Slashdot Mirror

>The patent office actually has a procedure to handle national security sensitive patents. Some examiners have a
>security clearance, and the patents are granted but held in secret. It kind of runs counterintuitive to the
>public disclosure nature of patents, but it's there nonetheless.

That is not correct.

The government can declare a patent application secret due to national security, but if they do then the patent will not get granted until the secrecy order is lifted again. The patent process is freezed right at the step of actually granting the patent. So you cannot actually have 'black patents' that no one knows about but 'black patent applications' which is a bit different.

Source: http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2005/07/1716951.php

Unfortunately, the only place you'll see this kind of writing these days are sources seen as fringe by the mainstream. You could either distill the .005% of blogs with so-called journalistic value, or you could follow things like Indymedia, or to a much lesser degree the bland-by-consensus Wikinews.

The only reason Hunter got published at all in his day was he sold media. Then as now, the elderly media corporations aren't taking any editorial interest in what they print beyond how many papers/ads/commercials it'd sell. In Hunter's day there was the old Rolling Stone magazine (not yet a totally hideous corporate parody of itself) which ate his work up as long as it sold well to its target audience of hippies, armchair revolutionaries, and other stoned people.

Unfortunately, the things that sell the most homogenized corporate papers and magazines these days usually mention "Brangelina" picking something out of their teeth or Britney Spears drop-kicking another baby while driving. Average Joe Sixpack doesn't want to be bothered with anything more than whether his favorite useless overpaid sports team won, who his favorite useless overpaid movie stars are getting it on with, and possibly a feel-good local piece about Granny Gums Magillicuddy who turns 103 years young this week and swears it's all thanks to a lifelong diet of yogurt and aquarium gravel.

This could well shift as more people turn to the customizable, user-publishable news sources on the Internet, but the old school are not going to leave quietly. One result of this is newspapers' web sites renaming their columnists' writings to "blogs" and setting up RSS feeds.

Yes... that is what I am saying...

Just like I agree with people who deface billboards.

Someone has to fight for those with no voice... NASA can surely clean up their site in very little time, assuming they have a good backup. And from what I've seen, most groups that deface a web site just rename the index file and copy their own. A 30 second clean up fixes the page and a half hour meeting the next business day addresses the security hole.

This BT-WB deal is about re-branding the "bittorrent" experience into the commercial context. It confuses the open protocol with the commercial company. This is the normal commercial appropriation of sub-cultures/technologies; it happens over and over again but if BT-WB leave the protocols open it's not necessarily a bad thing. For example the commercial appropriation of Linux has not hurt its freely associative non-coercive creative qualities because they have been protected by free software copyright i.e the GPL. Likewise there are many open source and free bittorrent protocol clients which are used in much larger numbers than the commercial Bittorrent Company bittorent client. So it will be difficult to propose a system that substantially limits people's freedoms, in the context of large pool of free (as in freedom) software.

As an open protocol BT is great! BT is freely associative, participants can use it to mediate their own content distribution. So we have groups like the EZLN being their own distributors of content linking to a torrent right off of their indymedia blog. BT and other free non-discriminatory video hosting services (youtube, google video) are substantially less coercive than the systems which currently mediated the distribution of films today. So we should watch them carfully and promote their creative potential. They are a key enablers in the transition into participatory culture.

-----
a Chomsky quote re-interpreted as advocacy for free software:

"If its correct, as I believe it is, that a fundamental element of human nature is the need for creative work or creative inquiry for free-creation without the arbitrary limiting effects of coercive institutions then of course it will follow that a decent society should maximize the possibilities for this fundamental human characteristic to be realized."

The most interesting thing about the Google Video top 100 has been Loose Change. For weeks it has been the only full length film that isn't short a very short titillation clip (eg Webcam Girls Go Wild) or dubious humour clips (eg funny clips baby fart) that has been in the top 20.

Loose Change is the most popular 9/11 "conspiracy theory" film, no doubt due to its slick graphics, soundtrack and editing -- for an amateur movie it is impressive. However it's not the most accurate movie of its type -- see the discussion on indybay and the detailed Sifting Through Loose Change The 9-11 Research Companion.

Read on for a brief guide to some better 9/11 videos that deserve more attention...

9/11 Revisited: Were explosives used to bring down the buildings? (2006)

This is currently, probably, the best 9/11 video that challenges the official conspiracy theory.

9/11 Revisited concentrates on the collapse of the three World Trade Center buildings and includes news reports from the day and interviews with experts including Steven E Jones, David Ray Griffin and Jeff King. It is available to view online and via Google Video and the Internet Archive.

9/11 Breaking the Laws of Physics (2006)

This is a lecture from 2006 by BYU Physics Professor Steven E Jones on the collapse of the WTC buildings on 9/11. It is available from the Internet Archive. The academic paper this presentation is based on is Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?.

The 9/11 Commission Report (2004)

This is a lecture by David Ray Griffin -- professor emeritus of philosophy of religion and theology, at the Claremont School of Theology in Claremont, California. He has written many books including The New Pearl Harbor and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions on the official 9/11 Report. This lecture is available from theInternet Archive.

9-11 Open Your Eyes the War on Terror is a Lie (2004)

Filmed at the 9/11 International Inquiry (Toronto, May 2004) Open Your Eyes is available on the Internet Archive.

Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime (2006)

This new film covers the links between the US adminstration, the Republician Party and drugs running and the 9/11 hijackers, it is available on Google Video and there are higher quality versions on 911 blogger, the official film site is http://www.crisisinamerica.org/

War and Globalization - The Truth Behind September 11 (2003)

Politically this is the best video on 9/11.

War and Globalization is a lecture, from 2003 by Michel Chossudovsky, a professor of econom

Pictures from the piracy demonstration
Piratdemo1.jpg
Piratdemo2.jpg
Piratdemo3.jpg
Piratdemo4.jpg
Piratdemo5.jpg
Piratdemo6.jpg

Pictures from the piracy demonstration
Piratdemo1.jpg
Piratdemo2.jpg
Piratdemo3.jpg
Piratdemo4.jpg
Piratdemo5.jpg
Piratdemo6.jpg

Pictures from the piracy demonstration
Piratdemo1.jpg
Piratdemo2.jpg
Piratdemo3.jpg
Piratdemo4.jpg
Piratdemo5.jpg
Piratdemo6.jpg

Pictures from the piracy demonstration
Piratdemo1.jpg
Piratdemo2.jpg
Piratdemo3.jpg
Piratdemo4.jpg
Piratdemo5.jpg
Piratdemo6.jpg

Pictures from the piracy demonstration
Piratdemo1.jpg
Piratdemo2.jpg
Piratdemo3.jpg
Piratdemo4.jpg
Piratdemo5.jpg
Piratdemo6.jpg

Pictures from the piracy demonstration
Piratdemo1.jpg
Piratdemo2.jpg
Piratdemo3.jpg
Piratdemo4.jpg
Piratdemo5.jpg
Piratdemo6.jpg

That's the decoy conference.

Bilderberg think-tank conference in Ottawa this June is where the real stuff happens.

I have no idea who is attending and what goes on in there... which is precisely why it worries me.

• Such a collapse could not have progressed straight down. Any deviation from absolute center would have caused one side to collapse faster than the other, eventually shunting the debris off to one side.
• Such a collapse does not account for all the steel members being broken into sections roughly 30 feet in length (including the core).
• Such a collapse could not have occured at the acceleration observed (nearly the acceleration observed in a body falling freely through the air). The resistance of the floors would have slowed down the collapse, particularly in the initial moments, but such a slowdown was not observed. (Don't take my word for it, though...watch the video.)

...the fact remains that you have consistently failed to explain what precipitated the collapse. Certainly, it was not from the initial impact, since both towers stood long after the impact events. Certainly, it was not from the briefly burning jet fuel fires, or the more conventional office fires that followed, weakening ASTM E119 certified steel to the point of collapse, since this is impossible. Tell me, hkmwbz...what's left?

Ignoring the inconvenient problems of the 'progressive collapse' theory for just a moment, saying the collapse happened because the top floors fell down on the rest of the structure is akin to saying that a gun went off because the firing pin struck the shell. It's a frighteningly stupid argument, and I hope you'll have the courtesy of withdrawing it before it darkens this thread any further.

No you have not.

Now what have I told you about gainsaying, hkmwbz?

You have ignored facts and twisted other facts

OK, cite the facts you're accusing me of twisting and/or ignoring, and I'll be happy to address your accusations, despite the obvious fact that it's you that's done the lion's share of 'ignoring' with your childish gainsaying.

Instead of making a fool of yourself, go read the Wikipedia article on your conspiracy theories.

Wow....you never fail to amuse, do you, hkmwbz? First the North Tower is a 'red herring', and now I'm being directed to check my facts on Wikipedia. Perhaps if you followed your own advice, you would have seen that the neutrality of the Wikipedia article is currently in dispute.

They are all adequately explained.

Then it shouldn't be terribly difficult for you to use these 'explanations' to counter my arg

Ding, ding, mod parent up. The people of Nazi Germany thought they were free too:

http://www.thirdreich.net/Thought_They_Were_Free.h tml

the dirty secret of successful totalitarian control is rooting out the dissidents quietly while making sure the people who go along with it think "if I'm not doing anything "wrong" what do I have to worry about...?" Keep a constant watch on the watchers, some good resources to start:

Libertarian/Paleo right

http://antiwar.com/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/
http://www.amconmag.com/

Moderate:

http://buzzflash.com/
http://moveon.org/

Left:

http://counterpunch.org/
http://commondreams.org/
http://indymedia.org/

That should keep you busy for a while...

It's pretty amazing how criminals (alleged) cry about violated rights when apprehended.

What about the guy who was held hostage in his own home by 5 Sheriff Deputies while they dunked his head in a fish tank and a toilet, connected batteries/live electrical wires to his genetals, and put a gun to his head in an attempt to force him to sign a waver to allow them to search his home without a warrent. Funny thing was his wife set a tape recorder in the kitchen before being ordered out of the house.

Ofcouse that was over a year ago and the guy has since been conviced of unrelated drug charges. Are you saying that because this guy was a drug dealing peice of scum the police were allowed to violate his civil rights?

Here ya go, buddy. [indymedia.org]

Jews did 9-11
by Jews did 9-11 Wednesday, Jul. 02, 2003 at 10:38 PM

The basis for this website is the paranoia that the U.S. Government itself brought down the towers.

No. Actually, Jews did it. To fool Americans into fighting Israel's enemies. Simple as that.

Congratulations. You got trolled by a 5 year old GNAA meme. In fact, it's so famous now that it's even listed as a commonly recurring troll in the Slashdot Trolling article on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdot_trolling_phe nomena#Anti-semitism

Good job on that.

Here are some really vicious anti-Semitic articles that must've slipped under your radar, all of which are considered legitimate news by Google:

Anti-Globalism site expounds on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion:
http://www.etherzone.com/2006/mako052206.shtml [etherzone.com]

And this site is "liberal" how:

http://www.etherzone.com/2006/daley052506.shtml
http://www.etherzone.com/2006/lieb052506.shtml

Jews control everything, including the U.S. presidency
http://www.kanglaonline.com/index.php?template=ksh ow&kid=712 [kanglaonline.com]

I fail to see how this anti-semetic. Do you call every claim about Judaism and its influence that you disagree with "anti-semetic"? Because, you know, just because a claim is unsupported or incorrect doesn't make it "anti-semetic". Typical right-winger, can't refute claims he disagrees with, so he just slaps down the "YOU HATE TEH JEWS!!!!" comments instead. What's REALLY pathetic is that to refute the claims like "you have to have Jewish support to be President" you could say "prove it". Too bad you couldn't think far enough ahead of your emtpy, slanderous rhetoric to get to that thought.

Protocols of Zion are real; Jews conspire to take over world.
http://www.indymedia.org/en/2004/06/854426.shtml [indymedia.org]

Same as above. You claim that the statements are invalid, but you can't refute them, so you just slap down the anti-semetism label and hope nobody actually reads the document you're decrying. Typical.

Since you apparently don't know what anti-semetism is, would you like me to send you a dictionary? Because, you know, decrying portions of a religion isn't anti-semetic. In fact, you appear to be of the opinion that unless you agree unconditionally with every single facet of Judaism and Jewish culture, you're an anti-semite. Typical right-winger. No substance, just has to try and degrade everybody else on the hopes that nobody will listen to them.

Anti-Semitic; it's the new progressive.

Immediately calling everybody you disagree with anti-semetic: It's the new conservative.

But, hey, who can blame you? Since you have no actual points to make, and no intelligent opinions, you latched onto something that nobody who's PC would ever disagree with. I mean, considering what happened in the Holocaust, who would dare defend someone from anti-semetism charges, no matter how invalid the charges are, right?

And you STILL ha

No, I'm using my eyes. If I visit LGF, I see that there are comments. They're part of the blog. There is no more argument, you're just being foolish and, as is typical of the right, trying to lie through your teeth so often that people just begin to default to believing you.

That's a poor attempt at a shout-down. When you can't support your argument, scream "Lies! Lies!" When you visit LGF, you have to click the 'comments' link, then scroll past the disclaimer to read comments. They are not visible on the main page, and not readable without seeing the disclaimer. I'm right; you're wrong. Get over it.

Cite an actual article. I'm not going to read through a whole page of Google search results just because you claim they're something that the first three I DID read aren't.

Here ya go, buddy.

Jews did 9-11
by Jews did 9-11 Wednesday, Jul. 02, 2003 at 10:38 PM

The basis for this website is the paranoia that the U.S. Government itself brought down the towers.

No. Actually, Jews did it. To fool Americans into fighting Israel's enemies. Simple as that.

Is that anti-Semitic? I get the feeling that that might be just a touch anti-Semitic, maybe I'm wrong. That's from indymedia, a leftist 'news' site which, by the way, has NO DISCLAIMER. Still accepted by Google as legitimate news.

Now, one might argue that I cherry-picked a random comment to prove my point. But you can't argue that yourself, because it would invalidate your entire argument that comments are an integral part of the site's content.

By your own argument, I've now proven that Google News will accept anti-Semitic trash from leftist pages when it should be kicking them, too. But Google won't, because Google is biased against conservative news sources, for whatever reason.

To the dailykos page: The very first sentence denies the Holocaust ever happened. The next three or four seem to be setups that the whole thing was a big, tragic misunderstanding. I'm not in the habit of reading further if the 2nd or 3rd sentence isn't something along the lines of, 'actually, it did happen'.

Here are some really vicious anti-Semitic articles that must've slipped under your radar, all of which are considered legitimate news by Google:

Anti-Globalism site expounds on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion:
http://www.etherzone.com/2006/mako052206.shtml

Jews control everything, including the U.S. presidency
http://www.kanglaonline.com/index.php?template=ksh ow&kid=712

Protocols of Zion are real; Jews conspire to take over world.
http://www.indymedia.org/en/2004/06/854426.shtml

Anti-Semitic; it's the new progressive.

No, I'm using my eyes. If I visit LGF, I see that there are comments. They're part of the blog. There is no more argument, you're just being foolish and, as is typical of the right, trying to lie through your teeth so often that people just begin to default to believing you.

That's a poor attempt at a shout-down. When you can't support your argument, scream "Lies! Lies!" When you visit LGF, you have to click the 'comments' link, then scroll past the disclaimer to read comments. They are not visible on the main page, and not readable without seeing the disclaimer. I'm right; you're wrong. Get over it.

Cite an actual article. I'm not going to read through a whole page of Google search results just because you claim they're something that the first three I DID read aren't.

Here ya go, buddy.

Jews did 9-11
by Jews did 9-11 Wednesday, Jul. 02, 2003 at 10:38 PM

The basis for this website is the paranoia that the U.S. Government itself brought down the towers.

No. Actually, Jews did it. To fool Americans into fighting Israel's enemies. Simple as that.

Is that anti-Semitic? I get the feeling that that might be just a touch anti-Semitic, maybe I'm wrong. That's from indymedia, a leftist 'news' site which, by the way, has NO DISCLAIMER. Still accepted by Google as legitimate news.

Now, one might argue that I cherry-picked a random comment to prove my point. But you can't argue that yourself, because it would invalidate your entire argument that comments are an integral part of the site's content.

By your own argument, I've now proven that Google News will accept anti-Semitic trash from leftist pages when it should be kicking them, too. But Google won't, because Google is biased against conservative news sources, for whatever reason.

To the dailykos page: The very first sentence denies the Holocaust ever happened. The next three or four seem to be setups that the whole thing was a big, tragic misunderstanding. I'm not in the habit of reading further if the 2nd or 3rd sentence isn't something along the lines of, 'actually, it did happen'.

Here are some really vicious anti-Semitic articles that must've slipped under your radar, all of which are considered legitimate news by Google:

Anti-Globalism site expounds on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion:
http://www.etherzone.com/2006/mako052206.shtml

Jews control everything, including the U.S. presidency
http://www.kanglaonline.com/index.php?template=ksh ow&kid=712

Protocols of Zion are real; Jews conspire to take over world.
http://www.indymedia.org/en/2004/06/854426.shtml

Anti-Semitic; it's the new progressive.

"In other words, the government only needs warrants for unreasonable
searches and seizures."

Still wrong. I am not a lawyer, but I do know that that whole pesky "and without probable cause" part comes into play, oh, somewhere..

These are interesting..
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2006/05/1727886.php
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_displa y.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002463957

You simply stated exactly what Mr. Hayden said in an interview with reporters a couple of weeks back - that the government only needs warrants for unreasonable searches. Sad that someone who is supposed to head up one of the most powerful and important intelligence organizations in the world doesn't even know the 4th amendment.

When corrected on the issue, that it also requires PROBABLE CAUSE, Hayden actually argued back that it the only standard for obtaining warrants was for unreasonable searches.

You've made the same mistake.

Yes, we agree on many points. And I'm glad we managed to keep this civil. The points we disagree on are rather big though:

I do not believe that the death of tens of thousands of civilians can be justified by claiming to be bringing democracy.

I do not believe that you can force democracy on a country. All you can achive that way is a pseudo colony with a pseudo democracy. The kind of situation leading to the current state of Africa.

I do not believe that Bush believed there were WMDs in Iraq, nor that Iraq was closely tied to Al Quaeda, nor that Iraq was any kind of threat to the US.
I do believe that the "intelligence failures" were 100% intentional.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-15936 07,00.html
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/sp ecial_packages/iraq/intelligence/11901380.htm
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/sp ecial_packages/iraq/intelligence/12995512.htm

I do not believe that Bush invaded Iraq for humanitarian reasons.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
This count is most likely closer to the truth:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11 674.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2006/05/12/wirq12.xml
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2162249, 00.html
http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1 186519,00.html
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArti cle.asp?articleID=8218

The list is endless but I'll stop here.

I believe that Bush does and will continue to do exactly whatever he feels will benefit him, with no concern what so ever for how many dies for his gain. Not that you actually need anything but his actions and his statements to prove this, but here are more links:
http://downingstreetmemo.com/archive/2004-10-31-Ho ustonChron-Herskowitz/
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12 885.htm

I believe that Bush is now planning his next war of aggression.
http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&trh=20 060511&hn=33036
http://www.rense.com/general71/tdarg.htm
http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/05/ us-feverishly-works-to-frame-iran_13.html
http://newswire.indymedia.org/en/2006/05/839133.sh tml
http://english.people.com.cn/200605/13/eng20060513 _265252.html
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Condoleeza_Rice_ admits_she_responded_to_0509.html

Original article is at http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2006/05/1727886.php Print comments.

Bush and CIA Director-Designate Hayden Rewrite the 4th Amendment

by Dave Lindorff
Sunday, May. 14, 2006 at 8:32 AM

dlindorff@yahoo.com

The Founding Fathers said government snoops need "probable cause" to spy on us, but Bush and Hayden don't care.

Bush's nominee for head of the CIA, Gen. Michael Hayden, at a recent press conference, offered an interpretation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution that removes the requirement of "probable cause" from that important guarantee of freedom.

Asked by Jonathan Landay of Knight-Ridder about the Fourth Amendment's standard of "probable cause" for issuance of a warrant for a police search, Gen. Hayden disputed the standard.

"No, actually--the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure." Hayden said, trying to correct Landay.

"But it does say probable..." Landay tried to interject.

"No, the amendment says unreasonable search and seizure," snapped Hayden.

Now the problem here is that the General, who has been running the National Security Agency as it has been operating a secret program, just disclosed by USA Today, that monitors the phone calling records of virtually all phone customers of AT&T, Bell South and Verizon, is in fact selectively quoting from the Fourth Amendment.

What the Fourth Amendment really says is:

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

The trick here is that under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the NSA is required to obtain a court warrant for any domestic surveillance. What Bush has done is to authorize secret monitoring of Americans' communications without a warrant. At the same time, once he was caught in the act, both Bush and Gen. Hayden have claimed that they are following the same strict guidelines as if they were going to court for a warrant.

Clearly, however, the standard for a warrant, as laid out by the Founding Fathers, is "probably cause," not the much looser "reasonable" that Hayden asserted to Landay at the press conference. "Reasonable" and "unreasonable" are terms that are open to wide interpretation, after all. "Probable cause" is a much more objective standard, implying that the agency in question is already pretty certain that the subject of monitoring is guilty of a crime or of planning a crime.

We Americans, and the members of Congress who are being asked to consider Hayden's fitness to serve as CIA director, need to challenge this veteran spook's sleight of hand.

Clearly there is no "probable cause" for monitoring all the phone records of the entire customer base of three of the nation's largest phone service providers.

That's why Hayden tried so hard to deny that the standard for monitoring people's communications is "probable cause."

The president and his subordinates have been found out violating the Constitution in a serious way. If this is not an impeachable act, I don't know what is.

The revolution is televised.

Defend America: Call your senator and demand the indictment of Al-Qaeda.

Patriotically,
Kilgore Trout, C.E.O.

The revolution is televised.

Defend America: Call your senator and demand the arrest ofAl-Qaeda.

Patriotically,
Kilgore Trout, C.E.O.

The revolution will be televised.

Defend America: Deport The White House

Sincerely,
Celestial Terrestial Commuter

As we all know, today is the Information Age. For this reason, I believe that information should not be restricted anymore. I know that as an individualistic--as opposed to collectivistic--society we find the individual's achievements laudable and attributable. However, as we have seen over the past decade, movements towards free information have been very successful. "Piracy" has rampaged. Firefox has flourished. The internet has become (in my opinion, at least) one of the greatest inventions of mankind. EVER. Because of Tim Berners-Lee's refusal to privatize or commercialize the internet.

Sweden is a strong country as far as free information goes; very little is restricted. For example, the popular torrent website The Pirate Bay, a warehouse of torrents for popular files is hosted in Sweden and hasn't had much problems with the Swedish authorities. Interestingly, its corresponding crime rate is one of the lowest in the world--60 people imprisoned per 100,000, as compared to the United States' 690.

Call me unpatriotic, call me crazy, but I think this "Pirate Party" might very well just be a good idea. It will give people a different perspective on things: It is possible to not restrict information, and still manage a flourishing--if not something greater--economy and society.


I, for one, welcome our new pirate overlords.

You were not that impressed by Fahrenheit 9/11 either, huh? I thought it was a good activist movie that explored one side of the issue nicely, but it was definitely not a documentary. I will check out the movie that you posted the link to, and another good documentary that explores the relationship between the Bushes and the Bin-Laden's, along with giving a good insight into W's mindset, is "The World According to Bush" which can be downloaded here: http://la.indymedia.org/news/2004/10/117873.php The website is pretty complimentary of Moorer's film, but its own offering is much better, in my opinion.

I wonder if it hs anything to do with this. To be fair to the government, this isn't actually too bad an idea. I mean if spammers and dvertisers can gleam information to find potential targets, why can't the same technology be utilized by the defense department, who is typically an early pioneer of technology adapted for public use. Then again, a similar project 'Able Danger' identified Mohammed Atta over a dozen times.

slashdot.... less biased? Surely you jest...?

I think Indymedia is about as close as you can get to unbiased, but i still find it to be skewed a little to the left.

We tried that. 1939. Didn't turn out so well.

And this is coming from me as a libertarian who agrees we should not be so entrenched overseas... but there are places where our nose does belong. Iran is probably trying to create nuclear weapons. Their public policy is that Israel should be blown off the face of the Earth. Is it OK for us to intervene now?

first, we helped create the situation in 39 with the punative versailles treaty. If the west had not destroyed
gernmany's economy hitler probably would not have come to power.

Second regarding Iran. The first big case of blowback. The CIA supported a coup against
the first democratically elected government in iran in 1953.

I think their public policy stems from that, our support of the shah, and our unquestioning support of israel.
isn't it interesting that israel has nuclear weapons, but isn't brought up to the security council for it?

But I think you're implying that it's OK for Osama bin Laden to kill 3000 innocent Americans because the US had bases in Saudi Arabia. Is that what you're saying? Because that was the main reason Osama was supposedly pissed at us. Then Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait and we went to war to push him back, and then Osama said he was mad because Iraqi children died then and in the aftermath. Did he blame Saddam? A little, but mostly us.

Nope I'm saying nothing of the sort. I am saying you reap what you sow.
The freaking CIA helped create Osama.

Then Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait and we went to war to push him back

Yeah, after this guy went to see him while he was gassing people with our knowledge, and after the reagan administration gave iraq the bio weapon starter kits and after our ambassador told saddam we had no interest defending kuwait

So yeah, there is no rhyme or reason to terrorism. There is no cause and effect relationship between our foreign policy and terrorism. Our government is lilly white, and bears no blame for its actions. Am I excusing the terrorists? No. I am saying there is only ONE way to win, leave them alone to govern their own affairs. We taught the british that in 1776, the french learned it in algeria and indochina, (we got the same lesson in indochina but it didn't stick)

well, not everyone waits until the whale vomits... probably because you can make money off of unpuked whale stuff, too.

The war was to sieze control of Iraq's oil fields, intended to send a clear message to OPEC about what can happen when you defy the Federal reserve. The Federal Reserve print worthless bank notes that they cannot honor and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is a seperate but usually associated way of commiting fraud.

HTH - Dr Superb

I think you're right about that - I looked up a few things and it looks like farmers were allowed to keep and reuse any and all seeds pre-war, but now if they buy / use GM seeds they can't save any, although from what I understand most of these seeds would be sterile anyway. So it sounds like farmers are "encouraged" not forced to buy GM seeds. Here is a (horrendously sensationalist/blatantly Anti-U.S.) link at indymedia. For the record, I stand corrected.

Are you sure it was the tinfoil?
I mean, if I was a security guy and got confronted by thisthis, I would be pretty nervous too!

Here's to another 200 years of "well enough."

They make damn sure of that - some operate in countries that tend to disappear troublemakers...

Here's a link...

Just because the NY Times, CNN, the LA Times, and the Washington Post dare to print something other than Undying Praise for the Fatherland does not make them left-leaning. It makes them journalists doing their jobs. I think the non-U.S. news coverage of the same events is more aggressive, such as the CBC, the Toronto Globe and Mail, and the BBC. I take the truth as an average of these sources, along with some help from FAIR and the Columbia Journalism Review.

If I want left-leaning, I can go to the Independent Media Center, the Alternative News Network, The Raw Story, or the Fifth Estate.

We really don't need this material you know. The pentagon on 9/11/01 was hit by a comercial jetliner and the windows all around the impact point were still intact. The Pentagon said they were blast resistant. If they can withstand the impact of a plane, it will be simply amazing how strong this material is. See for yourself:

http://italy.indymedia.org/news/2005/04/770706.php

Or perhaps Indymedia:

http://indymedia.org/en/2004/10/112239.shtml
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/11/home_offic e_fbi_mlat_request/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BOW410A.html

Since when does America control the Internet?

You mean the "arrest" that was foretold with a E-Mail for the press to attend and watch
the arrest?

http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/130422/in dex.php

And also included these fine heifers?

http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/det ails_pop.aspx?iid=55773165&cdi=0

media, pornography, and the bush administration http://la.indymedia.org/news/2005/08/134148.php by Anna Lia Monday, Aug. 01, 2005 at 11:59 PM (BEVERLY HILLS) -- X-rated video mogul Mark Kulkis, who escorted porn star Mary Carey to last month's GOP dinner with President Bush, has found a new love interest: Washington powerdater and CNN producer Kathy Benz. But Will Their Children Produce Porn News? (BEVERLY HILLS) -- X-rated video mogul Mark Kulkis, who escorted porn star Mary Carey to last month's GOP dinner with President Bush, has found a new love interest: Washington powerdater and CNN producer Kathy Benz. The two only met a month ago during an interview while Kulkis, 40, president and CEO of Kick Ass Pictures, was in DC for the National Republican Congressional Committee's annual President's Dinner. He's honorary chairman of the NRCC's Business Advisory Council, a roundtable of millionaire entrepreneurs. Benz denies she's cozying up to Kulkis to get a scoop for CNN about the private lunch he and Carey had with White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove. "Mark's a wonderful guy and I think this could be the real thing," she tells girlfriends. Benz, 35, is known in Washington power circles for dating such figures as venture capitalist Jonathan Ledecky (now trying to buy the Washington Nationals), Univ. of Maryland basketball coach Gary Williams, and spent time last August with Sirius CEO Mel Karmazin at his Hamptons home. Her regular companions include Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Tex.), John Sununu, Sr, venture capitalist Mark Ein, Chicago Cubs VP John McDonough and Democratic lawyer Julian Epstein. She was engaged to John Daggett, AOL millionaire.

From the Villiage Voice:

FEMA Nixes Grassroots Radio Station for Hurricane Evacuees

Bureaucracy KO's info source at the Astrodome

by Sarah Ferguson
September 8th, 2005 5:04 PM

Although the effort was http://?www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la -na-radio8sep08,1,6993197.story?coll=la-headlines- nation>trumpeted in the media as an example of grassroots ingenuity in the face of disaster, local officials with the Federal Emergency Management Agency have nixed an attempt by Houston activists to set up a low-power radio station at the Astrodome that would have broadcast Hurricane Katrina relief information for evacuees.

The project was unplugged even though it had key support. On Monday, the Federal Communications Commission quickly granted temporary licenses to broadcast inside the Astrodome and the adjacent Reliant Center. The station was also backed by the Houston Mayor's office and Texas governor Rick Perry. But local officials said FEMA bureaucrats KO'd the station--dubbed KAMP "Dome City Radio"--because of "security concerns."

"They wanted unlimited access to the buildings, which we could not give to anyone in the media," said Gloria Roemer, a spokesperson for Harris County, which has jurisdiction over the Astrodome complex. Currently reporters are allowed in only on 15-minute guided tours.

According to Roemer, FEMA officials also believed they could not allocate "scarce" electricity, office space, and phone and Internet access to the volunteer station--even though activists say they offered to run the station on batteries and use their own cellphones.

Supporters of KAMP, which was set to launch at 95.3 FM, blame red tape and bureaucrats seeking to "manage the news."

"I'm very disappointed," said Councilmember Ada Edwards, who represents a mostly black district in central Houston and had issued a letter of support for the station. "One of the real challenges of this big tragedy has been access to communication--open and honest communication. I really hoped this would be an open outlet for people to get information that was unscripted and that would really address their needs.

"But it seems par for the course in terms of how this whole thing has been rolling out with FEMA and the Red Cross trying to keep tight control and manage the news," Edwards complained. "It's really sad when these people feel they have to sanitize all the time."

Activists with Houston Indymedia and Pacifica radio first brainstormed the idea over the weekend when they visited the Astrodome and spoke to swamped relief workers and survivors desperate for information about emergency services and news from back home.

"People were asking things like how can I get my FEMA check, do my kids need shots for school, can I get a free cellphone, how do I get out information about missing family members," says Jim Ellinger, a freelance radio consultant from Austin. "This is complicated stuff that you can't really address on a booming public address system. The mainstream radio stations are more focused on broadcasting to the general public about where to donate to hurricane relief, so there was no place for survivors to go to get what they need. "

"We talked to cops, volunteers, church groups--everyone said it was a good idea," Ellinger added.

But Astrodome officials were apparently more concerned about evacuees fighting over the radios. "They were worried about noise and people stealing them or that people would be tuning in to gangsta rap on other Houston stations, which they said could incite violence," says Tish Stringer, a graduate teacher at Rice University and organizer with Houston Indymedia. After several days of back and forth, activists agreed to provide 10,000 cheap, Walkman-style radios with batteries.

I doubt that the American public is impressed with what the current Canadian legislative and judicial systems either.

True, and rightly so - the Canadian system has a lot of problems of its own, there's no denying that. But I don't consider the Canada's problems in that regard (or in fact my views on Western separatism) and the issue being discussed to be linked - Canada is still a better place to be in terms of personal freedom than the US is at the moment.

This is a good example.

Do you think something like that would be likely to fly in Canada? I'm not trying to put down the American public at all. I'm just trying to wake people who don't see a problem with the way things are in the US at the moment up - because sooner or later people are going to take things like this for granted and the US won't be the great and free nation it started out as, but just a warmongering police state where personal liberty is a joke. And that will be a great pity.

Here is the press write-up of the police brtality events:
http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2005/08/19949 .php

U.S. Constitution: First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

When the government becomes oppressive, it is the right and duty of people to overthrow the regime. This is why the Second Amendment was worded as such:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Matt, Matt, Matt....

You need spellcheck for "believe" and I'm the one with the high school brain?

Dude, YOU'RE BEING TROLLED! Retards like you are the problem with Slashdot. All brains and not a lick of common sense...

BTW, it's funny that you have a link to "Spam Vampire" on your info page, but you appear to be something of a spammer yourself! Come on Matty, Slashdotters are supposed to LOVE Indymedia and HATE spam! Get with the program!

Has anyone ever told you that you look like Pvt. Pile?

Indymedia made the mistake by using Rackspace as a host. This happens to Indymedia once a year or so. .

http://arizona.indymedia.org/

Involvement in the Islamic Jihad was not illegal in the United States until January 1995, but prosecutors are presenting evidence of earlier activity, arguing it represents an ongoing criminal conspiracy.

The above statement from the article is a blatant and outright admission of illegal spying activity, which this case is REALLY about, as well as free speech aspects...the adl is bad and wants to shut down free speech and they have been at it a long time....
many of the laws enacted by israels agent here, bush, which strip freedom and lock down security state, is to actually legalize illegal surveillance we were getting ready to bust them for....b

Al-Arian Faxes Read To Jurors
By ELAINE SILVESTRINI Published: Jul 28, 2005
TAMPA - Soon after counterintelligence investigators began intercepting Sami Al-Arian's phone lines, the wires were teeming with evidence of his involvement in the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
The bugs were authorized in late December 1993, and by Jan. 11, 1994, investigators recovered what FBI Agent Kerry Myers described as the first pertinent fax communication. ....cont:
http://miami.indymedia.org/news/2005/07/2008_comme nt.php#2016

Hey, like everything else this idiotic old prune and his reptilian-dosed nano-eating-offspring manipulate, this current ridiculousity is but another apsect of the murdoch philosophy, clarified crystal by interpreting correctly the old saying HE HAS ONE HAND OUT AND ONE LEG UP. This whole farce and fiasco is just a SKYPE HUNT, which of course is easily confused with the legendary SNIPE HUNT, and thats ok because the two are very much alike, virtually interchangeable, no major differences. I think you should disregard anything this currency monger and embarassment to America rupert murdoch, or his type of people do, because it is not good for you http://www.chapelhill.indymedia.org/news/2005/07/1 5830.php
  or your kids....Bill Gallagher

YuccaFuckingMountain Project and the two big spook companies behind it; working hand-in-hand, synergistically to create the most highly secured place on earth where they and their friends can hide nuclear waste or anything else they want to hide.

What about these:

• Earthquake could cause flooding of Yucca Mountain repository
• Yucca Valley earthquake surprised experts
• Desert Earthquake Hits Near Yucca Mountain, Proposed Nuclear Waste Site
• 4.4 earthquake hits near Yucca
• Earthquakes In The Vicinity Of Yucca Mountain
• Yucca Mountain Earthquake Today!

There's a number of other stories and articles about how earthquakes affect Yucca Mountain.