Slashdot Mirror

Very much so, for instance Trafigura suppressing a report on toxic oil dumping. If you go to the superinjunction blog they have a spreadsheet with a list of supposed injunctions.

Apologies to the usual /. readership, this isn't just about the shenanigans of footballers, it's more about the perspective of a judiciary where the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge (totally surreal name): believed that ways would be found to curtail the "misuse of modern technology" in the same way that those involved with online child pornography were pursued by the police. ref:The Guardian

I'm surprised a non-EU-based website doesn't just open-up called 'super-injunctions revealed' or summat; their traffic from the UK would be enormous.

Anyway, married Liverpool and England defender Glenn Johnson had 2 super-injunctions out last summer "of a sexual nature"

What will the haters say when Apple are investigating the Lodsys patent and what they can do ? Oh that is right they are doing this at the moment.

Apple studies patent infringement claims by Lodsys

But then again it is slashdot where hate and FUD prevails over truth and logic. Funny how Microsoft tactics and shenanigans are so popular within the slashdot crowd.

Oh and btw Google and Microsoft also has a license (like Apple) so thinking this is only or could be only an IOS/Apple problem is very very naive.

In a series of blog posts, the company notes that Google and Microsoft have taken out licences, but notes that "so far no one has asked" whether apps written on those platforms might be liable for licence fees.

Oh boy I can't wait for the typical slashdot hypocricy when the first android or WM7 developers are getting sued by Lodsys. Chairs will fly in a lot of basements.

If Apple actually tried to help someone other than Apple for a change i would be totally shocked

Yeah I really hate it when they try to force and create their own closed standards. All their products are infested with it. They don't give anything back, never submits something as an open standard they are just pure evil.

This should be the big story. Uganda, anyone?

The irrefutable logic being that it effects Xbox 360's too.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/gamesblog/2011/may/19/la-noire-overheating

Haters, don't you just love them.

Actually, Japan decided to use offshore wind. I expect they might conside the addition of building-integrated photovoltaics.

Read the press. He was know to be a perv for years before this but no-one ever pressed charges before.

All I can find on this is - "Kaspersky graduated from the Institute of Cryptography, Telecommunications and Computer Science, an institute co-sponsored by the Russian Ministry of Defence and the KGB."

And - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/15/kaspersky_profile_mixup/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2008/feb/13/4
"The Guardian has apologised to Eugene Kaspersky after mistakingly naming the anti-virus guru as a former KGB officer. Eugene Kaspersky, co-founder and chief exec of the internet security company Kaspersky Lab, was described as a "KGB man" and a lieutenant in the KGB in an otherwise accurate article (The ex-KGB man stalking the cybercriminals since renamed The Russian defence against global cybercrime)."

yes, withhold passwords on a network resulting in no measurable loss, get 20yrs of income as fine. Damage and destroy an ecosystem causing loss of animal life and depressing an entire area economically; get fines that amount to about 7~mos of income. That's called justice.

Burson-Marsteller is no stranger to anti-Google stories. In 2007, Microsoft admitted that it had an "ongoing relationship" with the firm, which had been lobbying a number of top UK businesses to raise the issue of Google's dominance in search.

And they have been known for this in the past: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2001-08-23-microsoft-letters.htm

And they are also targeting Google heavily in the phone and search market especially with threatened lawsuits.

So, yeah, a quick glance at a posting history means jack all when someone who knows what they are doing would try and mix normal comments in with the shilling. But you look at the consistent themes on particular topics, the ability to land FPs with prepared essasy with links, and you realize what you're looking at is clearly astroturfing.

Personally I dont give a shit about Linux, and use Windows and Macs mostly, but I do give a shit when people are paid to shape the conversation. And you should too. It's not tin foil hat stuff when they have ADMITTEDLY paid bloggers to do this.

Noone is seriously pushing for Sharia law in Europe or the US. Not even Bin Laden was. Bin Laden has made his intentions pretty clear, although this has been willfully suppressed by US media. Just read the transcripts of Bin Laden's video speeches and you will understand what this conflict is all about. Take this one for example:

"Security is an important foundation of human life and free people do not squander their security, contrary to Bush's claims that we hate freedom."

"We fought you because we are free and because we want freedom for our nation. When you squander our security we squander your's."

It may not be nutritious, but it sure tastes good. I recently worked with some vendors from the UK, and they said their favorite part of America was the food.

There are plenty of British restaurants/pubs that basically serve microwaved meals. They're cheap, and quite popular because of that, but they should be considered fast food (a-bit-faster-food?). The big franchise pubs like Wetherspoons are worst for this, but even the apparently independent pub opposite work has deliveries of cardboard boxes from this company -- the much nicer pub has crates of fresh vegetables delivered.

Many British people, including my parents, refuse to see this and pretend they're simply getting a good, bargain meal (a Wetherspoons meal costs less than twice what a McDonald's meal costs).

It's 10 years since I visited the USA, and I was only 15 then, but the fast food was obvious, and the real restaurants all seemed to cook food from scratch. Walk into the nearest restaurant anywhere in the USA and I think (on average) you'll get better food than if you do the same in the UK.

I don't see why there'd be any difference between the above-average places in either country. Unfortunately, it's easy (especially for tourists) to go to a faster-food restaurant accidentally, and end up disappointed. I've written enough though, this article can take over.

At least the Turkish government is taking responsibility for the censorship. Here in the UK, the Internet Watch Foundation basically has a free hand to censor the internet; the IWF has the blessing of the government, but it's not a government agency, so there's no parliamentary oversight, they're not required to answer to anybody as to what they blacklist, and unless they fuck up spectacularly, nobody actually knows what they're censoring. We just have to hope it's only actually nasty kiddie porn, but as the aforementioned fuck up illustrates, their judgement is open to question. Our government likes it this way because technically the government isn't censoring anything.

Can't link to this article too many times:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/sep/24/1

And get probably 75% of medical issues diagnosed and cured, as they are mostly nutritional deficiencies... :-)
    http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/foodpyramid.aspx
    http://drfuhrman.com/library/article16.aspx
    http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml
    http://www.grassrootshealth.net/

Sure, Omega-3s and Iodine are important too:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/oct/17/prisonsandprobation.ukcrime
    http://www.iodine4health.com/
    http://www.bluezones.com/

As is a good night's sleep, friends, family, a connection to that which is beyond us, meaningful work, daily exercise walking and such, and that kind of stuff. And obviously avoid smoking, excessive alcohol, and obvious environmental toxins at work and play.

The focus on magic bullets is unfortunate. As is a focus on diagnosing things like cancer, heart disease, and diabetes that are mainly signs of vegetable deficiency disease and lack of vitamin D (and to a lesser extent those other issues). Most health rests on the basics. It's true that there are exotic genetic diseases and so on, but what causes the most chronic misery and early death in the industrialized words is these basic nutritional (and sunlight) problems.

Still, for cheap testing, this may be the future through using a paper-with-chemicals test and a cell phone, and such tests could help detect nutritional deficiencies:
    http://www.ted.com/talks/george_whitesides_a_lab_the_size_of_a_postage_stamp.html

Of course, there is not much profit in actually preventing or curing disease, so most of the money pours into diagnosing and treating what are really symptoms of nutritional and lifestyle disorders... It's been that way in part since the misguided Flexner Report:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexner_Report

But yes, this is still a great initiative -- even if it misses the obvious. But there is so little that is obvious (as is said in the Skills of Xanadu): :-)
    http://books.google.com/books?id=wpuJQrxHZXAC&pg=PA51

And of course, in our widely dysfunctional and dying culture, where people mostly eat either long dead carrion (aged factory farmed meat) or ground up long-dead plants (flour and sugar), and much of our entire cultural socio-economic infrastructure is geared around getting everyone to embrace this death-eater cult, it is no metaphorical surprise that the result of being a death eater is that you die early... Related:
    http://www.seriouseats.com/2007/11/the-subsidized-food-pyramid.html
    http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/diet-myths-the-food-pyramid-of-the-insane.html

Do you really need a "tricorder" to diagnose death-eater disease?

From TFA: "For the past few days, a mystery has been unfolding in Silicon Valley. Somebody, it seems, hired Burson-Marsteller, a top public-relations firm, to pitch anti-Google stories to newspapers, urging them to investigate claims that Google was invading people’s privacy"

Burson-Marsteller, Burson-Marsteller... Why does that name sound so familiar? Oh yeah. They were slinging anti-Google propaganda for ICOMP (Initiative for a Competitive Online Marketplace), which (scroll down to the very bottom) is a lobbying arm of Microsoft.

BM has claimed that the smear job for Facebook "was not at all standard operating procedure and is against our policies", but it seems to me that it's just business as usual for them. The last time they did this, pitching to business executives that time, they also didn't disclose who hired them ("Others suggested that by not disclosing who Burson-Marsteller was representing, the firm was breaking the spirit of political lobby firms' code of conduct.").

Not only that, but BM also hired Eric Schmidt's ex mistress/fiancée, presumably connected with their ongoing anti-Google efforts. And they were behind the National Smokers Alliance campaign back in the mid '90s. Plus, if this post is to be believed, they were also involved with a number of other very dubious organizations (I didn't have time to run them all down, but the ones I did check into seem true).


The whole "Facebook and Google are having a spat" thing isn't really news, but I find it interesting how such a scummy company can be considered "one of the top international PR firms out there". Also, I regret that I didn't find this Slate article until after typing this post. It backs up the list of clients in the forum post above (but in case you don't want to follow either link: the Argentine junta, the Nigerian junta, Union Carbide, Blackwater, and Nicolae Ceausescu are among the undeniably bad/evil ones).

not according to the Guardian - looks like they did try and get employees to sign it.

"Julian arrived with a copy of this document for everyone in the room, and asked all to sign it there and then, to demonstrate to all present they were trustworthy and decent. Unlike everyone else present – who were largely young activists with little or no professional training – I read the document first."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/12/wikileaks-confidentiality-agreement-julian-assange

wait for the bad deed to actually occur before screaming about said bad deed.

Ordinarily, yes. However, in Microsoft's case, they have a demonstrable history of leveraging their "monopoly" to prop up their offerings in other markets ultimately dominating those markets, reducing consumer choice, then leaving the product to stagnate with no other real alternative. IE6 is the premier example of this. They tried to do it with Java but Sun managed to stop them. Personally, I like real competition. The mobile device industry is on fire right now with newer and better products coming out seemingly everyday. Of course there is a fly in the ointment. MS, not content to compete on merit, has made it obvious that they will do anything possible to destroy competition through any means necessary. Skype is an important application for all devices. The last thing we need is to just sit and wait hoping for MS' good will.

Prior to 9/11, the problem with Bin Laden was treated as a police problem, hence the warrants. Warrants are essentially a passive measure - if this guy comes into your hands, send him to us, please. After 9/11, the Congress issued the Authorization for Use of Military Force against the perpetrators, and it became a military problem. Bin Laden was now actively sought. The US delivered an ultimatum (so much firmer than a warrant) to the Taliban:

US tells Taliban to give up Bin Laden or face attack

Afghanistan will be offered a final chance today to escape a devastating US military onslaught when a delegation from Pakistan delivers an ultimatum to the Taliban leadership to hand over Osama bin Laden, the prime suspect in the New York and Washington attacks, within three days.
With thousands of Afghans already fleeing their homes in anticipation of an assault, the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, said: "They will have to make their choice - whether they want to get rid of this curse within their country or face the full wrath of the United States."

The pressure on the US administration to exact revenge was underlined by a public opinion poll which showed that 84% of Americans supported military retaliation. Two-thirds of them would support it "even if it means many thousands of innocent civilians may be killed".

As call-up plans for at least 35,000 reservists were finalised yesterday, the task of planning the US military response shifted to Tampa, Florida, the headquarters of the Pentagon's central command (Centcom), which is responsible for actions in the Middle East, south and central Asia.

The Centcom commander, General Tommy Franks, has at his disposal a range of special forces and two navy battle groups equipped with 900 Tomahawk cruise missiles.

Doesn't an ultimatum with a threat of war seem a little clearer then a warrant or wanted poster?

But, it so happens, one of the links you provided also adds some clarity that I'm surprised you didn't note: Bin Laden, Most Wanted For Embassy Bombings?

The curious omission underscores the Justice Department's decision, so far, to not seek formal criminal charges against bin Laden for approving al-Qaeda's most notorious and successful terrorist attack. The notice says bin Laden is "a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world" but does not provide details.

The absence has also provided fodder for conspiracy theorists who think the U.S. government or another power was behind the Sept. 11 hijackings. From this point of view, the lack of a Sept. 11 reference suggests that the connection to al-Qaeda is uncertain.

Exhaustive government and independent investigations have concluded otherwise, of course, and bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders have proudly taken responsibility for the hijackings. FBI officials say the wanted poster merely reflects the government's long-standing practice of relying on actual criminal charges in the notices.

There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."

David N. Kelley, the former U.S. attorney in New York who oversaw terrorism cases when bin Laden was indicted for the embassy bombings there in 1998, said he is not at all surprised by the lack of a reference to Sept. 11 on the official wanted poster. Kelley said the issue is a matter of legal restrictions and the need to be fair to any defendant.

"It might seem a little strange from the outside, but it makes sense from a legal point of view," said Kelley, now in private practice. "If I were in government, I'd be troubled if I were asked to put up a wanted picture where no formal charges had been filed, no matter who it w

Now that Osama bin Laden is dead, we are left...defending our rights from exactly the same threat we faced before. Glad that killing the guy accomplished so much.

You shouldn't expect magic in stories without wands or spells. SEAL teams aren't known for using either.

Bin Laden will be replaced as leader, and Al Qaeda will continue for quite some time to come. Hopefully it will be in a much weakened if not terminal condition. In the mean time, they are going to kill a lot more people in pursuit of their goal of turning the world into a Muslim ruled super state - the Caliphate.

Bin Laden's demands: in short, convert to Islam, ditch the American Constitution and live under his version of Sharia law, or else.

There is a significant danger of far more people being killed if the public isn't clear on this point.

Actually, Osama never took credit for those deaths, which is why he wasn't formally wanted by FBI for the 9/11 bombings (FBI most wanted [fbi.gov]). The video which was shown on television shortly after the bombings, where he allegedly took the blame, was badly translated.

Personally, I'm not entirely sure if Osama had his hand in the 9/11 bombings, or if other people did it inspired by him

Actually, Bin Laden did take responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, on more than one occasion. Here is one:
Bin Laden claims responsibility for 9/11

Here are some videos of him with some of the 9/11 attackers:
Video Shows Bin Laden, 9/11 Hijackers
Bin Laden '9/11 video' broadcast

And maybe you should try another page:

Bin Laden was a suspect in a number of terrorist attacks around the world in addition to the 9/11 attacks.

The link you provide is apparently based solely on the federal indictments - that is, a matter of criminal law. More details here.

After the mass attacks of 9/11, Congress responded with the Authorization for Use of Military Force, and Al Qaeda became a military problem. I don't know that the FBI continually updates the crimes section on the most wanted list.

Bin Laden's demands? Americans must convert to Islam, discard the Constitution, and govern with Sharia law, or Al Qaeda will keep attacking the US. Bin Laden's offier - convert or die. Some choice, eh?

For those in need: Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report

There is a thing called the separation of powers. Executive power should not act as if it were judiciary power.

They weren't. Bin Laden declared war on the United States in the 1990s. After treating the problem of Al Qaeda essentially as a police problem until the 9/11 attacks, the US Congress issued the Authorization for Use of Military Force which is functionally equivalent to a declaration of war on Al Qaeda. This is now a military problem. Bin Laden was killed as the head of Al Qaeda in a military operation in a war zone. No need for judicial involvement, which is very limited on the battlefield anyway. Admiral Yamamoto suffered a similar fate in WW2.

In case you think there could be peace, read Bin Laden's Letter to America to see his demands. The short version: everyone convert to Islam, then abolish your Constitution and govern the country under Sharia law... in every detail. (Beheading, stoning, crucifixion, whipping, ban alcohol, .... the works.)

Turns out that the $1million figure given was not true. It's worth about $250,000 today, and the land was purchased for $48,000.

apparently you think resources are infinite. good luck with that.

all the easily accessible, cheap energy has been found. most of that has already been consumed. the rest is slow to access and requires an increasing amount of energy to extract. some of it will never be practical to extract. who cares if there's energy someplace if it takes more energy and resources to extract than it provides?

look at the geometric growth of both population and oil consumption over the past 100 years. is that growth sustainable? we need only look at the correlation between Egypt's uprising and its transition from net oil exporter to importer just to cover domestic demand.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7425

at some point even if the entire earth were comprised of oil we will have burned through it all.

is it reasonable to argue that peak oil is a bit further out than now? sure. but you seem to be arguing that oil/gas/coal are infinite in supply.

you also neglect the incentive our leaders have to lie to us and give us reassurances that there are tons of reserves out there to maintain social order. e.g. recently released US diplomatic cables from the wikileaks trove rather dispute your assertions regarding reserves.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/feb/08/saudi-oil-reserves-overstated-wikileaks

Saw this recently:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/02/environmental-fixes-all-greens-lost

Last week something astonishing happened: Fatih Birol, the chief economist of the International Energy Agency, revealed that peak oil has already happened. "We think that the crude oil production has already peaked, in 2006." If this is true, we should be extremely angry with the IEA. In 2005 its executive director mocked those who predicted peak oil as "doomsayers". Until 2008 (two years after the IEA now says it happened) the agency continued to dismiss the possibility that peak oil would occur.

But this also raises an awkward question for us greens: why hasn't the global economy collapsed as we predicted? Yes, it wobbled, though largely for other reasons. Now global growth is back with a vengeance: it reached 4.6% last year, and the IMF predicts roughly the same for 2011 and 2012. The reason, as Birol went on to explain, is that natural gas liquids and tar sands are already filling the gap. Not only does the economy appear to be more resistant to resource shocks than we assumed, but the result of those shocks is an increase, not a decline, in environmental destruction.

The problem we face is not that we have too little fossil fuel, but too much. As oil declines, economies will switch to tar sands, shale gas and coal; as accessible coal declines, they'll switch to ultra-deep reserves (using underground gasification to exploit them) and methane clathrates. The same probably applies to almost all minerals: we will find them, but exploiting them will mean trashing an ever greater proportion of the world's surface. We have enough non-renewable resources of all kinds to complete our wreckage of renewable resources: forests, soil, fish, freshwater, benign weather. Collapse will come one day, but not before we have pulled everything down with us.

Article goes on a bit, but the point seems to be expectations of a mad-max style scenario may be misplaced.

> Anonymous ... has not brought to light anything I'm aware of ....

Perhaps you've not been reading the news, then. Or perhaps you've forgotten HBGary (Wikileaks published it, but Anonymous provided it) despite it being referred to in TFA.

Or perhaps you're blinded by having read tentacle porn....

1.8 trillion total since the GWoT started more like.

FY2007 Department of Defense appropriations: $70 billion(estimated) for Iraq War-related costs
FY2007 Emergency Supplemental (proposed) $100 billion
FY2008 Bush administration has proposed around $190 billion for the Iraq War and Afghanistan
FY2009 Obama administration has proposed around $130 billion in additional funding for the Iraq War and Afghanistan
FY2011 Obama administration proposes around $159.3 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars

US defense budget FY2010
Provides $533.7 billion for the Department of Defense base budget in 2010, a four-percent increase over 2009.
Includes $75.5 billion in supplemental appropriations for 2009 and $130.0 billion for 2010 to support ongoing overseas contingency operations, while increasing efforts in Afghanistan and drawing down troops from Iraq responsibly.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/budget/defense.pdf

Visualizing the US defense budget

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/01/information-is-beautiful-military-spending

I am saying US law extends to non-citizens in other countries when they act in connection with someone directly under US jurisdiction to violate a law in the US. This has been the case since well before the internet was conceived of and will be the case long after you have thought of any snide remarks to make while pretending to be clever in front of your ignorant friends.

You can go to China, commit a crime that is also a crime in the US, then go to Japan, get caught, and they will extradite you to the US for prosecution of that crime under US law. You can be a UK citizen and be arrested and extradited to face violations of US law when you never entered the US at all but acted in a way to further the violation of a US law by someone subject to US law.

Look into the long arm jurisdiction precedents. There is plenty of history with it dating back to times when the Founding Fathers were still in government. The US Supreme Court has upheld some of them quite strongly too. They are reluctant to override those cases and do so sparingly.

Oh come on, we couldn't help but to make it into a PR farce from the start for some reason... How many people even realize the preparations were well under way by the time "the reasons" happened (and nvm slight continuity problems and how the ultimatum was a farce, also how getting in the way of some investigations possibly made those events easier)

Will remain so; despite the supposed "war of words" Pakistan (one of very few of our "allies" to quickly recognize Taliban gov; others being Kuwait and Saudis, IIRC) is safe I'm sure, ISI won't be labelled as a terrorist organisation... Pakistani ISI which fought alongside the Taliban (the largest support going towards the only mujahidin faction eager to fight not only against the Soviets) vs. the Northern Alliance, greatly contributing to them being unable to hold Afghanistan (nvm how, immediately after the "causes", "rumors" began that Iraq could have played a role; or how opium production skyrocketed after the intervention (is it already a pattern? BTW "free market"); how the compromised ISI was again, also, quick to helpfully point out their enemies, for us to deal with; how ideology is branded as an "organization", which can be obviously fought like any organization)

Admittedly such subtleties just confuse people (and the farce of October surprise in 2004 was hilarious, with OBL tape clearly designed to make reelection easier :) ...well, still not on the level of Reagan team hampering Iranian hostage release efforts), what we got is so much more palatable. Just social evolution, not the "best" approaches surviving but the fittest ones... as long as it works (how many people now realize that bomber gap and missile gap were a fiction comparable to mine shaft gap? How many even heard about Team B?)

But don't paint it so into "us" vs. "them" (locally) fashion. Systems of governance are ultimately basically a reflection of society; from where do people forming them come from? It's hard to find somebody who would actually abstain from taking a piece of the cake for themselves, given the chance (not the same as just declaring they wouldn't do it; then you have virtually whole families swearing for one military member amongst them - always somebody honourable and decent; or families of some engineer or blue-collar worker, normally bitching about gov waste, always praising the work of their family member - especially when it's publicly funded, when the product provided is obviously essential and the price fair)

America continually changing their story on how he died and dumping the body at sea as fast as possible before anybody could see it won't help how history sees this.

At the moment though, he's right. The American mentality is hard for the rest of the world to understand but "killing the bad guy" had people out on the streets firing guns in the air this week. Even Scott Adams blogged about how good it made him feel.

Sad really, but all too true (as the GP pointed out).

Oh yes they have: Abbottabad â" pretty Himalayan town, pity about the poem

I quote:

There is some argument over whether General Sir James Abbott founded Abbottabad. Herbert Edwardes, another soldier and administrator in the Punjab, has his claims. But it was Abbott who managed to put his name to the place, and he really should have left it at that. The encomium he composed when he left the hilltown he loved must be one of the worst poems ever written.

While US military action has caused the deaths of many civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, insurgent activities have caused even more civilian deaths. Based on this data from last year in Afghanistan, they're responsible for 3/4 of the civilian casualties.

Terrorism hurts everyone. Bin Laden's death is a victory for the entire world.

on or near April 25, 2011.

Link doesn't say that anybody actually knew he was there, just that US troops were in the neighborhood.

on or near April 25, 2011.

long standing conspiracy theories about the Bush family's involvement with Nazis and such

Nice troll but no... a "conspiracy theory" in general usage is is taken to mean a paranoid, far-fetched and typically unfalsifiable hypothesis. But why let the facts get in the way of your attempts to malign critics of the Bush family?

Prescott Bush was involved in financing the Nazis which shouldn't surprise anybody with a knowledge of history that extends beyond the revisionist and politicized highschool texts. The worlds of finance and big business have been perfectly happy to profit from conflict; a criticism that remains valid to this day.

1. Oct 1939, Roosevelt announces US neutrality in Europe
2. March 1941, US passes the Lend-Lease Act
3. May 1941, Hitler supports Iraq revolt against Britain
4. Dec 1941, Japan attacks Pearl Harbour

There's no "conspiracy theory" or comparison between this and what the birthers are claiming.

Hard work will still pay off compared to not working for any given individual. And not just our aptitudes but also our attitudes depend a lot on nature and nurture. Making everyone equal is not the primary goal of all ethical systems.

I think you may be confusing meritocracy with something else. Also keep in mind that the word is used with several different meanings, see e.g. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2001/jun/29/comment

You're wrong, son. Afganistan only offered *after* the invasion had begun.
 
Nice revisionist history though...

We couldn't help it but make it generally a PR farce from the start anyway, for some reason. How many people are even aware that preparations were well under way by the time "the reasons" happened? (and nvm slight continuity problems and how the ultimatum was a farce, also how getting in the way of some investigations possibly made those events easier)

And all also good reasons to invade Pakistan (one of very few of our "allies" to quickly recognize Taliban gov; others being Kuwait and Saudis, IIRC) and label ISI as a terrorist organisation, for a start... Pakistani ISI which fought alongside the Taliban (the largest support going towards the only mujahidin faction eager to fight not only against the Soviets) against the Northern Alliance, greatly contributing to them being unable to hold Afghanistan.
But don't forget how, immediately after the "causes", "rumors" began that Iraq could have played a role... Or how opium production skyrocketed after the intervention. How the compromised ISI was again, also, quick to helpfully point out their enemies, for us to deal with.

How ideology is branded as an "organization", which can be obviously fought like any organization

Oh well, admittedly such subtleties just confuse people (and the farce of October surprise in 2004 was hilarious, with OBL tape clearly designed to make reelection easier :) ...well, still not on the level of Reagan team hampering Iranian hostage release efforts), what we got is so much more palatable.

How many people now realize that bomber gap and missile gap were a fiction comparable to mine shaft gap? How many even heard about Team B?

Here's data for Afganistan last year, presented graphically.

AGE means "anti-government elements". PGF means "pro-government forces". Even if you assume that all the "other" deaths are being caused by PGF, the anti-government side is killing the vast majority of civilians.

"Viewers watched an average of three hours and 45 minutes of television a day in 2009, 3% more than in 2004, according to research published today by the media regulator Ofcom"

If there was some generational effect going on (the article does note that the elderly watch more than the average) it would be somewhat mitigated by the Economist's finding that

"In December 2009, Nielsen estimated that 34% of internet users had the television on while surfing the net. But when tuning in for a programme, television-watchers used the internet only about 3% of the time"

US numbers show a similar trend -

"the average American watches approximately 153 hours of TV every month at home, a 1.2% increase from last year"

Those who are interested should check out the American Time Use Survey - it has some rather interesting content (for instance: 15 to 19 read for an average of 5 minutes per weekend day while spending 1.0 hour playing games or using a computer for leisure. )
Taking the two pieces together it would seem we're watching more TV in general, and when we're online we have the TV on anyway. Hardly seems worth pounding the drums of the apocalypse over.

What about them?

According to the 9/11 Commission Report, both black boxes from Flight 77 and both black boxes from Flight 93 were recovered. However, the CVR from Flight 77 was said to be too damaged to yield any data. On April 18, 2002, the FBI allowed the families of victims from Flight 93 to listen to the voice recordings. In April 2006, a transcript of the CVR was released as part of the Zacarias Moussaoui trial.

http://articles.cnn.com/2002-04-18/us/rec.flight.93_1_family-members-deena-burnett-flight-attendants?_s=PM:US

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/apr/13/usa.september11

As for Kapparot and Brit milah, they are legal because its a damned religious issue.

The First Amendment prohibits the federal government from making a law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" This provision was later expanded to state and local governments, through the Incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Outlaw Brit milah and Mohels and you violate the First Amendment.

Maybe they can get Sony's advertising guys to do promotion for the new model...

You don't know how it works, and you guessed wrong.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/26/chernobyl-radioactive-fires-global-danger

I actually want safe, clean nuclear power, but I think people like you are out to destroy any trust normal people might have in the nuclear industry. By continually downplaying any dangers, you make yourself sound like a shrill shill.

According to the Guardian, the facts are:

1. Apple does indeed record location information (implied by visible cell towers) indefinitely, but this information is anonyimised. The Guardian article states that no physical address for the phone is recorded (others have posted to the contrary here though).

2. Google does collect similar and anonymised information, but only on an opt-in basis, to a more limited extent, and "in a form that is hard to access" (encrypted?).

So, I'd say Apple is doing something that they shouldn't be doing, and they should stop. Google will collect data if you let them, which seems reasonable. The only really objectionable part is Steve Jobs engaging in a debate on what Google do, when he should be focusing on fixing the problem with the iPhone.

RS

According to the Guardian:

"The files were shared with the Guardian and US National Public Radio by the New York Times, which says it did not obtain them from WikiLeaks."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/25/what-are-guantanamo-files-explained

Both Sony and Microsoft currently sit deep in a multibillion dollar hole of losses from the current generation fiasco.

Xbox has been profitable for several years now.

Windows revenue down, but Xbox profits soar

every major intelligence agency on the planet thought that this kook had WMD,

Nope. That's been thoroughly debunked. The CIA told GW Bush that there were no WMDs in Iraq. The Bush administration then created a false report to take to the UK to convince Tony Blair that there were. The speech given by Colin Powell to the UN shortly afterwards was also a pack of lies.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/sep/07/turningtruthintolies

Why did Bush invade Iraq? I think he told the truth to Jacques Chirac when he went to France to sell his war agenda:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/aug/10/religion-george-bush

We absolutely, positively have to kick their asses, or they will simply do it again, and again, over and over until we physically stop them.

Huh? You're not fighting anything physical so how can you 'kick its ass', exactly?

Terrorist attacks are carried out by nutcases. No amount of murder in Iraq/Afghanistan will ever rid the world of nutcases (in fact it makes them more likely).

The war in Afghanistan might refocus the nutcases' attentions onto the soldiers there instead of going to the USA to wreck stuff, sure, but that just means you have to keep their attention indefinitely, i.e. the 'war' has to last forever. Are you up for that? Are you even enlisted in the Army?

every major intelligence agency on the planet thought that this kook had WMD,

Nope. That's been thoroughly debunked. The CIA told GW Bush that there were no WMDs in Iraq. The Bush administration then created a false report to take to the UK to convince Tony Blair that there were. The speech given by Colin Powell to the UN shortly afterwards was also a pack of lies.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/sep/07/turningtruthintolies

Why did Bush invade Iraq? I think he told the truth to Jacques Chirac when he went to France to sell his war agenda:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/aug/10/religion-george-bush

We absolutely, positively have to kick their asses, or they will simply do it again, and again, over and over until we physically stop them.

Huh? You're not fighting anything physical so how can you 'kick its ass', exactly?

Terrorist attacks are carried out by nutcases. No amount of murder in Iraq/Afghanistan will ever rid the world of nutcases (in fact it makes them more likely).

The war in Afghanistan might refocus the nutcases' attentions onto the soldiers there instead of going to the USA to wreck stuff, sure, but that just means you have to keep their attention indefinitely, i.e. the 'war' has to last forever. Are you up for that? Are you even enlisted in the Army?

And here's the citation needed

Leon Lederman started out calling it "The goddamned particle" but his editor wouldn't let him so it got shortened to the "god particle" : http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/jun/30/higgs.boson.cern and the media then ran with it ;)