Slashdot Mirror

I'm an NRA member, and I support removing the gun show exemption. What's the point of the background check system if it only applies to half of the sales? Though we also need to fix said background check system for it to be more meaningful. It works well enough right now to filter out people with criminal records, but there are other things you want to screen for (like certain mental health issues). Unfortunately, the states are not very cooperative on that issue (but then the criteria set out in current law are too vague to be useful).

(Unfortunately, NRA leadership doesn't speak for me, and for many other members as well. Please bear that in mind whenever they open their mouths to spout something particularly silly, like trying to start a witch hunt on "violent video games" to distract attention.)

Just to add on to your point: This is why this is really difficult issue. Limiting the size of clips would minimize the impact of assaults like this. But it would also limit the effectiveness of armed resistance against a tyrannical government.

“Their paranoid fear of a possible dystopic future prevents us from addressing our actual dystopic present. We can’t even begin to address 30,000 gun deaths that are actually in reality happening in this country every year because a few of us must remain vigilant against the rise of imaginary Hitler.” - Jon Stewart

Incorrect; in Tucson, the gun jammed because he was using an unreliable extended magazine.

I'm not aware of any mass shooting incidents where reloading provided sufficient opportunity to physically stop the shooter.

From an LA Times article:

Loughner fired all 31 bullets in the magazine and was reloading when a woman in the crowd, already wounded, attempted to grab the gun from him. He finally changed the magazine and tried to fire, but the gun jammed. Meanwhile, two men from the crowd grabbed him and subdued him, officials said.

Had Loughner been successful in firing the second magazine, "there would have been a huge, greater catastrophe," Sheriff Dupnik said. The sheriff also said that the toll had climbed to 20, six dead and 14 injured, including the congresswoman.

Didn't you just give an example?

He stopped to reload, giving a woman a chance to try to stop him - in his haste to put in the new magazine, it jammed.

If he had a 9 round magazine, there would have been 3 additional opportunities to stop him before he had a chance to fire 31 times.

Loughner fired all 31 bullets in the magazine and was reloading when a woman in the crowd, already wounded, attempted to grab the gun from him. He finally changed the magazine and tried to fire, but the gun jammed. Meanwhile, two men from the crowd grabbed him and subdued him, officials said.

Had Loughner been successful in firing the second magazine, "there would have been a huge, greater catastrophe," Sheriff Dupnik said. The sheriff also said that the toll had climbed to 20, six dead and 14 injured, including the congresswoman.

If you look at some of their other infrastructure projects connecting 40M homes by 2015 is an almost trivial task.

They did.

http://articles.latimes.com/2http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/01/10/1843246/nih-neuroscientists-junior-seau-had-brain-disease-caused-by-hits-to-the-head#012/aug/21/local/la-me-0821-junior-seau-20120821

Yep, and we know the track record in educational bastions like California has shown.

Focus on standardized tests may be pushing some teachers to cheat

This girl has the religious right to not be mandated to do anything, especially anything her religion mandates against.

Except for buying her own healthcare coverage and paying for other people's contraceptives.

Was it like chicken? Wonder if it would set you back $3.6k/lb like bluefin tuna.

They're doing heavy launches from Vandenberg on the west coast:

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/12/business/la-fi-vandenberg-launchsite-20110713

Given some reports, I'd have to say that getting killed by virtual assassins might be better than getting sent to addiction camp...

On the other hand...

Unhappy with his son not finding a job, Feng decided to hire players in his son's favorite online games to hunt down Xiao Feng. It is unknown where or how Feng found the in-game assassins—every one of the players he hired were stronger and higher leveled than Xiao Feng.

You've got to wonder how addicted the so-called assassins were to the game to get to a higher level than his addicted son (or perhaps how inept the son was at playing the game) and what the father's contribution to the assassins' addiction. I guess if it isn't specifically your problem, you don't care. Welcome to the wonderful new virtual social media world...

Life is short, and there is not enough room in this brief post to correct your many mistakes.

The easiest one, and the most appropriate one for Slashdot, is, "The government had very little to do with the Internet."

Fortunately, Wall Street Journal editorial writer Gordon Crovitz -- the same asshole who lives in Battery Park City and complained about Occupy Wall Street at the Community Board meeting -- also wrote an editorial debunking the "myth" that the government invented the Internet.

Crovitz has contributed to computer education and the history of technology by making an argument that is completely wrong, but has been the occasion for people who know far more about the Internet than Crovitz to explain it. Two of the better rebuttals are here http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/23/news/la-mo-who-invented-internet-20120723 and here http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/07/23/yes-government-researchers-really-did-invent-the-internet/ As Hiltzik points out, those "university researchers" you cite did their work on government contracts.

I don't know where your family came from, but I guess it wasn't the Soviet Bloc. The USSR had one of the best education systems in the world -- all free. Soviet emigres came here with their EE degrees and PhDs and were quickly hired up at good salaries. I know other Soviet emigres who came to this country with less marketable degrees who where shuttled off to free (welfare) housing, free (government-paid) job training, and often civil service (government) jobs. Immigrants from Communist countries got a better safety net here than most Americans, and they vote Republican and preach self-reliance from government.

I've heard all these self-made immigrant stories and I don't believe them. Every time somebody looks at the facts behind the self-made myth, you find government handouts.

Certain types of stomach surgery (bands, bypass) can cure type 2 diabetes. Google it.

It's risky of course so you might prefer the risk of this instead: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/25/news/la-heb-diabetes-extreme-diet-06252011

But people in uniform are always perfectly sane:

'Cannibal cop' allegedly wanted to cook woman for Thanksgiving

Prosecutors said phone and computer records showed he had been building a database of women -- complete with personal information and physical descriptions -- as part of a plot to kidnap, torture, cook and eat them.

"This case is all the more disturbing when you consider Valle's position as a New York City police officer and his sworn duty to serve and protect," the U.S. attorney, Preet Bharara, said in a statement at the time.

It was the bassist from "Iron Butterfly" wot did it.

"Those beasts paled in comparison to Ming the tiger, who was discovered living in a Manhattan apartment in 2003. Ming's owner, Antoine Yates, unwittingly alerted police to the tiger's existence when he showed up at a hospital with deep bite marks on his leg. Hospital officials didn't believe the story that a dog had caused the bite. When police went to check Yates' apartment, they heard growling through the door." Cops also found (what else?) an alligator in the guy's apartment.

You don't live in a location where your boss can fuck you out of overtime.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2008/10/new-california.html

Homicides: Jan. 1, 2007 to Nov. 10, 2012

Blunt force 246

Gunshot 3,227

Other 192

Stabbing 438

Strangled 47

Unspecified 99

Even if all the Other and Unspecified were done by "beer bottles", they would only total 6.9% of the total. Stabbing, which is the second largest category, are 10.3%. Guns are 75.9% of the total. In the real world, guns are used in homicide three times out of four. These numbers ignore suicide and accidental gun deaths, which would make the gun death numbers even larger.

Gun homicides in Great Britten vs. the US http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/335-156/12554-58-murders-a-year-by-firearms-in-britain-8775-in-us

Number of Murders by Firearms, US, 2010: 8,775

Number of Murders, Britain, 2011*: 638 (Since Britain's population is 1/5 that of US, this is equivalent to 3,095 US murders)

Number of Murders by firearms, Britain, 2011*: 58 (equivalent to 290 US murders)

Number of Murders by crossbow in Britain, 2011*: 2 (equivalent to 10 US murders).

The international comparisons show conclusively that fewer gun owners per capita produce not only fewer murders by firearm, but fewer murders per capita overall.

In the case of Britain, firearms murders are 30 times fewer than in the US per capita.

* British crime statistics are September to September, so 2011 is actually 2010-2011.

If I fear for my life because of someone with a beer bottle, it's because they are drinking and driving. So who is responding with "ignorant panic"?

Komatsu (full name Kabushiki-gaisha Komatsu Seisakusho) is Japanese. Caterpillar is neither environmentally nor socially responsible. Move along folks, nothing to see here.

I'm not sure about Illinois, but in California, the problem isn't current pension payouts. The problem is the payouts we've promised to future retirees are sorely underfunded. In the late 90s the state legislature made the calculation that the stock market would keep going up and up, and expected that the DOW would be around 30,000 right now. Add to the problem that CALPERS hasn't made the best investments, and California has a $500billion unfunded liability.

Note that if any CEO of a company managed retirement funds like the state legislature does, he/she would be [CEO of a Fortune 500 corporation].

FTFY. It goes back to the 1980's and is coming home to roost now.
1. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204138204576605482876191482.html
2. http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/retirement-heist-u-pensions-plundered-corporate-greed-author-131151510.html
3. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB92939825896784903.html

And much of it was due to an FASB accounting rule change that those same corporations initially resisted. Excellent quote that sums it up: "For years, people saw the pension as this bucket of money you can't touch ... Companies are looking to not leave the asset dormant, but use it to deliver better returns for the company."

The California state legislature wasn't doing anything new they were simply following the well-beaten path blazed by major corporations.

I'm not sure about Illinois, but in California, the problem isn't current pension payouts. The problem is the payouts we've promised to future retirees are sorely underfunded. In the late 90s the state legislature made the calculation that the stock market would keep going up and up, and expected that the DOW would be around 30,000 right now. Add to the problem that CALPERS hasn't made the best investments, and California has a $500billion unfunded liability.

Note that if any CEO of a company managed retirement funds like the state legislature does, he/she would be in jail. I don't know if Illinois has a similar problem, but I do know enough about politicians to think Governor Quinn is not telling the whole truth.

There is a promising new treatment, still in the earliest experimental stages.

Interestingly enough, if it works and is harmless, the pharmaceutical companies will wind up with much lower revenue and profits, as cancer becomes something cured with a hi-tech shot. Guess who's not clamoring to fund the research?

Remember, this is the BBC, who took a corporate decision in 2006 to pursue an alarmist reporting stance.

Technique one - ad homineum attack on the messenger. A study was done. That study was reported. Attempt to discredit the study by attacking the credibility of the entity doing the reporting. Instead considering the worth of the study itself, the hope is the integrity of the study will be smeared by smearing the entity that reported it.

Technique two- change the topic. We were talking about the effect of global warming on the oceanic food web , now we're going to start talking instead about the BBC and whether they're biased or not.

The original paper says that this is only a pilot study, and that it cannot definitely point to any disadvantage to the animals - 'they MAY suffer increased predation' is a typical comment

Technique three, misrepresent normal and appropriate scientific qualification of results as a license to dismiss the study's findings. The fact is, no single study is definitive. That's normal science. The certainty increases as each successive study is confirmed, amplified, and new studies support the same conclusions using different approaches. Each study considered individually comes with caveats; the picture of reality emerges from an aggregation of such studies. This is called "normal science" and it's how science gets to truth. This study fits into that framework.

Technique four- decontextualize the study from the larger supporting body of related evidence. Closely related to technique three above, the mass of evidence pointing to the devastating effects of oceanic acidification on the food web is incontrovertible. This study reinforces and elaborates this finding with new evidence. Seen in its proper context, this study's relevance increases because its findings are congruent with other studies showing the same disturbing trend- acidification of the oceans is assaulting the food web in the ocean.

The smallest part of the omitted scientific context:

http://www.ocean-acidification.net/FAQeco.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/10/ocean-acidification-epoca

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/19/opinion/acid-test-for-oceans-and-marine-life.html?_r=0

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/02/436193/science-ocean-acidifying-so-fast-it-threatens-humanity-ability-to-feed-itself/

http://oceana.org/en/our-work/climate-energy/ocean-acidification/learn-act/effects-of-ocean-acidification-on-marine-species-ecosystems

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/06/local/la-me-acidic-oceans-20121007

http://www.examiner.com/article/lethal-carbon-dioxide-and-ocean-acidification-threaten-marine-life

Sure...

Sue companies for using h.264 patents they hold?

http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/26/motorola-scales-back-itc-case-against-xbox/

Track everything everyone does online?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/google-tracks-consumers-across-products-users-cant-opt-out/2012/01/24/gIQArgJHOQ_story.html

Circumvent the privacy settings in safari to track people online?

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/10/business/la-fi-google-ftc-20120810

Refuse to integrate turn by turn navigation on the iDevices to try and keep android relevant?

http://www.webpronews.com/google-maps-out-of-ios-6-over-voice-navigation-dispute-sources-say-2012-09

Although there are multiple sources on the last one, some of which make varying claims. Some claim that google refused to do it, others claim that google wanted apple to include latitude (a different google product), the ability to display ads, and the ability to track iOS users. While they aren't required to provide anything at all, it is definitely bad faith since they already had the code base and back end capable of doing so, they wanted to give Android a better map. It wasn't about the code, the work, or the complexity. Apple at one point (allegedly) even offered to pay to have them do it, and it was out right refused.

Apple, who supports most of their products for almost a decade after they are first released, from the iPhone to the Mac mini -- the patches keep coming.

Reality doesn't support your claims. Apple devices are supported for about 3 years. Apple operating systems receive updates for about 2-3 years.

Microsoft seems to be almost strong-arming people into adopting the latest operating system despite a lack of any "killer app" features -- they're saying now there will be no more service packs, no rollups, and no new features, for an operating system that just turned 3.

Considering that's SOP for Apple. Pot meet kettle?

Can't buy in California

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/dec/18/magazine/tm-dragee51

Confinity, the company that originally wrote PayPal, had the Palm Pilot and similar mobile units as their first target for deploying the software. That's either idiotic or visionary depending on how you look at it; in any case it wasn't going anywhere in 2000. Elon's company X.com was instead focusing on online banking. It's fair to say that the original PayPal business model was crap, and Elon refocusing the service to the web and promoting it was important to it becoming successful. Inventing the business model that turns technology into a useful service is important, and it's fair for him to take credit for that.

They probably spend 500k on toilet paper in a year.

<SARCASM>Or three or four really good developers who they treat like toilet paper. But, again, that's nothing. They probably flush thousands of developers every year!</SARCASM>

HAHAHA, fuck no. They'll use the guise of protection of the police and beat you, or even shoot you if you try to record them. Turn about is not fair play, they want the power. They will lie to you and say it is illegal to record them and destroy the video. If you are lucky you might get a payoff from the city while the officer keeps his job.

http://www.ironmill.com/2011/08/31/man-faces-life-in-jail-for-recording-police-video/
http://www.pixiq.com/article/las-vegas-cop-beats-man-for-videotaping-him
http://www.myfoxboston.com/story/18706155/man-who-says-he-was-beaten-for-recording-police-receives-33000-settlement
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/08/opinion/la-oe-turley-video-20111108

Perhaps you can explain then, if it was such a conspiracy, how the US managed to orchestrate the invasion

What kind of thinking person asks how the world's largest military power "managed" to "orchestrate" the invasion? It's what we do. We spend more than the rest of the world combined every single year on our military. So why are you asking how we managed to militarily overpower a nation with 30 million people that has been subject to sanctions and bombings from 1991 until our invasion in 2003?

and create a government without managing to get a simple law passed

A law that basically states that Iraq's resources are owned by foreign powers isn't a simple law. It's a declaration of ownership. Unsurprisingly, there was huge opposition to the law, and since the opposition was from real Iraqis and not puppets like Chalabi, the idea that Iraqis own Iraqi oil prevailed. Do not give credit to the United States government for their idiocy. Give credit to the Iraqis who had the fortitude to say no to an occupying power.

Perhaps you can explain how this law would have helped give "Western" nations an advantage over other countries.

The U.S. State Department's Oil and Energy Working Group, meeting between December 2002 and April 2003, also said that Iraq "should be opened to international oil companies as quickly as possible after the war." Its preferred method of privatization was a form of oil contract called a production-sharing agreement. These agreements are preferred by the oil industry but rejected by all the top oil producers in the Middle East because they grant greater control and more profits to the companies than the governments. The Heritage Foundation also released a report in March 2003 calling for the full privatization of Iraq's oil sector. One representative of the foundation, Edwin Meese III, is a member of the Iraq Study Group. Another, James J. Carafano, assisted in the study group's work.

For any degree of oil privatization to take place, and for it to apply to all the country's oil fields, Iraq has to amend its constitution and pass a new national oil law. The constitution is ambiguous as to whether control over future revenues from as-yet-undeveloped oil fields should be shared among its provinces or held and distributed by the central government.

It's still about oil in Iraq

In essence, the Bush Administration invaded to overturn the Iraqi Constitution, which states that Iraqis own Iraqi oil. They failed at the second part of their plan.

On a larger note, if you want to understand geopolitics, you're going to have to read and think with some regularity in order to understand what's going on in the world. Reading US centric newspapers to understand our role in the world is like reading Pravda in order to understand Russia's role in the world. It's a helpful input, but often has nothing to do with reality.

the plant life attached to the seafloor raise the cesium back up and it returns to the food cycle

So maybe we just need to kill the plant life on the seafloor with poison? I hear that plutonium is highly poisonous . . . maybe nuclear waste could do the job . . . ?

Maybe the radiation explains why sharks now want learn golf . . . ? http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-shark-golf-course-20121025,0,7711527.story

This seems to be a common conservative idea. You shouldn't be discouraged from voting just because you might not be a lawyer. Not having a law degree is not what makes someone "freaking stupid".

The "freaking stupid" will assume committing a felony is the stupid thing, which is always correct, but they also won't appreciate how they might do it by mistake next week, even if they do have an ID, which is stupid.

Ok, first, none of the billboards said anything about an ID. I can't find anything anywhere saying they did. IT just said voter fraud is illegal and listed the max penalties. No one has to be a lawyer to understand what fraud is. You are severely underestimating the intellect of the poor and minorities. Well, that or your pissed because they might have been scared into not committing voter fraud.

Most of us are not lawyers. Or we know we have been too lazy or busy to have read through all these new piles of mischievously finely-printed shitty new state legislation. It has been carefully designed by lawyers to be as confusing and intimidating as possible to the smarter half of the electorate. Anyone swift enough to realize how voting now exposes a legitimate voter to this widely-advertised risk of being charged with a felony might see how voting runs against their own self-interest. And the authors of the laws can obviously see who does and doesn't cast votes with their own self-interest in mind. That much should be obvious to everybody by now.

It's pretty simple. I'm not sure what is so damn difficult for you here. You register to vote, you show up to your polling place and vote only as yourself and only vote once. Problem completely solved. None of all that layer talk comes into play unless you try to vote as someone other then yourself, aren't registered to vote, or vote more then once in the same election.

I did bother myself to read that... basically another ambush on a Democratic headquarters by that costumed Republican guy running around asking people how to commit voter fraud to make videos of their answers. Some guy was dumb enough to humor the guy and explained all the hypotheticals involved in doing that legally, saying get-out-the-vote efforts are easier, and the clown made a clip from part of it. Of course all this clown's scandal videos look nasty, but if you can find one that didn't start with him, egging someone on for advice about how he might break the law, I will pay $5 million dollars to a charity of your choice.

You can dismiss it all you want. It doesn't change the fact that the field director of a campaign off the top of his head new exactly how to do it, spent a good amount of time discussing how not to get caught, told him about forging a utility bill, gave advice on how to make sure they aren't going to vote by calling as a pollster to verify. This has a deeper meaning then someone with a camera.

I have another LA Times link for you:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-voter-registration-gop-arrest-20121018,0,5352175.story

In case *you* aren't bothered to read links to that site, it's another story from Virginia, this one about the Republican voter registration worker who separated a bunch of forms from Democrats and then tossed them into a dumpster on his way past a discount store. If the store manager hadn't spotted that, those people would be going to jail next week for trying to vote.

I already knew about that. however, you got a few details off in your description. The guy was not a republican, his political affiliation is unknown at this time. The affiliation of the registrations thrown away are unknown too. The guy worked for a company the republicans contracted with. That company assigned him to those duties not republicans and no one is saying that either the company or the republicans ordered him

Does it mean "if you look hispanic or arabic, we'll harass you at the polling station and possibly attempt to intimidate you in other ways"?

How in the hell do you get that? Besides, if they were going to harass Hispanics and middle eastern decent people, first, they would do it whether or not there was a billboard and second, if they can take that from the words voter fraud is illegal, they are more then likely already used to it and expecting it negating anything the billboard would be accomplishing in real life.

You might want to recheck what "democracy" means. If the "unwashed masses" vote something stupid, well, that's democracy in action. But, then, I guess you're just against democracy.

Wow, transliterate much? I said I wouldn't be happy with it not that they couldn't. So keep your conclusions to yourself and do not attempt to impress what you are thinking onto my statements. I was clear in what I said, its your fault, not mine if you can't get it.

Well, by definition you can't count what wasn't caught.

Sure.. And I said that we know people discuss ways and appear to be planning on attempting it from various sources.

As for finding people who attempt voter fraud, well that's just more examples of those who are caught which is really a counterexample to the idea that people aren't being caught.

No, because talking about it and discussing it isn't exactly against the law. You wanting to group it together is like someone waiting until the last minute to stop when a light is turning red because if you are in the intersection when that happens you ge to go the rest of the way through. Except you are wanting to count the people who do not get caught running the red light and stop before that happens as a statistic in running red lights. It simply does not compute with reality.

The issue is how often it actually succeeds. That's much closer to an unknowable and it's really unclear how ID cards fix that in any way any more than magic rocks would, as invariably voter fraud tends to attack the ballot box, not the voter registry check list. After all, the former allows you to grossly manipulate the results; the latter tends to have much more minimal results for all the effort, which only tends to be most useful in closer races of which more scrutiny should at least hypothetically make voter fraud of all sorts more generally difficult.

Actually, an ID would stop more then a magic rock. It would stop the type of voter fraud as suggested by the campaign worker and son of a Virginian politician who attempted.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-pn-va-undercover-video-20121024,0,2265110.story

I'm sorry that you think a magic rock would protect against something like that. I'm also not sure what your distrust in validating the voting to ensure they are who they say they are has to do with a billboard that says voter fraud is a crime. I don't see that as an issue.

That isn't to say I don't appreciate the presumed logic of Voter ID laws. I just question their real effectiveness, their basis for necessity--purple fingers work just as well--, and in the end just how much fear or paranoia is driving a request for change--the last point really making me against the whole idea, as fear or paranoia are very bad bases for law. But, *shrug*, that's life.

Well, I'm for ensuring the voter is the actual voter. I'm not sure I'm all for a photo ID only, but other records can be used as far as I'm concerned. I think the registration databases should be shared to the effect of checking to make sure someone in one state or district isn't registered in another and voting in both. That can remove duplicates from the register and If the voting precinct doesn't have the name listed, they can issue a provisional ballot until it gets squared away. But then again, I'm not sure what this has to do with a billboard reminding people voter fraud is illegal.

The billboards in question claim voter fraud is illegal. Are you claiming they aren't intelligent enough to understand what that means and somehow mistakes it for they will be arrested? That is the only way you can make sense here. I happen to think they are NOT that freaking stupid. And if they are, I'm not sure I would be happy with them voting anyways as I doubt they would carry any understanding of anything they are voting for.

This seems to be a common conservative idea. You shouldn't be discouraged from voting just because you might not be a lawyer. Not having a law degree is not what makes someone "freaking stupid".

The "freaking stupid" will assume committing a felony is the stupid thing, which is always correct, but they also won't appreciate how they might do it by mistake next week, even if they do have an ID, which is stupid.

Most of us are not lawyers. Or we know we have been too lazy or busy to have read through all these new piles of mischievously finely-printed shitty new state legislation. It has been carefully designed by lawyers to be as confusing and intimidating as possible to the smarter half of the electorate. Anyone swift enough to realize how voting now exposes a legitimate voter to this widely-advertised risk of being charged with a felony might see how voting runs against their own self-interest. And the authors of the laws can obviously see who does and doesn't cast votes with their own self-interest in mind. That much should be obvious to everybody by now.

In case you can't bother reading a story hosted at the conservative LA times.. It's about a Virginia candidate's own son having to resign from the campaign for instructing someone how to cast votes for people planning on not voting.

I did bother myself to read that... basically another ambush on a Democratic headquarters by that costumed Republican guy running around asking people how to commit voter fraud to make videos of their answers. Some guy was dumb enough to humor the guy and explained all the hypotheticals involved in doing that legally, saying get-out-the-vote efforts are easier, and the clown made a clip from part of it. Of course all this clown's scandal videos look nasty, but if you can find one that didn't start with him, egging someone on for advice about how he might break the law, I will pay $5 million dollars to a charity of your choice. ...kaboom!

I have another LA Times link for you:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-voter-registration-gop-arrest-20121018,0,5352175.story

In case *you* aren't bothered to read links to that site, it's another story from Virginia, this one about the Republican voter registration worker who separated a bunch of forms from Democrats and then tossed them into a dumpster on his way past a discount store. If the store manager hadn't spotted that, those people would be going to jail next week for trying to vote.

Wrong. Minority's and people in poverty get intimidated all the time. Billboards intimidate people in those areas.

The billboards in question claim voter fraud is illegal. Are you claiming they aren't intelligent enough to understand what that means and somehow mistakes it for they will be arrested? That is the only way you can make sense here. I happen to think they are NOT that freaking stupid. And if they are, I'm not sure I would be happy with them voting anyways as I doubt they would carry any understanding of anything they are voting for.

And since there is almost 0(ZERO) voting fraud in the US, what other reason is there to put billboard in places that will intemedate voters into not voting? what is the purpose of Voter ID laws when 11% of the population doesn't have ID? Why are they also exclusively in dem voting areas?

I'm not sure what that has to do with what I said. Perhaps you are just covering your basis or something. Your links mean nothing because it only counts what was caught not what wasn't. We know that people attempt this from monitoring chat rooms, message boards, and even the campaign workers themselves.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-pn-va-undercover-video-20121024,0,2265110.story

In case you can't bother reading a story hosted at the conservative LA times.. It's about a Virginia candidate's own son having to resign from the campaign for instructing someone how to cast votes for people planning on not voting.

Anyways, it seems that your voter rant should include the democrats who in Virginia, just had the son of a democrat resign from the campaign because he was caught telling others how to stuff the ballot by voter fraud. http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-pn-va-undercover-video-20121024,0,2265110.story

So remember, republican and those with enough sense to know better, vote on Tuesday the 6th. All others vote on Wednesday the 7th. check to make sure you have the right day.

Don't lie to yourself - Republicans commit voter fraud, too.

I know your getting desperate as time is running low and the numbers are tight, but Bush did not pardon them or anything. If there was legitimate wrong doing, the Obama could prosecute just as easily. No statute of limitations lasts only 2 months.

Maybe your problem is that the complaints weren't credible?

Anyways, it seems that your voter rant should include the democrats who in Virginia, just had the son of a democrat resign from the campaign because he was caught telling others how to stuff the ballot by voter fraud.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-pn-va-undercover-video-20121024,0,2265110.story

So remember, republican and those with enough sense to know better, vote on Tuesday the 6th. All others vote on Wednesday the 7th. check to make sure you have the right day.

My wife and I attended the Reason Rally on the National Mall this year, which was billed as a positive expression of non-theistic secular thought. We met many wonderful people there and were truly inspired by Adam Savage's incredibly positive and inspiring speech on the wonders of science, Nate Phelps remarkably eloquent denunciation of his father's Westboro Baptist Church, and your own speech highlighting the absurdity of having to hold such a rally at all; however, I we were also incredibly put off by vitriol on display by so many other speakers who were entirely focused on the evils of religion rather than the good science and rationality brings to civilized life. We ended up leaving the rally in the middle of PZ Meyer's speech because we found it so distressing in its Rush Limbaugh-esque tone.

It bothers me that so many of us define ourselves by what we don't believe rather than what we do. As Carolyn Porco elucidated so concisely at a talk you were involved in, I am not an atheist, I am a scientist. Like Carl Sagan, I get a profound sense of spirituality from science that I want to desperately for everyone in the world to open their own eyes and discover.

My attempts to get people to read your book The God Delusion were met with strong resistance, people were very turned off to its tone, but those same individuals loved your book The Magic of Reality . As someone who has pursued both the strategy of being highly critical of religion in one work, while apparently softening that criticism in your latter work in exchange for focusing on the wonders of the natural world, could you speak to pros and cons of these different strategies of persuasion, not just in your own work but in the efforts of others like Adam Savage and PZ Meyers?

Thank you so much for your taking the time to interact with us on /.! This really is an exciting development and an honor.

In the USA many cows eat chicken shit and feathers:
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/31/business/fi-feed31

Apparently 757's are known to create severe turbulence, but they In-N-Out pilots were not told the plane ahead of them was a 757.
http://articles.latimes.com/1994-01-22/news/mn-14297_1_wake-turbulence-warnings

Obama was bipartisan throughout the process. He encouraged congressional democrats to work with republicans on the matter. Committees were formed and drafts were written by bipartisan committees.

His language, demeanor, AND the process disagree with you. When even moderate Republicans like Olympia Snowe say they are shut out of the process (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB30001424052748704007804574573841915542278.html), you can be certain nothing "bipartisan" is occurring. What proof do you have that it was? Were you there? Or did Obama just TELL you he was working with Republicans, so naturally that must be true? Hell, Snowe voted FOR the initial healthcare bill out of committee (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/29/snowe-explains-decision-to-leave-defends-tough-criticism-of-senate/). She wanted healthcare reform. She did not get the kind of cooperation she expected. Even moderates in your own party were of the same opinion: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/08/blue-dog-will-vote-against-bill-with-public-option/

"In July, Ross urged congressional leaders to slow down the pace of health care negotiations and said reform "needs to be done in a deliberate, bipartisan and common sense way." "

If Obama is the socialist monster that the conservatives paint him as, why would he have had "his goons" write a bill that changes so little? A true socialist would have insisted on socialised medicine - or at least a single payer option.

I just TOLD you why -- he couldn't get his own party behind it. Proof: http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1092-Blue-Dogs-Don-t-Want-a-Public-Option-That-Works
http://www.progressiveblue.com/diary/3962/will-corporate-democrats-sink-the-public-option

Where's your proof? STOP REWRITING HISTORY: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/01/26/171901/blue-po-ahip/

And YES the final product was written solely partisan, behinds closed doors -- the final draft did not go through bipartisan committee: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/01/healthcare-senate-house-democrats-obama.html
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/01/democrats-reid-pelosi-healthcare-cspan.html

He could have vetoed it, but that would have been a huge victory for the republicans.

Then he chose career advancement over healthcare reform. Good for him, he's no different than any other career-minded stubborn Republican who refuses to raise taxes because they're worried about their job because of some asinine "agreement" they made with the populace.

He would have never seen another bill in any way related to health care had he vetoed this one.

Proof of this? Lots of people and politicians were clamoring for health care reform. I honestly doubt taking this back to square one would have simply ended the discussion of healthcare reform.

You appear as if you'll believe whatever you want to believe -- this is why none of your dialogue comes with cites, facts, or proof.

Obama was bipartisan throughout the process. He encouraged congressional democrats to work with republicans on the matter. Committees were formed and drafts were written by bipartisan committees.

His language, demeanor, AND the process disagree with you. When even moderate Republicans like Olympia Snowe say they are shut out of the process (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB30001424052748704007804574573841915542278.html), you can be certain nothing "bipartisan" is occurring. What proof do you have that it was? Were you there? Or did Obama just TELL you he was working with Republicans, so naturally that must be true? Hell, Snowe voted FOR the initial healthcare bill out of committee (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/29/snowe-explains-decision-to-leave-defends-tough-criticism-of-senate/). She wanted healthcare reform. She did not get the kind of cooperation she expected. Even moderates in your own party were of the same opinion: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/08/blue-dog-will-vote-against-bill-with-public-option/

"In July, Ross urged congressional leaders to slow down the pace of health care negotiations and said reform "needs to be done in a deliberate, bipartisan and common sense way." "

If Obama is the socialist monster that the conservatives paint him as, why would he have had "his goons" write a bill that changes so little? A true socialist would have insisted on socialised medicine - or at least a single payer option.

I just TOLD you why -- he couldn't get his own party behind it. Proof: http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1092-Blue-Dogs-Don-t-Want-a-Public-Option-That-Works
http://www.progressiveblue.com/diary/3962/will-corporate-democrats-sink-the-public-option

Where's your proof? STOP REWRITING HISTORY: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/01/26/171901/blue-po-ahip/

And YES the final product was written solely partisan, behinds closed doors -- the final draft did not go through bipartisan committee: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/01/healthcare-senate-house-democrats-obama.html
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/01/democrats-reid-pelosi-healthcare-cspan.html

He could have vetoed it, but that would have been a huge victory for the republicans.

Then he chose career advancement over healthcare reform. Good for him, he's no different than any other career-minded stubborn Republican who refuses to raise taxes because they're worried about their job because of some asinine "agreement" they made with the populace.

He would have never seen another bill in any way related to health care had he vetoed this one.

Proof of this? Lots of people and politicians were clamoring for health care reform. I honestly doubt taking this back to square one would have simply ended the discussion of healthcare reform.

You appear as if you'll believe whatever you want to believe -- this is why none of your dialogue comes with cites, facts, or proof.

It's mostly like poker. If you play stupid it's gambling. If you play smart you can eliminate the luck factor and reliably win.

Someone should tell that to Phil Ivey.... http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-phil-ivey-london-casino-refuses-to-pay-20121010,0,6445151.story

If DNA can

For a long time, DNA couldn't, but nobody bothered to question the prosecutors when they had an N-point match and their lab guy said it must be the right person. Some researcher decided to run through the DNA fingerprints on a lark and see how many people matched each other and suddenly there were dozens of "one in 113 billion" 9 loci matches and all the prosecutors started running helter skelter around screaming "no you aren't supposed to use it this way! Pay no attention to the woman behind the curtain finding dozens of people with nine loci matches! Make her stop! Make her stoooooooop!" (cite: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/20/local/me-dna20 )

These days though, the DNA technicians just swear in then lie in court rather than bothering to do the work. Hey, if the prosecutor thinks they're guilty they probably are, and when they're caught its not like the DA is going to press perjury charges against the star witness. (cite: http://www.google.com/search?q=crime+lab+dna+scandal&gs_l=news )

Can you imagine an airline that doesn't factor in changes in fuel prices?

Airlines have fuel surcharges specifically because they didn't factor it in
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/23/business/la-fi-travel-briefcase-20120723

fedex, ups also have fuel surcharges in case you didn't notice.

Since military drones are headed to our local police departments sporting Linux, what is your position on the limits of civilian law enforcement use of drone technology? What are your politics concerning drones?

Since military drones are headed to our local police departments and running Linux, what is your position on the limits of civilian law enforcement use of drone technology? What are your politics concerning drones?

It was necessary to remove "legacy ports" for USB to function?

No, it was necessary to remove legacy ports to push peripheral manufacturers to make their devices that used USB.

OK, I see where you're coming from - not a physical necessity so much as a psychological one.

Or, you know, a way to force your customers to buy all new peripherals so they can use the new iShiny you just sold them... hmm, where did this sudden sense of deja vu come from?

the G3 iMac

Ugh; I freakin' hated those things. The iMac was my introduction to Apple computers (I don't count the Apple II, that bad boy is in a class all it's own), and it was a very, very bad experience.

Might explain why I'm still not a fan of their product offerings...

[citation needed]

"The iMac was the first computer to exclusively offer USB ports as standard,[2] including the connector for its new keyboard and mouse,[3] thus abandoning previous Macintosh peripheral connections, such as the ADB, SCSI and GeoPort serial ports." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMac_G3

"First to exclusively offer" != first to offer.

Here's a fairly good possible explanation of why USB took off after the iMac G3's introduction I found on stackexchange:

...the iMac may have helped, not so much by including USB ports, but by not including any legacy ports. That means that you now had to buy new USB peripherals instead of [using] your old [non-USB] ones. But since PC providers also started including USB it meant that the manufacturers of peripherals now could make one peripheral that would work on both platforms, and that, in my opinion, is the real reason USB took off, as hardware manufacturers had a good reason to switch to USB.

Origin of the walled garden?

http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2012/03/30/epa-to-range-resources-drill-away/

http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/state&id=5980352

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-epa20dec20,0,1603760.story?coll=la-home-center

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24276709/

http://articles.philly.com/2008-12-07/news/24992895_1_climate-change-climate-change-deputy-administrator-jason-burnett

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55268-2005Mar21.html

The EPA is run by the administration of the moment. Reagan had James Watt as Secretary of the Interior, for chrissakes. Right now, the EPA likes solar because Obama likes solar. Under Bush, the EPA loved nothing more than oil companies, as demonstrated by the reality based links given above.

Now go on back to your Tea Party, meme-bot, and let the grown-ups talk.

Thumbs up for In-N-Out, although I gotta give Five Guys a try since I've read this in the LA Times. Ever since I read this, the concept of fast-food being more desirable than a double-double is freaking me out. http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-five-guys-burger-mcdonalds-20120918,0,2348963.story