Slashdot Mirror

Ok asshole, your rebutal.

We wanted the population to be free, not repressed.

They still arn't free, and they still are repressed.
Repression and Violence Against Journalists in China on Increase
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/42042/

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/movies/01spring.html

CENSORSHIP has long been a fact of life for filmmakers in China, but in recent years no director has clashed with the Chinese authorities as often, or as visibly, as Lou Ye. At two of the last five editions of the Cannes Film Festival, with the global media spotlight trained on the south of France, Mr. Lou, 45, has walked up the red carpet to present a movie that was being screened, in competition, without the permission of the Film Bureau in Beijing.

Every one of those were easily found by doing a google search.

Now along with having the largest population in the world still not being free, they are all becoming sick from all the polution from their industrialization.

China's 'cancer villages' reveal dark side of economic boom
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/07/china-cancer-villages-industrial-pollution

Would you like to try again with your comment about westerners and china.

The "rules" Iran is accused of breaking are not vague, but rather spelled out in clear terms. In accordance with Article 42 of Iran's Safeguards Agreement, and Code 3.1 of the General Part of the Subsidiary Arrangements (also known as the "additional protocol") to that agreement, Iran is obliged to inform the IAEA of any decision to construct a facility which would house operational centrifuges, and to provide preliminary design information about that facility, even if nuclear material had not been introduced. This would initiate a process of complementary access and design verification inspections by the IAEA.

source

The Guardian apparently got an email from her: ""It sounds really cool but I have to deny it," she said of the story.". Whether that's "I have to admit it's not true because it isn't" or "I have to admit it's not true because I've been told to" is a different matter I guess.

The United Arab Emirates, followed by their huge cousin Saudi Arabia, are shutting down Blackberry until RIM lets them spy on its data in realtime. RIM has been able to argue it doesn't have such a backdoor feature. Obama has the clout to force this Canadian company to create one. And then the Saudis and the rest of their medieval tyranny neighbors will spy on us. They don't need no steenkin' warrants. And neither does Obama, if he personally decides it's a "state secret".

And the same empty threat of rich people leaving if overtaxed applies here too.

Indeed. It was hilarious to hear that Tracey Emin was going to leave Britain over the 50% tax rate, heading for the low tax destination of .... France?! Unfortunately, she never did.

> New Zealand Scientists Make Atom-Trapping Breakthrough

As a proud loud Australian I claim Mikkel Andersen as Australia's favourite son! Come on over matey. I also claim "Lord of the Rings" as one of Australia's greatest movies and "Crowded House" as our greatest band (hey... nothing since the 80's sounds right anyway). And that Kiwi who discovered the relationship between steroids and lung activation that must have saved a million premature babies... we own him too.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/sep/06/sir-graham-mont-liggins-obituary

The only hope for Mexico is if prop 19 passes cali, speads east followed by the other recreational drugs.

I'm not so sure - it is possible that the people of Mexico will simply get fed up of the violence and decide to end prohibition by themselves. It seems like there is a real global momentum towards decriminalisation and legalisation at the moment. Last year Mexico decriminalized possession of small amounts of drugs including marijuana, cocaine and heroin. In the past few months, the Presidents of Peru, Mexico and Columbia have all called for debate on legalisation. There is some amount of popular support in Mexico for legalisation of all drugs (The Guardian - Mexico looks to legalisation as drug war murders hit 28,000, The Guardian - War on drugs: why the US and Latin America could be ready to end a fruitless 40-year struggle, The Economist - Mexico and drugs: Thinking the unthinkable, BBC News - Vicente Fox backs Mexico drugs legalisation). And it's not just Mexico BBC News - Britain looks at Portugal's success story over decriminalising personal drug use.

The whole thing has the feeling of a house of cards. If prop 19 passes, California legalises cannabis, and Peru, Mexico, and Columbia legalise all drugs, and the U.K moves to decriminalise all drugs, then things could move quite rapidly. If legalisation significantly reduces crime and violence in those nations, the ripple on effects are going to lead to people everywhere questioning why they should continue to be part of the global drugs prohibition regime. In a decade the world's approach to drugs could look significantly different.

The only hope for Mexico is if prop 19 passes cali, speads east followed by the other recreational drugs.

I'm not so sure - it is possible that the people of Mexico will simply get fed up of the violence and decide to end prohibition by themselves. It seems like there is a real global momentum towards decriminalisation and legalisation at the moment. Last year Mexico decriminalized possession of small amounts of drugs including marijuana, cocaine and heroin. In the past few months, the Presidents of Peru, Mexico and Columbia have all called for debate on legalisation. There is some amount of popular support in Mexico for legalisation of all drugs (The Guardian - Mexico looks to legalisation as drug war murders hit 28,000, The Guardian - War on drugs: why the US and Latin America could be ready to end a fruitless 40-year struggle, The Economist - Mexico and drugs: Thinking the unthinkable, BBC News - Vicente Fox backs Mexico drugs legalisation). And it's not just Mexico BBC News - Britain looks at Portugal's success story over decriminalising personal drug use.

The whole thing has the feeling of a house of cards. If prop 19 passes, California legalises cannabis, and Peru, Mexico, and Columbia legalise all drugs, and the U.K moves to decriminalise all drugs, then things could move quite rapidly. If legalisation significantly reduces crime and violence in those nations, the ripple on effects are going to lead to people everywhere questioning why they should continue to be part of the global drugs prohibition regime. In a decade the world's approach to drugs could look significantly different.

Except he didn't say that - http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2009/apr/23/corrections-clarifications

Actually, Ahmadinejad never said that. The quote is a mistranslation and has mendaciously used as propaganda by Zionists and useful idiots as proof of Iran's alleged destructive intentions.

If you bothered to read the entire page you linked to, the Guardian published a retraction: http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2009/apr/23/corrections-clarifications

I love the double standard! So, if that's the case, then people should STFU about Iran building anything, considering they haven't signed that treaty either...

Are you really that flipping naive? Israel is using nukes as a deterrent, defensive weapon, which has so far worked. Iran has stated that they want to "wipe Israel off the face of the earth," http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/27/israel.iran and would probably use nukes as an offensive weapon, at least that is my interpretation of "burn in the fire of Islamic fury." So GFY before you tell people to STFU!

Not only did the war start before Auschwitz, we didn't really know what was going on in the concentration camps until shortly after the war ended. There were rumours, but it's not like the Germans were inviting diplomats or tourists to go on site-seeing tours.

The service contract to repair the IBM concentration camp management machines, which were built by IBM in Germany specifically for the purpose which could not have been done without support from IBM in the US, was served directly out of Armonk, NY. This is not the only way in which we knew what was going on in the concentration camps before the war ended, but it is one way. We knew precisely what was going on in those camps, stop telling yourself different. War has been for profit forever, and we are culpable. What makes you think WWII was any different? We waited even though we knew what was wrong specifically to put us into a position of economic power. The gates family fortune was indeed founded upon profiting from sending money to Hitler's SS. You are 100% wrong. We had no moral high ground; indeed, we were profiting from these occurrences.

It's very easy to invite people to your party on Facebook. perhaps too easy. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/8012043/Girl-14-fears-21000-party-guests-after-Facebook-invite-blunder.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/feb/12/facebook-party-mayfair-riot-police http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23722118-im-proud-my-facebook-party-cost-police-10000.do

"including Haiti and Papua New Guinea, whose capital, Port Moresby, has one of the highest murder rates in the world"

I wonder what counts as "high". For comparison: (1999 BBC article, 2008 Foreign Policy article, and Guardian 2009).

Caracas 130 per 100,000
New Orleans est. 67 (pd) to 95 (fbi) per 100,000
Cape Town 62 per 100,000
Washington DC 69.3 per 100,000
Port Moresby 54 per 100,000
Detroit 40.6 per 100,000
Papua New Guinea 15.2 per 100,000
Moscow 9.6 per 100,000
Haiti 5.3 per 100,000.
London 1.8 per 100,000
 

You think the bonuses are huge in an industry with 1-3% profit margins

Wal mart's is 3.5%. But even a small percentage adds up to a lot when your sales are up in the billions.

and insane price competition?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/dec/08/supermarkets.asda

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/22/horniest-dinosaur-kosmoceratops-utah/print

So you are trying to say that your comment is somehow more better or that my comment isn't accurate just because someone with mod points modded you up?

And you are giving moderators on Slashdot that much credit? I didn't know that facts were subject to popularity or vote. I always thought they just existed and some idiots choose to ignore them.

Maybe you should take a nic similar to mine, perhaps something with the term idiot in it as you probably need it.

Flash delays ARM-based netbooks

Sorry for sounding like a mindless zealot, but whatever you do with web technology, please use something that is truly cross-platform. (an open technology would help)

What they do have is a huge number of really old people...

Er, not as many as they thought they had...

Aleks Krotoski meet Gregg Keizer.

Apparently squash is good enough for the Pope and the Queen:

Source

11.31am:
Stephen Bates, who was in the drawing room to witness the exchange of gifts and listen in on the small talk, said the handover was a bit like Christmas.

The Queen looked at the facsimile of the German gospel and said: "Oh, lovely. Thank you very much. It's lovely."

The pope then looked at the Holbeins and thanked her.

There was also a little small talk, with the Queen noting that Benedict appeared to have arrived at Holyrood "in a very small car".

She added: "It must have been a tight squeeze", before asking him about the popemobile.
The press corps was then ushered out and fizzy water and squash were brought in to the room.

(Unless Scottish people use the word differently to Southern English people, which is entirely possible.)

If those astronauts show me a photograph, I'll change my view.

They can also mark the exact place where the teapot appears in orbit and we'll be able to send rockets/astronauts to go see it whenever we want.

that kind of evidence is conspicuously lacking in religious experiences.

Take the latest miracle which the pope has decided to recognise (by beatifying Cardinal John Newman)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/sep/13/god-miracles-vatican

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/sep/05/fifa-passports-claims The most interesting bit is that Sepp Blatter's nephew is involved with the company at fault.

So, if you want to go back that far to show guilt, then the way I see it, you owe me whatever land you currently preside on plus a shitload of back rent plus interest.

It is not about assigning guilt for some past wrongs. It is merely about acknowledging whether or not the followers of Christianity have, since the time of the New Testament, carried out acts of violence. And historically, they have. This is despite Jesus telling them, over 1000 years earlier, that violence is not to be allowed! Christians had 1500 years to reflect on the teachings of Jesus and the New Testament about peace and forgiveness, and yet were still violent enough to massacre 100,000 people on St. Bartholomew's Day. Why is it so hard for Christians to actually follow the teachings of Jesus? How can it be said that Christians are peaceful, when the Roman Catholic church, after over 1000 years of existence and preaching the New Testament, wages a Holy War against people following another branch of Christianity, resulting in a million "heretics" being killed? How can it be said that Christianity is a religion of peace, if the leading Christian powers throughout history have just ignored the teachings of Jesus about peace and forgiveness?

Really? You mean that Muslims will produce all this uproar over burning Korans or drawing a cartoon of Mohamed, and they didn't say a word while Christians were raping and killing Muslims? Bullshit.

But Muslims were outraged. How did you miss it? Thousands of Mujahideen from all around the world went to fight in the Balkans after hearing Western media reports about the rape and genocide:

"between 1,800 and 3,000 mujahideen fought in Bosnia on the side of the Bosnian Muslim army. These holy warriors came from the Middle East, north Africa and western Europe (notably France and the UK). And their path to holy war in Bosnia was facilitated by western intervention.... Perhaps most strikingly, many mujahideen were encouraged to venture to Bosnia by shrill media coverage of the conflict. Arab fighters say they first ventured to Bosnia because they 'saw US media reports on rape camps' or read about the 'genocide' in Bosnia and the 'camps used by Serb soldiers systematically to rape thousands of Muslim women'." - The Guardian

God is not only non-denominational

What has this got to do with the fact that 78% of Americans self-identify as Christian? Not "followers of a monotheistic God", but specifically "Christian".

For example, The Ten Commandments say "Do not murder", does that mean our laws against murder are based on the Ten Commandments?

Well, that is an interesting and more complex question than you probably think. The U.S. legal system was based on the English one, and at the time England was a Christian theocracy, with Anglicanism as the state religion and the King as head of the Church. The extent to which the legal system was based on Christianity has been often debated. Thomas Jefferson wrote:

"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it."

Whilst common law itself predates the establishment of Christianity in Britain, there were legal prohibitions on certain activities that can clearly be traced back to the Canon law declarations o

Yep, very cowboyish them folks at Wikileaks.

After all they are te ones who went in guns blazing using cowboy rhetoric.

They are the ones torturing...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5395830/Abu-Ghraib-abuse-photos-show-rape.html
Using "National Security" as a guise to protect the guilty and deny justice to the victims...
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/08/obama/index.html
Using political and economic presure to protect American war criminals from prosecution and force foreign governments into compliance with "extra judicial" measures...
http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/CIA_Red_Cell_Memorandum_on_United_States_%22exporting_terrorism%22,_2_Feb_2010
And killing civilians...
http://cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm
For sport...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/09/us-soldiers-afghan-civilians-fingers

No they don't have them.
Oh wait...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/09/us-soldiers-afghan-civilians-fingers
And even then the government wouldn't protect them...
Oh wait...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5395830/Abu-Ghraib-abuse-photos-show-rape.html
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/08/obama/index.html

They mean that the data was widely available from many sources and anyone could download it. The "competent" means selecting and combining data from among the various sources takes a degree of skill and knowledge.

From http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/07/climategate-scientists-main-points:

One of the most common allegations made against the CRU scientists was that they blocked access to raw data, drawn from weather stations around the world, and adjusted that data to falsely show a pattern of global warming. There were also complaints that they failed to release on demand the computer code they wrote to analyse the data. Without such information, how could sceptics check the CRU's calculations?

The panel showed that it was relatively straightforward to reproduce the CRU analysis without needing to ask Jones and his colleagues for anything.

They used data from public databanks and wrote their own computer code, which they say could be repeated by any "competent researcher". The results were similar to those of the CRU.

Personally, the idea of an impersonal video showing boring math material would be even worse than have an instructor do it, but perhaps this will allow the more "advanced" students to go at their own pace.

I did attend an "open classroom" for several years and in one of those years, I was allowed to race ahead and finished the english and math curriculum several months ahead of schedule so I could spend more time on that wonderful TI-99 4A hooked up to the beautiful color monitor.

I don't think the iPad based curriculum will work for every child.

"It's also just the usual bullshit and propaganda how bad North Korea supposedly is for wanting to defend their own country"

Defend against.... who, exactly? Is anyone invading them? They've been at war with South Korea for almost 60 years because they only signed an armistice, meaning they're going to stop fighting but may resume at anytime. All N Korea has to do is stop screwing around and agree to make peace and they'd be welcomed into the world but they refuse. They're like to stubborn child that's sent to their room for not finishing supper but instead of coming down 10 minutes later to eat they sulk in their room.... for 60 years.

"North Korea isn't even as bad as US and all news outlets try to draw it as. Take a travel there and see yourself "

Why would anyone want to go to North Korea?! The last journalists that went there were sentenced to 12 years in N Korea jail just for entering the country. And North Korea isn't like France, where if the US govt said "Hey can we have our people back?" the French would oblige, North Korea can keep you and you're never released and no one rescues you.

If you think North Korea is a great place to visit maybe you should go there and tell us how it turns out. In fact go to the DMZ and cross, it will be the last thing you ever do

Depends who is selling and what
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/may/09/nuclear.northkorea

I suppose it depends on what precisely you mean by solvency. The government will never be unable to pay its debt, but it is true that the US does not have unlimited purchasing power and that hyperinflation is in principle one of the ways in which that limit could manifest itself. (But seignorage doesn't automatically lead to hyperinflation.)

In the real world, however, Social Security is usually lumped into dire forecasts of runaway entitlement growth, but the runaway growth comes from health care costs. Social Security costs are projected to rise from 4.8% of GDP this year to around 6% of GDP in 2030 and then stabilize at that level (assuming that full scheduled benefits will be paid). Note that the democrat co-chair of the deficit panel lumped in Social Security with health care entitlements in his list of programs that will cause the US to become "a second-rate power".

I won't say much about health care, except that per capita total US government spending on health care is already more than the UK spends on the NHS, so a saner health care system, while not necessarily reducing government spending, could significantly reduce private spending, some of which could be recouped in taxes.

As for Social Security being "pointless shuffling of wealth", I don't think that the millions of retirees who depend on it for a substantial portion of their income would agree with that description.

About "burdens" placed on the economy, I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "burden" or what justifies your claim about the relationship between the future size of the economy and current burdens. But you might find this article interesting.

There is a lot of belief in politics that if we make something illegal, people will stop doing it.

They are fully aware that this is not true; but stopping people doing it isn't the objective. That's not even close to being foremost on their minds. Politicians are driven by personal power and political motives. They want to be seen to be "doing something", "being tough" and "sending a strong message".

Due to recent well covered events it's easier to demonstrate my point when discussing drugs. Whilst it obviously isn't the same issue, it's an area I think most people would agree that has many similar issues, is highly related and is subject to similar attitudes from politicians, the public and the media.

Politicians have numerous advisers with a very solid understanding of the situation. However (at least here in the UK) when the experts give actual opinions based on expertise, they get sacked. Or they get frustrated by the sole political motivation and quit.

Claudia Rubin from Release – a national centre of expertise on drugs and drugs law – said the expert should not have been penalised. "It's a real shame and a real indictment of the Government's refusal to take any proper advice on this subject," she said.

Meanwhile we rely on unelected Lords for a bit of reason. The then (unelected) Science Minister reacted furiously:

As science champion in Government' I can't just stand aside on this one.

Prof Nutt (the guy who got sacked see above) himself wrote more recently:

the niceties of legal process and proper procedure on drug classification are as nothing beside the media-driven political demand that something must be done, and done now.

(I'll point out the sources above are across the political spectrum, as far as the broadsheets go the "Torygraph" is perhaps the furthest to the right and the Guardian furthest to the left; the Independent supposedly dead-centre but generally considered to be a lefty. The government they're all criticising was the centre-left Labour Party.)

There is something familiar about the tide of misinformation which has swept through the subject of sex trafficking in the UK: it flows through exactly the same channels as the now notorious torrent about Saddam Hussein's weapons. In the story of UK sex trafficking, the conclusions of academics who study the sex trade have been subjected to the same treatment as the restrained reports of intelligence analysts who studied Iraqi weapons – stripped of caution, stretched to their most alarming possible meaning and tossed into the public domain. There, they have been picked up by the media who have stretched them even further in stories which have then been treated as reliable sources by politicians, who in turn provided quotes for more misleading stories.

Yes, that doesn't prove that sex workers necessarily enjoy their work. It doesn't prove that other forms of coercion don't exist.But it does frame the issue somewhat differently.

Why bother? They link to a guardian article from whence all the real information comes anyway. No pricing, no hardware specs, really no useful information beyond a commitment to Android.

I'm not interested in discussing the merits of tea-party 'solutions' here, but I want to address some biases you have that are hurting you.

You disagree with pretty much anything Sarah Palin states as fact? Really? I don't know how you can come to that conclusion reasonably. Do you doubt that she has a daughter with down's syndrome? Do you think she wasn't governor of Alaska? Do you think America should stay a democracy? Do you respect George Washington? I'm going to guess that you actually agree with the vast majority of what Sarah Palin believes.

Secondly, your information gathering skills must really suck, because the common thread between the tea-party members isn't religion, it's economic policy. If religion alone were capable of starting such a big political movement, Pat Robertson would have been president. This is stuff you can figure out for yourself if you apply yourself to understanding. As another measurement of the religious nature of the tea-party, consider Mike Huckabee, who makes a point of appealing directly to the religious elements of the Republican party, and does it well. He doesn't do as well in the tea-party, though. Typically he can pull around 30% of the Republican party, which about matches the religious sector of the Republicans (and also explains why Republicans talk about religion but don't do much about it). In the tea-party poll, he only managed to get 4%, whereas Romney, who markets himself on economic issues, did much better.

In other words, I'm not saying I'm 100% right with what I just said, but you need to make your analysis more carefully and more nuanced. The way you're doing it now is blinding you to things.

Yeah, that seems kind of odd to me. Failing to use a condom for the second time isn't rape unless she withheld consent from that time.

Not so sure about this. It depends on the laws of the jurisdiction in question, but there are jurisdictions where using certain types of deception or fraud to obtain consent to sex is rape. The classic examples are deceiving a woman as to your identity (e.g., if her boyfriend's twin brother were to impersonate him), or making her believe it's a necessary part of a medical procedure (yes, this has happened). The most infamous recent case: a Palestinian man convicted of rape because he told the woman that he was Jewish.

It's not a stretch to say that it's rape if a man obtains consent for sex by falsely telling her he will wear a condom.

By that logic, if a woman insist on using a condom each time then after several months of a committed relationship and several STI tests they have sex without he could be brought up on rape charges.

Well, you know, having sex with somebody against their consent is rape. Unlike what your comment implies, there is no magic moment where, once you've fucked her long enough, you no longer need her consent or to respect her conditions for that consent. If you've got a problem with her insistence on the condom you're not entitled to disregard them and have things your own way by either force or deception.

I think birth is a pretty reasonable place to draw the line legally.

It's not. Let's say we could grow babies outside the womb. It's not that far fetched. Maybe in the future a significant portion of people will be "born" this way, the same way a significant portion of babies are raised on formula instead of breast milk today.

If you start personhood at the point that an "entity" is being capable of living off of life support (be it the mother herself, or an artificial womb), then premature and underdeveloped babies wouldn't be people. If you start before that, then you're back in the same situation looking at weeks or months of growth since conception.

The problem is that life is a gray area. The fact that my heart skipped a beat doesn't mean I'm now dead any more than a postmortem convulsion means that I'm still alive. There is no binary test for life; we can only measure its signs and nurture it (or not) based on our capabilities, responsibilities, and morality.

My personal opinion is that the first trimester should be ruled out, the third should be inclusive, and anything in the second should be made on a case-by-case basis depending on organ development, giving weight to the side of non-personhood for practical considerations. At some point we may well be capable of supporting life at any stage (if we're not there already), but as the anti-stem cell researchers like to say, just because we can do something doesn't mean we should (or must).

Alternatively, we should base it on when an individual can pass the mirror test. This actually seems to be one of the most practical definition, since humanity is based in large part (if not wholly) on self-awareness, but most people probably won't be accepting of the idea that babies are not really people.

Ah, I see. Characterize the people who are asking for reduced carbon dioxide emissions as hysterical alarmists. Good counter argument!

To get back to reality, Governor Schwarzenegger, President Obama and the U.S. Senate all have taken steps toward reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Even more has been done in Europe.

I daresay many people here read faster than most people talk and comprehend speech.

Presentations are good for people who have little idea of the subject material. They are also good if entertaining your audience is part of the requirement. People who know about the subject material are fine getting it in formats similar to research "papers, manuals, "errata" or similar.

Perhaps the Generals don't need to know the details. But the details are often important. Why does a bunch of important people have to waste time getting schedules synchronized and sitting down for some powerpoint presentation? If the information is important enough can't they just get in their email so that they can go over it thoroughly, and then call/instant message the relevant people if they have questions?

Whatever it is, I think they are doing things wrong, even their "practice for war" is a sham (more about supporting the military industrial complex than actually winning wars?): http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/sep/06/usa.iraq

Looking at what is happening in Afghanistan[1] I think the US military should have seriously learned from what Lt Gen Riper did (and the bigger picture implications).

[1] http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/02/18/analysis.afghanistan.shadow.governors/index.html

As long as you have the constraint that genocide is unacceptable you get diminishing returns from being able to kill more and more people, or destroy more and more with a single weapon. In fact it is counterproductive when you start having too much "collateral damage".

So figuring out who to kill for maximum effect is what you need to do, and getting your version of what happened out to the rest of the population is important.

Universal health care, cure French girls, good restaurants, great culture (ok ok immigration problems but hey, habla espagnol?)

You forgot the massive amount of intolerance.

Interesting possibility - but the same could also be said of North African tribes. I would agree that there is personal involvement and responsibility here - thank you for bring this up. Mooching off society in the form of social security is a potentially large part of the issue. Significant, however, is the clash of government against culture and its impact both in favor of the Roma and against: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jan/08/eu.politics

truth is not necessarily a defence against libel - you can prove that what you said is true, and still be found liable.

Not according to the Guardian and I quote:

There are defences in law for libel. The publisher could prove the statement to be true...

Anecdotal evidence can be deceptive, I was somewhat surprised to read about it too:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/data/313/5788/765/DC1/1

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb/01/evolution-darwin-survey-creationism

In another article, not available in English, the numbers were broken down by denomination. Catholics were less likely to take the bible literally, which brings the percentage of creationists down in Germany and the Netherlands, which are both about half catholic, half protestant/none/other

I would mod you up if I could; you are right on the money. Here is an interesting article from yesterday's Observer (UK Sunday newspaper). It addresses the same issue basically.

Good post. We currently have cargo "lighter than air" airships in research and development. One of the first places where it might be used is carrying massive objects (oil rigs and such) to the arctic regions where it is difficult for ships and planes to get to. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/30/blimps-aircraft-freight

Here's a better summary: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jun/14/post155

So there we have it. Starting with Juan Cole, and going via the New York Times' experts through MEMRI to the BBC's monitors, the consensus is that Ahmadinejad did not talk about any maps. He was, as I insisted in my original piece, offering a vague wish for the future.

A very last point. The fact that he compared his desired option - the elimination of "the regime occupying Jerusalem" - with the fall of the Shah's regime in Iran makes it crystal clear that he is talking about regime change, not the end of Israel. As a schoolboy opponent of the Shah in the 1970's he surely did not favour Iran's removal from the page of time. He just wanted the Shah out.

The same with regard to Israel. The Iranian president is undeniably an opponent of Zionism or, if you prefer the phrase, the Zionist regime. But so are substantial numbers of Israeli citizens, Jews as well as Arabs. The anti-Zionist and non-Zionist traditions in Israel are not insignificant. So we should not demonise Ahmadinejad on those grounds alone.

Does this quibbling over phrases matter? Yes, of course. Within days of the Ahmadinejad speech the then Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, was calling for Iran to be expelled from the United Nations. Other foreign leaders have quoted the map phrase. The United States is piling pressure on its allies to be tough with Iran.

read "Why autism can't be diagnosed with brain scans" at http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2010/aug/12/autism-brain-scan-statistics

And I think you are confusing "most people" with "patrons of /." :-P

Here is a reference to back up my comment. The point I was making is that anyone who has more than about a hundred Facebook 'friends' has people on the list who are merely acquaintance or even complete strangers. Not really the sort of people you want to be sharing your day-to-day movements with.

Iraqis killed by the U.S. government: 1,366,350 and counting.

Iraqis killed before and during 2006: 655,000.

Yes, Saddam Hussein was brutal. But the U.S. government has been more brutal.

The Taliban would be ready to discuss handing over Osama bin Laden to a neutral country if the US halted the bombing of Afghanistan, a senior Taliban official said today. Afghanistan's deputy prime minister, Haji Abdul Kabir, told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US.

"If the Taliban is given evidence that Osama bin Laden is involved" and the bombing campaign stopped, "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country", Mr Kabir added. But it would have to be a state that would never "come under pressure from the United States", he said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5

Here's the current wanted page for OBL. I guess we still don't have any evidence for 9/11:
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

Here's a note to anyone unfamiliar with how the law works: in order to prosecute a criminal and have them extradited from a foreign country, you have to present evidence to the ruling government. If you can't produce evidence, they are under no legal obligation to allow you to extradite anyone.

I guess the next time Cuba or Venezuela tries to extradite terrorists who've blown up Cuban airliners who are living in Miami, you won't mind if they drop some ordinance around Palm Beach until we capitulate.