Slashdot Mirror

Israel has a very developed a very advanced cyberwarfare infrastructure, capable of both defensive and offensive attacks. And it's widely believed that they're the ones behind Stuxnet and other attempts at sabotaging Iran's nuclear program.

And that's just what they do in cyberspace. You get a LOT worse treatment from them if you happen to be an Iranian nuclear scientist.

Rest assured that Israel dishes it out at least as well as they get it. They're hardly innocent babes in the woods.

That's not true. Staggered overdosing is a real problem despite what you and that person with itchy mod points might think. The fact of the matter is that tylenol doesn't do anything, and taking medications which don't do anything is pointless. On top of that, because it's so ineffectual staggered overdosing is a real risk that hasn't been properly appreciated.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/27/tylenol-overdose-staggered-health-risk_n_1110802.html

As long as people keep underestimating the dangers of acetaminophen we're gong to have these unfortunate fatalities.

Thanks, good analysis.

Here's one google result about DNA damage:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/genetically-modified-soy_b_544575.html

I don't know enough to properly evaluate it but don't immediately discount it either. I still buy canola oil, though.

I'll presume for argument you have been living under a rock.

and I am going to provide a retort every time I see your lying propaganda shill, plant and stooge posts appear on /. about this topic.

ACLU

UPDATE I: Don't be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so.

--

ACLU: President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Bill Into Law

"President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law," said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director. "The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield. The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally."

âoeWe are incredibly disappointed that President Obama signed this new law even though his administration had already claimed overly broad detention authority in court,â said Romero. "Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back the constitutional excesses of George Bush in the war on terror was extinguished today. Thankfully, we have three branches of government, and the final word belongs to the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the scope of detention authority. But Congress and the president also have a role to play in cleaning up the mess they have created because no American citizen or anyone else should live in fear of this or any future president misusing the NDAAâ(TM)s detention authority."

Huffington Post: History Will Judge Obama On NDAA

Obama's WORTHLESS signing statement

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable.

--

Forbes: President Obama Signed the National Defense Authorization Act - Now What?

There is some controversy on this point, in part because the law as written is entirely too vague. But whether or not the law will be used to indefinitely detain US citizens domestically, it is written to allow the detention of US citizens abroad as well as foreigners without trial.

I have absolutely no problem with wealthy philanthropists deciding themselves what's the best way to give back to society - all the more power to them.

The point is not the estate tax but prevention of dynasty building, because contrary to you assertion it has been pretty conclusively shown that trickle down economics is not accomplishing this (once an estate is large enough that a small share of the interest allows for a lavish life style the wealth accumulation persists).

I should probably also mention that both Gates and Buffet have been arguing for a fairer i.e. higher taxes on the super rich.

What about their kids?

It's their own fault for being born into poverty. They could start getting bootstrappy now if it weren't for those damn liberal child-labor laws.

(This would be funny if there weren't people like Newt Gingrich who actually believe this!)

for further proof http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/12/drip-casting-mobile-downloads_n_1203094.html , it's begun.

Such options could make consumers more inclined to watch video on phones or tablets since the biggest U.S. operators, Verizon Wireless and AT&T Inc , charge for data usage on a metered basis.

"The idea would be that you don't get charged for certain data because the carrier would handle it differently," Zafar said.

The ability of the carrier to charge different prices for differing types of traffic could have other applications, too, according to the executive.

That reminded me: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/03/mountain-dew-dissolves-mice_n_1180994.html

We are talking about Russia where a significant portion of the residents still believe the moon landing was a fake 40 years later.

Of course it would be remiss for anyone to rule out the US doing nasty things with technology, since they refuse to comment on anything but always turn up red-handed.

Paid Advertisements do. You buy elections with media paid blitzes, not a few twits going on about crap no one cares about. As Rachel Maddow points out Fox news, the highest rated news broadcast in America, gets owned by Spongebob, WWE & Hanna Montana.

Uhh, Amazon is operating one or more facilities in Indiana now: http://www.theindychannel.com/money/27824383/detail.html ..so good on Indiana for holding them to the same rules to which they hold other mail-order operations.

Amazon tried and got away with this shit in South Carolina - they scored a sales tax exemption despite setting up operations in the state:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/09/amazon-warehouse-spartanburg-county_n_1140145.html

Now, why does Amazon get sales tax exemption with their nexus in the state, yet other mail order operations do not get sales tax exemptions? This is pure and simple government-corporate corruption, and only the small guy loses.

"...2010, 45 percent of households paid no federal income tax, according to the Tax Policy Center. In 2009, it was about 47 percent. In 2008, 49 percent..."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/28/46-percent-of-americans-e_n_886293.html/

You're assuming they're building it themselves. Given the recent accusations and lawsuit against Cisco, it's entirely possible that a US or some other country based company is writing the code they're using.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/23/cisco-falun-gong-lawsuit_n_865585.html

You only get thrown into federal prison for doing illegal things.

Yeah, you go to a military prison when you do anything else.

-1 for depressing!

They tried that. They are currently trying to sue Apple and RIM for over one beeeellion dollars. Sun also paid them some money to get the Kodak lawsuit company off their backs after Kodak claimed to own a patent covering a program that gets help from another program.

1. Martial law is not a conspiracy theory, it's NDAA - was signed on December 31, 2011, it includes military detaining civilians for indefinite time periods authorised by POTUS and it denies any rights to a lawyer or a trial, etc.

2. There ain't nothing magical about dollar collapse, it's quite straight forward and only the blind and the ignorant don't understand the issue and it has to do with illegitimate currency backed by nothing and given out like candy to whoever knows how to ask.

3. Comments on /.? Sure, why not. It can be any comments, it can be youtube videos or being associated with people who post such videos, for example being their children.

just when were the good times, then? Was it back when African-Americans were enslaved?

- and this was completely legitimised by the GOVERNMENT of the time and it ended because the free market capitalism made it more profitable to hire free workers rather than to own slaves.

When women had no rights?

- and this was completely legitimised by the GOVERNMENT, which set the rules that only white men with land could vote.

This eventually too, was changed only once the free market capitalism made the people productive enough so that they didn't have to be subsistence farmers and women could finally stop being baby making machines for the farmers and could become economically independent in large numbers, and this was due to the innovation and entrepreneurship that only happened because of sound money and investment and freedom from government chains.

When Native Americans were treated like blacks were in the 60s? When we fought continual wars against the natives pretty much because they were in our way? The Trail of Tears?

- completely legitimised by GOVERNMENT.

etc.etc.

All the things you are complaining about was legitimate by the law of the land and the law of the land had to change, government had to be reigned in and powers had to be removed from it that made it possible for all the discrimination.

Of-course while the discrimination against specific groups of people were becoming less of an issue, the discrimination against a much larger group of people was on the rise - the workers, the savers, the investors.

The modern day worker, saver, investor and tax payer is the slave of the past, but it's done in a more uniform manner.

Of-course the blacks and other minorities are still in a hole, specifically because the government took over the people's power to do with their own bodies as they want, so the war on drugs succeeded in enslaving the blacks once again, instead it's now being enslaved into a system not for providing cheap source of labor, but it's done to increase the power of the police state, provide money for illegal CIA operations and various other political reasons.

Of-course you, being an historian, just like Newt Gingrich, would probably say that the Founders of US Republic would just execute the potheads and other drug users, completely disregarding the fact that the Founders themselves were using all sorts of drugs, from hashish to opiates. But who cares about such inconvenient details, right?

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2011/11/jesse_ventura_tsa_pat_downs_body_scans_lawsuit_thrown_out.php

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/04/jesse-venturas-tsa-lawsui_n_1075676.html

Lawsuit thrown out because "Federal Court" does not have jurisdiction in cases against TSA. And apparently the ruling took soo long that it cannot even be appealed because the time expired.

Talk about getting stonewalled by the courts. Maybe ask Ventura about the validity of the US constitution in 2012?

As usual, someone with a different POV and moderator points used them incorrectly.

Anyway, here's some justification of my post, and also an indicator of who is actually who's bitch:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/us-iran-israel_b_1074058.html

No wonder over 90% of the American high school graduates can't even pinpoint their own country - the United States of America - on the world map.

Citation needed. Or an admission that you just made this up.

His figures are a little out, according to the Huffington report on the Gallup /Harris poll in 2008 it was 37% of ALL Americans that couldn't recognise their own country.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-shehori/poll-37-of-americans-unab_b_150933.html

Got to love the quote from that article. On being shown a map of the USA and asked which country it was:

"That thing definitely looked familiar," said autoworker and father of three Ed McConnell. "And my gut told me there were probably a whole bunch of Americans there. So I had to go with 'Iraq.'"

It's bizarre how perverted the discussion has become due to the focus on deficit and debt. ...
Stop worrying about the deficit or the debt. They are meaningless, red herrings.

Dear Sir,

Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Sincerely

J. Weidmann
President
Deutsche Bundesbank

WHAT IS THE EUROPEAN DEBT CRISIS?

In its most basic form, it's just this: Some countries in Europe have way too much debt, and now they risk not being able to pay it all back. Simple!

There's more to it than that, of course, but when people talk about the "crisis," what they're worried about is that a big, scary, flashpoint event will happen -- like one or more of the eurozone countries defaulting on its debts -- causing investors to panic and triggering a massive banking shock.

The possibility also looms that one or more countries will pull out of the eurozone -- the 17-nation bloc that use the euro currency, which has been around since 1999. Should any of the eurozone nations drop out of this group, it could lead to a rash of bank failures in Europe, and possibly in the United States as well. Under these circumstances, people and businesses who need money might not be able to get any. We'd be looking at depression for Europe and recession for the rest of the world. Some people argue that an orderly, controlled eurozone break-up would be a good thing for certain struggling debtor nations. Still, even this relatively benign scenario carries economic fallout for Europe and maybe beyond.

HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?

The reason everyone is freaking out now is that while some eurozone countries are relatively sound from an economic standpoint, other countries are way over-leveraged, meaning they have too much debt relative to the size of their economies. And the troubles of a few countries could end up affecting everyone, yoked together under one currency for the last decade -- even though their economies functioned according to different habits and enjoyed very different degrees of financial health.

Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain -- gathered under the unfortunate acronym PIIGS -- are some of the most highly leveraged eurozone countries, and most people think that if a disaster happens, it will start with one of them. Italy's debt is 121 percent the size of its economy. For Ireland, that figure is 109 percent. In Greece, it's 165 percent.

The PIIGS took different paths to this scenario. Ireland, for example, underwent a massive real estate bubble, and its banks sustained giant losses. The Irish government wound up rescuing its banks, and now the country is burdened under a huge debt load.

Spain, which now has a 22 percent unemployment rate, also experienced a huge housing bubble. The country didn't indulge in excessive borrowing -- rather, it ended up with high deficits because it couldn't collect enough tax revenue to cover its expenses.

Greece, on the other hand, not only borrowed beyond its means, but exacerbated the problem with lots of overspending, little economic production to make up the difference, and some creative bookkeeping to prevent eurozone authorities from realizing the true extent of the situation.

The deficits weren't piling up everywhere. Countries with strong economies like Germany and France were keeping their output high and their debt at a manageable level. But when 17 nations use the same currency, trouble spreads quickly.

Now that the size of the PIIGS' debt has become clear, investors are getting more and more reluctant to buy bonds from European countries, since many of those countries are heavily in debt -- and the ones that aren't in debt look like they might have to assume responsibility for the ones that are. Investors don't want to put their money into bonds if they think they might not eventually get that money back. And

Do you really have to ask the obvious?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/16/3d-tv-health-risks-7-peop_n_540227.html#s81731&title=People_Who_Are

Smell a class action from these ppl? It would need an opt out / in kind of service, so a dedicated channel, can't opt out of hbo 10:30 pm to 12:00 AM, so we can't do it like the Chinese period.

Sounds like a perfect Reality TV comedy theme to milk. I wonder if Gilbert Gottfried would like to host the show.

AFLAC!

So you call me 'crazy person' instead of taking back all of the nonsense that you've been spewing here.

Fact - this section, that was in version 4 of the bill is not in the final version (7) of the bill, it's skipped.

Let's look at the section that is missing from the final bill, and it's taken out by the order of the Obama and his administration:

SEC. 1031. DEFINITION OF INDIVIDUAL DETAINED AT GUANTANAMO.

        In this subtitle, the term `individual detained at Guantanamo' means any individual who is located at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, on or after March 7, 2011, who--

                (1) is not a citizen of the United States or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States; and

                (2) is in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense.

you can continue with your propaganda, that somehow Obama fought the evil Republicans tooth and nail to prevent the bad things from happening to the US citizens.

But he is the one who forced that section to be taken out, he is the one running the Gitmo concentration camp (as in a prison, where individuals kidnapped by a government force are placed without any lawful recourse, without ability to challenge their confinement in a court system).

Sure, it says: terrorists, bad people, Al Qaeda.

I say: anybody who a dictatorial 'elected' official deems to be a bad person, a terrorist, Al Qaeda 'member' or 'sympathizer' (or maybe a relative).

Just a matter of fact - now POTUS kills so called Al Qaeda members and their children that are US citizens found abroad, given the new power it's just going to be possible to put people into military concentration camps without any legal recourse, including US citizens, eventually those who are in US.

And I am crazy? OK, now good night, it's very late where I am.

I thought it was well known that Twitter support terrorist organizations.

Oh, wait, they don't mean that type of terrorist, they meant "Muslims?" Oh, sorry, my bad.

You need to remove one of your examples:

I usually try to avoid thinking that 3 year old stories are news, and this link on your site:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/22/guantanamo.order/index.html is way outdated.

President Barack Obama reversed course Monday and ordered a resumption of military trials for terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, making his once ironclad promise to close the isolated prison look even more distant.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/07/obama-guantanamo-trials_n_832451.html

One party fought for public option health care. They fought for increased taxes on those who can afford it, rather than insisting that taxes only ever go down. They fought against the enormous and expensive blunder that was the Iraq war. They fought against allowing unlimited corporate money to influence politics. They fought against torture. They fought against teaching creationism in school. And despite your hand-waving dismissal, they fought for the rights of gays and women, who probably don't view themselves as minor issues. And that's just off the top of my head.

Saying the parties are the same is just the excuse of the lazy, trying to rationalize why they don't bother voting.

And which party was that? I remember hearing about those issues in the news, but I don't remember the Democrats actually fighting for them. Was a Public Option ever really considered? I seem to remember Obama making promises in private that the Public Option was a no go. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html

On the Iraq war, yeah a few Dems made some noises about it, but most turned around and voted for it anyway. http://articles.cnn.com/2002-10-11/politics/iraq.us_1_biological-weapons-weapons-inspectors-iraq?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS But we still torture, and still have black sites. It's just not reported on because it is done secretly by the intelligence agencies. I can't prove it because it is all classified, but it stands to reason. Besides, Obama now claims the right to declare anyone a Terrorist and have them killed. I mean really....

I will agree that they fight for the rights of gays and women, and for that I applaud them. Though having the right to serve in the armed forces is a dubious reward in my opinion. Enabling them to marry is good though.

The issue is that so much of this is smoke and mirrors. The Dems make much nicer noises than the Rebups. But at the end of the day, if you go look at how they vote, they often don't live up to the rhetoric. And I must point out, they make a lot more noise when the Republicans are in power than when they're not. On the issues important to me (a more peaceful foreign policy, civil rights, the income gap and shrinking middle class, government and corporate corruption) I don't see a huge difference between the parties. They both chase the same money after all. And BTW, I vote. Just not for R or D.

"American Exceptionalism". We're in the lead, so everyone else must be behind us.

Here are the current top two contenders to the U.S. Presidency attacking the sitting President because he "simply does not understand the concept of American exceptionalism": http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerome-karabel/american-exceptionalism-obama-gingrich_b_1161800.html

I assume that this is a feature of imperialism on the cusp of decline.

I wasn't specifically singling out the US. In fact in Africa, the US isn't nearly as bad as some European nations, such as France and England, which still haven't gotten over the idea that these countries are their colonies. The US has been much worse in its treatment of South American nations, however.

Furthermore, I'm not denying that rich nations don't provide money for infrastructure or education, or provide funding to NGOs that provide these things. But the money quite often gets in the hands of corrupted governments, which are helped or put in power by the West. There are a few genuinely helpful programs, but these seem to be exception.

Some citations for the West plundering the resources of poor countries, aided by corrupt governments they support and/or put in power, while the people starve (or worse) :

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,686774,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8126353.stm

http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2011/10/03/new-report-exposes-shell-complicity-in-nigerian-human-rights-abuses/

http://www.examiner.com/public-safety-in-national/blood-diamonds-zimbabwe-torture-camp-discovered-by-bbc

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/12/french-president-jacques-chirac-corruption_n_958043.html

http://foodwhistleblower.org/blog/22-2011/240-united-nations-report-contract-farmer-exploitation-imperils-food-integrity

You may say, well, these are almost all examples of corporations exploiting people, not governments. But let's not forget that these corporations are based in Western countries and have an enormous influence on their politics, the whole "revolving door" thing.

There is some research indicating health issues associated with certain GMO corn. Of course it's difficult to say much with certain Food Libel Laws being what they are, but suffice it to say that if there's a reasonable concern that GMO foods could be harming people and if their efficacy at improving our agricultural processes is in question then we should probably slow down on implementation.

Yes. Ron Paul is an anti-constitutionalist, anti-libertarian..., a hypocrite, a liar, a theocrat and anti-American traitor.

...and still the best of the bunch. I will probably vote for him knowing that he won't win - but this time I will vote to send the message that I'm sick of the establishment's shit. I lost every bit of Hope and Change in mainstream candidates after Obama's reign.

We aren't going to be productive by votes, the system is too powerful and manipulative to allow that. We're gonna be productive by Sacking the traitors from within.

Why on the moon? Why not in a high orbit around the earth.

You mean, like this one? ;)

I'm currently on GoDaddy and have felt rather dirty ever since I heard about their CEO, Bob Parsons, hunting an elephant. I also hate their interface -- too cluttered and too much marketing/advertising/crap in there. I'd like to know a good, reputable, registrar that I could move to. Anyone have suggestions?

Here's the video: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/31/bob-parsons-godaddy-ceo-elephant-hunt_n_843121.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/06/somalia-libertarian-parad_n_197763.html

Not surprised. All I knew about the company was the apparent character of their CEO, as indicated by the Elephant Shooting Incident:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/01/bob-parsons-go-daddy-elephant-video_n_843623.html

Now that I've posted this, Slashdot will soon be only known as 216.34.181.45 :)

Actually most do not. The difference is revenue versus taxable income. Those 'small business' aren't making taxable incomes of a million dollars a year.

GOP defines Bechtel (billions in revenue) and PriceWaterHouseCoopers abig accounting firm are 'small' businesses by the GOP definition. Is a billion dollar a year company a 'small' business?

linky

Because real life has to compromise. In that though you should be a big supporter of those Tea Party Republicans who will vote down any tax raises.

Right. Well... Except for taxes on the middle class --screw those losers, right? Thank God we've got the GOP looking out for the job creators --isn't it obvious by now that obscene income inequality creates low unemployment?

They are standing by their guns and sticking to their promises even though they are obviously bad for the United States.

Yes, it is admirable how willing they are to drive the bus over the cliff, proving their ideological purity. I just wish the rest of us weren't on it.

You must be thinking about Germany

Right now, it's illegal (per FAA regs) to use drones for commercial purposes. There are reports that someone has tried it anyway, but those who don't wish to draw the FAA's ire are waiting until the regs describing how and where drones can be used for commercial uses are finalized (expected some time in 2012, although that may be delayed with the recent arrest and subsequent resignation of Randy Babbit).

Inevitably these are the words that will issue from some Superior Officer's mouth each morning so they can "prove" that red light camera improve safety even around the areas they're installed where there are no cameras.

And what follows is destroyed and distorted paperwork, reclassification of incidents, motorists NOT being issued tickets on certain roads, people being "let go" and individuals involved in accidents being encouraged to "work it out between yourselves so it doesn't go on your record".

We KNOW what happens when police are under pressure to produce downward statistics in crime each year, or in this case downward statistics for accidents. Policing becomes less professional and more third-worldy, even criminal.

Some examples: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3mmuZsHmv8

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/13/ex-nypd-cop-we-planted-ev_n_1009754.html/

It's not what the cops want to do, it's what well-intentioned people who think policing should be subject to the same kinds of productivity and performance metrics that other industries are subject to inadvertently cause.

Telling cops they need to produce such and such numbers for this and that reason is a stupid idea who time has never existed in the first place. Telling them they need to prove by stats that the camera improve intersection safety is a big mistake.

The way to work this is to let them do what from their experience they feel will work and have the insurance companies by law turn over their statistics to the government or the universities who then data mines it on an ongoing basis to see what works for traffic safety and what doesn't and what's trending and what isn't.

Don't make the source of the data also the beneficiary of the data when it leans a certain way. Also don't punish them when it leans some other way.

The police don't cause crime so it's not theirs to reduce year over year. Society causes crime, the economy causes crime, bad parenting and poor family environment causes crime, lousy neighborhoods cause crime. Not policing.

The vast majority of police forces do what they can in the best way they've learned how and results are really pretty good in most areas. But the lions share of the credit or blame goes to the population who either is or is not inclined to follow the law in the first place.

Squeezing departments to produce numbers is a sure fire way to have them enact a quota system which is a sure fire path to corruption which is a sure fire path to contempt for cop on the part of the citizenry which is a sure fire way to increase crime as the years go by.

We need to do everything we can to produce and maintain a justice system that honorable and equitable and run like hell from anything that tends to corrupt that system.

This lack of professionalism can cost people their job. Here's an article about a 9 year old 'wrongfully' suspended for saying a teacher was 'cute'.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/05/student-9-years-old-suspended-for-sexual-harassment_n_1129683.html

Following the social and Internet outcry over such an obscene misjudgement by the Principal, here's the follow up piece where he was forced to retire over the situation.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/07/9277654-principal-forced-out-over-9-year-olds-sexual-harassment-suspension

And here's the real story, where the kid in question has a history of bad behaviour, including racism and the actual suspension was the consequence of a series of incidents, and the kid never used the word cute anyway as originally reported

http://www.wsoctv.com/download/2011/1205/29926822.pdf

It's not about embracing technology, it's about all the pieces to the puzzle being reported, rather than skipping half the story and being less than truthful about the other half.

Rushing out 'facts' out of context is not good journalism, regardless of medium.

Let's be honest here: which 1st world country even wants U.S. citizens moving there? All of the people I know that routinely travel to Europe and Asia on vacation tell people they're Canadian now, because when they were honest and told them they were from the U.S. they were treated like absolute shit, made fun of, kicked out of pubs and restaurants, and generally just fucked with; not all the time, but often enough that it made them feel totally unwelcome even as tourists. Even people that they were engaged in pleasant conversation with would sometimes simply walk away once they found out they were from the states. Now that they tell them they're Canadian none of that happens anymore.

The "ignorant, brutish American" stereotype has spread across the entire globe, and I can't necessarily even argue against it; the only things many people around the world know about us are totally negative. For every thoughtful, reasonable American citizen there are 10 mouth-breathing retards comparing Islam to Nazism, cheering the deaths of the uninsured and booing one of our own soldiers because he is gay.

Tar sands needs oil prices high to be profitable so ...

You mean making 36 billion each quarter isn't enough profit?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/29/big-oil-profits_n_913452.html

In California, we had a recent series of of federal raids against medical marijuana growers and sellers that were legal by state standards (they went after the most clearly legal and above board operations first).

President Obama, while he was campaigning, promised that this wouldn't happen. I didn't vote for him, but did hold out hope that he would be better on civil rights than our last president. It's a shame that they're about the same.

That's speculation. What evidence can you provide to show that the communication protocols used are anything more secure than off-the-shelf consumer grade? This kind of crap makes me highly suspicious.

There:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/17/europa-water-jupiter-moon-photo-video_n_1099463.html

If this was already posted, and I missed it, apologies. Apparently, the Daily Mail story is crap (whoda thunk?): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20111208/eu-red-cross-video-games/

... who aid and abet the Taliban. "War crimes" my ass.

They* killed a killed a guy for being ... "dangerous terrorist". No trial, no judge, no lawyer, no oversight.

Care to share the name? News reports? Evidence? If you have evidence, go to the press, or Cryptome or...

...

So, back to the point, citations please.

Well, assuming GP was referring to US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, there is no shortage of press commentary. Apparently US citizen Salmir Khan was killed in the same attack, but was not deliberately targeted, being just another collateral casualty. The press reports include statements of concern regarding this extra-judicial execution of al-Awlaki being ordered by the sitting US president. It was not a "heat of the moment" death in a shootout or in an attempt to escape from being arrested. Moreover, was not convicted of any offence, not even in absentia. Although many accusations were made (presumably with justification), no charges were ever laid against him. From what is in the press reports, he was by no means a Mahatma Gandhi, but the ordering of an execution without even going through the motions of a trial (not even a mock trial) should be disturbing to any US citizen. It's easier to slide down the slippery slope than to climb back up.

Oh, here's a few press references, in the Wahington Post, the Huffington Post, and CBS News. Use your Google-fu to find many many more. There is also an interesting comment in the New York Times, which suggests that legal advice given to the president before the execution was that it would be illegal.