Slashdot Mirror

Well at 30+ I suppose I'm getting old.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/mar/17/age-mental-health

Besides, I'm sure if those young whippersnappers hadn't hurried the old guy along like that he could have fit a decent story between the ferry to Shelbyville and big yellow onions.

Interesting to listen to all these males theorizing why women have babies. It is not out of 'habit' or 'instinct.' Women have babies because evolution has designed them to be the givers of life. They are the loving nurturers. They are the fierce lioness defending her cubs.

Hi, female here.

What is this, stereotype Sunday?

Hint: Women are around 50% of the population of the planet Earth, and vary quite as much as the other half. Your 'lioness' schtick, poetic and I suppose admirable in an abstract sense as it may be, nonetheless bears very little relation to reality. You may like to romanticise yourself but don't do it to half the human race, because it's both rude and inaccurate.

Newsflash: Many women don't particularly like babies and aren't drawn to 'nurturing'. Many men, surprisingly, are more interested in the whole parenthood thing than their wives. Why don't you go read Lionel Schriver's "We Need to Talk About Kevin", or at least this short article and reflect a little on the idea that a lot of women feel very much the same way; that babies can be career-destroying, time-consuming and result in the destruction of loving relationships, changing the relationship between parents sometimes for the worse, and that it is only very recently that anybody has begun to express these sentiments openly. It's healthy to be realistic about this stuff. There's a lot of pressure (which you have demonstrated quite well here) for women to care for kids, but many don't, can't and won't.

In short: women choose to have babies for a whole number of reasons. Being a lioness isn't one of them, although being able to kid their own egos into believing that they're like a lioness may have something to do with it. I don't presume to suggest that there's anything wrong with procreating, of course there isn't. It's a job that someone better get on with doing or the human race won't have time to worry about the various environmental catastrophes that allegedly will kill us all eventually. But romanticising and generalising is very, very unhelpful, because real people have real lives and real careers and don't have time to sit around congratulating themselves for doing the 'most important job'.

Iceland never said anything about UK depositors money would not be guarantied (Your linked news says no such thing). The problem was that the EU directive was not clear enough. See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/11/iceland-creditcrunch
And because of the incompetent EU directives, the UK decided to bully Iceland instead of settling the issue in a EU court.

There is also a major difference between guarantying local depositors, because they are in the Icelandic krona currency (ISK). So they are automatically guaranteed because the Icelandic government controls printing of ISK.

Ahem...

'Do not touch' - the covert database that kept union activists out of work

Albeit caught now, but this has been going for yeeeears...

Apparently there's some sort of big round building in Cheltenham, too.

You mean GCHQ's doughnut?

Hint: He was misled when he was approached about the film, and it was a "guerilla" style interview that will put anyone on the defensive.

What speaks more to me is how they treated the people they asked to be in the movie. Bunch of fucking hypocrites if you ask me.

In fact, this Guardian article suggests that Ian Kerr, the man behind this company, used to work for the Economic League.

I think it has to do with Dawkin's bashing of religion and religious people in his TV programs and books by using fallacies which some people call it as "Hate Speech".

If it was some other Atheist who doesn't have a track record of bashing religion and religious people, I think they would not object to him or her speaking about Evolution.

I feel that people should be able to have free speech and choose their own religion or choose not to choose a religion if they want.

Not all Christians are opposed to Evolution proof of that is here. What I think the majority in Oklahoma are objecting to is Dawking's bashing of religion and religious people which has made him a bigot over the years.

And for heavens sake, ban the "1984" book.

Don't worry -- nobody's actually read it anyway.

Ah... the NHS: the envy of the world and the only stick with which to beat US.
FYI, NHS was not created by Brown or even Blair. Hell it was created long back before these jokers grew out of their diapers.
Signing the UN convention of rights of the child? That's like a cow's opinion: doesn't count.
Creationism in UK? Look Here and and Here and and Here.
Until you UK weenies come out strongly against the fascist policies of the UK government and roll back these changes OR elect a dynamic leader who does it, you guys ARE living under a modern Mussolini.

He's probably in the Congo.

Ghana is actually one of the most stable countries in Africa. One that has just finished it's third General Election (with universal suffrage too) this year. It's first was in 1992, with 1996 letting the same guy in again. But considering it spent most of the 20th century ruled by a military Junta, it's come along way.

Unless you think a lack of (or maybe instead shady) business creds automatically gives you geek creds... But please do tell what geeky things they have done? Is building a cheap PC (with "good" old BIOS), putting EFI on it, pretending they made it, and selling it for far more than cost geeky?

(I'm in London where bonuses are being denied; is it the same elsewhere?)

No.

And New Labour (the UK Government - still...) have the brass balls to tell us that we're not living in a police state.

Jack Straw (senior idiot MP). "Talk of a police state is daft".

Tom Harris (idiot MP). "Our liberties are safe with Labour".

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister considers introducing a special law to deal with one (very unpopular) retired banker with a huge pension that was approved by his Government. How democratic.

As a UK subject I cannot wait to vote these fuckwits out.

You have to realise the BBC are on difficult ground. If they actively oppose Labour's ideas they risk change of management to one more favourable to the government.

Look at what happened around the Iraq war when the BBC reported the government had exagerated claims about WMDs- heads rolled in the BBC even though we know now the BBC was dead right.

I don't know what versions of the Guardian you've been reading but they certainly do report the issues with CCTV cameras although by the sounds of it what you're asking for is opinion pieces that come out against cameras. It's pretty dangerous to confuse the two and this is why The Daily Mail and The Telegraph are awful publications because they merge opinion and fact and sell the combination as fact even when it's only partially so. In the face of this one could argue this is the problem with more balanced and liberal media outlets such as the BBC and The Guardian- they don't use the same dirty tactics of twisting British opinion in response.

Most people in Britain are simply unaware of this issue, that much of what the read isn't factual but is simply opinion but think because it's in a paper "it must be true". If the BBC or The Guardian seem less pressing on issues it's because they're doing what news outlets are supposed to do- reporting the news, rather than reporting opinion and passing it off as fact.

Only the elections can tell what the British people want but near the end of Bush's first term I heard the same things yet he was voted in again, near the end of the second term we heard the same and yet McCain with his very similar policies still got a disturbingly high proportion of the overall votes. I think it comes down to this, those who wont vote for who they currently see as the bad party, in this case, Labour are vocal in their opposition and it is those we hear about and because of this people like yourself assume this is the voice of the British people. That's not the case, the voice of the British people are the silent ones who vote Labour because they've always voted Labour and whose opinion wont change unless Labour does something that directly effects them - i.e. raises taxes. An example of this was seen in the recent local elections last year shortly after Labour raised taxes by eliminating the lowest tax band and was getting blamed for high fuel costs exagerated by the taxes on it- the two things the man on the street only really gives a damn about.

The BBC and The Guardian do what they can in the bounds of being responsible, sticking to their job and allowing people to make up their minds based on fact, rather than force feeding people personal opinion like The Daily Mail and The Telegraph. You have to realise even a hint of political bias from the BBC is enough to get them in trouble, but where they do call the government out for what it is they should be commended for having the balls to do so- it's a lot harder, and a lot riskier for the BBC to do this than it is The Daily Mail who builds it's business model around shouting the odds.

But one final point about The Daily Mail as I'm concerned that you believe it actually cares about liberty rather than say, just slagging off an unpopular government at every chance it gets to sell papers. Read this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/nov/10/pauldacre-dailymail

Some quotes from the Mail's chief:

"I am referring, of course, to Justice David Eady who has, again and again, under the privacy clause of the Human Rights Act, found against newspapers and their age-old freedom to expose the moral shortcomings of those in high places."

"Now most people would consider such activities to be perverted, depraved, the very abrogation of civilised behaviour of which the law is supposed to be the safeguard. Not Eady. To him such behaviour was merely 'unconventional',"

Does that sound like someone who cares about the right to privacy? about liberty? This guy thinks him and his

Same like the one where that the media went on and on claiming that Michael Reiss (the Royal Society's ex-Director of Education ) said that Creationism should be taught in science classes, and thus eventually Professor Reiss had to resign from his post.

When in fact he didn't say such a thing at all. What he said was very reasonable:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2008/sep/11/michael.reiss.creationism

(Ignore the title and blurb which was probably supplied by Guardian - who were part of the problem)

You will see he said:

Creationism can profitably be seen not as a simple misconception that careful science teaching can correct. Rather, a student who believes in creationism has a non-scientific way of seeing the world, and one very rarely changes one's world view as a result of a 50-minute lesson, however well taught.

As it is, his voice of reason was silenced.

If you google the rest of the media headlines about the "incident" you'll also see the fanatical atheists baying for his blood. It's ironic how so many atheists claim that without religion, you wouldn't have all the bad stuff like wars and persecution - when they are working hard on disproving it.

It might be a good thing if newspapers and journalists like that go bust. At the rate they're going they won't be a net positive to the world, so it'll be fair if they are not net positive in their bank accounts.

I've been looking for a good opportunity to tell this story, so I might as well do it now.

I once read an article about a solo singer-songwriter called Ladyhawke, which I found quite interesting. I did nothing about this for a while, until I saw Amazon UK were offering £3 worth of free MP3 downloads. I tried to buy her first album using this offer, but ran into problems using the Amazon MP3 Downloader*. So I found a much easier and more sensible solution in The Pirate Bay.

But at this point, I found I actually liked the single. Quite a lot. So I ended up going back to Amazon, and ordered the CD instead. I ripped this to FLAC and frequently listen to the various tracks. So in this case, I pirated it, liked it, and bought it legally. This is not an everyday occurrence for me, but it does happen, and there are some things that never would've gained enough attention for me to purchase them if not for piracy.

*Can anyone actually tell me why I have to use this for albums when I don't need to use it for singles and the tracks aren't even DRMed? Amazon's FAQ was a complete non-answer and no one else seems to have any idea.

http://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/index.jsp?articleid=11161

http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/1331

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/dec/17/rhys-jones-killer-gang-culture

There is a definite equivalence if you knew how to use Google.

It is hyperbole, and it's completely unnecessary given that there are in fact plenty of people who claim that global warming will cause a massive amount of disaster in the future. (B) is thus not by necessity hyperbole, nor is (A).

You should stick to hammering away on the Al Gore thing, because the sibling and I don't agree on that. When you try to take the argument as a whole it only takes two Google searches to show that there is an equivalence between elements of the climate change movement and the radically religious.

Well, that and the fact that many cloud services destroy your privacy. RMS argues that we are being shortsighted to trade our privacy for "kewl!"

He's right, you know! About everything.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/sep/29/cloud.computing.richard.stallman

uninformed hysterical douchebags that cry "think of the children" and then burn down the house next door because allegedly a pedophile used to live there ten years ago

Reminds me of the news story of the paediatrician who was driven from her home because the local dumb fucks confused her job title with paedophile.

I'd forgotten how old that story is. Or how long this bullshit has been going on. We need a new bogeyman.

Economics - a far softer science with a (so far) vastly greater impact on human society - gets a staggering amount of leeway by comparison.

That's because most economic theories exist solely to rationalize government intervention in the economy and/or to obscure its real costs.

Now, speaking of which...

The reactions of laymen and the ignorant masses who follow Limbaugh et al can only be explained as propaganda-induced hysteria, to which only the profoundly ignorant and/or fearful are vulnerable.

O RLY? WHO is inducing hysteria here?

And did you really mean to ascribe such hysteria to those who don't buy into this particular bit of propaganda?

And only the profoundly ignorant and/or fearful are vulnerable?

That's got to be the purest example of projection I've ever seen anywhere.

Google has 23.7% online market share. In what way is 23.7% close to a monopoly?

Re-read what I said, and then re-read the reference you provided, and see if you can spot the disconnect. Hint: "search" for it.

In what way is 23.7% close to a monopoly?

In the way that 23.7% has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Google search in US: 70%
Google search in Germany: 88%
Google search in France: 89%
Google search in the UK: 90%
Google search in Europe overall: 80%

70-90% is fast closing in on monopoly territory. In the US, for exampe, Google captured 90% of all growth in search, meaning, it is is steadily increasing its market share.

Doesn't it suck when you throw out unsupported allegations...

I accept your apology.

Cites:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2008/jun/10/googleukclosesinon90mark

http://www.searchenginepromotionhelp.com/m/articles/search-engine-optimization/search-engine-market-shares-europe.php

http://lab.77agency.com/marketing-analysis/google-leads-the-search-engine-industry-holding-80-of-the-european-market-share-485/

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-9991866-93.html

Hydroponics
(Apogee) Dwarf Wheat
Thanet Earth (Guardian)
Thanet Earth (Daily Mail)
Eurofresh: in inhospitable Wilcox, AZ
Eurofresh: Air-Conditioning Greenhouses
Vertical Farm Project

Artifical light growth rates in a controlled environment (Omega Garden; also a good example of what growing indoors looks like--it's not hard to imagine a blocky wharehouse filled with these, unlikely the fanciful design in the article):

CFL (6 Kilowatts per Hour (KWH))
2 week total: 1646.4 KWH to produce 2160 units of Lettuce
Per Lettuce Unit = 0.76 KWH

LED (0.48 Kilowatt)
2 week total: 171 KWH to produce 2160 units of Lettuce
Per Lettuce Unit = 0.079 KWH

Francois Mitterand convinced the company that produced the Exocet missiles to give access to the UK to the designs of these weapons.

Allegedly Thatcher threatened to use nukes on Argentina if the French didn't divulge those codes though!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/nov/22/books.france

I thought the real risk was he might be sent some information that hadn't passed through the military reality distortion field.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/11/binyam-mohamed-release-torture-letter

its not *the* cameras, its how and why they are used! where do you draw the line? do you consider this a threat to your liberty? http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/apr/11/localgovernment.ukcrime

Last I checked, CCTV receives overwhelming public support in the UK, regardless of its effectiveness.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/07/ukcrime

Yeah, we wouldn't want money just disappearing would we!? We'd better make sure those untrustworthy Cambridge people return every cent!

or nativity of some people. Contrary to evidence (e.g. a Danish study showing no adverse effects of the vaccinations, and possibly a reduction of asthma due to them http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/06/bad-science-mmr-vaccine), some folks still prefer urban legends over real science.

Soon, you won't have to wear glasses for 3D films. Check this out.

I've only ever heard evolution described as evolution. The only people I've heard talking about 'Darwinism' are:
-Scientists talking about the historical theory
-Creationists
-The occasional truly ignorant journalist.

Richard Dawkins himself uses the term:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/feb/09/darwin.dawkins1

According to a recent study, one fifth of Britons don't believe in evolution, and an additional third don't understand it (a surprisingly small part).

there was a pretty good David Attenborough programme on BBC TV last week about Darwin and Evolution that showed many of the subsequent discoveries

Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life?

There's also an interesting quote from David Attenborough in response to people asking "why he did not give "credit" to God" for the subjects of his nature documentaries:

They always mean beautiful things like hummingbirds. I always reply by saying that I think of a little child in east Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs. I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator.

http://www.itpro.co.uk/182871/staff-forced-to-bypass-security-controls

The fact is that the people themselves will likely be forced to override it just to have some sense of normal workplace functionality. Or they'll do it because they don't want to be bothered.

It's a lot like when the U.S. missile launch codes were all set to 00000000 to keep it simple:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jun/17/usa.oliverburkeman1

Evidently people also had the same problem - they hated the security so much that they disabled it.

And then there's this gem from last year:

http://www.forbes.com/2008/02/28/long-hacker-csc-tech-security-cx_ag_0229hacker.html

Evidently old school attack vectors are far more likely to succeed at getting data. I'd get your managers to concentrate on physical security and internal checks instead of worrying about computer data. That doesn't mean you don't need some security, but the simple fact is that more than 90% of data theft are inside jobs and simple employee stupidity.

But you should know this already. I'd be more worried about the competency of an employee posting on slashdot about how they need help from the Peanut Gallery here than whether my files are encrypted or not.

I'm sure the BNP said lots of things, but nobody listens to them. However Brown is the first mainstream poilitician to lend credibility to this. And being in a quite senior position, he ought to be aware of the EU laws which mean it's basically impossible to do it.

Groaniad

What gives these views real purchase is that Gordon Brown, when chancellor in 2007, promised "British job for British workers"

Torygraph

to remind him of the promise, which he made to the TUC conference in September 2007

I see nothing wrong with letting children make up their own mind about what mumbo-jumbo they want to believe, as long as it isn't forced on them (by the parents or any other party)

Does this opinion apply to mumbo-jumbo fed by the public school systems? Or are you just applying this to non-secular situations? Schools/gov't don't let kids just walk out of schools because they disagree with

Or how about homeschooling? Many states already hate homeschooling and think it's horrible for the children, somehow. So, what's in the child's best interests if the parent refuses to let them go to public schools? Hmmm. That alone (government deciding how and what children are taught) is scary, as the education of a child is a HUGE deal.

Homeschooling is often just a way to maintain the "ideological integrity" of the child, please read that as "brainwashing". It also generally serves to "keep children clean from outside influences", please also read this as brainwashing, and as a stupid means to keep the kid from developing critical dissent from whatever crap the parents are trying to fill them with (generally some form of lunatic fringe religion). I'm confused by this, if your indoctrination is so damn strong and correct, then why would you be afraid of other ideas?

Wow. Pot. Kettle. Black.

If you ever read Animal Farm, Orwell makes the a case that the state is just as guilty of this. "Maintaining ideological integrity" as you put it can also be called "indocrination". This is a tactic governments use all the time to reinforce their authority and sanctioned viewpoint. "Keeping children clean from outside influence" is also known as "prevention of thoughtcrime".

Before you go spouting off about how religion is the tool of the devil and whatnot, remember that governments act as their own religion, and wish their own sanctioned ideology (whatever is current at the time) to override everything else.

Don't believe me? Look at Germany. Homeschooling is illegal there. Why? Because Germany wants to control the indoctrination of the children, using a law passed in 1938 under Adolf Hitler (before responding, this is not a reducto ad Hitlerum argument). Think the European Union is going to help? Not bloody likely. According to the quotation in the wikipedia article (I'll summarize) the children are technially the plaintiffs, and "children are unable to foresee the consequences of their parents' decision for home education because of their young age". The practical outcome of this is something like "The children want this, but they don't know what's best for themselves" so the state gets to decide. There's some more bullshit about one society and children having to learn to get along with it. Long story short, german law says the state gets to indoctrinate^Wbrainwash^W"maintain ideological integrity" in the kids, not the parents.

Before public schooling became absolutely compulsory in most western countries, kids were either homeschooled, schooled in small groups, or learned in the school of hard knocks. Society didn't crumble under all of this. A lot of people think it was better then.

On a more psychological level, school serves for more than teaching your kid how to read and write. It also socializes the child, equipping them with the mores and norms of the greater society, the norms and mores that we all require to successfully interact within that society. Children need this psychologically, or they do suffer actual psychological illnesses.

Note also the rise in socialist policies and tendencies in recent times. I don't think that's a coincidence. Socialist nations tend to exert tighter ideological control over the youth to ensure a steady supply of compliant individuals. And as demonstrated by the Soviet Union, people who don't agree with the established ideology at the moment are also suffering psychological illnesses (they'd have to be crazy to disagree with God^H^H^Hthe Government!)

When the House of Lords (!) comes out against the surveillance society you do get the feeling that something is awry.

That's exactly what I thought when I saw it and wondered about the information regarding the Italian govenment's ties to its equivalent of Hollywood[disclaimer: link is not necessarily trying to make my point, I couldn't find a better one] and its placement of entertainment-related personnel into their government(Hmm, sound familiar?).

I hate to be pessimistic, but I find this doubtful. The government has become very good at making sure the public in general is too content to make any serious noise. If no one is demanding change to laws when 15 year old girls are getting charged with creation and distribution of child porn, the creation of "free speech zones", people are being searched and detained at airports for forgetting to take off their cell phone at the security check point, and the government is basically admitting to torturing unlawful enemy combatants (read POWs), then they sure as hell aren't going to give a rats ass about a few people getting the pants sued off them for uploading mp3s. Until large groups of citizens are willing to get arrested, bludgeoned by police, and publicly humiliated like they were in the civil rights movement and the women's suffrage movement, there will be no extraordinary change.

Dont forget the UN

The united nations were far away from supporting the invasion of Iraq. This Guardian article explains the details.

and every other country in the world that invaded Iraq with the US,

While there were certain governments to support the invasions, the citizens of these countries did not.

not due to WMD's, but due to Saddam not allowing UN weapons inspectors in. Iraq was not a sovereign nation, it was part of a ceasefire agreement where they promised to allow weapons inspectors in, and when they refused, they were then subject to the consequences.

Which is another apparent falsehood on your side. There were UN weapons inspectors in Iraq until few days before the invasion. The "coalition of the willing" regularly denounced any Iraqi efforts to follow agreements. I remember very well the day when Iraq gave thousands of pages of protocols and archive data to the United Nations. The coalition did not even read anything of it before condemning the material as untrustworthy.

The Act is really good, and you can tell that because it is annoying the fuck out of the present government.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/jan/27/biomethane-energy

For now on, every time a Slashdot editor posts a link that isn't the original source of the story, I'll be posting the original link.

Iran has repeatedly, deliberately violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Iran, as a sovereign nation, voluntarily signed this treaty.

No, Iran has been found in non-compliance with its safeguards agreement, because it didn't report activities that it is legally allowed to do under the treaty. It has never been found in non-compliance with the treaty.

The IAEA themselves say

The Agency has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Iran has provided the Agency with access to declared nuclear material and has provided the required nuclear material accounting reports in connection with declared nuclear material and activities

Really? Both the BBC and the Manchester Guardian [sic] translated Ahmadinejad's remarks to mean exactly that.

(in case you didn't know, the BBC and the Guardian are not pro-Israel news sources)

And as you well know it was a mistranslation. Even MEMRI translates his phrase as meaning that the Israel will soon disappear in the same way that the USSR disappeared.

And as you well know the BBC is widely seen as a pro-Israel news source.

And as you well know there is no such newspaper as the "Manchester Guardian".

Canada is a responsible member of the international community that hasn't made threats to wipe neighbors off the map, allowed criminals within it's own population to overrun foreign embassies and supplied terrorist groups with financial support/weapons.

Just because it can't be emphasized enough:
1) Ahmadinejad is a provocateur and a colossal anti-Semitic asshole.

2) Ahmadinejad never ever, not even once, called for Israel to be "wiped off the map".

See this Guardian piece, this one where a native Persian speaker translates the phrase word-for-word, or the Wikipedia summary. The Persian phrase translates to "vanish from the page of time", and the jist of it is the assertion that Israel is on the "wrong side of history" and will slide out of history much as the Soviet Union did.

3) The phrase was not Ahmadinejad's, but Ayatollah Khomeini's.

Yes, you are free to argue that Khomeini shouldn't have said it, that Khomeini was a dangerous fanatic, or that Ahmadinejad shouldn't have quoted him on this subject. But repeating a phrase used by a respected authority in your culture is not the same thing as coining the phrase. I'm not saying it means nothing, but the fact that it is a quote must be taken into account when assessing the speaker's intent.

This issue, of a phrase spoken by an foreign leader which sounds sinister in translation, is very similar to the issue of Khrushchev's "We will bury you" remark, also not intended to be as threatening as it was taken.

What the hell are YOU talking about? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/22/iraq-georgebush

Didn't you get the Memo? Nothing supports those legations including the condition of the Prisoner. He wrote the letter of apology in attempts to get out of a sentence and that was just an excise given for being a chicken when it mattered. All of his injuries were acquired during his initial arrest except for the reports of Cigurete burns which isn't apparent if they even exist.

So that's both torture and beating.

No, that is not torture or beating. That could very well be containing the suspect. He resisted arrest and attempted to flee, the law enforcment has an obligation to use anything other then lethal means to capture him where appropriate. That doesn't mean it was torture or beatings. There has been an investigation and it says all of his injuries was suffered when he was attempting to allude capture. Here is the difference between that and torture or beatings, they didn't control him, they didn't know the full level of threat he possessed and he wouldn't follow lawful orders. The cops, in Iraq, the US, Russia, or anywhere are faced with that, they are obligated to use as much force as necessary to subdue the suspect and ensure they no longer pose a threat to anyone. That is a legitimate law enforcement goal where as torture and beatings are done after the suspect is controlled and the threats are known and neutralized.

Do you see the difference there? Striking someone in the face while they are attempting to escape capture is different from striking someone in the face who is hand cuffed and completely controlled by the cops. Tazing someone who is threatening to kill someone right beside him is totally different then tazing someone who is hand cuffed, face down on the ground and just cussing at the cops. Because it is bad in one situation doesn't mean it is bad in the others. Now grow up and quit being an ass. The guy was not beaten outside attempts to capture him.

What the hell are you talking about? The journalist hasn't been tortured or beaten.

What the hell are YOU talking about? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/22/iraq-georgebush

Bush shoe-thrower 'tortured into writing letter of apology'

The investigating judge in the case said last week that Zaidi, who will stand trial on 31 December, was beaten around the face and eyes.

So that's both torture and beating.

Oh get real.

You get real. Face reality.

Iran could have nukes in 5-10 years if they wanted. But there are exactly no signs they do.

Iran has repeatedly, deliberately violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Iran, as a sovereign nation, voluntarily signed this treaty.

Under the NPT, a nation must declare all of their nuclear activities. Iran has deliberately not done so. Iran has been caught multiple times having hidden nuclear facilities.

So, why would a nation deliberately hide their nuclear facilities when they promised to declare them? There is only 1 reason: a secret nuclear bomb program.

No Iranian political or religious leader has ever called for the extermination of the Jews. No Iranian political or religious leader has ever called for the destruction of Israel.

Really? Both the BBC and the Manchester Guardian translated Ahmadinejad's remarks to mean exactly that.

(in case you didn't know, the BBC and the Guardian are not pro-Israel news sources)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/22/iraq-georgebush
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2008/12/2008121618330140949.html
He's been imprisoned and tortured, possibly including having his hand broken. Then forced to write a "confession" in which he reveals that a well-known unnamed terrorist talked him into it (yeah right). Hooray for the new republic!

Kind of ironic for a printer to use coffee grounds when one major coffee company is now using the printer cartridge business model (machine only works with expensive proprietary pre-packaged capsules you have to buy online):

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

Thankfully HP and Epson haven't yet tried to push their refills via some sort of dreadful 'aspirational lifestyle' club:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/nov/26/drink.comment