Slashdot Mirror

Until a male member of the family arrives with the 'handshake' :)
Careful around any of the Forward Intelligence Teams.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_Intelligence_Team
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/21/fit-watch-police-surveillance-val-swain-emily-apple-arrests
Also interesting to see the instant pickup on Facebook ect.
Guess the UK has learned from Egypt when it comes to "web 2.0" and the end 'users'
http://observers.france24.com/en/content/20080729-paranoid-police-brutality-arrest-facebook-users-egypt

Hmmm. And here I thought that the US merely forbid US-based credit card companies from paying to on-line casinos. That'd be entirely legal

Then you haven't been paying attention. The USA has pursued actions against foreign-based Internet gambling sites, including Partypoker.com. Also, forbidding credit card payments is against WTO treaties, which are (per the constitution), the law of the land.

'As if DVD players will be around for 1000 years?'

Or even 20 years:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/mar/03/research.elearning

The situation won't be as extreme as it was with this proprietary system, of course (the number of number of DVD readers in circulation is very large, and the software that interacts with them is well documented), but in the long run the only thing that really makes sense is to make multiple copies that are shifted to new storage media as they become available.

Great, now Oracle can slice off the good bits and push the rest of the corpse into the bay where it can slump among the rusted JavaStations and corpses of former SGI employees as a reminder[1] that the chewbacca defense is not an effective business strategy.

1. http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/sunstrategy2x.gif

Spot on - the UK recently gave up on ID cards

Not at all. The recent news was merely that it will no longer be compulsory for everyone to have the physical piece of plastic. But the National Identity Register (the thing that people are actually opposed to) is still planned.

From 2011, everyone renewing their passport will still have to pay the increased costs for an ID card (£93, plus £30 in processing fees to a private company to collect your fingerprints), be entered onto the database, and be subject to £1000 fines for failing to notify authorities of a change in personal details. The only choice is that you don't have to have the physical piece of plastic that you've still had to pay for. IIRC it's also planned for anyone getting a driving licence, along with other groups of people.

So it'll only be "voluntary" if you give up your right to a passport, and to drive (remember this is the UK, where most people travel to Europe at least, and have a passport). The scheme is still here to stay, and most of the population will be forced onto it.

See http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/30/passport-details-id-card-database

In fact, as an example of how the scheme is still moving forward, only recently did the Government approve the fines for failing to notify changes in personal details including address, name, nationality and gender. Why would they do that, if the scheme had really been abandoned?

Spot on - the UK recently gave up on ID cards

Not at all. The recent news was merely that it will no longer be compulsory for everyone to have the physical piece of plastic. But the National Identity Register (the thing that people are actually opposed to) is still planned.

From 2011, everyone renewing their passport will still have to pay the increased costs for an ID card (£93, plus £30 in processing fees to a private company to collect your fingerprints), be entered onto the database, and be subject to £1000 fines for failing to notify authorities of a change in personal details. The only choice is that you don't have to have the physical piece of plastic that you've still had to pay for. IIRC it's also planned for anyone getting a driving licence, along with other groups of people.

So it'll only be "voluntary" if you give up your right to a passport, and to drive (remember this is the UK, where most people travel to Europe at least, and have a passport). The scheme is still here to stay, and most of the population will be forced onto it.

See http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/30/passport-details-id-card-database

In fact, as an example of how the scheme is still moving forward, only recently did the Government approve the fines for failing to notify changes in personal details including address, name, nationality and gender. Why would they do that, if the scheme had really been abandoned?

As others have mentioned, do you also propose to ban welding in shop class? Alcohol burners in chemistry?

Already happened in the UK, I'm afraid: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2005/nov/15/schools.uk3
Yes, I know that this is due to over-cautious schools and staff rather than any kind of top down "ban", but the effect is the same.

Oh dear, looks like poor Alan Johnson will be up all night approving extradition warrants.

He can save time by not reading them, because it seems the stupid bitch who preceded him never bothered.

Cue UK government announcing multi billion plan to make the internet 'safe' with new content filtering, anti-filesharing and communication logging schemes in 5... 4... 3...

Someone obviously does not keep up with current events. Most UK ISP's already filter content to keep the world safe from kiddie porn and 70's album covers.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/07/brit_isps_censor_wikipedia/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Watch_Foundation
http://www.wired.co.uk/wired-magazine/archive/2009/05/features/the-hidden-censors-of-the-internet.aspx

Couple that with Libel laws that are routinely used as a method of silencing what should be protected as free speech:

http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/334
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/14/law.unitednations
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/29/1411207

This results in a country where they have no need to bring in any draconian laws, since they have been here for some time.

(Full Disclosure - I am a British citizen and resident)

For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions..

Yes, the intelligence Bush got was faulty about the WMDs in Iraq

There's practically incontrivertible documentary evidence that Bush knew WMDs would not be found and wanted to provoke the war on any grounds he could. (In case you want to talk about political bias and slanting in my sources there, The Guardian is a left-leaning paper, but The Times is a right-leaning paper owned by News Corporation, the same people who own Fox News.)

Really, it started with Clinton and Clinton's desire to have every American own a home. Sure, its a noble idea but it went way to far. For example, a person who would ordinarily qualify for a $150,000 loan would be bumped up to getting a $1750,000 loan... So then eventually they couldn't pay it back because they borrowed more than they could afford.

It's amazing how Clinton even managed to cause excessive lending and a property price crash in the UK, where he had no legislative power at all.

Or perhaps these have nothing to do with governments and everything to do with banks who were too greedy and got their hands burned when the inevitable property price slide (which should have come as no surprise, as financial experts have been predicting it since about 2005) started to happen. Here's news for you: an extra 15% on top of people's loans makes little difference when prices fall by over 30%. Most people who bought close to the top were still in serious financial trouble because of it. And there was no obligation on the banks to take that funding -- if they believed the customer wouldn't be able to repay, they were obligated under various codes of practice (let alone plain and simple commercial sense) not to offer the loan.

The banks thought they could make loans that they knew had a good chance of never being repaid, bundle them up into financial instruments and sell them for more than they were actually likely to get back. And for a while the scheme worked. But of course, in the end, it failed.

Obama's plan seems to be lets spend our way out of an economic collapse!

It's a good plan, to be honest. Government spending has a way of finding its way back to the government via taxes, so isn't as expensive to the economy as it at first appears. And it does get people spending money, which is the whole problem.

Mixed with tons of regulations.

Yes. The financial services industry has shown itself to be too irresponsible to be able to manage the significant chunk of the economy it currently does manage. Something needs to be done to tighten that up.

For example, I have a good friend who runs a home building business, he has been in business since 1982 and hasn't defaulted on a single loan and hasn't been late on any of his bills in the past 20 years. Today, he can't get a loan to build another house because Obama's administration says that he is "too big of a risk" WTF!?!

This has nothing to do with Obama or any regulations. This is just banks' typical overreaction to any property price crash. The same thing happened in the UK in the late 80s. Banks lose a whole string of money on property development projects that suddenly find themselves in negative equity, so decide not to invest in property development because the entire industry has a huge risk rating associated with it in any statistical analysis. Quite simple, really.

Richard B. Cheney.
Surely, you hackers are able to find, detain, and deliver Cheney to The Hague.

Yours In Democracy,
Kilgore Trout

FoxNews

Her name is Mayara Tavares and she is Brazilian. See the following link which also links to a video of the incident.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2009/jul/10/obama-photograph-controversy

Answering my own question:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jul/13/teenage-media-habits-morgan-stanley

It actually is an interesting read, if anectdotal.

I have a friend with poly-cystic ovary syndrome. A side-effect of this is issues with her thyroid gland which causes her to hold excess wait.

She's tried an aggressive exercise regime Atkins diet, crash diet (which added further complications), diet shakes, suppliments, and other methods of weight loss. She's stuck with a BMI over 30, and nothing helps.

You assume too much, and to assume make an ass out of you.

Of course to quote Rich Fiscus of afterdawn.com

Of course, as the artists who are waiting for their cut of the hundreds of millions of dollars collected last year when various online services settled copyright infringement lawsuits can tell you, in the entertainment industry every project officially loses money until the artists' lawyers and accountants prove otherwise.

You may also want to look into Hollywood accounting.

'...someone in a different post argues that National Gallery does not allow the public to take pictures. Is that true? Not even without flash?'

Yes. Cory Doctorow has some fun with their policy here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/nov/13/pop.art.copyright

'The excellent programme for Pop Art Portraits, the current exhibition at London's National Portrait Gallery, has a lot to say about the pictures hanging on the walls and the diverse source material the artists used to produce their provocative works. Apparently they cut up magazines, copied comic books, drew trademarked cartoon characters like Minnie Mouse, reproduced covers from Time magazine, made ironic use of a cartoon Charles Atlas, painted over iconic photos of James Dean and Elvis Presley...Despite this, the programme does not say a word about copyright...There is, however, another message about copyright in the National Portrait Gallery: it is implicit in the "No Photography" signs prominently displayed throughout its rooms, including one by the entrance to the Pop Art Portraits exhibition. These signs are not intended to protect the works from the depredations of camera flashes (otherwise they would read "No Flash Photography"). No, the ban on pictures is meant to safeguard the copyright of the works hung on the walls - a fact that every member of staff I asked instantly confirmed. Indeed, it seems every square centimetre of the National Portrait Gallery is under some form of copyright. I wasn't even allowed to photograph the "No Photographs" sign. A member of staff explained that the typography and layout of the signs was itself copyrighted...Perhaps, just perhaps, this is actually a Dadaist show masquerading as a pop art show. Perhaps the point is to titillate us with the delicious irony of celebrating copyright infringement while simultaneously taking the view that even the "No Photography" sign is a form of property not to be reproduced without the permission that can never be had.'

I understood Gazelle as a desperate response to the announcement of Google Chromium OS and then you put a female(that is important) researcher in the news and use you PR stalin organ just to shout the Google Chromium OS announcement down. Everyone know that Gazelle is vapourware.

And of course we have other funny spin as well:
* Will Google Chrome OS bankrupt Canonical?
* Guardian: Google Chrome OS: is it copying Microsoft's Gazelle or is it more like Splashtop?
* Microsoft's Web Browser-Based OS: Gazelle with a link to the research paper.

Of couse the experimental study "Gazelle" is presented as the competitor. Not "Windows 7", ha ha.

Essentially Chrome OS shoots the cash cow, the bullets are cheap and it is fun. The Google OS is largely driven by the hardware manufacturers and their interest to lower OS target costs and get more better and more interface information. As it is branded Google Chromium OS you just expect it to support the browser but of course you can run every Linux desktop application you want and oops, the other cashs cows of Microsoft as Microsoft Office are not even available for the Linux platform.

The question for me is why no one attempted to create a Fox Operating System. ;-) To my knowledge the Google OS will not ship with KDE or Gnome but rather a lightweight ressource saving environment.

For Microsoft it all feels a bit Berlin 1945, with Gazelle as the latest Wunderwaffe. Google is so scared about the competitor...

It is a fact, Google can seriously wreck Microsoft with a minor investment and that will make Microsoft do all the wonderful stuff that only competition can achieve. Of course the manufacturers like that.

Not sure why your post would be marked insightful since it is pure speculation.

No, it's happened. Not sure why your post would be marked insightful since it is wrong...

There are plenty of known cases of police harassing photographers in public in the UK. A quick Google finds:

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/06/27/pretend-cops-bully-v.html
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/12/18/uk-police-seize-amat.html
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/07/22/police-warn-uk-man-t.html
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/06/17/uk-cop-war-on-terror.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/photographers-criminalised-as-police-abuse-antiterror-laws-1228149.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7888301.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/feb/12/photographers-anti-terror-laws

I've also experienced this first hand - I was taking a photograph, when suddenly an undercover policeman revealed himself to me, telling me I wasn't allowed to take photos without someone's permission, and demanding I delete the photo.

The London police have always been running a scaremongering advertising campaign against photographers:

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/03/04/london-cops-declare.html

There are valid concerns with top secret items and the gov't not wanting you to take pictures of them.

Ir's not top secret if it's in public, and you're only taking a photo of what people can see in public with their own eyes! According to your original post, even material that can only be visible from the air is fair game.

Moreover, even if your argument is true, then you've still lost, as it means that your original assertion of "There is no expectation of privacy when you leave the protection of a building" isn't true in the first place. So which is it? Or are you conceding my point that buildings have more rights to privacy in public than people do? (Although note, my links do not just refer to buildings - people have been hassled for taking photos of police officers.)

For example if the gov't came out with a new plane that had some new, awesome and secret technology it makes sense they don't want you taking a picture of it.

Who cares what they want? I don't want to have a plane or CCTV taking photos of me all the time. But according to you, there's no expectation of privacy in a public place, when I want it or not. So if the Government wheels its so-called "secret" plane into public, then what it wants is irrelevant.

And lastly, a lot of good programmers want steady income to work on products, not occupy the lowest rung of the ladder/innermost circle of hell.

Something like 95% of programmers work on in-house projects for their non-software companies.

DRM works. It's not foolproof, but it does cut down on the piracy.

No, it doesn't. Not even a little bit. Not a smidgen. There is no credible evidence to support that position.

This was originally a Guardian Story. It relates to mobile phones, not BT landline.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jul/09/newsoftheworld-newsinternational

Well, there are clear laws in place stating that no person is to be owned by another. That includes, but is not limited to, the government owning the people. Self-ownership may not be the perfect term to refer to my refusal to be apart of mandatory flu vaccines (Which many in government now support, including Obama, in the wake of the over-hyped H1N1 flu), but it's a lot clearer what I mean than when I say self-determination.

Los Angeles has been discussing banning fast food restaurants for a few years. Here's an older article. And here's some push back. The only reason I chose that as an example is I recently saw an article about the ban's latest progress. (I thought it was on Opposing Views, but I can't find it.) And it illustrates how the cost of American health care is turning into a battle over what I personally choose to consume -- my two points being mandatory (potentially deadly, poorly tested) vaccines, and a potential for mandatory abstinence from trans-fat, which I do choose to consume lightly.

Health freedom is almost as popular as freedom itself. Maybe I'll make this my sig.

You mean the commercial entities with a revenue stream to protect are funding lobby groups to manipulate public opinion and corrupt the political process?
I'm shocked! Shocked I tell ya!

Well, OK. I'm not that shocked. In fact I'm pretty sure this has happened before.
Exxon is pretty good at this sort of thing:-
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/01/exxon-mobil-climate-change-sceptics-funding

And groups like the Heartland Institute ( http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute ) are whoring for so many masters I fully expect to see them expand into the "intellectual property" debate any day now.

Its pretty important for citizens to hone their bullshit detectors to try and figure out when they are the target of a snow job.
Here are a few tools I use to pretty good effect when employing my bullshit detector:

"Who benefits" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cui_bono
"You can't get something for nothing" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law
"The simpler theory is often correct" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occams_razor
( be careful with that last one - it can be a slippery sucker)

Hello? Top Gear is for entertainment not facts. They lied for laughs.

I think the idea of lifting a generator on a kite is absurd, however, the Ladder mill concept, or any other scheme involving a reciprocating airfoil or flight path can be utilized by a generator on the ground to take advantage of variations on the tension of the tether to generate electricity. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/video/2008/aug/01/electric.kite

From this article in the guardian it seems that Tamiflu has a measurable effect, but not markedly. You might get better 2/3 of a day earlier after taking it. I think I'd take it if prescribed but wouldn't pay huge money for it or join in a riot to get the last tablet from a pharamcy.

that's just for grunts. Once you get really senior, you can show classified documents to press photographers in public

Well some say the issue was nothing to do with the flight computers and a lot to do with:

1) the concorde being way overweight
2) taking off in a tail wind while overweight
3) taking off with landing gear that's not aligned
4) pilot and copilot not being careful enough

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4185791,00.html

you only have to look at the personal history of the BNP leadership to see these are not people who are a little to the right of the mainstream, but actual fascists

Taking as an example, one of their new MEPs, who was a member of an actual Neo-Nazi group (founded on Hitler's birthay and everything) when younger

It also puts it in the hands of government and adds legal compulsion. Aside from the privacy problems associated with the database which has been talked about endlessly, there's the 'dealing with government' and incompetence factor as well. Here's one story: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/04/idcards-biometrics. In short: a foreign national required to get an ID card paid 600 pounds and got thoroughly pissed about, and was too scared to complain in cased her immigration status was sabotaged in retribution.

I think a lot of ID card supporters will start to change their minds when they're required to use a day of holiday at HMG's convenience, spend however-long on trains going to an interview centre, wait for a few hours, hand over all their personal information to a minimum wage teenager and pay for the privilege. It'll be especially fun for those with limited mobility.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4718249.stm
http://torrentfreak.com/why-pirates-buy-more-music-and-music-labels-fail-090428/
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2347/125/

Dead thread, but i thought it was worth replying to anyway. There've been a slew of reports on /., ars etc, and they seem to have the numbers behind them unlike the industry's: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/05/ben-goldacre-bad-science-music-downloads

Anyone applying for a UK passport from 2011 onwards will have their information stored on the National ID database.

If you don't keep your address and personal information up to date you have committed a criminal offence and you can be fined GBP1,000.

80% of the UK population own passports. In essence, anyone who wants to leave the UK must register with the ID database.

The ID database is primarily a scheme that enables the government to identify you, and that is made clear in a dubious little paper called Safeguarding Identity, produced by the Home Office last week, which describes how the ID database and the transformational government scheme mesh together in one glorious structure where data about the individual passes between departments. That is the prize and why they will use any argument and spend any amount to achieve it.

The Guardian is reporting:

British citizens who apply for or renew their passport will be automatically registered on the national identity card database under regulations to be approved by MPs in the next few weeks.

The decision to press ahead with the main elements of the national identity card scheme follows a review by the home secretary, Alan Johnson, of the £4.9bn project. Although Johnson said the cards would not be compulsory, critics say the passport measures amount to an attempt to introduce the system by the backdoor.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/30/passport-details-id-card-database

I wrote to my local MP, but he's a useless cunt, and didn't even bother writing back.

From further down that article:
He also denied that there were any significant public spending savings to be made by cancelling the project saying: "This scheme pays for itself. If you cancel all you will get is diddly squat."

This is a reference to the self-financing nature of the project under which it is to be paid for through increased charges for passports and the £60 cost of a biometric identity card.

I had hoped that the new Home Sec would at least have a bit of sense not to emulate his predecessors, but it seems that was misguided. Did Labour even look at the last election results? They have no council mandate, little popular support, they've lost Scotland, and are losing the north, yet they still press on with misguided schemes like ID Cards that are universally unpopular. They've lost all touch with reality.

I remember hearing that Jacqui Smith said that people had approached her saying that they couldn't wait to get ID cards. Even worse, in the long term they've brought back unpopular people like Mandelson, in the hope that nobody would notice or remember how insidious he was.

Sad thing is that I have no faith in the Tories to do any better. No wonder people are voting for UKIP and BNP. If Nigel Farage is seen as more honest than Labour, things are grim for them indeed.

Why would I or Amazon have to pay taxes twice or more for something?

Do you know how much tubes take to maintain? The Internet is the information tubes, so the taxes go to pay for travel on it. When you drive to Amazon, you're putting wear on the tubes of the state Amazon is based in, and then Amazon has to drive your order to the affiliate, which puts wear on the superhighways to the affiliate's state. That's a lot of virtual wear!

There, fixed that for ya. You seem to be a bit behind the times. Senator Stevens was recently kind enough to reveal that the internet wasn't really a superhighway but was in reality a series of tubes. Tubes need lots of expensive maintenance. The London tube system cost billions to maintain. It's only fair Amazon should pay their fair share.

Yea, so did George Bush's grandfather:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

Actually "we" (meaning the human race) has already lived in MUCH warmer global average temperatures than even the prediction fairy brought to al gore when his tooth fell out from laughing about how gullible Americans are.

So "we" would be perfectly capable of living in a "greenhouse warmed" future. In fact, given the historical evidence of human population between the medieval warm period and the medievel "little ice age", it is a VERY safe assumption "we" do MUCH better in warmer climates than in colder. All animals (including polar bears, btw) do better in warmer climates. For any animal heavier than 100 grams or so, you can use the simple rule of thumb that below 52 or-so degrees, any temperature rise is a very positive thing indeed.

Of course, that prediction assumes AGW is correct in the first place. GW, meaning direct causal correlation between co2 levels and temperature, causal in that direction and not the other, GW is disputed, at best and AGW basically has zero supporting evidence, so it's about as well supported as the tooth fairy.

So what is the use of the new taxes again ?

Let's enumerate a few possibilities :

1) AGW is correct (highly unlikely) + Taxes delay output rises by (!) 10 years in America (highly unlikely again)
result : about a 2 year delay for whatever disasters temperature rises cause. Massive cost for the economy. De-industrialization of the US. Enormous job losses.

2) AGW is false (extremely likely), GW is correct (unlikely). This would basically mean something else is pushing athmospheric co2 content, and earth climate is an inherently unstable system (that's the definition of unstable systems : a system that amplifies random variations) + new taxes delay American co2 output increases by (!) 10 years
result ZERO delay for whatever disasters temperature rises cause. Massive cost for the economy. De-industrialization of the US. Enormous job losses.

3) AGW is false (extremely likely). GW is false (likely). Taxes delay American output increases by (!) 10 years
result No (intended) effect on environment. Massive cost for the economy. De-industrialization of the US. Enormous job losses.

So tell me again, why are we doing this ? Because, to be quite honest, I find the "republican" explanation a very good one : Democrats hate the American economy and are so much more concerned about looking good that they knowingly walk into the abyss.

Biofuels for example, are by now responsible for at least 2 million dead by starvation. They also have had zero effect on emissions, and therefore zero effect on the predictions of either AGW or GW. But one effect they did have : 2 million dead.

Democrats : can you please explain why you're starving millions just to feel better about your car fuel ? I wonder if you'll take responsability for the consequences of your politics. Heh. Right.

Democrat - with a "d", like Dumb and Decisions.

Actually "we" (meaning the human race) has already lived in MUCH warmer global average temperatures than even the prediction fairy brought to al gore when his tooth fell out from laughing about how gullible Americans are.

So "we" would be perfectly capable of living in a "greenhouse warmed" future. In fact, given the historical evidence of human population between the medieval warm period and the medievel "little ice age", it is a VERY safe assumption "we" do MUCH better in warmer climates than in colder. All animals (including polar bears, btw) do better in warmer climates. For any animal heavier than 100 grams or so, you can use the simple rule of thumb that below 52 or-so degrees, any temperature rise is a very positive thing indeed.

Of course, that prediction assumes AGW is correct in the first place. GW, meaning direct causal correlation between co2 levels and temperature, causal in that direction and not the other, GW is disputed, at best and AGW basically has zero supporting evidence, so it's about as well supported as the tooth fairy.

So what is the use of the new taxes again ?

Let's enumerate a few possibilities :

1) AGW is correct (highly unlikely) + Taxes delay output rises by (!) 10 years in America (highly unlikely again)
result : about a 2 year delay for whatever disasters temperature rises cause. Massive cost for the economy. De-industrialization of the US. Enormous job losses.

2) AGW is false (extremely likely), GW is correct (unlikely). This would basically mean something else is pushing athmospheric co2 content, and earth climate is an inherently unstable system (that's the definition of unstable systems : a system that amplifies random variations) + new taxes delay American co2 output increases by (!) 10 years
result ZERO delay for whatever disasters temperature rises cause. Massive cost for the economy. De-industrialization of the US. Enormous job losses.

3) AGW is false (extremely likely). GW is false (likely). Taxes delay American output increases by (!) 10 years
result No (intended) effect on environment. Massive cost for the economy. De-industrialization of the US. Enormous job losses.

So tell me again, why are we doing this ? Because, to be quite honest, I find the "republican" explanation a very good one : Democrats hate the American economy and are so much more concerned about looking good that they knowingly walk into the abyss.

Biofuels for example, are by now responsible for at least 2 million dead by starvation. They also have had zero effect on emissions, and therefore zero effect on the predictions of either AGW or GW. But one effect they did have : 2 million dead.

Democrats : can you please explain why you're starving millions just to feel better about your car fuel ? I wonder if you'll take responsability for the consequences of your politics. Heh. Right.

Democrat - with a "d", like Dumb and Decisions.

I'd question that environmental degredation is overwhelmingly a problem of the last 100 years, there are plenty of examples from the 1800's onwards - http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4239182,00.html Space colonies obviously arent the answer to overpopulation or pollution, but they do solve the "big rock with our name on it" problem thats coming our way sometime.

I don't think the facts bear you out: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/jun/09/games-dvd-music-downloads-piracy

Notice the bar for games sales and how it rises almost every year since 1999.

So, the gigantic effort to put this solar plant into orbit will create... 200MW of power?

Contrast to this: 0.3% of the Sahara could power the whole of Europe

It's expensive like hell, sure, but it would start delivering energy long before it's completed and its goals are way more ambitious than this flying solar panel's! Think no more unrenewable energy, no more CO2, no more pollutants (sulphur, heavy metals etc.) from coal plants, no more soil erosion due to dams, no more gas or oil (yeah, in italy they have plenty of those) power plants. Only a few windfarms and perhaps the French nuclear plants to iron out the energy needs during night time.

Don't tell me the USA has a lack of sun and deserts.

California is talking about taxing marijuana at 50$ per ounce:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/deadlineusa/2009/feb/24/california-marijuana-legalisation-legislation

"The bill by San Francisco representative Tom Ammiano, would legalise the cultivation, possession and sale of marijuana by people 21 and older. It would charge growers and wholesalers a $5,000 (£3,400) initial franchise fee and a $2,500 annual renewal fee, and would levy a $50 per ounce fee on retailers." So, no, it will not be $10 per ounce. And, once this becomes a cash cow, the government will *still* need to enforce it's regulations on growing, cultivating, and selling.

Marijuana is a weed and very easy to grow and cultivate. The government would only legalize something like this to make money, and they won't make money if I'm getting it for the cost of electricity and soil.

Here's the Guardian's take on the New York Times' reporting of the Wall Street Journal's story.

>1. No tangible evidence for fraud. and if your'e able to fake millions of votes, why overdo it and risk detection?

One could take the position that if you're going to throw an election, doing so in such a flagrant way would demonstrate your power. In other words, [if fraud occurred] they did it to send a message that they could do it and they had no fear of doing it.

ok, fair enough, but this notion relies on a "strong man" type of govt., Iran is not structured that way. still, i suppose a very tight knit conspiracy of the top power brokers could pull it off, but in reality, there are competing factions in that group. Perhaps you're thinking of Iran in characture, a stone-age backwater? Just a tad Islamophic are we? http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BHA20090616&articleId=13996

2. Twitter provided the lion's share of the incendiary rumors to start the ball rolling, and the first many thousands of tweets apparantly came from just 1-3 anonymous english speakers (http://www.chartingstocks.net/2009/06/proof-israeli-effort-to-destabilize-iran-via-twitter)

That seems.. odd. Another news outlet disagrees with you.

these two articles dont address the 30,000 tweets story at all. ???

3. the majority of Iranians DO NOT share Western values, it's just a fact.

Ah, well, if you had just stated this up front we could have concluded you're a loon more quickly.

oh my, you've got nothing so you're reduced to insulting. sorry to burst your freedom_on_the_march bubble. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/13/iranian-election

Fuck all of you. You still believe that schoolboy bullshit about how the country is governed? Dream on, sleepers!

Let me spell it out for you: The United States is a "Goldman Sachsocracy" The man with the gold will sack us all over the world.

Freedom? You have more people incarcerated in your borders than any nation in history. Why? It's good for business.

I wish Americans had half the guts of 15-year-old Iranian girls! There'd have been 5 American Revolutions since 1870. Your textbook lies about the accountability of US government to the people have kept you complacent, and made you both arrogant yet ignorant and oppressed.

They just stole over a hundred billion dollars from your earnings and your next two generations, and GAVE it to a firm that prints your money, runs your fiscal policy and just paid out the BIGGEST bonuses in its 140 year history.

You live in the Matrix - and that's not a metaphor. Like George Carlin said; "They call it the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it.

Wake up.

Meanwhile real criminals including murderers are caught by CCTV camera evidence every day. Reality beats hysterical paranoia every day.

Yes, reality beats hysteria. Perhaps then you should lose your hysteria about the number of "real criminals including murderers" being caught by surveillance cameras, and join us here in reality, where even the UK police admit that CCTV cameras do not reduce crime. (See also this and this.)

Meanwhile real criminals including murderers are caught by CCTV camera evidence every day. Reality beats hysterical paranoia every day.

Yes, reality beats hysteria. Perhaps then you should lose your hysteria about the number of "real criminals including murderers" being caught by surveillance cameras, and join us here in reality, where even the UK police admit that CCTV cameras do not reduce crime. (See also this and this.)

Witness the treatment of two women whose only "crime" was to photograph four British police officers who weren't wearing their identification numbers as they policed a peaceful demonstration. The British police are brutal political thugs.

You mean like this"?

I'm sorry to see this post modded as "0, Troll." There was zero troll intent about it.

A couple others see it my way:

• David Mitchell - Spare me that rubbish about your 'rights'
• Paul Craig Roberts - "Are the Iranian Protests Another US Orchestrated 'Color Revolution'?"

I don't know where these guys fit on the political scale, but I think it's interesting that people are seeing through the free/not-free facade that, amazingly, both the "oppressive" government and the "progressive" protesters seem to agree exists.