Slashdot Mirror

Play.com have Windows XP Special Edition model in white at 329.99 GBP... all the others, whether XP or Linux are 349.99 GBP.

Presumably the XP OS is therefore free of charge. Perhaps they felt guilty at overcharging UK consumers for Vista?

well, this didnt exactly cause change - it kept things as they are... People put up a petition to stop software patents in the UK and it worked.... take a look at this

Will someone in the US government please do the same?

While we're on the subject of open formats, the UK government released a statement yesterday on their use over here. Not definitive, but it sounds like they are putting the final decision in the hands of people who have a vested interest in open formats.

*sigh*. This one has been so thouroughly debunked that I wonder why you mention it.

• Claiming that we justified the war because Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Africa is patently absurd. Here are the three major public speeches that were given right before the war explaining the reasons for it. You will notice that none of them even mention Iraq's attempts to procure uranium: 1, 2, 3.
• The conclusion that Iraq was trying to buy Uranium in Niger had nothing to do with the forgeries found in Italy. In fact, multiple sources had already confirmed Iraq's uranium efforts in Africa before the forgeries even existed (again, I refer you to the Butler report).
• Saddam's attempts to buy uranium in Africa are documented fact, confirmed by multiple sources including Joe Wilson himself. I don't know how you can claim that it has been "debunked".

Yeah, world leaders spouted lies - some unknowingly.

Do you understand how it is different from zoning laws?

• "they authorize the president to fire US Attorneys"- The President has been authorized to fire US Attorneys since 1789 when the position was created. 28 USC 541(c): US Attorneys are "subject to removal" by the President.
• "secretly arrest citizens" - Pure fiction. Just what section do you think authorizes this? The closest I can think of is section 412 that mandates the arrest and detainment of non-citizens that are engaging in terrorism, with an explicit right to petition for habeas corpus and continued judicial review (in other words, nothing like what you said).
• "secretly try them in a secret jail with secret evidence for secret crimes" - Again, this is pure fantasy. The PATRIOT act authorizes nothing like that. Not even close.

This is an outright lie. To wit:

Although I see nothing wrong with your accusations against Bush

Object to the substance, or lack thereof. For example, the Iraq war cassus belli proved to be fraudent.

The patriot act does indeed invade our privacy and does indeed impinge upon constitutional freedoms.

Oh, and by the way, the USA firings are authorized by an obscure clause of PATRIOT act.

You can add "protecting big tobbacco" to the list of unintended Patriot Act consequences. Don't dismiss the abuse of the PATRIOT act to damage the DOJ in order to protect big tobacco just because you don't like how it sounds.

I just noticed on the petitions site that the government recently responded to a petition titled "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to recognise Jedi Knights as a religion on par with Christianity, Islam and other beliefs."

Response is here: http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page11053.asp

I'm not saying that we glorified you, but the USA's image was nowhere near where it's today. Anti-Americanism boiling under the surface is something different from wide-spread open distrust towards the USA.

Okay- fair enough. I still believe that there are bigger issues at play here than trying to make sure that Europe likes us.

As for Iraq: Nobody believed you when you said that Saddam paid Osama (which he didn't),

I'm not sure what you mean by "paid Osama" (Osama was already rich- why would Iraq need to pay him?), but even assuming Iraq had no relationship with al Qaeda, they had still been supporting dozens of other terrorist organizations (like Abu Nidal, the PKK, Carlos the Jackal, etc) for decades. Or do you think that Russia didn't believe us?

nobody believed you when you said he didn't comply with the weapon restrictions

That's strange. In January, 2003, just weeks before the invasion, Hans Blix himself testified that Iraq "appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance - not even today - of the disarmament, which was demanded of it" (Source). So I guess he believed it. In fact, several other governments have also publically stated that they believed this as well. And guess what? They were exactly right. The Iraqi Survey Group found dozens of illegal and hidden weapons programs in Iraq that the UN didn't know about. True, we didn't find the old decaying stockpiles of weapons we thought we would find, but instead what we found was much worse.

almost nobody wanted to help you when you attacked a country that was well under control (partially due to you already keeping them in check).

If Iraq had been well under control, they would not have been supporting international terrorist groups to commit murder, they wouldn't have been gaming the UN Oil-For-Food program to allow them to smuggle any proscribed item that they wanted in the country, and they wouldn't have been developing dozens of illegal and hidden weapons that UNMOVIC didn't know about.

In the process you destabilized the country and possibly the region.

Are you somehow under the impression that the middle east was "stable" prior to 2003?

Also, you're making yourself unpopular with the very people you claimed to have freed, as you a) are an invader, b) have plunged their entire country into conditions even worse then before and c) are effectively taking away their oil resources.

We may be unpopular, and we certainly are invaders, but how can you claim that conditions in Iraq are worse than under Saddam? And how can you claim that we are taking away their oil- "effectively" or not?

Iraq is not a fun place to be right now, and like I said, we all wish it was going better there now than it is. But at least now the Iraqis have a chance to determine their own future, rather than suffer under a brutal and tyrannical dictator. Not only did Saddam directly murder hundreds of thousands of his own innocent civilians (some estimates are as high as 2 million), but he started two bloody wars that cost millions more to die, and countless others suffered and died under his direction because of his refusal to cooperate with the UN to lift sanctions in the 1990s.

So would you rather live like that, or live in an Iraq today that is violent, dangerous, and scary, b

This reminds me: why is it that Americans think England is a country?

Erm... Because it is a country? I refer you to an authority on the matter.

But I'm still waiting for Our Tony to use this as a reason for the introduction of ID Cards...

Just for future reference, Tony Blair has to defend himself on the floor of the House of Commons, the elected house of MP's. He has a half hour every week where he answers pre-submitted questions from all parties. (The commons is equivalent to the US house of representatives, the Lords is an appointed 2nd house that can delay legislation but not stop it)

Generally, a questioner can ask a supplementary question. The leader of the opposition (largest party not in power) gets 3 or 4 supplementary questions after his first, which are not scripted.

The whole thing is televised, or available online as video and transcript here

I have to admit, it's one of the best bits of British democracy, and the US would benefit from introducing it. Some of the questions are just evil, and the PM has to work hard at it. PM questions can make or break a politicians career.

Blair studied law at oxford and went on to become a barister. He most certainly is a lawyer.

According to the latest census figures, the official UK population is just under 60 million.

It's not hard to imagine that at least 90% of the population watching TV on a regular basis. Now, bear in mind that here in the UK, we're all familiar with Ceefax/Teletext as a quick and easy way of getting at useful information, such as...

• TV listings
• Football scores
• Horoscopes (hehe)

Personally, I can easily believe that 20 million figure. Especially as I contribute to it! :-)

...is also the UKs Deputy Prime Minister who likes to beat the crap out of people who dont vote for the Labour party.

The Register has a nice photo of the moment he went crazy in public (and a link to a BBC video at the bottom).

Steve.

He didn't mention anything from the UK dossier.

He praised the document. Here's a quote from Powell's speech (On 2/5/03):

I would call my colleagues' attention to the fine paper that the United Kingdom distributed yesterday which describes in exquisite detail Iraqi deception activities.

The paper in question was "Iraq - its infrastructure of concealment, deception and intimidation".

Number 10 Downing Street later admited that they plagerized a document from a Graduate Thesis (Search for "Iraq"). This certainly puts the quality of some of the intellegence in question.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,8909 16 ,00.html

I'm not arguing with accuracy of the text itself. But look,
this was Bush's chance to provide inarguable evidence that we should go to War.

Powell was presenting the President's argument for War in Iraq in front of the whole world.

The US is supposed to be the greatest nation in the world. We go to war only as a last resort and only when are arguments are sound and just. Right?

Bush could have convinced the entire world if he had used quality evidence, when a huge percentage of the world (and the US) doubted the reasons for war.

So what does Powell, when presenting this inarguable evidence, cite as a "fine paper"? A document was was largely lifted from a Graduate Student thesis.

He didn't mention anything from the UK dossier.

He praised the document. Here's a quote from Powell's speech (On 2/5/03):

I would call my colleagues' attention to the fine paper that the United Kingdom distributed yesterday which describes in exquisite detail Iraqi deception activities.

The paper in question was "Iraq - its infrastructure of concealment, deception and intimidation".

Number 10 Downing Street later admited that they plagerized a document from a Graduate Thesis (Search for "Iraq"). This certainly puts the quality of some of the intellegence in question.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,8909 16 ,00.html

I'm not arguing with accuracy of the text itself. But look,
this was Bush's chance to provide inarguable evidence that we should go to War.

Powell was presenting the President's argument for War in Iraq in front of the whole world.

The US is supposed to be the greatest nation in the world. We go to war only as a last resort and only when are arguments are sound and just. Right?

Bush could have convinced the entire world if he had used quality evidence, when a huge percentage of the world (and the US) doubted the reasons for war.

So what does Powell, when presenting this inarguable evidence, cite as a "fine paper"? A document was was largely lifted from a Graduate Student thesis.

Oh dear, here we go...

The EC == EU (it's like Andy Kaufman eq Tony Clifton, or perhaps more like Cassius Clay became Muhammad Ali, they are the same entity, just with a different name). Spain was NOT a founding member of the EC (or EU). and did not join until 1986. The only six founding members in 1957 were Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and West Germany. Spain was a dictatorship until 1975.

I make not of the following web site (run by dear old Tony), for further information for the curious :
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page1468.asp

I tend to get very annoyed when talking to Americans about history or politics, in my experience they always manage to show a quite staggeringly lack of understanding of any facet of world history or politics (unless it involves 'Bombing the Chinese Embassy!').

I have posted this, in clarification just in case someone should take you seriously.

The "Fat Labour Politician" processor is likely to be delayed.

There's an article on the Register outlining the UK Governments proposed investment of £90m (GBP) in nanotechnology over the next six years here. With links to the announcement on the Government News Network. A very little too late perhaps.

Easy. Your raving lunatics have better publicity people than our ones.

After all if Ashcroft can lose an election to a dead man and still end up running America (Rumsfeld does the rest of the World), what chance do the likes of David Blunkett stand? I never thought I'd live long enough to think of Michael 'something of the night' Howard as preferable to the alternative, but somehow New Labour manages to be completely superficial and at the same time violently creepy and deeply oppressive.

New Labour has all the moral certainty of the Bush White House with none of the convictions (in all senses); it's as if central government has been given a make-over by branding experts trained by Kim Jong Il.

At the moment the big argument here boils down to 'would the Prime Minister lie?' Bearing in mind he's a: a politician, and b: has a pretty good track record of telling untruths, that's a dumb question. But anyone who questions it, (say the BBC), is being given the entire Hate Week treatment.

They've taken the worst bits of Thatcherism (and there were plenty of those) and the unpleasant bits of Labour and welded them into something so unholy that Victor von Frankenstein would be asking Igor to hold off on the brain while he thinks it through. Even the name - New Labour smacks of superficiality - give them time and it will be NuLab (now with 55% Conservatism!), or just The Party.

The more I see of Blunkett and his power-mongering control-freakery, the more I'm convinced that he sees '1984' as an inspirational work. Perhaps Blair 'n Blunkett are going to commemorate Orwell's centenary by making sure his greatest work becomes reality?

Best wishes,
Mike, Airstrip One, Oceania.

• Second, since the bush administration has consistently lied about the status of what's happening,

In the UK it means only one thing, and that is John Prescott the deputy prime minister (roughly the equivalent of Dick Cheyney). By the admitidly low standard of politicians he is quite a character. He single handedly made the last general election interesting by punching a voter who was stupid enough to throw an egg at him (when choosing your egg target, don't choose one who used to earn spare cash by bare knuckle boxing!).

I can't decide if the phrase "Prescott PC" would be good for sales or not. I guess it might suggest a machine with a bit of punch!

"I know that you would want to join with me in sending the deepest condolences to President Bush and to the American people on behalf of the British people at these terrible events. This mass terrorism is the new evil in our world today. It is perpetrated by fanatics who are utterly indifferent to the sanctity of human life, and we the democracies of this world are going to have to come together to fight it together and eradicate this evil completely from our world."

(Rest on the Number 10 site).

I hear on the radio that, of course, Queen Elizabeth has sent a straight-from-the-heart message too, can't find a link yet though.

It seems to have slipped everyone by that the UK goverment is now accepting electronic petitions which have more then 200 signatories (including name & address).

Anyone care to set up an electronic petition ?

The brilliant STAND campaign against draconian encryption laws came across the same problem. MPs' email addresses aren't public domain; most of them bounce, and their offices won't give out contact details to non-constituents.

There's a real schism in the Government's attitude to technology here. Tony Blair makes well-publicised speeches about Britain leading the m-commerce revolution (m for mobile), and his ministers have pagers, mobile phones and laptops linked to a central database of stats and policy details, but most MPs have understaffed offices, no desk space, and no direct access via email, in spite of the fact that most of them spend their weeks miles away from their constituencies.

It's about time that politicians woke up to the opportunities of the Net. Of all the parties, only the minority Liberal Democrats have attempted to harness the technology, which is in keeping with their radical approach.