Slashdot Mirror

Read the timeline of events. Dharun Ravi was kicked out of his own room for the night so that Clementi could have gay sex with an older guy from off campus. Ravi then went to a female friend's room, Molly Wei, connected to his own laptop back in his room over iChat, and watched what was going on. Ravi posts the following message to his Twitter account: "Roommate asked for the room till midnight. I went into molly's room and turned on my webcam. I saw him making out with a dude. Yay." Molly has some of her female friends over to watch briefly. Soon after, Wei IMs her boyfriend, Austin Chung, regarding Clementi: "He's NICE but he's kissing a guy right now / like THEY WERE GROPING EACH OTHER EWWW."

Then Clementi does the whole thing again, two days later, with the same guy, again throwing his roommate out so he can have sex. Some of this gets seen on iChat, too. Clementi is already aware he was seen on iChat last time.

Where's the expectation of privacy here? Clementi made no effort to conceal what he was doing. Ravi, on the other hand, has a First Amendment right to comment on the situation.

Show me a report that shows a correlation between per student funding and performance. Despite what "seems" to be a common sense idea, it's not founded in reality. Same with classroom size. I'm not talking about how a classroom "feels" but how effective size is on determining student success. If size was important, then you wouldn't have mega sized Freshman Intro to Calculus at so many schools.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/03/california-school-distric_n_870921.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/The-Adam-Smith-Institute-Blog/2010/0428/No-correlation-between-education-funding-and-student-performance

Yeah, this guy wants to bring on the American Taliban... he thinks government and religion (his, of course) should be the same thing.

But he's not as stupid that suggests, and he's clearly a follower of Karl Rove's strategies, if not as capable at it. The major innovation that Rove brought to political warefare was this: find your weakest point, and attack that first in your opponent. Who cares if the attack it true or fictional, the simple fact that you attacked first makes the counterattack weak.

Look at the 2004 election... John Kerry was a decorated war hero, George Bush served in the National Guard, and even there got out of actually doing much serving thanks to his family's political connections. In the past, the Bush people would have done anything possible to avoid even discussing military service. Rove orchestrates the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", sells a bunch of complete lies about Kerry, and pretty much destroys that avenue of attack against Bush. Evil but frickin' brilliant... didn't help that Kerry didn't have a clue what to do about it.

And the Republican Party has been repeatedly anti-science. Sure, they'll claim as much the Democrats to want the business piece of science, but when they get right down to it, their policies have sent research elsewhere. Their energy policy directly lead to China so dominating solar, that more than half of the US solar companies have gone under in the last five years. Their wacko-religious policies on stem cell research all but halted it in the USA, while it's flourishing in Europe. Research when successful becomes business; neither of those are businesses easily won back. And that's not even getting into Creationism, Intelligent Design, or whatever new name they try next for the same basic goal: teaching the Christian creation myth to children as a credible scientific theory, rather than the fairy story it is. Only 22% of Republicans believe that global warming/climate change even exists, much less that it's man made... and they're sure to let you know, every time it snows... even when the increased snowfall actually is due to a warmer weather pattern.

The press is full of similar accounts:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/opinion/republicans-against-science.html
http://io9.com/5835970/will-the-anti+science-republicans-kill-conservatism-as-americans-know-it
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leonard-steinhorn/how-the-gop-became-the-an_b_970410.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2011-09-20/gop-democrats-science-evolution-vaccine/50482856/1
http://www.waronscience.com/home.php

The Dems, of course, don't have a perfect track record, and on some issues, are closer to the Republicans, or even worse:
http://reason.com/archives/2011/12/27/whos-more-anti-science-republicans-or-de
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2011-09-20/gop-democrats-science-evolution-vaccine/50482856/1

The Dems generally fail on nuclear energy (most of the scientific community is in favor of building new, modern reactors, particular interesting are Thorium reactors), irradiated foods, and even a growing faction is anti-vaccination. And animal research, though that's objection is based on moral, nor scientific grounds.

But don't forget, it was the Republicans who put through the "Noah's Ark" version of the formation of the Grand C

Heartland claims Earlier this evening, Peter Gleick, a prominent figure in the global warming movement, confessed to stealing electronic documents from The Heartland Institute in an attempt to discredit and embarrass a group that disagrees with his views.

In fact, he made no such confession. What he said is: At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute's climate program strategy.

Then, he went to the effort of attempting to verify the authenticity and accuracy of the documents by pretending to be someone else and asking for information directly from Heartland: The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including especially their 2012 fundraising strategy and budget.

So, he did pretend to be someone else, but he stole nothing. If the original documents were stolen (which is pure speculation), it was by someone other than Gleick. Impersonating someone else is certainly nothing to be taken lightly, but it's a well established technique used by reporter and investigators when using your real name may impede or alter your access to the information. Whether a crime was committed requires more details than given. But there is no evidence that he stole anything, and as such, he may have a slander or libel claim against Heartland for their statement. IANAL.

Sorry, wrong link for Gleick's announcement. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/-the-origin-of-the-heartl_b_1289669.html

Another plausible scenario is that that one document was leaked first, in the form of a paper copy (or scan of one), and it was the information of that document that inspired those who received it to seek further corroborative evidence via "social engineering."

Looks like I may have guessed right. Peter Gleick has now admitted that he received one document through the mail, and obtained the emails himself by misrepresenting his identity in order to confirm the information in the document that he was sent.

Looks like the source of the release has identified himself:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/-the-origin-of-the-heartl_b_1289669.html

It would appear from this that there is a high likelyhood that all except one of the documents is genuine.

Of course, there's no indication (as yet) that the "Climate strategy" is not a part of the original documents, but given that one document was received from an anonomous source, and Heartland deny that this specific item originated from them, it'd be interesting to know where it originated from.

Looks like the rest of the documents are probably authentic, though.

https://secure.dslreports.com/shownews/LightSquared-Lawyers-Up-For-FCC-Assault-118429
"LightSquared is apparently trying to convince the Defense Department to swap spectrum they're unlikely to give up for LightSquared spectrum nobody wants. Again, LightSquared lacks the cash to wage any sustained battle on this front, and Falcone faces two pending inquiries by the SEC for unrelated financial infractions. He's also now being sued by a group of investors in Harbinger Capital Partners who claim the effort "squandered billions of dollars."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/corbin-hiar/fcc-lightsquared-_b_1280076.html
"The company has vowed to challenge the suspension, but how long it can stay financially solvent is in question. For example, one of its biggest contracts -- a $13 billion, 15-year deal with Sprint, the third largest U.S. wireless carrier -- required that LightSquared resolve the FCC concerns about GPS before March. The value of Harbinger, which is heavily invested in LightSquared, fell by half last year."

After Obama gets elected it could be a different story, and Soros is involved as well (whatever that means) but I think he's cooked as people are backing out of the deal and Harbinger is going to sue his arse.
I've watched people like Falcone and groups like Harbinger work before, I found the process disturbing to say the least as it is all about money with no real thought or regard to what they are actually doing--other than the money.

... it's hard to know where to even start. But possibly the absolute worst is at the end of Paragraph B:

B. For the purposes of this section, "public school" means a public preschool program, a public elementary school, a public junior high school, a public middle school, a public high school, a public vocational education program, a public community college or a public university in this state.

(emphasis mine)

For K-12 teachers, okay, I can kind of see this, although the penalties seem Draconian and I'm willing to bet that they already have in-school codes of conducts that prohibit swearing in the classroom. But are they actually saying that this is going to apply to professors in a classroom full of people who are legally adults? To discussions of literature containing the word "fuck"? To research faculty in their labs? Seriously?

Apparently the bill's sponsor, Lori Klein, showed off her gun by aiming it at a reporter a while back. That tells you everything you need to know about the mentality of the people behind this. They're completely insane. Um, apeshit, if you will. And they're growing in power all over the country.

It can be recycled.

Don't tell that to the copper thieves... And no, they aren't even smart enough to save their own pitiful lives...

I appreciate your honest approach to the issue. And you're probably right, done with proper regulations and safety precautions fracking can be safe...in theory. You only saw one piece of the puzzle, so here are some more pieces.

In practice, one thing you need to consider is what happens to the chemicals *after* they're pulled out of the ground. Sometimes they just dump it, like the case of Josh Foster.

If it can't possibly affect the water table, why do drilling companies end up shipping water to people such as Mr. Ira Haire, who live near their fracking sites?

Why are the horses and pets in Dimock, PA, losing their hair?

Why is the EPA detecting fracking chemicals in the aquifers Pavillion, Wyoming?

How about this Oklahoma Geological Survey report that suggests the recent uptick in earthquakes were caused by fracking?

What about waste treatment plants that fail to successfully reduce the levels of contaminants before discharging the water into a river?

How about the President of the Marcellus Shale Coalition admitting that fracking has contaminated the drinking water in PA?

Fracking can be done right. But it's expensive and requires the cooperation of many disparate companies and enforcement of regulations (or any regulations at all; I'm looking at you, Halliburton Loophole). And expensive is not profitable.

You might be interested in this article.

That's something that's really, really scary in the IT industry right now. The industry is consolidating into huge companies, slowly but certainly. What's the next step ?

Well this is what car companies were doing around, say 1935 something around there. While that consolidation kept going, and car companies were growing, things were really, really good for their employees. Once the growth faltered, well we all know what happened.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/19/google-4q-2011_n_1217153.html What does this mean ? Although Wall Streets has some balls to call 2.7 billion "below expectations".

Stupidity is not a protected group.

Don't be so sure of that...

Still can't even be confidant of that basic safety measure

I would like that you carry a portable device that is aware about you and your environment, that don't just could know i.e. your gps position or the speed at which you are walking, but everything that is around that could interest you, ready to point that out, inform more about it, or do something to eventually retrieve it later,like saving video/photos/sounds. Cellphones are going in that direction, even if are still far, at the very least can't yet include the needed intelligence, base data and storage, so must go to the cloud for what can do about that still.

In a sci-fi world, that would connect with Multivac,keep the data there, and let that sentient computer do what is better for you. But in this one, this is going to Google, and if well that would not be as bad as going to Apple, Microsoft, Facebook or one or several US government agencies (no matter of which country you are citizen), is still a company that must do what is profitable, and that is still under the laws of a country not exactly respectful about people privacy (and that could put in jail tourists because they repeated a tv joke)

So no, even if we trust that their intentions are the best, we can't trust in governments that them must obey.

Are they?

It seems that if you were to decide to tax stocks in the same way you might tax property, you'd have fewer people willing to buy stock, and subsequently less investment in the economy.

This is the general argument used to keep capital gains taxes low, and as far as I can see, there's no real evidence to support it. Of course, most of the ways that stocks are broken can be linked back to the fact that companies rarely issue dividends anymore, and the main way that people make money from stocks is through selling them for a gain. But that's a complaint for a different time.

I guess the reducto ad absurdum is why not tax savings? If you've got $100.00 in the bank, why not tax you 15% every year on it? In ten years, you'll end up with less that $20 bucks. Or why not tax the perceived value of your antique record collection?

Well, my property taxes are much much lower than that. Less than 1%, actually (something like $0.50 for every $100 valuation.) But I do get your point.

I think that taxing savings might encourage people to spend money which is otherwise sitting there doing nothing and not helping the economy. Of course, savings is at an all-time low in this country, so really it might not do anything at all.

At least for property tax there's some sort of implied quid pro quo (you're getting roads, fire, police for your taxes). What exactly does a government give you for savings or stock that is equivalent?

Well, stock is ownership of a company. It's not like companies don't benefit from infrastructure. In fact, they probably benefit more from infrastructure than any individual person does (though they get to deduct their property rather than paying tax on it.) It seems reasonable that a company would need to pay for infrastructure.

If you believe articles like http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/03/major-corporations-tax-subsidies_n_1073548.html then it turns out that many of the most profitable companies don't end up paying income tax (though they may pay into medicare and social security). I'm not sure why that's fair.

The bottom line is that the tax code is screwed up, which is sort of what this /. article is about in the first place. When billionaires can get away without paying most taxes (surely they pay sales tax on things that they purchase?) yet working stiffs have to pay 20% of their incomes in income+medicare+ss alone, something is clearly out of whack. I don't think there's an easy fix.

I see this all of the time when it comes to someone talking about Apples sales and forecasts. Do that many people get paid to pimp Apple or do these people not look at numbers and figures when they spout off claims?

The linked article in the story claims..
But users have voted otherwise, vastly preferring the iPhone, which cost the carriers more money per unit, thus reducing their profits. Android sales plummeted in late 2011, after the iPhone 4S's release -- chalk another victory for Apple's superior product and unmatched level customer satisfaction.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/26/apple-samsung-smartphone-sales_n_1235527.html

Apple sold 38 million smartphones and Samsung sold 37.5 million smartphones in in 4th qtr 2011. I'm sure not all of Samsungs smartphones were andriods but there are other companies making them as well and I'm sure all of the others combined was a decent amount. To draw the conclusion that "Andriod sales plummeted" and people were "vastly preferring the iPhone" over other smartphones in that time frame is completely false and not even stretching the definations of those terms should someone arrive at that conclusion. These falsehoods get repeated and stated over and over and I guess without looking at numbers, it just becomes a true statement? What about the rest of the year where Samsung had more smartphone sales than Apple? If Apple had more sales the 4th quarter because of what the author states is a "superior product" and "unmatched customer statisfaction" is that the same exact reason Samsungs sales the first three quarters with smartphones was higher than Apples? How does one arrive at those conclusions? I know, because every one else does without looking at the real numbers and reasons.

...pumps its own money into sports...

Ethics aside, school sports are highly profitable. Penn State's profit (from football alone) was ~50 million. I think it's safe to say that many D1 schools can fund their sports programs easily (who knows about Penn State's future as they will lose future revenue).

http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/10/news/companies/penn_state_football_scandal/index.htm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/30/the-most-profitable-colle_n_802810.html#s217317&title=University_of_Texas

You know what happens next.

So how does that translate to 160 tonnes a year?

Hmmm... I dunno... Maybe something to do the the energy of the sun and the greenhouse effect? You know, that shit you conveniently forgot about/ignored.

What a troll. The warming mechanism is irrelevant - I was only trying to determine how they arrived at that figure (with really bad math - yea, I messed up my calculations, there).

Still, it seems greenhouse effect is much more important, as the Met has decided that even with a significant drop in the output of the sun, the greenhouse effect would continue to warm the earth, with an insignificant affect from less solar energy.

I mean, Elephants are f***ing awesome and all, big, giant things that knock over trees when they get mad, but goats are well proven to eat grass and other things (like briers) that most animals won't touch. They handle dry, arid climates well, and provide other useful things like, Milk, Cheese, Meat, and Pelts. If you pick angora goats you get fancy wool from them as well.
 
Granted, you don't have the cool factor of big-ass elephants running around loose Down Under, but goats reproduce a lot faster and (I'm pretty sure) eat a higher percentage of their body weight in plant matter than elephants do. Humans also have a couple thousand years more experience dealing with goats.
 
Some links to persue:
 
 

• Los Angeles County Fire Department Goat contractors, Vegetation Management
• Goats In Portland, Oregon Get Work Clearing Land
• Rent-a-goats gain foothold in Seattle

vote? have you taken a look at the 500+ dead people that voted in the SC Primary? or the discrepencies in the Iowa Caucus? what about the debacle of 2000 or Ohio in 2004? To quote Mr Jay Electronica:
"Regardless who you vote for
If the mind don't grow
And the poverty line don’t go
But the dope keep coming
And the tv keep flashing images of a sports car
Then you bound for a coke war
The meek get clowned by the coke law
The sheep get drowned in the folklore
Then lulled to sleep by Tom Brokaw
What a pity, the hope on a politician's tongue
Never ever trickles down the city"

Ironically enough, I think that a transition can be made without firing a shot; the people that we speak of are cowardly and weak. They rely on underlings for their food, water, shelter and lifestyle. Without their fake incentive program, they'd die in a month. The game can't go on if enough people refuse to play.

But I'm gonna kick back and fire up a fatty

We don't worry about India having the bomb and last time I checked they were 'brown people' too.

We did. There were sanctions and everything. It was a lot like the current situation with Iran:

President Clinton immediately reacted to the explosions with shock and criticized India's nuclear testing. The American President argued that India’s actions violated the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty endorsed by 149 nations and the 1970 non-proliferation treaty signed by 185 nations. Despite the fact that neither India nor Pakistan has signed the treaties, the President, citing the 1994 Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act, immediately called for economic sanctions against India including cutting off $40 million in economic and military aid, and all American bank loans. The President also asked the International Monetary Fund and World Bank to cancel all new loans which could cost India around $14.5 billion worth of public projects, including a major modernization of India's often failing electrical system. Moreover, Japan and other industrial nations soon followed the U.S. example and froze on-going projects in India worth over a billion dollars in aid. http://asiasociety.org/countries/conflicts/india-pakistan-relations-50-year-history

And...

guessing wrong... could be a civilization extinction event

How on earth would Iran gaining a nuclear weapon be an extinction level event for our species?
"no country in history has ever committed suicide in order to destroy another. And Israel, with 200 nuclear weapons and air, sea and land launchers, could easily destroy Iran if it was attacked." - the Huffington Post
"Where will it drop it, this bomb? On Israel? It would not have gone 200 metres into the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed." - Jacques Chirac

Since when did Holocaust denial become a reason for the United States to attack another nation state? I thought the attitude of the U.S. people was supposed to be more along the lines of : "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."?

I actually find it quite distasteful to use the Holocaust as an excuse for a war that would result in the deaths of millions of people. And it appears I'm not the only one. Obscene: Using the Holocaust to Justify War With Iran .

You would need to be a lawyer, practically, to know how fine this line is. For example, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/28/nbc-mitt-romney-tom-brokaw-ad_n_1239107.html . Romney's use of that news footage in an advertisement is likely Fair Use.

Gingrich is using the music for self-promotion at campaign events. Definition/standards of fair use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Purpose_and_character

0) ". . .for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." It is none of these.

1) "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;" - Technically non-profit, but not for an educational purpose. Well, unless you count used to introduce a candidate to an event where he is educating them about himself. I think that is a bit too broad to work.

2) "the nature of the copyrighted work" - Neither a fact, idea or something as important to the public as the Zapruder film.

3) "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and" - The whole thing isn't being played, but how much of it?

4) "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." - I don't think this would be allowed to apply here. If the song can be blasted in part for this event, why not others? At that point the value of the song begins to go down due to over use.

It could go either way, but I'm leaning against fair use. I'm leaning enough against it that I expect this to be quietly hushed up with a settlement.

That's my point - people talk about the "supermajority" as if it was something Obama had and wasted, but it was only so if all of the Dems (and "dems" who are just not republicans) voted in lockstep and on a large, complex bill such as healthcare or changing the tax code, it's not a guarantee.

But he did by definition have a supermajority. If he had passed something less extreme, his party would have been lockstep behind it, just like they were with the stimulus bill and the minimum wage bill and all the other garbage that got jammed through during his presidency. The point is that he forced through a very unpopular and extreme bill that even his own party was opposed to -- that's why he is attacked for it. No one was compromising and working to come up with something sensible -- instead they were tacking on riders to buy votes to force that terrible legislation to pass as quickly as possible. And that's Obama's fault. The fact Republicans were summarily ignored and not even included in the bill design process is Obama's fault. The fact he pushed a bill that even his own party could not support is Obama's fault.

The President is not an emperor, even with a majority.

Yet even in this country, the President has a considerable amount of sway in pushing agenda.

The republicans *were* invited to the table on healthcare. More than invited in fact

What kind of revisionist history in this? Look for yourself: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3590 THREE of the 40 original co-sponsors are Republicans. And the final bill was intentionally shut off from Republican dialogue: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/01/04/democratic-leaders-plan-secret-health-reform-deliberations In fact, the only time Obama seriously took into account inviting Republicans to the dialogue was when he lost his supermajority and he suddenly needed a Republican vote: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-02-07-obama-health-care_N.htm

since they spent their entire time just saying "no" to everything

The reason they were saying "no" was because by the time they were invited to the table, the Democrats had already written like 90+% of the bill and were essentially looking for a rubber stamp -- they didn't want significant or radical changes to the hundreds of pages that had already been penned. They also wanted the bill to pass quickly for political reasons.

he probably should have decided to cut out the Republicans more than he did and attempt to force things through. As it turns out, going the bipartisan route just allowed the repubs to gut everything and still say no at every turn.

*rolls eyes* You libs believe whatever you want to believe, despite what the facts show -- Obama made no attempt to work with Republicans until he absolutely needed them (after he lost the supermajority) -- and Blue Dog Democrats (which even you admit to) were the ones forcing him to gut the bill to change things (http://articles.cnn.com/2009-07-10/politics/house.health.care_1_blue-dogs-public-option-medicare-rates?_s=PM:POLITICS). You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too -- you claim Obama didn't have a supermajority because his own party was obstructing the passage of the bill, yet you blame Republicans for obstructing the bill instead. Heck, it's the Blue Dogs to blame for the stripping of the "public option" provision: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

That's true, although they probably already spent up all their lobbying money making sure gays aren't allowed to get married.

Plus you can't forget the anti-union videos they need to produce to intimidate new hires, they're not cheap. Refuse to sign and keep Target union free!!

They're no better than Walmart. Everything they sell is foreign made crap, too. The clothes are more stylish than what Walmart carries, but they fall apart just as fast. Couple this with their piss-poor way of treating employees (speaking as someone that worked there and saw the discrimination first hand) and their support of those hypocritical "family values" groups, I won't put a fucking dime into that corporation's pocket.

A huge study was finished in 2011 that showed this is false. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/21/cellphones-cancer-danish-cellphone-study_n_1023713.html

Gates is also funding funding other billionaires' aligned initiatives and bankrolling astrotufing-likened school advocacy, raising concerns about undue influence and even a call for eliminating the charitable giving tax deduction. 'This year, governments may lose $50 billion because of tax deductions taken overwhelmingly by the rich for charitable givings intended primarily to enhance their status with their brethren or to attack the public sector,' writes David Morris. 'We can't stop the rich from using their money for their own purposes. But we should not add insult to injury by giving them huge amounts of public sums to attack the public sector.'

BTW: Symantec is just now disclosing that their servers were hacked in 2006 (as far as they know - maybe earlier). They don't know how long the hackers have PWNed their network, how much control they had, or for how long - but they're quite sure the hackers have stolen some of their source code. They recommend that you not use / disable / uninstall some (most) of their software. Most especially including PC Anywhere, since apparently it has a vulnerability or "back door" that allows the hackers to remotely administer your PC from Anywhere - and has for the last SIX YEARS.

I think I'm going to take Symantec's edicts with a grain of salt from now on, even if this is from a different group.

[Jobs insisted to Obama] that the administration needed to be more business-friendly. As an example, Jobs described the ease with which companies can build factories in China compared to the United States, where "regulations and unnecessary costs" make it difficult for them.

Presumably his point was that he wanted to build factories in the US, but regulations and unnecessary costs prevented him. I don't know what regulations those were, but certainly not all regulations are good.

Obviously we won't move all manufacturing back to the US, we'll never compete with Vietnam at textile manufacturing, but it seems reasonable that we can do a lot of manufacturing here.

Note to self: always use preview. Always. Here is the corrected post.

The arrest of journalist Kristyna Wentz-Graff was not part of some systematic crack down on reporters/journalists. At best it was a swamped cop dealing with a large group and not noticing her credentials, at worst it was an idiot cop, maybe both. To infer, as I think the FA does, that the US is arresting journalists as part of some nation wide crackdown is completely false, or at least very misleading.

However, incidents like this have hapened a huge number of times.
Or like this.
Or this.
Or this.
Or this.

I'll get hate for saying it but in this case its probably an insult to the Nazis. During "Springtime for Hitler" in the mid 30s the Nazis were actually quite popular because as Hitler's bodyguard put it in the excellent BBC series "World At War" "At the time we were in a bad way, yes a very bad way. they promised us bread and jobs which seems like such a trivial thing now but then that meant a lot when you couldn't feed your family" so while the Nazis gave the boot to anybody that wasn't like them they also put the country back to work modernizing their systems whereas in America they just ship the jobs overseas or hire illegals and give you the boot. I doubt VERY seriously you'd find the US government popular with anybody but multigenerational superelite who have been making out like robber barons of old.

I'd urge everyone to read this article that drives a stake in the "job creators and lower taxes' lie, followed by this one on corporate taxes and finally some numbers that will make you sick. They are quite a good read and will help to show why we have gotten where we are. Personally i think the elite at the top are trying to condition the public to a mindset of fear so they won't have an uprising spread if they should roll the tanks. they have already seen what the Arab Springs have done to systems that had been there for years and they know they can only juggle the numbers, lie about the true unemployment figures, and print money like there is no tomorrow for so long before the thing falls down and we become another failed country like Greece. I don't know which is worse, the thought they might actually turn the tanks on us or decide that its our turn to be the bad guys and do what Germany did to Poland in South America. But I doubt the rulers at the top of the food chain will just go without a fight, nor do i think after buying the entire congress for years they will just sit by and let the people bring fairness back into the system no matter how badly we as a nation are suffering. i think its gonna get ugly folks, really ugly.

from near as I can tell, The Con artist claims he said that. No one talked to Mr. Neronha,

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/August/11-dag-1078.html

Here is an older article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/23/david-whitaker-google-pharmacy-probe_n_1027362.html

And this is the same level of skepticism I apply to all articles and all companies.

I did a little looking around and can't find any instance of anyone pumping antifreeze up from their well.

Try harder:

glycols, including ethylene glycol

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/19/dimock-pennsylvania-epa-_n_1217422.html

Their have been instances of faulty drilling techniques being employed (bad casing cement seals) that have allowed drilling fluids to leak up the well bore and into surface waters.

This was apparently found to be the case for Cabot's wells in Dimock: http://www.lhup.edu/rmyers3/marcellus.htm (among others).

Actually its pretty easy to predict, its around 35%. When the unemployment numbers reach around 35% to 40% even those that have a job will be happy to jump in because they know their job could disappear tomorrow and when you have that many unemployed that is a lot of potential soldiers with nothing to lose. if you say it could never reach that high I would point out that we've lost 42,400 factories this past decade and we have the man most likely to be the next R to run for POTUS paying just 15% taxes while corporate taxes have never been lower makes for a LOT of hate filled bitter people who are tired of feeling like serfs.

So i wouldn't say it couldn't happen here, we got a lot of national guard armories just bristling with weapons, similar to what happened with Iraq, you got survivalists sitting on enough copies of the cookbook to wallpaper the capital and you have American soldiers signing oaths to turn on their own leaders if they disobey the constitution.It really wouldn't take but a couple of body blows like a complete EU collapse to put the last bullet in the US economy and send the few corps left off to the growth markets of Asia and people with no hope, jobs, or future frankly have nothing to lose. Do i think it will happen? nothing lasts forever and even the great empires all fell, it seems one can't keep a single system going for any length of time without the corruption ruining it. I do think we should at least give Dodd credit for being an honest whore, i'd rather have one stand up and say they are a whore than be like Obama on that pot petition and just blow smoke for 40 minutes.

I suppose the people in the ISS qualify as "high flyers", but NASA says that will be no risk for them

"On the International Space Station there is a special thick-walled room to which the astronauts have had to retreat during times of increased solar radiation."

I'm guessing they'll be using this. At least until they add a deflector dish to reroute main power through. ;-)

I suppose the people in the ISS qualify as "high flyers", but NASA says that will be no risk for them

You are the one who went off-topic with the anti-religion flamebait, by asking "When was the last time that religious followers needed a self-consistent, non-contradictory, logical message?"

- yeah, that's not an opinion, that's a fact as shown by the comment to which your replied.

How is that NDAA, still don't understand that it's passed because the elites are scared of mass insurrection and need a way to move military onto the streets when/if protests are strengthened and some of it turns violent against the masters helming the banks and the government? Even after the CIA and FBI directors came out with the statements that they didn't need those provisions for any purpose and that Obama pushed for it all singlehandedly?

Hidden cell phone towers and data centers are weird enough, but how many of you have heard of the working oil fields underneath Los Angeles?

This video at the Huffington Post is the best explanation I can find offhand, but there are pictures and documentaries all over if you look for them.

The savings from using Chinese labor is actually estimated at 23%:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/17/jon-stewart-foxconn-siri-the-daily-show-video_n_1210556.html

Exactly. If someone wants to, say, marry the Berlin Wall then do you really want your tax money used to try and stop her? Why do you care? As long as the relationship isn't abusive and nobody is being harmed, then why would you ever care that someone may choose to marry their pillow? Or a dog? Or even the man who married himself? Or a videogame character? Why do people care? Haven't governments got more important things to spend their tax payers money on, instead of wasting time and money regulating what is basically a social contract?

No love for the poor people though as Microsoft rolls out the Avoid The Ghetto App! Now it'll be interesting to see what ruffles more feathers... supporting gay marriage or the "racist" avoid the ghetto app :)

gasmonso ReligiousFreaks.com

If LightSquared got approved, they'd have to approve other companies waivers alsokaput. who make Obama campaign contributions , and but pretty much every single service that relies on a satellite would go.

FTFY

Anthony Watt's work in photographing the locations of the various weather stations used to create the temperature record and discovering them located in places like parking lots.

Investigated by "instrumental temperature record skeptic" Richard Muller, who finally concluded that the instrumental temperature record was in fact ok... Following his reversal, deniers now say that Muller was never a "true skeptic" because he accepted some tenets of global warming, completely missing the point that he was skeptical about the temperature record and he named Watts's survey as part of the reason for his skepticism:

A careful survey of these stations by a team led by meteorologist Anthony Watts showed that 70% of these stations have such poor siting that, by the U.S. government's own measure, they result in temperature uncertainties of between two and five degrees Celsius or more. We do not know how much worse are the stations in the developing world. - Richard Muller

But apparently being skeptical of the instrumental temperature record (ala Watts) is no longer enough to make you a "true skeptic" - you have to be all in, and deny everything, or else you aren't a real skeptic anymore.

the hockey stick will create a hockey stick of any random data.

Climate myths: The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong

climategate emails and the various inquiries into practices at UAE CRU

You mean, the leaks and practices that have been investigated by several different independent science groups, all of which concluded that there was no fraud? The "discredited" researchers who have been backed by every science journal that has commented on the matter?

The fallacy of your argument is this: you equate the leaders of the argument of both sides, and give them equal footing.

Leading those who accept the scientific evidence are... the scientists. Yes, the people who train for their lives, who thrive on evidence, logic and the scientific method. To be sure, some are corrupt, but if you argue the majority of them are, then you are effectively arguing against the entire profession. You sure you want to go there?

Leading the other side are those who profit from denial, and those who just don't want to change their way of life, or have religious beliefs about the matter.

These groups are not equally qualified to talk about the matter. And to paint the entire climatologist community as high priests is to equate their science with religion, which is in and of itself a fallacy. An effective one, but a fallacy nevertheless.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20111031/us-sci-climate-skeptic/