about the same at just over 7 tons per capita while that for the US is just over 17 tons. That's a factor of c.a. 2,3. I don't know how accurate these figures are but the proportions sound about right (in the sense that they match other reports that I have heard previously).

Wikipedia has:
China (ex.Macau, Hong Kong) at 7,031,916 thousand metric tons which is 23.53% of world total
United States at 5,461,014 thousand metric tons which is 18.27% of world total
The European Union (all 27 countries) at 4,177,817 thousand metric tons which is 13.98% of world total
India at 1,742,698 thousand metric tons which is 5.83% of world total

Keep in mind that China has a population of 1,35 Biliion, India 1,2 Billion, the EU has about 0.503 Billion inhabitants and there are 0.314 Billion of our US American cousins. I know these figures don't quite match the per capita ones I cited from the Guardian article (which are probably newer than the ones on Wikipedia anyway) but it's the proportions that are interesting. Some 300 million US Americans manage to generate the carbon footprint of a Billion Chinese, while 500 million Europeans can hardly hold a candle to the US in terms of carbon emissions.

People still die in childbirth.

True, but the figures are pretty low. Generally speaking, giving birth is a pretty safe activity.

It is however, judging from watching my wife give birth, a pretty horrendous experience to go through. Thankfully, the brain is amazingly good at forgetting pain in general, so after a little while, she still said she'd like to have a second kid one day.

A study of cost-effectiveness in reducing mortality rates shows that the countries with the top 10 most efficient systems are:

1 Ireland

2 UK

3 New Zealand

4 Austria

5 Australia

6 Italy

7 Finland

8 Japan

9 Spain

10 Sweden

Note that most of those countries have predominately public healthcare systems, compared to the mainly private healthcare system used in the USA.

The USA was 23rd out of 24 countries surveyed, and according to the authors of the study "The USA results are perhaps not a surprise as a recent UNICEF report showed that in terms of material wellbeing the USA general population was below OECD inequality average, being 23rd out of 24 countries reviewed; were 19th, with regard to educational wellbeing, and for health and wellbeing 22nd, and currently the USA child (0 – 14) mortality is the highest among Western countries.
Consequently, on these measures the US healthcare system is the least effective and efficient of Western countries"

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2011/08/07/JRSMpaperPritWall.pdf

To summarise: Stop doing what you're doing and look at what the countries above are doing.

The headline is based on the latest IEA (International Energy Agency) forecast called the "2012 World Energy Outlook"

Follow the link to a graph of what is being forecast and to the report in question:

http://earlywarn.blogspot.fr/2012/11/iea-us-to-be-worlds-largest-oil-producer.html

Look at the graph: conventional oil and natgas are in decline.
Note the super optimistic growth assumptions for unconventional gas and oil.
What is the methodology behind this extrapolation? That's the question people should be asking themselves.

Natgas price is at historic lows. Low prices mean small profits mean decreasing investment.
These days the unconventional gas industry is facing something of a bust:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/business/energy-environment/in-a-natural-gas-glut-big-winners-and-losers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

How well does that fit with the optimistic growth scenario?

Also, the IEA does not exactly have a sterling reputation for balanced impartial forecasts:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/peak-oil-international-energy-agency

Just because something is a headline, doesn't mean it's true. Time will tell, of course.