Slashdot Mirror

To be fair, the Deathers have a point. And the media do tend to portray those who disagree with the President in a negative light, as fanatical extremists. They did the same thing to moderate Democrats during the Bush years (don't want no terrist sympathizers round here).

It's not that Obama intends to put Granny on the chopping block. He's too moderate for that. It's just that in places where socialized healthcare has been implemented, there exist panels which decide when euthanasia is appropriate.* It may not start out this way, but once in place, socialized healthcare will reach a point at which people start asking, "How much is too much", or, more succinctly, The Case for Killing Granny. When I first read the title, I thought it was a joke - they can't be serious, right? After reading the article, I realized Newsweek was indirectly arguing for killing old people, because - GOSH - health care costs are out of control, and old people get sick a lot. Which kind of undermines the point - if I'm not going to be covered when I'm *really* sick, why spend any money at all on health insurance?

And along comes the media, and portrays them as some kind of fanatical idiots. But they aren't idiots - there are actually people on the Left - maybe not Obama - but influential nonetheless - who consider killing people to be a valid means of controlling the cost of health care. These are the people who would orchestrate the "death panels". Think about it: if, during a time when healthcare reform is trying to gain political capital, there are people publicly arguing for killing the elderly, what will it be like when socialized medicine is the accepted norm? Patients with cancer and heart disease are the next logical choice for "voluntary denial of care" treatments.

* -- For Catholics, it's never appropriate, but we're hardly a constituency to be reckoned with in this country - witness Senators Pelozi and the late Kennedy, who claim to be Catholic, yet *publicly* reject church teaching on abortion... but I digress...

>>>baraknaphobia got to him, it appears.

I haven't changed. I've always disliked big spenders that borrow money and drive us deeper into debt ($130,000 per U.S. home and climbing). BTW did you know, due to the recession, Social Security is now projected to go bankrupt in 2017? Yay.

"On pages 201 and 202 of the Medicare report, you will find the conclusive arithmetic: over the next 75 years, Social Security and Medicare will cost an estimated $103.2 trillion, while dedicated taxes and premiums will total only $57.4 trillion. The gap is $45.8 trillion." - Why Social Security Should Go Broke Faster | Newsweek, http://www.newsweek.com/id/199167

And why wasn't this published? The very conclusion is that we should be more careful when trusting fMRI results and conduct more testing before jumping to conclusion.

Perhaps because what he's saying isn't new? As far as I can tell he's merely restating a substantive point that was recently made by someone else, which attracted substantial publicity as well as sober rebuttals (along the lines of: nobody actually uses the flawed statistical methods that you're critiquing). All this guy is doing is illustrating the point in an absurd and attention-grabbing way.

Fair enough, I wasn't aware of that. In that case, why the hell did I read this nonsense post?

And why wasn't this published? The very conclusion is that we should be more careful when trusting fMRI results and conduct more testing before jumping to conclusion.

Perhaps because what he's saying isn't new? As far as I can tell he's merely restating a substantive point that was recently made by someone else, which attracted substantial publicity as well as sober rebuttals (along the lines of: nobody actually uses the flawed statistical methods that you're critiquing). All this guy is doing is illustrating the point in an absurd and attention-grabbing way.

Though Obama hasn't really shown his colors either way in regards to nuclear power (unless I missed that, been to busy to do much news recently)

Actually, he put the final nail in the coffin for Yucca Mountain.

Then he denied the feasibility of nuclear energy because there was no storage facility.

Kind of circular logic.

I am not categorically opposed to a system like what you describe. (i.e., where we only have private insurance companies, but the government helps the poor buy into those private plans.) This sounds to me like the dutch model. But I think the plan would be better with a public option to help keep costs down for members of private plans. Since, in many markets, there is only one health insurance provider, we need to do something to break up the monopolies and bring the competition back to the market to keep prices down. (though I might be open to other ways of breaking up the monopolies as well)

It is not true that the center that the health bill would set up would be for the purpose of chosing who gets what care. In fact, the bill says explicitly that this body will not have the power to decide what is covered. See here: http://www.newsweek.com/id/211981

It is also simply not true that the HR bill outlaws private plans. See, for example, here: http://soundpolitics.com/archives/013108.html. In fact, a great deal of the bill is designed to regulate private plans.

These are both widely propagated, but thoroughly debunked myths.

Off the top of my head I cannot name a single instance when a software fault caused a plane crash

"In one notorious 1992 crash near the Strasbourg airport, French investigators concluded that an Air Inter plane flew into a mountain several miles short of the runway because the pilots had incorrectly entered the plane's descent rate into the computer. The cockpit voice recorder showed that up until the moment of impact, the pilots had no idea of their mistake."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/85998

Now, you can call that 'pilot error' - but in fact the software 'fault' is poor design. The interface should not have allowed the pilots to make such a mistake and receive no warning.

My insurance company isn't bankrupt?

Biden has already told the press the secret location of the VP's emergency bunker.

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/05/15/shining-light-on-cheney-s-hideaway.aspx

1. If a Primary coolant pipe leaked it would be contained because it is would be in the containment building that is one of the reasons you have them.

2Whoosh..
Even bringing up the Titanic is yet another simple minded attempt to bring fear into this.
What did it have anything to do with anything. It was silly.
But if you want to work with it I will your bringing up that Chernobyl when talking about a modern western light water reactor is kind of like someone bringing up that Titanic as a reason for not going on a modern cruise ship!
"Lets go on a cruise."
"No it is too dangerous remember that Titanic."
"But this ship will have enough lifeboats unlike the Titanic."
"No remember the Titanic it could still sink too fast to get in the life boats!"
"But it has Radar and GPS and satellite communications so it can avoid storm, reefs, and even icebergs!"
"But it could run into one that is totally under water!"
"But we are going on a Caribbean Cruise! There are no icebergs!"
"Just because nobody has ever seen one doesn't mean that they are not there"!
Bringing up Chernobyl or the Titanic when talking about a modern western reactor is NOTHING BUT A FEAR TACTIC.
The both have the same validity to the subject. Nothing at all.

Okay want some sources that disagree with yours
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html
http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/costs.htm
http://www.nei.org/keyissues/
Of these are pro nuclear sites but before you dismiss them just realise this. If there where studies of nuclear power that positive results wouldn't pro-nuclear sites post them?
Also wouldn't anti-nuclear sites dismiss them?

Plus you know that France gets the majority of their power from nuclear, Japan gets a lot of from Nuclear, and China is planning on building more reactors "made by GE no less". I find it hard to believe that those nations are being "taken in" and building plants that are no economic to build and run.
And your source isn't a journal of technology, physics, engineering, or economics!
It is a journal of sociology which can include some economics but would probably lack the technical expertise in the subject of Nuclear Engineering or even power generation.
I have seen similar studies. They all use older US plants as the source of their cost data. That is going to give you skewed data because those plants are all over 30 years old in design and each of them was a custom design. The had huge cost over runs because of that. Add in the problems with regulators after TMI and the costs are terrible. If you use modern standardized reactor designs like those used in France and China the costs totally different

Oh and here is one final article but not a study.
It is from one of the founders of Greenpeace about why he was wrong about Nuclear and now supports it along with the reasons.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/131753?GT1=43002

Simple fact seems that you fear nuclear power. No study or history of safe plant operation in the West will convince you because you have made up your mind. Anything that confirms your fear you will embrace and that which contradicts you will reject.
The West had decades of experience running nuclear power plants with France getting something like 80 of it's power from nuclear and Sweden getting around 50% all with reasonable costs and very good safety. The US also has a very good safety record even with TMI.

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/07/21/romney-on-obama-s-push-for-health-reform-slow-down.aspx

I'm afraid I have to agree with Romney on this one. Such an important piece of legislation that is going to fundamentally alter such a large chunk of the economy deserves a thorough vetting, and some real leadership from Obama to stick to his campaign promise of bipartisan support and changing the tone in Washington, not twisting arms and cramming through a bill that he admittedly isn't even familiar with. America needs real leadership and real solutions, not another trillion-dollar entitlement with unfunded mandates for the states. We already have THAT system. It's called MedicAid.

Perhaps a little offtopic, but stopping apoptosis may be useful to prevent systemic self-dectruction of cells during reperfusion of heart attack victims or other victims deprived of oxygen - allowing people to recovery from being deprived of oxygen for an hour.
.
To Treat the Dead -- http://www.newsweek.com/id/35045%5D
.
Currently they use a hypothermia protocol to reduce the damage done during reperfusion.
http://www.med.upenn.edu/resuscitation/hypothermia/

The FBI arrested two procurers in his office for taking a bribe from a contractor (you'd think, him being the boss and everything, if he knew about it it would be HIM getting the bribe, but I digress). He was not implicated. But if you want to go around accusing people of felonies because it suits your politics, get ready for it to be thrown back at you someday.

Umm, go poke around the archives of Daily Kos and Democratic Underground if you want to see people trying to criminalize policy differences...

Or better yet, ask Barack Obama's Attorney General

I wonder if he'll prosecute Nancy Pelosi?

I see you don't like getting criminilization of policy differences "thrown back at you".

So STFU.

"Toyota has already reached the break-even point on sales of its hybrids; by contrast, its foreign competitors, like GM, still have years of bleeding red ink ahead of them. Toyota says the parts in its next line of hybrids, due for release next year, will cost about half the current bunch, allowing it to drop prices and raise profits. While the company is estimated to have lost about $10,000 on each car produced when the line was launched back in 1997, "the new Prius is going to be hugely profitable," says Nikko's Matsushima, bringing in thousands of dollars per car.

Meanwhile, as of just six weeks ago, you have GM clinging to the old line: "as long as gas is cheap, Americans will want big, powerful vehicles. He compared [Obama's] policy to trying to fight obesity by having the government require that clothing only be made in small sizes." This after GM already went broke pursuing that strategy, while Toyota is poised to make a killing on their small fuel-efficient cars!

this is:
http://blog.newsweek.com/photos/levelup/images/original/The-Atari-2600-Video-Computer-System-controller.aspx

Stupid kids on my lawn~

May I suggest Madoff work here? http://www.newsweek.com/id/67483 In 1 page http://www.newsweek.com/id/67483/output/print

May I suggest Madoff work here? http://www.newsweek.com/id/67483 In 1 page http://www.newsweek.com/id/67483/output/print

You are free to say that you love America or that you hate America. Most Americans respect free speech. It is codified in our constitution, and the Supreme Court has consistently favored free speech.

The flip side of that freedom is that you are also free to die or, more likely, free to suffer serious health problems, and no one will care. The USA is undergoing the worst recession in decades. Many families have lost health insurance due to job loss. They cannot afford COBRA-mandated health insurance. The end result is that minor medical problems endured by insurance-less folks are simply ignored. These problems can eventually become lethal. For example, a tiny lump in a woman's breast can lead to death within a few years years.

In Europe, the state places more restrictions on speech, but the state also tends to provide more support to you in times of crisis.

Now, here is a revolutionary idea: tying more freedoms with more support from the state. In other words, the state provides universal healthcare but, at the same time, supports your right to utter any kind of speech that you want.

This revolutionary idea is taking hold in France. President Nicolas Sarkozy greatly admires American freedoms but supports state-sponsored social welfare programs like universal healthcare. I would bet good money that he personally wants to maximize freedom of speech -- including allowing outright condemnation of Islam. Such condemnation is considered hate speech in some European countries, and anyone who utters such speech can be banned from entry into those countries.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/202875

Where are all the hysterical lefties screaming "Fascist!" now that we really DO have a Fascist in the White House? Where are all the mongoloid slashfaggots, having never actually read 1984, making bad analogies between the book and our current situation? One would think that you slobbering idiots would have read enough dystopia novels by now to realize that the creation of a utopian society for all is not possible. You just end up with a fascist hell populated with glass-eyed sheep! Wake the fuck up, losers! We're there!

A troll, I think. At least, I don't see that text in the cited article.

From 2001 to 2005 he ran a $170 million hedge fund that returned an average of 15 percent a year.

Nice job Newsweek (someone take a screenshot before the article gets pulled/corrected). His hedge fund didn't even exist in 2001. And it's not a $170 million fund, it's roughly a 170 million British Pounds fund. I would add more, but his hedge fund was delisted from the New York Stock Exchange and the London Stock Exchange in January 2005 right after this fiasco (and it's funny, except for one cryptic note about taking counsel in their official news section, one wouldn't know that the fund got liquidated and delisted four years ago for its shenanigans).

60% of her decisions that were appealed to the Supreme court were overturned. Was this one of them?

The Supreme Court overturned 68% of all cases it decided to hear last year (and 74% the year before that!), so she actually is below average in terms of reversals. But you're confusing appealed with heard - every decision gets appealed to the Supreme Court, if the client still has money to pay for the lawyer. She only had 1.2% of her decisions overturned, which is a far lower figure.

Source: Newsweek http://www.newsweek.com/id/199955

"You are a liar. Bush's "re-election" (his first actual election) was won primarily because they snuck so many anti-equality laws on the ballots. The bigoted wingnuts came out of the woodwork and voted for Bush while they were there."

That wasn't hard, considering around 70 percent of Americans agree with him on that issue.One of the most liberal states in the country just eliminated the right for homosexuals to marry. Barrack Obama doesn't support homosexuals marrying either. Do you give him a pass for that? Or is he a wingnut too?

"Yes, I am absolutely certain that Obama, in 100 days, managed to triple the deficit, compared to 8 years of Bush spending like a drunken frat boy.

I totally believe that, because, apparently, I am an idiot."

100 days is the least of it. He's certainly poised to smash all spending records: From 2010 to 2019, Obama projects annual deficits totaling $7.1 trillion; that's atop the $1.8 trillion deficit for 2009.

I don't think you're an idiot as much as you're politically fanatical as any of the people you attack, just less honest about it. I think you're actually starting to believe that "reality has a liberal bias" line you love so much.

"Because I have a soul, and the idea of shoving flashlights up little kid's asses [salon.com] in front of the kid's mother is abhorrent to me."

Good for you (though the soul thing is going to cost you some Karma on Slashdot). You seem to be making the mistake of thinking your ideological foes somehow support that, though. And while doing that to an innocent child is shocking, its still a straw man in the context that you used it: enemy combatants do not have the same Geneva Convention protections that a uniformed army does, and for good reasons.

"Liar"

Why don't you just call them "Hitler!" while you're at it? If you keep throwing "liar" around so often, it's going to lose its punch.

First, your question should be, "Why is Fox News the only media outlet reporting this?"

Well, no, first your question should be "Is Fox news is the only media outlet reporting this," which it isn't. If you'd bothered to read the article, you'd notice the "gaffe" was initially reported by a person from Newsweek (see here for the original story).

Fox does seem to be the only media outlet making a big deal about it. I think that's probably because it's not actually important or newsworthy in any significant sense, and Fox mostly has an agenda to pursue in terms of pointing out every insignificant thing anyone in the Obama administration does with an eye to trying to make them look bad. For example, all the silliness with Michelle Obama touching the Queen, or Barack Obama shaking hands with Hugo Chavez at (*gasp*) a diplomatic meeting.

The source isn't Foxnews, the source is Newsweek http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/05/15/shining-light-on-cheney-s-hideaway.aspx

Yes, and never with any specific examples... just a broad accusation. Surely since you believe these accusations, you could point me towards a source? So that I'm not hypocritical, I'll direct you toward what I consider a very thorough defense of climate science. It's two years old now, but still relevant.

HA! That article talks about computer models being used for investment. Tell me, how well do you think THAT worked out for them? Also, check out the comments section there. Those guys do a better job of refuting it than I can, as there are some computer scientists in the computer modeling section. There is also a lot of interesting discussion in the "CO2 Levels Lag Behind Temperature Changes" portion. There are some posters who claim that water vapor accounts for 99% of heat retention. Having moved from 100% humidity southeast Texas, where the High temp is often 95, while the low is only 80, to low humitidy Lubbock, where The high is 105 and the low 50, not to mention the fact that a generally warmer planet will put more water vapor into the air kind of intuitively busts the "CO2 as main actor in Global Warming" thing. Thanks for posting that article. There is a lot of great stuff there, although most of it points in the other direction from your argument.

Yes, you do. Epicycles, before they were abandoned, did the best job to date of explaining the motion of the planets. Until a better model arose, it would have been silly to abandon it.

Unless people think it's right. You have to show that a scientific theory is lacking. Epicycles NEVER adequately explained planetary movements. Not even close, really. They would be sort of close for a few days out, then it would all go to hell, and that was simple, non-chaotic movement. In this world, a tiny error (like overestimating the "blanket effect" of CO2, or underestimating the amount of time the water spends in the atmosphere) would ensure that you got wildly erroneous results.

Exactly my point... the people presenting a contrary view are not building models. There is plenty of money. Here's an article about the well-funded deniers. How you can claim that the problem is money is beyond me. The big money would overwhelmingly prefer that global warming were a non-issue.

Businesses are focused on debunking global warming, not improving climate science. As such, they haven't funded climate research that could go against them.

So no sources, then? I thought so. Put yourself in my position... you are asking me to change my mind on an issue based on an unsubstantiated claim from a random poster on slashdot.

My company's website has some information on our cancer work, which comes from the same principle. www.selenbio.com

Then why are they funding the deniers?

They don't, not really. They try to get the most bang for their buck, so they pay people to publish newsletters and do PR. They aren't particularly interested in research that they can't control.

Do you have any proof of this? I'd assert that they aren't getting government money because they aren't interested in building a model. In fact, if I want to go all crazy conspiracy, I'd say that they know building yet another model will force them to come to the same conclusion as everyone else who has built a model, and the money will stop flowing their way from the denier gravy train. Here is a pretty hilarious list of the "scientists" who deny global warming. Sorry about the clearly biased source, but the list is too hilarious to pass up.

I have a few links:

Well, considering the criticism I just posted is so well known that it is posted as a standard "denier" argument,

Yes, and never with any specific examples... just a broad accusation. Surely since you believe these accusations, you could point me towards a source? So that I'm not hypocritical, I'll direct you toward what I consider a very thorough defense of climate science. It's two years old now, but still relevant.

You don't have to build your own model to point out the epicycles don't explain planetary movement.

Yes, you do. Epicycles, before they were abandoned, did the best job to date of explaining the motion of the planets. Until a better model arose, it would have been silly to abandon it.

If there is so much money out there for competing models, show me. I haven't seen any.

Exactly my point... the people presenting a contrary view are not building models. There is plenty of money. Here's an article about the well-funded deniers. How you can claim that the problem is money is beyond me. The big money would overwhelmingly prefer that global warming were a non-issue.

The results were never published, due to politics.

So no sources, then? I thought so. Put yourself in my position... you are asking me to change my mind on an issue based on an unsubstantiated claim from a random poster on slashdot.

Those types of companies would like to disprove global warming, but the development of a new model for climate science is well outside of their field of interest.

Then why are they funding the deniers?

Only the government has any money right now, and they have blacklisted all climate change "deniers".

Do you have any proof of this? I'd assert that they aren't getting government money because they aren't interested in building a model. In fact, if I want to go all crazy conspiracy, I'd say that they know building yet another model will force them to come to the same conclusion as everyone else who has built a model, and the money will stop flowing their way from the denier gravy train. Here is a pretty hilarious list of the "scientists" who deny global warming. Sorry about the clearly biased source, but the list is too hilarious to pass up.

The reference, as performed in a skit by the SNL comedian, may be obscure, but many analysts still think the grading system was not truly necessary.

But, to make it *less* obscure....:

"Financial Economics, 'Saturday Night Live'-style"
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/wealthofnations/archive/2009/05/11/financial-economics-saturday-night-live-style.aspx

Don't despair, I think patents expire. We will look back at this time 200 years from now and wonder "what were we thinking!"

Patents expire, but a lot of harm can be done until they do and IBM is no stranger to playing the patent extortion game.

The chief blue suit orchestrated the presentation of the seven patents IBM claimed were infringed, the most prominent of which was IBM's notorious "fat lines" patent: To turn a thin line on a computer screen into a broad line, you go up and down an equal distance from the ends of the thin line and then connect the four points. You probably learned this technique for turning a line into a rectangle in seventh-grade geometry, and, doubtless, you believe it was devised by Euclid or some such 3,000-year-old thinker. Not according to the examiners of the USPTO, who awarded IBM a patent on the process.

After IBM's presentation, our turn came. As the Big Blue crew looked on (without a flicker of emotion), my colleagues--all of whom had both engineering and law degrees--took to the whiteboard with markers, methodically illustrating, dissecting, and demolishing IBM's claims. We used phrases like: "You must be kidding," and "You ought to be ashamed." But the IBM team showed no emotion, save outright indifference. Confidently, we proclaimed our conclusion: Only one of the seven IBM patents would be deemed valid by a court, and no rational court would find that Sun's technology infringed even that one.

An awkward silence ensued. The blue suits did not even confer among themselves. They just sat there, stonelike. Finally, the chief suit responded. "OK," he said, "maybe you don't infringe these seven patents. But we have 10,000 U.S. patents. Do you really want us to go back to Armonk [IBM headquarters in New York] and find seven patents you do infringe? Or do you want to make this easy and just pay us $20 million?"

After a modest bit of negotiation, Sun cut IBM a check, and the blue suits went to the next company on their hit list.

IBM even tried to patent the patent protection racket.

And whenever something about IBM and patents comes up someone giddy over how IBM fought SCO in court says something stupid like it's just a defensive patent. IBM has a long history of being offensive with patents.

IBM set the standard for patent licensing in the early '90s. While Big Blue was in a steep decline, veteran employee and lawyer Marshall Phelps got the company to raise the fees it charged others for piggybacking on its ubiquitous technology. Phelps recalls that incoming CEO Lou Gerstner was skeptical of the program; at RJR Nabisco, he had been involved in a patent dispute with Procter & Gamble over soft chocolate-chip cookies. Phelps changed Gerstner's mind by cracking open an IBM PC and showing him all the components that came from other companies. In other words: hardware companies were interdependent, and as the biggest fish in the sea, IBM should exploit that fact. A few years, later IBM was raking in $2 billion a year of almost pure profit from licensing revenue.

Because it's an open format, if Adobe doesn't "innovate" on it and stay king-of-the-hill, they will lose market share to other products that will embed movies and such. Adobe has to continue to innovate or they risk losing their status as the big cheese, and they make lots of money with Acrobat professional.

Yep. They want flash, pdf, and AIR to be ubiquitous. This article shows their point of view: "What's wonderful for Adobe is, we are pretty much everywhere you look. [...] Just about every Web site uses Flash. Every tax form you download off the IRS is done in PDF. So it's OK if the average consumer does not know who Adobe is. We're almost like air." They want their suite of tools to be a ubiquitous consumer-level software tool like Windows, and they understand that if they're going to make money that way, they have to convince people that their tool is better than the free alternatives, just as MS has to convince people to desire Windows rather than Linux.

Adobe is very clever about making their formats and implementations open enough to get them widely adopted, while maintaining their market position via a combination of (a) the first-move advantage when they release new features, and (b) keeping certain aspects of their formats and implementations just proprietary enough to maintain the perception that the competition isn't as good. You see it with flash, where they've opened up a lot recently, but for most developers there is really no viable alternative to using Adobe's tools. You see it with pdf, where they sell people snake oil, e.g., convincing them that the DRM features are useful, even though they're trivial to circumvent.

One of the big things working in their favor is patents. E.g., flash supports mp3 but not ogg, which makes it difficult to make a legal, OSS toolchain for flash development, because the license for mp3 forbids distribution of encoders in large numbers without paying a royalty. Ditto for patented color management and patented video codecs. Any patented special sauce they can add to their apps makes it easier for them to differentiate themselves from the free competition.

I don't know if there's anything specific to China, but NYPD has been doing some international "outreach". For example, as per the article below, I think Mumbai is outside of their jurisdiction...

http://www.newsweek.com/id/182526

...but I think the world would probably be a better place without that particular movie. Don't you?

See "Nuking the Fridge" for details.

Link

Link

No, really, we actually can't build them that fast:

"To get 10 terawatts, less than half of what we'll need in 2050, Lewis calculates, we'd have to build 10,000 reactors, or one every other day starting now."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/189293

[citation needed]

Again, back this up a little, would you? People like me don't accept these things on just your say so and actually would like a link before you make some outrageous statement. Oh, and Newsmax does not count as a reputable source of information.

The only thing I've seen recently from him is his thought to reinstate the federal assault weapons ban, which, by the way, he was told to back off from both the White House and Congress.

more blogging/editorials/crap (like fashion and celeb news).

Like Newsweek? I took these examples from the website but the print editions are worse - more than half the mag is dedicated to ads and pop culture BS. If they don't want the internet to eat their lunch then they should print a magazine worth reading. Sure, Newsweek isn't exactly the New Yorker or Foreign Policy magazine, but it's really went downhill from being the respectable news rag I read as a kid.

more blogging/editorials/crap (like fashion and celeb news).

Like Newsweek? I took these examples from the website but the print editions are worse - more than half the mag is dedicated to ads and pop culture BS. If they don't want the internet to eat their lunch then they should print a magazine worth reading. Sure, Newsweek isn't exactly the New Yorker or Foreign Policy magazine, but it's really went downhill from being the respectable news rag I read as a kid.

more blogging/editorials/crap (like fashion and celeb news).

Like Newsweek? I took these examples from the website but the print editions are worse - more than half the mag is dedicated to ads and pop culture BS. If they don't want the internet to eat their lunch then they should print a magazine worth reading. Sure, Newsweek isn't exactly the New Yorker or Foreign Policy magazine, but it's really went downhill from being the respectable news rag I read as a kid.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/183673
by Henry Kissinger

The real story is about the fact that nuclear prolifiration and nuclear disarmament should have gotten a lot more attention from previous presidents (both Clinton and Bush completely failed on this one) and Obama's pledge came much too late. Now trying to go as far as possible (nuke free world) is the least he can do.

Yeah, you're REALLY gonna need to cite that.

Are you REALLY that lazy, or do you just feel the need to feign ignorance?

I heard about it on TV, months ago, so I don't have a URL handy, but you know, the first handful of search results are perfectly good:

http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art43105.asp
http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/2003/05/06/breeding/index.html
http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/parenting/children-do-not-make-couples-any-happier-1245184.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1941195/Marriage-without-children-the-key-to-bliss.html
http://www.newsweek.com/id/143792

You may be happier for a few years, but if your last decades are spent wishing you had a family, are you really happier overall?

You're assuming you'll be wishing for a family if you don't have one. You're REALLY going to need to cite that!

How many people are on bad terms with their families? How many people raise children, only to have them turn out as selfish, sociopaths, criminals, etc.?

Raising children also happens to be an unimaginable amount of endless, thankless, work.

I only ask that you allow me to also say:

Christianity as it is practised in reality is, of course, fallible and flawed. But Christianity is (in a sense) the Christian ideal that Jesus set as a life pattern. The Christian method /works/, despite all the failings of the people claiming to 'practise' it.

In other words, If all or most "Christians" acted like Christ, I think people would enjoy them. He never *forced* his ideas on others and the only ones he upbraided were religious hypocrites. He set up some pretty good principles too. "More Happiness in Giving than Receiving" "Do unto others..." And they work. I don't want to sound preachy, but I'm sure you've heard of this: Why Money Doesnt Buy Happiness and Key to Happiness, Give Away Money.

As to why Christendom doesn't act Christian, well that is not for /. ...

I am a non-fan (ducks). Over the years I have heard all the hype about how important it is, Time 100 Top Novels, etc. 2 weeks ago I bought it, read it, and then found the script for the movie on the 'net and read that too. I didn't like the book. In reality, it's not a book but just 12 comics pasted together with a bit of fluff inserted that really didn't have anything to do with the plot. The whole "Graphic Novel" thing just doesn't do it for me, I read comics as a kid, this is no different. The characters are weakly written, because of the format there is very little real information on a page (I especially remember the one page with 4 or 5 panels with only the words "Ahhhhhhh" or similar. The plot itself wasn't bad but the ending in the 'novel' was totally weak, and from what I read in the script should be very much better in the movie. The whole pirate subtext was awful. I would have been much happier without reading it. I understand that it's going to come out this summer in the extended DVD edition. Oh, and the whole manic depressive omnipotent mass murderer in love with a human was just ridiculous. Ok, now with all the bashing out of the way I'll say that I have high hopes for the movie as a visual implementation of the book, and must say that I think the book must be a perfect ready-built storyboard for the movie. From what I read Zach Snyder lived with a copy under his arm and so for once, mostly, the novelist and artist's vision are going to be implemented as they intended. So, yes, I will go see it, I'll probobly even like it, but I've given my copy of the book away. BTW, I'm not the only one that just isn't feeling it: http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/popvox/archive/2009/03/04/don-t-believe-the-watchmen-hype-really-don-t.aspx

You said, and I quote: "We can live our lives by adages or we can make new decisions for our own generation." You also accused me, again quoting: "For someone who trusts neither the Democrat or Republican party, you are precariously positioned in regurgitating the same bullshit I've seen posted all over the internet." and yet when I asked to elaborate as to HOW you plan to "make new decisions for our own generation" suddenly I am "assuming" too much and you CAN'T explain.

This is like saying "I have a way to solve the economy and give everyone a million dollars" and when someone asks HOW you plan to pull off this miracle you reply "You assume to much so I can't explain anything to you." so for someone who accuses ME of slinging bullshit it sure as hell smells like you are slinging some yourself. I can back up my position with links if you like. Here is one showing how 16 million men have simply stopped voting altogether. And of course here is a nice one about the culture of corruption in congress, with lobbyists simply buying whichever side wins.

I can go on ALL day backing up my positions, so let us see you do the same, or at least have the guts to explain WHAT your position is. Because I still want to hear how you are going to pull off this miraculous "make new decisions for our own generation" when your choices are bought before you can do anything. You can't turn 1+1 into 3, you actually have to have an uncorrupted choice to start with and I can provide links all day long that show that is something we simply don't have. Hell it is so bad our comedians make jokes about it. So please enlighten us.

Oh wow, guess I should have kept reading. The previous articles are from: LA times, Reuters, Christian Science Monitor, the fucking Voice of America. This is in order, motherfucker! Wall Street Journal, and Newsweek! Not one fucking article that wasn't written by an old school media outlet!

Independent journalism my ass.

Ironically, Stephen Levy - whose 1995 article The End of Money is now being used by USPTO examiners to reject 1-Click patent claims as obvious - reported back in 2000's The Great Amazon Patent Debate about the conversation he sat in on in which Jeff Bezos just wouldn't hear that 1-Click was obvious. Responding to Tim O'Reilly's charge that "trying to enforce a patent claim on something as obvious as 1-Click is downright selfish," Bezos countered: "When we applied for the patent, 1-Click wasn't obvious...When we introduced it, people were surprised...They called it innovative."

Ironically, Stephen Levy - whose 1995 article The End of Money is now being used by USPTO examiners to reject 1-Click patent claims as obvious - reported back in 2000's The Great Amazon Patent Debate about the conversation he sat in on in which Jeff Bezos just wouldn't hear that 1-Click was obvious. Responding to Tim O'Reilly's charge that "trying to enforce a patent claim on something as obvious as 1-Click is downright selfish," Bezos countered: "When we applied for the patent, 1-Click wasn't obvious...When we introduced it, people were surprised...They called it innovative."

You mean something like http://www.betterplace.com/our-bold-plan/how-it-works/battery-exchange-stations ? As mentioned at http://www.newsweek.com/id/178851 .

Actually, it was Newsweek, a month ago. There was even a follow-up online-only piece on the same experiment as TFA that was out one day earlier.

To comment on the topic at hand, though, it's no surprise that there are elements beyond genetics that contribute to evolutionary success. Embryology is extraordinarily complicated and there's plenty of room in there for the environment supplied by the mother to affect the form of the child, especially in species that gestate internally as long as most mammals do.

Actually, it was Newsweek, a month ago. There was even a follow-up online-only piece on the same experiment as TFA that was out one day earlier.

To comment on the topic at hand, though, it's no surprise that there are elements beyond genetics that contribute to evolutionary success. Embryology is extraordinarily complicated and there's plenty of room in there for the environment supplied by the mother to affect the form of the child, especially in species that gestate internally as long as most mammals do.

There was a Newsweek article on this a few weeks ago that I would recommend. I found out pretty skeptical on the ultimate usefulness of doin this.

The young'uns should learn there are reasons to make those things unavailable. Like, uhhh, security? Think back to when Clinton took office...

You don't even have to back that far. Just rewind to last summer when the Obama campaign got their data compromised. Seems like they should know better by now.