Slashdot Mirror

National healthcare as proposed is not the best option, and we shouldn't adopt it here in the US because it would bankrupt us. There are better alternatives that keep costs minimal while ensuring good care, which is a big part of the question. It would be less problematic to have taxpayers subsidize the uninsured if the cost of doing so were lower, and the government-sponsored option coexisted with the private sector. Now if you really want to cut healthcare costs, support tort reform. Both Dems and Repubs are to blame for lack of progress there (that's what happens when you have a government full of lawyers, elected by lawyers' money), although Repubs are the the biggest opposition.

They wanted a society of surveillance so they should be under the same surveillance. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Who is this "they" you speak of? A lot of the cops I've talked to in my day are skeptical of camera systems. Some of them think the money could be better spent on different equipment and/or more officers. Others don't believe that they actually deter crime. There was just a big to-do over it in my hometown. The city decided to install a bunch of cameras on this street that's filled with bars that cater to college students. The theory was that this street has been the scene of violent incidents in the past (one of which became an international story when the suspect fled the country) and that the presence of the cameras would deter such incidents in the future.

Naturally the city decided not to fund any extra positions to monitor the new system though. So the police department can either pull officers off patrol to do it or they can leave it unmonitored and keep the officers visible and out in the community. So far they've opted to deploy their resources to the streets and the system is completely useless as a monitoring tool. The police chief is on the record as saying that he believes having officers deployed on the street when it's filled with drunken college students is a more effective deterrent against crime than cameras installed on lampposts.

http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/health/2009/01/30/2009-01-30_how_gambling_addiction_works_in_the_brai.html

Much like the Kama Sutra rejection, this brings home how farcical Apple trying to be gatekeeper and arbiter of taste on the app store really is. They should give up now before their reputation sinks under the weight of their hypocrisy - every week I hear of a new stupid and arbitrary decision by their app store reviewers.

Looking at the parents group response games like beer pong or "Madworld" got on the wii, I have a little sympathy. Neither game was marketed at kids. Parents groups seemed more upset with Nintendo than the publishers, citing reasons that boiled down to "OMFG, KIDS PLAY THE WII, HOW COULD YOU NOT CENSOR THIS NINTENDO?!?"

Granted, doing stupid things to avoid upsetting stupid people is stupid, but they are a company, not an organization dedicated to freedom of expression. They'd be reasonable to think that if they don't maintain some standards, parents groups would fly off the handle, boycott it, and they'd be losing out on their most profitable market: kids. It's somewhat positive that at least now they would have published it rather than just quashing it forever.

Naturally, the real solution should be parents acting like parents, but naturally pigs will fly before these groups put responsibility on their members.

>There has to be more to this

Yeah. I raised an eyebrow when I saw this in the newspaper. Tenenbaum says, "I'm disappointed, but I'm thankful it wasn't millions. To me it sends a message of 'We considered your side with some legitimacy.'"

He's *thankful*??

I've never heard of a defendant who was this much of a douchebag. It makes me wonder if there's some way he could have taken a dive.

Check out his d-bag face

You do NOT get fined for being overweight.

Really now? It's already been suggested here in the states. Something similar is already being done in Japan. I'm supposed to believe that the fans of the big government nanny state are going to stop sin taxes at alcohol and tobacco and not advance them any further? Sorry, but I'm sick of the Government trying to protect me from myself.

"I'm not going to let the government decide my health care! Instead, I'm going to praise the land of the free because my health insurer chooses to deny me cancer coverage because I forgot to mention I had appendicitis 20 years ago."

Stop putting words in my mouth. I never praised the current system. I only said that it's preferable to a Government run one. There's a lot of things we could fix (tort reform, better preventative care, better regulation of the insurance industry, etc) that don't involve handing the whole system over to Washington.

In Australia I paid 1% of my income as a tax, or 1.5% when my income hit 45,000 a year. Alternatively, I could opt in for private coverage, and pay as much or as little as I liked, and not have that tax.

Could you opt out of coverage entirely? If not then the Government has taken away your freedom of choice at gunpoint.

I'm sorry but there isn't any argument you can make that's going to convince me that we need a Government-run health care system. I don't like Government. Government exists for one reason: To deprive individuals of the freedom of choice. When they are depriving you of the free choice to murder your neighbor that's a good thing. When they deprive you of the free choice to spend the fruits of your own labor as you see fit then that's a bad thing.

No. He's been in jail for months.

In the words of the New Yorker, on his bail hearing a few months back: "As soon as Sorkin finished asking that Madoff's bail be continued, Chin said curtly, "I don't need to hear from the government. It is my intention to remand Mr. Madoff." Immediate applause, quickly tamped down by the Judge. Moments later, two court officers approached Madoff, who stood silently and still, and then he moved his arms a little so that his hands were behind his back. And then there was a click."

That was Madoff's last moment of freedom for the rest of his life. Madoff is Federal inmate #61727-054 at the Metropolitan Correctional Center, New York City, NY. That's a maximum security facility. Here is Madoff's cell.

MCC isn't a long-term facility, so the Bureau of Prisons will probably move him after a while.

If it really did happen, it would surely be God's wrath. That last Indiana Jones movie offended the mighty Poseidon.

Unfortunately, you are just using an old troll.

and yes that is a DIG on current pilots, many cant fly if the GPS is not working.

So all of the training that pilots go through for navigation and instrument flight is what-a pipe dream?
I guess that Captain Chesley Sullenburger III was just some hack in a suit.
You might need the GPS to get your head out of your ass.

How the Web Prevents Rape
Study finds online porn may reduce the incidence of rape
Watching violence and porn could reduce violent crime and rape

You do realize the rest of the world is still laughing at us right? For instance, he has managed to insult our closest ally.

As with most media articles, things are omitted to make biased reporting seem legitimate. How about the fact that only the pro-Tory (anti-Gordon Brown) British Press are the ones making an issue of it? How about the fact that Gordon Brown thoughfully gave Obama a seven volume Churchhill biography, apparently not knowing that Churchhill supported the Kenyan opposition that tortured Obama's grandfather? Seems slightly more insulting to me than some DVDs.

Nevermind that Bush gave Gordon Brown a leather jacket as his official gift in 2007... where was the outrage then?

Just like the iPod gift to the Queen, the media left out the part that makes it thoughtful: Obama also gave the Queen a rare songbook signed by Richard Rodgers (one of the Queen's favorite musicals is Rodgers and Hammersteinâ(TM)s Oklahoma) and the iPod contained a selection of songs from the songbook.

Not only that, but he can't decide what his policies will be. Sure, he's going to oppose sending troops to Iraq, only then to decide that he should send troops to Afghanistan instead.

Except that he campaigned on leaving Iraq in a time frame supported by Military commanders and that Afghanistan was where we should be committing troops. Read here for how he stated his intent to increase troop levels in Afghanistan back in July 2008.

Oh, and he can't actually decide if he wants to close Gitmo or not.

Your linked article actually shows that Obama is committed to closing Guantanamo, did you even read it? Of course the President's general counsel said that closing the base would be delayed if we can't find somewhere to transfer the prisoners, what else would you expect?

This man is just as much a bumbling fool as Bush was, but then again, "we" elected someone who hasn't ever served a full term of office at the federal level before. I don't know what "we" expected.

Do you realize that George W. Bush never served at the federal level prior to being elected president? His only chops were as Governor of Texas for 4 years.

You, sir, are a perfect example of why real debate and discourse do not occur in the media. You shun any view point or research or fact that does not already support your opinion. You'll take a single line 'He sucks!' as proof over a well written article that explains the complexities involved. You, and many like you on both sides of the political spectrum, are an idiot.

You do realize the rest of the world is still laughing at us right? For instance, he has managed to insult our closest ally. Not only that, but he can't decide what his policies will be. Sure, he's going to oppose sending troops to Iraq, only then to decide that he should send troops to Afghanistan instead. Oh, and he can't actually decide if he wants to close Gitmo or not. This man is just as much a bumbling fool as Bush was, but then again, "we" elected someone who hasn't ever served a full term of office at the federal level before. I don't know what "we" expected.

Secondly, he didn't just walk up to them, open his trench coat and say "Pssst, wanna buy some C4 and a Stinger?" They were looking for stuff, so the FBI put forward a supplier.

Actually, the informant, Shahed Hussain, did go around saying things like that, in this case and another one, and federal agents have set up other people like that.

Hussain was a Pakistani immigrant who went undercover for the feds seven years ago to avoid deportation after being convicted of fraud. He was going around to mosques offering people money. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/23/nyregion/23informant.html And by being a government informant, (1) Hussain was getting paid a lot of money (hundreds of thousands of dollars, as I recall) (2) He got out of prosecution and possibly prison for his own crimes (3) Instead of being deported, he was allowed to stay in the country, which for a lot of immigrants is most important of all.

Hussain was responsible for a conviction in another case http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/nyregion/11plot.html in which he entrapped two men who never had anything to do with terrorism before, and who never could have gotten such weapons before, by loaning them $50,000.

One of the plotters in the current case needed money because his brother was sick. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/05/25/2009-05-25_terror_plotter_did_it_for_me_brother.html

Finally, if an FBI agent *had* walked up and said "Pssst, wanna buy some C4 and a Stinger?" and they said yes, then got busted, that'd stand up in court. Offering an illegal item for sale is not legal entrapment.

Well, depending on the circumstances it can be entrapment. If the person had no predisposition to commit a crime, and the FBI agent entices him by using an unreasonable amount of pressure, such as offering a huge amount of money, it can be entrapment. It's a jury question.

Cf. John Delorean's coke bust.

DeLorean was acquitted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_De_Lorean That's a good example of entrapment, because DeLorean was offered an unreasonable amount of money, in desperate circumstances, to do something he would not otherwise do.

Or anybody who gets busted for soliciting prostitution when the prostitute turns out to be a police officer.

If someone solicits a prostitute, that would show predisposition to commit a crime.

In contrast, a person who has never committed an act of terrorism, and has nothing to do with terrorists, who is enticed to take a large amount of money and then informed that it is for terrorist purposes, is entrapped, under the law.

Unfortunately, it's easy to manipulate juries with prejudicial issues, such as the defendant's race and religion. Right now, many jurors will be prejudiced against Muslim Arabs, and it's relatively easy for a prosecutor to get a conviction against them by using scare tactics.

A good example was Hemant Lakhani, whose case was the subject of a good program on This American LIfe. http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1088 One of the jurors agreed that he was entrapped, but she felt pressured by the other jurors to go along. Most people who listen to that broadcast would come to the same conclusion. But Lakhani is in jail for the rest of his life.

Next time around, the time will come for them to be prejudiced against another ethnic group or religion.

What was your race and religion again?

Enough with your "facts", you godless commie bastard! Anyone can prove anything they want when supported by the "facts".

Secondly, he didn't just walk up to them, open his trench coat and say "Pssst, wanna buy some C4 and a Stinger?" They were looking for stuff, so the FBI put forward a supplier.

Actually, the informant, Shahed Hussain, did go around saying things like that, in this case and another one, and federal agents have set up other people like that.

Hussain was a Pakistani immigrant who went undercover for the feds seven years ago to avoid deportation after being convicted of fraud. He was going around to mosques offering people money. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/23/nyregion/23informant.html And by being a government informant, (1) Hussain was getting paid a lot of money (hundreds of thousands of dollars, as I recall) (2) He got out of prosecution and possibly prison for his own crimes (3) Instead of being deported, he was allowed to stay in the country, which for a lot of immigrants is most important of all.

Hussain was responsible for a conviction in another case http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/nyregion/11plot.html in which he entrapped two men who never had anything to do with terrorism before, and who never could have gotten such weapons before, by loaning them $50,000.

One of the plotters in the current case needed money because his brother was sick. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/05/25/2009-05-25_terror_plotter_did_it_for_me_brother.html

Finally, if an FBI agent *had* walked up and said "Pssst, wanna buy some C4 and a Stinger?" and they said yes, then got busted, that'd stand up in court. Offering an illegal item for sale is not legal entrapment.

Well, depending on the circumstances it can be entrapment. If the person had no predisposition to commit a crime, and the FBI agent entices him by using an unreasonable amount of pressure, such as offering a huge amount of money, it can be entrapment. It's a jury question.

Cf. John Delorean's coke bust.

DeLorean was acquitted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_De_Lorean That's a good example of entrapment, because DeLorean was offered an unreasonable amount of money, in desperate circumstances, to do something he would not otherwise do.

Or anybody who gets busted for soliciting prostitution when the prostitute turns out to be a police officer.

If someone solicits a prostitute, that would show predisposition to commit a crime.

In contrast, a person who has never committed an act of terrorism, and has nothing to do with terrorists, who is enticed to take a large amount of money and then informed that it is for terrorist purposes, is entrapped, under the law.

Unfortunately, it's easy to manipulate juries with prejudicial issues, such as the defendant's race and religion. Right now, many jurors will be prejudiced against Muslim Arabs, and it's relatively easy for a prosecutor to get a conviction against them by using scare tactics.

A good example was Hemant Lakhani, whose case was the subject of a good program on This American LIfe. http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1088 One of the jurors agreed that he was entrapped, but she felt pressured by the other jurors to go along. Most people who listen to that broadcast would come to the same conclusion. But Lakhani is in jail for the rest of his life.

Next time around, the time will come for them to be prejudiced against another ethnic group or religion.

What was your race and religion again?

The political appointee in the White House who plans $300,000 photo ops involving Air Force One, F-16s, and major landmarks... he seems to be worth keeping an eye on.

Heh. He seems to have been as surprised by that fun story as the rest of us.

Part of the problem here is that our government (and a few others) are sufficiently big and complex that no single leader, no matter how good he might be, can keep an eye on all the bizarre activities going on in there. So while you're keeping an eye on him, you might also pick out a few government agencies and keep your other eye on them, too. Tell us if you find anything "interesting", because we'll be busy watching some of the others.

Maybe I'll add a link to one of the better reactions to that incident that has appeared so far. It all started from an editor's suggestion that "the White House staffers could've gotten better results - for a lot less money - from the comforts of their own D.C. offices using a program like Photoshop." There's still time to contribute to the effort ...

I dunno, but they managed. http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2008/12/01/2008-12-01_the_complex_author_john_duignan_cites_to.html [nydailynews.com]

I don't know of any moves afoot to restrict gun rights.

I guess you haven't looked at Obama's urban agenda or paid attention to what Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder have been saying?

given that any meaningful gun ban would be unlikely to be upheld.

Just because it eventually gets struck down doesn't mean it won't make life miserable for every law-abiding gun owner in the country until that happens.

What is left out of this story (and most others on the Internet) is a key part of this guy's prediction methodology: the phases of Venus http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/04/06/2009-04-06_italian_scientist_warned_of_deadly_laqui-1.html .
I could buy emissions of radon gas providing insight into the timing of earthquakes, but I have trouble understanding how the phases of Venus have anything to do with when an earthquake will occur.
It seems like most of the news reports on it have the same problem, so to keep the story an "OMG, this guy predicted it and the evil bureaucrats covered it up," they left that part out.

About the "youthful indiscretion", from Wikipedia: "In 1997, at age 22, Kundra pleaded guilty to a petty theft charge for stealing dress shirts from a JC Penney store in Maryland. He was fined $500, but the sentence was suspended, and he only had to pay $100 plus court costs; he also was sentenced to 80 hours of community service." (source: New York Daily News)

Coiuld have been worse. Nobody died like in Teddy Kennedy's youthful indiscretion.

I read recently an article about how they actually use falcons at JFK to prevent bird strikes.

This seems to be about that, though I'm not sure if it was the article I saw: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/02/01/2009-02-01_untitled__falcon01m.html

DiFulco said the PA doesn't use falconry at LaGuardia because it is "effective against gulls, not geese." He said gulls are "the primary birds at issue at JFK, but not at LGA," where geese pose the main threat.

Then there are some counter-arguments made, but I can understand why they wouldn't be effective against geese. The geese that hit US Airways 1549 were apparently a flock of migrating birds at around 3,000 feet that just happened to wander into an airplane's flight path. They weren't "at" the airport, so I don't see how scaring them away would accomplish anything. Bad luck is bad luck; if they're in the area at all, an airplane can hit them. The gulls that the falcons are used to chase away at JFK loiter around the airport looking for food, especially at the ends of the runways where the water washes up various small fish and garbage. So the falcons are effective because their job is just to keep the gulls away from the airport perimeter and the runways.

I don't really see how you can prevent something like what happened to flight 1549. That happened at 3,000 feet, 3 minutes into the flight, which means about 9 miles from the airport. There's no feasible way I know of to clear that sort of a virtual dome around an airport.

Not to mention that some species of birds can fly at above 20,000 feet (true!), so really, yeah, not much you can do.

I think it's time we all just acknowledge this was a freak accident and move on. You can take reasonable precautions to scare away birds at airports themselves, but there's a limit to what you can do beyond that.

I read recently an article about how they actually use falcons at JFK to prevent bird strikes.

This seems to be about that, though I'm not sure if it was the article I saw: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/02/01/2009-02-01_untitled__falcon01m.html

Now...I'm thinking...if the RealID thing does finally come to fruition, well now...this national database would have some good data to throw in it. Let's cut benefits on (possibly coming) your national healthcare. Since you drink, and are exposed to smoke (well, you still can at most bars I go to)...you are a health risk and we the govt. won't pay as much for you.

Go ahead and laugh but this is one of the reasons that I'm leery of UHC. You just know that some jackass is going to use it to expand the war on vice. They started with cigarettes and alcohol -- next it will be soda or fast food. Sure am glad that we have a nanny state to fret about us though -- otherwise we could get hurt.

You have no idea how right you are:

http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2008/12/02/2008-12-02_it_took_90_minutes_for_daily_news_to_ste.html

Perhaps you're thinking of this case, though it's far from the only one:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/08/08/2008-08-08_maryland_mayors_dogs_shot_in_swat_team_m.html

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/07/mayor.warrant/

timothy

Privately funded. Got a problem with that?

Interoperability is where the government steps in, for better or worse -- only the most ideological libertarian would deny that such a role exists.

I'm not a libertarian and I've never denied that Government has some roles. I'm just really skeptical about UHC. Here are just some of my concerns (off the top my head):

1) What evidence do we have that it will actually make health care more affordable? When has Government ever been able to do anything cheaply or efficiently?
2) Will Government in health care be used as yet another excuse to expand the nanny state? Will alcohol be taxed higher because it's bad for me? McDonalds? Doritos? Will all of this enforced by my employer similar to the way the so-called War on Drugs is enforced? Stop smoking or lose your job? Lose weight or lose your job?
3) What reason do we have to believe that our new Government overlords will be anymore benevolent than our existing insurance company overlords? I don't see how arguing with a Government bureaucrat over treatment is any preferable to arguing with a private sector bureaucrat. Who would you rather deal with: DMV or your auto-insurance company?
4) Will there be a way for me to opt-out if I don't see the benefits in having my health record instantly accessible from anywhere in the United States?
5) Will Government involvement in health care be used as an excuse to further erode the doctor-patient privilege? Go read the laws around credit reporting sometime -- the Government wrote in nice little exceptions for itself for all of the privacy laws related to credit reports. Will it do the same thing for medical records?

Just are just off the top of my head. I'd have to say that #2 is probably my biggest concern. I'm sick of the nanny state and the war on vice. And I see no signs that it's going to get any better. In fact I see the exact opposite......

Mars Bars are fattening and are prohibited in the People's Republic of California.

I know you were just going for a +5 funny but here in the People's Republic of New York our Governor wants to impose an "obesity tax" on soft drinks. No, I'm not making this up either.

Why just target soft drinks? Orange juice actually has more calories per fl oz than coca-cola does. Should we tax OJ too? Anything consumed without moderation is bad for you. How do you purpose to use tax policy to teach moderation?

Seems to me like it's just another revenue grab under the guise of being for the public benefit.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/01/06/2009-01-06_from_her_lips_to_gods_ear_the_fury_of_a_.html?page=0

""May God exterminate Hamas!" screamed the woman in crystal-clear understanding that the terrorist band's reckless, inhuman actions had brought death to her child."

"All the world knows that Israel would give up the fight in the event Hamas stopped firing and agreed to verifiably disarm." Unfortunately, not "all," as evidenced by some of the comments here.

Two channels important to me went into the XM dumpster.

Robert Aubrey Davis's VOX channel was replaced with the Met Opera Channel on the mistake assumption that all non-pop singing MUST be opera. What kind of clueless dopes make these decisions? The VOX channel was a venue for all kinds of singing and choral music from classic Negro spirituals, to German Lieder, to art song, and glee club, and barbershop and just about any kind of non-commercial singing you can imagine. It was just totally shit canned into he dumpster by XM Sirius.



Then there was XM's High Standards which was dedicated to the Great American Songbook--songs by Cole Porter, Jerome Kern, George Gershwin, Irving Berlin, Vincent Youmans, et al. Now it has been replaced by the pathological Frank Sinatra Channel where every other song is by Frank Sinatra. Hey, I like Frank but not every hour of the day. A couple times a day would be fine but this obsession with Sinatra makes the channel completely unlistenable.

Here's a take on it from the NY Daily News:

Pop standards format takes another hit on satellite radio

BY DAVID HINCKLEY DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Tuesday, November 11th 2008, 8:06 PM

Ten years ago next month, WQEW (1560 AM) became Radio Disney, and New York broadcast radio lost its last popular standards format.

It was, and remains, a tragedy that the music of Frank, Ella, Broadway, Irving Berlin and the Gershwins - music that was born and flourished on the sidewalks of New York - isn't heard all the time on New York radio.

And now radio is losing another popular standards station. As of today, the "High Standards" channel on XM Satellite Radio will disappear, replaced with Sirius' "Siriusly Sinatra." Why? Because Sirius XM, now one company, is consolidating channels it considers redundant.

The problem is, whoever decided these two channels replicate each other because they both play pop standards simply hasn't listened.

Popular standards is a glorious, almost endless meadow, and "High Standards" picked a far different bouquet.

"Siriusly Sinatra" has generally focused on hits, the most popular of the standards - and that's fine. "High Standards" went deeper, finding different interpretations, fresh recordings, subtle connections among songs and sounds.

It was radio at its best - music no one could ever load onto an iPod.

"High Standards" was created by Jonathan Schwartz, whose radio lineage goes back to WNEW-AM and FM and whose musical lineage goes back to his father Arthur, who wrote "Dancing in the Dark."

Schwartz has also, all along, given constant credit to his main programmer, Buddy Ladd. Ladd could string together eight songs with a common theme that was almost subliminal, yet worked beautifully.

In many ways, "High Standards" - which began life as "Frank's Place" until the Sinatra family moved its affiliation to Sirius - was the pop standards station WQEW could have been if it, too, hadn't felt obliged to focus on the hits.

"High Standards" was marvelous music, programmed by people with knowledge and passion. Its departure leaves yet another empty space where the great American songbook should be.

This is not a criticism of "Siriusly Sinatra," which also plays and respects popular standards. It's just that there's so much room for more.

Fortunately, Schwartz will continue to be heard weekend afternoons on WNYC (93.9 FM), and there are other popular standards "specialty" shows for those with the patience to twirl the dial.

But the fact there's now one fewer home for some of America's greatest music gives the same feeling of emptiness it did 10 years ago.

its happening http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/11/15/2008-11-15_san_francisco_artist_looks_to_replace_lo.html not really a true replacement, still something good to come from a tragedy. She is a bona fide arrtist and ready for whatever limelight might happen her way.

one-eyed san francisco artist looking for the tech that will allow her to put a webcam in her eye socket:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/11/15/2008-11-15_san_francisco_artist_looks_to_replace_lo.html

My BS detector always goes red-hot on stories that blame a careless smoker for starting an inferno, because - despite having smoked for 15 years, I've yet to start even a small fire with a cigarette. If you throw a cigarette into gasoline, it goes out. If you throw it on some dry leaves, it goes out. If you throw it on cloth, it'll burn a hole...but then, it'll go out. If you throw it on some sawdust...well, I haven't tried that one - but I suspect it'd still go out. And since the building is covered in flame-retardant asbestos, I'd think it'd be even *harder* to light on fire. I concede that it is *possible* that a lit cigarette, combined with optimal environmental conditions, could start a fire. But to have 10 floors go up in flames certainly suggests that the structure itself (or something in it) was highly flammable to begin with.

A little Googling brings up the fact that "inspectors knew there was a blatant disregard for even the most basic fire-safety rules":

• [They] did not have enough safety managers to watch for blowtorch sparks
• Burning details are being manned by only one fireguard. Demo foreman has been strongly advised of the need for an additional fireguard or perhaps two
• No fireguard spotted during burning activity on the 36th Fl. west side
• Torch operator on 28 cutting off small beams and fireguards were in place on 28, no fireguard on 27 or 26. Small fire on ceiling of 26 was put out by roofers. I called Eric the demo supervisor and explained to him again that any floors below demolition that sparks fall MUST have a fireguard present at all times
• A small fire from sparks from the roof started on S/E side column of 22nd floor. I told Eric from J Galt the need for more than one fireguard.
• Demo foreman was advised to halt burning activity within 10 ft. of fuel cans on 29th Fl.

Oh, but "on the 6th floor N/W room 13 pallets of batteries and 19 drums. Many cigarette butts were found along with a Weber black small BBQ". Yeah, I can really see why "investigators theorize [that] a worker carelessly chucked a lit cigarette, igniting the blaze" (that started on the 17th floor). Surely it wouldn't have anything to do with the repeated fires they were starting from demolition, or the "burning activity" near gasoline, or even the indoor BBQ. Or, that both the inspectors' and the companies' ass would be on the line if they were found negligent for the fire - much easier to blame a nameless construction worker.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_lwGWfO_Mk
10 year old canada
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xakaLeLecvo&feature=related
10 year old florida
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2008/08/07/2008-08-07_cop_cuffed_me_on_bus_kid_says_in_suit.html
10 year old girl NY
http://www.examiner.com/a-619947~Busted__7_year_old_cuffed__fingerprinted.html
7-- in baltimore

"So you'd have to be asked the same set of questions by a panel of say 5 separate polygraph "professionals" (who can not interact with each other)? Then go with the majority decision."

Last time I checked guilt had to be determined unanimously. Follow this link to witness the power of the juggernaut that is the U.S. legal system:

http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2008/10/21/2008-10-21_judge_declares_a_mistrial_in_britney_spe.html

Regards.

Margaret Thatcher has dementia at 82 and has had it at least 8 years according to the news report today.

That means she's had it from the age of at least 74. And she is in roughly the same if not better class for nutrition and health care, no? So the possibility can not be ruled out from a "social status" standpoint.

Of course, it is also possible Mr. Obama could choke on a pretzel one day and lose oxygen to his brain for just long enough to cause brain damage. But what are the odds of that ever happening to a president?

3. Damn, and I thought this Thug Life tattoo was helping.

Does the tattoo say "I work for Blackwater"? ;-)

4. Yes, because the FBI amending its policies equates to the creation of a nationwide integrated surveillance system. Maybe the Guardian was confused by the cameras mounted to the surrounding buildings.

Micheal Bloomberg is doing the same in NYC, he's creating a "Ring of Steel" with CCTV around the city.

6. The No-Fly list means...you can't fly. How does this have anything to do with detention and release?

No-Fly lists don't have anything to do with detention and release, not yet at least, but it does restrict travel. Actually last night CNN had a report about 3 people who have trouble taking a flight. They all have the same name, which is on a No-Fly list. One's a pilot for an airline, another is a 6 year old boy, and I don't recall who the third person is or what he does. All three have been working to get their names removed from the list for years, well in the case of the boy, his parents.

Falcon

Come on, at some point you've got to wake up and realize that you can't equate cutting people open with GPS tracking without a warrant. Prescribing drugs and warrantless surveillance aren't the same. Even your legal advice analogy falls apart. You're using the classic "piracy is theft" fallacy here.

Fact is, some things - such as the actions of our police force - should be wide open to public scrutiny. If they have nothing to hide, all's well.

Problem is, most officers have plenty to hide - I've seen innocent people punched in the face for imagined personal insults, private property unjustly confiscated (and broken, with loud laughter from complicit police officers) and a lot more. Remember the tasing incident? No, you're thinking of this fairly tame episode. I hope you never see a handcuffed person tased or tortured by our appointed officers. I pray that nobody is Rodney-Kinged. It'd be nice to imagine that cops aren't corrupt assholes and that they work within ethical and legal boundaries just like everybody else is supposed to do. But that's not the reality.

Before the law, we're all equal. Those in a position of power should be held accountable. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I'm not too worried about Comcast. The things they do (especially this and the whole guy-sleeping-on-the-job thing) would only serve to either get people moving to other (non-cable?) ISPs (if any) or revolting for fair cable-company laws; it's all shooting themselves in the foot to me.

I am far, far more sickened by my favorite evil Northeast US company, Cablevision; they do seem to provide good service (my parents get cable and my siblings get their Triple Play; I've seen no problems with service, but the "Caller ID on iO TV" spooks me a bit), at the expense of basketball teams worth rooting for (FYI, Garden owners: free food does not make up for team negligence...not that you'd care with the money you make with that Triple Play and its associated annoying ads), competing stadiums (granted, Verizon is no innocent company by any means), competing ISPs, new subway/train stations, and maybe even commuter security (Cablevision suggests otherwise, but their words are hard for me to take as told).

To answer parent comment's question, I suppose people subscribe because...well, when you get email, Colbert, VoIP and such powerful, important abilities like the ability to RickRoll others and Digg the result (ugh *vomits*), who cares about silly things like fair and lawful treatment of consumers, sports fans, and competing ISPs?

Me, I'll use DSL (Verizon, which hasn't given me much, if any, throttling problems) until there's a good free wireless network or whatever, and I've already subscribed to a different TV provider that offers HD free (I don't care that much for Olbermann). To those far from good antenna coverage: good luck, and ditch cable anyway.

yikes, sorry for the lack of sources (tired)

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/03/18/2008-03-18_john_mccain_in_shiitesunni_snafu_during_.html
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_richardson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman

Yes. You act as if you're not causing harm. If your house is broken into, the only reasonable thing to do is assume your life is in danger. What legitimate reason does someone have to break into your house? You act in a threatening way you should expect harm to come to you.

What do you think should happen? Ask them politely to leave? Do you think they break in to throw you a suprise birthday party?

Please, wake up. You're only as safe as YOU make yourself.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2007/12/02/2007-12-02_grandma_killed_and_grandson_stabbed_in_l.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2007/12/02/2007-12-02_grandma_killed_and_grandson_stabbed_in_l.html
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02042007/news/regionalnews/l_i__home_invasion_slaying_regionalnews_frank_ryan______and_c_j__sullivan.htm
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/cops-arrest-suspect-in-attempted-home-invasion/3555644578

Yes. You act as if you're not causing harm. If your house is broken into, the only reasonable thing to do is assume your life is in danger. What legitimate reason does someone have to break into your house? You act in a threatening way you should expect harm to come to you.

What do you think should happen? Ask them politely to leave? Do you think they break in to throw you a suprise birthday party?

Please, wake up. You're only as safe as YOU make yourself.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2007/12/02/2007-12-02_grandma_killed_and_grandson_stabbed_in_l.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2007/12/02/2007-12-02_grandma_killed_and_grandson_stabbed_in_l.html
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02042007/news/regionalnews/l_i__home_invasion_slaying_regionalnews_frank_ryan______and_c_j__sullivan.htm
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/cops-arrest-suspect-in-attempted-home-invasion/3555644578

Daily News (take with grain of salt, but here's corroboration) Will Smith is giving out free auditing to the cast members of his latest film.

So, is he or isn't he???

The Patriots had broken a rule that had recently been explicitly laid out by the league. (See article).

Pats fan here. Yes, the Patriots broke the rules and were punished for it, but let's put this into perspective:

1. It's not against NFL rules to steal signs
2. It's not against NFL rules to steal signs using video cameras
3. It is against NFL rules for clubs to use video-recording equipment outside certain designated areas during games.

The Pats got in trouble for #3, not #1 & 2.

Of course #3 apparently contradicts league guidance on shooting from end zone positions ("but there are no restrictions on shooting from both upper end zone positions as long as the opportunity is provided to both teams") which apparently means there is some room for interpretation.

The incident happened in the first half of the first game of the '07 season. In the prior year, the Jets were a playoff team that beat the Patriots in November '06 (which I remember because I was there). There was every reason to expect that the Jets would have been a strong contender this past season.

The Patriots had broken a rule that had recently been explicitly laid out by the league. (See article).

I hesitate to say that they have used illegal means to obtain signs throughout the season, but getting caught during a single game is enough for me to tack on the Barry-Bonds-style patented asterisk (*) onto their Perfect Season*. And c'mon... did they REALLY need to cheat against the Jets? The 4-12 Jets? You would think that wiser head couches would save their cheating for games against stronger teams.

The mechanism that makes cell phones harmful is that they inject comparatively high amounts of RF energy into cells, which damages the DNA.

Ionizing radiation damages DNA. Non-ionizing radiation (which is what cell phones and wifi networks use) can only damage cells by adding heat. Cell phones don't put out enough energy to raise the temperature by even 1o C.

It's possible that a yet-unknown mechanism exists for non-ionizing radiation to cause cancer. However, we've been dealing with energy in these frequencies for a long time, many of them in far more powerful amounts than cell phones (radar, microwave communication towers, etc.). Additionally, many of those sources are staffed by union workers, which are notorious for looking for any minor safety factor to justify a wage increase. If you want to prove a new mechanism in a mature area of physics, you're going to need very good proof.

Anecdotal evidence of "many brain tumors on that side of the head" is no replacement for a good scientific study; after all, 50% of brain tumors would happen on that side of the head, anyway. Actual studies on this matter have more than adaquately disproven. Studies in support of a link are often shown to have problems.

Hah, "sin". God really hates "sins" like not believing in him? What an arrogant fucking asshole. You talk about blasphemy or disbelief in god as if it's morally wrong. You know, it sounds disturbingly familiar. You fundamentalist idiots are all the same, no matter what god you worship.

The same is true of America. Different religion, same Armageddon fetish.

Really? Link? Do you just make this shit up as you go along? Here's proof that you are either retarded-gold-fish stupid or a liar. WE ARE STILL HERE The US has had nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them anywhere in the world since 1946. And yet, we are still here. No Armageddon. That should be all the proof you need.

Right. The comparison is absurd. The USSR had the ability to end the USA's existence. A nuclear armed Iran does not. Nor have they ever threatened to, while the Russians had, and almost tried on more than one occasion.

Again, not just wrong, but fucking wrong. How about if I showed you a picture of Ahmadinajad watching a military parade with banners that read "Death to America".

Of course, I won't even get started on how many US soldiers have died in Iraq because of Iranian actions. That alone is an act of war.

Well, maybe, we will never know: the man decided to back out and trade his iPhone for a fancy car and 3 new iPhones. Either way, he made 30k + 3 iPhones.

Dear Ivan Pereira, Michael Saul, Alison Gendar,

"In previous incarnations [of the Grand Theft Auto series], players advanced through the game by killing cops, selling pornography to children and killing prostitutes." http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/2007/03/3 1/2007-03-31_pols_rage_as_vid_game_takes_shot_at_c ity-4.html

After reading the above-linked article, I believe there are some discrepancies that need to be brought to your attention. I have extensively played Grand Theft Auto 1, 2, 3, Vice City, and San Andreas, yet I have never encountered any opportunities to sell pornography to children, nor is there is no way to advance in the game through killing police officers or prostitutes.

In every game in the Grand Theft Auto series, killing a prostitute within view of a police officer will cause him to try to subdue and arrest you. If you kill a police officer, more will come in squad-cars, attempting to stop you. If you continue to kill officers, SWAT teams will attempt to subdue you. Eventually, the National Guard will arrive to subdue you. When your character is subdued by law enforcement, he returns to the game outside of a hospital, without weapons and with a hefty monetary fine. Similar to real life, attacking police officers has consequences, none of which are good, and in the end, you can't win.

I am not a lawyer, nor am I making any sort of threat of legal action (I am in no way connected to Take-Two Interactive Software), but making false, harmful claims about a game's content sounds like libel to me. As I can not trust the New York Daily News to provide accurate, unbiased information, I will never purchase an issue, and advise my friends and family likewise.

If I am wrong about selling pornography to children, please tell me in which games, and in what location it is found. I would like to verify the content, and if it is present, I will gladly inform everyone who will listen.

To close on a slight tangent, Liberty City is modeled after New York City. On November 15, 2005 the video game True Crime: New York City http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/adventure/truecrime2/i ndex.html?q=True%20Crime was released. Surely you can guess where this game takes place. Yet, there was no public outcry regarding True Crime: New York City's setting.

Like it or not, video games have become an art form, just like movies. When such movies as "Escape from New York" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082340/ are allowed to exist, the average age of video game players is 33 http://www.theesa.com/facts/top_10_facts.php , and games have ratings with more depth than movies http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp , why are games held to a different standard?

It seems as though the school has outsourced reading, handwriting, math, and spelling to mom and dad. What exactly are they doing all day in school?

I don't know about elementary school but this is what those kids have to look forward to when they get to college.