Slashdot Mirror

Six billion cell phone subscriptions
22,910 new brain tumor cases in USA in 2012 out of 300M people or 0.008% of the population.

So practically everybody on the planet old enough to use one has a cellphone, but practically nobody on the planet gets a brain tumor.

but I'd never be able to find that out until getting the job and being there for a while

For that reason companies, starting at some size, all look the same. The cubicles are the same, the culture is the same... If you work in a garage alongside Jim, Bob and Dave, you can tell jokes of all kinds, from political to non-gender-neutral, and use any language you like amongst yourselves. But allowing that in a larger company is unthinkable. What if someone gets offended and sues for one billion trillion dollars? That happens. You can trust Bob because you know him and you are friends; but you cannot trust a random person even if s/he works for the same company as you do. This is triply so if big money is involved. Remember Herman Cain? His accuser got a bunch of money just to shut up and go away:

In October 2011, Politico reported that two female employees had complained about inappropriate behavior by Cain during his tenure at the National Restaurant Association. The women reportedly accepted financial settlements from the association which barred them from discussing their allegations further.

This is exactly what we are talking about here. Perhaps Cain made a joke, but that joke fell on gold digger's ears. Culture of openness and friendship collided with the culture of greed. You can't reconcile those; and the common denominator is your familiar featureless cubicles and the bland corporate-speak and corporate-think, all designed to not give anyone an excuse for a lawsuit.

And that is also the difference between a 3-person company and a 300-person department. A fourth man in a 3-person company would become a family member for all practical purposes. A 301'st man would be just another speck of dust on the vast landscape of a large company.

But returning to the problem at hand, applicants that are about to be hired are often given a tour of the facility, so that they can have a look at the culture of the company and decide for themselves if they are a good fit or not. Applicants are also expected to talk about that and ask about the company's culture. It is very important because an angry loner with violent tendencies may not fit well in a 10-man team where everyone is happy and is singing and talking. I, for example, wouldn't want to work at a company where formal clothes are required. I also wouldn't want to join company picnics, or gatherings at eateries. I can easily work with people who love these things - as long as I'm not expected to be there.

Seems it aint so easy to do the same in the YouEssay -- at least not with an actual officer: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/melissa-walthall-texas-undercover-cop-facebook-arrest_n_1970479.html

The difference being those are actually undercover cops, not just unmarked cars (which the story is actually about), which usually contain uniformed police and are not terribly hard to identify (except in the dark).

Seems it aint so easy to do the same in the YouEssay -- at least not with an actual officer: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/melissa-walthall-texas-undercover-cop-facebook-arrest_n_1970479.html
So far, two people have been caged for that.

So you're saying you will vote Republican even though you prefer Libertarian?

In my previous posts, I've described what I believe to be the rational answer to the question posed by this election: voting for Romney in the swing states (ex. states where the last polling spread is under ~5 percentage points), and for Gary Johnson elsewhere.

Whether I actually vote or not is insignificant. (Attn people interested in in-person voter fraud, tee hee.) In the last big election I've donated and cyber-campaigned for Ron Paul (and then got myself ostracized by many libertarian idealists for "unprincipled" Bob Barr apologetics), but I didn't actually vote in November...

No wonder you fools never get what you want. Guess who has been better at playing those "game theory" games? Sure ain't the voters.

The name of my game is to write polemics all across the four corners of the Internet, then scrape `em, tag `em, archive `em, and then someday show them to my android grandchildren on a space-station in orbit of Jupiter, when they'll ask why I chose to forsake and abandon humanity to its peril... ;)

--libman

To meet the spy criteria, do you think MI6 would take Sir Richard Branson? He's going to Mars - using his own money.

If by "the people" you mean people in favor of slavery, then some Republicans have you covered:

State Rep. Loy Mauch (R-Bismarck)
In two letters, Mauch wrote about the Bible and slavery. The Arkansas Times quotes from a letter Mauch wrote in 2009:

"If slavery were so God-awful, why didn’t Jesus or Paul condemn it, why was it in the Constitution and why wasn’t there a war before 1861?"

State Rep. Jon Hubbard (R-Jonesboro)

“But I think the end result -- that they [African-Americans] did get to live in America, although the means for getting here were terrible -- I think the end result was better than it would have been if they had to live in Africa themselves.”

Tip of the hat to Keef of the K-Chronicles ( http://www.kchronicles.com/ ) for these and to the http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ for the quotations and background.

teach that their prophet cannot be "injured" by the actions of non-Muslims.

I don't think that is the issue. The point is that Mohammed had people killed for mocking him, and you are supposed to live your life like the prophet. This is not some weird viewpoint, it is a central viewpoint in Islam.

Some western Muslims have decided to ignore that, as most Jews and Christians have made it past executing witches ("You should not let a sorceress live." , Exodus 22:17).

However our "ally" Saudi Arabia still executes witches and sorcerers.

I thought the factual (as opposed to most likely) story was:

1) Al Qaeda planned attacks for 9-11.
2) The videos had absolutely nothing to do with them.
3) The Obama administration used the video as an excuse to cover up their security/intelligence failures.

State Department: Libya Consulate Attack Not Preceded By Protest

There may have been other unrelated protests elsewhere, some maybe even about the stupid video, but that's not what these articles are referencing.

They were not Al Qaeda. The group that attacked the embassy was known as Ansar al-Shariah, a fundamentalist group that had been active in fighting Gadahfi's regime, and had been (until the US embassy attack) manning checkpoints and stations around Benghazi. They may have tried to ally themselves with Al Qaida through this stunt, but were not in any way, shape, or form Al Qaeda.

And it is important to note that, after the attack, 10's of thousands of Libyans took to the streets in protest, both in Benghazi as well as other major cities, to end the reign of militias and bring back police and local government. These protests have sacked militia headquarters, burned militia vehicles, and resulted in the denouncement by tribal leaders of militia -- meaning if militia members are killed in the line of thugging, there will be no retribution. Essentially, they played their hand and lost. These events are, not surprisingly, left out of the discussion by those who would try to politicize the events for rhetorical gain.

Huffpo article on the civilian response

How in the fuck would you know? You obviously are easily swayed by US and Israel propaganda. Iran isn't suicidal. They have no intention of attacking any country, last of which would be Israel (with it's 200+ nuclear bombs) and/or the US (with thousands of nuclear bombs). Poor, poor US and Israel. A little country like Iran has their panties all in an uproar. The US wants the oil, and Israel wants to keep the land which was stolen for them in 1947-48.

Right here. FYI technically that is an act of war.

Great piece on psychopaths that includes an interview / profile of Jack Welch that NPR carried here:

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/436/the-psychopath-test

After this week's outburst, it's come out that Jack's mind mind jump on the idea that critical numbers were being goosed because he did it all the time while at GE...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-gongloff/jack-welch-book-cooking_b_1954396.html

Correct. There's a difference. If Romney wins, there will almost certainly be a war with Iran.

That's almost certainly a tautology. McCain was the GOP candidate that was chomping at the bit to "bomb bomb bomb" Iran, not Romney.

Secondly, if Romeny were to become president, Obamabots might remember they were antiwar before Obama decided to embrace war. Speaking of, Obama had gotten away with a lot of shit that would have had Democrats out in the streets if it was Bush doing it, like assassinating Americans or starting a war without Congressional authorization.

Speaking of, Obama's own VP threatened to impeach Bush for hinting at doing to Iran what Obama went ahead and did with Libya: start a war without Congressional authorization.

The attacks were planned before that video came out and had nothing to do with it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/09/libya-consulate-attack-protests_n_1953057.html

I do consider those (although the only one I can think of that he's admitted to is gay rights). There are many areas where he hasn't practiced what he's preached but hasn't come out and said that his opinion or position has changed (transparency, war in Afghanistan, IP issues) - and I consider failure to meet a goal or hypocrisy to be worse than a (slowly or consistently) changing position.

Since you're being lazy or obtuse or looking through glasses that are rose-tinted to the point of opacity, here, have a spoon-feeding:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mitt-romneys-top-contradicting-comments/story?id=14805513

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82058.html

These are the most blatant, undeniable, concrete examples, but there are plenty more where he bends sweet lady truth into a pretzel that could be considered flip-flopping, such as:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/09/mitt-romney-lies-newt-gingrich-super-pac-ads_n_1195119.html

I think we need some of that new quantum state measurement tech to figure out his position on abortion:

http://americablog.com/2012/10/romney-flip-flops-twice-on-abortion-in-one-day.html

DON'T LOOK:

https://www.google.com/search?q=romney+flip-flop

If you've eaten industrial meat, you've eaten something fed by crap (literally or otherwise):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-greger-md/mad-cow-disease-california_b_1450994.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/impacts_industrial_agriculture/they-eat-what-the-reality-of.html
http://www.treehugger.com/health/chickens-fed-caffeine-banned-antibiotics-and-prozac-often-without-the-farmers-knowledge.html


Yummy!

You didn't just use the US Postal Service, which just got bailed out to the tune of $11B from a Congress that can't agree on anything, as an example of government succeeding where private business fails, did you?

Did you?

The USPS is projected to lose over $14B in operating losses this year alone. Without closing ~150 processing centers and buying out ~100,000 worker contracts (which they'll use some of that $11B to do), they'd be losing $21B/year by 2016 according to their own estimates. But don't worry, because part of the legislation that gives them that bailout says that there can't be any layoffs or buyouts before the November election, because we wouldn't want anyone to lose their seat in Congress behind this mess.

Source for all above numbers, and note the domain - it's not some right-wing rag, but the Huffington Post. The best part, is that they end the article with the following right after telling us that they got $11B from Congress:

The Postal Service, an independent agency of government, does not receive taxpayer money for its operations but is subject to congressional control.

Yeah, what a fantastically managed and well-run agency.

...it's just a matter of time before a major ingredients scandal hits.

Waddya mean 'before'?

the government put Mehanna away for ... translating a book (a 2003 Saudi text, 39 Ways to Serve and Participate in Jihad, that was "intended to incite people to engage in violent jihad"); distributing a video showing the brutal treatment of dead U.S. military personnel in retaliation for a rape in Iraq; and giving a friend a film about jihadi fighters...

Sentenced to 17.5 years in prison for spreading information. Sorry for bursting your bubble, but it had to be done. The US of A you think about it doesn't exist anymore.

You must not know many rich people. Some are the most frugal SOBs - they know the taxes and make decisions based on what saves them the most money. It's a game.

You're absolutely right.

Look at this.

Some people become rich by luck, but they stay rich by not being stupid.

LK

Editor's note: This post is a satire.

To be fair, it's very believable.

I agree. I also support continued research at NIF. The problem with large government funded projects like this, however, are that they tend to draw funding away from a lot of other novel approaches. For example, we haven't funded any molten salt reactor research since the early 1970's. The point of research is to investigate all the most promising leads, but when congress chooses to run with a specific technology, it shuts down competing research. I'm not saying there's potential in the Bussard Polywell, but when a novel approach like that gets shut down to save a couple million a year, while we spend billions on NIF, there's something wrong.

Now the guys on the House Science Committee really shouldn't be allowed to worry about things like NIF funding. They should leave that to smarter people, who just might know a thing or two about real science.

duh

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/22/cia-wikileaks-task-force-_n_800222.html

Torture and death from whom? It wouldn't be the US.

Yes it would.

The people who subscribe to the Genesis story always hovers around 45-48 percent of Americans.

It's been that way since the Scopes trial.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/americans-believe-in-creationism_n_1571127.html

--
BMO

The future is now, I guess. Despite living near one of the world's largest malls, I haven't been inside one in years... not sure if this is common or not.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/26/billboard-with-face-recognition-technology-ad-women-not-men_n_1302286.html

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/03/11/db.smartsigns/

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/news/surveillance/2009-01-30-ad-privacy_N.htm

Android does not have >80% market share. It's something just over 50%.

Whoop, you're (kinda) right, shoulda RTFA'd my own link:

— Android (Google Inc.) — 104.8 million units, 68.1 percent share (46.9 percent a year earlier)

— iOS (Apple Inc.'s iPhone) — 26.0 million units, 16.9 percent share (18.8 percent a year earlier)

— BlackBerry (Research in Motion Ltd.) — 7.4 million units, 4.8 percent share (11.5 percent a year earlier)

— Symbian (mostly used by Nokia Corp.) — 6.8 million units, 4.4 percent share (16.9 percent a year earlier)

— Windows (Microsoft Corp.) — 5.4 million units, 3.5 percent share (2.3 percent a year earlier)

— Linux — 3.5 million units, 2.3 percent share (3.0 percent a year earlier)

— Others — 0.1 million units, 0.1 percent share (0.5 percent a year earlier)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/18/android-market-share-q3-2012_n_1893292.html

hmm, missing the link to the article from which I got the Brandt quote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/13/stanford-organics-study-public-health_n_1880441.html

which links to the summary of Brandt's research, which says:

A meta-analysis of the published comparisons of the content of secondary metabolites and vitamins in organically and conventionally produced fruits and vegetables showed that in organic produce the content of secondary metabolites is 12% higher than in corresponding conventional samples (P

Well, it was a study that compared nutrition based on the nutrient content of the different production methods of food.

Last year Kirsten Brandt, a researcher from Newcastle University, published a similar analysis of existing studies and wound up with the opposite result, concluding that organic foods are actually more nutritious. In combing through the Stanford study she’s not only noticed a critical error in properly identifying a class of nutrients, a spelling error indicative of biochemical incompetence (or at least an egregious oversight) that skewed one important result, but also that the researchers curiously excluded evaluating many nutrients that she found to be considerably higher in organic foods.

That looks a lot less like "controlling variables", and a lot more like specifically excluding data from a previous study that might have weakened their intended result..

What about this part of the editorial?

" Last year Kirsten Brandt, a researcher from Newcastle University, published a similar analysis of existing studies and wound up with the opposite result, concluding that organic foods are actually more nutritious. In combing through the Stanford study she’s not only noticed a critical error in properly identifying a class of nutrients, a spelling error indicative of biochemical incompetence (or at least an egregious oversight) that skewed one important result, but also that the researchers curiously excluded evaluating many nutrients that she found to be considerably higher in organic foods." (my emphasis)

So yeah, maybe you don't understand why it's flawed, but seems like someone who knows more than you does.

You joke, but cheese is the most stolen food in the world.

Brandt wondered how the Stanford team, led by faculty from the School of Medicine and Center for Health Policy, could have found no difference in total flavanols between organic and conventional foods when her own results showed organics carried far more of the heart-healthy nutrient. Upon further inspection, she noticed that the team had actually calculated the difference in total flavonols, a different nutrient, and reported the result with the swap of an "o" for an "a".

From an article ad The Huffington Post

Technically it's a spelling mistake which in practice meant the equivalent of searching for apples but counting the number of oranges instead, then writing up a paper on the astonishing lack of apples found.

1. If no one can prove, or ask me to prove, that I'm not who I say I am, then what's the risk? Hey, prove the world is round. But gather no evidence. Good luck.

So, since you asked, I'd rather commit the fraud no one's going to look at - which is to say, show up at the poll, tell them I'm Snoopy Brown at 123 Any Street, show that that name/address is on the voter roll, vote, and walk away. Or hell, I can walk in, same-day register, cast a ballot that will be counted, and walk away. No one will find me, or even look.

But go on and tell yourself no one would do that. I bet you're her first, too.
Of course, that assumes you actually belive the inane tautology you're pushing. "The only fraud is something NOONE would EVER do, because, like, RISK!!!11!" Lie 1.

2a: "Everyone" was not required to get the "full ID". Even the Huffington Post, home of people who love Voter ID, talks about some confusion, but in the end, "Eventually, she got her card." Change the program on some bureaucrats, expect some confusion. But, in the end, "she got her card". Truth hurts, huh chief. Lie number 2 for you.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/27/pennsylvania-voter-id-trial_n_1920993.html

3. Your example about "OMG EBIL REPUBS ARE TEARING UP REGISTRATIONS!!11! " is from 2 YEARS AGO. And what conclusion was come to from the FBI looking into it? Oh yeah, NOTHING. It's bunk! Lie 3, you're out.

The fact of the matter is, you like your partisan view to have multiple votes per person. It's the same old game people like you play. First, you wanted slaves to "have votes" so their master could vote for them, keeping slavery legal. Now, it's making sure that anyone can go into any polling center in the USA, claim to be anyone at all, and vote. So your point of view (a phrase I use loosely in this case) gets overrepresented. Well, the free ride's coming to an end. Almost every first-world, civilized country requires a photo ID to vote. It's well past time we joined them.

It took war to get people like you on the right side of history last time. Hopefully it won't come to that again.

The plaintiff was hoping to get a jury trial in the district court. All suits regarding TSA in the DC circuit court go straight to appeals, meaning no jury trial is possible there. This is the same court that has been so deferential to DHS in the EPIC suit on the same topic. The plaintiff seemed to think a jury would be more receptive to his arguments.

Is another suit in the DC court worth the trouble? If not, then Mr. Corbett has been about as effective as Jesse Ventura was in his suit.

I could happily give all my money to the first guy who can give me functional cat ears. (And a functional cat tail as a bonus

Item One: Cat Ears
Item Two: Waggy Tail

Please call me to arrange payment.

Unpopular speach is not yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. A crowd that exits a theater quickly is behaving rationally based on deception. There is no choice to stay in the burning theater. The people who rioted in the middle east did so because they chose too. The did so because they were encouraged to riot by their leaders. Billions of people chose to do nothing when they learned of his video.

The problem is the video that was released was a deception. I'm not saying the violent response was correct but considering the limited access to information they have in Libya how would they know any better? Any foreign government could take advantage of that video to radicalize which is probably what happened. Thanks to that film maker there will be thousands if not millions of new terrorists potentially created.

And to think the Film maker is an FBI informant on top of all this. Wired reported it and so did HuffingtonPost http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/17/nakoula-basseley-nakoula-federal-informant_n_1891661.html

So not only is he a hater of Muslims but he's an FBI snitch too. If you're a Libyan reading into this then it wouldn't be difficult for a foreign sponsored terrorist group to radicalize you. Americans get radicalized by people like Alex Jones into believing in FEMA camps and UN dictatorship on US soil so why is it difficult to believe that Libyans would be radicalized in the same way?

Actually, I have given reasons for why I hate California.
I hate it because everything here is completely nonsensical.

California is ranked 49 out of 51 for unemployment (not good at all): http://money.cnn.com/interactive/economy/state-unemployment-rates/
And at 7.25%, California has the great distinction of having the highest minimum sales tax in the US. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_and_use_taxes_in_California)

And no, my objection is not baseless. It's based on the fact that government spending on something like this ridiculous textbook program is a waste when there are other alternatives out there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_textbook#Projects) already generating these things for free. Why should the state of California pour money into something that already exists? There are much more important issues to deal with (like that 10.6% unemployment rate, or being ranked #6 for state debt: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/24/states-debt-combined-may-exceed-4-trillion_n_1029162.html#s429797&title=6_California)

I have evidence backing up my claims. But go ahead and keep loving your socialist paradise while it continues to spend itself out of existence. At least I know I'll be moving back to sanity in a couple years.

The federal version was voted down in the House by the Republicans.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/27/facebook-password-protection-amendment-congress_n_1384045.html

Take your pick. By the way, Megyn Kelly reminds me of my mom, except down about 10 notches. Watch her when she finds anything that seems to support her, she draws out her speech and emphasizes and primps up like she's so proud of herself for being so much smarter than everyone else. She was the first news anchor I really noticed--the need to shoot this bitch in the face when I couldn't get out of earshot was pretty attention-grabbing (they put a TV in my office, it was set to news).

Oh god at 2:20 on that video, "*T*ax *T*ax *T*ax" emphasis just like my damn mom, Next she'll start raving that Obama is a muslim and the antichrist and talk about how gays are destroying the country and how the problem here is we don't have bibles in schools anymore.

We should duct tape Megyn Kelly to Rachel Maddow and throw them out of a plane with its windows rolled down.

(Has anyone noticed Megyn Kelly getting more militant around 2010-ish, and slowly cutting her hair shorter and shorter until she looked like a butch lesbian style... after she stopped arguing about how horrible it is we don't support the defense of marriage act and how it's okay to ridicule gays)

Oh yes. Beat that strawman harder.

That is not what I said at all, and no, I don't watch nor listen to limbaugh, any of the fox news personalities, nor to talk radio of any sort.

What I do see, are stories like this one, which treat the issue with alarming matter-of-factness, along with disturbing numbers of youtube videos parroting the same views as Mr Jackson's.

Seeing that tells me that racism from the african american demographic is a stark reality.

However, conflating that I think this demographic alone (black racists) is sufficient to garner the win of a presidency is a farce. Intead, will attempt to explain it to you.

Much like germans will become enraged at the mere mention of suggesting they are nazis, many white people become equally disturbed at the implication of being called racist, at least here in the US. So much so that saying "you are afraid of the idea of a black president" to them can greatly influence their behavior, and even influence how they will vote.

The black vote is a big red herring. As you pointed out, historically 97% of that demographic consistently votes demorat across the board, regardless of the candidate's race. The issue here was influencing independents and moderates of other demographics. The implied "you are racist if you don't vote for obama" message of the last election cycle had more impact than you care to realize. The DNC initially tried to get the women's vote with hillary, but was unsucessful. (Hillary is just not likeable enough.) They then decided that they could sensationalize a black candidate, which they did. It isn't obama's blackness that I found distasteful at all, nor did I think all black people would vote for him due to his skin color, though it is a foregone conclusion that some did. (See link earlier) what I found distasteful was the sensationalism concerning his race. It is *never* acceptable to engender support of a candidate due to their skin color. End of discussion. The DNC did exactly that, when they started campaigning that McCain supporters were "afraid of the idea of a black president." A huge nonsequitor like that, coupled with rhetoric that undoes work to reduce racial tensions does more harm to racial equality than you can possibly imagine.

Of course, it is just easier for you to consign me to some prefabricated mental stereotype, and deounce anything I say as lies, but that doesn't reflect poorly on ME.

It reflects poorly on YOU.

The US has tried and imprisoned a number of its soldiers for various war crimes, including murder. These aren't the only ones.

I hope I live to see those war criminals, Bush and Obama among them, hauled in front of the Hague and sentenced to spending the rest of their lives in jail.

Won't happen unless someone in the U.S. is willing to arrest them.
The only thing the rest of the world can do is to say that they will be prosecuted if they leave the U.S.

Wow!, you mean that Brazil is a state where the International corps don't mandate what laws regulate?
That would be like justice ruling against Monsanto when they tried to harass farmers with the Monsanto-police.

What kind of a crazy place is that? They must be communists, or terrorists or something.

Here is a side-by-side comparison of the Nook HD, Fire HD, and Nexus 7 (and the Fire, but who cares) on Huffington Post.

The Tea Party doesn't have room for intolerance and hate

Sure, sure.

You can legislate education, however. And as people become more educated, they become less religious. Win-win!

That is not true in the USA. The more educated you are the more likely you are to be religious. A recent survey states

According to the study, in the 1970s, 51 percent of college-educated whites attended religious services monthly or more, compared to 50 percent of moderately educated whites and 38 percent of the least educated whites. In the 2000s, 46 percent of college-educated whites attended on at least a monthly basis, compared to 37 percent of moderately educated whites and 23 percent of the least educated. The study defines the "least educated" as people without high school degrees.

So the study says that people with more education are more likely to attend church than those with less education.

in the United States. Large swaths of the country are deeply religious, by which I mean some stripe of Christianity.

Which is completely different from Islam.

They have grown increasingly suspicious (if not downright scornful) of scientists and educators who challenge their views and threaten to corrupt the views of their children. I suspect that many of these folks sincerely see unrestricted search engines and an uncensored internet as tools of the devil. How far would public opinion have to tip before *all* searches are "safe" searches, and the "sanitized" web becomes the norm?

Oh please. No respected Christian opposes freedom of expression for scientific, religious, philosophical, or political ideas. At most, a few of them oppose hardcore pornography (which is not ideological or political censorship).

It seems unthinkable. But when 46% of the U.S. population earnestly believes that humans were created in their present form within the last 10,000 years, you have to be open to what happens if that number goes to 56%, or 96%.

The argument you are implying is a huge non sequitur. Believing that humans were created by God (which by the way is different from young-Earth creationism) has nothing to do with supporting censorship.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/americans-believe-in-creationism_n_1571127.html

Please don't cite Huffington post. Not only they promote ridiculous pseudoscience (homeopathy, detoxification and vaccine-causes-autism)*, but their political views make Michael Moore and Oliver Stone look like reasonable thinkers.

* http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4283

in the United States. Large swaths of the country are deeply religious, by which I mean some stripe of Christianity. They have grown increasingly suspicious (if not downright scornful) of scientists and educators who challenge their views and threaten to corrupt the views of their children. I suspect that many of these folks sincerely see unrestricted search engines and an uncensored internet as tools of the devil. How far would public opinion have to tip before *all* searches are "safe" searches, and the "sanitized" web becomes the norm?

It seems unthinkable. But when 46% of the U.S. population earnestly believes that humans were created in their present form within the last 10,000 years, you have to be open to what happens if that number goes to 56%, or 96%.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/americans-believe-in-creationism_n_1571127.html

Naive? You act like you live in a country that hasn't jailed a potential presidential nominee under Bush's watch on extremely dubious grounds. Watch that video to get a feel for how many other prosecutions have been politically persued and you'll start understanding how corrupted your judiciary was under Bush and continues to be under Obama. Karl Rove, the guy primarily responsible for this politicisation is working for the president of Sweden which is JUST ONE of the many reasons so many are dubious about the prosecution of Assange.

People laughed at Bush. In my country (Australia) people laughed at Joh Bjelke-Petersen until he went from state to federal politics. Luckily he was outmaneuvered in a snap election, then prosecuted... and it was exposed how utterly corrupted the judiciary and virtually every department of government had been. His only mistake had been to stay in state politics long enough for the rest of the country to know how corrupt he was. People had laughted, but we in Australia could have conceivably become a dictatorship. That sounds extreme, but the state police were regularly used to monitor, beat and arrest political opposition, political boundaries were redrawn to bais elections etc... This was in AUSTRALIA... and yet people in other states laughed at the bumbling buffoon and felt smug and superior until their democracy was threatened. That was 30 years ago and has been more or less forgotten.

Your judiciary is quite corrupt, make no mistake.

Maybe if we apologize to them more, they'll like us.

Fuck that! Find Iranian governments' world of Warcraft accounts and retaliatorily delete them!

You already did that last month :/

Now you have to retaliate against their retaliation... maybe target their FarmVille crops?