Slashdot Mirror

Happens all the time.

Nope. If it happened all the time, then no trains, highways, or airplanes would be used at all.

Reality, of course, is that while people can be wrong, they are fallible human beings after all, they aren't always, and they do think about what they're doing.

I think the current story is such an example.

You can think a lot of things, but often enough, they aren't true. Not when you dig down.

We also have the "bridges to nowhere", many which were constructed by precisely the lack of competence and judgment you seem to think doesn't exist.

On the other hand, which were constructed with thought and consideration. I'd add more, but my sentence was getting awkward.

You seem to not realize that you are arguing against a priority in transportation based on nothing more than offering a handy catchphrase, when in reality, the bridge which you so blithely dismiss, did go somewhere, and did have a purpose. In fact, it even had a planning document which you could review, and see that it was not simply, as many people seem to think, and as its destractors certainly want to portray, a bridge being built for no purpose at all. It's one thing if you disagreed with the priority, but again, that would require reviewing the actual documents involved, and making an evidence based decision. Not simply standing at a podium and ranting.

Like a certain senator, it simply became a political tool, but reality, well, may be different.

That's right, if you dare to go to the people impacted by the decision, and they'll resent you for using them as a pawn in a bunch of grandstanding.

At least give them the courtesy of some effort towards thoughtful consideration, rather than whatever popular slogan grabs your attention. Reserve that for after school television programs. Let's get the next ten words. Ante up, poindexter.

Here's the Board Meeting Schedule. Let me know which one you want to attend.

In an economy where market failures such as negative externalities are corrected, Apple is already doing the sort of thing that any company would do to maximize ROI. The problem is that conservative organizations such as the NCPPR tend not to believe in externalities, probably because it conflicts with their ideology that the Earth is not warming or that humans are not the cause of it.

It's ironic that the NCPPR bring up ROI when they bash a $68.4 billion train project that would provide the same transportation capacity as $158 billion spent on roads and airports. What this and their meddling in Apple's affairs tells us is that they aren't truly interested in ROI but in supporting Big Oil and opposing anything that competes with burning dirty, nonrenewable fuels. This also explains why they don't believe in anthropogenic global warming. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" (Upton Sinclair)

We have a runway big enough for the Antonov AN225.

An Alaska judge has sided with former Gov. Sarah Palin in a lawsuit over e-mail, finding that state law doesn't forbid the use of private e-mail accounts to conduct state business.

Just because you want it to be illegal doesn't make it illegal; i.e. laws have to be passed by legislature first.

Jesus Christ. Not only is that a BS decision to save Palin's butt, but it just set precedence.

I hate this country sometimes.

http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/012510/sta_554316966.shtml

Citation you gave doesn't prove a crime. The citation I give explicitly says it wasn't a crime.

Care to try again?

An Alaska judge has sided with former Gov. Sarah Palin in a lawsuit over e-mail, finding that state law doesn't forbid the use of private e-mail accounts to conduct state business.

By the way, that was from back in January. Didn't your copt of Palin Haters Weekly include that news? Gee, I wonder why not?

An Alaska judge has sided with former Gov. Sarah Palin in a lawsuit over e-mail, finding that state law doesn't forbid the use of private e-mail accounts to conduct state business.


Just because you want it to be illegal doesn't make it illegal; i.e. laws have to be passed by legislature first.

Seriously?

"Welcome! To access adn.com content and features for free, you must be a registered user."

First, a wag of the finger to the OP for linking to something I have to register a plethora of information just to read "for free".

Second, a wag of the finger for ADN for requiring so *much* of my information.

Here's a nice link: blob news story on juneauempire

By the way, who says she's refusing to turn them over? Have any source for that?!

Her attorneys filed this privilege log after initialy refusing to suply a small set as described here:

In July, the governor's office refused to disclose the contents of about 40 e-mails between Todd Palin and Gov. Palin's administration as part of a larger public records request by McLeod. Other e-mails between Todd Palin and the governor's staff were released, McLeod said, but had some parts redacted. Todd Palin is copied as a recipient on most of the e-mails but also authored a few.

Some of the subject lines of the withheld e-mails, which were created between Feb. 1 and Apr. 15. of this year, included: "Andrew Halcro," and "PSEA." Halcro is a political rival of Palin. The PSEA is the union that represents the Alaska State Troopers, including trooper Mike Wooten, who is divorced from Gov. Palin's sister and is also a key figure in the investigation of Monegan's firing.

--MarkusQ

Counter to what you postulate I do not begrudge her her legal rights. What I do is, on balance, to condone a transgression that infringes on her legal rights, i.e. hacking into her email account. That is something different. In itself that's also wrong, and I admit it.

When you condone it, that renders your admission that the act was wrong utterly and completely meaningless, and supports my contention that you believe she does not rate equal treatment. Period.

Nonsense. There is a broad spectrum of grey between right and wrong, even if you choose not to acknowledge that if it makes your position sound better. Hacking into an email account is a relatively small transgression, which may in this case be condoned because of the potential importance of the revelations. Besides which, using a *private* email account to conduct US government business is illegal too, and a good deal more serious (see http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/091608/sta_333013278.shtml). Especially if it's used to evade data retention acts or evade government transparency.

I can see you will gleefully stick to your this-is-the-letter-of-the-law position about the break-in of the email account and ignore the broader issues. That's Ok for law enforcement officers, but I don't believe it's a good line to take as a private citizen.

In other words, you believe she should be judged in the court of your opinion - rather than in a court of law and without regard for the law.

In case you forgot, it so happens that the entire election is a court of public opinion. Your idea of election by lawsuit in a court of law may generate interest though.

I call it "nebulous and handwaving" and "biased" in that anyone who can level the charge of lack of experience at her with a straight face, especially compared with the experience of the other three candidates, to be simply astounding. (Disclaimer: I'm not fond of or voting for any of 'em.)

Meaning you didn't read any of the articles I linked to, or what I wrote about my reservations. Lack of experience is the least of her problems. Cluelessness, administrative incompetence, contempt for law and due process, and abuse of power rate higher I'd say.

I call it "nebulous and handwaving" and "biased" because she is under investigation, not convicted. In America, there is a difference between the two. As before, there are words for those who don't believe or support this - and they aren't complementary.

So, reports from city councillors about a mismanaged white-elephant sports-center land-buy, about illegal appropriation of road-maintenance funds for office decoration, about environmental irresponsibility, are "nebulous", "hand-waiving" and "biased" are they? And not to be considered until affirmed by a court of law (safely after election day), yes?

Well, I'm not sure I would be interested in any of your compliments. Thanks.

When science says that oil corps and other big "resource extractors" should't just get whatever they want, Palin's hates science.

Though if being mayor of the meth capital of Alaska counts as "chemistry policy", Palin is ahead of the curve.

Okay, as mayor she tried to fire the town librarian (went so far as to give her a letter announcing she was fired) for not banning books from the library that people Palin knew found offensive. Can we look forward to a Net with all the offensive stuff removed, or else?

Perhaps to her small credit, Palin backed down from firing the librarian. She went ahead, however, with firing the police chief. There had been a bunch of serious drunken driving bashups. The bars in Wasilla are open until 5 a.m. The chief proposed the closing time be moved to 2 a.m. The bar owners where friends and backers of Palin.

The chief sued for unlawful termination. It went to the Alaska Supreme Court. They threw it out on the basis that in Alaska a mayor can fire a police chief at pleasure, without any requirement for justification.

At first, this may seem unconnected to tech policy - unlike Palin's desire for censorship. But consider how much of the Net is devoted to selling drugs. The Wasilla area is the meth capital of Alaska. Now, if you know small towns with drug problems, you know the patrons of the bars are also the patrons of the meth labs. How else do you expect them to stay up drinking until 5 a.m., before they go off to crash their trucks? Palin's in good with these country folks.

So for the Net under Palin, bottom line: less porn, more drugs.

Does the conservative spirit include the right of rapists to choose the mothers of their children?

Because that's is the logical conclusion of Palin's view that abortions should be illegal even in cases of rape or incest.

http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/101906/sta_20061019031.shtml

She said no thanks to Sen. Ted "Internet Tubes" Steven's 100 million dollar "bridge to nowhere",

Anchorage Daily News, 10/5/06: Palin Said She Supported The So-Called "Bridge To Nowhere," But Was Concerned Money "Flow" Was "Going to Slow"

Might want to revisit your history....

Nowhere in the story you link to is she quoting as saying that. The author was her budget director, and if you actually RTFA, he states that earmarks aren't a "free lunch" because of the consequences in involved, and in the following CNN article, she used the Bridge as an example of that. Sure, she'd have liked a nice, fat, free bridge, but the project would have stuck Alaska with 80 percent of the bill. So she supported killing it.

Here'a a real quote from her on the subject:

Gov. Sarah Palin said Friday the project was $329 million short of full funding.

"We will continue to look for options for Ketchikan to allow better access to the island," the Republican governor said. "The concentration is not going to be on a $400 million bridge."

Palin directed state transportation officials to find the most "fiscally responsible" alternative for access to the airport. She said the best option would be to upgrade the ferry system.

She said no thanks to Sen. Ted "Internet Tubes" Steven's 100 million dollar "bridge to nowhere",

Anchorage Daily News, 10/5/06: Palin Said She Supported The So-Called "Bridge To Nowhere," But Was Concerned Money "Flow" Was "Going to Slow"

Might want to revisit your history....

Wow, this is starting to sound like a conspiracy theory so that Alaska residents can feel like they are unfairly burdened by federal taxes. You act like the Tax Foundation group was set up yesterday to attack Alaska. It has been around since 1937, and I could find no information attacking its credibility as a third-party, non-profit research group. Perhaps all of the other tax breaks and oil money I wrote about are also lies? Perhaps the mainstream media wants to prove to us mainlanders that Alaskans are doing quite well when actually they are indentured servants unfairly put upon by the federal government.

Consider your own Juneau Empire, the state's third largest newspaper, also saw fit to publish editorial information based on TaxFoundation.org's research. Republished from the Peninsula Clarion, another Alaskan newspaper. (source)
"They have one of the lowest overall tax burdens of any place in the nation; they have one of the highest qualities of life; and in no other place do residents get an annual permanent fund dividend check. Last year's check meant an extra $1,106.96 to every man, woman and child who qualified. This year's check is expected to be even larger.

Alaskans also need to consider what they expect from government and who should pay for what they expect from government. Tax time is a good reminder that there's no such thing as a free lunch, but Alaskans' permanent fund dividends come pretty close. Not only that, but Alaskans finish paying their tax burden more than a month earlier than many of their counterparts in the Northeast.

It could be a lot worse."

And I don't really see what the tax rates on the oil have anything to do with the taxes Alaskans pay, or are you saying that the mega-corporations that pump and produce oil from Alaska are unfairly burdened by taxes that oil companies in other states don't have to pay? Do you have some personal claim to this oil? Are you saying that Exxon, Mobil, and ConocoPhillips (three of the largest oil and gas leaseholders in Alaska) are unfairly burdened by taxes? All the information I can find on those companies and Alaska involve either the state or its residents filing lawsuits against the companies or complaining that the companies don't pay enough taxes compared to oil-producing nations, so that the residents can get bigger Permanent Fund checks.

If you dispute my information, please post your own verifiable numbers on personal taxation or oil taxation that proves your point. I'd also like to see anything you come up with attacking Tax Foundation, and I will no longer use them as a source for my information. You see what I do after each disputable claim? I post a link to the source where I found it, so that you can interpret the information for yourself and decide if the methods of collecting or the source are questionable. All you and the other poster have done is post conspiracy theories with no facts, and you wonder why the rest of us won't support your tirades?

You still cannot dispute that fact that by simply being a resident of Alaska you benefit from quite a few unique tax reliefs, low state taxes, low gasoline tax, and free oil money simply for living there. I hate taxes as much as anyone, but Alaskans have it better off compared to almost anyone else in the nation.

You quoted www.taxfoundation.org. In that paper, they specifically state "taxes paid to Washington D.C." Well, I'm a resident of Alaska, and my taxes are mailed to Fresno, CA. I'm assuming they are knowingly lying about where the taxes are paid to in order to generate an emotional response regarding sending the taxes so far away. Also, I can only assume that the numbers are income tax only. There are federal taxes taken from the oil produced here. From what I can tell (from my knowledge of the taxes paid by Alaska and the numbers through your link), they did not include "taxes paid to Washington

Radio Shack has found a way for the media to tell the world they suck.

(A parent complained about his son possibly being kicked out because he's native american. That's bad, right? It gets worse: The store manager and another employee proceded to beat teh crap out him, dislocating his shoulder, among other things). I kid you not.

On the bright side, the kids won't have to worry about college. Dad'll probably get a new boat out of it too.

There's no reason why Google should have to take this kind of abuse.

Well, Google are busy doing their own ad censoring based on corporate bias instead.

Jason Ohler just gave a talk at NASA/Goddard, in which he discussed the problems with technology, and in teaching students about art as related to communication.

He also touched upon issues with manipulated information, and how most kids these days just think if it's on a website, it's got to be true. [which was the slogan of ScoopThis.com, since gone, but by the same person who did the Metallica Hoax].

One of Dr. Ohler's points about deception in communication was that it's best to make it seem plausible, but incorrect, rather than just ranting. [He cited a webpage about Martin Luther King, that was indirectly tied to a white supremicist group, that just slightly skewed the details] Unfortunately, kids don't understand that a website has no due diligence required in confirming their sources -- and newspapers and television news are trying so hard to scoop each other, that we end up with Jack Kelley, Jayson Blair, and the like.

Some people laughed, some people cheered. Nobody really seemed bothered by it.