Slashdot Mirror

There are yahoo listings and msn tv listings. However, if Google could do it better (which they can) and provide it as a service - they would again win the day. I second your motion sir, Snap2it Google!

Found it: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7287168/ Awesome!

While this is most likely a troll - I'll bite and support this argument. Check out this article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19049079/print/1/displ aymode/1098/ It is all about Honda discountinuing their hybrid accord. Why would they want to do that at a time like this? You tell me.

Tim Griffin, Michael Elston, Paul McNulty, Monica Goodling
Sara Taylor, Bradley Schlozman, Steve Biskupic, Alberto Gonzalez, David Safavian, Lurita Doan, Ken Tomlinson
Tom Delay, Bob Ney, Conrad Burns, Ted Stevens, Kyle Foggo, Duke Cunningham, Brent Wilkes, Mitchell Wade, Curt Weldon, Donald Rumsfeld, Jim Tobin
Scooter Libby, Manuel Miranda, Darleen Dryun, Thomas Scully, Chuck Mcgee, Pete Domenici
Porter Goss, Brant Bassett, Virgil Goode, Katherine Harris, Jerry Lewis, Ed Buckham, Steven Griles, Mark Foley, Paul Wolfowitz, Ken Lay, Conrad Black, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Roger Stilwell, Tony Rudy, Jack Abramoff, Michael Scanlon, William Heaton, Adam Kidan, Neil Volz,

AN MSN survey has (at the moment I looked at it) 88% out of 482424 respondents saying Bush should be impeached.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/from/ET

According to the latest polls, 72% of us are convinced. The remaining 28% probably live in Jesusland and I'm not going down there to try and change their minds...

Right because in the US you can't be sent to jail for 10 years for having consensual sex with a minor when you are a minor yourself? (see recent case)
-> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16862643/

Because in the US you can't wear baggy pants in Louisiana without being fined and/or sent to Jail?

Because in the US you can't be sent to jail for minor possession of Marijuana when you are a Quadriplegic and die there because of poor/no healthcare?
-> http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6282

Because in the US you can't be sent to jail because you upload movies online?

Because in the US you can't be sent to jail because you used (valid!!) $2 bills in a bestbuy?

Because in the US you can't record police officers on public property without being sentenced to Jail?
-> http://www.informationliberation.com/index.php?id= 22471

Because you can't be jailed for life for a $2 robbery, then be controlled with Marijuana in your possession?
-> http://www.mankatofreepress.com/webextra/local_sto ry_154160920.html

and so many more... Do I _really_ need to say more...

I live in the US, I love the country, but I am sorry, the judicial system and the priorities are fucked up too... even maybe to a greater extend because you do not know WHAT will land you to jail here.

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html - here you go. Educate yourself on the man.

Note: These are the same people who wrote this - no fans of the current president.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5335853/site/newsweek/

Michael Isikoff, co-writer of the MSNBC piece, also wrote this.

There're your specifics, sir. The man is not a true documentarian, and makes the whole practice look worse than Geraldo Rivera journalism.

For example, I posted something about this story:

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/06/04/ 213350.aspx

and it got rejected. I can't fathom how that isn't better than this shit story.

Pluto is not a planet anymore:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14489259/

Well, it's a 'dwarf' planet - but that's not really the same thing.

Sure can:

Sugar Ethanol
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironm ent/wm1074.cfm
http://forums.wsj.com/viewtopic.php?t=247http://fo rums.wsj.com/viewtopic.php?t=247
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/09/sugar-ethan ol.htmlhttp://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/11/27 /061127ta_talk_surowiecki
http://blog.tomevslin.com/2007/03/tax_gasoline_im. html
http://www.iags.org/es82905.htm
http://www.forbes.com/2005/11/15/energy-ethanol-br azil_cx_1116energy_adams.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8769619/site/newsweek
(there are tons more links all over)

USA Gas Mileage Standards:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/overview. htm
http://zfacts.com/p/414.html
http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/FEG2007_GasolineVeh icles.pdf [Warning: PDF]

There are tons and tons and tons of links, data, charts, .pdf files and things you can pour over if you research the topic via Google, local library, watch CSpan, etc.

And to the AC earlier: Yes, corn farmers helped influence the decision, as did domestic sugar producers, but, oil companies are also to blame for this, as they don't want competition from ethanol PERIOD.

Satellites don't just appear out of thin air. They have to be designed and built and tested and put onto a launch schedule.

Thanks, Ron Obvious! :P

With NASA's already anemic budget being mostly eaten up by the money pit of the ISS to keep the Russians afloat and NOAA having huge commitments all over the place (Do you know how many programs and areas of responsibility NOAA has? It's staggering.) I imagine Congress just thinks it's cheaper to pay the cost of evacuating more people over the next ten years than pay the large upfront cost for getting a new satellite out NOW. Congress decided it wasn't worth billions of dollars to prepare for a "once in 200 years" event. If it'll only happen once in 200 years, then you can stretch out the monetary damages over that time period as well (in theory). Preparing for a category 5 storm just isn't worth the cost.

They used to feel the same way about terrorist attacks. Then 3000 people got killed, and we've more than doubled the defense budget since then, to $739 billion if you count the yearly emergency funding bills. The comparable figure in 2003 was $480 billion. Meanwhile Katrina killed 1000 people, about 1/3 as long ago. Somehow we didn't react to that one. For FY 2007, NASA's budget was $16.8 billion, and NOAA's was $3.6 billion.

Even according to your own logic (which in principle, I agree with) this is ridiculous. We can afford to replace a weather satellite.

First, this has to do with the engineering and testing of the power systems, not with software or the "hardware" as you seem to think. Second, American computers run VxWorks in space. In a sense, these computers are largely American and do indeed run VxWorks. (I don't know who built the power supplies, and NASA and Russia or whatever should have tested things better, but space is hard and that's beside the point.)

The point is, any OS you mention with the possible exception of a very trim embedded Linux system is a really stupid choice for such things. It's likely that they have not even been ported to the types of cpus used in space, and NASA is sure the hell not going to put the latest version of MacOS or Windows on a AMD Athlon for a singular purposed mission critical embedded system.

I hope you were joking when you called in. I know I laughed when I read your post.

Professor Lindzen is a dynamical meteorologist with interests in the broad topics of climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability. His research involves studies of the role of the tropics in mid-latitude weather and global heat transport, the moisture budget and its role in global change, the origins of ice ages, seasonal effects in atmospheric transport, stratospheric waves, and the observational determination of climate sensitivity.

He has been a critic of some anthropogenic global warming theories and the political pressures surrounding climate scientists. He wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal in April, 2006, in which he wrote: "In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions."

...are not really all that Russian at all. They are actually built in Germany by the European Space Agency. and they use a radiation-hardened version of the Sun SPARC V7 processor called the "ERC32", and they run an embedded firmware system that runs on top of VxWorks.

That's right, they're basically Sparcstations running realtime unix.

we had a brief refresher on the process of sublimation before we waded into the polar ice caps.

Maybe you need a refresher on the phase diagram: the average surface pressure on Mars is just about the triple point (0.006 atm), which means that you get liquid water when frost (= pure water) warms up in the valleys. Furthermore, even at lower pressures, ice that sits on a surface and warms up will develop a layer of liquid underneath it, even if the surface sublimates.

Where's a good corroborating source for that

You mean like trying it out perhaps?

Forgive me for being skeptical, but I don't think any reputable source for such a statement exists.

Forgive me for being blunt, but any source that says that liquid water cannot exist anywhere on the surface of Mars is full of shit If you take ice, put it under 0.007 atm and raise the temperature to 0.1 C, the water will go through a liquid phase when melting; this isn't optional. It happens only in some areas and seasons, but it does happen.

Anything that might break through to the surface will immediately freeze and sublimate

Water that "breaks through the surface" probably contains significant impurities, lowering its vapor pressure and melting point, so it will stay liquid under a wider range of conditions.

Of course it's not just natural resources. According to the head of the US Patent Office, intellectual property is the single largest sector of the U.S. economy. I have no doubt the Internet will be the #1 medium for intellectual property in the next century.

Just spotted this news link: 'Space station glitch puzzles experts' - have to say the reason why the experts are scratching their skulls over the supposed ISS issue is because it didn't occur...simple.

Hmmm - the hardware and primary software are in fact German made:

"The German-built computers, which operate in pairs, went out Wednesday morning, and several attempts to reboot them were unsuccessful...The computers normally operate in three pairs, where one computer (called the central unit) specializes in overall commanding and the other (the terminal unit) handles guidance, navigation, and control functions. The three pairs provide redundancy, via a special control software developed by the German aerospace firm DARA, which is now part of the European Astrium consortium." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19228925/ has a good summary of the issue.

The computers have been very reliable to date too. So while they run within the Russian part of the ISS, and may have some Russian code on them, to call it Russian hardware is not exactly correct.

And for them to be running OK for years - until a new power source was added into the ISS - suggests the cause is not the computers per se, but some new element in their environment introduced by the new power infrastructure.

'...shuttle wing impact conspiracy.'

You're saying NASA faked the photo of the hole in the wing??? Oh...my bad :)
Lord - If you're right, timmie, this could be the biggest thing since Bush had his USD$50 watch lifted by an Albanian pickpocket!!!

Look, bud - you can call me a trans-gendered duck for all I care, but 'labeling' your target is weak debating at best, so unless you've got something more, you are only mildly entertaining - good for a few laughs. Very few.

Thanks for taking a run at me Mr. T, but better luck next time :)

You might want to take a look at what Fareed Zakaria had to say about China: "The Sky Isn't Falling in China"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17438997/site/newsweek /

"...It might be time to admit that we really don't understand China. The country simply does not conform to our most basic beliefs about what makes nations grow..."

I've been waiting for this story to hit /. - didn't take long... I have to admit that using the ISS as an excuse to hide the real issue(s) and buy time is creative, tho :)

When the shuttle launched last week, the headline quoting NASA was 'perfect launch'.

Then, we heard this: "NASA says shuttle damage is not serious"

Huh? I thought it was 'perfect'...?

'NASA studies gap in shuttle's shields' - "not appearing to be an urgent problem" - "Other than that, the vehicle is very clean. NASA's Shannon said." http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photo s/070610/070610_tear_bcol_11a.standard.jpg - photo of hole/tear in thermal blanket

"The first shuttle launch of the year helped put NASA back on track after a run of bad luck and scandal on the ground during the first half of the year."

Next, we get this: "NASA checks into potential hit on shuttle"

"Sensors on the shuttle Atlantis have recorded hits on the leading edges of the wings, around the area where Columbia suffered fatal damage four years ago, NASA officials said Tuesday. However, they emphasized that the hits probably did no damage to Atlantis."

"What we have seen does not indicate that we have been hit by anything," NASA's Shannon said."

Huh? Do we have a hit or not...? Shannon has quite the golden tongue.



My point is that NASA always says "perfect launch", even when they are sitting on data that suggests damage or problems. And - here we go again.

NASA does everything they can to shine up their process and actions to avoid even hints of trouble. They are more worried about bad press and how the public views their capabilities than they are for the short term. This story about a computer glitch on the ISS is a smokescreen to cover their asses while they try to fix whatever is wrong on the Shuttle. Hit or no hit, something is amiss.

Sooner or later... Always ...the real information comes out and we find that something bad did indeed happen; they knew about it all along, and they were/are once again clueless as to how to deal with the situation, claiming the shuttle is sooooo complicated or sooooo old or soooo expensive, when all they really want to do is CYA.

The mindset-climate at NASA has always been the same and always will be the same. Hubris.

Seriously, what is more important? Power that is granted through a judge (and thus can be taken away at any moment), or power that you give yourself? The founding fathers knew this, which is why we have the 2nd amendment. Now, in today's digital age, I think we need better privacy laws, but not at the expense of the 2nd amendment.

The fact of the matter is that when Cho went to the gun store and they ran the *required* background check on him, the background check came up clean. It *did not* say that he had mental health problems, but it should have. This was a loophole that even the NRA supports fixing: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19209310/.

Wow. Could you have been any ruder?

It's not like even professional reporters use the word wrong or anything. Do you really think that they meant that Duncan's calm "puts lie to" his confidence?

Alan Ralsky

Scott Richter

Ryan Pitylak

Sanford Wallace

The first ten results on Google give four different Spam Kings, none of which is the guy here, one of which involves Burger King and real Spam.

Well, I've only been using Safari for an hour or so and have found that it can't play the videos at http://arresteddevelopment.msn.com/
This is a site that works in both Firefox and IE. I'm not trying to suggest that things like e-bay wont work, it will be things like embedded video or Media Player integration that will get people. Or smalltime sites for local businesses that are too lazy to check that their style sheets work in IE and everything else.

I'm kind of hoping a private-equity firm or hedge fund buys out Chrysler and turns them around.

Were you being sarcastic? Because the first part of that already happened

I guess I'm behind the tymes, prior to reading the article you provided to link to I hadn't heard of it.

I'm kind of hoping a private-equity firm or hedge fund buys out Chrysler and turns them around.

Were you being sarcastic? Because the first part of that already happened.

Shrug. Then how come nobody can come up with a single example?

"Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in 93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, weve had the story thats been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but weve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just dont know." - Cheney, September 14th 2003.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/

Of course, you're right there isn't many statements where they said straight up that Iraq = 9/11. As you aluded too, they simply linked Al Queada to 9/11, then linked Al Queda to Iraq, then repeated it enough until people just heard Iraq = 9/11.

I give you the case of Genarlow Wilson. What sane judge and jury would sentence a 17 year old for having consensual oral sex with another minor (a 15 year old)? And let's add to this sanity. The state legislature revises the statue, seeing how unfair it is. It is now a misdemeanor for two minors to have consensual oral sex. Guess who is still sitting there, rotting away in jail? Yep, Genarlow Wilson.

Yep, sanity abounds in the American legal system.

FPSs are like driving games, they don't really require much of a story. Usually people who want 'a really good story' in an FPS don't really play FPSers.

For one thing, FPSs have a lot of trial and error. On my 29th attempt to kill 3 guards in a tower, I don't need to hear the same narration, or see the same cut-scenes. I just want to head-shot those bastards and move on to kill somebody else.

Here's an article more to the point: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18829448/. It's a story of the top 5 WEAPONS in first person shooters. Now that is something much nearer and dearer to my heart. (Although the story doesn't list shotguns, flak cannons, or rocket launchers.)

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

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

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

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

Griffin did not dispute the reality of global warming, he's just not sure it is worth doing anything about it. This is strange coming from an engineer since one would think the basic reaction would be "Wow! If we can change the planet with out meaning to, what could we do if we engineered it?" but he seems to have some philosophical hangup about not interfering in how we are interfering with the planet. Here's a summary: http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/NASA_Administrat or_Michael_Griffin_Not_Sure_Global_Warming_A_Probl em_999.html.

More to the point on emissions from various countries, here is a recent Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences tabulation of emission trends. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0700609104v1. China appears to be primarily responsible for the acceleration of emissions. With the US reducing it's emissions 1.3% between 2005 and 2006 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18831796/, it look as though China will continue to dominate the acceleration.

While TFA has some valid points, the main thing is that industrialized countries have a better opportunity to slow or reduce emissions since, for them, efficiency improvements can pace growth while for developing nations efficiency cannot help with a growth from zero situation.
--
Out pace growth: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

When I saw the name "Michael Laine", I didn't really think anything - it's a plain and potentially common enough name. Then I read the linked PDF and saw the adress, and realised that I know this particular "Michael Laine" personally.
 
He's been floating around the Bremerton business scene for around fifteen years involved in/shilling for one dubious business idea after another. Back in the .com era he spent quite a while trying to get people (including me) to invest in a variety of web based businesses without so much as formal business plan. The accomplishements of TEKnology-Laine largely exist in Michael's vivid imagination. (Even back then it struck me that his main source of income was business grants and investors - with little in the way of actual customers.)
 
I'm not surprised he's finally fallen afoul of the law. He's been in a bit of trouble off and on because the building he bought back in the 90's was partially paid for by a grant based on his claims to already have a viable technology business and his promises to expand it and bring jobs to the city. A promise not entirely broken - but also one on which he's not expended much actual energy on fulfilling.
 
Let's see what a little Googling brings to light about his recent career.

Hmm... Here's a fascinating little piece, it seems he is not repaying a loan advanced for the purpose of building a nanotube factory. In this article he admits to the failure of a business prominently mentioned in many articles about Liftport. (As well as admitting he didn't actually graduate from college as he implies in his bio.) Here we find that Liftport actually went belly up nearly two months ago. (Mostly because the investors couldn't - or wouldn't come up with the money to pay for the building he owns, but occupies less than 25% of.) This article from nine months ago shows a familiar pattern from his TEKnology-Laine days, with one scheme starting to unravel - he's off shilling for another.

"Russia has not overtly targeted Europe since agreeing after the fall of the Soviet Union not to direct missiles against specific countries, according to Pavel Felgenhauer, an independent military analyst based in Moscow. He added however, that that was simple technical matter, since a missile can be given a target within minutes." - MSNBC

So yes it is notable that the missles *might* be pointed at Europe but it is not the same as "Russia builds missles targeted at Europe".....

You have a good point, but as evidence that big corporations are invulnerable you cite... Radioshack?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11409391/

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/even_ceo_cant _figure_out_how

I think you're talking about http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4852739/ something like this. To me, sounds like a good idea, as long as everyone else in the neighborhood does it too. See the link a few down for the Google Map picture about houses that didn't have a limit on how far they could float.

Someone want to refresh on the worst water level in residential New Orleans during Katrina? Make sure you build your float poles so the house can float a few feet higher than the old flood line if need be, and make sure to put a hard stopper at the top of the poles so the house doesn't float off them. Look into how Venice does their construction in their houses too...

As far as wiring...

Networking: If you're expecting the house to get flooded, I'd suggest a main fiber switch and router at your DSL/Cable demarc, then fiber to each room and a switch there to convert down to gig Ethernet copper. Expensive, but it will avoid rusted copper in the walls in the event of a flood.

Phone: Really nothing you can do here to prevent rusted copper... except to use cordless phones with a multi-handset 5 GHz system, which many people here will naysay because of privacy issues (although with frequency hopping, that's usually not too awful of an issue. If someone wants to spy on you, all they REALLY have to do is open the client side of your outside Customer Access box and put a tap there, which is as easy as a splitter and a normal wired phone if they want to sit there.) Alternately, you could look into a Vonage or similar VOIP system to avoid the box-tap, but same note about the wiring. Regadless of what happens, if you run wire, make it Cat5 (or 6 even).

If you go the old fashioned way of running wire to every room from a central comm closet, I'd suggest the following, which is what I learned from a cable running company that serviced an old business I worked at:

A panel consists of 2 electric, 2 network, 1 phone, and 1 coax, and the panel is recessed in the wall. All cable is run via conduit to the main patch location. The 2 network and 1 phone, run those all as Cat5 or 6. Plenum if you can, but not REALLY necessary unless fire codes really require it.

Each wall in a room gets at least one panel, centered on the wall if possible. Do this only on your major walls... if a wall is a minor wall in a oddly shaped room, don't bother. In your kitchen, make sure outlets are located at least 6 inches above the work counters, and the electrical outlets are kitchen approved with Test/Reset... same with the bathroom ones. Yes, put network and TV in your kitchen... the wife or girlfriend will thank you... and when recessed monitors in counters with a transparent countertop become a reality, you're already set.

If the wall is longer than 6 feet, give it an additional panel, adding an additional one for every additional 6 feet of wall. Make sure panels are at least one foot from the nearest corner. For example, a 6 foot wall would get a panel one foot in from each corner... a 12 foot wall would get a panel each one foot in at each corner, and one in middle of wall.

This allows you to move your computers/TV's/phones easily from one location to another. in a room, along all walls. Yes, its overkill, but its better than stringing those pesky extension cords (of all varieties... phone, Cat5, coax, or electrical) on a semi-permanent basis, which fire inspectors frown on.

Store the liquid in a big codpeice with a hose to the arm. Maybe inside phoney pectorials also. And, it'll help spidey get laid.

The spiders bite can kill children and the elderly, but among strong young farmers it leads to erections that can last for days and involve involuntary ejaculations.

At the end of the ordeal, the man is left sexually energized and feels physically stronger, the saying goes.

Here ya go. Watch for yourself, because I'm not getting paid to sell you it. Requires flash.

Judging from Gates' comments at D5, he expects future screens to have at least one camera to look at what users are doing such as pointing or touching the screen, and respond.

There are more than one way to put a feature into software without violating a patent. Suddenly this document makes features as patents, which is not even true.

Microsoft's definition of a feature.

Microsoft's definition of a patent.

They are not even remotely the same.

There are more than one way to put a feature into software without violating a patent. Suddenly this document makes features as patents, which is not even true.

Microsoft's definition of a feature.

Microsoft's definition of a patent.

They are not even remotely the same.

"Imitation is not inspiration and the least of man's original emanation is better that the best of a borrowed thought" - Albert Pinkham Ryder

I think sometimes people can get off-the-mark when they talk in terms of comparing the dangers of the Internet with outside; it's not as thought the problem with one goes away by pointing out that the other is statistically more dangerous. Whatever the case, the Internet represents an additional danger that needs to be dealt with and we should be doing as much as possible to make both safer for children. It just happens to be that in many ways it is easier to do something about the Internet because there are means of control that don't exist out in the big, bad world.

The Internet can also facilitate predatory behaviour: the predator does not need to risk exposure in the outside world or even go to the trouble (at least initially) when it is much easier to sit behind the computer and use a chat program, networking site and webcam to indulge his predilections. This ease of access into the world of predatory behaviour and the perception of anonymity and privacy may even encourage those who would otherwise baulk at the thought of the risk of getting caught or having to go to the extra trouble of planning the abuse more carefully and actually having to physically go to another location to carry it out. Many on-line incidents probably never go reported as they would do if the equivalent were committed in the outside world. Parents may also assume their children are safe to leave unsupervised at home but would otherwise always ensure a responsible adult is with the child when they go out.

When we bring up statistics we need to be sure exactly what statistics we are using as types of abuse can differ along with the resulting effects; but they all can cause harm whether actual physical or emotional. For example, some statistics include only actual physical contact with the child, some include only physical harm caused and not emotional. Abuse on the Internet is more likely to be of the emotional/mental variety and sometimes lead to physical contact and abuse, sometimes not. The incidents exposed by such sting operations as http://www.perverted-justice.com/ and TV show "To Catch A Predator" on MSNBC http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10912603/ bother me deeply. I feel strongly that some, if not all, of the people caught in these act felt somehow empowered and facilitated to do what they did as a result of having access to the Internet. It is possible that some may never have abused at all had the Internet not offered them the avenue to do so. In many cases they were hardcore, repeat abusers but in some cases they just seemed like guys who got carried away with an idea and the Internet presented to them and fuelled the opportunity to indulge in it. Maybe it would have happened anyway, maybe not, but social networking websites certainly provide them with the opportunity and the means to do it.

Richard Clarke, top counter-terrorism adviser to presidents of both parties interview.
Countdown with Keith Olbermann in January '07.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16771741/

My Summary:

http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?cid=18061 138&sid=222938

A warmer climate could prove to be more beneficial than the one we have now. Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate. There is no evidence, for instance, that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way, according to scientists at the U.S. National Hurricane Center, the World Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which released the second part of this year's report earlier this month). Indeed, meteorological theory holds that, outside the tropics, weather in a warming world should be less variable, which might be a good thing.

The consensus approach is the right approach. It also works in the case of global warming. The consensus among reputable scientists is that human activity is causing global warming. We must immediately deal with the situation by reducing the production of greenhouse gases.

Really?

Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming...
Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action...

So, tell me again, why should we wreck our economy over something that not everyone can agree on? Why should I change my lifestyle and/or lose my job for when the loudest cheerleaders of global warming are the world's largest carbon producers (Al Gore, Sheryl Crow, John Edwards and so on) and at the same time, the one attacked the most (George Bush) has a home that produces less carbon the average, small, energy efficient abode!

In 1999, the Bushes purchased approximately 1600 acres of land, complete with house and outbuildings, eight miles northwest of Crawford, Texas. They later hired an associate professor of Architecture from the University of Texas at Austin, David Heymann, to design a new 5,000 sq. ft. house and to convert existing buildings into Secret Service quarters and guest houses.

The new house is a model of energy efficiency. Central to the energy efficiency of the house is a geothermal heating and cooling system which pumps water through pipes extending three hundred feet beneath the ground surface, using only twenty-five percent of the total electric usage of the house.

Pipes connected to a heat pump inside the house circulate water into the ground and back up through the house. As the water returns to ground level it is a constant 67 degrees F, sufficient for summer cooling and winter heating. The water for the outdoor pool is heated by the same system, which proved to be so efficient that plans to install solar energy panels were cancelled.

Compared to Gore's House

According to a report published by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, Al and Tipper's

You want so badly for the story to be true you completely ignore the known fraudulent source.

And you seem to want so badly for my post to be wrong that you miss its point entirely. Good job, Anonymous Coward.

Evolution has nothing to do with religion. I don't care if you're Hindu, Voodoo, Greek (pagan), Seikh, Muslim, Wiccan, or Catholic--evolution has nothing to do with religion.

If you decide to ignore all the evidence out there that supports evolution (including its laboratory use, and as a basis for creating new technology), that's your choice, but realize you lose credibility with everyone else that decides not to ignore the evidence.

Also, Catholicism supports theistic evolution. Even Pope Benedict's more recent comments on the situation weren't actually against evolution in spite of what many have said, but rather the use of evolution to push atheism.

Peacefully co-exist? Sure, but you and everyone else that says evolution isn't science should just be honest and say that you don't really believe in science, instead of hiding behind some pseudo-science like ID.