Slashdot Mirror

It flew to Athens, over Athens, past Athens, turned toward the sea and entered a holding pattern for an hour, then ran out of gas.

The fire was a brush fire ignited by the crash. Planes and their contents are surprisingly flammable, even without excess fuel.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280 ,-5219231,00.html

A nice, insightful parent post and you spin it back into a tedious little morality play. I knew it was too good to last.

Regarding porn, I remind you that there is more than one American and if one person loves Jesus while another stars in jizz flicks, this does not meet any definition of hypocrisy.

Saving Private Ryan was on TV, so it's difficult to sustain your argument that you can't show it on TV. Further, despite concerns from some stations, the FCC issued a preemptive ruling stating that there would be no fines for showing the movie uncut.

As for Janet Jackson, even the Ameriphobic Guardian cited a poll in which on 17% of Americans were "very concerned" about the Jackson incident -- the same percentage of people who voted for Le Pen in France. Neither is a sign of the impending apocalypse.

Here is an interesting article rebutting the expanding glaciers claim.

It's worth noting that the Guardian Unlimited is traditionally left-of-center in its reporting and editorials. They've been reporting on the effects of climate change for quite some time. Some articles, including this, are genuinely interesting and thought-provoking while others, like the one we are commenting on here, deserve only a passing notice.

The kind of bet described, hot or cold in 15 years, is no more than the toss of a coin. The Guardian probably published it to continue stirring the debate on climate change.

The Pentagon report referred to above is available here. Hope their server doesn't overheat. It's conclusions are chilling (no pun intended) and no doubt caught the U.S. Administration's attention. It also gives good insight into how the developed nations actually view climate change. As a national-security issue. It's worth a read.

If all the young people in America were to act as you intend to act, the country would be defenseless and easily delivered into slavery.

I didn't write that I was an absolute pacifist but that I have always been a convinced pacifist. That means there are circumstances in which in my opinion it is necessary to use force.

Here's a link to the Acclaim advertising story for those hopelessly out of the loop.

Anyway, this idea seems sooo 20th century. Who wants their memoirs running on a physical device tied to a single location. I want people to be able to see me from anywhere in the world - e.g. the internet. I think a better service would be web cemeteries that guarantee a web presence for some particular length of time. *Then* the advertisers can get in loop. The family could even get kickbacks on the ad revenue from the site. Of course, there are some sites already doing this in a non-commercial way like Cemetery.org.

That part happened FIRST

Questions taken from the Slashdot story: Is your boss a Psychopath?

How do you rate George W. Bush and Dick Cheney? -- Questions for Questions:

Q: When he harms other people, does he feel a lack of remorse or guilt? A: Does killing people qualify as harming them?

Q: Does he lie habitually even though he can easily be found out? A: Does lying to start a war qualify as lying? A2: Does pretending that you have reduced the violence in another country, rather than increased it, qualify as lying?

Q: When he's exposed, does he still act unconcerned because he thinks he can weasel out of it? A: Does saying it's all fine qualify as being unconcerned?

Q: Is he concerned about himself rather than the wreckage he inflicts on others or society at large? A: Does worrying only about election results qualify as being concerned only about oneself?

Q: Does he use his skill at lying to cheat or manipulate other people in his quest for money? A: When both Bush and Cheney have a long history of oil and weapons investments among family and friends, does starting a war in the world's second most oil-rich country qualify as a quest for money?

Q: Does he cruelly mock others? A: Does George W. Bush calling his deputy chief of staff, Karl Rove, "turd blossom" qualify as cruelly mocking him? A2: Does giving people disrespectful nicknames qualify as mocking them?

Q: Is he callous and lacking in empathy? A: Does taking habitual risks with the lives of other people while driving qualify as lacking in empathy? A2: George W. Bush DUI, 1st record of arrest A3: George W. Bush DUI, 2nd record of arrest George W. Bush was arrested 2 other times in his life, also, for stunts that were not something a sober person would find interesting. A4: Dick Cheney DUI, record of 1st arrest A5: Dick Cheney DUI, record of 2nd arrest

--
If your government chooses killing as policy, expect others to choose the same.

Rory Carroll in Rome
Thursday November 11, 1999

Guardian

Olinto De Pretto, an industrialist from Vicenza, published the equation E=mc2 in a scientific magazine, Atte, in 1903, said Umberto Bartocci, a mathematical historian.

Einstein allegedly used De Pretto's insight in a major paper published in 1905, but De Pretto was never acclaimed, said Professor Bartocci of the University of Perugia.

De Pretto had stumbled on the equation, but not the theory of relativity, while speculating about ether in the life of the universe, said Prof Bartocci. It was republished in 1904 by Veneto's Royal Science Institute, but the equation's significance was not understood.

A Swiss Italian named Michele Besso alerted Einstein to the research and in 1905 Einstein published his own work, said Prof Bartocci. It took years for his breakthrough to be grasped. When the penny finally dropped, De Pretto's contribution was overlooked while Einstein went on to become the century's most famous scientist. De Pretto died in 1921.

"De Pretto did not discover relativity but there is no doubt that he was the first to use the equation. That is hugely significant. I also believe, though it's impossible to prove, that Einstein used De Pretto's research," said Prof Bartocci, who has written a book on the subject....

Global warming does NOT preclude winter.
Global warming can cause greater extremes in weather, i.e hotter summers, colder winters.

There is also some thought that warmer temps may cause an ice age.
So climate difference, among other issues, is definitely a concern.

This type of thing, life imitating art, happened first with Television. Idiots would watch violence on TV and then go repeat it in their real lives. Those who didn't commit actual violence nonetheless became desensitized to it; so when it happens in their own neighborhood, the sense of moral outrage is already long gone.

Some people pointed out how violence on TV is poisoning our society; while others disputed it. In the end, people simply believed what they wanted to believe, and the televised and real violence both continued to increase.

This was all repeated a few years ago inside the social microcosm of Bhutan, when this virginal nation got its first widespread exposure to television.

The results were swift and catastrophic...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,975 769,00.html

Yet incredibly, there are those who would still dispute the cause & effect nature of the introduction of TV and the nearly immediate erosion of national morals which followed.

What we're seeing now with computer games is really the next phase; where the violence becomes interactive. The user is not just an observer, but an active participant in the violence, which has also become more gratuitous and graphic.

Of COURSE this will have social consequences. How could anyone be so blind as to presume otherwise?

But don't get me wrong; I know there are plenty of people, indeed the vast majority, who can successfully make the mental seperation between the violent online fantasies and the real world. I'm not saying we should ban violent video games. I don't know what the cure for this problem is.

All I know is that it might help if we can just be aware of what is going on. Notice how we use the media and what we want from it. What we'll find is that the media become like mirrors of our collective selves. A little self-awareness can be contagious, and it could even change the media, or even our selves over time. This would be a good thing.

It's a slightly different situation in the UK than in the USA. All films must get a classification from the BBFC while games tend to get a rating by the voluntary PEGI (or the older ELSPA). However certain games must also be submitted to the BBFC (e.g. GTA:SA has a BBFC 18 rating). On videos (and I believe also on games) these ratings are legally binding. For films shown at the cinema on the other hand, it's up to the local authority, however these nearly always use the BBFC rating (spiderman was one exception). The voluntary systems aren't legally binding and both Game and Amazon describe them as guidelines and don't give the impression that they enforce them.

On the subject of the R18 rating, this is used almost exclusively for hardcore porn and can only be sold in specially licenced shops (of which there are apparently about 90 in the UK)

I've heard that one of the reasons that the Russians didn't sign the Kyoto Agreement was because they are tired of the cold and *want* a warmer country.

Might be reasonable except they have signed http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A294 59-2004Nov5.html.

I'm at a loss to know how to deal with the "Ohhh, I could do with a little global warming down my way" arguement. If anyone out in cyberweb-land has modeled rapid change in average temp and found it to be kinda nifty, then please share. The only analysis I've seen falls in line with what DARPA apparently reckon's, i.e. its gonna be a bumpy nasty ride with the big kids doing unpleasant things to the little kids...http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858 ,4864237-102275,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/story/0,3605,1546 148,00.html

We're kinda feeling left behind too. Right now, Sweden looks not very far away and very attractive...

The WMDs, which clearly did exist (we even have records he used them) don't need airholes, and are easier to hide harder to find

1) Pro-war hawk, Bush appointee, former devout WMD believer, and head of the WMD search David Kay acknowleges that no such weapons existed at the time of the invasion. The search teams are no longer operating.

2) The inspections teams were on the same track; the IAEA was reportedly close to declaring Iraq nuclear-free, while UNMOVIC was working on verifying chemical weapon destruction quantities based on the amount of residual chemicals in the destruction zones. The residuals were evident, but the quantity of source material was unknown. Both have now stated that they believe, just like Kay, that there were not WMDs in Iraq. In short, every inspection team sent to Iraq has reached that same conclusion.

3) The highest profile Iraqi defector in history, Hussein Kamel (Saddam's son-in-law), in addition to giving a bunch of humiliating information on Iraq that he later got assassinated for (exposing Iraq's biological warfare program and leading them to the information, pointing out that UNSCOM's head's personal translator was a double agent, etc), informed the teams that Iraq *had* destroyed its chemical and biological agents in order to try and get the embargo lifted and limit inspection team knowlege of how much their scientists knew.

Saddam's refusal to cooperate with inspections

The IAEA and UNMOVIC heads themselves described good cooperation from the Iraqi government. Blix - the more harsh of the two organization heads - stated that "Iraq wwas guilty of only small infractions". Most of the Iraqi complaints were of the US spying to gather information for war, which turned out to be true. And lets not forget the peace initiatives.

active promotion of terrorism

The closest thing Iraq did to active promotion of terrorism was giving money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers to compensate for Israel's policy of destroying the families' homes. Of course, Saudi Arabia did the exact same thing. Beyond that, there was very, very little that could be construed as supporting terrorism (a lot of misinformation went around on this subject: read up on Ansar al-Islam (more), Ramzi Yousef (mirror), Abu Nidal, and Salman Pak).

Now, if you want countries with clear, major ties to funding terrorists, you need to look at Iran and the United States.

Illegal attacks on peacekeepers

Oh, this is just rich. The No-Fly Zones were not UN-accepted; the French, Russians, and Chinese considered the joint US-British "No Fly" enforcement to be both illegal and counterproductive violation of Iraq's airspace. Then, before war began, we began bombing essentially at will to try and goad Iraq into attacking the US. The reason we were able to start the war with a ground assault was that our air assault began long before the war started.

Al-Quaida stands for "The Base." It was a database of terrorist organizations, maintained by Bin Laden.

Do read this excellent review in the Grauniad.

It can also be translated as 'Foundation':

http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,7 79530,00.html

I guess I really am the twit that you seem to think that I am

Here's my reference, or do you want to mount another baseless attack on me.

Let me be the first to say that we already have a system in place that solves this exact problem. Its called the MedicAlert System (commonly found in a metal bracelet).

My wife, a diabetic and celiac, wears one, and it works perfectly for identifying and retrieving the medical records of the patient in seconds. No need for an invasive, implantable chip, and the best part... you can take it off if you don't want to wear it (such as when attending rallies where carrying identification can be a problem).

Why should we enforce people who are not sick or those who do not have a "rough" medical history, to have a chip implanted in them?

I'll be the first in line to be gouging this out of my arm with a very sharp scalpel or other object. Sorry, I prefer my 4th Amendment Rights to remain true:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No thank you, you can't have my encryption keys (and yes, I would rather die before giving up those keys, even if they simply secured my cornbread recipe), and you most-certainly can NOT have my medical history, without my direct consent or approval, even in life-or-death situations.

I tend to think the same, but it's useful to create at least one alternative view of history

- US succeeds in creating atomic bomb

- US uses it at the first chance it gets.

- Other countries see the carnage, and in one voice yell "how much for one of those?"

- USSR has atomic bomb by 1949

- US has H-bomb by 1952

- USSR has H-bomb by 1953.

- 1962 US and USSR destroy each other and allies in nuclear war.

17 years, not bad for speed. In reality of course, they got very lucky and survived without a scratch.

I don't think too many high up people got scared when they learned about Hiroshima. It was not tolerated.
Real men aren't scared to use them "taboo weapons".
And if they see that you're not a real man, you're not going to have a career.

Let's try look for other reasons.

- It was a very crude and indiscriminate weapon, you had to take out a whole city in order to hit a tank.
That's a wasteful approach , and hard to defend. Mass carnage is much less acceptable now than it used to be.

- Nukes escalate easily to bigger weapons in retaliation.

- And it's got a plain bad reputation, which interferes with having the moral highground.

Well, as ideas go, it's not a bad start.

Right now , we have two things: proliferation increasing the chance of nuclear conflict, and the new generation of "manageable nukes", which could be used by the US against for example Iran or Syria.

A letter written by Osama bin Laden: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,1 1581,845725,00.html

"(2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.
(a) We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest."

"iv) You are a nation that permits acts of immorality, and you consider them to be pillars of personal freedom."

via the guardian newspaper A bright green flash No one should again suffer as we did 60 years ago in Hiroshima Keiko Lane Saturday August 6, 2005 The Guardian On the morning of August 6 1945 I was sitting in my garden beside an ornamental pond and singing as I cleaned my brother's shoes. I was seven. My mother was in the kitchen and my 14-year-old brother had already left for work. Suddenly there was a bright green flash on the other side of the house, and with a mighty roar the house collapsed, leaving me buried deep under smashed wood and panelling. My mother was thrown the length of the house and also buried. Luckily she freed herself and searched desperately for me. Article continues She was very slender and less than 5ft tall, yet she found a superhuman strength to move heavy timbers, already starting to burn, and other debris until she found me. I was pulled from the wreckage and my injuries were roughly dressed with bandages torn from her clothes. Next door a young woman was trapped. My mother found it impossible to move the burning wood and, finding no one alive or uninjured nearby to help, she picked me up and ran up the street, leaving the woman still trapped. All that day my mother carried me through the destroyed and burning city, stepping over or around the dead and dying as she made her way to the outskirts of Hiroshima, where she hoped medical help could be found. As I was being carried I saw many charred bodies lying in the streets, including several mothers who had instinctively tried to shelter their children with their bodies but had died, leaving their children still alive, many with terrible burns. In the evening we found an emergency dressing station set up at a still-smouldering elementary school. My mother had carried me more than six miles. I was examined by a doctor, who suspected that I was dying from internal injuries and told my mother to give me nothing to drink in spite of my desperate need for water. Finally, a nearby injured old lady reasoned that if I was dying then a drink of water would do me no harm. Next day a large pit was dug in the playground by some old soldiers and they began to incinerate the dead, of which there were many stacked up against the walls. All day the playground filled with the injured, and as some of them died they were thrown on the fire. In particular I remember a boy of about 12 who was terribly burnt and blind. He kept asking for his mother and as he became more delirious he asked repeatedly for her to cook him some tempura, which apparently was his favourite food. Finally, he also died and was put on the fire. No one knows exactly how many died in Hiroshima, but it is estimated at more than 200,000, of which many were refugee women and children. Those near ground zero were instantly vaporised, leaving behind only a shadow on the ground or wall. Maybe they were the lucky ones, because many of the survivors died in agony from terrible burns. Some took a long time to die. My mother suffered the effects of radiation for many years. I was in and out of hospitals with leukaemia until my mid-20s, and because of the possibility of having deformed babies I decided not to marry until much later in life. My brother had been affected by radiation and was unable to have children. My aunt, who had a silk dressing gown welded to her body and her fingers joined together like ducks' feet, took three years to die. Recently I retraced my journey through Hiroshima with my husband and revisited the school where I received treatment on that dreadful day. It was a moment of mixed emotions, but I did feel strongly that this horror must never be allowed to happen again. The only certain way to ensure this is to destroy all nuclear weapons and ban the making of any more.

There's little doubt that the conservatives are at war with science. From evolution to stem cell research to global warming, they're so radical that the Pentagon is to the LEFT of them on these issues. Remarkable!

And, you may find it dubious to say that the Pentagon supports evolutionary theory, but believe me, they do. Just search for all of the DARPA funded projects that use genetic algorithms and genetic programming.

And then, of course, there's global warming.

The Pentagon is absolutely correct that our national security is at risk due to our lowering quality science education. That, combined with folks on the conservative side prefering to question science rather than study it, could destroy our ability to develop new technologies. It's like the religious fundies are taking the hippie route: science isn't cool, man! It oppresses us! Don't do it, man!

Whoda thunk it? Right wing conservative christian hippies! :)

THINK!

Please, at least TRY to think.

Just because an agent hasn't been operating abroad in the past couple of years doesn't mean she can be unmasked without causing harm and risking lives. Say Plame had been operating in a hostile country at some point in her CIA career, and was getting information from or working with an individual in that state who was sympathetic to US interests. That individual may still be in that country, and now that Plame has been revealed as an agent, that individual's life will be in danger. Plus, any foreigners that individual is currently in contact with will automatically come under suspicion for espionage. Just because you lack the imagination to see the ramifications of this stupid and short sighted act does not mean that the intelligence agencies of every country Plame has visited are similarly purblind!

Even if this situation is not specifically existing in relation to Plame (and you or I have no way of knowing without further law breaking by amoral politicos), any individual considering making cooperative approaches to US agents will have serious cause to reconsider such actions in light of the Plame unmasking. If Plame has been revealed for shallow and partisan political ends, any other CIA operative might suffer the same fate. And if you're one of that agent's contacts, well in any language I think we know what creek you'll find yourself up and paddle-less.

The Christopher Hitchens articles you link to are sweet, and all, but it would give your assertions a little more weight if you didn't have to rely on two articles from the same, very biased (and somewhat fickle), commentator.

amazing how things change once it's not headline news

http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0%2 C16132%2C1537613%2C00.html

If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--forever." -George Orwell.

Interesting, out of date but not too far-off topic link at The Guardian

China is buying Treasury stock in very large amounts and "owning" your government

In soaking up dollops of US debt, China helps the Federal Reserve to keep American interest rates low, sustaining high levels of American consumer spending. Yet, members of Congress are not up in arms about this form of dependence.

Disclaimer: I am not a creationist.

I do, however have the following problems with evolution, none of which have been properly explained to do this day. I base my decisions on nothing but logic, and logic would dictate that evolutionists have taken natural selection as a theory and blown it into some religion on the theory of life.

Here they are:
1) Chance over probability. This is probably the weakest argument (because we *could* be the 1 in septendecillion instance), but it is a significant one, because many of the same individuals that believe we evolved from single-cell organisms also believe in extraterrestrial life within our own galaxy. You'd think these individuals would actually be ID proponents.

2) Second law of thermodynamics. While another somewhat weak argument in the eyes of many evolution proponents, the significance of a mutation actually increasing the intellectual properties of of an organism would be a major scientific find of unbelievable proportions and would indicate that our analysis of closed systems needs to be rethought. Specifically, I'm talking about DNA and the "information argument". Species don't just get smarter, yet it is clear that we are more intelligent than dogs, for instance. The hard part is determining *why*.

3) Fossilized records. This is one of the more common arguments so I won't focus on it, but where are the fossils of these transitory species? It is believed that many species of frogs and other amphibians which are more likely to experience natural selection have been undergoing this on a regular basis, yet no evidence has been found of such.

4) Dating methods. Another small but significant argument. Rocks that have formed within just the last century are often mis-dated as being formed billions of years previous. There are many documented accounts of this which get poo-pooed by evolutionists.

5) Spontaneous generation. It's never been proven. This is the work of 1400s urban legends about maggots forming when a cow's tail hits water, to see esteemed scientists falling to this level is nothing short of a tragedy.

6) Micro-evolution is observable and falsifiable. Macro-evolution is not falsifiable. If something is not falsiable, like creation for instance, it's considered part of a belief system or religion.

7) Evolution of the eye. We have no indication of how or why the eye evolved. Likewise, we have no indication of why there are creatures that have existed for 50 million years, like bats, and have been blind for the entire period.

8) Evolution of the vertebrae. IMHO, this may be the strongest argument against evolution. We have absolutely no idea why or how the vertebrae came into existance.

A Guardian article interviewing McKinnon with much of the same information in the audio interview. The most interesting part of his XYZ conspiracy "evidence" that McKinnon describes is the "non-terrestrial officers" mentioning he found in US military documents. He seems to believe that a complete U.S. space army already exists, with those involved based in military orbiting stations.

UK Police: Man Killed Unrelated to Probe

Im just saying.

Submitted here:

Re: http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/news/0,12597,1532 890,00.html

This article is, without a doubt, the stupidest thing that has ever been published on the Internet, ever. Did anyone there notice that the Beethoven MP3s were FREE but the iTunes songs cost US$0.99each, you have to have iTunes (a multi-MB download itself) to get them, you have to have a credit card and sign up with Apple to get them, the iTMS service is only available in a handful of countries, *and* they have playback restrictions?

Compare that to the Beethoven MP3s which were freely available to anyone on the planet with Internet access, will play on any personal computer made in the last 5 years and countless other devices, and require nothing more than visiting a website and clicking a link. Perhaps, just perhaps, there were more forces at work here than just popularity. Just a thought.

Submitted here:

Re: http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/news/0,12597,1532 890,00.html

This article is, without a doubt, the stupidest thing that has ever been published on the Internet, ever. Did anyone there notice that the Beethoven MP3s were FREE but the iTunes songs cost US$0.99each, you have to have iTunes (a multi-MB download itself) to get them, you have to have a credit card and sign up with Apple to get them, the iTMS service is only available in a handful of countries, *and* they have playback restrictions?

Compare that to the Beethoven MP3s which were freely available to anyone on the planet with Internet access, will play on any personal computer made in the last 5 years and countless other devices, and require nothing more than visiting a website and clicking a link. Perhaps, just perhaps, there were more forces at work here than just popularity. Just a thought.

Mod parent down, "-1 liberal liar". That goes for 90% of the posts on this topic.

"After measured deliberation and a public debate, the House has again provided the brave men and women of law enforcement with critical tools in their efforts to combat terrorism and protect the American people"

SOURCE: http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280 ,-5158572,00.html

Care to post your source? As if you had one.

What am I doing? Voting. I voted for the people that vowed to get us the hell out of Iraq, and didn't support the war before it started. I voted for the people who believe in level-headed negotiations to resolve differences. For the people who would be honest with me. It's really the only thing I can do, considering that I have to support my wife and child, and I don't want to die at the hands of some insurgent's blade.

We attacked Iraq pre-emptively, which China has now taken to heart and vowed to do if we clash with them over Taiwan. They've vowed to "nuke hundreds of American cities, pre-emptively if they feel it necessary", according to Zhu Chenghu, a high ranking general in the Chinese army. They are not stupid, they know that the rest of the world now sees America as a violent, bullying nation, and they know that if they nuked us they'd be no less in the wrong than we are now. This is Bush's fault, pure and simple. And if you haven't been paying attention, Bush is a brutal, murdering, torturing president, who is suppressing/oppressing American civilians. The only difference from a dictator is that he'll be replaced by another brutal, murdering, torturing president, who will be suppressing/oppressing American civilians in 2008. 51% of the American people have spoken, and they value oppression of gays and the killing of foreign citizens over level headed negotiations and honesty.

Fortunately for my soul, I am part of the 49% minority who believe that we should be better than this.

Actually, The Guardian (a UK newspaper on the left) reports the same statistic of 25,000 civilians but says that the coalition forces are only responsible for 37% of those deaths. The rest are from criminals, insurgents, and other problems. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,153215 7,00.html

Exploring the Apollo Landing Sites

It has been heard: Space mission to photograph Apollo landing sites

Offtopic or not, here I go! :-)

The problem is that large amount of Americans don't care about the innocent civillians that get killed by all their wars, as long as they are not American.

*thwack* Right on the nail's head. Very well said. Send 1700 soldiers back from Iraq in body bags and Americans get all bent out of shape - the government knows this and quietly supressed the display of all of the flag draped coffins from mass media (and they say the media is "free" here... what a crock). But put 25,000 Iraqis in their graves and Americans sit in their lazy boy's and go "*tsk tsk*, what a shame" quickly followed by "What's on TV tonight, honey?"

What really gets me is that in a few years some other super power (likely China) will nuke the shit out of America and Americans will look all indignant and wonder "why?".

All they have to do is look at what we're doing right now to know exactly why. But hey, if it's not on American Idiot^H^H^Hol, most Americans don't know that it's even happening... and that's the way the current administration likes it.

In the UK there is a software system called Mosaic which collates various sources of demographic information and allows you then to find out what kinds of people live at a particular address.

This is used by marketing departments and political parties to target their attention at those most likely to be responsive, e.g. the uneducated and poor (http://money.guardian.co.uk/creditanddebt/creditc ards/story/0,1456,1529921,00.html) or swing voters (http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/story/0,3605,142 8612,00.html)

(Positive uses of such systems, if there are any, don't seem to get any media attention.)

According to the PDF downloadable from this page it is available in Sweden also:

http://www.appliedgeographic.com/mosaic.html

The principles involved could inform the system you are building.

In the UK there is a software system called Mosaic which collates various sources of demographic information and allows you then to find out what kinds of people live at a particular address.

This is used by marketing departments and political parties to target their attention at those most likely to be responsive, e.g. the uneducated and poor (http://money.guardian.co.uk/creditanddebt/creditc ards/story/0,1456,1529921,00.html) or swing voters (http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/story/0,3605,142 8612,00.html)

(Positive uses of such systems, if there are any, don't seem to get any media attention.)

According to the PDF downloadable from this page it is available in Sweden also:

http://www.appliedgeographic.com/mosaic.html

The principles involved could inform the system you are building.

Sorry to be pedantic about your sig, but I think you meant to write "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?".

Or maybe you meant "Quis custodiet ipso Custod?", meaning "Who proofreads the Guardian?"

:)

Although we should not sacrifice American lives to defend the morally bankrupt Taiwanese, we should keep in mind the lengths to which the Chinese would be willing to wage war against us Americans.

The problem is something like "WEFTA" already exists - it's called the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=GATT&btnG =Search [google.com] There are several problems with GATT. The first and most odious is the "Most Favored Nation" chunk of the agreement. These clauses mean that all nations must conform to the bottom - the country with the worst regulations is the benchmark, and any more stringent regulation is a "barrier to trade" and can be overriden in the WTO special GATT courts. Anyone remember the steel tarrifs http://www.guardian.co.uk/theissues/article/0,6512 ,1101023,00.html [guardian.com] a few months ago? Same deal. GATT is the primary driver of outsourcing and most WTO protests stem directly from issues with GATT. Ratt-a-tatt-tatt, get capped by the GATT.

Norton-Taylor said, "I went to the internet and searched through Google and I pressed a couple of words in. I typed in the search engine something like 'Britain' plus 'Unscom' plus maybe one other word. About the first or second item on that list that came up on Google was a lecture David Kelly had given, I think in America, and it said that he was a former British Unscom inspector."

Norton-Taylor said, "I went to the internet and searched through Google and I pressed a couple of words in. I typed in the search engine something like 'Britain' plus 'Unscom' plus maybe one other word. About the first or second item on that list that came up on Google was a lecture David Kelly had given, I think in America, and it said that he was a former British Unscom inspector."

A man with a bomb in a backpack and a train ticket. Or, if you like, a nuke in a crate marked "Washington D.C.".

You know, just because putting a bomb in a backpack or a nuke in a crate makes your scenarios *sound* low-tech doesn't actually make them low-tech.

I spent some time searching for the article unsuccessfully, but the Guardian reported two days ago that the bombs used in London were quite complicated and obviously the work of someone who knew what they were doing.

And to get a nuke in a crate to blow up, you still have to have the technical knowledge to make it blow up. I'm sure that wouldn't be a problem for you, but the rest of us might not be up to the task.

I think you need a different definition of high tech, one that involves the *technology* behind an attack and not the *method* of deploying the technology. Chances are that anyone who knows how to take plutonium or uranium and make it blow up out of a crate is also going to be capable of using "high-tech" methods of planning an attack. Like say, using wifi to coordinate a bombing in mid-air.

I can imagine the following scenario: detonation device for bomb is attached to wifi-enabled laptop. The laptop is logged into remotely using VNC, the detonator is triggered by terrorist sitting working from a free municipal wireless hotspot, and blam 400 people are dead.

I disagree, high tech is by nature inflexible and brittle. It requires a certain infrastructure to work.

Then again, you sound like you work for Micro$oft'$ PR Department, so I'll stop wasting my breath.

Well there's that Guardian story about the transportation company suing 10 cleaning women for carpooling instead of using their overpriced and horrible service.

Can I then be sued by Toyota because I chose to buy a Ford car instead?

Quite possibly, since a bus company is suing people who carpool.

I dunno, this lawsuit has to come pretty close...

The french... a bus company is suing some commuters for car. pooling.

The world is badly, badly b0rken.
err!
jak.
Making food for useful people since 1972.

A French bus company sues cleaning ladies who carpool.

Guardian article here.

What is up with Europe these days? We were glad when they rejected software patents, but these sorts of legal actions? They make the US look like a country where nobody ever sues anyone without reason ever....