Slashdot Mirror

Here you go:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4179618/

Russert: Were you favor of the war in Vietnam?

President Bush: I supported my government. I did. And would have gone had my unit been called up, by the way.

Russert: But you didn't volunteer or enlist to go.

President Bush: No, I didn't. You're right. I served. I flew fighters and enjoyed it, and provided a service to our country. In those days we had what was called "air defense command," and it was a part of the air defense command system.

Before you condemn other countries for their lack of assistance to the poor, I suggest you look at your own country first. The US has a fairly high rate of poverty and starvation itself. The richest country in the world has over 10% of its population not able to meet basic needs, I consider that much more egregious.

The US government also has no real concerns about the American people being hurt in a nuclear war, but there are contingency plans and entire complexes dedicated to letting the president hide miles underground in such an instance.

Don't condemn other countries for living up to the ideals put forth by those who claim to be the model for the rest of the world.

North Korea (and most of these arguments apply to Iran equally well) isn't even on the same planet with sane. North Korea WILL eventually start another war. There isn't any doubt whether he has WMD anymore and he has the missles to deliver them.

You realize North Korea is a country and not a person, right? Assuming you are referring to Kim Jong-Il (or Ahmadinejad, or Chavez, or Hussein, or whomever you think it is most important to be scared of today) have you considered that maybe it requires just a little bit of sanity to remain in control of an entire country? There are other people who would like the job, after all. (Note: I'm not saying that any of these people are necessarily very smart, just that they all certainly prefer being in power to being dead.)

The most likely reasons for North Korea's developing of these weapons are self-defense and, more importantly, a negotiation chip to use towards stopping sanctions. All indications are that this is what's happening. (One sample analysis, written recently, is here.)

Confirmation of NKs nuclear capabilities reduces our diplomatic power over them slightly, since it makes the threat of a direct military attack by us on them slightly less credible. This is unfortunate, but not a reason to panic, and not a reason to initiate an attack which would certainly: (a) result in many innocent deaths, and (b) damage our relationships with countries that could affect the well-being of Americans. (Make no mistake, not even Great Britain would support us on this one).

This impending disaster could have been prevented just like WWII could have. Instead a billion will probably die.

The Bay of Pigs nuclear disaster could have been prevented it too, if only we'd have had the sense not to attack until it was absolutely necessary...oh wait, we did, and it was. Be thankful.

I think you meant that headline to say "Bush administration secretly tells N. Korea to announce that they have conducted their first nuclear test before the November election".

Try again. If you want to do conspiracy theories, you ought to do them right.

MSNBC, via Daily Kos:

On Sept. 19, 2005, North Korea signed a widely heralded denuclearization agreement with the United States, China, Russia, Japan and South Korea. Pyongyang pledged to "abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs." [...] Four days later, the U.S. Treasury Department imposed sweeping financial sanctions against North Korea designed to cut off the country's access to the international banking system, branding it a "criminal state" guilty of counterfeiting, money laundering and trafficking in weapons of mass destruction.

In the past week, Karl Rove has been promising Republican insiders an "October surprise" to help win the November congressional elections.

ESPN, take note.

So that leaves us with four choices for their school nights. We can drug them into a stupor. We can have them sit quietly in a corner for the entire night. We can nuke them from orbit. Or we can STOP IT WITH THIS OVERPROTECTIVE BULLSHIT AND LET THEM BE KIDS, FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!

-Eric

So that leaves us with four choices for their school nights. We can drug them into a stupor. We can have them sit quietly in a corner for the entire night. We can nuke them from orbit. Or we can STOP IT WITH THIS OVERPROTECTIVE BULLSHIT AND LET THEM BE KIDS, FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!

-Eric

So that leaves us with four choices for their school nights. We can drug them into a stupor. We can have them sit quietly in a corner for the entire night. We can nuke them from orbit. Or we can STOP IT WITH THIS OVERPROTECTIVE BULLSHIT AND LET THEM BE KIDS, FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!

-Eric

You're calling Mozart an idiot?

In certain respects. He was also a genius, I'm sure.

I bet even Einstein was capable of impressive stupidity outside the realm of Physics.

For further information you are advised to join here.
Microsoft's Hotmail employees are downright LIVE about Vista.

For further information you are advised to join here.
Microsoft's Hotmail employees are downright LIVE about Vista.

Here is one article. And another article from a right wing perspective, and yet another article from the left side of the aisle. Then there's this and this and this, too.

Any more objections?

Oh and about their prisoner harvesting?
http://www.american.edu/TED/prisonorgans.htm
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story Id=1125056
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/harvestingorgansinc hina30mar06.shtml
http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,,1756808,0 0.html
http://www.rense.com/general10/org.htm

Thank you very much and have a nice day.

If they wanted users to rent more DVDs, they should stop throttling them first...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11262292/

Now some 12-year old will come up with a great systems and NetFlix will rape them for theor code and call it a day...

Even if this report is good science, how is it news? It was reported in March, 2005, a year and a half ago. See, e.g., Reuters and National Geographic reports from March, 2005.

Given the attitude of most people pre-9/11, I don't think that there was the popular will to do what would have been needed to stop the attacks.

All that was needed to stop the attack was secure cockpit doors. I think popular will for such a simple new anti-hijacking technique could have been rallied.

The Oklahoma City bombing (remember that?) had already taught us that there were wackos out there willing and able to kill hundreds with a single act. And the the threat of terrorists using a hijacked plane as a missle was already well-known:

in 1994 Algerians hijacked an Air France airliner with the intention of crashing it into the Eiffel Tower. (They were tricked by French officials into landing in Marseilles to refuel, where they were overpowered.) In 1995, police in the Philippines uncovered an al-Qaida plot to fly a plane into CIA headquarters. (One of the plotters: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.) A year later, al-Qaida had the idea of flying a plane from outside the United States and crashing it into the White House. Two years later, al-Qaida planned to fly a plane from outside the United States and crash it into the World Trade Center. And so on.

This is a dumb post.

First of all, Bin ladin (Al qaeda) had already attacked the USA several times by then. That he was going to continue attacks was obvious. That many attacks had already occurred during the Clinton administration is obvious.

I advise you to consult Wikipedia on this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Quaeda#Activities

Attacks listed by year: (might be missing some)
1992
1993*, 1993
1995, 1995
1996 (Khobar)
1998,1998
1999
2000

*dubious, may or may not be al-qaeda

These facts aren't really so relevant as is the fact that Clinton had many chances to get Bin Ladin and he failed to capitalize on them. http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowle dge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/

Both Presidents are at fault. Both presidents failed when they had good chances of snagging him, clinton on numerous occasions, and bush with Tora Bora. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8853000/site/newsweek/

This is a dumb post.

First of all, Bin ladin (Al qaeda) had already attacked the USA several times by then. That he was going to continue attacks was obvious. That many attacks had already occurred during the Clinton administration is obvious.

I advise you to consult Wikipedia on this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Quaeda#Activities

Attacks listed by year: (might be missing some)
1992
1993*, 1993
1995, 1995
1996 (Khobar)
1998,1998
1999
2000

*dubious, may or may not be al-qaeda

These facts aren't really so relevant as is the fact that Clinton had many chances to get Bin Ladin and he failed to capitalize on them. http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowle dge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/

Both Presidents are at fault. Both presidents failed when they had good chances of snagging him, clinton on numerous occasions, and bush with Tora Bora. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8853000/site/newsweek/

Difference between US and the rest of the world

This goes both ways, of course. 'War on Terror'?

Here is what they see in China: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14975282/site/newsweek/sit e/newsweek/
Here is what we see in America: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14964292/site/newsweek /

Difference between US and the rest of the world

This goes both ways, of course. 'War on Terror'?

Here is what they see in China: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14975282/site/newsweek/sit e/newsweek/
Here is what we see in America: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14964292/site/newsweek /

"Could a "little old lady in Switzerland" who sent a check to an orphanage in Afghanistan be taken into custody if unbeknownst to her some of her donation was passed to al-Qaida terrorists? asked U.S. District Judge Joyce Hens Green.
"She could," replied Deputy Associate Attorney General Brian Boyle. "Someone's intention is clearly not a factor that would disable detention." It would be up to a newly established military review panel to decide whether to believe her and release her."

-------- russia

Russian Nukes Redux
Looking to recapture lost glory, Moscow is building a new nuclear warhead designed to evade U.S. defenses By Owen Matthews
Newsweek International
Feb. 13, 2006 issue


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179135/site/newsweek /

Is energy the nuclear weapon of the 21st century? In recent months, Russia has shown that control of gas supplies to its neighbors can be a potent political tool. But when Vladimir Putin was asked exactly that question last week, he disagreed. "We still have plenty of nuclear rockets too," boasted Putin. "We recently carried out tests on new ballistic-weapon systems, weapons which no other country in the world has." The new Russian systems, he said, "don't care if there is a missile-defense system or not." In other words, for Putin, nukes are the nukes of the 21st century.

Only one country in the world--America--is actually developing a missile defense system. So why, in an era when Russia and the United States enjoy friendly relations, do Russian leaders feel the need to revamp the country's nuclear arsenal, and add a new nuclear warhead designed specifically to penetrate the U.S. defenses? For the Kremlin's part, Putin sees nukes as Russia's membership card to the world's top table. Asked last week whether Russia really belonged in the G8 club of the world's leading industrialized nations, Putin's response was that Russia was a major nuclear power and couldn't be ignored. Putin makes no secret of his wish to see Russia great again--and since it's unlikely to join the ranks of the world's richest countries any time soon, staying in the nuclear game is a key part of that strategy. "Putin picked up on these weapons as a political slogan," says military analyst Pavel Felgenauer. "He is promoting this warhead as proof that we can still do things, still stay in the game." No one is suggesting that Putin intends to nuke Washington. But he does want to ensure he and his successors have that option.

To that end, Russia has been giving its nuclear-weapons arsenal a major face-lift. The new targetable warhead Putin mentioned--a unique system no other country has so far tried to replicate--is specifically designed to counter U.S. anti-missile technology. The warhead is fired into space on a conventional ballistic missile. But instead of falling to earth on a predictable trajectory, it then detaches and maneuvers as it re-enters the atmosphere, like a cruise missile. This maneuverability, analysts say, would confound U.S. missile defenses, which work by plotting an incoming warhead's trajectory and intercepting it as it homes in on a target. Tests last year showed that for the first time, prototype targetable warheads can shift trajectory at Mach 8, making them almost impossible to shoot down. It will take several more years (and a lot more money) before the new warhead goes into production. But Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov promised last December that Russia would have a "new generation" of strategic missiles by the end of the decade.

The idea of a targetable warhead has been around since 1983, when the Soviet Union sought an answer to Ronald Reagan's "Star Wars" Strategic Defense Initiative, which envisioned a missile shield mounted on satellites in space. Even though the SDI system was never actually built, Reagan's apparent determination to go through with it rocked the cold-war world. Then-Soviet leader Yuri Andropov ordered up the new warheads as Russia's "asymmetric response" to Reagan. By the time the Soviet Union fell, Moscow had sunk more than $20 billion into the project--three times more than the Pentagon actually spent on Star Wars. Indeed, for a while, the United States switched its attention to theater defense systems--ground-based rockets like the Patriot that can intercept small, low flying missiles.

Twenty years later, the threat of rogue states has given new life to the old idea of a missile sh

;) Lots of work with NASA before I became the Director of Technical Operations for the Zero Gravity Corporation. If you click on the video in this MSNBC story, you'll see me jumping around with the white shoes, megaphone, and headset (~time 00:32).

It's a cool job, and it gives me some insight into this particular topic ;) That being said...I certainly figured an astronaut would have chimed in the discussion. I guess not too many astronauts are the nerds I always thought they'd be.

;) Lots of work with NASA before I became the Director of Technical Operations for the Zero Gravity Corporation. If you click on the video in this MSNBC story, you'll see me jumping around with the white shoes, megaphone, and headset (~time 00:32).

It's a cool job, and it gives me some insight into this particular topic ;) That being said...I certainly figured an astronaut would have chimed in the discussion. I guess not too many astronauts are the nerds I always thought they'd be.

They spent who knows how many millions of dollars developing Vista

Oh, only about 8 to 9 thousand of those million dollars linky.

Of course, how that is defined is a bit of a mystery, but even 10% of that is still a good chunk of change.
Vista is more about pushing hardware sales for the oems (who have been lacking a "killer app" that would force Joe User to upgrade his 1 ghz box with a half gig of ram and onboard graphics that runs xp with outlook and email just fine). If you really think about it - for the majority of users have no real need to upgrade, they don't play games besides solitaire and stuff in flash, their hardware probably still works and ie, ff and office works fine if you toss in a bit more ram than the system shipped with. Their 1 gig system runs fine if it's filled with ram.

Now, in real life, that isn't true because the vast majority of systems out there are infected with 38 different spyware aps, with disks and page files fragmented to the 7th layer of hell and also bloated apps like virtually any current anti virus or any IM, movie player (real, etc)
But, there really hasn't been a need to upgrade your system for a while unless you're a power user, and Vista is here to force upgrades. Add in trusted computing and dx10 to force sales of new video cards even among those with bleeding edge systems and you have a nice increase in sales of hardware and probably a fair bit of stock growth. If you look back in two years, you'll see that Vista made a lot of people who got stock options in the computer industry quite a bit richer. I suppose this goes more towards the ROI arguement, they could continue selling XP, but they wouldn't get these additional incentives. Of course, it really isn't the company making money, but groups of employees and executives. That's sufficient motivation for them to do it. Besides, you have to have your employees do something, they can't just sit around all day. Sure, they have to code patches, but regardless of what they'd like us to believe, that doesn't take them all that much time...
I'm sure hollywood pitched in a few dollars for the drm, etc, too. There is a ton of money to be made in options here if the riaa/mpaa sponsored services take off.

Yep. Too bad, once they actually had Bin Laden cornered, Clinton decided not to do anything because he was afraid that it would look like we was trying to distract the nation from his sexual indescretions.

Yeah, Bush's strategy of waiting around until Osama keels over from natural causes was much better.

Segway? That's so old!

It's about to go down in price. Google Video is about to release a new, less ugly version and then there's http://soapbox.msn.com/ and Live Video Search.

Sorry, but that's bullshit.
MS's DRM allows the content provider to set the DRM settings that he wishes to deploy. He can make the settings as draconian as he wants or has light as he wants, and can make them equivalent to Apple's FairPlay settings (which is in between the two extremes). (I think Microsoft's own MSN Music Store uses DRM settings that are roughly equal to FairPlay (except that songs bought from MSN can be used by many brands of players rather than just one).)

As for WMP11 lacking the ability to transfer licenses from one machine to another (if this is even true):
WMP has had the ability to transfer licenses between computers without contacting the content provider's server (if the content provider set DRM settings to allow this), but that feature was always clunky. Most people just copy the files from the source machine to the target machine, then redownload the licenses on demand when playing the files on the target computer. This is the same behavior that iTunes has. iTunes has NEVER allowed for transfering licenses from one computer to another without phoning in to iTMS, so Apple fanboys can't badmouth WMP11 over this.

Lastly, nobody uses WMP to rip CDs with the DRM setting turned on (and the setting is off by default), so that's another moot point.

Since when do these guys know anything about astrophysics?

I hear just like any 35 year old vehicle they had to fool with the starter to even get the engine to fire http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14705397//, and once it was in orbit parts started falling off http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/4201 025.html/.

I'd jump off a a baloon with a $1200 rocket strapped to my back before I'd go into orbit with that piece of junk.

(Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

There should be nothing novel in this. Recently, Palestinian extremists forced two Fox News reporters to "convert" to Islam after taking them hostage. There is a long history of this.

He also wants us to jettison the Constitution and adopt Sharia law, stop drug & alcohol use, homosexuality, sexual immorality, sleeping around, adultery, charging interest on loans, etc., etc. At least it would be easy to remember the penalty for many of these infractions: death, death, death, etc.

(2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.

(a) We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest.

(i) You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator.

(iii) You are a nation that permits the production, trading and usage of intoxicants. You also permit drugs, and only forbid the trade of them, even though your nation is the largest consumer of them.

(iv) You are a nation that permits acts of immorality, and you consider them to be pillars of personal freedom. You have continued to sink down this abyss from level to level until incest has spread amongst you, in the face of which neither your sense of honour nor your laws object.

Who can forget your President Clinton's immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he 'made a mistake', after which every

Soapbox looks like some classic Microsoft action

Indeed, but `ease of use' isn't what springs to mind. If I go to the homepage, and then click the browser's Back button, I get the following popup

Are you sure you want to navigate away from this page?

true

Press OK to continue or Cancel to stay on the current page.

This type of inanity is wrong on so many levels. A browser's navigation buttons are possibly the most commonly used controls on a computer, and any mistake is straightforwardly rectified by clicking the other button. Dialogs of this type should only happen when something unexpected, irrevocable, or dangerous is about to happen (`Do you really want to delete all files in your home folder?').

Requiring confirmation before doing safe, expected behavior is like crying wolf. The consequence of this popup is that people will spend more time on Microsoft's website than they intended, and will fail to take in some important piece of information in the future.

I am gay, so I can say that I've not only seen but done a lot of incredibly gay things in my time. However, none of those even approaches the utter gayness of the video that MS displays on the front page of Soapboax. Go check it out for a laugh.

For those of you curious about such things, the X Prize (which Anousheh Ansari funded) is hosting an official Anousheh Ansari Space Blog. Before her launch, Anousheh posted some descriptions of her pre-launch training and her thoughts on going to space. There's also some commentary from Peter Diamandis, the founder of the X Prize.

Some other interesting bits of info:

* She's carrying a small carbon-fiber piece of Burt Rutan's SpaceShipOne up with her into orbit.

* According to an interview with MSNBC's Alan Boyle, she had initially planned on bringing some science projects up with her, but this was scratched when the launch date was suddently bumped from being 1-2 years to being a few months away. However, she's purchased some datalink time in order to do live communications with groups at MIT and Google.

* Her company Prodea is working with the Russian space agency and Space Adventures to build a suborbital spacecraft which will launch out of spaceports in the UAE and Singapore.

* She rathes dislikes the term "space tourist." From an interview with space.com:

SPACE.com: You don't like the term "space tourist" and call it an "over simplistic label to a complicated process." Can you further explain that?

AA: Absolutely. In a way I take offense when they call me a tourist because it brings that image of someone with a camera around their neck and a ticket in their hand walking to the airport to go on a trip somewhere and coming back to show their pictures. But I think spaceflight is much more than that.

I've been training for it for six months. I think if it is to be compared to an experiment or an experience on Earth it probably is closer to expeditions like people who go to Antarctica or people who climb Mount Everest. I mean that requires a lot more preparation, thinking, and studying or appreciation of the environment. So I would probably compare it more to an expedition than I would to a touristy trip to another city.

For those of you curious about such things, the X Prize (which Anousheh Ansari funded) is hosting an official Anousheh Ansari Space Blog. Before her launch, Anousheh posted some descriptions of her pre-launch training and her thoughts on going to space. There's also some commentary from Peter Diamandis, the founder of the X Prize.

Some other interesting bits of info:

* She's carrying a small carbon-fiber piece of Burt Rutan's SpaceShipOne up with her into orbit.

* According to an interview with MSNBC's Alan Boyle, she had initially planned on bringing some science projects up with her, but this was scratched when the launch date was suddently bumped from being 1-2 years to being a few months away. However, she's purchased some datalink time in order to do live communications with groups at MIT and Google.

* Her company Prodea is working with the Russian space agency and Space Adventures to build a suborbital spacecraft which will launch out of spaceports in the UAE and Singapore.

* She rathes dislikes the term "space tourist." From an interview with space.com:

SPACE.com: You don't like the term "space tourist" and call it an "over simplistic label to a complicated process." Can you further explain that?

AA: Absolutely. In a way I take offense when they call me a tourist because it brings that image of someone with a camera around their neck and a ticket in their hand walking to the airport to go on a trip somewhere and coming back to show their pictures. But I think spaceflight is much more than that.

I've been training for it for six months. I think if it is to be compared to an experiment or an experience on Earth it probably is closer to expeditions like people who go to Antarctica or people who climb Mount Everest. I mean that requires a lot more preparation, thinking, and studying or appreciation of the environment. So I would probably compare it more to an expedition than I would to a touristy trip to another city.

For those of you curious about such things, the X Prize (which Anousheh Ansari funded) is hosting an official Anousheh Ansari Space Blog. Before her launch, Anousheh posted some descriptions of her pre-launch training and her thoughts on going to space. There's also some commentary from Peter Diamandis, the founder of the X Prize.

Some other interesting bits of info:

* She's carrying a small carbon-fiber piece of Burt Rutan's SpaceShipOne up with her into orbit.

* According to an interview with MSNBC's Alan Boyle, she had initially planned on bringing some science projects up with her, but this was scratched when the launch date was suddently bumped from being 1-2 years to being a few months away. However, she's purchased some datalink time in order to do live communications with groups at MIT and Google.

* Her company Prodea is working with the Russian space agency and Space Adventures to build a suborbital spacecraft which will launch out of spaceports in the UAE and Singapore.

* She rathes dislikes the term "space tourist." From an interview with space.com:

SPACE.com: You don't like the term "space tourist" and call it an "over simplistic label to a complicated process." Can you further explain that?

AA: Absolutely. In a way I take offense when they call me a tourist because it brings that image of someone with a camera around their neck and a ticket in their hand walking to the airport to go on a trip somewhere and coming back to show their pictures. But I think spaceflight is much more than that.

I've been training for it for six months. I think if it is to be compared to an experiment or an experience on Earth it probably is closer to expeditions like people who go to Antarctica or people who climb Mount Everest. I mean that requires a lot more preparation, thinking, and studying or appreciation of the environment. So I would probably compare it more to an expedition than I would to a touristy trip to another city.

Does anybody know what kinds of problems they encountered with the Mir? I know that it is not exactly applicable to this situation, just was curious.

It does seem like the Elektron system has had some problems though.

Sail. It makes so much sence to incorporate sail technology back into shipping. Wind after all is free. The only reason sail was abandoned was because diesel became so cheap, ships faster and larger that sail became too costly.

...sail's last hurrah...

1949 - "316-foot, four-masted square-rigger Pamir on the last voyage around Cape Horn by a freight-carrying sailing ship, a passage from Australia to England that marked the end of the Great Age of Sail."

http://www.sailingmagazine.net/fullby0104.html

Seems someone has the idea...of using wind to aid ship propulsion.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13325827/site/newsweek /
http://www.skysails.info/

Funny, I get 45MPG without having to drive an overly pretentious vehicle that eats up all the savings on gas in cost of initial purchase + ongoing maintenance a more complicated than typical system. Hybrids bug me in that they are:

a) a temporary stopgap between gasoline and whatever comes next.
b) more complex than competing vehicles. This alone will probably make the price skyrocket past the ~$5k premium one pays up front as they age and require more expensive and more frequent maintenance.
c) a leading cause of smug, following only narrowly behind owning a Mac. (Sorry, had to stick this one in there for a laugh)

There's talk of tax breaks for the people buying hybrids that get 40MPG+. Big fucking deal, what about the pragmatic (or penny penching, or possibly just low income and therefore more in need of the money) person driving a Geo Metro, or in my case a motorcycle? I have to get a new car as well for rainy days and for when I need to transport more than just myself. In addition to my previous car (which I've not yet sold) getting upwards of 40MPG highway, my next planned purchase pushes similar mileage with very good storage and safety. Yet I won't be seeing tax breaks as a reward for frugality and forethought of buying efficient, maneuverable vehicles well suited to city driving, parking, and transport. I can drive my motorcycle in the HOV lane when I'm alone fortunately, but my car that pushes 40MPG can't, even though some states such as California will allow hybrid SUVs that get worse mileage that priviledge strictly because of the "hybrid" label. Complete and utter pretentious horseshit.

It's all about lobbying and political maneuvering, I know. It's still funny how just having a few dollars to toss in a politician's pocket can go just as far in selling your product as an advertising campaign these days. Still, seeing the braintrust over at Google endorse this lunacy is discouraging. Is it just something in the air in California?</rant>

Funny, I get 45MPG without having to drive an overly pretentious vehicle that eats up all the savings on gas in cost of initial purchase + ongoing maintenance a more complicated than typical system. Hybrids bug me in that they are:

a) a temporary stopgap between gasoline and whatever comes next.
b) more complex than competing vehicles. This alone will probably make the price skyrocket past the ~$5k premium one pays up front as they age and require more expensive and more frequent maintenance.
c) a leading cause of smug, following only narrowly behind owning a Mac. (Sorry, had to stick this one in there for a laugh)

There's talk of tax breaks for the people buying hybrids that get 40MPG+. Big fucking deal, what about the pragmatic (or penny penching, or possibly just low income and therefore more in need of the money) person driving a Geo Metro, or in my case a motorcycle? I have to get a new car as well for rainy days and for when I need to transport more than just myself. In addition to my previous car (which I've not yet sold) getting upwards of 40MPG highway, my next planned purchase pushes similar mileage with very good storage and safety. Yet I won't be seeing tax breaks as a reward for frugality and forethought of buying efficient, maneuverable vehicles well suited to city driving, parking, and transport. I can drive my motorcycle in the HOV lane when I'm alone fortunately, but my car that pushes 40MPG can't, even though some states such as California will allow hybrid SUVs that get worse mileage that priviledge strictly because of the "hybrid" label. Complete and utter pretentious horseshit.

It's all about lobbying and political maneuvering, I know. It's still funny how just having a few dollars to toss in a politician's pocket can go just as far in selling your product as an advertising campaign these days. Still, seeing the braintrust over at Google endorse this lunacy is discouraging. Is it just something in the air in California?</rant>

Funny, I get 45MPG without having to drive an overly pretentious vehicle that eats up all the savings on gas in cost of initial purchase + ongoing maintenance a more complicated than typical system. Hybrids bug me in that they are:

a) a temporary stopgap between gasoline and whatever comes next.
b) more complex than competing vehicles. This alone will probably make the price skyrocket past the ~$5k premium one pays up front as they age and require more expensive and more frequent maintenance.
c) a leading cause of smug, following only narrowly behind owning a Mac. (Sorry, had to stick this one in there for a laugh)

There's talk of tax breaks for the people buying hybrids that get 40MPG+. Big fucking deal, what about the pragmatic (or penny penching, or possibly just low income and therefore more in need of the money) person driving a Geo Metro, or in my case a motorcycle? I have to get a new car as well for rainy days and for when I need to transport more than just myself. In addition to my previous car (which I've not yet sold) getting upwards of 40MPG highway, my next planned purchase pushes similar mileage with very good storage and safety. Yet I won't be seeing tax breaks as a reward for frugality and forethought of buying efficient, maneuverable vehicles well suited to city driving, parking, and transport. I can drive my motorcycle in the HOV lane when I'm alone fortunately, but my car that pushes 40MPG can't, even though some states such as California will allow hybrid SUVs that get worse mileage that priviledge strictly because of the "hybrid" label. Complete and utter pretentious horseshit.

It's all about lobbying and political maneuvering, I know. It's still funny how just having a few dollars to toss in a politician's pocket can go just as far in selling your product as an advertising campaign these days. Still, seeing the braintrust over at Google endorse this lunacy is discouraging. Is it just something in the air in California?</rant>

Except that Exxon has been posting record profits and not record revenues.

Oil still costs about $12:bbl to extract from the ground, and deliver to the refinery as it did in 2001. It still costs the same to refine it to gas and deliver it to your pump. But oil costs about $75 now, not $25. That means that we're not looking at just a tripling of price in 5 years, but rather almost five times the profit. While the rest of the country's economy, except for these energy corporations and banks, is stagnant or shrinking.

When the biggest corporations are having the best years of their lives at the expense of the people having some of their worst years, we should be hearing about it. We should be hearing about it even more. Speaking of hearings, when Congress has hearings on the subject, they should put these oil corporation tycoons under oath, but they don't. The CEO of Exxon/Mobil who was given the photo op for lying to the Senate was then given a $400 million bonus when he retired.

Oh yeah, people talk about that, especially when they get laid off. In a decent country, people would be talking about how those abuses led to the American oil/gas cartel getting broken up and reined in.

I totally trust your descriptions of recent events even w/o a reference to a single news piece. But then again I doubt you read any yourself, probably just got some excerpts from Kos. Try peeking out of your echo chamber once in a while.

• Situation Called Dire in West Iraq Anbar Is Lost Politically, Marine Analyst Says
• Iraq?s Anbar province a lost cause? Intelligence report pessimistic about controlling western province
• Iraqi insurgents launch wave of sectarian attacks in Kirkuk
• US intel report: Iraq's Anbar province 'politically lost'

it was not near any cows or roads, and ended up shutting down. Those kinds of mistakes are much more rare in the private sector, because there is accountabillity and control.

Ever heard of the Bhopal disaster? It was one of the most deadly industrial accidents ever, and it was due to the negligence of Union Carbide employees (a US corporation). How about the Exxon Valdez? Yet another vast catastrophe caused by irresponsible employees of a US corporation. Or hey, a little closer to geek-home - how about when MasterCard allowed 40 million credit card numbers to be stolen (the largest such leak ever reported) due to poor software design?

The funny thing about these incidents of corporate irresponsibility is that not only did these companies have totally stupid policies that were very likely to result in danger, once disaster struck they were totally unaccountable for the damage they caused.

It would be moronic to claim that the government knows best, or that massive bureaucracy is an effective way to make decisions, but this song and dance about how profit-driven instutitions magically become the most efficient and responsible is absurd.

In many countries, investors are more than happy to build factories, roads, mines, infrastructure, and the jobs that go with them.

Yes, those factories are often sweatshops. Those roads often damage delicate environment which is needed for eco-tourism, scientific research, or agriculture. Those mines can be unregulated death-traps for miners in addition to causing toxic runoff pollution of local water supplies. None of these problems concern the investor, just the local population. In short, the "infrastructure" eagerly pushed by foriegn investors really isn't infrastructure for the improvement of the country or it's people so much as infrastructure for the improvement of the investor's bottom line. Sure, some officials are just corrupt fucks, but has it ever occured to you that there might be good reasons to try to restrict, regulate, and/or tax foreign companies trying to exploit your sovereign nation?

I agree with the sentiment that people need to be given the freedom to take care of themselves, but I don't think that empowering and depending on exploitive investors and multinational conglomerates is the way to give people that freedom.

Good evening. Working hard, in this busy time for you called. This is my friend and the Boke,just established, the time is not long. The issue here isthat everybody can see my Boke, Ha-ha, raising some visibility, which caused trouble to ask your forgiveness! We all hope to see. Please! http://my.opera.com/ruyan/blog/ http://jiyishenchuren.spaces.msn.com/ http://blog.sina.com.cn/u/1245033544 http://tianyawuhui.blog.sohu.com/ http://blog.xuite.net/yueguang/yue http://jimoruyan.blogbus.com/index.html http://sanguoyanji.yculblog.com/ http://my.donews.com/jiangnanjiyi http://blogcn.com/u2/56/25/bufenshou/index.html http://yuefu.blog.163.com/ http://blog.eastmoney.com/chamagudao http://yutianxiayu.blog.com/ http://qiuri.shineblog.com/user4/qiuri/ http://blog.xoyo.com/cangliang http://bajiuwentian.blog.tyfo.com/ http://blog.thldl.org.cn/user1/xiaoyaoke/index.htm l http://www.91blog.com/user5/7095/index.shtml http://jimoyuye.52blog.net/user5/150638/index.shtm l http://xiangxiahaizi.anyp.cn/blog http://blog.fxmultibank.com/user1/tianshangren/ind ex.html http://www.laren.cn/blog/2006/woxin/ http://bufengshou.blog.tom.com/ http://suiyuerg.tianya.cn/ http://lushan.fyfz.cn/blog/lushan http://blog.focus.cn/myblog/2843636.html http://hexun.com/wanqiudaocao/wanqiudaocao http://www.xanga.com/guyan

Good evening. Working hard, in this busy time for you called. This is my friend and the Boke,just established, the time is not long. The issue here isthat everybody can see my Boke, Ha-ha, raising some visibility, which caused trouble to ask your forgiveness! We all hope to see. Please! http://cangqiong.blog.edu.cn/ http://wanqiudaocao.blog.hexun.com/ http://my.opera.com/chouxughue/blog/ http://jimowuhen.mblogger.cn/ http://blog.yesky.com/blog/qiufeng http://blog.china.alibaba.com/blog/googledu.html http://blog.csdn.net/xiaochenggushi http://blog.hnby.com.cn/user1/4221/index.htm http://www.blogchinese.com/06081/235082/ http://www.youthblog.cn/user1/xingfu/index.html http://aishishen.spaces.msn.com/ http://blog.sina.com.cn/u/1247140975 http://zhenaiwudi.xfblog.com/6/zhenai/ http://bubai.blog.ccidnet.com/ http://hi.baidu.com/hongchenqing http://blog.ccw.com.cn/chong/ http://www.xsblog.com/m/redefadou/ http://blog.westca.com/blog_u11564.php http://blog.readnovel.com/user/208984.html http://dushill.blog.enorth.com.cn/ http://blog.china.com/u/060801/5365/index.html http://41306.blog.51cto.com/indexs.php http://wuhou.51r.com/user5/wuhou/index.shtml http://xiaotianxia.vvblog.com/ http://blog.bcchinese.net/wulei http://www.xanga.com/tianyawuhui

Good evening. Working hard, in this busy time for you called. This is my friend and the Boke,just established, the time is not long. The issue here isthat everybody can see my Boke, Ha-ha, raising some visibility, which caused trouble to ask your forgiveness! We all hope to see. Please! http://my.opera.com/ruyan/blog/ http://jiyishenchuren.spaces.msn.com/ http://blog.sina.com.cn/u/1245033544 http://tianyawuhui.blog.sohu.com/ http://blog.xuite.net/yueguang/yue http://jimoruyan.blogbus.com/index.html http://sanguoyanji.yculblog.com/ http://my.donews.com/jiangnanjiyi http://blogcn.com/u2/56/25/bufenshou/index.html http://yuefu.blog.163.com/ http://blog.eastmoney.com/chamagudao http://yutianxiayu.blog.com/ http://qiuri.shineblog.com/user4/qiuri/ http://blog.xoyo.com/cangliang http://bajiuwentian.blog.tyfo.com/ http://blog.thldl.org.cn/user1/xiaoyaoke/index.htm l http://www.91blog.com/user5/7095/index.shtml http://jimoyuye.52blog.net/user5/150638/index.shtm l http://xiangxiahaizi.anyp.cn/blog http://blog.fxmultibank.com/user1/tianshangren/ind ex.html http://www.laren.cn/blog/2006/woxin/ http://bufengshou.blog.tom.com/ http://suiyuerg.tianya.cn/ http://lushan.fyfz.cn/blog/lushan http://blog.focus.cn/myblog/2843636.html http://hexun.com/wanqiudaocao/wanqiudaocao http://www.xanga.com/guyan

The only reason Clinton had a budget surplus is because the Republican congress dragged him kicking and screaming into going along with it. Do you remember the government shutdowns of 1995 and 1996? The President doesn't make the budget, congress does, and for 6 of 8 years, Bill Clinton had a Republican congress. In addition, the "$45-65 TRILLION debt" that you talk about isn't _all_ Bush's fault. We've been in debt since FDR, through Republican and Democratic Presidents, but you know who held Congress for _most_ of that time (remember, Congress, who makes the budget?), Democrats.

An earlier post talks about the missing Bin Laden. If you Bush-haters want to talk about Bin Laden, let's talk about how the Clinton Administration had multiple opportunities to take out Bin Laden and did _nothing_. The first google result for "Bin Laden Clinton" gives this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/ . Note that MSNBC is not exactly your "right-wing conspiracy" news outlet.

You have to give the President a lot of credit for doing what's right in the war (both of them) and not giving a damn about what the anti-Bush media says about it. What is right is not always popular, and what is popular is not always right. For the most part, he knows what is right and he's doing it. Sure, I don't agree with all of it, (like the Medicare part D cluster), but being tough on Islamic Facism is the right thing. Sure, the administration "misunderestimated" the cost and the difficulty of Iraq, but that doesn't mean that it was wrong to go there in the first place. Let's remember properly if we can. Congress voted overwhelmingly to go into Iraq. Overwhelmingly means Democrats and Republicans alike voted to go to war. The US Constitution grants congress the power to go to war. Because of this, the whole "The war is unconstitutional" crap needs to stop, too. It isn't Bush's war, it's congress's. In addition, Bush didn't lie. The entire world believed Saddam to have WMD. We only know that once he finally let us in to inspect that he didn't have them _anymore_. Remember how he stalled every single time the UN inspectors wanted to inspect anything? Why would he stall like that if not to move weapons out? We know he had them at some point; he used them on his own people.

I'm tired of all the doubletalk from the Democrats. They just want to be on both sides of every issue. They voted to go to war, and now they want to cut and run before the job is done there. Doesn't being part of removing a cruel dictator from power and making Iraq a free and democratically elected state make you proud to be an American? People over there aren't oppressed anymore. Remember Saddam's sons? Remember the mass graves and the rape rooms? Doesn't that sound to you like an oppressed people? It does to me. Iraq is much better off now, and the United States "unilaterally" made that happen. There's a lot of good happening over there, and the Democrats hate the idea that anything good should happen while Republicans are in charge. Fortunately for them, the major media outlets are on their side, reporting only the bad about the war and not the good things that are happening over there.

Alan.

You may have said this in jest, but there have been studies that suggest that playing video games before surgery can reduce the number of errors that surgeons make. Especially for Laparoscopic surgery, where the surgeon must use a television to see what he is doing.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4685909/