Slashdot Mirror

I just read a fascinating article about how a guy learned a simple language in 22 total hours of studying (over several months).

He had previously learned a lot of memory tricks and techniques, and the person he learned them from went on to start an online learning site that used all of those techniques (with some algorithms that learned how you were learning).

One of the main techniques was studying in 4-10 minute chuncks, as research shows that reinforcing memories multiple times (recall, remember, think about, re-encode stronger) works better than cramming in long sessions. To your point about allowing the information to sink into your mind over time instead of force feeding it...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/nov/09/learn-language-in-three-months

Yes, that's the difference between public sector where there is enforced transparency due to acts like the Freedom of Information act, and public sector where no such transparency is necessary.

It's a stupid proposition, the reason climate change is exposed by public sector is because public sector is not tainted by an inherent bias to profit. Despite the conspiracy theory about how scientists are bigging up the climate change thing to keep themselves in a job things are different in reality. You mention the met office for example, well, the jobs there aren't dependent on global warming being true or not true - they're full time employees there to study the climate regardless, yet they still have come to the same conclusion that climate change is a problem.

Contrast that to private sector where there's a lot of money to be lost if climate change is a real problem and you can see why private sector groups would fund so much FUD that people like you naively fall for.

But regardless, thankfully due to investigative journalism, your proposition isn't completely fruitless. Here, have some links, go educate yourself. That's if you want to of course, which I'm not sure you do, most deniers don't after all, they just prefer to deny what is right in front their face:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/thinktanks-take-oil-money-and-use-it-to-fund-climate-deniers-1891747.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/24/tea-party-climate-change-deniers

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/feb/15/leaked-heartland-institute-documents-climate-scepticism

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/

Yes, that's the difference between public sector where there is enforced transparency due to acts like the Freedom of Information act, and public sector where no such transparency is necessary.

It's a stupid proposition, the reason climate change is exposed by public sector is because public sector is not tainted by an inherent bias to profit. Despite the conspiracy theory about how scientists are bigging up the climate change thing to keep themselves in a job things are different in reality. You mention the met office for example, well, the jobs there aren't dependent on global warming being true or not true - they're full time employees there to study the climate regardless, yet they still have come to the same conclusion that climate change is a problem.

Contrast that to private sector where there's a lot of money to be lost if climate change is a real problem and you can see why private sector groups would fund so much FUD that people like you naively fall for.

But regardless, thankfully due to investigative journalism, your proposition isn't completely fruitless. Here, have some links, go educate yourself. That's if you want to of course, which I'm not sure you do, most deniers don't after all, they just prefer to deny what is right in front their face:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/thinktanks-take-oil-money-and-use-it-to-fund-climate-deniers-1891747.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/24/tea-party-climate-change-deniers

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/feb/15/leaked-heartland-institute-documents-climate-scepticism

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/

Leave a crossword for half and hour come back and it seems your brain has been in action while you were away - revealing new clues No such faculty seems to assist sudoku - it's harder when you start up again - (YMMV) A basic Math/Language difference? Test material: http://www.guardian.co.uk/crosswords/quick/13265 http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/nov/13/sudoku-2343-medium (hope these links link!)

Leave a crossword for half and hour come back and it seems your brain has been in action while you were away - revealing new clues No such faculty seems to assist sudoku - it's harder when you start up again - (YMMV) A basic Math/Language difference? Test material: http://www.guardian.co.uk/crosswords/quick/13265 http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/nov/13/sudoku-2343-medium (hope these links link!)

The list of medical procedures covered should be those deemed medically necessary, or appropriate by an elected board of medical doctors.

Doctors != angels. Hello, corruption! A $10K bribe is a good investment if in return you are approved for a $100K heart replacement, or something.

It will also be happening in the opposite direction. Necessary procedures will be denied or delayed until the point is moot. This, reportedly, is happening in UK right now, under their NHS.

Since the law will delegate the decisions to those panels, there is no way to accuse those doctors of bias. You have to catch them red-handed, with bribe money in the pocket, videotaped. But who wants to do that if one day he may need the same service from another doctor? If this panel denies you the surgery, as NHS does from time to time, you will die - unless you are rich enough to go to another country where money buys you whatever you want, including medical services. The USA used to be such a country.

Apparently this was done last year, too. A £50 fine:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/mar/07/muslim-extremist-fined-for-poppy-burning

Exactly, one of the last conversations I had with my grandfather who fought in EU during WWII

That was Europe, not the EU -- the predecessors to the EU were founded after WWII, the intention was to prevent a repeat, which has been a great success.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU#History

Or, recently: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/12/european-union-nobel-peace-prize

I have to believe that the UK cops also have quite a lot of discretion.

Perhaps you should visit there some time. The police are burdened down by more rules, regulations and paperwork than you think. For every crime there is an investigation, an outraged MP, a witch-hunt by the newspapers, calls by the public to "do something", and a new rule which the police _must_ follow to "prevent this from ever happening again".

Did an officer see something, suspicious or not? He needs to document it immediately. Did he see someone wearing a hooded sweatshirt run past him? If he does nothing, and that person goes on to steal £20 from someone standing near a school then he can expect to find himself, his supervisor and the chief of police on the front page of tomorrows Daily Fail billed as "Lazy Cops who Stood By while Crook Terrorizes Children at School". It would be even worse if he had spoken the sweatshirt-wearer and then let him go. For a police officer who wants to keep his job the only safe thing to do is to either not see anything, or to arrest everyone. This is how we wind up with students who take pictures being charged as terrorists and people being detained for the heinous crime of being too tall.

According to the Guardian

"Officers were contacted at around 4pm yesterday and alerted to the picture, which was reportedly accompanied by an offensive comment"

(The offensive comment was "How about that you squadey cunts".)

So probably more an issue of getting the arresting officer and whoever reported it in the same room and giving them both a slap.

It's not mapped, but NoHomophobes.com have a live stream of tweets containing homophobic language. Write up over at the Guardian's Data Store

Global warming may be a fact but asserting that it will "deconstruct civilization" and that if we don't do something Earth will become uninhabitable is pretty strong spin for a "no spin zone".

First,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/apr/23/scienceandnature.climatechange and then read

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/janet-ritz/james-hansens-new-climate_b_67357.html This is congruent with the reports coming out of the CIA and other models. It's worse than we thought , and the feedback mechanisms that we know of- and there are others that we will discover- are more ferocious than we thought .

Remember, - and this is the point of the intelligence analysis, before we actually reach the ecological point of literal uninhabitability as detailed by Lynas above, we will reach the certainty of reaching that point. You know this from the stock market. A company doesn't have to fail outright before the market starts to act as if it had; it only needs to be very likely to fail. Atr that distinguished point, the market collectively acts as if it had failed.

This is even truer for things like food and fresh water shortages , failed governments uncontrolled and uncontrollable immigration, break down and loss of civil order. All that has to happen is a loss of faith in the face of facts . In fact, all that has to happen to trigger cascading consequences throughout society is consecutive-year crop failures with a long-term prediction for more.

No one actually has to worry about wandering MadMax style though a barren world if, say, the food chain begins to collapse from the bottom up because of the acidification and heating of the oceans. They won't live to see it., their fellow human will make sure of that.

Why are we risking this? Why aren't we doing absolutely everything, all together now, to prevent this from happening? Fear of Big Government? Who thinks like that? People who live outside of reality- who believe , for instance, that the world's scientists are in a conspiracy of some description.

Those people are out there. Is that the demographic I'm supposed to cede the fate of all human society to? The Sara Palins , the Sharron Angles, the Richard Mourdochs? Because you know what? Right now, they're clearly winning.

is because a lot of their torture prisons are at sea level, for instance the one at Diego Garcia in the Chagos Archipelago.

lives would not have been at risk if the newpaper wasn't stupid enough to publish the krypto keys to the archive.

Actually, Wikileaks approved the release of the password:

"Our book about WikiLeaks was published last February. It contained a password, but no details of the location of the files, and we were told it was a temporary password which would expire and be deleted in a matter of hours.

"It was a meaningless piece of information to anyone except the person(s) who created the database.

"No concerns were expressed when the book was published and if anyone at WikiLeaks had thought this compromised security they have had seven months to remove the files. That they didn't do so clearly shows the problem was not caused by the Guardian's book."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/01/unredacted-us-embassy-cables-online

Last time I read about this a couple of years ago, I believe it was on the BBC, it was suggested there are at least 100 out there still - certainly enough to smuggle some to a point where they could shoot down a few 747s if they still worked which is why I'm not sure it's because of mere shortage.

I just had a quick look for the article and couldn't find it, but did stumble across this, it's interesting reading:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/25/afghanistan-taliban-missile-strike-chinook

Here's a very interesting read (long but worth your time) about how the original was conceived: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2003/oct/18/features.weekend

Why not link to the original article? http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/05/google-maps-doubt-iphone

The problem that I have with this article is that Google seems to studiously avoid the question "Have you actually written and submitted the app?" If they haven't it seems rather like politicking on Google's behalf. This isn't the world's most complex app - just submit it and **then** complain if it is rejected.

This would explain why the average European unemployment rate is 11.6%, versus 7.9% in the US.

Yep, much better employment situation there. I hope unions bring us the low unemployment of Europe, I can't wait to have an awesome employment situation like my European counterparts.

Shirley, you can't be serious

Matt Ridley doesn't seem like the most reliable source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/jun/18/matt-ridley-rational-optimist-errors

http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2010/jan/effects-forest-fire-carbon-emissions-climate-impacts-often-overestimated-0
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_green_lantern/2007/10/dirty_burns.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2010/jun/24/carbon-footprint-bushfire
So no, it's not true. Forest and brush fires produce only a small fraction of the emissions that humans do. The _really_ large fires, which occur only rarely, can get up to hundreds of megatons of CO2, while we're releasing dozens of gigatons.

Here you go.

From the article:

At a hearing in the court in London on Thursday morning, the judge told Apple that it had to change the wording of the statement within 48 hours, carry it on its home page, and use at least 11-point font.

Apple tried to argue that it would take at least 14 days to put a corrective statement on the site – a claim that one judge said he "cannot believe".

Here 4th paragraph.

Yeah do you ever bother to think that something you say might get fact checked? For the EU-15 from http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/ghg-trends-and-projections-2012/

Average 2008â"2011 emissions in EU-15 were 11 % lower than the base-year level, below the Kyoto target of -8 % for the period 2008â"2012. In the sectors not covered by the EU ETS, emissions were lower than their respective target, by an amount equivalent to 1.7 % of base-year emissions.

LULUCF activities are expected to decrease net emissions by an annual amount equivalent to 1.4 % of base-year level emissions. EU-15 intends to use the flexible mechanisms at government level by acquiring an amount of Kyoto units equivalent to 2 % of base-year emissions per year.

Taking all these effects into account, average emissions in the sectors not covered by the EU ETS in EU-15 were standing below their target level, by a gap representing 4.9 % of the base-year emissions.

The EU-15 was therefore on track towards its Kyoto target by the end of 2011. However, to ensure that the EU-15 reaches its common target, all of its Member States must achieve their respective burden-sharing target. Excess Kyoto units resulting from overachievement by some countries might not be available to the EU-15 for achieving compliance.

Oh I get it, you're not a "word and concept type " person. You need pictograms. Well, fortunately I have some handy:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/interactive/2009/nov/30/copenhagen-summit-world-carbon-emissions

That pretty much says , well, golly if it doesn't say EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what you were saying.

Do you ever get sick of being just plain wrong. I mean I know we're all writing in persistent-anonymous identities and what not but ... aren't you ashamed to show your persistent identity on line after you get caught out telling whale-size, exact-opposite-from-reality whoppers like that?

Just asking to get a datapoint for my little self-imposed project to try to understand the psychology behind denialism, especially the "I'm not a denier" type of denialism.

I meant to say you should consult Wikipedia if you want to see what Kyoto and Copenhagen require of their signatories.

Just to put some more meat on the bones of this conversation, here's what 4 degree centigrade means to the earth- and remember, that is a number LESS than the one we're on track for today.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/apr/23/scienceandnature.climatechange

http://grist.org/climate-energy/what-would-it-mean-to-treat-climate-change-like-a-security-threat/

How about France try to invent the next Google or Google-like successful internet company, and then they can tax the living hell out of that all to their hearts delight, eh?

They tried that actually. Many in the French government are shockingly (or not?) anti-American, and an effort spearheaded by Chirac to "restore French pride" by creating a French (or at least, European) alternative to Google was started, and they called it Quaero. Many euros later (I think in the range of a hundred million from taxpayers,) never really went anywhere.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/apr/26/news.france

"The French satirical newspaper Le Canard Enchaîné has mocked the project's funding as paltry in comparison with Microsoft or Google. Mike Lynch, chief executive of Autonomy, a Cambridge-based search software firm, wrote to the Financial Times calling the plan "a blatant case of misguided and unnecessary nationalism" and warning that by the time Quaero is developed the market will have moved on.

Mr Chirac said he wanted to raise the global profile of French industry and avoid a future in which France was known only as a "museum country"."

In perspective:

Web freedom faces greatest threat ever, warns Google's Sergey Brin

Well, if your friend told you so, then by all means you're right to be modded "informative"

Oh give me a break, it's not like this is something unheard of, it IS an accepted fact that tax evasion in Greece is a huge problem for the government. And of course it's not just the taxpayers fault, nor is everyone doing it (if you have been following American politics at all "47%" of the US doesn't effectively pay any taxes - "the minority" of people doesn't mean it's a small amount of tax revenue - the wealthy in Greece have higher tax bills, and are doing most of the evading). But blaming "the government" for everything (hello, ALL governments spend money on stupid things and are corrupt to some extent) is such a cop out.

And just in case for some bizarre reason you want to pretend it's something I just "heard from one person", here are a few of the thousands of articles written on the topic:

[Some of my favorite quotes - and I'm pretty sure "only the stupid pay tax" would be considering evasion "as an obligation"...]

    * Cash provides a convenient escape route for lawyers, accountants and builders. The government has published the names of almost 70 doctors it says have cheated the taxman and some surgeons are said to be earning €900,000 a year and not declaring tax.

    * “Only the stupid pay tax,” one eye surgeon told a Greek state radio.

    * Helicopters have been hovering over plush suburbs in northern Athens in the search for swimming pools in the homes of professional people who claim they are living on only €35,000-€43,000 a year. ... The swimming pool fraternity are also responding by using nets to cover the pools to avoid detection.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/8585593/Greece-loses-15bn-a-year-to-tax-evasion.html

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

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/09/greece-tax-evasion-professional-classes

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/09/how-greek-tax-evasion-sunk-the-global-economy/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/business/global/greece-warns-of-going-broke-as-taxes-dry-up.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/09/tax-evasion-greece

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203937004578076801161935378.html

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2011/07/11/110711ta_talk_surowiecki

"A quarter of black Americans do not have ID."

Do you have any proof of this claim at all? Where did you come up with such a number?

It's easily Googlable. Here's one example. Even if you dispute that the percentage is that large, the 2000 election was "decided" by a few hundred votes in a state where 70,000 voters were scrubbed from the rolls.

Voter ID laws a burden on poor, black Americans, research shows
Brennan Center study finds that voters without photo ID in 10 states are being hit with hidden costs and long car journeys

About one in four African Americans do not have the recognised photo ID cards, and one in six Hispanics, compared to one in 10 of the general population.

Voter ID isn't about preventing voter fraud, which happens once in a hundred million votes. It's about vote suppression.

The UN has this predilection for, quite frankly, giving very repugnant regimes equal say with democracies.

But how can you not simply fall over with deferential reverence for an organization that asked mass-murderer Robert Mugabe to be a UN 'leader for tourism'.

> Unless your government backs the stance then it can veto it.

Right. And when your government backs the stance, like they did SOPA, what happens?

SOPA went down because politicians were scared they wouldn't get reelected because of the massive outcry. People could look at the list of people that voted 'yes' and not reelect them. If it's some appointee? The politician can just say they went rogue and that they won't reappoint them. And who is that politician anyways... it's buried under time and approvals. 'well, they were my third choice; I didn't really like them but they were the only one that would stick'. Do you think that trail is going to be stronger when you can pump up issues like jobs, defense, abortion, etc?

So the problem is that instead of the responsibility being on elected representatives (who are accountable to the people), it's on an appointee (whose accountability is to the government). Sure the government is accountable to the representatives who are accountable to the people, but that's a big gap. (And, yes, the government is the representatives, but you don't elect them all, so it really is the amorphous 'government' before the politicians themselves.)

> The Berne convention passed precisely because the US government did want it, I'm failing to see how your argument eliminates the US government as still being a clear point of protection even under the ITU.

So the US wanted the Berne convention and now 165 signed on. And mind that is signed a treaty not just voted 'okay' at the ITU. So my point is that peer pressure pushed a treaty across the world. How far do you think it could push a resolution in the ITU? Especially if you say 'well this is really just part of the Berne convention to uphold copyright'.

> Great, and what about counter-examples like ICE domain seizures?

I dunno, but I see arrests and IP bans (which I view as far more serious than domain seizures, BTW) and jail time and free speech issues everywhere to follow one thread.

And Do you really think that, in a world where ACTA could be created, that ITU will somehow prevent domain seizures? What government would really be against that?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/23/italian-scientists-charged-laquila-earthquake?newsfeed=true

Doesn't anyone remember this story? There is a reason they overstate it. If they understate and lots of people die, then they are going to be bitched at. If they overstate it, and you get a gentle fall rain, everybody is going to bitch about, but at least a lynch mob won't be out for their heads.

"Imran Khan is .. a vehement critic of US drone attacks on his country, vowing to order them shot down if he is Prime Minister", link

Will he also be shutting down the al-Qaeda and Taliban secure bases that are allowed to freely operate in northern Pakistan, under the protection of the military and security services (ISI), the same people that provided accomodation to Bin Laden?

Maybe they were questioning him about this, where he's quoted as saying that Afghanistan's Taliban and other insurgents are justified by Islamic law: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/14/imran-khan-taliban-afghanistan-islam

Two weeks ago a 14 year old girl was shot in the head while sitting on a school bus waiting to go home. She spoke out for girls education, and opposed the Taliban's burning of girls schools, etc. The Taliban said " the teenager's work had been an "obscenity" that needed to be stopped: This was a new chapter of obscenity, and we have to finish this chapter."

Khan visited the girl in the hospital, where she is unconscious in intensive care, and said:

Citing a verse from the Qur'an, he said: "It is very clear that whoever is fighting for their freedom is fighting a jihad
"The people who are fighting in Afghanistan against the foreign occupation are fighting a jihad,
 

This is the guy you say is promoting human rights? Promoting rights for women? Do you know WTF you're talking about?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/14/imran-khan-taliban-afghanistan-islam
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/09/pakistan-girl-shot-activism-swat-taliban?intcmp=239

Two weeks ago a 14 year old girl was shot in the head while sitting on a school bus waiting to go home. She spoke out for girls education, and opposed the Taliban's burning of girls schools, etc. The Taliban said " the teenager's work had been an "obscenity" that needed to be stopped: This was a new chapter of obscenity, and we have to finish this chapter."

Khan visited the girl in the hospital, where she is unconscious in intensive care, and said:

Citing a verse from the Qur'an, he said: "It is very clear that whoever is fighting for their freedom is fighting a jihad
"The people who are fighting in Afghanistan against the foreign occupation are fighting a jihad,
 

This is the guy you say is promoting human rights? Promoting rights for women? Do you know WTF you're talking about?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/14/imran-khan-taliban-afghanistan-islam
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/09/pakistan-girl-shot-activism-swat-taliban?intcmp=239

Can you give some examples? Because that's totally not what the Wikipedia article on his party makes it sound like.

This:
Imran Khan says Taliban's 'holy war' in Afghanistan is justified by Islamic law

Nonsense. Imran Khan has taken many extreme positions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/14/imran-khan-taliban-afghanistan-islam

Afghan politicians have reacted with disbelief, with one parliamentarian suggesting Khan should be arrested. The Ulema Council, a grouping of senior clerics, declared his comments "unislamic". A Kabul foreign ministry spokesman said Khan was "either profoundly and dangerously ignorant about the reality in Afghanistan, or he has ill will against the Afghan people. "Our children are killed on daily basis, civilians killed and our schools, hospitals and infrastructure attacked on a daily basis. To call any of that jihad is profoundly wrong and misguided."

So he's not on their radar just for his opposition to the drones...

To prevent things like this from happening:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/08/teenager-stomach-liquid-nitrogen-cocktail

According to this article, Google only generated $500 million in revenue from 2008-2011. Granted, things may (probably) have sped up since then, but I think what Android really does for Google is that it locks people into the Google ecosystem--that is, the earnings are more indirect than direct.

I have no doubt that a portion of Iranian citizens prefer a theocracy. However if you recall the crackdowns on protestors a couple years back shows that the theocracy will stop at no bound to stay in power, despite a significant part of the population that wants them out.

Iran chooses to starve and inflict economic hardship on their own people to a near crisis level. Here are several citations and sources on how the Iranian government hurts their own people. The Iranian government chooses to spend billions of dollars on nuclear weapons and supporting terrorism over feeding and providing medicine to their citizens. In my book the government is incorrigibly corrupt and evil.

http://www.rlc.org/irans-economy-on-the-verge-of-collapse-people-suffering-due-to-sanctions-2/

The Iranian people are the ones who feel the brunt of sanctions. In the past year, the value of the rial has fallen more than 75%, and food prices have skyrocketed more than 50%.

Meanwhile, the Iranian people are starving and dying because of lack of medicine.

http://www.economist.com/node/21564229

Despite subsidies intended to help the poor, prices for staples, such as milk, bread, rice, yogurt and vegetables, have at least doubled since the beginning of the year. Chicken has become so scarce that when scant supplies become available they prompt riots. On October 3rd police in Tehran fired tear-gas at people demonstrating over the rialâ(TM)s collapse.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/10/sanctions-iran-ordinary-people-target

Activists say that, unlike ordinary people, the regime can find a way out of banking difficulties with help from its proxies.

http://www.npr.org/2012/08/16/158831342/from-all-sides-iran-under-siege

That has brought inflation and unemployment; even some food riots have been reported. The effects of the sanctions have been too apparent to deny, says Vatanka of the Middle East Institute.

"There's no doubt, based on all the figures and even statements coming from Tehran, that they are suffering," he says. "We only have to take the words of the leadership in Tehran. They are saying they are hurting."

um...yes, actually I have. Those were just a few out of my bookmarks. OK, some of them were subcontractors to Government departments, but there are more than an insignificant number of breaches there that were quietly swept under the carpet that were entirely down to Government agents being either totally stupid or deliberately making sure that that data got out. Who knows how many breaches of remarkable severity go unreported?

I think you're a bit too optimistic when it comes to Europe. It's not a huge secret that the vast majority of immigrants into countries like, say, France, are from Muslim majority countries and the reason it continues is that left leaning parties wish this to continue as the vast majority of Muslims vote Socialist. In essence they're importing their own voters at the expense of the native population and the right (except the far-right and often racist FN) doesn't generally challenge this as they're hoping they can tap into some of those voters and don't want to alienate the center by making alliances with the far right. As Muslims have far higher birth rates, immigration continues, and the native population stays steady, I can't see things getting better. It wouldn't be so bad if the Muslims integrated well (and many do... at least a lot better than the UK), but the newer immigrants don't seem to see the need to. And as they mingle with the native, much less radical, French muslims, I can see a lot of that radicalism rubbing off. That and Saudi, Wahhabi mosque funding is what's caused the UK to be in such a shitty situation. It's only a matter of time before the rest of Europe follows suit.

what we do know is that the intent of his efforts were to try and improve things[...]

No, no you do not know that. He got in office on a bunch of promises and falsehoods (nothing new there) that huge numbers of highly gullible people bought wholesale. Once in office he did exactly nothing to make anything better and in fact has made things far worse.

See here for an easy example. After reading that do not come back with "Well Bush started it!" because that excuses exactly nothing.

more importantly his policies have not directly led to the deaths of thousands of Americans and others around the world.

Ask Pakistan and other locations about near constant drone strikes before you say that. The difference between this and the former president is there, but not in the way you're thinking.

That strong demand?

Yes that strong demand. And it remains true today: http://www.gallup.com/poll/156491/Americans-Views-TSA-Positive-Negative.aspx

As far as the news media ... the news media did a terrible job in their analysis. But at the time published Bin Ladin's statement in full: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/07/afghanistan.terrorism15

The facts were widely available and widely discussed. The laws that were put into effect represented the popular consensus. If people are unable to form rational policy responses to opposition to our foreign policy, that's an argument against democracy not for it.

The first part is easy to verify, there are hundreds if not thousands of sources. This was the top one on my google search right now. Check out the spin, it's a very pro-us story, but if you actually read it you will find Bush quoted saying "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty" and the Taliban spokesman is still asking for evidence, and even offering to hold him over to a third party. They were desperately trying to get rid of him. That particular story is quite late, this went back many months earlier, even before the attack in 2011 in fact.

Yes, it was difficult for them to do so, because of the importance of hospitality and protecting guests in Pashtun society, and because Bin Laden originally came to Afghanistan back in the 80s, spent his personal fortune and millions more from the CIA arming, training, and organising the Afghans against the Soviets, making him a bona-fide Afghan war hero, even though he was a foreigner. Yet they were clearly not just willing but eager to do so - they offered to turn him over directly given some evidence, and even offered to turn him over to a third party just to get the hot potato off their laps. They wouldnt have been making such offers if they didnt want to get rid of him, and honestly their offers seem reasonable enough. The US administration was just determined not to dignify them with any sort of actual negotiation, they stuck to a blunt ultimatum followed by bombing and invasion. Thjs is a pretty thorough condensed version of the whole saga, which contains quite a few choice quotes with original sources listed. I will leave you with a single telling paragraph.

At least twice before 9/11 Bush repeated Clintonâ(TM)s warning to the Taliban that the US would hold Taliban responsible for an al Qaeda attack. (Washington Post 1/20/02) March 2001, a Taliban envoy offered to turn over bin Laden to a third country. A CIA official later said, âoeOurs was, âGive up bin Laden.â(TM) They were saying, âDo something to help us give him up.â(TM) I have no doubts they wanted to get rid of him.â The envoy also proposed holding bin Laden long enough for the US to locate and destroy him. (Village Voice 6/6/01) Offers regarding bin Laden continued until 9/11. (Washington Post 10/29/01) Taliban offered to surrender bin laden after 9/11 âoeif proof was offered of his involvement in the 9/11 attacks.â(The Guantanamo Files, Andy Worthington, Pluto Press, London, 2007)

TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562 - 3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474 - 881 were civilians, including 176 children.

So between 474/3325= 14% 881/2562 = 34% of those killed in drone strikes are civilians. That 2% statistic is (intentionally?) misleading, because it only counts "high-level" targets, without stating what counts as a high value target, or making the case that drone should only be used on high value targets.

So at worst there is 1 civilian killed for every 3 militants, so 1:3 at worst. For comparison I give you the average:

According to a 2001 study by the International Committee of the Red Cross, the civilian-to-soldier death ratio in wars fought since the mid-20th century has been 10:1, meaning ten civilian deaths for every soldier death.

Also the drones are bombing Pakistan from a Pakistani airbase with the full support of Pakistan (via cablegate):

Malik suggested we hold off alleged Predator attacks until after the Bajaur operation. The PM brushed aside Rehman,s remarks and said "I don,t care if they do it as long as they get the right people. We,ll protest in the National Assembly and then ignore it."

This idea that the drones are illegally attacking Pakistan and killing scores of civilians is total BS.

Joe Klein is a columnist for Time Magazine. He recently went on Morning Joe to discuss drones.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/23/klein-drones-morning-joe

But: the bottom line in the end is - whose 4-year-old get killed? What we're doing is limiting the possibility that 4-year-olds here will get killed by indiscriminate acts of terror.

So you're exactly right, a 4-year old American deserves protection but a 4-year old Pakistani? Oh well, that's what you get for having a terrorist neighbor or relative.

Just like that 16 year old American boy who was assassinated without any sort of due process, far away from any battlefield...merely for having a terrorist for a father. When Robert Gibbs was asked to justify how we can kill an American citizen like that, his reply was...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/robert-gibbs-anwar-al-awlaki_n_2012438.html

I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children.

Here are a few of mine:

Al Qaida was attacking United States embassies and the Cole under the Clinton administration.
It seems pretty certain that 9/11 would still have happened.

Bitch please. There's no way Gore would have responded to point-blank warnings from intelligence officials that Al Queda was determined to attack the United States, that they would do it soon, and that they might use hijacked planes as weapons, with a "now you've covered your ass" and then done nothing.

Don't insult our intelligence as well as your own with such crap.

Maybe you shouldn't read this - you might find it distressing to encounter facts contrary to your views.

You mean like the fact that the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laddin if the United States bothered to offer evidence that what we were saying about Bin Laddin was true, Mr. Pot?

The internet-centric business meltdown is virtually certain to have occurred, and the housing bubble not much less so.

Except: one of the prime factors in the housing bubble wasn't just repealing Glass-Steagall, but the 2006 Bankruptcy "Reform" law that made it harder for people to discharge debt in bankruptcy. Which meant that banks started running around handing out money to anyone with a pulse, because they knew they would have an easier time collecting. Which was passed in 2006 by a Republican Congress and signed by a Republican President.

The US policy calling for regime change in Iraq was set under the Clinton administration

Because talking about regime change is the same thing as you know, actually doing it. Based on total lies that were obvious at the time, to boot.

Now, read this carefully. If there is no US invasion of Iraq, there is not the same opportunity for an Al Qaida supported and led insurgency in Iraq that drew Al Qaida members from around the world to Iraq.

You're hand waving. There was massive support from Iranians in the wake of the 911 attacks. Al Queda was always a super-extremist group amongst Muslims. But you know what a decade of torture, illegal wars and drone bombings of weddings as done for us? Turned moderate Muslims against us. They still done like Al Queda, but they have even less reason to like a nation that feels it has the right to slaughter anyone it doesn't like on a whim, on a regular basis.

"Global Warming" AKA "climate change"? The US is now at a 20 year low without Kyoto. President Gore probably would have made it a priority, and a weak economy would be saddled with major burdens of new regulation that may not have produced results much better than occurred anyway, and least in the near term.

Teabagger drivel that ignores two critical things:

1. Constructing high speed rail, wind & solar power would create millions of new jobs
2. Saving energy means saving money

Even if you're a teabagger douchebag with a Hummer with a confederate flag on the back window, you want the economy to move to green energy, because it means cheaper fuel for your dumb redneck ass.