Slashdot Mirror

Shell believes in global warming. So does BP. In fact, most oil companies do. Exxon Mobil is just a dinosaur. They're pretty bad on every front.

I always hate it when people talk about "oil companies" as if they're one big, monolithic entity.

Well, that worked to disarm Saddam's Iraq. While invading and occupying it has turned Iraq into an actual top-tier threat, and now has turned Saddam into a martyr inspiring crazy morons around the world to kill and die for insanity.

Back when we were using angry letters backed by "diplomacy" (political pressure on essential economics), we actually got N Korea to stop its nuke weapons development. Then we switched off the diplomacy, and switched on the empty threats. Meanwhile we shipped N Korea a nuke plant with Donald Rumsfeld's name on it, then dismissed the inspection requirements that would have kept it from being abused into weapons development - the same day he paid for it to be built. Pretty good business for Rumsfeld, but a disaster for live humans.

I used the word "we", but sometimes it was Clinton, and sometimes it was Bush. Guess which one made us safer, and the other threatened us more? Bonus points for guessing which one prizes a Star Wars "antimissile defense shield" above any other military program, and needs more WMD missile threats to scare us into paying for it.

The North Koreans probably consider it just the cost of doing business. The Soviet Army used to routinely kill or injure a certain percentage of their soldiers while training with live chemical weapons. As it is, the North Koreans don't seem to be bothered by large numbers of their population starving to death or suffering severe malnutrition right now, just so long as they can keep spending their hard currency on moving their nuclear weapons and missile programs along. They know what they are doing since they conduct experiment on prisoners with lethal agents in their death camps. (They do both chemical and biological experiments.)

It's baffling to me why a country that has consistently and fairly been compared with Nazi Germany, to the point of concentration camps and illegal medical experimentation, has been allowed to exist for this long. Drudge reported this morning that they're prepping another nuke test, and it's a well-known fact that they've been developing chem and bio weapons for years. A new Hitler has risen, and we are so busy looking elsewhere that we either haven't noticed or don't care.

I guess the question is "who controls the cameras?" Is the footage made available to the public? Or, if the cops start beating the shit out of some Critical Mass bicyclists do the cameras suddenly all go on the fritz?

He wasn't wearing a heavy jacket. He used his card to get into the station. He didn't vault the barrier. And now police say there are no CCTV pictures to reveal the truth.

The police returned the three CCTV tapes saying that they were blank and no good to the investigation. But London Underground officials and transport unions have challenged this claim suggesting that the tapes have either been lost or erased.

The first officers on the scene after Mr de Menezes was shot took away all CCTV tapes but allegedly found them blank. .... The IPCC has already protested that the police have compromised their investigation by taking away vital evidence, including the tapes,

Extracts from a police report, however, claimed that examination of the platform cameras had produced no footage. It said: "It has been established that there has been a technical problem with the CCTV equipment on the relevant platform and no footage exists."

What did they bungle? If you just watched the two videos you have no idea who is telling the truth. But the Guardian published a story confirming Oxfam's position.

Strangely, Oxfam and Starbucks had been working together on Fair Trade up until October of 2004 - see : http://www.oxfamamerica.org/newsandpublications/pr ess_releases/archive2002/art3007.html

There's even some allegation that Oxfam stopped working with Starbucks due to political pressure ( see http://society.guardian.co.uk/charitymanagement/st ory/0,,1430638,00.html )

The Olympic committee is already positively ridiculous ... you can't even bring a container with a competing soda company's logo on it into the olympic grounds.

I was rather Studiously trying to avoid the comparison with the Nazis, but whatever. English mainstream media coverage of the purchase is rather hard to find. "The Guardian" in the UK covered it, http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1 928928,00.html They, along with lots and lots of blogs, say the event was commonly reported in South American Newspapers, unfortunately, I am literate in neither Spanish, nor Portugese, which makes searching for original reports a bit difficult.

You put it that way and it sounds peachy, only two items in the list named people, so the rest must apply to cans of pepsi or something. They all affect people, you and me whether Slate names them or not.

"Only for Extraordinary Rendition can even one actual instance be named. For the rest, we are to take the fact that despite the extraordinary scrutiny this government's every move seems to come under"

So you believe there is only 1? Even Bush admits 14 people. Now if only we could explain how 1400 rendition flights of medium sized passenger jets were used to fly a mere 14 people around we'd be laughing. Remember we know how many flights from the flight logs. We're talking thousands of people and potentially lots of Americans too. What you think Padilla is the only one?

Says 14 rendition people transferred:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1947647,00. html

The aircraft involved:
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regse arch=N368CE&distinct_entry=true

Can you name the 14? No? That's the secrecy for you, no names, no nationalities, no details, no lawyers, no trials. If you can't name them how can Slate? What about the rest? We haven't even got a real number yet.

As Bush put it:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/12/20 061229-15.html

"Today, Saddam Hussein was executed after receiving a fair trial -- the kind of justice he denied the victims of his brutal regime...Fair trials were unimaginable under Saddam Hussein's tyrannical rule."

Wow hypocritical or what? He's a slimeball, the worst US leader ever, and if it turns out he's locked up a bunch of Americans and tortured them, then he and the people who worked for him should hang too. No different from that slimeball Sadam.

Whoopee!! They give us various forms of flu every year, and that SARS virus, and make traitorous, amoral morons pay the Chinese government to view the preserved remains of their murdered "dissidents" - and now they bring humanity the fluorescent green pig.....

And he did allow inspectors to resume inspections, the US was the one to kick them out

Cite?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that Saddam did want WMDs so he could bully neighboring countries, and was trying to secretly rebuild his capacity after destroying it following his slapped-down invasion of Kuwait. His loyal scientists, trying to escape the wrath of his sons and their woodchipper, fabricated glowing reports of their progress, which the US intercepted and overreacted to (assuming that the motives of the Bush administration were entirely pure).

If Saddam had wanted to simply maintain the appearance of having WMDs without actually having them, he was an absolute moron about how he went about it. He could have postured and posed as he was doing during that time period, then "accidentally" let a detailed inventory list (executive summary: "we ain't got shit") fall into the hands of the most convenient CIA operative, and the US would have probably found more interesting things to do than invade the country (again, assuming that the motives of the Bush administration were entirely pure here).

If Saddam didn't want WMDs, then why did he put so many stumbling blocks in front of the inspection teams sent to verify that he didn't have any? Just get them in, show them whatever they want to see, and wave goodbye to them at the airport as they leave. Instead, he whined and whined about "CIA infiltration" and "national security issues" as justification for preventing the inspection teams from getting into his Presidential Palaces and other sites, but if there were no WMD-related materials there, what the hell else would there be to hide? His taste in decor? Saddam's military was already known to be strong enough to keep belligerent neighbors at bay, and as we've seen in interviews with Hans Blix in recent years, Blix didn't care about petty US-Iraq bickering, and likely would have taken steps to weed out any "CIA infiltrators" from his inspection teams, as their presence would only have made his job harder.

Actually it's more like the richest 1% own 40%, to quote one of your own lefty, soft-headed rags, the guardian...

http://money.guardian.co.uk/news_/story/0,,1965033 ,00.html

And that stat is from the equally dimwitted United Nations.

However, the article does makes a point which you'll probably fail to recognize, and that is that wealth isn't a static pool but a dynamically changing pot, one which has GROWN over the years. The key to improving lives is not the punitive redistribution of wealth but the provision of opportunity to the people in impoverished regions so that they have the ability to fairly compete. But remember, competition implies the opportunity to fail as well.

Free market economics works, period, socialism does not. And before you spout off about the evils of western economic policy, realize this; anyone that compares free market ideals to prevailing western policies is a moron as they obviously have the economics understanding of a child.

There have been skydiver wings for quite a while now (http://www.guardian.co.uk/silly/story/0,,1013884, 00.html, for example). His design offers nothing over existing non-powered designs. When he makes it so you can take off without the assistance of a plane, then he'll have something. Until then, it's just a gimick.

This might just possibly be refering to plans close a loophole in English law
that (IIRC) means that if you have a mental disorder that makes you
violent toward others, you can only be detained if your condition can
be treated medically. If the docs can't fix you because you have a "personality
disorder" (whatever the blue rubbery duck that is), they can't keep you
in a secure hospital and and you get to roam the streets until the voices tell
you to knife someone.

Unfortunately there have been a number of cases in the UK where someone
who fell into the untreatable catagory ended up killing people, for example
Michael Stone who was convicted of killing Lin and Megan Russel in 1996.

The Guardian has a FAQ on the proposed changes in the law:
http://society.guardian.co.uk/mentalhealth/story/0 ,,836476,00.html

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/games/archives/2006/12 /20/wii_games_get_real_weather.html

it hasn't yet been confirmed afaik

The weapons inspectors found nothing which means that there is no proof that weapons existed.

Not true as of Jan 27th, 2003. From the link:

Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tonnes and that the quality was poor and the product unstable.

Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.

There are also indications that the agent was weaponised.

And later on regarding chemical bombs:

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.

The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized.

Since then it [Iraq] has reported that it has found a further 4 chemical rockets at a storage depot in Al Taji.

There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.

This report indicates (by my reading at least) that yes, the inspectors did find weapons of mass destruction and believed there were most likely more in Iraq's possession. I have been unable to find any indication that Blix changed his opinions between that report and the war, in all seriousness please let me know if you can find any. I much prefer being corrected when wrong.

Other than the documented inventories following the first war that were unaccounted for, there was no conclusive evidence of new weapons. Apparently, there was enough evidence to convince a lot of people they (new weapons or at least the programs to develop/build them) existed though, including John Kerry, Bill and Hilary Clinton, Pelosi, Albright, Sandy Berger, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, and Tony Blair.

I am still waiting for someone to show me anyone who said Iraq did not have these weapons before the invasion. I am beginning to believe it will never occur because approximately zero people believed it prior to the invasion.

"Regardless, we (the US) currently has a terrible disaster on our hands."

No the Iraqi people have the disaster on their hands, the US just has an inconvenient and expensive problem by comparison. It will soon be forgotten about.

While I see your point, I don't agree. Personally (that's all I can speak for) I feel we (the US) have a responsibility to help them (the Iraqis) out of the mess. I feel we are responsible for it (with which I am sure you agree) and must not "abandon" them unless they request it.

It was apparently much harder to say "if they tell us they don't want us, we won't go".

Weren't the UN supposed to have a say in whether

"the reason for the reactivation of conflict (failure to comply with the terms of the original cease fire)"

this was the right course of action.

Not sure I agree with that one. My recollection of the first war was that the UN said it was OK, then the US declared war (along with the "coalition"). The cease fire was not signed with the UN, it was signed with the US (and the coalition). I may not have a correct memory there, but because of that, in my mind's eye, it is p

I'm sure Iran is not exactly a bastion of free expression, but I've seen plenty of Iranian people who have been interviewed on camera criticizing the Iranian government and calling them all a bunch of idiots. Then there was the recent case of Iranian students jeering the President, burning a picture of him, and throwing fireworks (http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1 462_2043334,00.html). That's not the sort of thing you do if you are terrified of your government.

Are these by chance the same students who have now gone into hiding in fear for their lives?

Do you fear for you life because of that comment?

No? Then your comment is proven incorrect.

Do a web search to educate yourself, here's one: http://technology.guardian.co.uk/online/comment/st ory/0,12449,881780,00.html

Charlie Brooker is a rock of sanity in a sea of shit.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/brooker/

Life under Taliban cuts two ways Consider the following list of edicts issued by Taliban religious scholars in Kabul in December 1996:

"To prevent music.... In shops, hotels, vehicles, and rickshaws, cassettes and music are prohibited."

"To prevent beard shaving and its cutting. After one and a half months, if anyone [is] observed who has shaved and or cut his beard, they should be arrested and imprisoned until their beard is bushy."

"To prevent kite-flying."

"To prevent idolatry. In vehicles, shops, hotels, rooms, and any other place, pictures [and] portraits should be abolished."

"To prevent washing cloth by young ladies along the water streams in the city. Violator ladies should be picked up with respectful Islamic manner, taken to their houses, and their husbands severely punished."

The struggle over sharia Is sharia harsh?
Followed literally, it can be medieval. Sharia divides all human actions into five categories: obligatory, meritorious, permissible, reprehensible, and forbidden. Among the reprehensible and forbidden acts are drinking alcohol, eating pork, theft, slander, highway robbery, murder, adultery, and losing one's faith. Traditional punishments include whipping and the amputation of limbs. For the most severe crimes, the penalty can be decapitation, crucifixion, or death by stoning. In Saudi Arabia, where sharia governs civil society, these harsh penalties are still meted out. Women are shrouded and segregated from men; suggestive Western photographs censored; and criminals punished harshly. In the capital city of Riyadh, beheadings are carried out on a brick-and-marble plaza that some have dubbed "Chop-Chop Square."

And more about Sharia here and here.

Some of us are slaves to fashion.
They want to make us slaves to them, or at the very least, dhimmis.

Our guys and their guys have very different ideas about what to love.

Dealing in Death

Another chapter from early Islamic history -- serving as a lesson for today's Muslims at war against the West -- is the concept of the love of death. This originated at the Battle of Qadisiyya in the year 636, when the commander of the Muslim forces, Khalid ibn Al-Walid, sent an emissary with a message from Caliph Abu Bakr to the Persian commander, Khosru. The message stated: "You [Khosru and his people] should convert to Islam, and then you will be safe, for if you don't, you should know that I have come to you with an army of men that love death, as you love life." This account is recited in today's Muslim sermon

I could, easily, read my chosen paper online, but I choose not to. The typography is better and easier on my eyes. The viewing area is bigger, and can fit more information in it without having to scroll down (reading from paper feels far more natural than reading from a screen). It's more convenient (I can read a paper on my couch, in the canteen at work, in bed, on the can, just about anywhere really...). Papers aren't going to die any time soon.

If the Millennium Challenge 2002 is any indicator, those invasion plans are sure to be top notch:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_ 2002
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_van_Riper
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,786992,0 0.html

Of course the British are concerned about not having the code for their military equipment. During the Falklands war they used the holes in the French made missles' soft to disable the Argentine missles. (Source http://www.guardian.co.uk/argentina/story/0,,16477 62,00.html .) They know that power can be used, they are not going to give that power to others to use against them!

The biggest problem is that we have two generations of reporters that believe their job is to undermine the government, and that that is an example of freedom of the press.

Well, it may cost me my karma, but I am simply not going to allow you to get away with saying this. It is complete nonsense.

It is not the press's responsibility to glad-hand or enable the government. It is the press's responsibility to ask questions and report the facts of the situation. Inevitiably, there will be bias. A story can consist of many facts, and which ones you choose to omit or include and on what basis of relevance can be considered bias. If, by some miracle, you can include all the facts, then the order in which you state them becomes the bias. There is ALWAYS bias. That is why it is so important to have a free speach, where all voices and all sides of the issue can be heard.

After 9/11, the press completely failed in these duties and, for all intents and purposes, gave a free pass to this government. In hindsight, our reasons for getting into Iraq have all been proven to be specious and false; at the time however the press was willing to give the administration the benefit of the doubt. In hindsight, we have learned about the HUGE gaps and red flags in the intelligence and fact-presentation of the rational in going to war with Iraq that were present at the time and went unreported because the press didn't want to seem unpatriotic. We have an American citizen being tortured and reduced to a "piece of furniture" in direct violation of our sacred Constitution. We have a President that is UNCONSTITUTIONALLY and ILLEGALLY spying on Americans and has gutted 1,000 years of legal process with his Military Commision Act and only a small handful in the media are seriously questioning it. We are in a huge mess, with our troops being killed and our treasury being drained, because the media didn't have the balls to question this President and his illegal administration. Even now, the media are still aiding this government by burying horrendous stories of Department of Homeland Security negligence.

So you'll forgive me if I don't believe your ridiculous assertion that we have two generations of reporters who believe that undermining the government is a part of their job. As a matter of fact, that is such a ludicrous outlook that I am simply apalled that you can write it in seriousness. Not only is it factually false, it's an excercise in intellectual dishonesty. A just and effective government would have NOTHING to fear from questioning. A government that governed by logic (as opposed to "faith" or "from the gut") would have NOTHING to fear from self-examination. Your statement does not reflect a conservative or liberal viewpoint (conservatives believe in limited government and appreciate a free press to keep it in check; liberals believe in personal freedoms and thus welcome freedom of the press.) Rather, your viewpoint is a fascist one and not supported by the Constitution. Your right to speak your views, however, are.

Thank you for your challenge, I will try to explain my view.

Biodiversity
Biofuel has the potential for becoming a huge source for energy, and therefore has the potential to become a huge source of income for farmers and energy companies. Since some species are more suited than others for biofuel production (growth rate, disease-free, water efficient, simplicity creating biomass, simplicity of extracting biofuel from biomass), these species will be preferred by biofuel producers. This means introduction of, or extending, a monoculture that is destructive for the diversity of insects, birds, plants and animals. Granted, modern agriculture is already a threat to diversity, but the introduction of biofuel production will not minimize this problem; just because everything is crap doesn't mean that it can't get any worse.

In addition, modern agriculture and biofuel production is "too effective". Decomposing trees and plants are a necessity to plants, animals and most importantly insects. Without a natural life cycle, the risk reduced biodiversity (by insect, bird and animal species going extinct) are significant.

If I may make one quote to illustrate my point, the quote comes from Simon Counsell, director of the UK-based "Rain Forest Foundation":

"The expansion of palm oil production is one of the leading causes of rain forest destruction in Southeast Asia. It is one of the most environmentally damaging commodities on the planet. Once again it appears we are trying to solve our environmental problems by dumping them in developing countries, where they have devastating effects on local people."

Invasive species
The species most suited for biofuel production are characterized by rapid growth and the ability to grow in a multitude of environments. These are also traits that characterize species prone to become invasive. Fast-growing, water-efficient plants with little or no known pests can rapidly take over entire ecosystems, replacing the natural plant life (and consequently insect, bird and animal life). Even domestic species can become invasive when the natural ecological system is destroyed.

Conclusion
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for replacing the fossil fuels of yesteryear with new energy sources, but doing so without a thought to the actual ecological cost of those energy sources is just plain stupid.

References:
http://www.ub.gu.se/sok/dissdatabas/detaljvy.xml?i d=6933

http://www.birdlife.org/news/news/2005/12/bioenerg y.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673 ,1659036,00.html

Science 22 September 2006: Vol. 313. no. 5794, p. 1742. Title: Adding Biofuels to the Invasive Species Fire?

http://www.physorg.com/news78069543.html

The Army Times reported that, as commander of a low-tech, third-world army, Gen Van Riper appeared to have repeatedly outwitted US forces.

He sent orders with motorcycle couriers to evade sophisticated electronic eavesdropping equipment. When the US fleet sailed into the Gulf, he instructed his small boats and planes to move around in apparently aimless circles before launching a surprise attack which sank a substantial part of the US navy. The war game had to be stopped and the American ships "refloated" so that the US forces stood a chance.

"Do you have any idea how different that conflict would look if we did act like the insurgents and exhibit no concern over who got killed on the sidelines?"

You'd lose quicker. Remember you're supposed to win this one by *not* killing the civilian population.

"That's how our team gets shot up on raids"
So don't go on raids, declare yourself the winner and leave now.

"How many people who've been there, on the ground, hunting these clowns, have ever sat down with and had a beer?" Two.

"Since you're quick to say what it's not, explain what it is, and cite your sources."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4946668.stm
"The CIA has run more than 1,000 flights within the European Union since 2001, often transporting terror suspects for questioning overseas, MEPs have said."

14 people transferred to Gitmo:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1947647,00. html

1000 rendition flights could not possibly be used to transport so few people.

Do you wonder why they are shooting at you in Iraq when you are supposed to be the heroes who saved them from Sadam? Do you see no connection between the choices you make and the outcome?

According to computer ethics you must take into account all the people who screw when a moral/ethical problem presents itself. Fine, the guy broke into some computers that weren't his and hes wrong. But here at slashdot (and in computer ethics) we would like to know why NASA (and several computers at a Naval Base) had its computers not only web accessible, but also poorly secured. If your house get robbed in that awful metaphor, what will you tell your wife. 'Sure I told him how to break in, but its not my fault...'

This case is extremely pathetic. Alot about Gary Kckinnon has been in the news for the past year. The guy (recently unemployed) hacked nasa from his ex-girlfriend's, aunt's 56k line with some generic windows remote log-in (Gui - for christsake). He was convinced that he found evidence of US space armies ("non-terrestrial officers") in files most likely refering to officers AT SEA. He eventually was caught because he would open up notepad on wind0ze computers and leave joke messages about how the govt was lying and had space troops. COME ON! This guy beat NASA and the Pentagon. In Britian there was actually a movement to save him from extradition cause he was obviously a moron and wouldnt know how to do harm even if he wanted to. $100,000! Imagine what an even moderately skilled hacker could do.

Take a basic ethics and security class before you come a lecturing.

An old interview detailing everything:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,,1523143 ,00.html#article_continue

Enjoy these Reg links as well:
http://www.theregister.com/2005/07/27/mckinnon_ext radition_hearing_begins/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/11/mckinnon_i ndictment_snafu/

He doesn't need one.

The anointing oil he used contained cannabis-extracts, and in the quantities it was used in (being doused in it) would be far more potent than your average joint.

It looks as though the Italian contact with Litvinenko is safe and isn't suffering any radiation sickness, though he was admitted to the hospital with concerns of massive radiation poisoning. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,19 62535,00.html

He's practically a part of the Bin Laden family, what don't you get?

Declare the Geneva Convention obsolete. Bug the UN. Split NATO. Overthrow a stable military dictatorship and disband the Army the now unemployed members of which will go on to form the future insurgent organisations . Watch the country descend into total civil war, a magnet for every disaffected youth in the middle east. Watch helplessly as the country is infiltrated by insurgents from Iran, Siria and Jordan. Then announce victory and withdraw. Repeat same in Afghanistan. Give legal sanction to torture. Declare victory for democracy.

http://www.kron.com/global/story.asp?s=1962000&Cli entType=Printable
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956, 1157547,00.html
http://fpc.state.gov/fpc/8688.htm

Quote at the bottom of this page:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,431 143,00.html

so they could take over the Iraqi Oilfields

I seem to recall a few years back when Bush was claiming that the war would be paid for with Iraqi oil. Of course, now that the cost of the war is expected to pass one or maybe two trillion dollars, Iraqi oil couldn't pay for it, so it's easy to backpedal on that claim.

You are correct sir.

No, he is wrong, there are two programs. One which tapped calls internationally as the grandparent posted, and a second one that collected phone records on nearly every single American's domestic calls. Did you call in for pizza? Did a terrorist call in for pizza (God forbid that terrorists actually run the pizza delivery place, mafia style)? Does it matter? Who knows! Nobody knows what the NSA is going to use such an enormous block of data for, since the vast majority (99.999999999999%?) of the calls have nothing to do with terrorism. Google other articles about Qwest's refusal to participate to see the millions in juicy taxpayer dollars they passed up that the other telecoms were apparently all too happy to suck out of your tax dollars for this service.

is infested with many of the same moonbat types

It's a shame the infestation hasn't managed to drive out the infestation of ignorant Bush supporters who can't even keep track of what their president is doing. Maybe we need to swallow a cat to get the spider now?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-62440 89,00.html

But that will not prevent the coming Congressional Wankfest and Witch Hunt. Henry Waxman as much as said so.

The next two years will be a reprisal of the inept, ill conceived and utterly useless Iran Contra Hearings.

I was going to write a post critizing the Russian government's ability to mug, steal, kill and rob at will.

But really, Russia is no worse than the USA, thanks to global hegemony induced TRIPS.

Of course, global warming is disputed science. That's why the Pentagon prepared a special report on dealing militarily with the changed climate. It's also why the world's second largest insurer Swiss Re commissioned a special task force to prepare for the impending financial catastrophe in the insurance industry.

This is not about people who understand science. It's about people who don't understand science and/or choose to ignore science for profit.

Do you think some scientist somewhere looks at a chart and says, "Oh, looks like the temperature line goes up?" Global warming is about time-based observation and scientific inference based on proven mathematics and statistical analysis. Because observations took place over years and in many different parts of the planet, we can say "with a high degree of confidence" that global warming is real. And, "high degree of confidence" is an understatement here. The regression tests, error bars, fitments of the vast majority of data on global warming is way within challenge by anyone with any scientific integrity. Read the papers by NASA scientists, climatologists, geophysicists. I would even go as far as to say the data on global warming is more solid than early data on almost any other major scientific advancement of the past 100 years -- nuclear, electronic, etc.

Science experiments don't require many different Earth's to verify this because science isn't about volume. It's about, well, science and knowing how to break down problems, and analyze measurements for precision and accuracy.

The experiments that break down the atmosphere verifying that increased heat capacity correlates to increased CO2 are done in high school science labs. It is *very disappointing* to see anyone posting here about science education without basically understanding what they were supposed to pick up from educators in the first place!

I could say something about the pleasures of breeding being replaced with the pleasures of digital manipulation but it turns out that, apparently, there is evolution.

Not only the USA, but also Switzerland and the Netherlands. It's quite common, though infuriating for the people who have to watch.

You pay too much in taxes, regulations, tariffs and other regulatory costs in the UK, so more people are poor. That's a fact that we don't see charts for.

I'll admit that I haven't conducted a thorough survey, but a quick google for "poverty statistics uk us" would suggest otherwise...

You do the crime, you accept the consequences.

Point me to anyone who thinks that fingerprinting convicted criminals is wrong.

Point me to anyone who thinks fingerprinting anyone charged with a crime is wrong, as long as those records are destroyed when they're acquitted.

However, the police (certainly here in the UK) are now fingerprinting and DNA-sampling innocent people who aren't even suspected of a crime, then retaining those fingerprints and samples "just in case they ever do something". That's a violation of privacy, a violation of the assumption of innocence, a violation of data protection legislation and ethically fucking wrong by any measure.

Again, these aren't people suspected of a crime - some of these samples are from widely-publicised rapes and murders in small towns, where the entire population volunteers to be tested to be eliminated from the enquiry and help to catch the perpetrator... on the understanding these samples would be destroyed when they were shown to be innocent. Guess what - they were, the samples weren't, the Police refused to honour their obligations and the Home Office backed the Police.

What was your point again?

Animated cartoon character? Nonsense. What about somebody like Emily du Chatalet ( http://www.politics.guardian.co.uk/women/story/0,, 1774981,00.html , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89milie_du_Ch%C3% A2telet), a forgotten great mind that had more fun than Paris Hilton :)

Since Mr. Bush hasn't made his mind up on evolution, why should I have to?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,130 26,933055,00.html

That group of people that think dinosaurs coexisted with humans probably corresponds to the 27% of fundy nutjobs who would vote for Bush even if he ate a Jew baby.

I'm quite sure that most of these bastards had/have a religion, so while I agree with your point that religion has been used and abused to murder in its name, that does not mean that the opposite of religion (atheism) is the true cause, nor does the above rant gives any argument why and how atheism leads to mass murder.

Communism in most countries has been militantly atheistic, engaging in harsh suppression of religion and programs for the spread of militant atheism. The Soviets even established an All-Union League of the Godless and museums of atheism in former churches. (North Korea still executes Christians.) At the same time, Communism was responsible for killing about 100,000,000 people in the last century. There were even incidents of cannibalism in the People's Republic of China to prove your loyalty to the party, literally eating the rich. The brutality of communism was one that repeated itself from country to country to country. Stalin outdid Hitler in body count, and Mao dwarfed Stalin. As a percentage of his country, Pol Pot outdid Mao. The vile regime of North Korea is still engaged in horror after horror after horror.

How is that that Communism, allegedly founded on a scientific basis, stressing rationality and scientific though, with principles regarded as altruistic (from each according to his ability to each according to his need), repeatedly produced such carnage and such leaders? Do you think it is possible that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of man at work there?

The worlds first creationist museum is built in the US.

If a cop's got one of these on and he does something out of line, you can just look at the tape, whereas otherwise it might just be your word against his.

The key to a "Panoptic" society is that you can be watched at any time, but not always all the time, and you don't know at any given moment whether you're being watched or not. Thus you turn everyone into paranoid little crazies, easily controlled and turned against one another.

As for just looking at the tape, consider the Brazilian guy the British police shot a while back. Police say he was running and leaping turnstiles, witnesses say he wasn't running and he even stopped to pay his fare. But hey, there's closed-circuit cameras everywhere. Let's go to the tapes.... oh wait, looks like all the cameras were turned off that day! Wow! what a coincidence! (the "non-existent" tapes later turned up)