Slashdot Mirror

M$ has about $20 billion of what was a $60 billion pile three years ago. They will go into debt to make the purchase. They are doing it to prop their stock price, perhaps for the benefit of employees who's savings will go to zero otherwise. Others have called it a pump and dump scam. Any way you look at it, $40 billion dollars vanishing is a bad thing.

Consistent profits at M$? Is that how they've turned $60 billion in cash into debt over the last three years? Ballmer's good for $6 billion in debt, honest, I swear on Vista's tarnished image.

Yes, if I were a M$ employee I'd be polishing my resume and looking for other predatory industries that would take someone with such compromised morals. Kraft is owned by a tobacco company, that might look good as your next job. You might also look into sub prime sales or insurance. Former employees of Netscape, Corel, SCO and countless other companies destroyed by M$ are still part of your world. Happy hunting.

A parody doesn't exist in a vacuum. Its purpose to highlight or poke fun at something particular in a fashion that's obviously contrary to reality -- like calling Rev. Jerry Falwell a incestuous drunk.

I only needed to see the tagline of that site "free minds and free markets" to take a good guess at the political views. An American site, run by libertarians. I think I've even come across it before.

Anyway, it's economical with the truth. Why don't you read sources directly, instead of editorials? Gun deaths are down, period.

Here is a nice and convenient list of all parts for those who don't wish to bother with the guardian's stupid related links section that lists nothing in order.

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5

Here is a nice and convenient list of all parts for those who don't wish to bother with the guardian's stupid related links section that lists nothing in order.

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5

Here is a nice and convenient list of all parts for those who don't wish to bother with the guardian's stupid related links section that lists nothing in order.

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5

Here is a nice and convenient list of all parts for those who don't wish to bother with the guardian's stupid related links section that lists nothing in order.

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5

Here is a nice and convenient list of all parts for those who don't wish to bother with the guardian's stupid related links section that lists nothing in order.

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5

Who tagged this "technology"? This is 100% art.

I disagree -- this is definitely Technology as well as Art. There's no reason it has to be only one or the other. Besides, the ancient Greeks felt all technology was art. The word "technology" itself comes from the Greek root "techne" which means art or skill.

Not all technology is computers and transistors. Technology has existed and improved throughout the ages, from the ability to make fire and work with tools to the creation of the wheel. Clocks and geared mechanisms certainly make for interesting technology from large computers such as Babbage's Difference Engine to portable devices such as the Antikythera mechanism.

It would be possible to even have "modern" technology without transistors although perhaps it wouldn't be the same as the high tech steam powered science of the Steampunk Genre.

But where are the studies that show that "reliving the trauma" is better in general?

There's so far evidence that the popular method of "reliving or talking about it" isn't such a good idea:

http://www.spring.org.uk/2008/06/venting-emotions-after-trauma-predicts.php

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1296912

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/mar/11/mentalhealth.healthandwellbeing

I'm inclined that like most memory stuff, repeating something over and over again just makes it easier for you to remember it.

For some people the "reliving" session may itself be yet another traumatic event to add to their "wonderful life" so far. Imagine if you're a rape victim, getting raped in virtual reality over and over again.

Of course the trouble is it's often hard to conduct experiments in the field of psychology to prove efficacy. You can't go around giving 1000 people PTSD and do a "double blind" on the treatments. I suppose you could try it on rats first, but how well is that going to translate?

IMO I believe if people don't feel a strong _urge_[1] to talk about it tell them to think about something else and get busy with other more enjoyable things.

Same goes for the conventional wisdom on "bottling up anger". You let people bash stuff up because they feel angry, all it does is makes it become a trained/learned response. Fine if you want to learn to bash stuff up whenever you get angry, but not fine if you are trying to learn something else.

[1] Not because they _feel_ it's the right thing to do - based on "conventional" stupidity aka wisdom. If they do feel a strong urge, then yes let them do it.

Palin was a trap that the Democrats walked into. There are many substantive policy issues upon which one could attack Palin, instead she was attacked personally and her family was made the center of attention. Within a week, Obama's poll numbers took a nosedive and McCain led in both national polls and electoral vote count. The Guardian commentary summarized it nicely:

[I]nstead of protecting their precious advantage, they succumbed to a spasm of hatred and threw the vase, the crockery, the cutlery and the kitchen sink at an obscure politician from Alaska.

Two weeks ago an Obama volunteer who knew from class came up to me and gave me that well-tread talking point about Palin's lack of experience, and the hilarious "heartbeat away from the presidency" cliche.

The bottom line is that both Obama and Palin have been at their presidency-qualifying jobs (Senator & Governor) for less than four years. Obama having two years on Palin is insignificant compared to the experience that McCain and Biden have: 25 years and 35 years in Congress, respectively.

It's also insignificant compared to the experience that our three youngest presidents--TR, Jack Kennedy and William Jefferson Clinton--had before assuming the presidency. TR had already been Asst. Sec. of the Navy, Governor of New York, and Vice President. Jack Kennedy was in the House and Senate for a combined 13 years. And William Jefferson Clinton was Governor of Arkansas for 14 years.

The major difference between Obama and Palin, in terms of experience and bracketing their policy differences, is that the former is running for the presidency, whereas the latter will only assume the presidency if McCain keels over. The big threat the democrats keep speculating about is how inexperienced Palin will be if she is called up to the presidency, schizophrenically trying to ignore that by voting for Obama they're guaranteeing someone with an inexcusable dearth of experience will be the president. Doublethink. On experience alone, neither Obama or Palin should be in the race, both are bad choices (again leaving aside their policy positions and "vision").

What's so unbelievably hypocritical on the Democratic side of things was their opposition to Hillary's "experience experience experience" propaganda that she used against Obama. Now they're turning around and reproducing the same failed strategy by doing exactly what Hillary did, giving lie to their protestations that experience wasn't the most important thing when defending Obama against Hillary's OMGTHREEINTHEMORNINGPHONECALL attacks.

There are significant substantive problems with Palin. Instead Democrats emphasized their own weaknesses in attacking Palin. Dumb.

Feminists all over the spectrum from Gloria Steinem to Jessica Valenti decry the insulting tokenism of Palin's appointment. In many ways, there could not be a more abhorrent candidate from the point of view of women's rights.

So, carrying as knife makes you safer?

Not according to http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jun/06/qanda.ukcrime :

"Many people carry knives for self-defence, despite Youth Justice Board research indicating that 65% of young people carrying knives have had them used against them."

The author Nicholson Baker wrote an interesting piece on the Deleteopedia earlier this year:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/apr/10/wikipedia.internet

Worth a read if you've not seen it.

Average road speed cameras are already in the UK. I don't know if they only keep records of transgressing cars, or if they keep a record of every car that goes past.

They certainly do

Several years ago I worked in a very large and respectable company that shall remain unnamed (but whose name rhymes with, say, "Nokia"...) and we just shipped our turnkey system with our software AND with the source code. And the company wasn't (and still isn't, AFAIK, but don't work for them since a long time) an open-source company :o) It was a screwup by the consultant guys in India.

I'm surprised this doesn't happen more often, knowing the level of QC that happens in India and China.

oh, right, I forgot that it does indeed happen. Even nowadays (de javu).

Agreed, and just for reference (since Slashdot, along with the rest of the media, seem unwilling to link to them):

Here is what he originally said: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2008/sep/11/michael.reiss.creationism

Here is the clarification just one day later: http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?id=8004

No. His clarification is the blog post that you linked to, which was authored and posted by him. Part of his original statement was the sound file posted at the top of that blog post, in which he was speaking to a reporter. The second link you're referring to is not only a further clarification on his original clarification, but it's just a second-hand quote published by the Public Relations arm of his employer.

In other words, that second-hand clarification doesn't really count (in my personal view at least). Public Relations departments do not speak for their employees. They speak for their company/organization, in this case they speak for The Royal Society. Public Relations departments do not clarify. They confuse, they censor, they edit, they rewrite, and sometimes, yes, they'll even lie.

There is a reason controversial topics are rarely ever put to rest by the PR spokesperson. If a dicy personal statement needs to be clarified, it needs to be clarified by the original primary source. And in this case, it was! The Professor clarified in writing what he said in that recorded interview with the (slightly hostile) reporter. In other words, that blog post was already that Professor's own personal attempt at doing damage control (much to the horror of The Royal Society's PR spokesperson -- I'm sure).

billions of dollars vanish out of the American economy

How so? You may want to read up on bankruptcy.

Market regulation happens because in many real situations, investment managers are able take high-risk positions to which they are never personally exposed, and that their customers aren't fully informed of.

If detrimental information is withheld by either party in an agreement, you do not believe that party should be held liable in court? Do you have examples of these real situations?

Also, if someone enters into an agreement with another without demanding openness with respect to risk and integrity, do you think the government should "rescue" them from their poor decision?

If you really want to see the unfettered free market in action, I suggest you check out the Colombian cocaine trade.

Do you really consider this an example of a "free market":

"Human rights organisations have long accused the Colombian security forces of backing the rightwing militias respon sible for murders, massacres and drug smuggling. Many military intelligence files are said to wrongly describe civil activists as subversives or terrorist sympathisers. The police are routinely accused by rights organisations, and the US state department, of taking part in or colluding in massacres."

Which individual right is being upheld by a government that commits massacres? Like McCain, you have co-opted "free market" for your own purposes.

If the current Republicans had their way, traveling to Canada for an abortion would be an act of terrorism.

No, it would not. I know, you said it in jest, but you were still wrong. It would never become any harder to travel to Canada for this purpose, than it currently is to travel to Britain from Ireland for the same purpose. Yes, the "European" Ireland, which the liberal Bono is happy to call home, bans abortions. A 17 year-old had to go to court recently to win the right to travel abroad...

The Constitution protects Americans much better against the government's excesses of this kind, than against the other side's... The Founding Fathers had seen, what religious phanatiques can do, but they did not live to witness Marx...

And they'll match or beat Democrats at spending with their wars.

Another jest... In 2007 — 7 years into the rule of "the current Republicans" — we were still spending more on Social Security alone (without Medicare, Medicad, transportation, etc.) than on the entire Defense (wars and all). 2006 is about same.

He was bullied out for a misquote.

Well, that's not what his blog in The Guardian says. He says: "I feel that creationism is best seen by science teachers not as a misconception but as a world view".

Anyone who feels that creationism is not a misconception has no place in the direction of such an important scientific body as the Royal Society. Even if he feels that students who have been raised by creationist parents will not change their point of view easily, that's no reason to tolerate such nonsense in a science class. What next, will he say that one must accept criminal behavior from students that have been raised by criminal parents?

The correct procedure would be, in my opinion, not to accept discussion of creationist nonsense, but to explain why evolution is a scientifically correct theory.

Nevermind, posts in this thread already provided it:

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

Seems reasonable to me, but I found it objectionable on couple of points:

1. Don't make creationism a special case. There are plenty other widely-held non-scientific beliefs, and they should be treated the same way in science classes.
2. It would take great care to avoid getting swamped by the debate on the differences in the premises of science and various non-scientific beliefs, and not sure it's wise to dump this on secondary school teaching curriculum.

One can argue it's more important for kids to know the basic premise of science than equations of Newton's mechanics. It might have been a good debate for the scientists and educators to have, but I suspect the politics would have hijacked the discourse - like it appears to have done in this case. Maybe the Brits are afraid of becoming a Kansas.

Enough talking to myself now. :-)

You (and the Slashdot editors) committed a serious blunder: you failed to read what he actually said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2008/sep/11/michael.reiss.creationism
http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?id=8004

Even if the Guardian summary ("Teachers need to accommodate the differing world views of students from Jewish, Christian or Muslim backgrounds â" which means openly discussing creationism and intelligent design as alternatives to evolutionary theory") were true, I don't think it warrants the kind of Muslim-esque head-on-a-platter firestorm we saw yesterday.

• Students should be encouraged to voice their doubts so that teachers can deal with them in the open
• Educators should see their role as making sure that students know the scientific methods, theories and evidence, even if the students' beliefs conflict with the science
• Don't expect your students to abandon their long-held beliefs soon, or even at all. Hold them responsible for what they know, not what they believe

Everything in his essay seems reasonable to me. The fuss arose in part, I think, because attacks on the scientific community have forced scientists into such a bunker mentality that they acted irrationally (i.e., not like scientists)

Agreed, and just for reference (since Slashdot, along with the rest of the media, seem unwilling to link to them):

Here is what he originally said: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2008/sep/11/michael.reiss.creationism

Here is the clarification just one day later: http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?id=8004

I think he expressed his views rather poorly in what was said originally, making it easy to misread unless you look very closely. And it was reasonable to express criticism over that. But the media should not ignore the clarification after it has been made.

Sure, there's a valid argument that it's better not to mention creationism at all (even to debunk it and explain why it isn't science, as Reiss was suggesting), but let's be clear: he was not advocating teaching creationism.

To suggest otherwise is just the sort of thing IDers want - do we really want them to be able to say "Leading scientists support teaching creationism in science lessons"? Of course not, which is why this myth should not be propagated.

How many dead Americans?

As of yesterday, the official count of Americans dead in Iraq is 4,158. As to the number of dead Iraqis, that number depends on how you count the dead.

I'd bet both numbers are extraordinarily low.

If you mean strictly civilians killed by American and other forces, that number will never be revealed. Obviously we don't want the civilians of Iraq to know how many of their neighbors were killed by the liberators. In fact, when the Iraqis tried to keep a running total based on the number of bodies brought to morgues, the Iraqi government was forced to stop counting the figures.

If you mean the number of civilians killed by American and other forces along with the number killed by their neighbors due to religious, cultural or other reasons, again, that number will never be revealed. Wouldn't want to reinflame sectarian violence, would we? However, based on interviews and other sources, as of November 2006, we have the following estimates:

Iraqi civilians deaths: 49,000 > 655,000

Those figures were derived from Iraq Body Count and a study published in Lancet in 2006.

If you mean the number of Iraqi civilians who took up arms against the occupying forces but who are considered insurgents/terrorists/member of Al Qaeda/etc, then the military will gladly give you that number. In fact, as of August 2007, the military reported 18,832 suspected insurgents killed.

For a report on why getting numbers is so difficult, see this story in The Guardian from March of this year.

The guy can hold his opinion, and as long as he sticks to the curriculum without creationism, why get him fired over his goddamned opinion?

Because, according to TFA, he didn't keep it out.

Plus there's the issue of having someone opposed to the scientific method being in charge of a scientific organization.

It's like having a flat-earth believer in charge of NASA.

'I agree. Creationism and other pseudoscience should be discussed in science classes. I doubt that's quite what the good reverend had in mind though.'

Actually, I think it's pretty much exactly what he had in mind. His original piece:

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

isn't the usual lame and intellectually dishonest call to 'teach the controversy', agrees that [intelligent design theories] 'are not the products of scientific reasoning', and mentions that [questions about creationism and intelligent design] 'can be used to illustrate a number of aspects of how science works'. Although he has (and respects other) religious beliefs, he makes it very clear that evolution is 'the central concept in biological sciences, providing a conceptual framework that unifies every aspect of the life sciences into a single coherent discipline'. The question is, how does a science teacher get this concept across to students who think their religious beliefs conflict with the curriculum?

That's what really bothers me.

Dawkins gets beat up because he's too harsh and divisive, while creationists get lenience because... why?

Because they're the poor deluded non-thinkers? That's exactly what Dawkins says!

Because being religious is somehow better than being atheist? Why?

Because religious people are "better" than atheists? Yeah right.

May I point out that the major political problems we're having worldwide are at least in part caused by religious differences - from Israel and the Palestinians to Christian soldiers in Mekka, to Christians (or economic interests of a mostly Christian country, or a Christian leader going nuts over terrists, whatever) vs Muslims in Iraq, to Iran feeling threatened by the US and viewing that as a fundie Christian threat (which it probably is to a small degree.)
Just listen to Bush and Palin making dangerous statements that the Iraq war was commanded by God. Sheesh. Cut out this nonsense and 90% of the fighting in the world would stop.

This article hits the nail right on the head. It's being criticized for being over the top, but I can only think "Imagine".

No, that is exactly what the good reverend had in mind. To quote from interview given here, he says:

"Creationism is not science, and it should not be given equal time in science lessons, and it shouldn't be presented by science teachers as a scientifically valid alternative. But as a teacher, I'm comfortable when dealing in science lessons with what students bring to the lesson even if it isn't good science. So I would want to acknowledge without in any way ridiculing the student.... I want to acknowledge that for the student that is how they understand the world, and I can respect them for that, but I want to make it very clear that's not the way the overwhelming majority of scientists understand the world, and we have very good evidence-based reasons as to why scientists understand the world they do, and then nothing would delight me more than to get into the scientific evidence for evolution or the history of the universe."

Why again are his comments a matter of controversy?

Worse. Go read _everything_ he said here:

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

I think he actually deserves an apology. It's amazing the reaction he got.

What next, are they going to burn down churches because of what he said? Just because someone happens to mention creationism in the same breath as science classes?

They're starting to behave like religious nutters too.

From the link ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2008/sep/11/michael.reiss.creationism ), here's what 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."

Seems very reasonable to me.

If you do things the wrong way, you can prove you are right, but teach nothing.

If you teach nothing, you do not have a science class.

The uproar over what he said appears to be rather unscientific.

The most honorable Senator Joseph Isadore Lieberman would certainly not promote widespread media censorship and bullying of the press concerning so-called ''anti-semitic' 'self-hate' views on Middle East issues...

All of this may end up affecting no more than a few bomb-making tutorials and turbant fashion-shows, non?

Anyway, Senator Lieberman deserves much praise for his deep concern about videos disseminating propaganda and showing `gratuitous violence or people getting "hurt, attacked, or humiliated."'.

Finally, we should not forget some valuable insight on "the domestic radicalization process" which, with Joseph Lieberman as Chairman, the United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has included in the report "Violent Islamist Extremism, The Internet, and the Homegrown Terrorist Threat". Apart from minor detais on player identification, the four-stage model in page 4 seems remarkably insightful when confronted with recent US history and even with the good Senator's own radicalizing messages. Will such 'aiding and abetting' discourse be removed from YouTube as part of the ongoing un'unamerican' First Amendment Amendment?

It wasn't just EAX. People who mix sound for a living aren't thrilled about the added latency.

I hate to say it, considering the Godwinism, but the parent's right. It's pretty ironic that IBM should be putting in to save Bletchley, when during the war they were directly involved with Nazi Germany.

"Offtopic" is not the same as "I'm annoyed by this comment"...

Maybe they feared some bad press coming for Will Smith?.

That position is irresponsible in that it entails the researcher simply ignoring the very effects positive and negative that society will have to endure based on their publication. Governments and society as a whole have already seemingly taken a position counter to that [guardian.co.uk], [2] [slashdot.org], and the result will probably be eventual formal government regulation to better keep dangerous information quiet.

Your second source is an article about events centered on a high school, where students' rights are limited by the legal doctrine in loco parentis. (sp?) So that also is not an example of how society normally functions.

For example, there is classified information. If a researcher attempts to publish usable do-it-yourself details for making a nuclear bomb, they may well find themselves locked up.

Discovery Channel showed a history of the A-bomb a few years ago, which I thought was as good as the best consumer user's manual I've ever had the good fortune of getting bundled with purchase. The tricky step is purifying the radioactive material to weapons grade. After that, assembly is nothing. As a result, teaching particle physics in universities is permitted. What is not permitted is the act of producing weapons grade nuclear material. The good or evil is in an action, not in the knowledge.

Just because the laws haven't caught up yet to prevent computer security researchers from irresponsibly publishing dangerous information for all to get the most intricate details including ready-to-run attacks, does not mean that it is responsible or good for researchers to do so.

Facebook dangerously published all the information for all the Black Hats to get the most intricate details, etc., etc. The researchers made that information available to Facebook's customers. Bravo to them!

That position is irresponsible in that it entails the researcher simply ignoring the very effects positive and negative that society will have to endure based on their publication. Governments and society as a whole have already seemingly taken a position counter to that [guardian.co.uk], [2] [slashdot.org], and the result will probably be eventual formal government regulation to better keep dangerous information quiet.

Your second source is an article about events centered on a high school, where students' rights are limited by the legal doctrine in loco parentis. (sp?) So that also is not an example of how society normally functions.

For example, there is classified information. If a researcher attempts to publish usable do-it-yourself details for making a nuclear bomb, they may well find themselves locked up.

Discovery Channel showed a history of the A-bomb a few years ago, which I thought was as good as the best consumer user's manual I've ever had the good fortune of getting bundled with purchase. The tricky step is purifying the radioactive material to weapons grade. After that, assembly is nothing. As a result, teaching particle physics in universities is permitted. What is not permitted is the act of producing weapons grade nuclear material. The good or evil is in an action, not in the knowledge.

Just because the laws haven't caught up yet to prevent computer security researchers from irresponsibly publishing dangerous information for all to get the most intricate details including ready-to-run attacks, does not mean that it is responsible or good for researchers to do so.

Facebook dangerously published all the information for all the Black Hats to get the most intricate details, etc., etc. The researchers made that information available to Facebook's customers. Bravo to them!

The purpose of research is knowledge. As a researcher, I'm not responsible to provide justification of what somebody else does with knowledge I discover, nor to provide further justification of my discovery of it due to that other person's choice to make criminal use of the knowledge I discovered. The criminal is solely responsible for the criminal act.

That position is irresponsible in that it entails the researcher simply ignoring the very effects positive and negative that society will have to endure based on their publication. Governments and society as a whole have already seemingly taken a position counter to that, [2], and the result will probably be eventual formal government regulation to better keep dangerous information quiet.

For example, there is classified information. If a researcher attempts to publish usable do-it-yourself details for making a nuclear bomb, they may well find themselves locked up.

Locks may be vulnerable to picking, but in most states, it is illegal to buy, sell, or possess lockpicking tools, without special permit.

Just because the laws haven't caught up yet to prevent computer security researchers from irresponsibly publishing dangerous information for all to get the most intricate details including ready-to-run attacks, does not mean that it is responsible or good for researchers to do so.

Memory is notoriously unreliable. It's not too hard to implant false memories in unwitting subjects.

I thought dolphins came with explosive charges?

Nope; they're armed with hollow needles and CO2 bottles, and with toxic dart guns.

Rumors have persisted since the mid-seventies that the U.S. Navy used dolphins to kill enemy divers during the Vietnam war. Allegedly, when an approaching diver was detected by a patrolling dolphin, it would swim back to an equipment barge where it would arm itself with a large hollow needle and compressed CO2 bottle, both integrated into a cup which fitted snugly over the dolphin's beak. Then it would simply impale the unfortunate bastard in the torso and watch him float to the surface with his stomach hanging out of his mouth. Apparently, someone got the idea from the CO2 harpoons divers used to protect themselves from sharks.

Supposedly the project was shelved because the age-old military problem of IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) was insurmountable. Simply put, the dolphins were unable to distinguish between friendly and enemy divers and killed a number of U.S. Navy personnel.

The modern spin on this is the allegation that these dolphins are now controlled with "electrodes planted under the skin" and are armed with anaesthetic dartguns, the idea being to capture the enemy alive for interrogation. It was even reported that the Navy lost some of these dolphins from a training facility near Lake Pontchartrain during Hurricane Katrina.

Perhaps my original post was a bit too salty? :)

At any rate I do find it troubling to see this on the horizon.

I do not really care for my web browser to do anything other than display useful information and be efficient at doing it.

I also do not want my browser to be a flashing billboard on the information super highway. :)

Whether it's on my desktop or on my smart phone. I would prefer that be executed as quickly and quietly as possible without any crashes, hangs, or complaints.

Perhaps I am showing my age, but once upon a time browsers did that you know, before they became something like the those annoying billboards in, "Minority Report".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQbVD5hlddk

Also, but not to start a flame here, I cite the following sources as to where things appear to be going for the average consumer.

http://www.healthcareitnews.com/story.cms?id=9575

http://news.cnet.com/Mozilla-aims-for-mobile-browser-market/2100-1032_3-5483683.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/aug/21/business.newmedia

I honestly think IE should have stopped at 6.X, 7.X has been constant trouble for me.

Thank you for the discussion!
Joe

Unlike what Monsanto said, and you fell for

[Citation needed]

• Superweeds fear from GM crops
• Destructive creation: GM superweeds
• Rise of GM superweeds
• RE: Government Study Finds GM 'Superweeds'
• "Cross-Pollination Leads to Triple Herbicide Resistance"

Crops cross pollinate, GE or otherwise. And those who complain about GE crops need to Keep It Real - we've been genetically engineering for thousands of years through cross breeding.

We have not been inserting fish genes into tomatoes, or any other foreign genes into any other plant or animal life for thousands of years. Horizontal gene transfer happens rarely in nature. Simply selective breeding as is done in agriculture and farming does not introduce genes that do not occur naturally in plants or animals into those plant and animals. All it does is amplify traits that already there. I garden and if I come across a trait say in tomatoes I grow, I currently have four different tomatoes growing in the garden, I can save the seeds from the tomatoes I like and plant them the next year. If next year I do the same and keep doing that year after year I'll eventually create my own cultivar. That's a lot different than introducing foreign genes.

Yes, I know Monsanto are dicks, and I heard about that farmer. What I don't see, however, is how this is Gore's fault

It's not Gore's fault but he supports increasing genetic engineering.

The most a quick Googling brings up is that Clinton's secretary of agriculture was opposed to it while Gore was VP - pretty weak sauce.

Perhaps you searched for the wrong things. From wiki's article on Al Gore:
"Gore was one of the Atari Democrats who were given this name due to their 'passion for technological issues, from biomedical research and genetic engineering to the environmental impact of the "greenhouse effect.'"

• Famed geneticist creating life form that turns CO2 to fuel
• Al Gore's Mealy-Mouth Position on Genetically Engineeered Food

Falcon

Your diagram shows half of Europe isn't meeting emissions standards. Trouble for Kyoto

I'll agree that Washington should have offered an alternative but it's safe to say what works for one country won't necessarily work for others in regards to economic impacts. For instance Europeans have a much smaller reliance on cars for transport. There is not a whole lot that can be done in the U.S. at this point about it's main mode of transportation.

California would beg to differ on tougher standards.

So in short, we have some pretty fantastic emissions standards to compensate for the fact that vehicles are less efficient. This was the biggest complaint among auto makers in the 90s as it was hurting performance. They're figuring out how to get that power back now which is why fuel economy has remained flat much to my dismay.

California is not the only state either.

I can speak from experience that most cars sold in Arizona are also compliant with California regs.

If you were standing next to a guy with a knife as big as the one in photo on the guardian site, would you even bother to get that "my penis is smaller than his" catapult out of your pocket?

Seriously though, I don't think many western governments will be doing what this desperate Thai government is doing, not until there is rioting through the streets and they are fearful of their power. In that situation western government would probably do a lot worse than shut down websites.

That probably had something to do with it. He's also had some techie friends.

The only reason one would be surprised is if one didn't know anything about him but the occasional comedy show on telly. He has written loads of columns on techie stuff. Here's a sample of the stuff he's writing currently. Seriously, this guy is one of us.

Well, except stand by and watch kids drown.

Except they didn't stand by and watch him drown, and a lot of newspapers printed apologies for saying they had. When they arrived they couldn't see the boy (http://www.septicisle.info/labels/Peaches%20Geldof.html, http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1066157.ece). So: jump in and swim where exactly, if they can't see where he is?

Of course, "CSPO's are rubbish" makes for better sensationalism than "CSPO's do just the right thing", so you can be forgiven for missing the reporting of the fact that the original story was bogus.

Commuity Support Officers make me feel no safer, because they have no powers and using resources for them means less resources for actual Police. They do fuck all. Well, except stand by and watch kids drown.

Those who think that this could ultimately be a good thing from a civil liberties perspective - I know of no CCTV camera which has caught evidence of police misconduct, even when there is strong reason to believe that they should have done so. (Why this should be the case I leave as an exercise to the reader)

Toni Comer was shown in CCTV footage being repeatedly punched in the face by a South Yorkshire PC, but the IPCC rejected her complaint of assault, presumably because she had the wrong skin tone.

So the cameras do occasionally pick up obvious misconduct, but good luck if you think anything ever comes of it.

Right in the centre of London there's a square mile managed not by the Metropolitan Police but by the City of London police, and it's armed to the teeth with CCTV. Unlike recent America, a few years ago London did have a real problem with terrorism: every few months the Provisional IRA would plant a bomb, so the idea initially was to identify suspicious behaviour and/or to have records of just about fucking everything, so the perp dropping the bag or whatever could be identified after the fact. Did it stop the bombings? Of course it fucking didn't. This is London, not some village in the middle of nowhere:

(1) A wig, fake moustache, make-up and (fuck me this is high-tech!) change of clothing are enough to make anyone's face completely unrecognisable by current CCTV standards, and anyone will have mingled quickly into the crowd of a million other Londonners;

(2) Over time, criminals learn where the cameras are: each time evidence comes to court, each time someone infiltrates the police. I have one family member who works in a police operations centre, and he had to go through all the security vetting bullshit - the usual crap that's easily defeated by planting someone who (oh, much like, say, those in the 9/11 attacks) has a spotless record to date.

Now the terrorism threat is over (no really, compared to London when the Troubles crossed to the mainland, it's over), what do the City of London police busy themselves with? You may have heard of them as the guys that over-zealously notified a Church of Scientology protester that they shouldn't write signs saying mean things about the organisation. And it has nothing to do with the `Church' giving junkets to high-ranking policemen, of course. They also occasionally follow those who look like they shouldn't be driving high-priced cars (remember this is around the rich financial district).