Slashdot Mirror

I didn't know about this museum; here is an article about it. And here is the museum.... creepy.

Hello Mr Righteous, I'll assume your from the USA :

1- Yes the UN costs money, what a surprise. Nearly all the nations pay for it, though. The US likes not to.

2- Have you never heard of US soldiers raping local women ?

3- China, Cuba, etc on UN councils. Learn how they work, representative from every country get to be in them in turns. That doesn't mean they run them. At the UN, you are bound to find people from nations you disagree with in various commissions. The #1 rule of diplomacy is that you keep talking to these people anyway.

4- The UN suck, have never done anything good, etc. The UN weapons inspectors in Iraq got rid of all the WMDs. You are aware the US troops have found none left, are you? Speak of the devil, this particular engagement really showcases the skill and competence the USA shows in dealing with world matters when unhindered by useless international bodies, doesn't it ?

Given a choice of labeling you hypocrite or ignorant, I'm afraid I'll have to go with the former.

Right. Now you explain to me why the cops used tazers in these two cases.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6468373/

Hydrogen powered fuel cell vehicle is tested by the Army. I don't think it's such a long way until Humvees (or equivalent) will be fitted with fuel cell power - especially when so many good things will eat electricity like popcorns in the future.

http://autos.msn.com/advice/article.aspx?contentid=4023502

    Hmmm, I've searched some, and the Prius' generator is probably good for 6kW - a "military grade" 45kW generator would be more than 10 times in volume.

It's important to remember where the "anti-circumvention" clause came from.

Back in the late 90's, there were a lot of companies selling devices that allowed anyone to watch satellite or cable TV without paying. These devices (like the "Motubu III") simulated a genuine smart card and were sold in the tens of thousands. This was killing the satellite business until the DMCA outlawed them. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_piracy and http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3078496 .

Of course, as with all sloppily written laws, unscrupulous types soon found ways to abuse the law to the consumers' detriment.

It's unfortunate we've sidetracked so far off of the original thread. Stay focused so I don't have to keep doing this to you.. :(

Stay at home moms play a whole host of games. Why would you possibly think otherwise? Welcome to 2007, my disillusioned friend. Honestly, teenage to 20 something males playing The Sims? 54+ million of them? Are you serious? A report in 2004 showed 2/3 of MSN's 8.7 million users were women.

My earlier statements come from first hand knowledge. My mom is a grandparent, and my sister is a stay at home mom, and they both play The Sims. They both have a whole host of friends within their same demographic that they talk to online about the game, if not play along with them. Myself, I've played with countless non-teenager or 20 something males in numerous games. (WoW, Command & Conquer, Age of Empires, etc.) Since I know my first hand experiences mean nothing to you, I'll continue on.

I could honestly post hundreds of articles that disprove your unfortunately naive view of gaming, but I'll start with just a few to hopefully make it easier to digest.

Have a look at this article which outlines the fact that women over 18 are 38% of all gamers. I don't know, but that doesn't seem like ..what'd you call it.. "in the noise" to me.

Please keep reading and have a look at another article about women playing WoW, and why they enjoy it as an outlet. The article states there are over 5 million stay at home moms, and you're lead to believe that when the kids are gone to school, all they do is cook and clean?

Don't stop now. Read another piecethat outlines all of the myths that you apparently still believe. How about that less than 30% of gamers are under age 18? How about nearly half (48.6%) of the PC entertainment software purchases in 1998 were women. Oh, and nearly half of the purchases of online games of any genre are women. Most of this data is from a few years ago, and the trends were already starting.

I'd agree, you won't find women playing games like Quake, Counterstrike, or Madden as often as men, but you will find them casually gaming, most likely online, as the social aspect seems to be a key factor in attracting women to games. Many of the games women play may not necessarily have DX prerequisite (web based games), but the gaming demographic is not limited to teenage or 20 something males. Not even close.

Im not sure an effect predicted with hundreds of years worth of data can be tested in the 10 years since anthropogenic global warming became fashionable.. I think this may be an excellent example of basic science tainted by obscene analysis.

U.S. National Academy of Sciences reports that global temperatures could rise 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius if carbon dioxide levels double. "A wait-and-see policy may mean waiting until it is too late," the group warns.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/20214963

actually, china has banned respawning.

"refusing to sell? That's just bad business."

Exactly. And the idiot went on national TV to tell the world how wonderful his policy is! What was he thinking? Who would hire him now to manage anything? Who would trust him? He would have been better off showing up to work drunk and high, least he could explain that as a lapse in judgment, but refusing to sell 24 games to paying customers and bragging about it on TV?!?

What's next, refusing to sell McD's to fat people?? Refusing to sell gas to SUV owners? Refusing the morning after pill to women? (oops nevermind) This guy would be lucky to get a mop boy job after pulling this stunt.

Well, ok, it sort of happens here. But instead of dropping dead themselves these people were letting their kids do it.

Simple reality. Most of the guys who designed PCs from the mid 70s to the early 90s were Boomers. Deal with it. Most of the people who designed the core technologies in the internet were Boomers.

Most of the people who _did_ stuff_ on that platform were Xers. Yep, I are one, right at the front of the wave.

Technologically, you're wrong. Now, in terms of finance and multigenerational ethics I might be more inclned to agree with you.

those muslim faggots are at it again.
 
how many times will we need to see these filthy fuckers make threats like these and murder people for exercising their freedoms before we stop defending this liars religion and their faggot prophet? it's a culture of villains where good people are used like stepping stones by assholes like faggot bin laden. he is a traitor to everyone who has ever died in his name because of his acceptance of the lies of islam.
 
boycott islam, boycott businesses owned by these devils.
 
FUCK MOHAMMAD! FUCK ALLAH! FUCK ISLAM!!

There is some evidence that circumcision can reduce the incidence of AIDS.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16184582/

Personally; I have to wonder if the circumcised subjects ended up having less sex... at least for a while.

...but:

The issue at hand, which is commonly misunderstood, is that:

- Monitoring for foreign communications does not require, should not require, and will never require, a warrant, which brings us to:

- Monitoring of foreign communications where both ends are outside of the United States, but where the passage of the traffic through equipment within the United States is incidental should not require a warrant;

- Monitoring of communications where the target of said monitoring is (reasonably* believed to be) outside of the United States should not require a warrant, regardless of where the other end of the communication is (even if within the United States);

- Monitoring of US citizens as targets within the United States requires a warrant, and always has.

These capabilities should absolutely exist under the next administration as well. The United States has always had the ability to collect foreign intelligence without a warrant, and that should always be so. Whether one end of the conversation is within the United States, or neither end is but the traffic incidentally travels through equipment physically within the United States, is - and should be - irrelevant.

That is not to say that the so-called Protect America Act of 2007, the six-month temporary legislation which allows this, is perfect, or isn't overly broad. But the capability to continue collecting foreign intelligence without being encumbered by FISA is crucial. Then you might ask, "Well, where are the checks and balances, then?!" Indeed, where are the checks and balances for any foreign signals intelligence collection? Should all foreign SIGINT now go through a court and warrant process, just to "make sure" it's "really" foreign SIGINT? If you believe so, you're woefully misguided.

For a very brief and overly simple overview of the issues this addresses, see this Newsweek article.

* "Reasonable" has a standard here - it's not just someone making an arbitrary assertion. Since in today's electronic world it is virtually impossible to guarantee beyond a shadow of any doubt that a particular target may be outside of the United States, it must be reasonable to believe that they are. I know people like to think that the attorney general can just "declare" someone as being outside of the US, and commence monitoring. No. They must, by all appearances, actually appear and be believed to be outside of the United States by any reasonable assessment. And again, let me guess: "But where are the checks and balances?" To repeat, where are any such "checks" any any other foreign intelligence gathering? The difference here is that sometimes, traffic may be increasingly traveling through the United States. Instead of choosing to be hamstrung in foreign SIGINT collection just because major communication trunks happen to pass through the US, I'd choose the option of using that to our advantage. It's flat out foolish not to.

Disclaimer: much of this is culled from a previous post of mine in a previous article, but this is precisely on-point. Foreign SIGINT should not require a warrant if the target of the monitoring is already outside the United States, and especially if both endpoints of the communication are outside of the United States, regardless of the path the traffic takes. I guess I can keep going in circles with the inevitable, "Yes, but how do we really know that the situation is as you described it without the oversight of a court?" How do we know that for ANY intelligence gathering? Should all intelligence gathering of all types now go through a warrant process? Ridiculous. And on top of all of this, if you just think that administration officials are going to lie and ignore any and all laws anyway, then what difference does any wording of any law really make?

Try to at least imagine the opposing viewpoint to your own.

>..now that they actually have a competent leader.

Putin's a thug. Murdering Russian Journalists and anyone else who dares criticize him are the marks of a mafioso thug, not a statesman. The only reason Russia is resurfacing is the high price of oil. It has very little to do with his leadership.

Communism is evil. A harsh statement, granted. But when you see the 100s of millions of people it has enslaved for the benefit of the few people at the top, there's no other word for it but evil.

Salty burger lands McDonald's employee in jail

"Saltmakeseverythingbetter"...

WHEN SOMEONE HAD TO SPEND ONE NIGHT IN JAIL because he put too much salt on a burger?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20677230/?GT1=10357

just a suggestion,

http://tv.msn.com/

-FL

NEWSWEEK Poll June 23, 2007

Do you think Saddam Husseins regime in Iraq was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001?: Yes, 41%

Zogby Poll: September 05, 2006

Do you agree or disagree that there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 terror attacks?: Agree, 46%

I doubt this is a problem with silverlight over all and probably just this player. I tried watching the halo videos at http://halo.msn.com/videosHD.aspx but whenever I tried to pick another video at the bottom it just played the same one again no matter what I picked. Is anyone else having this issue?

...what can I do with it? Are there any sites or interesting apps out yet to try?

Honest Bible scholars can tell you that, for example, the Gospels frequently describe the same events but with different dialogue and different people present. Take the story of Jesus' tomb after his crucifixion: Who went to his tomb? How many were present? What did they find? To whom did they reveal their discovery upon leaving the tomb? The books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John frequently present different accounts of the same events.

For those who claim the Bible is a verbatim account of historical events, these things can present problems, certainly. Many Christian faiths (say, Lutheranism) do not read the Bible literally.

Even the Pope (hey, Catholics, are you listening?) has acknowledged that Creationism can coexist with evolution. Many Evangelicals, on the other hand, have decided that they are polar opposites.

As noted above, CA, NY, and the mystery six other northeastern states* subsidize the cost of PZEVs, thus they constructed laws that make it difficult to use such a car in other states. I don't understand why these eight states didn't simply tax non-PZEV sales instead; add a new tax and make exceptions for hybrids and PZEVs. This would make it okay to sell these anywhere, and pressure is applied to consumers to buy with the environment in mind.

The article stated that Honda's PZEV costs about $400 on top of the car to produce (CA subsidizes $250 of this), so if we assume four non-PZEVs sold for every PZEV purchase, CA could add a $100 tax to the cost of non-PZEVs and use that money to subsidize the full $400 cost without using money from its budget. However, this doesn't solve the out-of-state problem. Increase sales tax on non-PZEVs by 0.5% (an $85 increase to a $17k Honda Civic, a $275 boost to a $55k Hummer H2) and decrease sales tax on PZEVs by 2% ($348 less for the Civic and ... the H2 won't get a PZEV package). If we assume the PZEV sales won't exceed the non-PZEVs, the state spends less money while almost fully subsidizing in-state (only!) sales. Better yet, this plan would encourage PZEV sales and there would be no reason to discourage out-of-state purchases by those environmentally savvy.

I'm also of the opinion that an excise tax (section 4001 (a)(2)(B), referring to section 179A) should be revisited for more aggressive definitions of fuel efficiency. I'm from MA, where all vehicles are covered by excise tax; I didn't know until just now that laws are already in place to tax less efficient (and luxury) cars, though I do recall hearing that President Carter implemented such things in the late 70s (as seen in the documentary Who Killed the Electric Car? ). I'd like to see something like a steep excise tax for fuel-inefficient cars, with an aggressively growing threshold like 30mpg + 1mpg per year after y2k, so 37mpg for cars of this model year and 38mpg in 2008, with NO LIMITS (it is expected that the 2009 Prius will exceed 100mpg, which would meet this threshold in 2070). This should act as a firm reminder that SUVs and other noncommercial trucks are luxury items.

* "California, New York or six other northeast states that follow California's tougher pollution rules" aren't named anywhere in the article. MA, VT, and ME are mentioned in a sister article, leaving three more; it may be fair to assume "northeast" means "New England" (which contains six states), but PA and NJ are often included in the northeast states. On a humorous note, the sentence seems to imply that California is in the northeast.

From a linked article : http://autos.msn.com/advice/article.aspx?contentid =4024642

The Catch
Geography can be conspiring against eco-conscious buyers. The PZEV's limited availability is not a result of sales volume, marketing or any other political force; it's all about fuel quality. The reformulated fuel available in what's called the California Emission States--California, Massachusetts, New York, Vermont and Maine--make PZEV possible. Take a PZEV to Kansas and the change in fuel quality will knock down its emissions performance. Many PZEVs like the Ford Focus may be available in states bordering the California Emission States but in the case of Ford the 130-hp DURATEC 20E engine is a no-cost option.

I saw a show not too long ago on Discovery or one of those channels talking about a home security system that used a fingerprint scanner to permit access to the secure portion of the house. (Brief article explaining this so I don't have to is here.)

Anyway, the guy claimed that the fingerprint scanner was able to reject a finger severed from the hand of the owner (although, TBH, once the crook has chopped off my finger to try it, whether or not it actually worked is the least of my worries).

What I hate is the hypocrisy of a political party, that tries to crucify Bill Clinton for *blatantly* lying under oath about a consensual blowjob, and then proceeds to lie to the american public about terrorists seeking nuclear weapons (african uranium), to justify a war that has cost a trillion dollars. When that money could have been spent bringing true security, and even food, to *all* of God's children.

I don't hate the republicans. I fear for their souls.

I've been following the Wikileaks idea for a bit, every since Cryptome published a bunch of info about it.

I'm in two minds about Wikileaks. On the one hand, the idea is kind of cool - I'm all for whistle-blowers, and think they perform a vital function. It's sometimes important for the public to see information that could be blocked from public release due to legal pressures.

But on the other hand, maybe that information should not be in the public domain, as it could put lives at risk (as was argued in the previous link).

Also, it's ultimately flawed in the same way that business Web 2.0 review-type sites are flawed: you can't trust the information worth a damn. People have a terrible habit of trying to set up someone they feel disgruntled about, or wish to slander a company that they feel treated them unfairly. Or, of course, they could just be out to rubbish a competitor.

Wikileaks is likely to become a stomping ground of disinformation, misinformation, and vendettas, and if they think the wisdom of the crowds is going to be able to judge that a piece of information is, in fact, a forgery, they're fools.

Also, who exactly will be held accountable when it's used, say, to swing an election, only for us to discover that the information in question was bogus? Wikileaks? Will they hand over the leaker?

I can't help but feel that Wikileaks may, in fact, do more harm than good. A few bad incidents at Wikileaks, and it's highly likely that the law (and government, business etc.) is going to come down hard to silence legitimate whistle-blowers under the pretext of protecting themselves from slander and libel.

What's really needed is a system of legal mechanisms to encourage and protect leakers in the real world, as well as allow a system of accountability. The incidents described by leakers who stepped forward regarding corruption in Iraq indicates that there are simply not enough legal avenues open to help and protect whistle-blowers.

..about "trustworthy-ness" comes from articles and opinions like this.

"Bully for him, and Wikipedia nay-sayers be danged. Some of that massively democratic participatory media can get pretty funny, and teach us more about human nature than dull, non-participatory text."

Yes, those boring things like facts, who needs them, let alone an encyclopedia? What I really want is to be entertained. Let's invest in this huge experiment on "human nature" at the expense of truth and knowledge. Hell, it's not like anyone over 20 years old or who hasn't lived on a desert island doesn't already know about "human nature".

Anything that holds off or eliminates the need for dementia care is something that deserves some attention.

The cost of the treatment must be weighed against the costs of caring for patients with dementive illnesses. That includes billions in unpaid care that many people are providing to their relatives. (Not to mention the costs associated with the health problems and mortality that family caregivers themselves experience as a result of their caregiving.) Dementia care is a drag on society, and demographically it's going to get a lot worse as the boomers age.*

From a personal perspective, I took care of a parent with Lewy Body dementia practically singlehanded from onset to death (over the course of a couple of years). It was nothing short of horrifying, and the experience has seriously kicked my butt even a year later. I can't easily imagine either Medicaid or the informal support net of family caregivers holding the line if/when the incidence of dementia increases by a factor of, say, 2 or 3.

* After typing the above I found an interesting set of statistics provided in the 2007 National Policy Statment of an organization called the Family Caregiver Alliance:

"With the annual cost per person of nursing home care averaging $75,190, any delay means real savings to families, to government programs and to businesses. Consider:

- If services provided by informal caregivers had to be replaced with paid services, it would cost an estimated $306 billion (in 2004 dollars)
- Lost productivity due to informal caregiving costs businesses $17.1 billion annually
- Informal caregivers personally lose about $659,139 over a lifetime: $25,494 in Social Security benefits; $67,202 in pension benefits; and $566,443 in forgone wages."

Also, from Newsweek's "The Boomer Files" at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19131991/site/newsweek / :
"Alzheimer's currently afflicts more than 5 million Americans and 70 percent of them live at home, where they are cared for by many millions of daughters, sons and spouses.....By 2050, the number of Americans with Alzheimer's and other dementias could soar to 16 million."

Divine misconception of the day: "China Regulates Buddhist Reincarnation". It makes plenty of sense from the perspective that the Chinese government tries to control all the religions in the country, so naturally they try to control Tibetan Buddhism and the process of reincarnation as well. However, this makes no sense whatsoever from the perspective of objective truth. Reincarnation has not been verified to occur ever, and there is no solid theoretical reason to believe that it might occur. Furthermore, no reliable mechanism is being given for directing reincarnation, preventing reincarnation, or verifying that reincarnation has occurred. And even if it does occur, what is the Chinese government going to do about "unauthorized reincarnation"? Are they going to somehow force people to become "enlightened" so that they do not reincarnate? Are they going to arrest small children on the charge of having been Tibetan monks in a previous lifetime? Considering that the Chinese government has failed to eliminate an underground Catholic Church still loyal to Rome, despite persecution and having their own "Patriotic" Catholic Church, I confidently predict dismal failure in controlling Tibetan Buddhism as well.

Beijing has spiritual police too.
Tibetans now require state permission to reincarnate:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20227400/site/newsweek /

Good ol' PRC, always expanding the frontiers of policing.

Unlike you, I actually work for a government that does due diligence on contracts.

Yes, that's all very quaint, but this is how the big boys play.It's a smuggler's paradise. More prohibitions will make it true heaven.

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

Additionally, it's not just ANWR, but the Florida and Californian coasts. A find last year in the Gulf of Mexico will increase US reserves by 50%. There's another BILLION barrels off the coast of California. And those oil shales - enough to power us for decades.

So, since you want to take new drilling, oil shale, and coal liquefaction off the table, then what the heck do we run on for the 20 years while alternative energy sources AND infrastructure are deployed? What powers airplanes, ships, trains, streetlights, IC fabs? What creates the plastics, drugs and fertilizers that modern society needs? What's your solution?

I say - if you're serious about wanting to be out of the Middle East because of our dependency on their oil, then we immediately develop our existing oil reserves so we have the energy to use while we transition to a different source. But we have to have the intermediate step.

Actually, it's a reaction to TJ-Max (and others) losing 45.7 million credit and debit card numbers. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17853440/

What, the whole "Screw the Geneva Convention, let's torture people" (PDF file) thing wasn't enough?

Yes. Because it's always good when U.S. law doesn't apply.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19638526/site/newsweek /

I like that you said => "what we stumble on next" and thank you for it, as well your finishing comment how Laws of Physics could vary ahem. Another SlashDot article not many weeks ago -one that seems to get repeated every so often anyway- was telling us how the Universe is expanding and one day we will not see any stars in Earth's Sky. So now this parent article informs us the Universe has all these gigantia empty spaces. And yet, how many of the geniuses on SlashDot ~the same geniuses who keep modding me down and putting "Karma Bad" on my profile to warn people away from me?~ how many of them are genius enough to connect the dots between the two articles =>

=> The Bible's Creation account has not been signed off on yet. In the Bible, after each Creative Day it always ends with "And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a 123456# day". That gives us more dots to connect, Mr. Lucas. Our weeks have 7 days so it looks like the first Bible "Creative Week" is missing a final => "And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a 7th day". Time to collate these dots => Creation hasn't finished yet. The Universe is expanding to fill up all these giant holes in the Outer Space of our Universe. We are watching the completing of Creation, not as the scientists seek to fill us with heart-wrenching FEAR so we keep paying them 10% out of the Gross National Product.

Connecting the dots is my gift. I believe it is a God-given gift, and because I search the Scriptures for answers God has helped me find the answers for stopping the growth of malignant cancers in the human body. I invite you and all ./dotters to visit my website, specifically in the right sidebar, and you will find out that God is very much alive to have saved me from a vicious cancer that hit my right chest like a cannonball of death, without the aid of any medical doctors and their poison chemo treatments just last year: http://www.newpath4.com/. You or another reader might want to know what this means. It means the dots that were written for us in the book of Genesis aren't finished connecting yet. There are other dots scattered all through the Bible, written by men who never met as they were separated by 1500 years. They wrote prophecies in Ezekiel, Isaiah, the Psalms. Jesus came and added some more, specifically Matthew Chapter 24 and Luke Ch. 21. The dots are now up to the book of Revelation and they are still connecting.

Not only are the Bible "dots" connecting in internal linear agreement they have even connected outward to a non-biblical source, the Mayan calendar projection that we are already in 'era 2012', meaning it could happen any time and not be having to wait til Dec. 21 2012 at all, or could go past also. Many people are mistakenly wanting a specific Date, which of course tends to strike great fear in the populations, but this excerpt on that link => "According to John Major Jenkins, it will take 36 years to precess through the Galactic equator. The Galactic Alignment "zone" is 1998 +/- 18 years = 1980 to 2016. This is 'era 2012'." While I am no authority on the Mayan calendar this fellow John Major Jenkins seems to be right knowledgeable. In addition we also have a widespread belief of most Native American Indian tribes that someone like a white buffalo will arise and lead people to the God-Creator to know him better. The Bible does not give a specific date (although it appears overdue), the Mayans

Ok, but CAN you bring the sugar bags onto the flight? It can be used as a rocket fuel and here; and as an explosive Sugar has a LOT of energy!

And if you do a search on MSN for "How to migrate from windows to Linux" the first site it returns is their "Get the Facts" webpage.

Currently on MSN's main website newsticker, there's an article showing a headline, "Are you afraid to file a car insurance claim?" That's what is called "directed questioning". Why should you be afraid to file a car insurance claim? The informed and rational mind would reject MSN's headline question -- why the insinuation of fear? Who said anything about being afraid? But the nature of directed questioning is that it is suggestive. Now the suggestion of fear has been made, and people who aren't so well informed or rational will hold the questionable fear-state in their mind while searching the article, which is probably also rife with suggestivity. But why all this suggestion, why not just be better informed (or more rational, take your pick)?

The article:
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/Ins ureYourCar/InsureYourCarDyn.aspx?cp-documentid=524 9792&GT1=10331

The targets that are being monitored within our own borders are so because the trail from overseas led back here. Known terrorists, affiliates, fund raisers, materials providers, etc., made calls to people here in the USA, or people in the USA called them.

No, the issue, which is commonly misunderstood, is that:

- Monitoring for foreign communications does not require, should not require, and will never require, a warrant, which brings us to:

- Monitoring of foreign communications where both ends are outside of the United States, but where the passage of the traffic through equipment within the United States is incidental should not require a warrant;

- Monitoring of communications where the target of said monitoring is (reasonably* believed to be) outside of the United States should not require a warrant, regardless of where the other end of the communication is (even if within the United States);

- Monitoring of US citizens as targets within the United States requires a warrant, and always has.

And, to answer your question, I'm not a "Bush supporter" in the vein you're probably looking for, but yes, I believe that these capabilities should absolutely exist under the next administration as well. The United States has always had the ability to collect foreign intelligence without a warrant, and that should always be so. Whether one end of the conversation is within the United States, or neither end is but the traffic incidentally travels through equipment physically within the United States, is - and should be - irrelevant.

That is not to say that the so-called Protect America Act of 2007, the six-month temporary legislation which allows this, is perfect, or isn't overly broad. But the capability to continue collecting foreign intelligence without being encumbered by FISA is crucial. Then you might ask, "Well, where are the checks and balances, then?!" Indeed, where are the checks and balances for any foreign signals intelligence collection? Should all foreign SIGINT now go through a court and warrant process, just to "make sure" it's "really" foreign SIGINT? If you believe so, you're woefully misguided.

For a very brief and simple overview of the issues this addresses, see this Newsweek article.

* "Reasonable" has a standard here - it's not just someone making an arbitrary assertion. Since in today's electronic world it is virtually impossible to guarantee beyond a shadow of any doubt that a particular target may be outside of the United States, it must be reasonable to believe that they are. I know people like to think that the attorney general can just "declare" someone as being outside of the US, and commence monitoring. No. They must, by all appearances, actually appear and be believed to be outside of the United States by any reasonable assessment. And again, let me guess: "But where are the checks and balances?" To repeat, where are any such "checks" any any other foreign intelligence gathering? The difference here is that sometimes, traffic may be increasingly traveling through the United States. Instead of choosing to be hamstrung in foreign SIGINT collection just because major communication trunks happen to pass through the US, I'd choose the option of using that to our advantage. It's flat out foolish not to.

It is one thing when someone writes a crackpot book with bogus science. What really bothers me is when an executive at a large scientific research company spews nonsense in order to impress investors. Such is the case with Advanced Cell Technology. In this case, Robert Lanza aggressively sends press releases to everyone he knows in the media. The reporters don't bother to fact check properly. He told the press, "We've also tested these cells in animals for the first time, and it turns out that they have incredible reparative potential." The nature methods paper that he is referring to is much less optimistic, "they localized to the site of injury in the damaged vasculature and appeared to participate in repair... Our data suggest that hES-derived blast cells could be important in vascular repair."

I still can't say anything nice about them...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20367400/?GT1=10252
http://www.walmartmovie.com/
http://wakeupwalmart.com/

According to this article other reasons include our not using GSM as a standard system, our fragmented carrier market, and our low demand for text messaging and other functions that we can already do on PCs (i.e. web browse).