Slashdot Mirror

You mean subs can go past 20,000 and not crush like eggs?

Subs don't have to, the Mediterranean Sea is 5150m at its deepest point (~16900 feet) and averages 1500m deep.

Um, if it's plausible that a ship dropped anchor in the area where the cable was cut then the water is not more than a few hundred feet deep there.

Based on comments I have read it seems that Conroy is getting the idea of filtering P2P from Brilliant Digital who are actively promoting "Copy Router" in the US for filtering P2P, the presentation makes mention of Australian ISP trials. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/NEWS/PDFs/081016_copyrouter.pdf I would love to hear from anyone who can explain exactly how this Copy Router system works, the PDF mentions it comes into action based on search strings and relies on an MD5 Hash database. It goes on to mention that it can get around Encryption, exactly how is it achieving this, through man in the middle attacks? Is it implying that ISP's are effectively going be hacking through Encrypted packets?

"And police officers are paid by my taxes. They dont need more revenue from stupid speeding tickets or red-light cameras." Then you are very uninformed. A simple google search will show you that revenue from tickets (and drug seizures) form a large part of the operating revenue for local police departments. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23710970/ is an article about Citys removing red light cameras because they worked too well and the revenue dropped.

You mean subs can go past 20,000 and not crush like eggs?

Subs don't have to, the Mediterranean Sea is 5150m at its deepest point (~16900 feet) and averages 1500m deep.

This study rates nuclear power as the best option, until it factors in "opportunity cost for delays from permitting and construction". Translation: we shouldn't bother with using the cleanest form of energy available because it takes too long to get government permits and fight the litigation from environmentalists, and existing dirty power plants will put out too much CO2 in the meantime. What a ridiculous argument!

And if the authors think their "dream" power sources are immune to above effect, think again. Environmental lawsuits have a huge proposed concentrated solar power facility in the Mojave Desert hung up.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25215415/

Here are some more then.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28039226?pg=7#Tech_JerkGadgets

Even worse is the dumbass who holds up the gas station with a gun and walks away with less than $100. Clearly they didn't do a proper cost benefit analysis ;)

If they could do a cost-benefit analysis, they could probably get an MBA.

If they had an MBA they'd get a nice job in a bank[1].

If they had a nice job in a bank[2] they wouldn't need the gun.

[1] or Enron
[2] or Worldcom

Of course it's possible to accelerate payloads gradually, using a launch ring.

Another cool idea: airship to orbit. More. Still more.

In any case, we need something beyond standard chemical rockets to get cheap access to orbit.

And where are we getting the money for this, again?

Given that the Iraq war has cost a bit over six hundred billion dollars so far, and is estimated to top out at over 1.2 trillion dollars, "from stopping the Iraq war" is a good start to answering the question where the money will come from. You know, you could do a lot with four hundred million dollars a day.

Anybody here old enough to remember the candidates talking about what they were going to do with the budget surplus, back in 2000? Or is that just some forgotten ancient history? Surplus... what a concept!

So, for all the conspiracy theory fanatics out there. It comes down to the all-mighty dollar, not some nefarious deed

So, in your mind, dollars rule out nefarious deeds. that's stupid.

... to spy on your daily surfing and email habits....unless of course your are a child predator, drug dealer, human trafficker, organized crime-lord, etc.

Yes, well, the problem is that to be accurate you would have to also let "etc" = 100% legal statuses including political opponent, personal rival, and superior inventor, especially in a field with government-sponsored monopolies like telecomms and passenger transportation. Yes, government-sponsored monopolies, in the form of exclusive telecomms franchises and direct subsidies to oil companies, and farm corporations to burn food, are all highly suspicious as possible real motives for the blatantly criminal activities of the FBI and NSA, in the name of "Homeland Security." So who are you, that you claim to know that only criminals are subject to NSA spying? That is certainly not true. And in case you complain that Rachel Maddow is liberal, yes she is, she believes in liberty. And if you don't, emigrate to Saudi Arabia. Liberty is patriotic and searches and seizures without a warrant are not. The abuses by the NSA are not a concoction or an exaggeration from "liberal" MSNBC, the Associated Press carried the same story and Newsweek has yet another scoop. You cannot even send a bit across the publicly owned Internet anymore without the NSA committing surveillance crime against you. You'd have to be a neo-con conspiracy nut to believe any of Alberto Gonzales's arguments that NSA has any legal grounds to exist.

So, for all the conspiracy theory fanatics out there. It comes down to the all-mighty dollar, not some nefarious deed

So, in your mind, dollars rule out nefarious deeds. that's stupid.

... to spy on your daily surfing and email habits....unless of course your are a child predator, drug dealer, human trafficker, organized crime-lord, etc.

Yes, well, the problem is that to be accurate you would have to also let "etc" = 100% legal statuses including political opponent, personal rival, and superior inventor, especially in a field with government-sponsored monopolies like telecomms and passenger transportation. Yes, government-sponsored monopolies, in the form of exclusive telecomms franchises and direct subsidies to oil companies, and farm corporations to burn food, are all highly suspicious as possible real motives for the blatantly criminal activities of the FBI and NSA, in the name of "Homeland Security." So who are you, that you claim to know that only criminals are subject to NSA spying? That is certainly not true. And in case you complain that Rachel Maddow is liberal, yes she is, she believes in liberty. And if you don't, emigrate to Saudi Arabia. Liberty is patriotic and searches and seizures without a warrant are not. The abuses by the NSA are not a concoction or an exaggeration from "liberal" MSNBC, the Associated Press carried the same story and Newsweek has yet another scoop. You cannot even send a bit across the publicly owned Internet anymore without the NSA committing surveillance crime against you. You'd have to be a neo-con conspiracy nut to believe any of Alberto Gonzales's arguments that NSA has any legal grounds to exist.

I can't believe that some people care more about which MP3 player he uses than what policies he's going to implement.

Excuse me? How does having an interest in trivia preclude interest in the Big Stuff? I just spent 5 minutes writing this post on The Great MP3 Scandal. Before that, I spent 45 minutes watching PEBO talk about Iraq, Afghanistan, Mumbai, Pakistan, the economy, and his dogwhistle appointment for Secretary of Veteran Affairs. I spent a lot of time (probably more than I should) googling for the latest news and opinion on the new administration. Does the 5 minutes I spent on trivia render meaningless all the time I spend doing serious reading about Obama's plans and policies?

Besides, as I say in my previous post, Obama's choice of an MP3 player isn't that trivial.

It wouldn't have to fit into a backpack. Smugglers have submarines with 15 tons of cargo capacity. Who knows how many runs they make every year. Then there are tunnels.

In one recent case, using fingerprints this way, the FBI arrested someone from Oregon for the Madrid train bombing. After 17 days in jail, he was released because Spanish police found the real source of the fingerprint. FBI apology here: http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel04/mayfield052404.htm

News coverage here http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5053007/ (or do a search; there's enough out there).

The evidence they presented was that his fingerprint partially matched one found on another continent. I don't think reports said he is known even to have left Oregon. What would have happened if the Spanish police had not been so successful? That's why it's dangerous to have these databases in place. Not because they can't be useful, but because they will be used incorrectly.

See here from VideoSift).

but we have not had another major terrorist attack on our soil in over seven years.

It was six years between attacks on the World Trade Center. Guess that means the Clinton administration was doing a good job preventing attacks on American soil...without the Patriot Act, NSL's or wholesale spying on Americans.

They waited for the arrogant and incompetent to take over before trying again.

Imagine if Clinton had proposed the Patriot Act in the wake of the first WTC bombing. Pick up trucks loads of right wingers would have taken to the streets with guns. Right wing hate radio would have been spewing about an unconstitutional power grab. The hypocrisy force runs deep in the right.

Although it turns they did one thing right in Mumbai, they tried to warn India. Apparently they're not just spying on Americans. It's somewhat comforting to imagine there are a few competent people in the intelligence community and not totally handicapped with political appointees who's claim to mid-east intelligence experience was running the Arabian Horse Association.

Recessions are a normal part of the capitalist business cycle. Recessions wash out excesses in the system by shaking out inefficient companies, thus clearing the way for new competitors, and they work to keep supply and demand in sync over the long term.

[...] recessions are considered a normal part of a capitalist economy [...]

Etc.

As for your assumptions about Bush:

1. I didn't vote for Bush.

2. I voted for Obama.

So it's kind of funny you just called me "one of the last hard core republicans" when I'm anything but. What I don't like is hypocrisy and the one-sidedness of always only blaming one political party or one President -- whether it's Clinton and the Democrats or Bush and the Republicans -- for whatever ill is at hand. For the current economic situation, we had unprecedented political opportunism: it was politically expedient and beneficial for some liberals to push the notion that we're in really bad shape, even rolling out the Great Depression talk, and that Bush (and all the other things you hate about Bush, like the war!) is to blame for it.

There are so many contributing factors that it would be ridiculous to assert that economic decisions made in the current administration in the last 8 years have nothing to do with it. But at the same time, it's equally ridiculous to put blinders on to the incredible irresponsibility and shortsightedness of the decisions with regard to sub-prime lending in the name of getting people into homes. We never fully paid the piper for the internet bubble collapsing, and a lot of that, on a large scale, was parlayed into a booming housing market (and artificially created, so some extent, because of changes encouraged in lending practices).

Paid advertisement requires that some form of payment was exchanged. I do not work for Sun, slashdot, O'Reilly or Amazon. I did not receive any kind of compensation for writing the review beyond the satisfaction of doing so. So that accusation fails - there was no payment involved here.
 
I can't answer for the folks who run slashdot - but I can answer for myself. I love books. I love to read them. I enjoy writing reviews too - it's a fun hobby. I started doing so because I would read book reviews here and thought it would be fun to try it myself. I appreciate the book reviews posted here by others because it is information in which I am interested. I tend to buy books, probably at a rate that is higher than the average consumer where I live. This makes the reviews a valuable resource in my estimation.
 
And since you seem to be struggling in this regard, CNN, NBC (though there's are more mixed into other areas rather completely on their own - here's another for you), CBS (yes - via AP but I think they do news.) and BBC.
 
And finally - you can filter book reviews off your front page. So I'm thinking your a troll or maybe having a bad day. But relax - chill out and don't get upset about this. "Garbage" is certainly going overboard. I'd suggest a fun read to help you chill out. "Zoe's Tale" by John Scalzi is a good one. I'm hoping to type up my review this week if you want to know more about it.

Paid advertisement requires that some form of payment was exchanged. I do not work for Sun, slashdot, O'Reilly or Amazon. I did not receive any kind of compensation for writing the review beyond the satisfaction of doing so. So that accusation fails - there was no payment involved here.
 
I can't answer for the folks who run slashdot - but I can answer for myself. I love books. I love to read them. I enjoy writing reviews too - it's a fun hobby. I started doing so because I would read book reviews here and thought it would be fun to try it myself. I appreciate the book reviews posted here by others because it is information in which I am interested. I tend to buy books, probably at a rate that is higher than the average consumer where I live. This makes the reviews a valuable resource in my estimation.
 
And since you seem to be struggling in this regard, CNN, NBC (though there's are more mixed into other areas rather completely on their own - here's another for you), CBS (yes - via AP but I think they do news.) and BBC.
 
And finally - you can filter book reviews off your front page. So I'm thinking your a troll or maybe having a bad day. But relax - chill out and don't get upset about this. "Garbage" is certainly going overboard. I'd suggest a fun read to help you chill out. "Zoe's Tale" by John Scalzi is a good one. I'm hoping to type up my review this week if you want to know more about it.

France seems to have a good handle on it.

Not so much. Yes, reprocessing reduces it somewhat - but creates plutonium factories, great terrorist targets and a huge security problem if we want to find a solution that's globally applicable. And reprocessing produces pollution itself, and doesn't eliminate all the waste. France's "solution" has been the same as the U.S.'s: stick your head in the sand.

Some of the wast they ship to Russia. A lot of it lies around in short-term storage, big barrels or holding tanks, and everybody prays for no leaks. They've designated the town of Bure as their main nuclear waste dump, like the U.S. has designated Yucca Mountain, but are getting the same sort of push-back about it.

Uranium or plutonium fission is a highly sub-optimal energy source. Much better to put resources into developing accelerator-based "energy amplifier" reactors that are subcritical, can burn up nuclear waste, and run on thorium, and also of course fusion, including making better use of that big fusion reactor just 93 million miles away.

Well, it appears that the Incas of Puru did. Not only do they depict dinosaurs attacking and being attacked in their art, pottery, and clothing, we have seen duplicate Inca message strings which were supposedly coded messages that runners would take from one location to another. It has been suggested that along dangerous routes, multiple messenger runners would be sent to ensure the probability of them getting through.

If you watch south park, they just recently did a two part video making fun of the Inca dinosaurs connections where they did the land of the lost giants and portrayed them all as Guinna pigs and Guinna pigs related creatures.

That is very irritating. There's all sorts of legitimately crappy stuff that Bush did... but there is nothing wrong with that banner. The carrier was returning home after completing the longest mission a nuclear carrier had ever made. Everybody using it as a 'bash Bush' image either doesn't know the truth, or doesn't care about the truth.

Irrespective of why that banner was there, the Bush regime made a very conscious, pointed use of it for propaganda purposes. It was a staged event (remember the damn flight suit?), in one of a series of staged events (remember pulling down the statue of Saddam Hussein?). If this simple fact can't penetrate your thick skull, then you don't have any business making pronouncements about "truth".

By the way, just to save you from following that link supplied by mr100percent:

Bush said in October that the White House had nothing to do with the banner; a spokesman later clarified that the ship's crew asked for the sign and that the White House staff had it made by a private vendor. It was not clear who paid for the sign.

Really? Then why did the White House have it manufactured and flown in? If the planners actually ordered the crew to rotate the ship so as to provide the best possible light for the photos of Bush's speech, you don't think they'd overlook a massive detail of a Mission Accomplished banner, one that matches the speech he was making?

Sorry, it just doesn't pass the smell test. It sounds more likely that it was intentional and Bush was celebrating prematurely, as were his supporters.

Patents are like nuclear weapons. The big boy have the majority of them, but there's a tacit agreement (ala Mutually Assured Destruction of the Cold War) that they are for deterrent purposes only. The third-world Chihuahua dogs of the patent scene like Eolas are using their limited arsenal as they can to wrest some cash from the big boys. Sometimes that works, and sometimes it doesn't.

What we all need is complete disarmament, so the big boys can't bluster about theirs and the little yapping dogs can't use theirs either. Everybody wins.

Fresh off the wire: Apple sued over iPhone web browsing, by another little patent troll. Reform is needed to stop this. I think companies like Microsoft, IBM, Google and Apple would be more than happy to stop pursuing defensive patents if the IP laws in the US and elsewhere ensured that they are not going to get nailed by the yapping dogs.

in advertising:

vista = wow

wow = areo interface

vista capable = vista "home basic" = not wow

in nerd:
Keep using XP. v1sta sux0rs

In laywer sp3ak:
Class action on big pockets of MS.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/insider/trans.asp?Symbol=MSFT

Oh .. this is the nature vs. nurture argument. How do you explain that the male and female brains are made up differently? They accentuate separate parts of communication, comprehension, logic, etc. Now this is not to say from person to person there are not variances (as the article pointed out below states) but it is an average. Stating that the whole nurture thing is the key is to not acknowledge that there are challenges to each gender's physiological and chemical makeups.

Male: http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationships/articlematch.aspx?cp-documentid=8860750&GT1=32023

Female: http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationships/articleglamourmatch.aspx?cp-documentid=8860752

P.S. I am not saying there is any right answer, nor have a preference. Anyone who can do the job regardless of chromosome makeup has my full support in any job.

Oh .. this is the nature vs. nurture argument. How do you explain that the male and female brains are made up differently? They accentuate separate parts of communication, comprehension, logic, etc. Now this is not to say from person to person there are not variances (as the article pointed out below states) but it is an average. Stating that the whole nurture thing is the key is to not acknowledge that there are challenges to each gender's physiological and chemical makeups.

Male: http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationships/articlematch.aspx?cp-documentid=8860750&GT1=32023

Female: http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationships/articleglamourmatch.aspx?cp-documentid=8860752

P.S. I am not saying there is any right answer, nor have a preference. Anyone who can do the job regardless of chromosome makeup has my full support in any job.

Because it bypasses protections established by extradition treaties (or lack thereof). How would you like to be tricked into visiting Iran, and then be prosecuted for posting some offensive comment on slashdot?

By the way, this does happen. 2/3rds of the time you hear about some American "kidnapped" by Iran, it turns out there's some legal basis for it - in Iran, of course. (e.g. "Not without my daughter" and Haleh Esfandiari. Does that mean Iran is right? Nah, it means be careful where you go.

You are still wasting time on this discussion, how quaint.

I like the false equivalence here -- because the United States is interested in making money our actions are somehow worse than those of a regime that was interested in retaining territory and spreading it's ideology. If you were being objective you might be able to make the case that both sides were wrong -- but you go out of your way to dismiss the crimes of the USSR while condemning the United States. You could at least pretend to be looking at history objectively instead of looking for examples that reinforce your pre-convinced view of the world.

- well that's my point, USSR wasn't after any new territories once Stalin was gone, they were trying to survive while Americans found that WAR is extremely profitable and were interested in having at least one going on anywhere at any time. Americans have brainwashed its population to believe that they have some sort of moral superiority and this is laughable, there is no morality in making money through killing.

I am not discussing USSR here, because there are no Soviets involved in this discussion.

Amazing how we can say that with full benefit of hindsight. At the time the war was started most western nations (including those that opposed the war) and the UN thought it likely that he had WMDs. You can argue about the merits of going to war based on that perceived threat (for the record, I opposed the war) but trying to say that we knew he had no WMDs is just factually incorrect.

- my position stays the same as it was for the past 7 years, however you should get your head out of that sand. Bush and Co have manufactured the entire WMD premise, selling it quite nicely to the US citizens, but it didn't work at all for The Rest of The World (tm).

This is just too easy

We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.

Donald Rumsfeld
Fox News Interview
May 4, 2003

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26030573/

You are one of the brainwashed individuals if you truly believe that American government did not manufacture a pretense to go to Iraq to make money for various corporate interests. The intelligence that you are talking about was not able to find any evidence of any secret weapons programs in Iraq, they were pushed by the government you protect so passionately. Most importantly no weapons of any kind of destruction could ever be used by Iraq to attack the States.

You see, no matter how much the US hated the USSR, they never attacked the country because that would really be the end of it. Because both countries actually have WMDs. The simplest test for whether a country has WMDs is this: if the US is attacking the country, there are no WMDs there. It's that simple.

---

By the way, I am not going to 'root' for any country whatsoever ever, I'll leave that to you and such.

I'm still having real trouble seeing why you have such vitriolic, holier-than-thou rants, written at great length, reserved for the overweight. Did a fat guy kill your dog last week, or what?

No, but I think that parents who let their kids eat crap because they don't want to take the time to actually BE parents, should be taken out to the woodshed and given a good whipping. Or a kick in the head. Or any other form of physical punishment that it takes to make them get off their own fat asses and start supervising their kids rather than watching TV. This applies to both parents, btw.

How frakking stupid do you have to be to say you didn't realize that a 7-year-old weighting 420 pounds is a problem? Or this? This?

Tis isn't a weight problem ... it's a stupidity problem. And btw, lard-arsed parents telling their kids to diet is hypocritical. They should be setting the example.

The same goes for smoking, or any other "lifestyle disease." Parents telling their kids not to smoke because it's unhealthy, but they keep right on lighting up - that's a formula for failure.

Plenty of people can go into their kitchen without eating everything in sight. Heck, since you brought up dogs, even my dogs don't empty their food bowls. They eat when they're hungry, not just because there's food available.

There was a story awhile ago about a woman who died from drinking a large excess of water. I believe the poster was referring to that story.

Yes; a woman died of "water intoxication" while trying to win a Wii.

What is really surprising is that this is news! The media has admitted to this weeks ago.

I see the "B" still stands for "bullcrap". This talking point was debunked months ago.

Even worse, you will see people deny that Obama was given better treatment than McCain.

As is usually the case, take the opposite of the wingnut viewpoint and you have reality:

I ask you to imagine an alternative universe where the candidates are the same, but what each has said and done, has been reversed.

What would be happening tonight if Senator Obama had stumbled, over everything from arcane details, to sweeping policies of the utmost importance, and not just once or twice, but endlessly?

What if Senator Obama couldn't tell Iran from Iraq?

Iraq from Afghanistan?

Sunni from Shi'a?

Somalia from Sudan?

What would we be asking ourselves about his capabilities, if it had been Senator Obama who had identified General David Petraeus as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

And Vladimir Putin as the President of Germany?

And Spain as a country in Latin America?

What if it had been Senator Obama who not only used his POW experience at every turn, but wrote of giving to his captors, not the names of his fellow servicemen, but of the offensive line of the Green Bay Packers football team - only to, when he spoke in Western Pennsylvania, change the story so that he gave to his captors, the names of the offensive line of the Pittsburgh Steelers football team?

We all know exactly what would be happening tonight if Senator Obama had made all those mistakes, contradictions, gaffes, Freudian slips, and hypocritical pronouncements.

He would have long since ceased to be taken seriously by any measurable part of the voting public, as a viable, responsible, self-aware, mentally vigorous, non-dangerous, non-risk.

Reality's well known liberal biases raises it's head yet again.

McCain stayed within public financing limits. Obama exceeded them.

Not quite true. McCain and Obama both said, during the primaries before either was nominated (or the front-runner), that they would limit themselves to public financing, $85 million each, if their opponent did as well. When McCain sewed up the nomination, he pressed Obama, who had begun his inch towards the nomination. His campaign had also become a cash cow. Obama reneged. So, McCain declined the public limits, too.
MSNBC story from Feb. about this.

End result, instead of $170 million spent between the two, it was more like $1000 million ($630 million for Obama, $360 for McCain).
Source for the spending totals, they were tough to find.

The Roman Catholic Church had the Inquisition starting in the 1200s to persecute heresy, which the Popes saw as a threat to their power in Europe.

Women only "recently" gained equal rights. In 1979, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women was passed by the United Nations. Not exactly a long standing history of women rights. Oh, and the United States is the only developed nation that hasn't even ratified this convention.

And lets talk about freedom. California has passed Proposition 8, along with other amendments in Florida, which removes the civil rights for gays and lesbians to marry.
Replace the words "Gay" in Gay Marriage with "Interracial" and all of a sudden its something completely different to people. Yet its the same thing: removal of the freedom for people to choose who can visit them in the hospital, who can make medical decisions for them, automatic inheritance, spousal/child support, support to sue for wrongful death of a spouse and so on. And while religious groups claim that marriage is a holy sanction, remember that Freedom of Religion is also Freedom FROM Religion. When you allow religion to choose your civil liberties, you are no better than the muslims who stone raped women accused of adultery in stadiums because its in their religion. It wasnt long ago that African-Americans had their own schools, doors and drinking fountains.

And considering we just had 8 years of Bush, a United Methodist, with him invading sovereign nations, I find "peace is un-islamic" a bit of a narrow definition.

Guess what? Some of us have lives, and recognise the fact that, hey, it's just a website. If you don't like it, find a different one. I hear that there are several to choose from on this Internet thing.

making guns illegal won't stop deaths or criminals from geting them. absolutely

then lets make heroin legal. after all, people still get it, right? tamping down on the drug trade saves no lives, right?

why do we fight the drug war? you fight the drug war not because you think you can win it, or make drug deaths zero, you fight the drug trade so you have 10 deaths a year rather than one hundred. that justifies the expense

same logic applies to guns

not for a second do i think banning guns will prevent all bad guys from getting guns or all senseless firearm deaths. but absolutely do i believe it will put a huge dent it. people seek the path of least resistance. if a gun is hard to get, many won't get one. those absolutely committed to getting one will get guns, and heroin, or anything else. those people are a tiny minority, you can't do anything about them, nor did i ever think i could. nor do theymatter when determining legality or illegality. they're not statistically signifant enough

"but the important takeaway is that violence is much more a cultural thing than a product of laws"

human nature is human nature is human nature. every culture has violence. every culture always will. absolutely utterly uninstructive on the issue of gun control

"And I don't believe that you can lower the violent crime rate by passing gun control laws."

absolutely not. never thought you would. all you do is reduce the firepower assocated with the rage. if i lose it, and i go to town with a kitchen knife, i'm probably going to kill a few people, but if i lose it, and i go to town with a gun, i'm most certainly going to kill al hell of a lot more. point and click shooting from across the street is a hell of a lot different than run up and slash.

"The truly poor people who live in horrible places are in much worse danger than I am."

yeah. from guns. duh. you don't read the news? drive by shootings? random bullets hitting babies in cribs? oh, a gun is going to protect that baby? please!

the rest of arguments are equal dead ends

oh, and btw, i've read a few a few stories to curdle my blood too. seems to be a dozen every day. going to fark, i find one immediately, right now, no research required, repeated hour after hour in this country:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27600105/

Honestly I can't even remember who Condit or Levy were, much less Scarborough, and I really don't feel like doing the research on it.

Sure, sure. Why not try and compare a few articles from Media Matters, here's a good one, to Media Research Council, the right wing's attempt at showing media bias. Or just skim MRC and then try watching this clip - still think media bias is a matter of he said/she said with no way to determine who's right?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25361792

Hillsbourough was only a slight lead for Obama, but Pinellas (which is part of the Tampa area) shows 9%.

If you look at that map, with only a few exceptions, when Obama won a county, he won it big time. And those counties are all where the biggest cities are. Obama won the counties of 8 or the 10 largest cities in Florida:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Florida

Perfect correlation? No. But I think it's a strong enough example to reasonably prove my point that you come up will all kinds of silly theories if you look at the data different ways. I wasn't suggest to prove that city folk hate white...just that black didn't necessarily vote for him because he's black.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27520557/

tomorrow night he will take his place as king and you'll submit to his whim whiteman. you'll submit or be beaten down.

Linux also doesn't have to spend 18 months and millions of dollars finding just the right "startup sound". It's just not fair.

well, I see what your saying but I think you might be jumping to some conclusions and connecting too many dots.

JFK was our only Catholic President and he had to pretty much swear that he had no allegiance or obligations to the Pope before public support for him was enough to get elected. No Catholic before or after him has been elected even though they have tried. But this doesn't mean that Christians are prejudiced to Catholics, after all, Catholics are Christians and do make up a good part of the religious diversity in America. The problem was the air of obligations to follow another entity like the pope. In other words, America first.

Now, I have asked people why they think being a Muslim is a bad thing for a president and they bring up examples like the Nation of Islam, Sharia and bring this very point of obligations and devotion to entities outside the US. With the War on Terror, I wouldn't be surprised if there is a group of people who simply think that all Muslims are evil and so on but I'm betting that the majority are more afraid of the US becoming a puppet state for some religious entity. At least with traditional Christians, Pentecostal, Evangelical and so on, there is room for a separation of church and state. As we see in the middle east and almost every other country ruled by Muslim leaders elected or not, Religious law ends up becoming state law which I think many Americans, regardless of their religious convictions, believe is a bad idea.

That being said, I do see what your saying and I do believe that there is some reason for concern. However, I should remind you that we have Muslim senators right now who were sworn into office on the Qur'an. Keith Ellison was elected and sworn into office well after the war on Terror and all. So even if what your seeing is a fact of our reality, we have to realize that it isn't everyone's reality.

There was a great deal of concern that, being Catholic, JFK might take his orders from the Pope, instead of enforcing the Constitution. Until he was elected, it was widely believed that only a Protestant could be elected President.

It all turned out to be bunk. Kennedy's religion did not dictate his policies, and neither will Barack Obama's.

The rumor of 'secret Muslim' is untrue, but more importantly, it's already been proven that his religion is irrelevant. Only his ability to "uphold the Constitution" and do what is best for America is important.

Those who religion is the relevant criterion seek to undermine the Constitution of this country.

Just read what Mike Hucakbee has to say about it:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/15/579265.aspx

Seriously, our Constitution avoids the mention of God for a freaking reason. The founders had a big problem with the head of the Church of England.

--
Toro

Just saying "wrong" gives you NO creditability.

Just saying HFCS is in EVERYTHING gives you none as well.

Looking at the long-winded list of crap in this bottle of Centrum... there it is! "Less than .1% High Fructose Corn Syrup".

Huh.. well the One-A-Day men's I checked has none. So therefore, HFCS is not in everything, is it?

Imagine what is in those flintstone vitamins.

Funny, I took those as a kid, everyday, growing up. I was never fat. At least not until I started eating a lot of fried and other fat filled foods.

I am looking at Publix brand Double Chocolate pudding snack in my lunch. 2 Tablespoons, 4 servings.

And guess what, it's not random! http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/qa-lab18.html

The real trickery, just like the "fat free" label, companies DO NOT have to list ingredients below a certain percentage PER SERVING.

Serving sizes are not allowed to be arbitrarly made up by manufactors either. See the link, again. And what are you, 12? Your mommy still packing pudding in your lunch? Christ man..

Your loaf of bread likely has 16-24 servings in it. What do you honestly think the chances are that there is HFCS in there?

Zero. Looking beyond the nutrition panel, they must also list ingredients. Which is how I discovered there's no HFCS in it. Of course just because something is listed as "Sugar" doesn't mean it's HFCS. You see, wheat bread also has sugar in it naturally.

I am happy you lost that much weight, but that is by no means proof of your argument. At all. Especially when evidence to the contrary is right in front of my face, and everyone elses. I can always provide images of my proof... where is yours?

Ha. Look at the average American diet. Portions are huge, people are eating more and more, and doing less and less. I have loads of doctors on my side. Studies have shown that the people that lose the most weight and keep it off WRITE DOWN THEIR DIET. Gee, I wonder why that is?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25573436/

Oh, and you've not provided any evidence.. just spouted some nonsense you heard from someone else.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17062674/

Riiiight.

Wow....that's just....wow. Let's see here....

No, but he has an ongoing, close friendship with an unrepentant, former PLO terrorist, Rashid Khalidi. Barack Obama attends Jew-bashing parties where the State of Israel, in which Arabs have more rights and freedom than in any other country in the Middle East, is called a "racist," "Apartheid" state and suicide/homicide bombings are declared justified.

Wow, he knows this guy? Holy cow. Imagine if he had donated $800,000 to this guy, I bet that would sink his chances to be president. Man, that would be amazing if a presidential candidate did that. Oh..um, wait a minute, it appears that Senator McCain may have done that actually: McCain also has ties to Khalidi through a group that Khalidi helped found 15 years ago. The Center for Palestine Research and Studies has received more than $800,000 from an organization that McCain chairs. Well, now I guess you can't vote for him either.

Obama has been endorsed by Hamas, and Palestinians in Hamas-run Gaza are actively campaigning for him.

McCain has apparently been endorsed by Al Queda. You know what? Neither one of them have anything to do with nutjobs crawling out of the woodwork and talking about them. I don't hold the Hamas thing against Obama, and I don't hold the Al Queda thing against McCain.

Islamic Socialist dictator Mu'ammar al-Qadhafi agrees that Obama is a fellow Muslim. (I didn't know they had FOX News in Libya.)

We're taking Qadhafi's word for things now? So when Qadhafi tells us that the U.S. is an evil nation and it should perish, are you on board with that too, or just when he says something you find politically useful?

Obama himself has referred to "my Muslim faith." Freudian slip of the tongue? And his statement about campaigning in 57 states [of the Islamic Conference]? The self-proclaimed "citizen of the world" is campaigning internationally.

Yes, actually, when you record everything that someone says every time they speak you eventually catch them saying something that they didn't mean to say. Recently McCain was speaking in Pennsylvania, where he suggested that the Democrats were saying Pennsylvanians are racist. His comment was "And I couldn't agree with them more". Clearly he didn't mean to say that, but in your view he apparantly did mean it, and it was a "Freudian slip". You know what though, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and a mistake is just a mistake.

I think that this "Hussein" is kind of like the other "President Hussein" in some respects. They are/were both socialists. Recall that Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party is a Socialist party. I believe Obama is a nominal Muslim, basically a secular Arabist. Pan-Arab unity is an important pillar of Arab Socialism. From Obama's book Audacity of Hope: "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." I realize that he was referring to Muslims in the U.S., but it still fits the ideology.

Umm, psst...Hey, superyooser. Obama isn't an arab. I know, the name thing can be confusing, really, but he's really not actually arabic.

Many Arab (and African) parties are socialistic. It is their way of getting revenge on the former white colonialist overlords. (Of course, they do have legitimate reasons for anger and demanding justice.) Obama is trying to superimpose this foreign paradigm of race-class oppression onto the U.S. by means of the slavery of one and a half centuries ago. As an American who happens to be white, I resent this wave of racist vengeance politics -- i.e. redistribution of wealth of whites/capitalists/Jews* to thugs -- in America, swelling with the hordes of fanatical Obama minions.

Okay, being worried about Obama

Sigh. Nice job conflating Iraq and 9/11. As has been shown time and time again, there was no plausible link between the two.

The invasion of Iraq will no doubt be regarded as the USA's worst foreign policy disaster of the modern era. The Bush administration still has not given a consistent reason for it. In the words of Kevin Tillman:

Somehow we were sent to invade a nation because it was a direct threat to the American people, or to the world, or harbored terrorists, or was involved in the September 11 attacks, or received weapons-grade uranium from Niger, or had mobile weapons labs, or WMD, or had a need to be liberated, or we needed to establish a democracy, or stop an insurgency, or stop a civil war we created that can't be called a civil war even though it is. Something like that.

My personal belief is that the whole thing stems from Bush trying to settle a family score, gain some political capital as a "wartime president", and (while he was at it) grab a lot of Iraqi oil for his buddies.

Not to detract from your point, because I believe it is valid, but keep in mind that remaking older technology using newer technology is not necessarily easier because our new technology is faster and 'better'. For instance, in this story about remaking the first video game, they mention that it took 4 people 3 months to put something together that originally took one man a little over two weeks, because of the way the technology used had changed over fifty years.

Most of it is wrapped up in corporate tax credits or in under-valued water, mining, forestry, radio-frequency, grazing and other leases that convert public property into private profits.

All of those, put together, don't add up to anywhere near the outlays for Social Security.

Social Security makes up over 20% of total federal outlays. The federal government spends more on SS than the entire DoD -- during wartime.

And the federal medical spending is on a trajectory to exceed SS.

This is the first link I found, although I originally got these numbers straight from the government:
http://encarta.msn.com/media_461544509/u_s_federal_receipts_and_outlays.html