Slashdot Mirror

Being a Brit, I love comparing US news sources to others around the world, including those of our "enemies", and I regularly find that news sources from the USA are very introverted compared not only to the BBC, but even Al Jazeera and Chineese State news are more outward looking (even if somewhat biased). It's not just the news of our enemies either I look at other allies news, they too are less introverted than their US equivilents. And it's not that you can't produce quality news from around the world, compare the versions of CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/
http://edition.cnn.com/

But who would think to put "edition" at the beginning of a URL?

Actually they're trying. I remembered reading about the rooftop gardens they were implementing a few years ago. I didn't realize at the time that they were for the olympics, but I googled and found a few articles about them.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7911618/
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/01/beijing_to_plan.php

Russia would be interested too.
Russia's already got more nukes than it knows what to do with. (Or than it knows where they are. Oops.)

call a friend on the mainland
There are approximately six people in Taiwan who would sell nuke tech to China (which is, after all, the country that keeps shooting missile "warning shots" at them). Besides, China also already has the Bomb, and doesn't need 1960s-era fuse technology (look for the phrase "quite dated"). Much more likely that the stuff would get sold to Japan (though they're understandably touchy about the whole nuclear thing still) or S. Korea, in which case the US probably wouldn't mind too much; but the biggest use of all would be for Taiwan to start building a couple missiles of its own, which is why you'll see that now China is (predictably) kicking up a fuss about the whole thing. After all, they want ALL US arms sales to Taiwan to stop, because they want Taiwan defenseless.

It looks like the story was preemptively spread mainly to convince China that nothing actually had happened (per a cursory reading of this), especially in light of recent developments in Taiwanese mid-range missile technology (which I did not know about). Think that's about the best I can do to explain...

Not to mention Pb-free seems to greatly increase tin whisker problems. We need new materials quickly, because a meaningful percentage of the boards being produced right now are going to be dead in a few years.

For more info:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21151552/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisker_(metallurgy)
and of course, just to save someone a bit of typing or extra mouse click:
http://www.google.com/search?q=tin+whiskers

      Marc

I wonder if this town will next try and ban Dihydrogen Monoxide like the good folks at Aliso Viejo almost did.

Well, say what you want, but this happened during the Vista release - http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.aspx?D5=0&D3=0&D4=1&ViewType=0&Symbol=MSFT&ShowChtBt=Refresh+Chart&DateRangeForm=1&CE=0&C9=1&DisplayForm=1&ComparisonsForm=1&CP=0&PT=8 ...and profits have been boosted by Vista and Office - http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/microsoft-profit-boosted-vista-office/story.aspx?guid=%7B46D585CE-B7D5-4F18-A19F-7EA2202FC200%7D

And even where they are, the radios are cheap and the content isn't that great. The support from their overseas offices is spotty as is (at times) the reception. At least that was the case a number of years ago. I know, because I worked there for a while during one of their (many) shakeups and budget crises. I won't post specifics of what I did, (and this is the first time I've ever posted as an AC) but I was in management, traveled to some of their overseas offices and had to drum-up business. Regardless, take a look at their stock. Even if they were a viable alternative, who knows how long they'll be around.

You should aim that rocket up instead of on a level trajectory. Someone could get hurt. Ouch, is that even keeping up with inflation? Don't you wish you had bought into Google instead? MSFT should stand for, "MicroSoft? Fuck that!"

Just a few minutes on Google. I look forward to you explaining why they are actually innocent or don't apply to this discussion:

Convicted Imam, convicted sailor, convicted conspirator, 9/11 planner pleads guilty.

It's an easy game to play. If someone commits an act of terrorism, the stupid government has failed us. If someone is caught before they (or the people they support) commit an act of terrorism, then they are innocents caught up in the overzealous surveillance campaign of the stupid government.

The truth is, if it becomes the default web browser and sets the homepage to http://msn.com./ The people they want to switch, won't notice the difference. If they don't hijack the default browser settings, no one will even know it is installed. If they do hijack it and MSN is not the hompage, those people will switch back to IE anyways.

What bothers me, is that mozilla feels threatened. If Firefox is the best browser out there, it will continue to gain market share, despite what Microsoft and Apple do.

Free has two definitions. Censor has one. Weed is not information, bits that can be duplicated. This is the same argument as theft vs copyright infringement. I take your weed, you no longer have it. I copy your video, you still have your copy and now I have mine. It seems you are the one with the logically flawed argument.

So, since the mods find you so "informative" Mr. "It isn't censored," let's see you produce the missing 15 seconds of that internet video clip. Can't do it? Why not? "It's not teh censereed!!!" Come on buddy, where is it? What, you can't find it? Oh and if you could it would be illegal for you to post it? Why? Because you would need a license to do so. Wow, just like in China!

Under the new rules, video sites require a license that only state companies can obtain. That is in line with regulations that require all Chinese media to be state-owned.

Only the privileged are allowed access to the information. Just because there is a legal way for a privileged few to obtain the information doesn't mean it isn't censorship. Should your right to read be based on your ability to pay or your rank in the Chinese government? Is there really any difference? Can information that is not gratis truly be libre?

Trolls must not read the news....
All the candidates were hit

InnerWeb

"People concerned about the environment and their health can buy these CFLs with a clear conscience," Noah Horowitz, senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement released by Wal-Mart.

"In fact," he added, "the energy savings delivered through the use of CFLs will actually reduce more mercury pollution from coal-fired power plants than is added through manufacture of the bulbs."

How is that?

after all, people still buy the Ionic Breeze

after all, people still buy the Ionic Breeze

Will this produce the same ozone (O3) emissions that the Ionic breeze does? It's not a huge deal for just one chip-sized cooler in a house (after all, people still buy the Ionic Breeze, which is much larger), but in a whole ton of racked servers in a closed room it could pretty easily exceed indoor air quality guidelines. Just another thing to endanger the health of server nerds. :)

This is a big problem, and has been going on for years. Read the book, "Body Brokers: Inside America's Underground Trade in Human Remains", or this MSNBC article about the illicit trade of body parts and tissues.

Last year, several funeral homes in New York were charged with allowing these people to come in and harvest bits and pieces from their clients (the dead), sometimes replacing things like femurs with PVC pipe.

TFA refers to cadavers for medical instruction, but regardless, the problems are twofold. One, often there is no consent. Two, there is little concern if the parts contain cancer or communicable diseases, and IIRC, several people have received infected tissue "donations" who later contracted syphillis, hepatitis, and worse.

Starting at $30k, you say? Try an MSRP of $21,100, with an average sale price (i.e., with all the options) of $28,856 for the 2008 model.

Here's a dealer's perspective on the sales demographics:

"Is the demographic changing for hybrid customers, specifically Prius customers?

It?s more mass market. Toyota sold 175,000 Priuses in 2007, which makes it a core product for the dealer. It?s hitting all demographics."

I refer to this which is and was total bogus
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5217861

It is worse than that. The Catholic church in Africa has told people that condoms do not help in stopping AIDS as the rubber allows the HIV virus to pass through (http://media.www.westerncourier.com/media/storage/paper650/news/2003/10/29/Opinion/Catholic.Church.Claims.Condoms.Dont.Protect.Against.Aids.Virus-542117.shtml) because it is so small, and that many condoms from Europe are laced with the virus to kill off Africans (eg http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20999747/)

No thanks, Microsoft, I'll keep reading blogs and thinking for myself. MSNBC never showed me where the good ones were and I doubt they will in the future. You can't run an honest search engine, so there's no way in hell I'll trust your company to tell me how to vote.

Just yesterday, it was in the news that Joseph Weizenbaum, the creator of the first such program, Eliza, had died. Eliza's interaction with real people troubled many.

News article at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23615538/

$14 million for solar research? Imagine that.

The US approaches its 6th anniversary in Iraq (March 19, I think), with our occupation costing about $255 million per day http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15377059/. We are there because of mideast oil - the only reason left standing after Bush's lies are exposed. So the Bush administration, instead of putting any effort at all into a bona fide energy independence program, tosses $14 million into solar research. That's about an hour and a half worth of the Iraq war, and shows the contempt of the Bushies toward any energy solution except oil, oil, and more oil.

Where are the torches and pitchforks?

It is ironic that you have to site 3 Mile Island as an "unsafe" nuclear reactor.

With the amount of radiation that was vented to the outside, and using the (probably vastly overestimating) linear regression model, it is predicted to result in one death.

There are under a thousand coal power plants in the US. They are estimated to cause about 24,000 deaths a year. That's over 240 deaths per plant per year! But with current technology, almost 22,000 deaths a year would be preventable. Which means that a "good" clean coal plant operating normally would kill over twenty times the people of the 3MI accident. The 3MI site has been running for over thirty years now -- a clean coal plant would have killed 600 people in that time, the average coal power plant has killed thousands of people in that time.

Right now, nuclear is providing about 2/5ths the amount of the power of coal. If we assume 1979-era safety standards, I'll gladly quadruple the amount of nuclear reactors even if that amounts in one death every decade or so from the increased number of reactors.

That's a pretty serious accusation. Do you have any details on that? I googled this speech, which includes the following (...)

IN 1980, H0WEVER, the Supreme Court dealt voting rights enforcement a significant setback. In City of Mobile v. Bolden, the Court narrowly interpreted the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution, as well as the Voting Rights Act, holding that the government must prove that any change in voting practices that harm minorities was actually motivated by discriminatory intent in order to establish a violation.

WHEN IT RENEWED the Voting Rights Act in 1982, Congress overturned the Bolden ruling despite the objections of the Reagan administration.

I can see the headlines... "Cheney's Pacemaker Hacked by Chinese Militants" ... :-) One can only wish.

This is off the topic for the summary (but on topic for your comment) but if Cheney goes duck hunting with Bush we could have the first woman President.

If Cheney shoots Bush in the face accidentally while duck hunting (well it happened once before, I'd never go hunting with him) and suffers a heart attack as a result, and both die, then House Speaker Nanct Pelosi becomes President Pelosi.

One can only wish!

Modding myself down with the "no karma bonus".

This is a bit more graphical than TFA: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/10/748041.aspx

Doesn't this really mean war, not terror?

I think it would depend on the context. From TFA:

However, not all experts agree that the risk is severe. After all, there's never been a report of a foreign country or criminal outfit using such technology to steal information or commit sabotage. (The United States did successfully conduct such a mission against the Soviet Union during the Cold War.)

If I'm not mistaken, the mission they are referring to was in 1982, when the US let the Soviet Union "steal" software that helped run a natural gas pipeline. The Russians were in the habit of stealing US technology, so the US secretly embedded the software with code that would- when run- cause the pressure in the pipes and pumps to go sky-high.

The result:

"The result was the most monumental non-nuclear explosion and fire ever seen from space."

Was this an act of war? Not really, since the code was stolen. Maybe sabotage. Terrorism? No, but it probably sent a message to the Kremlin that stealing foreign technology may not be a good idea...

W

The soul of Wikipedia is obviously inclusionism. If you start picking what stays and what goes, then it will become just like every other encyclopedic resource out there. The problem is that people are treating Wikipedia as if it were supposed to be "the" resource rather than just "a" resource. If you use it knowing that the information within is not meant to be authoritative, than it can be a great resource to use as a starting point or for situations where incorrect information is not going to cause problems down the line. The word "wiki" itself means "quick" or "fast", as in, an encyclopedia for quick answers, not necessarily absolute answers.

As far as my daily light research needs are concerned, if Wikipedia becomes a deletionsim camp, then they better change the "wiki" part of their name; because even by their supposed competitor's definitions of the word "wiki" it would be a lie. And seriously, what would you prefer? One of the ad laden, content starved, dead ended, upselling pages at the previous three links? Or this one?

The soul of Wikipedia is obviously inclusionism. If you start picking what stays and what goes, then it will become just like every other encyclopedic resource out there. The problem is that people are treating Wikipedia as if it were supposed to be "the" resource rather than just "a" resource. If you use it knowing that the information within is not meant to be authoritative, than it can be a great resource to use as a starting point or for situations where incorrect information is not going to cause problems down the line. The word "wiki" itself means "quick" or "fast", as in, an encyclopedia for quick answers, not necessarily absolute answers.

As far as my daily light research needs are concerned, if Wikipedia becomes a deletionsim camp, then they better change the "wiki" part of their name; because even by their supposed competitor's definitions of the word "wiki" it would be a lie. And seriously, what would you prefer? One of the ad laden, content starved, dead ended, upselling pages at the previous three links? Or this one?

It's a pretty much accepted scientific theory that the universe was created in the Big Bang (or 'let there be light' for the more religious amongst us) and it expanded from there.

The observable universe universe began 13.73 billion years ago, yes. There are various cosmological speculations about an "oscillating" universe - old school, Bing Bang, Big Crunch, lather, rinse, repeat forever; new school, colliding branes! Branes!

There are also concepts of an endless string of universes, such as each black hole in our universe forming a whole new cosmos, and our universe being a black hole in some other universe, all up and down the line forever.

And of course, it could be that if t=0 is the Big Bang, there's an infinite amount of "negative" time before.

Any of these give you a universe that has always been here. Of course, it's all completely speculative - but about an order of magnitude less speculative than positing some intelligent designer who hacks the whole thing up in his basement workshop.

No. Columbia's crew, the one which blew up during launch (or was that Challenger?) was probably alive when it hit the ocean. Whether they were conscious is not public info, but they were alive for a while, based on evidence that some of them tried to put on oxygen bottles, IIRC. They could have used an escape pod.

Therefore, they are referring to Challenger as it was the one that exploded during launch and its pieces fell into the ocean. My links are correct. If the secondary poster meant Columbia, here is info on that disaster:

Spaceflight Now
MSNBC
New York Times

Either way, in both cases, the astronauts knew something was wrong and they were alive for a time after the initial explosion and breakup of both Challenger and Columbia.

Urban Legends comments
Straight Dope comments
MSNBC comments.

All three sources say the same thing: 3 of the 4 air packs were activated which can only be done manually.

Actually, many nuclear plants are scheduled to be built and some should be operational ~ 2015, so do some research before claiming that we are at an energy standstill.

Source MSNBC http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20841590/from/ET/

You're arguing my point, every musical era has had bad music. I recall year ago when parents called rock n roll devil's music. Many adults call what their children listen to as bad music.

Entertainment is the last thing people make cuts on during economic downturns

From American Express: "We are less weighted toward the travel and entertainment sector and have a larger presence in everyday categories where consumers don't typically reduce their spending during economic downturns to the same extent as they do in T&E spending." "Entertainment is the #1 Largest Optional Spending Catagory." "Demand shocks - reflecting changes in the level and pattern of spending by consumers owing to 'social distancing', eg cuts to travel, tourism and entertainment spending". "Customers from the financial services industry have noticeably cut back on travel and entertainment spending, AmEx believes."

Why buy a CD when you can download it at the same quality?

Same quality? I doubt much downloaded music has the same quality as CDs. I doubt even iTune's higher bit rate and DRM free music sell more than the DRM'ed and lower quality music. And iTunes owns the music download space.

Cyber warfare has already caused the largest non-nuclear explosion ever. So to say that the damage will be to information systems is just plain wrong.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4394002

Shouldn't there be a term for doing this whenever a discussion about the moon comes up, similar to Godwinning? Either way, well played sir!

Not exactly applicable for Slashdot and lunar threads, but there's a move to use Bostowned for whenever the cops freak out over something mundane and then trump up bogus charges against the victim in order to save face.

Doesn't have to happen in Boston; it can happen anywhere. (Like these hashers who used flour to mark a temporary trail through the woods for an afternoon's run, whereupon the paranoid fucktards who run the city of New Haven bost0wn3d themselves, and tried to cover up their stupidity by arresting the runners on bioterror charges and threatening to sue them in civil court.)

A body with a knife in a back with Hans' prints on it?

If you actually had one of those - and, indeed, any evidence at all that Nina was actually stabbed with it - Hans might very well be guilty.

But honestly I'm very interested in what appears to be a completely novel line of prosecutory reasoning - "in an alternate universe, where we have a bloody knife with Hans' prints and Nina's blood on it, he'd be guilty; therefore, in this universe where we have none of that, he's guilty too." Very interesting. Is that how it works in Canada?

Are you actually insinuating that such knowledge requires residence and is unavailable abroad?!

No, but such knowledge requires actually having it, and you've made it abundantly clear that you don't, like when you asserted that American criminal trials require nothing more than the preponderance of evidence, which is obviously false.

As to my "speculations" they were all either patently obvious observations or statistical data.

You haven't presented any relevant statistical data.

Also never did I indicate anything about "confidence beyond all doubt".

Sure you have. You've implied it in ten different posts. The slightest argument that Hans might actually be innocent sends you literally off the rails. Prosaic explanations for the not-at-all-incriminating "evidence" earns your unmitigated scorn.

There's something profoundly wrong with you. Either Hans said something mean to you once - at which point it's hardly seemly for you to agitate for his conviction on inadequate evidence simply for a few flames on the Internet - or he's essentially nobody to you, at which point your obvious bloodlust for a man who's done nothing to you is even more perverse.

Hans is "the nearest man"?! You gotta be kidding.

Why would I be? That's your argument, after all - when a woman goes missing, it's her most intimate male acquaintance who's the immediate concluded perpetrator, to the exclusion of all others. Especially if he said something mean on the internet, once. Why, that and a missing car seat - proof positive!

To wit, one needs to present a pasport with a valid Mexican entry visa

Except, of course, when one doesn't.

Again, there was no official investigation

It's amazing how you get the burden of proof so completely wrong. Maybe it's a function of living in Canada, but here in America, it's the prosecution who has the burden of evidence - and therefore you who shares it - not the defense. Whether or not there's evidence of Nina's embezzlement, her flight to Russia, or anything else is irrelevant - it's up to the prosecution to prove that those things aren't true, just as it's the prosecution's defense to prove that she was actually murdered, and that Hans did it. For every "suggestive" piece of evidence you and the prosecution has, Hans and his defenders have a plausible explanation. The prosecution can't disprove those explanations.

Thus, Hans must be found innocent. That's the result of the presumption of innocence in our criminal justice system. If it works differently under yours, remind me not to visit Canada.

We do not know what actual means he used

So you can't establish that Hans had those means, or that he had the opportunity to use those means. That's two out of the three required elements of the crime that you simply don't have. That necessitates a finding of not guilty. Sorry, but that's how it works under our system.

Us the "bloodthirsty" ideologues who insist upon such heretical notions as addmitance of circumstantial evidence and comparing the probabilites of events

Oh, now you're comparing probabilities? And what are those probabilities? Be specific. Show your math. (I think this is the second time I've asked you to do that.

...the electric universe otaku...

Love the term. Unfortunately, their beliefs, misunderstandings, and actions are not so superficial.

He's sure the most prolific one on Slashdot, though there are a few others who mostly do not seem to be regular readers but who sometimes chime in after he gives them an alert via email or forum post. He's taken a hiatus from Slashdot since early February it seems, but he's been actively recruiting elsewhere. This is from January, but you can see more of his writing here (along with a few transparent astroturfers):

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/11/572421.aspx

During his absence there have been many popular press science articles (pop science press, that is), including several featured on Slashdot, that usually cause that crowd to spring into action. If you're a big enough fan of that noise, try reading thunderbolts.info, a gathering of malcontents and dilettantes the like of which you've probably never seen: at least one of their respected and prolific hierarchy was banned from the abovetopsecret.com forum.

It will show you just how deeply entrenched are
1) their views on what they think is scientific knowledge and valid inductive logic
2) their pathological mistrust of anything that is "mainstream" (seen in many areas other than just what they think is cosmology)
3) their pathological disbelief of relativistic and quantum mechanics, and indeed anything which they do not find in some way "salient" or "reasonable" or "logical".

If you become a regular reader, he will probably think your hit contribution comes from a wave of "grad students". He came up with that idea himself and first asserted it on Thunderbolts or somewhere shortly before this post:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=423972&cid=22121930

Debunked in last paragraph of this reply to that post:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=423972&cid=22123690

He didn't like that, and repeated it soon after:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=426528&cid=22150020

Debunked even further in the last couple paragraphs of this reply to that post:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=426528&cid=22150550

But he has since repeated it on Thunderbolts.info:
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=13531

Reasoning doesn't seem to work, and even if it ever does I don't think it will be enough to overcome the pathological and entrenched dislike for how the universe actually operates. If you're a casual follower of the EU circle or Velikovskianism, you probably don't know just how deep the popular misunderstanding of science or its subject matter can be. Read on with caution, especially if you have any scientific training (let alone training in physics!); it will depress and/or anger you to see the *explicitly* deliberate propaganda/proselytizing effort on the part of this "otaku" in particular, and the progenitors moreover.

Pseudoscience (and the related, often ironically parroted term by EU-ers of "pseudo-skepticism") are anathema to science and do damage to the acquisition of knowledge, and thereby undermine the improvement of the human condition. Sorry if that sounds melodramatic, but that's the "tangible" effect. It's good for a laugh though, but you have to be good at laughing, and you'll probably get tired of laughing sooner or later.

Here's Ethan Allen's glib but deep (recursive, even!) classic:

"Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason w

I think our GIs have better things to spend their time on than trying to distill truth from the "facts" vomited by malcontents and partisan hacks.

I agree wholeheartedly! That's why I wonder why those "malcontents" and "partisan hacks" aren't being blocked, just honest bloggers.

"Not > what a reasonable person would call costly In Massachusetts, it costs over $17000 per year to attend UMass / Amherst. "

Irrelevant, if you're going to worry about cost, you're not going to school in Mass.

"Where did you get your numbers from?"

Here

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/CollegeAndFamily/CutCollegeCosts/CollegeForHalfPrice.aspx

"The average cost for a full year of tuition and fees at a community college is just $2,360, compared with $6,185 at a public, four-year university"

Posted January 11th, 2008. As current as it gets.

"I'm including estimated housing costs"

And you shouldn't as you need housing regardless of your school situation.

It's not expensive to go to college, it's just that too many people think "college=4 year school of my choice" like you do, which is obviously wrong.

IANAL, but according to this, this, this and this he did commit perjury.

Selling drugs that don't work is an unsustainable business policy.

Ha! Watch more late-night TV, see more ads for penis pills, and reconsider that.

Maybe because that "quite a bit of support" has translated into zero electoral success? You can't blame the media for the voters rejecting Ron Paul in small elections (read: Iowa and New Hampshire) where he had the ability to campaign on an individual and town-hall level. I know it's popular in the Ron Paul camp to blame the media for all your woes but has it ever occurred to you that the voting public rejected his philosophy?

Are you kidding?

You can keep stating that all you want, but it doesn't make it any more true.

His philosophies were not heard and the only ones rejecting it were the main stream media outlets making the decision for you. The public was never given the opportunity to reject his philosophies. For that matter, the public was never given the opportunity to reject a handful of the other candidates philosophies either.

And do you really believe that the majority of voters travel to stump speeches to make up their minds about the candidate? This isn't the 1800s anymore - the vast majority form their opinion based on what they hear from TV, radio and print.

It's popular to blame the media because THEY are the entity that uses their power to shape public opinion. And they have, almost 100% of the time since day 1 of campaign coverage, excluded Ron Paul when listing/talking about the candidates. The have, since the beginning, called him and his supporters names and stated he has no chance.

Yet you think I'm unjustified in saying that these actions don't have any impact on popular opinion?

You are naive:

• In July 2007, George Stephanopoulos began the trend of telling Ron and his supporters that he had no chance This has been repeated almost every time Ron has received mention since.
• In July of 2007, the PEW Research Center published a report on "candidates heard about in the media" and Ron hadn't been mentioned enough in the media to even register outside the 4% Other cantegory. Journalism.org has done numerous studies since then showing Ron has recived 0% or <0.5% of media coverage.
• In August 2007, ABC manipulates preception of numbers of Ron Paul street supporters as compared to Romney suppoters outside the GOP debate (a debate which he was almost excluded from until public outcry)
• In August 2007, Ron received 9.1% of the vote in the Iowa Ames staw poll, yet FOX broadcast the results excluding Ron and listing candidates who scored LESS. Thankfully, the New York Times got it right ... at least on the internet, where you're at least likely to find SOME poisitive (albiet buried) positive coverage. Such as the "internet only" interviews with Ron that ABC published as opposed to on broadcast television alongside their other candidate interviews
• In December 2007, MSNBC regularly listed the candidates and excluded Ron Paul. This trend continues amongst all media outlets to this day.
• In January 2008, Ron was excluded from the FOX Forum before the New Hampshire primary because "there was not enough room at the table" despite the fact that Ron had garnered THREE TIMES as many votes as Guiliani in Iowa and later went on to score more than NINE TIMES the number of votes of Fred in New Hampshire -- both of which were invited.
• Before Super Tuesday, there was literally no coverage of Ron Paul and when he did win 2nd place in Montana it was largely ignored (just like his 2nd place wins in Nevada and Louisiana)
• On February 4th, papers around the country ran a

As defined by law, a crime includes both the act, or actus rea, and the intent to commit the act, or mens rea. Criminal intent involves an intellectual apprehension of factual elements of the act or acts commanded or enjoined by the law. It is usually inferred from the apparently voluntary commission of an overt act.

Not entirely true. It has been shown to dramatically reduce the HIV transmission rate so it is being used in sub-Saharan Africa to combat AIDS. I should note that this treatment is done with adult males who can choose for themselves, not babies who are disfigured so as to not anger some invisible man in the sky.

Here is a MicroHoo related stories box at MSNBC @ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23237868/

Microsoft: Yahoo would stay in Silicon Valley
Microsoft bid 'unnerving' to Google co-founder
Analysis: Microsoft will win proxy battle
Microsoft to authorize Yahoo proxy battle
Gates: Microsoft's offer to Yahoo is fair
Yahoo's big investors may back Microsoft
Yahoo's CEO explains Microsoft rebuttal
Newsweek: Why this deal won't happen
Why Google will remain king of search
Vote: Can Microsoft-Yahoo beat Google?

Guess which link doesn't work?
Newsweek: Why this deal won't happen

Page not found Our web servers cannot find the page or file you asked for. The link you followed may be broken or expired.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/110796 Nope not expired, guess it was just misplaced.

Oddly enough this link works fine Why Google will remain king of search I guess it was left to show that there are no antitrust issues.

On the story itself
The company also adopted new severance packages that would protect employees in the event of a Microsoft takeover, a move the lawsuit labels as a blatant effort to drive up the cost of an acquisition.

It couldn't be an attempt to protect their employees, nah what does that have to do with profits?

The company said in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing Tuesday that workers who lose their jobs without "cause" or quit "for good reason," as Yahoo defines it, would continue to receive their salary and medical benefits for four to 24 months, plus reimbursement for "outplacement services" for two years. A Yahoo spokeswoman would not say what might constitute good reason.

I dunno, how about: I was purchased by a soul crushing monopolist.