Slashdot Mirror

AP/Washington Post

BBC

LA Times

Bloomberg

National Post

I find Massimo Calabresi's article to be odious in the extreme. Suppose that his assertion was true, that nobody cared, would it then be okay for illegal domestic spying to occur? That seems to be his unwritten position, and I find that to be disgusting logic. There are numerous examples throughout history of the dangers posed by unregulated spying, some of them (like those uncovered by the Church Commission) right here at home.

I mostly liked Greenwald's response, but he does seem to tilt slightly by Calabresi's points. I think that will make it difficult for his article to be persuasive to those not already persuaded. However, he does link this excellent piece in the LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-sanchez16mar16,0,4039194.story

That might be more approachable to most.

I'd also like to add a bit of insight from Molly Ivins, paraphrased. She said that moderates sometimes fret that when they give the government increased spying powers that they'll end up spying on the girl scouts. But this is wrong: they don't end up spying on the girl scouts, they don't end up making a mistake, they ALREADY ARE. Gotta keep tabs on those nonviolent Quakers, etc. It's not "what if" the government abuses its authority, it's by how much.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume that being a physicist and knowing how to write code are no match for common sense.

The 'ethics bill' bill he voted on was pushed by Nancy Pelosi to create a outside panel to replace the House Ethics Committee, which many (rightly) consider nearly useless for its lack of aggressiveness, but the creation of this "Office of Congressional Ethics" will be little more than just additional bureaucracy and wasted money, besides its direct application as a bullet point on an election-year campaign flyer.

As a freshman congressman, he's going to vote the way he's told by the senior party membership like, say, Pelosi. And as far as getting into any science/tech committees, he might have to get in line; he's a *freshman*, so he has virtually no influence.

I'm not sure that was linked to the new congressman's ability with coding skills, but I think I like him already.

Rather worrying, a similar anti Anonymous "ad hominem" attack force is trying to re-define the cake meme from the game Portal into one about underage pornography.

Phhhfft! Re-define memes right back at them!

In light of todays' revelations that the FBI has admitted to more domestic spying on US citizens

It's not limited to the New York Times. Here's a quote from the Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) The FBI acknowledged Wednesday it improperly accessed Americans' telephone records, credit reports and Internet traffic in 2006, the fourth straight year of privacy abuses resulting from investigations aimed at tracking terrorists and spies.

From the LA Times

National security letters are controversial because the FBI issues them without having to get court approval. The lack of protection led a federal judge in New York last year to strike down the practice, which he called "the legislative equivalent of breaking and entering."

The Justice Department is appealing that ruling. It has said the data gained from the requests, which are sent directly to financial institutions and phone companies without the knowledge of their customers, is crucial to building terrorism and espionage cases.

Warrantless data mining and wire taps on US citizens by the FBI. Not "international terr'rists".

they will be forced to slash prizes. This already started. It could even so far to give a basic version away for free to get people hooked.

Not near as sick as the case of the insurance company who cancelled a womans insurance because she had breast cancer

No, I think that the people from Opera just went to Seattle and burned the houses of the project managers .

As a Canadian, I'm always surprised how much the religious right seems to have influence in the USA when the appear to represent the minority opinion.

The vast majority of the country is Christian, although not as much as it used to be. That's not to say that 78.4% of the country are reactionary zealots, but keep in mind that religious people of all stripes are likely to be influenced to arguments that appeal to their religion.

Athiests, on the other hand, are an incredible minority. Less than 22% of this country is "non-Christian", and that includes people not affiliated with any specific faith, Buddhists, Muslims, etc. But, how often do you hear diatribes against the "religious right?" Christmas trees? Flying Spaghetti Monsters?

That's not to say that minority opinions have no right to express themselves, or that the "religious right" speaks for all who are religious. But, they try to appeal to what roughly 80% of our country has in common on either side of the political spectrum.

And, the mods are on crack again. How was parent poster CohibaVancouver flamebait? "But if that's the will of the majority, then so be it. And if that's not the will of the majority, then get organized and change the law." seems like a rather neutral answer to some demagoguery about "religiously sponsored legislative actions."

Except that (given the current model of insurance and health care as a commodity rather than a human right) when you purchase and insurance policy they have every right as a business interested in making money to say: "Do you have any pre-existing medical condition or genetic predisposition to any significant medical illness?" If you say no when the answer is truly yes, you are violating your end of the contract. If that can be proved in the future by subpoenaing your private health care records or if you actually do something like the woman in TFA that reveals your genetic status in your health care records, they can cancel your policy, since you lied when entering the contract for health insurance.

And since this is a business contract, your medical privacy is meaningless since the insurer can also (as a condition of selling you the policy) require you to allow access to all medical records and tests. Of course they likely won't do that unless you actually become sick and they have to pay money for your care. If they do, they hire people to scour your medical record for one slip up (like you may not have revealed you had a cold in December 1987 for which you were prescribed robitussin with codeine) as a means to void your policy.

Events like the recent ruling in favor of a woman whose insurance was canceled while she was undergoing treatment for breast cancer (because she had failed to reveal a history of a heart ailment and she mis-estimated her weight) are unusual - but only in that the arbitration judge ruled in her favor. Most of the time, arbitration (which you must agree to when buying any private insurance - they all require it) goes in favor of the side with the best attorneys to back them. No surprise that the insurers love arbitration. However this case was so egregious that even the arbitration judge was shocked - for example by the fact that healthnet maintained there was no real harm to the woman from dropping her (since after a couple of months she was able to get care in a state program) or the fact that company documents revealed that employees of healthnet actually got bonuses based on the number of policies the were able to cancel for patients on whom the company was losing money (i.e. sick ones.) http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-fi-insure23feb23,1,2680255.story

I don't see it as a threat to civil liberties. It's like the hypodermic. It's been used for many years as a tool in the psychiatric opression of political dissidents, been used to murder, been used to torture and so on and so forth.

But would you honestly rather the hypodermic had never existed? Of course not.

A hammer can be used to hurt you. Would you have them banned?

Personally, I'm hopeful about this one.

New York Atty. Gen. Andrew Cuomo said the nation's largest health insurers have rigged rates they pay for physician visits. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-insure14feb14,1,4908267.story

Blue Cross of California quickly halted its practice of asking doctors to report conditions it could use to cancel new patients' medical coverage after a widespread wave of criticism. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/02/12/state/n011719S23.DTL&type=health

The 4th District Court of Appeal unanimously said insurers have a responsibility to make sure patients' policy applications are complete and accurate before issuing coverage -- not after expensive claims come in the door. http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/02/11/prsc0211.htm

Just how stupid are you? In the current US health care system, the best way to make money is to not provide services. If someone gets sick, cancel their coverage. Maybe you'll get lucky and they will die before they can sue. Or you can conspire to rig rates so that you pay much less then procedures really cost, leaving the insured to cover the rest.

Ever been turned down for health coverage because of existing conditions? I have. Know anyone with a chronic condition (diabetes) who can barely afford medication? How about choosing between medication and dental care?

I used to work as a consultant. I can no longer afford to do this because of the cost and risk of having no medical coverage.

Now think what would happen if I blow into a tube and I can't get medical coverage because I might get cancer or might be at risk of heart failure? Suppose passing that physical is required before I get a job. You can have health insurance if you get the job, but if you have a health problem you can't get the job in the first place.

Your ignorance is astounding. The kind of abuse that you are denying already exists to a massive extent in the US health care system. Whoever gave you mod points for 'Insightful +5' is just as big a fool. As far as I'm concerned, all you deserve is to get really sick for a long time, loose your health coverage and be consigned to the hellhole that exists for public health care in this country.

If the US meant what it said about the importance of opposing communist tyranny, fanning the flames of freedom and all that, it wouldn't be repatriating Vietnamese refugees back to communist Vietnam.

He is, and has been for years.

The main business of Gates Foundation is making money and avoiding taxes by giving away at least 5% of its worth every year. The Foundation is a major shareholder in many of the companies listed as "highest-polluting" in the United States and Canada.

What about the 5%? Gates Foundation awards grants mainly in support of global health initiatives, for efforts to improve public education in the United States (Live@edu for lock-in, anyone?), and for social welfare programs in the Pacific Northwest.

LA Times investigation of Gates Foundation, January 2007: Dark cloud over good works of Gates Foundation

Now, if each of us could click a "jackass" button, and when a certain number of them get pressed the individual responsible receives a brief 30 kV electric shock ... now that might do it.

Get over it already. If you're really that ticked off by some random tag on slashdot, I suggest barricading yourself in a room and never coming out again.

Since they're so easily offended by the "real world", where do you think they've been living for the last decade? Their skin is probably so pasty white from living in mom's basement that they make an albino look like Angelo Mozilo (Countrywide's former head, aka The Orange Guy because he has one of those chemical tans, really over-done).

Kanye West taketh!

http://www.hitzonly.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/kanye_west.jpg

http://img37.picoodle.com/img/img37/6/10/30/f_flashm_981f46c.jpg

http://theenvelope.latimes.com/media/photo/2007-09/32794363.jpg

http://www.niukpl.org/ImageKanyeFlyerFront.jpg

http://somalifestyle.com/video/december/th/der120807400.jpg (my favorite Kanye West!)

Stock price was up, big profits, big expectations, and great times for the board of qtrax. Everything was going fine until the labels piped up and said: "No wait, wtf are you saying Qtrax? We didn't agree to anything at all! Don't tell everyone we're with you." Then BAM. Stock prices fell like a fat guy whos cankles finally gave out. Only winners here are the insiders that sold their stocks before everything went down. Go qtrax for fraud http://www.latimes.com/technology/la-fi-qtrax29jan29,1,6460500.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

Sources say that once Jack Bauer got bailed out of jail, he then met with the WGA to discuss the details over a friendly cup of White House approved tea. Interestingly, it took only 30 minutes for the WGA to agree on a 30% salary cut.

to the best of my understanding there it is a stretch to say that there is a direct correlation between paying less taxes and creating more national debt.

When your income goes down either you cut spending or you go into debt. Not only has the US federal government cut income, taxes, but it has also ballooned spending. When Bush was sworn into office in 2001 there was a budget surplus of, if I recall right, $300B. Now under Bush the USA has the highest budget deficit it has ever had.

What's so hard to understand about that?

Paying more taxes does not make the economy healthier.

Agreed. However when taxes are cut spending needs to be cut as well. We can start by getting rid of waste. Paying more than a half billion dollars ( $740B so far for the world's largest embassy) for a new embassy in Baghdad? That's absolutely ridiculous. With that kind of money you could hand every Iraqi $10,000 and still leave pocket change. How many Iraqis would then hate the US?

BTW, the "Magic Negro" reference to Obama in my post above is a reference to the original LA Times article on Obama's early campaign.

According to the LA Times http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-domain24jan24,1,2623693.story?ctrack=1&cset=true. I too would have thought that searches would have put an end to this annoying type of speculation.

Ah well, since you asked...

$12.5 Million Deal With I.R.S. Lifted Cloud Over Scientologists, December 31, 1997, Douglas Frantz, New York Times
A church accounting, November 12, 2007, Editorial, St. Petersburg Times
Neither Side Blinks in a Lengthy Feud, June 29, 1990, Robert W. Welkos, Los Angeles Times
Scientology's Puzzling Journey From Tax Rebel to Tax Exempt, March 9, 1997, Douglas Frantz, New York Times
Who Can Stand Up?, March 16, 1997, Frank Rich, New York Times

You mean bogus journalists like Jeff Gannon? The guy who the White House vetted as a real journalist despite him not being one AND his involvement with gay escort service web sites?

Or did you mean bogus journalists like FEMA used for a quickie press conference?

Those who live in glass houses and all that. . .

Hey, idiotstick:

You need to get out more.

Bill only cares about himself. His 'donations' and 'charities', little more than investments in pharmaceutical companies to produce drug profits, rather than actually providing reasonably cost medicines for the poor, are an excellent example of how Bill ONLY thinks of profiting. I could go on and on, but others have THOROUGHLY analyzed Bill Gates and his 'charitites', etc. and I think you'll be surprised by what you might learn...i.e. Gates is probably doing more damage, than good for the poor...and of course, he still lives his life of unimaginable luxury, etc.
Get a life, get out more, read something in depth for a change, rather than Bill propaganda...Try here for starters:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx7jan07-sg,0,261331.storygallery

So, criticism of Bill Gates, his 'philanthropies', etc. are VERY well justified, unlike your 'poor Bill, give him a break', rant, which continues the myth by Windoze fanboys, etc.

There is an interesting article in today's LA Times http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-lehrer20jan20,0,1700536.story?coll=la-opinion-center that discusses reductionist learning. Both of these AI researchers believed that armed with all the facts that a way of using all the facts could be used to create intelligence. It is truly a backwards way of learning, a type of reverse engineering. But, IBM seems to think it has some merit as they are using the same idea to create the Blue Brain Project.

Bullshit, here is a story of a guy who crashed an Enzo as 120MPH and walked away without a scratch. In fact in years of reading through wrecked exotics I can only remember a handful of fatalities yet I read about a traffic fatality in my local rag at least monthly.

Your link just goes to a guy saying that another guy said the exit polls didn't match. The LA Times link goes to actual data from an actual exit poll, and if you calculate the results, you'll find their exit poll was within ~1% of the actual outcome.

Why are people so desperate to hallucinate evidence of fraud? Not everything is a conspiracy, you know, and there're plenty of real problems you could be devoting your righteous indignation towards. It's good to second-guess and double-check, but that includes your own assumptions. Self-delusion ain't pretty.

The UK Independent said the exit polls gave Obama a 4 point lead

They appear to have been wrong, or at least using a different poll than the LA Times.

According to their poll, Clinton won 29% of the male vote and 46% of the female vote, vs. 40%/34% for Obama. As the voters polled were 43% male and 57% female, that translates into 38.7% of the vote for Clinton and 36.6% for Obama, which is very close to what the final result was.

I have no idea what poll the UK Independent was using, but the data from the LA Times's poll matches up very closely with the actual results. As a wise man once said:

So unless you provide a link to some actual evidence, I'm going to have to call bullshit on you.

Ummm...you really need to get out more...

Bill is nothing more than a cut-throat wolf in sheep's clothing. Profit is his only motive, including his so-called 'philanthropy'.

He gets no break from me. In fact, I've been M$ free for years (and lovin' it :-))

The man is a first class narcisstic megalomaniac. The Capone comparison is right on. He cares not a wit for others, and works to sabotoge and ridicule truly charitable good works (such as OLPC), and profit from pharmaceuticals investments while 'helping all those AIDS people', etc.
Profit is his ONLY motive, in the past, now and in the future.

You can begin your education here, start by reading "Dark cloud over good works", followed by "Money clashes with mission", etc.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx7jan07-sg,0,261331.storygallery

Of the four confirmed firings, two planes were shot down, one was hit but landed safely, and another missed entirely.

That said, there are likely to be ways that $10 billion could be spent to save more lives. For instance, your chances of surviving a heart attack are better in a casino than in a hospital, because you're more likely to receive defibrillator treatment quickly in a casino. Would $10 billion spent there, or on making sure best practice for avoiding MRSA infections was adopted nationwide, be a better investment? Almost certainly. But people place a far higher value on avoiding spectacular deaths than mundane ones.

The Supremes issued a 5-4 ruling back in 2005 that sentencing guidelines are not mandatory, they are advisory only. IANAL either, but here's a link from the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers:

http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/mediasources/20050113b

And just this month a 7-2 ruling in the Minbrough and Gall cases, related to crack cocaine sentencing guidelines, again they are advisory only, not mandatory. Here's a link from the LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-sentencing16dec16,0,1084405.story?coll=la-opinion-center

I wasn't aware that the CIA case had anything to do with a court case. I was under the impression that it had to do with congress which is not a court.

Congress does have their own investigations, yes. But there is also a court case. I posted a link to a story from today's LA Times in another thread, here's a brief, relevant quote:

Over the objections of the Justice Department, a federal judge said Tuesday he would explore whether the U.S. had violated a court order to preserve evidence when the CIA destroyed videotaped interrogations of two terrorism suspects in 2005.

U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr. set a hearing for Friday in Washington in response to a request from Yemeni prisoners who are challenging their detention by the U.S. at the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Here's a link to the full story http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-tapes19dec19,1,6510221.story?ctrack=3&cset=true

Free reg. required, or BugMeNot.

The CIA's tapes were destroyed in 2005 -- long before any investigations into "torture" came about. Thus it was not "destruction of evidence", but merely "destruction of tapes".

A story in today's LA Times contradicts that timeline. Here's the relevant passage.

The tapes were destroyed by a CIA official in November 2005, at a time of growing congressional and public concern about U.S. tactics in the war on terrorism, including interrogation techniques.

It was also five months after Kennedy, in the case of the Yemeni prisoners, issued an order requiring that the U.S. preserve and maintain "all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment and abuse of detainees now" at Guantanamo Bay. According to court papers, government lawyers said at the time that a formal order was not necessary because they were "well aware of their obligation not to destroy evidence that may be relevant in pending litigation."

Here's a link to the full article: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-tapes19dec19,1,6510221.story?ctrack=3&cset=true

Registration is required for their site, but BugMeNot works.

Now go read this article about well-intentioned young men, bravely and I would even say heroically volunteering to put their lives on the line... to defend what? That pack of thieves, liars, crooks and lunatics? To treat such courage and dedication with the contempt that this junta has done makes me truly sick.

The worst part is that Jimbo Whales himself was hit by a speedy delete for the article Mzoli's Meats. But rather than make a change of policy, editors added material to this non-notable butcher shop, and Jimbo is saved from feeling the bitterness of having work you invested a lot of time in get trashed.

Here's the big question. When exactly did these policies about deleting based on notability, trivia, plot synopses, fair use images, come about, and how much work was done before said policies were implemented with such force? Because if a lot of people put in a lot of work only to lose it in the great content razing of 2005-2007, then Wikipedia acted in ABSOLUTE BAD FAITH based on what their starting principals were, and former editors justifiably feel betrayed for having their time wasted.

Negative two months: http://www.latimes.com/technology/consumer/gamers/la-fi-micro26oct26,1,5719202.story

For example: Iran, which has massive leverage over Syria and massive leverage in Lebanon via Hizbollah, today assassinates the chief of operations (the guy who actually runs the military part - most higher level officers spend their time doing political and bureaucratic work) in Lebanon before the election they want Syrian-backed factions to win...
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-beirut12dec12,1,1808825.story
http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Politics/?id=1.0.1656927911
http://www.arabtimesonline.com/kuwaitnews/faqdetails.asp?faid=717&faqid=9

No registration link since our editors aren't too bright

Take a look at Amazon or over at ebay.

Excellent point. There are few consumer goods, toys if you will, that this applies to. This "ticket scalping" like attitude is pretty new to a lot of consumers and of course they're going to blame the company directly. However, it's not the case. Besides the unprecedented demand (it's been practically sold out for over a year in a lot of places) and the fact that hot toys, even when not in demand in the off season, can see sold-out status during the holidays, Nintendo has actually increased factory output for the holidays. Of course, I think 1.8 million consoles a month is nothing to shake a stick at.

I do feel sorry for a little sorry for those who cannot get one, but I also write it off as them not trying hard enough. With a little effort, it wasn't hard to get a Wii back in Oct. They would sit on the shelf for about 2 days before going sold out (according to GameStop and WalMart employees in my local area, YMMV). If you called every day, you'd have gotten one in a week. Of course, your best bet now is to wait until after Xmas, when the Wii bubble pops, and all those hording Wii's for premium re-sales during Xmas will flood the market at standard costs. Otherwise, good luck and keep trying!

Cheers,
Fozzy

My friend who used to contribute a lot in terms of articles and even money decided to stop because the deletionist assholes made it such a pain for him that he now despises the site. And although almost none of his contributions were deleted, he hated the way half his time was spent arguing with deletors about his work.

Even Jimbo Whales has experienced this. He started an article on Mzoli's Meats , a butcher shop and restaurant in South Africa. When it was almost speedily deleted, he told the deletors to "excuse themselves from the project and find a new hobby.". In other words, get a life and stop ruining the project. Unfortunately, a bunch of editors added information to the article so it's now kept, and Jimbo doesn't have to confront either the bitterness many have felt in getting their work destroyed or remaking policy so that people like my friend would continue contributing.

These asshole admins are really making Wikipedia a crappy site, and their effect on valuable editors is worse than what any nasty vandal might do since admins are part of the power hierarchy. This is another valuable lesson in what happens when you give thoughtless small minded people a little power. They make their pronouncements and mass annihilations without any consideration on what the effect might be on a person who has spent sometimes hundreds of man hours creating, maintaining, and protecting his/her articles. They dismiss people by spouting some arbitrary interpretation of policy backed up by their cabals, while those who have better things to do like actually create content get fucked over. James Derk of The Daily Southtown wrote an article where he talks about having a similar experience.

Also, here's a good Slashdot thread illustrating the intellectual dishonesty of the deletionist admins. It is part of the Slashdot story Call For Halt To Wikipedia Webcomic Deletions which is filled with former contributors testifying to their own treatment at the hands of these assholes. It's sad how some people seem to really get off on destroying the work of others.

I think it's interesting how when I don't know about a subject, editing an article on it would be considered vandalism. But it's perfectly OK for the deletors to destroy work relating to things they often know nothing about. Sometimes they even use their very ignorance as justification.

I think it's interesting how when I don't know about a subject, editing an article on it would be considered vandalism. But it's perfectly OK for the deletors to destroy work relating to things they often know nothing about. Sometimes they even use their very ignorance as justification.

I think Wikipedia has a choice right now. Allow a lot more in than they are currently doing and piss off the deletionists, or let these deletionists have their way and piss off the content creators(And I should add, it's not only deleted articles that are targeted, but plot synopses, trivia sections, clearly permissible images, etc. have all succumbed to the slash and burn mentality of these deletionists.). So Jimbo, who would you rather keep around?

They don't need to have everyone in the database to effectively have a DNA tracking of all citizens. If one person in your family is in the database then you are in the database.
In addition to the fee they collect from you this company might be recieving your tax money through an outsourcing program to the help populate the government database or they may strictly maintain client confidentiality until they receive a national security letter from the department of homeland surveillance, but the end result is the same.

In my previous post I linked to a 4 year old cnn article to show that the government has been using questionable means to populate codis for quite some time now and I doubt that this government intrusion into personal privacy will be exposed until it is too late and the entire population is effectively mapped.

When the Bill And Melinda Gates Foundation starts making yearly charitable contributions in excess of the minimum amount needed to preserve the tax exemptions accorded to charities, let me know. I have looked over the financial statements. B&MGF is no more charitable than it needs to be. Its primary goal is pretty obvious: retain control of as much money as possible and use the power of its portfolio to make more and more money.

As to saving lives, B&MGF is deliberately set up so that those in charge of determining where the largess will go have no influence at all on determining how the investments are made. So you end up with curious situations where B&MGF is providing assistance to pediatric clinics that are downwind from industrial sources of pollution that B&MGF have major investments in, and which are causing severe childhood respiratory diseases. An early article documenting this is from the LA Times on 7 Jan 2007: Dark cloud over good works of Gates Foundation. Others have picked up the story and done their own investigations; there is now quite a pile of literature documenting what in terms of cold hard cash is the biggest hipocrisy the world has ever seen.

This man is not a good man. He is not an honest man. He is only a very clever man, with some very clever disguises to mask his incredible greed.

Again, assuming the laws in the EU are similar to other jurisdictions.

And that's where you're most wrong of all. Not only are the laws different in the EU but they are interpreted and used in a different manner. (read more below)

You said: ..it is not illegal to have a monopoly..

The whole case against Microsoft in the EU is the best example there is of the difference between passive US regulation and aggressive EU regulation. The EU steps in where the US would wait.

To quote the LA Times: "In the U.S., antitrust law is based more on the effects. If you commit an illegal practice, that practice has to have an effect on the market" ... "In Europe, you don't need to go so far. To prove you've committed an illegal practice is enough to punish your company, irrespective of the impact."

U.S. antitrust regulators rely more on economic analyses than assumptions of how consumers will be affected, antitrust experts say. While the EU philosophy is that protecting competitors helps consumers by ensuring more competition, which could drive down prices.

And finally, of course, the greatest difference is that the EU uses the Civil Law legal system ( from Roman Law ) with the exception of the UK. The UK/US Common Law system has a very different view and methods. On a sidenote the majority of the world's nations use the Civil Law legal system.

The EU has no jurisdiction over the acquisition

How terribly naive of you. Of course the EU can block it. That's why it merits a news item. Google and DoubleClick both operate in the EU, mergers and aquistions are subject to EU approval even if they have US HQ's. This goes for every major merger in the world today. If you don't get both the US and the EU to accept it - it's not happening. We're talking about WTO rules here to be precise.

"Dark cloud over good works of Gates Foundation" have been discussed on slashdot before.

You are referring to this? http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,6827615.story?coll=la-home-headlines

The money is doing more good than bad by a huuge margin. Gates is not getting any richer off having this foundation. He doesn't run any chemical plants.

Gates foundation did invest a tiny portion in chemical plants such as Eni .. but all wise foundations invest in companies so that the foundation's money won't just run out. It's called prudent financial planning.

Why don't you check out all the tangible good the foundation is doing instead of slandering them for one or two minor alleged missteps. You really need to check the facts before you conclude they are doing more harm than good .. and furthermore that they are deliberately causing pollution.

Do you know all the business practices of companies that any mutual funds you own invest in?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,6827615.story?coll=la-home-headlines

I wasn't aware that Drudge or Breitbart had stated views with regard to file sharing. As far as I can tell, the story (including headline) was linked straight through from an AP article

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/R/RADIOHEAD_DOWNLOAD_STUDY?SITE=KYB66&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Interestingly, the LA Times (not exactly a right wing mainstay) reposts a Bloomberg article with essentially the same headline.

http://www.latimes.com/technology/la-fi-radio6nov06,1,4894529.story?track=rss&ctrack=1&cset=true

Nice. I laughed a lot reading that. Sublte.

Ripped from here:

The LA Times