Slashdot Mirror

Typo on my part, but you should get your facts straight, the metric system was not invented by the French, but rather by the British. "John Wilkins, founder of the Royal Society, first published his ideas for a metric measure in 1668 - 120 years before the French adopted the metric system."

And metric is far, far superior. Again, what's an ounce? Avoirdupois ounce? Troy ounce? Which fluid ounce, US or UK? An Imperial fluid ounce is 1/20th of an Imperial pint, whereas a US fluid ounce is 1/16th of a US pint. And in the US, you'd better know if that pint is wet or dry! It's a difference of 78 mL!

That's not at all intuitive! The rest of the world has no problem with using base 10 measure, but for some reason people insist on clinging to their old measures. If you're going to use those, you'd better go all the way and use stones, drams, furlongs, chains, rods, etc. Quick, how many gills are in a barrel?! US gills or UK gills? ;)

firstly, what the hell are you talking about? plausible deniability of what?

Come on now Joe, everyone here understands the open wifi defense. "Your honor, my wifi was open. It could have been anybody."

But what really annoys me about your comment is the shear stupidity of it. Is the UK a nazi-esque state?

In free countries, if the police were to tackle, pin, and then shoot a suspect in the back of the head seven times execution style, those police would go to trial and be put away for murder. Did any of those police go to trial for murder? Of course not, the police state ruled there was insufficient evidence for a murder trial. The train driver was there with a gun shoved in his face, so I guess eye witness testimony is insufficient in the UK.

So tell me how many death camps does the UK have? I can count... none.

Nazi Germany didn't have death camps until the last couple of years of the war, when their plans for world domination started to sour. Nobody really knew of them until the war ended.

Calling the UK a Nazi state is an insult to all the people who died because of the Nazi regime.

No, what the UK has become is an insult to all the people who fought and died to protect it from the Nazi regime.

While that makes it the biggest "newspaper" it still doesn't let it reach the majority of the population. I'd like to see the Sun's sales numbers if it actually reaches the majority of the UK population.

True, the UK population is ~60million people, whilst the daily circulation of The Sun is 3,107,412 (Wikipedia's not a great resource, but will do for these purposes). But the majority of people cannot be arsed to buy a newspaper every day, but what we can do is get a ratio of right-wing bastards Vs. lefty-woofters by comparing the circulation of The Sun with its left-wing counterpart: The Guardian. So, The Sun has a daily circulation of 3,107,412 and The Guardian has 378,228 that's over eight right-wing Sun readers to every left-wing Guardian reader. We're not even taking into account the circulations of other right-wing papers like The Mirror or The Times.

Really all the proof one needs is the special relationship between Rupert Murdoch and the British Government, those who get the support of Murdoch have the support of the people (and in case you didn't notice: Murdoch is right-wing). Look at who won on the issue of the Euro, Tony Blair wanted the UK in but Murdoch said no and the whole nation is now brainwashed into hating Europe.

"Anyway, what is wrong with "automatic law enforcement"? It works very well with speed cameras - the automatic systems are much more accurate and fair than the manual ones."

A few years ago, having so much as one point on your license was a shameful thing. These days, at least in the UK where the proliferation of CCTV and speed cameras seems to be increasing at pandemic proportions, automatic fines and points for speeding offences are so commonplace that various insurance companies won't even penalise you for having up to six points on your license. They have simply lost the stigma associated with them.

So how has that made the roads safer? Someone, please tell me how.

• Mass Surveillance
  
• Police state
  
• Criminalized society
  
• Centraliztion and resale of citizens personal data - without their permission
  
• Fortunately, the inner-party elite that did this to us are about to be expelled
  

BRITAIN'S NEW PREACHERS OF HATE
By Bobby Pathak
IN a dilapidated mosque, half a dozen awestruck young men listen to a preacher spell out his vision for Britain. "King, Queen, House of Commons... if you accept it, you are a part of it," says Dr Ijaz Mian. "If you don't accept it, you have to dismantle it.

"So you being a Muslim, you have to fix a target. There will be no House of Commons. From that White House to this Black House, we know we have to dismantle it. "Muslims must grow in strength... then take over."

A 10-month undercover investigation into home-grown extremism has revealed hard-line Islamic fundamentalism being preached in British mosques. Some speakers call for girls to be hit if they don't wear Islamic dress and say that they can marry before puberty, others praise the Taliban. Speaking at the Ahl-e-Hadith mosque, in Derby, Dr Mian tells his listeners: "You are in a situation in which you have to live like a state-within-a-state - until you take over.

"But until this happens, you have to preach, until you become such a force that the people just submit to you."

You are missing the point. The link is to show that 'terrorist' attacks happen everyday. Look at the mess in Lebanon / Israel. Or for that matter Northern Ireland (Granted, that has seemed to calm down). All they are doing is making sure that they got all of these folks. I would take a little inconvience over being fish food anyday. Again a google search. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/tm_objecti d=17495916&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=odds- ways-to-die--name_page.html 8,000/1 KILLED IN A ROAD ACCIDENT. 11,000,000/1 PLANE CRASH 9,300,000/1 DYING IN TERRORIST ATTACK And finally, here is a bit of chilling facts. I got married on Sept 1, 2001. We flew out of Boston (Logan) on Sept 4. We were going to get married on Sept 8, but due to family and friends not being able to make it on the 8th, we moved it to the first. If we did get married on the 8th, we would have been at Logan on Sept 11, on a west bound flight.....

Truer than you realise:

SECRET LUST OF REDS IN THE BED Will Stewart In Moscow

RUSSIAN Communists passed a law to "nationalise" all wives, it was revealed yesterday.

They complained: "All the best species of the finer sex are owned by the bourgeoisie which inhibits mankind's development." And they passed an edict entitled "Nationalisation of Females" which meant women were no longer "owned" by husbands.

The edict, which amounted to officially-sanctioned rape, declared all women over 18 State property. Men were allowed sex with any of them but not more than three times a week and only after giving proof they were from working-class families.

Full details of the shameful 1919 edict in a district of remote Simbirsk emerged only after a telegram from revolutionary leader Lenin was discovered. In it he told his secret police: "Strictly check and if confirmed true arrest culprits. We need to punish the [bastards] then announce it to population."

The decree-makers were shot by the secret service and the women returned to their husbands.

Historian Ivan Sivoplys, who discovered the telegram, said: "Children born as a result of this revolutionary sex were to be raised by the state.

"But angry women wrote to Lenin, who came from the region, and demanded he stop the law."

Russia is this week marking the 136th anniversary of Lenin's birth.

Against who, exactly?

Al Qaeda and its affiliates. Maybe you've heard of one or two of their many outrages? If you're well informed there are another three, or four, or five or six other commonly known ones. (Actually, there are many more.) And this is not counting just one or two of the many widely known foiled plots.

They even need close scrutiny in prison.

How did this escape your attention?

I had hoped that the situation in Soweto had changed. The news report you link to is seven years old. However, it seems not. Just over a year ago there was a report about boys as young as seven committing gang rapes: The youngest member of this group is just six - barely capable of tying his own shoe laces, yet somehow old enough to have committed the most serious of sexual offences, however impossible that might sound.

When Winston Churchill was stumbling home from a bender, a lady stopped him and said "Sir, you are drunk." To which he responded Yes, Madam, I am drunk. But in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly.

I'm proud to be distantly related to the man. Oh, and then there's his parrot.

Of course with all quotations and factoids of famous eccentric people, these may have to be taken with a grain of salt. Or several grains of salt on the rim of your glass...

Soon, methanol or formic acid (Formira, or whatever the hell they call it) which were previously cheap industrial chemicals will join printer ink as one of the most expensive liquids in the world

When dealing with campaign financing, however, the question "free speech for whom" must be asked. The privilege of spending of millions of dollars to get your candidate maximum possible exposure on TV is limited solely to those who HAVE millions of dollars to spend on such things, which includes a number of corporations that are very interested in getting preferential legislature passed.

There are a plethora of good examples in the last election. The facts in the smear campaign launched against Sen. Kerry were highly disputed, yet the ads portraying him as completely undeserving of his medals were everywhere on network TV. Though the claim, if true, that Sen. Kerry is not a war hero is a somewhat important indicator of his character, I argue that Bush's past actions are much, much more relevant to his political stance. For instance, there is the matter of letting the Microsoft anti-trust suit--which ordered the company be split in two--slide after he got in office http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4201516.stm (source mentions it briefly). There are also rumours that Bush paid for a past girlfriend's abortion http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objec tid=13961727_method=full_siteid=50143_headline=-AB ORTION-CLAIM-HITS-PRESIDENT-name_page.html. While this last one smells pretty badly of sensationalism, so did the Swift Boat campaign. Yet I heard absolutely NOTHING about it until well after Bush was re-elected, and I consider this to be far more pertinent to Bush's political stance than the validity of Kerry's medals, not to mention Bush's own controversial track record with military service.

The point I am trying to stumble to is that the idea of completely free speech in the context of political issues is ridiculously idealistic. It might be fair if all of the things that were put onto the air were certified to be true, and weren't half-truths pumped out to pander to the emotionally-swayable opinion of a gullible public (with a back-page retraction should they be wrong). If everyone checked all of the facts and made an informed decision before stepping up to the ballot box, then unlimited campaign contributions wouldn't be a problem. However, the last election is a prime example of just how easily those with money can leverage it to give exposure to what are at best shady facts, and manipulate the vast majority of the public that does not research a candidate outside of what they hear from those same sources that I have mentioned.

(Yes, I know my sources aren't very good, but its the best I can do with the time I had to write this)

ICANN is contracted by the Department of Commerce, which is controlled by -- you guessed it -- Congress. Congress has several times in the past tried to make laws governing Internet content (Communications Decency Act, anyone?). Fortunately, thanks to a sane supreme court, the law was struck down and freedoms were preserved. Unfortunately, however, the Supreme Court isn't guaranteed to remain sane, and I (along with a not insignifican percentage of Americans, and most other people in the world) don't really trust the president to appoint non-wingnuts.

Also, just because political speech is generally protected at the moment doesn't mean our freedoms aren't being eroded. Certain political parodies can result nowadays in run-ins with the police. And if you're a member of the press, Don't try to take pictures of coffins coming home from Iraq. Oh, and if you try to pull any of that peaceful protest stuff where news cameras might see you near the president, don't be surprised if the police escort you off to a 'free speech zone.'

This gets its own paragraph because it's particularly worrisome.

As for other expression involving consenting adults, take a look at the War on Porn, for instance. Porn may not be political expression, but it is expression nonetheless, and tax dollars are being wasted trying to stamp it out because some people disapprove of it on religious grounds. That's to say nothing of the fact that in Texas, anal sex (once again between consenting adults) would still be illegal (yes, on religious grounds again) had the Supreme Court (which, again, isn't guaranteed to remain sane) not stepped in. Sex toys are still illegal in Alabama... what non-religious reason could there possibly be for banning them?

Also, the United States isn't one to talk about human rights violations (is it really just a few soldiers acting on their own, or does it go all the way to the top?). Or internment camps.

Other countries may also be nervous about our constant attempts at setting up massive surveillance networks.

You're right on a few counts: China and Cuba are a lot worse than we are. Also, European anti-hate-speech laws are a violation of free speech. That does not excuse this country's conduct. As long as we aren't the most free country in the world, America has a problem. Say it with me.

America has a problem.

The rest of the world sees it. Half of us see it. We're just not responsible enough to handle control of the internet right now.

Except they were wearing plain clothes, did not shout "police, stop!", he didn't run until after he'd picked up a newspaper, walked through the ticket bararier, and saw a train about to leave, same as any other london commuter

That's not what eyewitnesses said the day of the shooting immediately after it happened. But you're absolutely right -- I have no doubt that what the British press has reported on the matter is completely unbiased, especially after the Daily Mirror last year made up the story about British soldiers pissing on Iraqi prisoners and either fabricated (probably) or used obviously fake photographic evidence.

The troops should surround New Orleans, and torch the city. Anything crawling out of the flames should be shot until dead.

Negro Savages Terrorize British Students

We have our own here in the UK, only we call it a "Carol Vorderman".

I thought the petrol-filled flourescent lights blew up during the duel.

Nearly exterminate? There are still more than a few news organisations with online presences:

Reuters
The Times
The Guardian (interesting... the content is free but if you want to read it in a paper format you can subscribe)
The Sun
The Mirror
ITN Sites, e.g. Channel 4 News
The Scotsman (a surprisingly large online presence)

The sites you mention: FT and Telegraph, it isn't surprising they charge as they have concentrated readerships with higher levels of disposable income, so why not go for a straightforward revenue model?

I have no doubt that the popularity of BBC news is for reasons consistent with the popularity of their television and radio news: high quality and impartial in a way commercially sponsored news could not be (commercial news also remains very popular: the total cross-media circulation of ITN, Times, Sun, etc is massive).

OK, here goes. You appear to have been taken in by her immense publicity machine. The facts are quite different, as journalist Christopher Hitchens documented rather effectively.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?obje ctid=12495017&method=full&siteid=50143

http://slate.msn.com/id/2090083/

http://www.population-security.org/swom-96-09.htm

...and so on.

It doesn't say a whole lot (and the victim agrees) when a serial burglar who had been imprisoned for burglary before and who was out on bail for yet another attempt only gets 11 months in prison.

At 19 years old with several prior convictions and now this and they think that it will rehabilitate him to stick him in prison for another year?


Oh don't worry, he'll only need to serve half his sentence if he behaves himself in prison, as the government have started an Early Release Program for Prisoners to relieve overcrowing in jail.

The prison governors were against this, because it took at least a year to completely rehabilitate people (around half were illiterate, or had no educational skills, if not drug users as well).

" Please mod this troll down. I am French and I find it offensive. I don't laugh at you Americans because of Vietnam and North Korea so shut up about the World War II because American civilians have NEVER experienced such hell as we had here. Thank you."

I am an American, and I agree with you. If the dumbasses in my own country don't watch it, the whole world's gonna be gunning for us. Just because the French actually used their brains and realized we were only going to Iraq for oil, everyone here freaked out and started throwing out their wine and naming french fries "freedom fries" even though their not even really from France orginally!

Oh so now it isn't Saddam who is torturing his people but our American army(Abu Ghraib anybody?) We must be so proud how we liberate the world, considering that we originally empowered Saddam, Yasser Arafat, and the Taliban. We create regimes as often as we pull them down. Abu ghraib

I believe that the correct spelling is Porto Allegro - at least that's what the MS Word spellchecker said.

Here's a look at the actual doodle .

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm_objectid=1 4315717&method=full&siteid=50143&headline=liquid-g old-name_page.html

"...their core business instead of selling printer ink for gold-prices." Is in fact not very untrue...

and The Mirror, and the The Daily Mail and indeed most media today.

59,054,087 of them, to be exact.

Yes, but to be fair the editor did then admit the pictures were fake and resign.

Interesting. A Slashdot editor just subtracted 2 points from the moderation of the parent comment. It's easy to see it was an editor because editor moderation does not change the moderation statistics at the bottom.

I suggest that everyone take some time to understand how much America is becoming despised in the rest of the world. To the Slashdot editor: What I have said is mild and very well documented compared to what is being said outside the United States.

The Daily Mirror is one of the United Kingdom's largest newspapers. Here is their front page on the day after the election (PDF file): Daily Mirror Headline: How could 59,054,087 people be so dumb?.

Excerpts:

This once-great country... [is now] a fearful, backward-looking and very small nation.

... power-crazed clique of Doctor Strangeloves...

... America chose a man without morals or vision. An economic incompetent who inherited a $2 billion surplus from Clinton, gave it in tax cuts to the rich and turned the US into the world's largest debtor nation.

The self-righteous, gun-totin', military lovin', sister marryin', abortion-hatin', gay-loathin', foreigner-despisin', non-passport ownin' red-necks, who believe God gave America the biggest dick in the world so it could urinate on the rest of us and make their land "free and strong".

Today is a sad day for the world, but it's even sadder for the millions of intelligent Americans embarrassed by a gung-ho leader and backed by a banal electorate,...

Full text:

UK Daily Mirror Editorial:


GOD HELP AMERICA

THEY say that in life you get what you deserve. Well, today America has deservedly got a lawless cowboy to lead them further into carnage and isolation and the unreserved contempt of most of the rest of the world.

This once-great country has pulled up its drawbridge for another four years and stuck a finger up to the billions of us forced to share the same air. And in doing so, it has shown itself to be a fearful, backward-looking and very small nation.

This should have been the day when Americans finally answered their critics by raising their eyes from their own sidewalks and looking outward towards the rest of humanity.

And for a few hours early yesterday, when the exit polls predicted a John Kerry victory, it seemed they had.

But then the horrible, inevitable truth hit home. They had somehow managed to re-elect the most devious, blinkered and reckless leader ever put before them. The Yellow Rogue of Texas.

A self-serving, dim-witted, draft-dodging, gung-ho little rich boy, whose idea of courage is to yell: "I feel good," as he unleashes an awesome fury which slaughters 100,000 innocents for no other reason than greed and vanity.

A dangerous chameleon, his charming exterior provides cover for a power-crazed clique of Doctor Strangeloves whose goal is to increase America's grip on the world's economies and natural resources.

And in foolishly backing him, Americans have given the go-ahead for more unilateral pre-emptive strikes, more world instability and most probably another 9/11.

Why else do you think bin Laden was so happy to scare them to the polls, then made no attempt to scupper the outcome?

There's only one headline in town today, folks: "It Was Osama Wot Won It."

And soon he'll expect pay-back. Well, he can't allow Bush to have his folks whoopin' and a-hollerin' without his own getting a share of the fun, can he?

Heck, guys, I hope you're feeling proud today.

To the tens of millions who voted for John Kerry, my

Pick yourself up, make a difference rather than moping for 4 years and try to make the difference you think Kerry should have done in your place.

You do that, you might find yourself here or here or here or here.

Wonder if this story will get covered by the American press. The factual basis seems much more sound than the Swift Boat Liars.

And the GREEKS are creating a pile of dogs, too.

"Given that early experiences shape brain development I think it's entirely appropriate to err on the side of caution. "

Not only is child sexual activity argued to be *not harmful* but two scientists have argued that it maybe beneficial. Of course their study was denounced in the United States Senate for trying to even suggest such an idea, without even reading it of course, but it seems that any harm that exists with child sexuality occurs in the after math. I give a brief example of what I am talking about, although I personally dislike anecdotes since they are a marginal form of evidence:

"A few years ago (on a talk show) a 16 year old boy said when he was 13 he had an affair with a female school custodian that lasted two years. He later stated that while it lasted it was great--he loved every second.... Well--his parents threw a fit. Boy was sent to a shrink and is told he was abused. A year of conditioning later he sits on this talk show and says what a horrible thing this woman did to him--and still stated that he thought it was great while it lasted--he didn't know he was being abused at the time. Now who the hell I ask you caused the damage here?"

If any damage or harm is seems to be done in the after math by parents, preachers, and therapists who abuse the victims a second time by brainwashing into them that sex and sexuality is evil.

"Please document that Bonobo adults engage in sexual activity with preadolescents and that this behaviour is culturally sanctioned."

http://www.narth.com/docs/debate2.html

Studies show that the bonobo has erotic contact with babies of its own species. And that behavior isn't likely harmful to the babies, Green says, because it's the babies themselves that often initiate the sex play.

"Pedophilia may have no genetic component at all. It could be a learned behaviour, as child molestation often is."

Sexual attraction is learned? That is far fetched. Either one becomes aroused or one does not at different people or objects. If it were learned, people would need to be taught arosal before they could have sex, clearly this is not the case.

Pedophilia seems even more common then homosexuality in the population

"Sorry, I'm going to call you on that one, because that's a hell of a claim to make (unless you broaden pedophilia to include attraction to underage adolescents). "

Yes, pedophilia is being mentioned, it really needed to be defined. In this case I was referring to anyone under the age of 18, but in other cases I use it to refer to exclusive attraction to prepubescent children. I think there is a case to be made to distinguish between those that are exclusively attracted to prepubescent children, and those that have a continum of attraction that spans from adults to children.

As for the number of people who are engage in sexual activity with people under the age of 18, there must millions of them. First because of the figures, here and here, that suggest that 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 6 boys are sexually abused by the age of 18. As well this article indicates, there were 250,000 members on from one country (Britain) on one child porno website. This problem is quite large judging by the population of potential pedophiles (<18), but any attempts at looking at the problem scientifically is met with hostility unless the scientists tow the line. Progress cannot be made in such an environment.

A QUARTER of a million British men may have used their credit cards to access internet child porn, it was claimed last night. ( http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?obje ctid=12573669&method=full&siteid=50143 )

That is a lot of people: 250,000. It used to be that you needed to go to a back ally to get these materials, but now it seems that since it is so easy to get people are downloading them now that would have not bothered in the past.

Is there any studies that look at the # of people that 1) Have sexual interest in children / adults and 2) Have exclusive sexual interest in children? I doubt if there are many studies on this topic, the scientific community runs away from this issue only slightly slower then the public at large. Very sad really, child sexuality being such an important issue.

You'd-have-to-be-an-idiot-to-fall-off.

Oh, yeah, all of them, sure. Like this British guy who got captured by the Talibans while traveling across Afghanistan and was then deported to Guantanamo before he could say anything ?

And I'm not even mentioning people who were told on to the US forces by their neighbours under false pretenses, just to get the reward for it.

Listen buddy, even thugs and criminals have a right to a trial. At the very least, the innocent must be let out of this place.

The ones shooting at our guys, while not wearing uniforms to seperate themselves from the civilian population (as required by the Geneva Convention)? The ones who were either members of Al-Queda or the Taliban, right?

The ones who are accused of these things, yes.

Considering that some reports say 90% of Iraqi detainees being held wrongfully, wanna take bets on how many innocent men got to do time in dog cages in Cuba?

There used to be a thing called "due process".

Good job, lads!

We should hire them and set up a company that would stop the noisy, smelly, criminal and in general undesirable ethnic people from moving into your neighbourhood. Kick the paki or the towelhead around a bit...

You may be interested in these:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?obje ctid=12164609&method=full&siteid=50143

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/c hipimplant020225.html

Be wary of Warwick - he's an idiot but it is happening.

Breaking news from The Mirror

Regards,
Kilgore Trout

THE PRESIDENT'S BRAIN IS MISSING

Apr 15 2004

Millions see Dubya fluff question on conflict

By Mark Ellis, Foreign Editor

PRESIDENT George Bush was laid bare to the world as a bumbling embarrassment yesterday when he couldn't think up an answer to a reporter's question.

His keynote address to the American nation, watched by millions, saw the president at his cringe-making worst.

In the glare of the live television cameras he grimaced, sighed, rambled and chuckled under his breath, before saying he could not think of a single mistake since the September 11 attacks.

Last night American pundits were far from impressed by the performance of their leader.

For 17-minutes all went smoothly as the president delivered a prepared statement about Iraq in only his third solo appearance before reporters at the White House.

Then came the bombshell. He was asked to name his biggest mistake since September 11.

"I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it," Mr Bush appeared to joke, before taking a long pause.

"Er, I'm sure historians will look back and say, 'Gosh, he could have done it better this way, or that way'. I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer.. but it hadn't yet."

Even journalists familiar with the President's 'Bush-isms', a mix of misspoken words and grammatical errors, were taken aback by his latest ramblings and cast knowing glances.

Mr Bush zig-zagged from explaining his decisions to invade Afghanistan and Iraq to his firm belief that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Then he mentioned the discovery of mustard gas on a turkey farm in Libya for good measure.

Next came his most jaw-dropping reply: "I don't want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't. You just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one."

About half of the 15 questions Bush fielded gave him the chance to admit a mistake or express regret for his administration's actions in Iraq, or on the 2001 attacks, but he never did.

However, he did admit for the first time Iraqis are not entirely pleased with the situation.

In a Forrest Gump moment he stated: "They're not happy they're occupied. I wouldn't be happy if I were occupied either."

Later, wrapping up the press conference, he said: "It's a pretty sombre assessment today. One thing is for certain, though, about me (pause) and the world has learned this (pause), when I say something, I mean it. And the credibility of the United States is incredibly important for keeping world peace and freedom."

The news conference was Bush's fourth major attempt to rally the country behind his war plans. He gave an interview to Diane Sawyer of ABC TV in December, delivered his State of the Union address in January and appeared on NBC's Meet the Press in February.

None of the earlier appearances were considered particularly effective, and recent polls show the president's job-approval rating below 50 per cent.

Tuesday's hour-long session was being compared yesterday to his lacklustre performance on NBC's Meet the Press, which his own supporters criticised as unsure and bumbling.

His first prime time news conference for more than a year was meant to reassure Americans worried by the rising death toll of US soldiers in Iraq and a recent spate of kidnappings.

The president needed to show he was still in charge and had a credible plan to restore order in Iraq, but White House commentators were left sceptical.

Politics professor Robert T Stark

... to read this and think that The Mirror newspaper is closing it's website?

The story in the London Mirror. Amnesty International, like a whole bunch of human rights groups, is concerned about Guantanamo too.

P.S. I'm not the one who's written your parent's offtopic post.

1. Wait until election week.
   
2. Provoke ???
   
3. Win election as country rallies in mourning.
   

In other news, American government shows courtesy and respect for detainees.

That's because Steve Tyler is Liv's dad.

Because the world is full of stupid shoppers.

Scratch Dan Heatly from the list of people looking forward to the 1000 horsepower car. Did anyone else see his face on ESPN today?

I guess tjstork is too busy oozing to know what's going on around him.

Usually I have to lurch past interminable murders and battlefield pics to get to some maybe-already-read science story at the bottom of the page (on cnn).

But with this it was easy. I clicked on Top Stories more.. and skip the photos which I don't know what they are. Right away I see my two choices, what seems like a gorgeous tanned piece of royalty in a crimson and silver dress, or a stressed out techie on the phone. Hmmm, which should I pick? It's over in a microsecond and obviously everyone else here is making the same decision since the story (Halle on her Disastrous Love Life) is slashdotted. But the theory works. I don't know who the heck Halle is but now I want to know and save her from a bad boyfriend too!

I would even go for fewer thumbnails about 5 times the size of these and scrap the ones with bad pictures. That way we could see the news before it gets slashdotted. Next we'll evolve to networked torrents of femmes fatales (girls you pick hommes fatals or whatever you like). It is so much easier to make a decision without all those pesky letters they give me so much eyestrain anyway.

That was another show in the UK, made by Sky telivision (AKA FOX)

The education establishment (Dept. of Education bureaucrats, teacher unions, elitist/socialist academics) allow only Darwin's dogma to be taught in public schools. Polls indicate that a clear majority of U.S. tax-payers do not believe in evolution.

80% of Americans can't find Iraq on a map. So you think that teachers should therefore teach crap in Geography too?

The education establishment allow teaching of science in science lessons, funnily enough. I have nothing against teaching religious myths either, as long as it is in the appropriate lesson (we have "Religious Education" here in the UK, to learn about the beliefs of various people around the world).

In real news, he may have been captured already.