Slashdot Mirror

But at the same time I feel like it's a waste of money compared to better causes, like I dont know, FEEDING or MEDICINE for kids. Granted I grew up poor, and I wish I had a laptop when I was in high school and younger would have been able to kick start my career even earlier. But even then if it came to me having a free laptop, or seeing the kid down the street who eats government peanut butter on bread (no jelly) every day and no medical insurance. I'd gladly give it up to feed him/her for a while.

I've grown up and don't flame people like this anymore. Because I realise jshriver is without a clue about the developing world. These arguments comes from ignorance about what life in the developing world is like. For starters, giving them aid may make you feel good, but it doesn't help the recipients stand on their own two feet which is what they really want to do. Are you aware sub-saharan Africa is the world's fastest growing cell phone market? 82 million subscribers and climbing.

Africa has mostly moved beyond the image of the starving, shivering child. There are a few areas like that, but <Lewis Black mode> f--k me, there's a @#$!-damned war going on there!</Lewis Black mode> Mostly, the developing world would like to start their own businesses, grow their own food and keep the money they make away from corrupt dictators. But well-meaning people keep interfering with their plans to do this, including ironically the World Bank and IMF (but I digress).

You want to help that child in Africa get a better home and school? Camapaign to end American subsidies for farming. That will do more to help them than giving them your crumbs from the table.

Don't feel safer just yet, Mr. parent post. Last night in Crown Heights (Brooklyn), a civil rights attorney (Michael Tarrif Warren) and his wife Evelyn (also a civil rights attorney I believe) witnessed a police officer making an arrest. He stopped to observe the arrest and was told by an officer to, "Get the fuck out of here, this is none of your business." Michael replied, "You don't have to talk to me that way sir, I'm a lawyer." He was told, "I don't give a fuck who you are." and walked away. Michael proceeded to take notes while in his car - at this point the sergeant (one Sgt. Talby of the 77th Precinct, NYPD) punched him several times hard through the open window and arrested both Mr. Warren and his wife.

Thankfully, the news got to the local media quickly, and when they broadcast news of the arrest, 200 folks showed up at the 77th Precinct's door (full disclosure: I was one of them). Sadly, this is hardly an isolated instance. It just happens to be the one that happened yesterday.

I realize that some of the sources I'm linking aren't exactly bastions of objective journalism, but if you'd like the other side of the issue, you have two choices:
1) Read the recommendations of NYPD officers on NYPD Rant, the largest message board for NYPD officers. In response to St. Louis ACLU handing out cameras to monitor police misconduct, many recommend "disappearing" the tapes or refusing to work in the area (see here

2) Next time you see police arresting or ticketing someone, pull out a notepad. Make sure to not interfere in any way with the police action - just take down names, badge numbers, police car numbers, and physical description of the arrestee. See what happens. I tried doing this once or twice in NYC, and was told, like Mr. Warren, that it was none of my business, to get lost.

... to those us who are firstborn males. We knew it all along, but out of pity for our poor dumb siblings agreed to keep it between ourselves.

Then again how do you explain this first-born male?

Where has this writer been? Under a rock? Before plastic was ever made from oil, it was made from plants. The original plastic wrap was cellophane, made from Cellulose. Hemp was an ideal plant for cellulose. The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, making hemp illegal, ended the use of hemp for plastics. And about the same tyme Du Pont received a patent of making plastic from petroleum. Here's a webpage on an Eastman Kodak, yes the camera company, process: The Process of Making Trees into Plastic dated 13 May 2001.

There seems to be a fair amount of denial going on, not only at the geopolitical level, but here as well.

Cries of "It will hurt the economy!" ... "Those are our jobs you're talking about!" ... "It aids the terrorists!" ... "It's fuzzy math/science/reporting!" fly from both sides.

But the cold, hard fact remains, we *are* changing our environment, as a look at these articles, some of which are decades old, will attest. Taken as a whole many of those changes are not at all beneficial.

So rather than focusing on who-said-what games, maybe it's time to quit clicking the heels of our ruby slippers, and begin cleaning up the mess we've made.

Well not really like the other poster said read some papers.

article

Scientists found out that Dolly is actually one of the best clones ever made, most of the attemps done on mammals did not give as good results.

When we speak about defects, we mean that none of them is normal, natural born animals have defects usually but in a lesser percentage and do not transmit to the next generation these problems if too important since they just die before to be able to ...

That makes no sense. If those wealthy men had wanted to make their fortune in hemp, don't you think they could have? If hemp was a financial threat to them they'd have just bought most of the hemp farms. Duh.

I think I understand what your point is, these people could of had just started their own farms growing hemp. But because hemp is easy to grow almost everyone could grow it and with so many people able to there's no way any of the wealthy could control it. It's not like petroleum oil, which is only found in a few places and requires money and expertise to extract. Or forests, for which large tracts or acreage in private hands is owned by few people. Hemp doesn't require much land though, in the mid 1930s MIT did a study that showed an acre of hemp provided as much fiber, pulp, as 3 acres of forest. William Randolph Hearst didn't like that as he owned thousands of acres of forest in California.

Fact is is hemp is probably the most industrially useful plant there is. It's good as a source of pulp for paper, Thomas Jefferson wrote the DOI on hemp paper. The seeds are good for oil, Rudolph Diesel had his diesel engine run on the oil. Or ethanol fuel can be made from it. Hemp is fast growing and the wood can be used in construction. It is also a good source of cellulose to make plastic, here's a page from Eastman Kodak (yea the camera company) on "The Process of Making Trees into Plastic". While it does not specifically say hemp hemp is still a good source.

Al oxydises (Al2O3 I think) instantly so it is never "pure". Yes, it builds up in your system so people learn of aluminum pots and stuff. But metals are not dangerous to dispose because they are just returned to the environment where they came from. The problem is in man made chemicals and atoms (ie. nuclear waste) that probably should not be dumped into the environment. We do not know the long term consequences of these man made chemicals, yet we are using them.

For example, the good old Roundup herbicide. It was suppose to kill all plants except the special genetically modified ones and disintegrate instantly in soil. Unfortunately, it does neither any more. Now we have "weeds" that are resistant just as plants and Roundup ends up in people's water supply and water bodies. Herbicide is toxic to aquatic life, so having it in water is not a good idea.

Although Monsanto MSDS disagrees:
    http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Monsanto-Roundu p-MSDS-Docs7072.htm
    http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/us_ag/content/cro p_pro/msds/roundup_orig_max.pdf

Regardless, the 1/2 life is up to 172 days in soil and 7 days in water. Enough to pollute water supplies.

Long term effects in humans? Unknown because never tested (how could it be?). I guess it is being tested now.

Anyway, that is the problem with man made stuff. We do not know what it does or how it will propagate in the environment. We do not know so we assume it is ok? At least that's the current idea. And then it ends up on our plates and then we panic as it is not suppose to be there. I guess ignorance is bliss after all.

If you want to talk about morality, let's talk about the 51% of New Mexicans who voted to tax the other 49% to pay for their space dreams. They didn't want the spaceport bad enough to invest in it out of their own pocket, so they're forcing everyone else to do it instead. That isn't competition, that's petty tyranny.

Story OP is talking about:

1996

And apparently he wasn't the only one successful in creating his own reactor (different type, yes. But a reactor nonetheless):

2006

Now here comes Greenpeace, who has proven that they would rather see populations starve to death than have them eat GM foods

Have you actually read the article you're linking to? It's not Greenpeace calling the shots there, it's the government of Zambia that refuses GE food. Greenpeace is quoted in that article saying:

"If the choice really was between GE grain and starvation then clearly any food is the preferable option"

Problem is, it's GE grain is not the only option, but US companies need to create a market for their GE stuff. Europe doesn't want it, and with good reason. Why should Africa accept it? There are plenty of viable alternatives that aren't being tried because US companies have stuff to sell and need to create a market.

No data is given.

Me? I'm just listening to my gut - that mysterious place where common sense springs from - and my gut tells me that genetically altered things are not good eats.

Since you are typing on a computer with Internet access, I assume you live in an area where you are free to eat whatever you want. Unfortunately, not everyone has that luxury. There are places in the world where the best meal a family can hope for is a spoon full of rice that Sally Struthers provided. Granted, it's something to eat, but it has little nutritional value other than the carbohydrates. Now let's say you can genetically modify this rice to contain vitamins (such as "Golden rice") and even human breast-milk protein. Now, this bit of rice can be a nutritionally complete meal that could possibly be grown in these local areas to feed starving populations.

Unfortunately, in the meantime, groups like Greenpeace have convinced the governments of starving nations to reject GM foods and allow their populations to starve. Yes, that is correct. Greenpeace would rather let men, women and children starve to death than have them eat GM foods. And people wonder why I think that Greenpeace is more concerned with their own political agendas than the welfare of the people they claim to be trying to help.

I see you know it but many people don't know plastic was originally made from plants. I wonder how many remember or have heard of cellophane plastic wraps for sandwiches and such. The "cello" comes from "cellulose" which comes from trees and other plants. Eastman Kodak, the camera company, has a webpage on this: The Process of Making Trees into Plastic . Part of the reason people don't know is because of people and companies like Du Pont, in the 1930s Du Pont was awarded a patent on making plastic from petroleum after which they started pushing to have hemp, aka marijuana, outlawed. Hemp was a good source for making plastic. Henry Ford even built a car on his Iron Mountain Estate using hemp for some of the material used. The car was also powered by hemp, Ford made the fuel from hemp. Hemp is also a better source of fiber for paper than trees, one acre of hemp will produce more paper than an acre of forest.

Falcon

Probably easier just to give you a link:
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2002/How-To-Start- A-WarMay02.htm
Ok it's a commentry on America's use of war over time, but I think it's worth a read.

I'd stress as well that America seems to have more of a habit of toying with countires it doesn't border with - messing in other peoples buisness. Whatever else you want to say about China/Tibet/Tiwan, Israel/Palestine, India/Pakistan etc they are all about local squabbles and land claims/expansionism - the US appears to interfere with other countries on the other side of the world.
I think if the US was interfering with Canada (for example) people may have a different view than they did over the Iraq war.

...look at this as what it is - Bush & Co making.. blah, blah, blah

Wake up!

Can you be any more paranoid? You go rabid, yes, rabid, on someone who merely signed the law! He didn't write it! (And I doubt you meant to say & Co = Congress)

Are you still sore over the 2000 election? If so, you obviously are ignorant or dispise the Constitution of the United States. If it's the latter I'm sure you care not a wit about Clinton being a convicted criminal as well (for obstruction of justice, and notice I didn't use 'is' lest there be a moment of confusion in what I meant).

What more shall I rant on concerning the hyporcracy and blindedness of the Liberal mindset? As far as I'm concerned: If you can't tell that kernel of corn will grow up to be a corn stalk (just ask Monsanto, they understand what a kernel of their genetically modified plants are precursors to)... wait, I'm not being to clear or direct: If you can't tell that a fetus is but a human in development, then I cannot trust any of your subsequent judgments, whether small or great.

The ATnT NSA spying case shows all email is monitored anyway and ATnT will cooperate for their own benefit. It isn't just the emails of the passengers that is captured, everyone's is and they filter for anyone they care to.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/29/04 0225

The Vodaphone Greece spying case shows that mobile phones can be tapped with simple software at the switch.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6182647.stm
http://www.mindfully.org/Technology/2006/Bove-Tsal ikidis-Bugging22aug06.htm

The recent FBI case shows the mobile phone is a microphone that can be turned on at any time, it means they don't just monitor telephone calls, but all conversations. The greek spying case was probably much bigger than announced, and may well have been more than just telephone calls.

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/04/04 56220

The SWIFT case shows that any large corporation will hand over any information is it is threatened in any single market. That means that SWIFT may be handing information over to the Russians, but we would never know unless it leaked out.

(EU condemns swift spying)
http://cryptome.org/eu-swift-hit.htm

1. Non-therapuetic antibiotics used as growth enhancers - increases risk of antibiotic resistent pathogens for everyone, not just beef eaters.
2. Feed "enhanced" with rendered carcases (cannabalistic cows) - causes mad cow disease. Outlawed most places, but feed companies can cheat or make mistakes.
3. Corn feeding - gives cows highly acid stomachs, making the natural E-Coli deadly to humans. This not only affects beef, but nearby fruits and vegetables exposed to manure. Apples have been infected by flies carrying germs from nearby manure.

I posted the grandparent.

When I posted, the wiki article had a link to the following story: http://www.mindfully.org/Technology/2005/Changing- World-Technologies-Palmer9apr05.htm Now it doesn't. I leave it to someone more clever than I to explain what happened.

Anyway, wrt to the 400 barrels per day; that would be about 60 tons. Given an input of 300 tons, the efficiency is way less than what the company claimed it would be. They are producing and selling oil. On the other hand, if they were doing it economically, they would be building plants all over the place. They aren't.

Should people stop eating beef because of the significance of cows in Hinduism?

I would say so, not simply because hinduism holds cows as sacred but that commercial cattle farming is one of the most destructive industries in the world, specifically in the United States.

See Power Steer by Michael Pollan for more information.

Thank you for mentioning plastic. I have heard also in general, many man-made chemicals appear in the body as estrogens, including pesticides. One link that has been made in other studies, that I haven't seen posted yet as I'm scrolling down reading comments, is studies of polution and the sexual effects on wild-life animals. There also in some populations are dramatic declines. They could be our dying [dead?] canary in the mine warning of imminent danger for us. Maybe I can find a link via quick google search:

http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/Basics/chapters.htm
http://www.holology.com/hormone.html
http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/pae/environmentalscienc e/casestudies/case7.mhtml
http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Plasticizers/Out- Of-Diet-PG5nov03.htm

Anyways, that's just a sampling. I think it's already a pretty well known issue. Not saying there's not other possible contributing factors. But this is being studied and there's quite a few references attached to some of those articles. Have fun. Who needs to reproduce anyways? We have genetics. We can clone! Muwahahahaha.... :-)

There exists a process that can turn just about anything carbon-based into oil. That article was published in 2003, but a more modern article (which I can't find online) says the cost to make this oil comes out to higher than the cost of crude oil- IIRC $80-$90 a gallon. Once crude oil prices exceed the cost of manufacturing this oil, I'm sure this technology will spread rapidly. Right now, I think this and other alternative fuels are what keeps OPEC from pricing crude oil higher.

I'm aware of the container requirements, but accidents that can rupture the containers can and do happen. See: Over the past 30 years, more than a dozen U.S. rail and traffic wrecks were so severe they could have breached the container casks designed for spent fuel from nuclear power plants, Nevada officials say.

Also, just because there hasn't been an accident involving chemicals doesn't mean they, or nuclear waste, should be viewed as safe. I'm not against the transportation of hazmat; the only point is that it's clearly more dangerous to transport such material than to process it on site. If it were not, none of the measures you posted would be necessary.

From the linked article: "...the researchers used regular unleaded fuel in a typical four stroke, four horsepower lawn mower engine and found, after one hour, that the PAH emissions are similar to a modern gasoline powered car driving about 150 kilometers (93 miles)."

"I agree that the polarization is getting worse, but I don't think the Internet is to blame."

Here's the cause (IMO): Tentacles of Rage: The Republican propaganda mill, Harpers, September 2004

Unfortunately, even the 'scientific method' can be and is systematically subverted.

Pharmaceutical firms are inventing diseases to sell more drugs, researchers have warned. Disease-mongering promotes non-existent diseases and exaggerates mild problems to boost profits, the Public Library of Science Medicine reported.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4898488.stm

In cancer, heart disease, mental health and related fields the [Pharmeceutical] industry has sponsored trials of new drugs which have held out great promise for patients. But when the same drugs have been tested in independent trials paid for by non-profit organisations - governments, medical institutions or charities - they have yielded different results.

http://www.mindfully.org/Industry/2004/Drug-Trials -Profit23apr04.htm

A drugs industry insider turned whistleblower, who claims to have proof that multinational companies are 'bribing' thousands of doctors to prescribe their products, has narrowly escaped an apparent attempt on his life.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4 064664,00.html

I'll be honest here. I am not a 'believer' in homeopathy. I cannot see how it can possibly work. (excluding placebo effects and any benefit accrued from having a practicioner that exhibits some empathy for your basic humanity.)

On the other hand, promoting health with a holistic approach adressing mental state (stress levels), diet, lifestyle etc. and involving a compassionate relationship between patient and practioner I can see as both effective and preferable in many instances to being palmed off with the latest badly researched pharmaceutical cash cow by a disinterested and corrupt practioner of 'conventional medicine'.

Life is, as always, complicated.

...only to have a competitor buy a handful of seeds, and start selling them under their own label?
That's actually not what we're talking about. We're talking about infecting fields with seeds that farmers don't want, and then suing them for royalties.

USDA-Imports-Phorid-Flies

The parent poster is not exaggerating.

Paradise awaits.

If you are saying that non violent tactics such as monkey wrenching, sabotage, blockaids, and propaganda as strictly non violent tactics constitute war such that the state is justified in using violence against these tactics I'd say you are justifying a first use of violence against non violent people which is truly abhorrent. By that logic turning the fire hoses on Dr. King was perfectly justified as he was somehow "at war" with the state by using "subterfuge and propaganda" to change fundamentally racist government policies in the south such as segregated lunch counters, being made to ride on the back of the bus, segregated schools, and poll taxes and literacy tests and other sham tactics to disenfranchise African Americans. So no I don't think someone who is using non violent tactics is "at war" (slippery term) with society I don't accept your fundamental premise in the argument.

And yes I do know of what I speak for I have been arrested for blockading a logging road in Northern California. It's definitely the cops who used violence in this case, they hurt my wrist when they put the cuffs on, and very severely injured my friends shoulder. Note this is the same Humboldt county Sheriffs office that lost a court case for swabbing pepper spray directly in activists eyes, see:

http://www.mindfully.org/Heritage/2005/Pepper-Spra y-Eight29apr05.htm

If you want to say the cops who use violence against non violent demonstrators are "at war" with the activist community then I might be in agreement with you.

See also: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0407-06.ht m

Plastics and other random hydrocarbons can now be recycled into light crude oil, then cracked in a refinery to make gasoline, heating oil, diesel, and more plastic. GM is looking to do this with the thousands of tons of automotive plastics rotting in junkyards all over great lakes region.

The USDA approved the protocol in 2002 and afterwards there was a short trial done but the feedback was terrible. The irradiated products have a big ugly "this fruit is irradiated" sticker on the box which tends to turn off people. There was also a big anti-radiation movement from "green" groups that didn't like the idea of using radiation in edible products. This article is an example, check out the cartoon on the right. No basis in fact, just preying on peoples' fears.

There is a state-of-the-art facility on Kauai that was built specifically to irradiate Kauai pineapples other subtropicals for shipment to the mainland. The facility has gone largely unused because after the public's initial bad reaction major retailers became scared to bring in any product using that protocol. You won't find irradiated fruit in Safeway but some of it ends up in the terminal markets and distributed to smaller community stores.

To add to what you said, I read an article in Scientific American a few years ago (The Hidden Genetic Program of Complex Organisms, John S. Mattick, Scientific American, October 2004, p62).

It seems that the "junk DNA" may actually code for RNA molecules that perform a bunch of regulatory functions. Removing some of this "junk DNA" seems to have ill effects on some organisms.

There's also more here.

This has been done before, introducing a random element into the neural net. If done correctly, this can result in "creativity". Here is one link about it, seen it many other places too, so google for more.

Not directly answering your question, but reasons why American foreign policy can get on people goats and can make them want to hurt american back can be found:
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2002/How-To-Start- A-WarMay02.htm

I think Gatto would encourage your skeptical frame of mind. :-)

By the way, even I said "dwell", not "avoid". :-)

A house defrays the cost of about $1K per month in living expenses, giving peopel many more possibilities. Plus, as an appreciable asset, if money is taken out of it, it might provide another $1K a month for twenty years or so. So, two decades of about a $2K a month income increse. That's a lot for the average high school student, a good fraction of whom may not get a diploma anyway (or at least, not directly from high school). Or are you making an argument for accepting "creeping credentialism" that has no relation to ability?

Anyway, he casts a broad net. You say sometimes he catches boots instead of fish. And sure, he does cherry pick sometimes. Well, OK, but even if you quibble over the details, I feel his main point stands: compulsory schooling was developed as a form of "indoctrination" to create compliant people willing to give up any right to be free (or if not 100% compliant, then just at best, a person who talks but does not act), not for "education" as a free person.

Again, as I posted elsewhere in this thread, for a broader historical view see:
    http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2003/Compulsory-Sc hooling-AnarchistMar03.htm

An even better source of the history of the compulsory school idea from Plato onwards:
    http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2003/Compulsory-Sc hooling-AnarchistMar03.htm

That is because I was taught that if you didn't do anything wrong, then you should not be afraid to be searched.

When you consent to a member of law enforcment's search you stand to gain nothing and to lose everything. If they have to ask you "can I take a look in here?" then they probably don't have the authority to do so already. Always tell them that you "don't consent to any searches". You can't possibly understand every nuance of every law there is, and believe it or not even the most honest citizens can go to prison, be fined, harrassed, etc. It happens everyday, you only need to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Examples When you agree to a search you not only put your self in a dangerous situation for no reason at all, but you reinforce the idea that is in some law enforcment officials minds that they have the right to search anyone any time they please, leading to more searches with out evidence.

That video is called Busted: The citizens guide to surviving police encounter, and it's copyrighted, go on and watch it, but if you learn anything you should really consider paying for it at Flex Your Rights Any money you give them is a donation, any profit they make goes directly to some very good causes.

The airliner cited is a 707, the largest airliner of the day, and only slightly smaller than the 757s that did strike.

And the study was of the plane striking the building, it made absolutely ZERO study on the effects of the fuel load burning inside the building along with the building conttents, and it did not forsee the heat insulating coatings around the steel being ripped off by the impact.

Wrong. The steel in question was rated ASTM E119.

And if you google for the name of the idiot that wrote that e-mail, he was FIRED by UL for LYING about everything he said in the e-mail!!!

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Kevin-R-Ryan2 2nov04.htm

Note this choice quote - "UL vehemently denied last week that it ever certified the materials."

FROM THIS MOMENT ON you are not ever allowed to quote this stupid e-mail ever again. The guy was so incompetent that UL FIRED HIM outright. Do you hear me!! You're not ever allowed to quote this stupid fucking e-mail EVER AGAIN.

During the Madrid skyscraper fire

Yes, a DIFFERENT BUILDING with a different contruction and a different fire. That fire was a fire of the building's contents, not jet fuel. Nor was that building's steel members stripped of their heat resistent coatings by a jetliner impact. NOR where there a FULL 20 floors of building above the floors that were burning. NO SUPPRISE HERE.

yet, it collapsed sudddenly and completely into its own footprint,

AND WHY IS THIS SUPPRISING??? What in the world could possible make anything that big not fall down suddenly once it's failure starts? What in the world could possibly make anything that big fall down not in a largely down fashion?

List your candidates

Pools of fuel that have vaporized in an area not yet connected to the fire, that suddenly catch fire.

Aerosols of dust. (grain elevator explosions)

Air in sealed spaces being heated until the sealed spaces break open.

etc etc etc.

If the jets were nothing more than escaping air, how is it that they were filled with dust and smoke, despite the inconvenient fact that there was no damage whatsoever on those lower floors?

Take one upper floor of 10,000 tons of concrete, smack it down on the floor below it (FULL of furniture and crawl spaces and sheetrock, have you ever cut sheetrock? It's basically dust in solid form - and it's used to create all internal "rooms" in skyscrapers), and of course you're going to get a TON of dust.

And what the fuck are you doing talking about pyroclastic flows? Those are TOTALLY different things produced by erupting VOLCANOES - compared to a little bit of fucking dust from the WTC. Where the HELL do you get the idea that the air was turned into a pyroclastic mixture?

Your link to the idiot talking about "estimating energy required to form the dust clouds" is just COMPLETE bullshit!!! Dust doesn't need heat to spread. It's fucking dust. And if the entire building fell down, that means there's enough energy going around to raise an entire building as tall as it originally stood, more than enough needed to raise a little dust cloud.

either to expand the gases thermodynamically, or to vaporize moisture

NO GASSES NEEDED TO BE EXPANDED THERMODYNAMICALLY, it's a dry dust cloud. NO MOISTURE NEEDED TO BE VAPORIZED, dust clouds from falling concrete crushing sheetrock into dust clouds aren't made of water like cloud clouds up in the blue sky.

What kind of idiots look at the WTC dust clouds and start calculating how much heat it would take to vaporize water to form a cloud of the same size??? What kind of fucking morons are you guys!

I agree with everyone else, YOU ARE A FUCKING MORON.

A link to the well-reasoned skeptics? Here's one: http://www.mindfully.org/Technology/2005/Changing- World-Technologies-Palmer9apr05.htm

Let's give this system to Iran, then we can avoid a war in August

That's rather interesting. This is offtopic, but I'm curious as to what software/system the Iranians are using in their government. If there's a significant Microsoft implementation, I kind of would feel safer. Nuclear technology is very risky, and if they've got any failsafes depending on Microsoft technology (blackmarketed or licensed) they might end up with a massive nuclear disaster of there own making, like the Mayak disaster in the Soviet Union.

... the fleecing of Californians was mostly during Clinton.

A simple Google(California Enron) will get you lots of information, almost all of which contradicts your statement. Similarly a Google(Bush California price caps) will show you that starting before the inauguration and lasting until at least the end of May, 2001, Bush refused to impose price caps to stop the gouging.

"We will not take any action that makes California's problems worse and that's why I oppose price caps,"
-- George Bush, May 29, 2001

President-elect Bush bluntly rejected yesterday the electricity price caps desperately sought by Gov. Gray Davis, calling them "a short-term delay of a needed solution."

Bush, in his first direct comments on California's rolling blackouts, whose repercussions are beginning to cascade beyond the state's borders, blamed the problem on California's "flawed" deregulation legislation, which he said the state has to fix.

"I have read where some propose price controls," Bush told the Associated Press. "I'm against price controls."

Finally take a look a what CBS News had to say:

Before the 2000 election, Enron employees pondered the possibilities of a Bush win.

"It'd be great. I'd love to see Ken Lay Secretary of Energy," says one Enron worker.

That didn't happen, but they were sure President Bush would fight any limits on sky-high energy prices.

The Cato Institute also fought wind power by pointing out the terrible, just terrible carnage the turbines would wreak on bird populations. This marked the absolute first time they've ever tried to pretend they gave a crap about the environment.

I don't trust the Cato Institute, or any other agenda-driven "groupthink-tank" to perform the research first, then draw the conclusions. This study seems no different.*

* Note: I wrote that statement before I actually read the study. Which is an absurd, biased way to go about researching a topic, and the exact sort of thing the Cato Institute pulls. The "study" (more of a survey, really) is sometimes blatantly obvious ("Oh, gee, people are more prosperous when the government protects the private property rights of individuals, rather than robbing them blind or standing idly by while rampaging mobs do the same.") At other points, it seems economically naive, only devoting one dismissive paragraph about externalized costs (which amounts to a refusal to engage the primary justification for government regulations) and expending zero effort distinguishing between physical and intellectual property.

The survey also frequently exhibits the intense desire to jump to tasty conclusions without providing support. Their desire for less government regulation is obvious, even though they never distinguish between the security and extent of private property rights. After all, there is no guarantee that loosening a given restriction on property rights will lead to better economic decision making by owners, but it is certain that they'll make better decisions if they're secure in the knowledge that whatever rights they have today will also exist tomorrow.

Certainly, the fastest road to prosperity for a given country is for it to have a government which works for the people, protecting their lives and property. But despite our agreement on that front, I can hardly step aside and let you quote the Cato Institute as though it were a respectable institution not run by right-wing nitwits who think the only good government is a dead government.

Nothing that requires the servitude of other people is a right.

Well, if you don't like the social contracts society sets up, you can go out into the wilderness and live by yourself; you can get by without paying taxes in the US if you don't make too much money, or you can move to a third world nation that doesn't have all those annoying rules.

But if you benefit from society, its services (education, government, etc.), and its infrastructure, then you have to pay your share for the upkeep of those services. Businesses want a pool of educated and healthy workers to choose from, so they have to pay for the maintenance of that pool, not just when they are using something out of the pool, but also when they don't. It's no different from road maintenance, where you also can't pick and choose based on the specific roads you happen to think are useful.

None of that is negotiable. It's been part of human society for as long as humans have existed. You should be happy that it's become more rational over the last few centuries.

t's unfortunate but true, we trade with them to reap from their child labor.

I have to admire with your honesty but can't help pointing out that cheap child labor is not the only exploitation/human right violation/crime that US and other western countries commit there. They also violate the rights of tens of millions of "cheap adult" laborers and dump their waste in third world countries and cause enormous environmental damage which in turn destroys tens millions of lives (human, animal and plant) in due course of time.
http://www.hu.mtu.edu/hu_dept/tc%40mtu/papers/bhop al.htm
http://www.monitor.net/monitor/0204a/hightechtrash .html
http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Dumping-Pepsi-P lastic-India94.htm
This has been going on for centuries now.
Who's asking for sanctions against these crimes against humanity? Not anybody on slashdot.

Oh, this 911 wtc pretext incident is only the latest of a long history of the America elite using/allowing/manufacturing "pretext incidents" in order to start wars and grab power. See this page on HOW TO START A WAR.

However, I think this War On Terror has opened the elite up to the future possibility, should there ever be an anti-elite grassroots political movement, that our current laws might be used against the elite in order to try them for treason. Historically, treason could only be used if someone worked for/aided a foreign govt which was an American enemy.
Obviously, the War on Terror is not a war against a foreign govt.

Thus, we can start a War On The Elite. They are really, of course, the real enemy of all Americans. Always have been, always will be. That realization is what seperates Europeans from Americans, at least in part. They realize it is TOP against BOTTOM. We do not.

So try the elite in court for treason. We now have the legal precedent. Perhaps.

Who are the elite? Higg level politicians, CEOs of megacorps, prominent leaders large think tanks and nonprofit foundations, rich people, lobbyists, etc.

This was making news in the Wall Street Journal and other papers back in the early part of 2002. Maybe that's why the military wants to test at the SB? A huge sample and plenty of possibilities for picking up cancer patients that could lead to positives.

Your (his?) claim that "There is no convincing scientific evidence that mass inoculations can be credited with eliminating any childhood disease" is refuted here and here, the latter of which links is an anti-vaccine site.
this link gives references to more scientific studies. And this link also responds to your claims.

And, it's blazingly obvious that smallpox, pertussis, and polio have responded to vaccine regimes. In areas that lacked polio vaccine, polio cases continued. When those areas began to receive the vaccine through WHO (including Europe), the cases reduced or stopped altogether. Case closed.

Vaccination also fits well with the established mechanism of disease resistance. Those who have received vaccination show an increased level of antibodies to the disease vaccinated against; the antibodies are the proteins used by white cells to identify and then destroy the invading pathogens.

I recommend getting your information from medical journals and sites instead of scare websites.

And if you have a child, PLEASE get your vaccination information from repuatable sources.

And yet there are numerous scientists who are starting to think that it may not be dead dinosaurs and dead trees. And these people are essentially cranks, though some of them, like the late Thomas Gold of Cornell, have university positions. Not one person actually engaged in the business of finding oil believes any of this to be true, as a recent dustup at Rigzone showed. The abiotic oil people have yet to make their case in commercial terms. The gold standard of scientific questions, "What is your proof?", remains unanswered. We're not familiar with the process as we haven't been able to duplicate it in the lab -- so its theory. Tell that to these folks, who have been converting turkey guts into petroleum.