Slashdot Mirror

The downfall of the Venetion republic provides another example, or perhaps prediction of how all of this will play out

All arabs? Who said anything about all arabs? Oh, but wait:

"We must expel Arabs and take their places."
-- David Ben Gurion

You asked for only one, but there a literally hundreds by prominent Israelis.

You should probably start looking for a different quote, that one is fraudulent.

A Chameleon, Nevertheless

. . . But Morris doesn't stop here. Having stigmatized the Zionist founding fathers as quintessential European-type colonialists, he would not discard the other part of this Arab canard, which he has been peddling for decades, namely, that they were also unreconstructed ethnic cleansers "intent on politically, or even physically, dispossessing and supplanting the Arabs."

I have been battling this defamation of Zionism's very essence for quite some time, showing time and again the extraordinary lengths to which Morris would go by way of fabricating Israeli history (see here, here, here, here, and here). I will therefore confine myself to one telling example of his professional misconduct.

In an October 1937 letter to his son David Ben-Gurion said: "We do not wish and do not need to expel Arabs and take their place. All our aspiration is built on the assumption - proven throughout all our activity - that there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs." In The Birth Morris represents Ben-Gurion as saying precisely the opposite: "We must expel Arabs and take their places."

Tellingly, in his Hebrew language writings, Morris rendered Ben-Gurion's words accurately, perhaps because he knew his readers could check the original for themselves.)

- - -

Now, for more relevant to the topic at hand, I suggest you google 'Israel threatens Iran'. You'll find plenty, with specific threats and timelines ("within months").

Here is an interesting question: Why are there hostilities at all between Iran and Israel? You do know that Iran and Israel had good relations between them into the 1970s, right? You do know that Iran didn't take part in the Arab-Israeli wars and so never fought against Israel in 1948, 1956, 1967, or 1973, right? It was only after Iran underwent the Islamic revolution of 1979 that it declared itself to be an enemy of Israel. Israel has no reason to be an enemy of Iran other than Iran's behavior. Iran's current behavior is to train and arm Hezbollah and other terrorists with tens of thousands of artillery rockets, antitank missiles, and other weapons, to use in attacking Israel, not to mention suicide bomb attacks and assassinations. Iran itself is engaged in a world-wide series of assassination attempts against Israeli diplomats. That is before we even get into the whole, wipe Israel from the pages of history thing, and Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Is there no aspect of Iran's behavior, including its support of terrorism, that troubles you?

Is questioning Israel's foreign policy 'jew hatred'?

There might be a point where it would be a reasonable suspicion when you ignore Iran's hatred of choice, aggression of choice, and terrorism of choice while painting Israel as the aggressor against Iran, in defiance of the facts, while using forged quotes.

Why do you hate Persians?

Why do you support them? Wouldn't their campaigns of terrorism and barely veiled threats of genocide be enough to make you reconsider?

NYT piece here listing him at 170 lbs: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/us/trayvon-martin-shooting-prompts-a-review-of-ideals.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all At his booking he was listed at 185, but weight can fluctuate, especially under high stress conditions, which I think you'd agree he'd been under. Either way, it's not like Zimmerman was a grown man fighting a toddler. A 17 year old football player is going to be strong and in great shape. That doesn't make Zimmerman right or even in a moral grey area for what he did, but quit trying to portray someone like Martin as a helpless child.

The difference is in China if you're in the wrong faction[1] and get caught for corruption you get _executed_.

Those in the right faction are probably untouchable, but you better be sure you stay in the right faction ;). Anyway in most countries being in the right faction makes you safe from the law too (unless you really really screw up).

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/19/china-corruption-executions-idUSL3E7IJ0H720110719
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/23/business/global/china-mobile-executive-sentenced-to-death-over-bribes.html?_r=0

Maybe this guy was in the right faction since he only got 15 years (not sure how many of those years he'll actually serve out):
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/23/world/asia/china-wang-lijun-verdict/index.html

[1] just being in the Party doesn't make you bulletproof.

swapping an electric car battery isn't possible in reality? Thanks for enlightening the world with your clearly superior intellectual abilities.

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/424587/israel-to-get-electric-car-battery-swap-stations/
http://www.npr.org/2012/08/21/159355676/dont-charge-that-electric-car-battery-just-change-it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu9PST7oXls
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/05/better-place/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qd0WPw3p2MQ
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/better-place-unveils-battery-swap-station/

If only these people were as smart as you...

Coursera makes their site look like they're a real academic institution. Yes, they say "free", but lots of sites say "free" and lie. It's not clear whether "free" is just a bait to get people to sign up, and then attempts are made to "upgrade" them to a paid account. Or there may be "fees". Their terms say "We reserve the right to change or modify the Terms of Use at our sole discretion at any time. Any change or modification to the Terms of Use will be effective immediately upon posting by us. " So they could add fees at any time.

There's a scam where online schools sign up students, and collect enough information that the school can apply for financial aid from the U.S. Department of Education. "The inspector general's office says participants in 42 different fraud rings have been convicted and more than $7.5 million in restitution and fines have been ordered in the past six years. This may be only a small portion of the problem."

See Belford University, which the BBB says is a scam that's generated hundreds of complaints.

It's quite proper for a consumer-protection agency to be concerned.

The Washington Post was absolutely livid about the Drudge Report "deep linking" to stories on its Web site in the late 90s. It tried blocking him at first, but he'd find ways around it. Eventually they realized he was driving a huge amount of traffic to the site, which resulted in advertising dollars for them. But they were so used to being "the only game in town" in Washington DC (The Washington Times doesn't count; it's a church-funded instrument that has never operated in the black founded in 1982 by a guy who claimed to be the messiah) that they had this mentality that they drove traffic places, not the other way around. Eventually they recognized that they had no choice but to look the other way while Drudge continued deep linking, but a few people on staff still grumbled about him being a parasite profiting off of their work.

France and the U.S. have very different ideas about the media and intellectual property (for example, publishers in France set book prices and the bookstores can't discount them). There's a reason bookstores aren't dying there like they are in the states -- in fact, physical book sales are up. TFA in this case doesn't specify whether the complaint is about Google scraping entire pages from the site (for previews) or just displaying the brief summary, but that would seem to be where a line might need to be drawn. If a Google user can read an entire news story by squinting at the preview on Google's site without ever visiting the publisher that paid for the content to be written, I could see the French having an issue with that. But if their complaint is that you can search the text of their articles, see a brief summary of the article that directs you to the publisher's site, they're going to need to wake up and realize that Google (and similar search engines) are driving visitors and euros to them without having to make payments directly.

Would a restaurant complain about trademark infringement if the city put up signs with their logo directing people to the restaurant? Well, maybe in France.

In more recent times it has become apparent that people have an extraordinary capacity to deceive themselves. A couple of short examples include the argumentative theory of reason and the concept that social interactions can change how we remember events. Given this, how do you resolve Biblical scriptures which ultimately say, if you [yourself] were genuinely confused, only divine intervention would be able to resolve the issue. E.g. "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day."[John 6:44]

I'm glad you pointed that out. I prefer Krugman's own blog to that source, though:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/07/golden-cyberfetters/

I think most Slashdotters would agree that beliefs should be held only to the extent there's truth-related reason for the belief. But the psych studies seem to show that all-to-often, even we nerds form our beliefs based on emotional motivations instead; Haidt suggests, for example, that reason is at best the driver on the back of the unruly elephant of the emotions. If so, then what does that mean to you about how we should try to dissuade the religious?

1) Never even tried to bring single payer to the table as he promised he would. Obamacare is literally less progressive than Nixon's health care plan. Was Nixon a progressive?

He tried, but it was a non-starter with Blue Dog Democrats. (and Republicans as well, though that didn't matter at the time). Obama believed the total package of reforms was more important than a hard stance on the public option:
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/health/policy/18talkshows.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1092-Blue-Dogs-Don-t-Want-a-Public-Option-That-Works

4) Medicare, medicaid, etc have been increasing exponentially. But they've been increasing exponentially for decades. And hell, Bush passed Medicare part D. Was he progressive?

I think you underestimate the size and breadth of Obamacare -- it's a 2000 page bill -- it added another 10% of the country to the health insurance industry -- it makes vast sweeping changes to the entire healthcare segment (including literally dictating how insurance companies will do business (who they must add to their roles, who they can't drop drop their roles, how much profit they can make, etc). Comparing it to Medicare part D in entitlement scope is like comparing something the size of Texas to something the size of Rhode Island. It'd be like comparing "privatizing social security" to "raising the social security age by a few years". Obamacare is a substantial increase in entitlements, of the like we haven't seen in most of our lifetimes. A public option would have been even moreso an increase in entitlements, but the lack thereof doesn't suddenly make that existing clusterfuck of a bill any less massive.

Since when did a bit of pollution matter to Perrier?

The problem with that reasoning is that the candidates have no reason or incentive to address major issues when people are willing to vote for them as a "compromise." The fact that millions of Americans living in communities that have been hardest-hit by the war on drugs voted for Barack Obama only proved to the Democrats that "business and usual" will not lose any votes for them. The fact that millions of fiscal conservatives vote for Republicans only proves to the Republicans that "business as usual" will not lose any votes for them. The fact that the same people who decry the loss of constitutional rights publicly endorse the major parties removes whatever incentive those parties had to reverse that trend.

If you need more evidence, consider the fear amongst both Democrats and (especially) Republicans over Gary Johnson (note that I do not actually plan to vote for him -- I am not a libertarian):

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/us/politics/gary-johnson-the-libertarian-partys-presidential-nominee-worries-republicans.html?pagewanted=all

Let's not forget the outrage over Ralph Nader in 2000, and the way the Democrats blamed him for Bush's victory (rather than saying, "Gee, maybe those people that support us want something other than what Gore had to offer").

As for "gay rights", the church leadership supports homosexual civil unions, just not calling it marriage. In the same vein, you can believe me or not, but we don't sit around much and talk about gay marriage. A little, but not much.

I take issue with this. Your church should not be pushing its definition of marriage into law. If a gay couple can't be married at a Mormon church, that's fine with me. They can always leave. But that couple should be able to elope at a local courthouse. Civil unions do not provide the same rights, privileges and responsibilities under current law that marriage does.

I am by no means a supporter of Iran or its current government, but I do believe in facts. President Ahmadinejad has never said that Israel must be wiped off the map. The entire issue arose from a mistranslation of his statements, which is more accurately translated as "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." If you're going to use this statement to support actions against another country, please get it right.

Source here.

FDA, for example, has entirely skipped on regulating "supplements". No matter their claims or effects, as long as they don't contain restricted substances.

Talk to Congress(ask for Tom Harkin(D-IA) and Orrin Hatch(R-UT) in particular. Harkin appears to be a True Believer and gets some nice campaign cash from Herbalife, Hatch? Well, let's just say that Utah has a thing for 'supplements'.).
 
The "Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994’’ says that the FDA can't do jack about 'supplements', aside from some basic manufacturing standards stuff, unless they get enough adverse event reports to satisfy the burden of proof(on them) and do something about it.

Well we need to put them in the oven too as weev memorably said of bloggers, but for some reason I get modded down here whenever I say that.

Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey are part of "The West"?

As far as I can tell, unless you actually believe the biased and unreliable Russian sources, the weapons come from the above mentioned countries... That's hardly the United States and Europe, or "the West" as its collectively known.

The US claims that:

"The United States is not sending arms directly to the Syrian opposition. Instead, it is providing intelligence and other support for shipments of secondhand light weapons like rifles and grenades into Syria, mainly orchestrated from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The reports indicate that the shipments organized from Qatar, in particular, are largely going to hard-line Islamists."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/world/middleeast/jihadists-receiving-most-arms-sent-to-syrian-rebels.html

Actually, you should.

An organisation like the FBI just takes a bunch of servers any time they like:

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/f-b-i-seizes-web-servers-knocking-sites-offline/

If they are from the right tenant does not really matter to them. It will take many months before your server is returned.

Here is the correct link

If that's Romney that will likely mean overturning Roe v Wade (ie banning abortion), validating the Defense of Marriage Act barring same sex unions, overturning any possible attempt to ban assault rifles, allowing warrantless wiretapping and surveillance of US citizens, deciding on the legality of any immigration reform, and any chance at gender equality laws or affirmative action.

I highlighted the part that actually matters. See, all those other things would be nice to have (well, except the assault weapons ban, which ignores the fact that criminal use of assault rifles is negligible compared to handguns, but we would never have a "handguns ban" with the major parties) if we were not busy worrying about a government that does not bother to follow the law; right now, those things are a distraction. Funny how the warrantless wiretap program has not stopped in the past four years. Funny how the TSA has simply ignored a court order. Funny how Mitt Romney is not interested in calling his opponent out on those issues.

Not to mention the power of Congress to declare war has been completely subverted by executive order

Yes, it is clear that Obama would never oversee the use of the US military without first asking Congress to declare war:

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/13/world/americas/in-honduras-deaths-make-us-rethink-drug-war.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Oh, sorry, that was "law enforcement," except that it is carried out using anti-aircraft weapons.

Calling these two candidates "similar individuals" is completely cynical and naive

They are clearly different -- one is black and one is white! No, really, this is not about them as individuals, it is about them as politicians who will make important decisions. On the one hand, you have Mitt Romney, whose 2002 gubernatorial campaign was loaded with false promises ("I support comprehensive sex ed!" followed by promoting abstinence-only education once he was elected), and on the other, Barack Obama, whose 2008 presidential campaign was loaded with false promises ("We are going to stop the war on drugs!" followed by more paramilitary raids on medical marijuana dispensaries in California in his first two years in office than all eight Bush years combined).

Which do you think affects more Americans: gay marriage, or the loss of constitutional rights? Now, which one of those issues have you heard the major party candidates talk about more? Do you think that the choice should be between lower interest rates on student loans or lower tuition fees so that students take out smaller loans, or between having to take our loans and having the government fund education as a public good (again, what are the candidates avoiding talking about)? So before you say, "The two parties are totally different!" ask yourself this: are you really looking at all possibilities, or have you narrowed your field of view to the point where two fascist parties appear to be worlds apart?

The best that can be said about Obama is that he didn't plunge the US in another needless

Really?

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/world/africa/us-expands-drug-fight-in-africa.html?_r=0

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/world/americas/honduran-drug-raid-deaths-wont-alter-us-policy.html

http://mwcnews.net/focus/politics/20760-war-on-drugs.html

I mean, I guess this war was started before Obama, but it is not as though our military and paramilitary forces are not being utilized for pointless and destructive ends by the Obama administration.

The best that can be said about Obama is that he didn't plunge the US in another needless

Really?

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/world/africa/us-expands-drug-fight-in-africa.html?_r=0

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/world/americas/honduran-drug-raid-deaths-wont-alter-us-policy.html

http://mwcnews.net/focus/politics/20760-war-on-drugs.html

I mean, I guess this war was started before Obama, but it is not as though our military and paramilitary forces are not being utilized for pointless and destructive ends by the Obama administration.

Taxi officials say that Uber's service may not be legal since city rules do not allow for prearranged rides in yellow taxis. They also forbid cabbies from using electronic devices while driving and prohibit any unjustified refusal of fares. (Under Uber's policy, once a driver accepts a ride through the app, no other passenger can be picked up.)

Councilman James Vacca, the chairman of the City Council's transportation committee, said that the spread of taxi apps had the potential to create a "two-tiered taxi system" in the city: one for people "with fancy smartphones" who are asked to pay a premium, and one for everybody else. "As a councilman from the Bronx," he said, "a disparity like that does concern me."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/05/nyregion/as-ubers-taxi-hailing-app-comes-to-new-york-its-legality-is-questioned.html?_r=0

The NYC TLC and the city councilors have significant concerns about this effectively siphoning off high paying customers, leaving few cabs for the lower classes. I'm not sure that's rational, but I also wouldn't call it greed.

Sorry, I did notice that section of the article but forgot to address it. Partly that's a bit of scientific he-said she-said that I don't have the expertise to evaluate, but the other part is I don't really trust the reporter.

The reporter has both shown a strong bias towards organics, and a willingness to bend facts (the tortured definition of nutritious) to unfairly attack the author's integrity. So I don't know if the Kirsten Brandt study was a good one, or if the excluded nutrients were important ones, or if there's any one of a dozen other reasons that those sentences could be misleading. The Standford study could be wrong, but this NY times article won't be the one to convince me, this reporter already lost my trust and I'm not going to take him at his word.

Since you dismiss the Newcastle University study only on the basis of Mark Bittman being a biased columnist (fair enough, he probably is), you may be interested to read the recent NY Times article which also explains some of the methodology differences between the studies which lead to different conclusions. In any case, I'm reserving judgement on both studies for now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/science/stanford-organic-food-study-and-vagaries-of-meta-analyses.html

How does the HFT magically know what you were willing to pay? It's really hard to have a reasoned debate when people are attributing ridiculous feats to HFT

1) http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/07/24/business/0724-webBIZ-trading.ready.html
2) They can issue and cancel trades very quickly to see what the other traders will bite.

Then USA is Japan . . . If there was ever a "cyber-Pearl Harbor", then Iran was Hawai, and USA were playing the role of Japan. Stuxnet was the first strike, you know...

On the contrary, Stuxnet wasn't "Pearl Harbor", it was Kursk, where the US is the Russians and Iran is the Germans. Specifically Stuxnet is the counter-preparation fire to delay, disorganize, and confuse them, but it won't ultimately stop them. Stopping them would take wise leaders, and Iran has fanatics. Pearl Harbor was a strike on a nation at peace with the attacker, and the counter-preparation fire at Kursk was a strike against an adversary at war that is preparing a deadly move - in Iran's case, nuclear weapons. Iran considers itself at war with the United States and Israel, and will probably extend that to Europe. Why do you think missile defenses provided by the US are going into Europe? Hint: It isn't to defend against an American attack. It is related to the fact that Iran has been observed redesigning their long range Shahab 3 missile warheads, replacing the conventional shape with a spherical nuclear payload.

Fire Support at the Battle of Kursk

Just after 0200 on 5 July 1943, Marshal of the Soviet Union Georgi Konstantinovich Zhukov received the call he had been waiting for. It was General Pukhov, commander of the Thirteenth Army, reporting that he had captured a German sapper. After some "persuasion,” the sapper stated that the anticipated German offensive against the Kursk salient would commence at 0300, less than an hour away. There was no time to lose. Without hesitation, Zhukov turned to Marshal Konstantin Rokossovsky, commander of the Central Front, and ordered the artillery counter-preparation to begin immediately.1

At 0220, 10 minutes before German preparatory fires were to begin, the Central Front’s command post trembled as more than 600 Soviet howitzers, Katyushas2 and mortars opened fire on known and templated German artillery positions. This counter-preparation lasted for only 30 minutes but had a devastating impact on unsuspecting German forces preparing to attack. German artillery was unable to return fire in any organized manner until 0445, delaying the attack until 0530—two and one half-hours behind schedule.3

Then, we don't even have a proof that Iran has a program for nuclear weapons, we only know they are working on nuclear power.

Allow me to draw your attention to Section H of the IAEA director general's report dated 30 August 2012 on Iran's nuclear program, where it states, among other things: "39. The Annex to the Director General's November 2011 report (GOV/2011/65) provided a detailed analysis of the information available to the Agency, indicating that Iran has carried out activities that are relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device." In short, they have found nuclear weapons related activities. I will also drawn your attention to this, where at least seven activities related to nuclear weapons development carried out by Iran are noted. And last, but not least, the UN Secretary General is calling for Iran to come clean on its activities. So the bottom line is, yes, we have proof that Iran has been pursuing a nuclear weapon.

Why is it that USA should be the police of this world? Who gave them this authority?

I'm afraid you're badly confused on this point. It is European Union members that are taking the lead in trying to turn Iran around diplomatically, and the UN Security Council that is holding Iran accountable, as stated in my post above. (Among other things: "The UN Security Council has passed multiple resolutions demanding that Iran halt its uranium enrichment activities.")

My question to you is, how do you get this so wrong? How do you confuse Europe for the United States? Are you trying to claim that the United States is not equal to European powers? Why do you have this prejudice against the United States? Do you post without reading? (Silly me, this is Slashdot.)

The United States has acted in its interests, just like other powers. To pretend that the United States is unique in that is silly and against the facts.

Excuse me, who started it? That would be the Iranian government with their covert nuclear weapons program

I'm sorry, but this doesn't work with me.

I'm not surprised, but I'll work with you on this one - what did Stuxnet attack? Parts of the nuclear weapons program. If the nuclear weapons program didn't exist, would Stuxnet have exited? No, why would it - there would be nothing to attack. Nuclear program is action, Stuxnet is counter-action, AKA blowback. See, very simple when you think about it.

USA admittedly has enough nuclear weapons to destroy earth multiple times. And it's been more than half a century this happened. Why didn't Iran go after USA then?

That is a pretty silly attempt at moral equivalency. I'm amazed that you would try it. But I'll throw in a history lesson for free - the US and Iran were allies until 1979, and World War 2 ended in 1945. Just think about it.

Now, here are a few reasons why Europeans and others might have some concerns about Iran:

Iran Threatens To 'Freeze' Europe for Backing Sanctions (Would have sent you to the old Copt news site that hosted that as well, but for some reason it seems to be off-line. Ideas ?)
State Sponsors: Iran

You are badly misinformed, on more than one subject.

Allow me to draw you attention to Section H of the IAEA director general's report dated 30 August 2012 on Iran's nuclear program. In it you will see that Iran has carried out a number of weapons related activities, and that there are serious open questions. An earlier report referenced here found seven categories of activity aimed at nuclear weapons production, and rather damning ones at that. And if you can trouble yourself to read, the UN Secretary General is urging Iran to come clean.

Neither the US nor Israel want war with Iran as it would be both an enormous waste of resources, and a dangerous development for the world, including the economy. But the US, Israel, Europe, and most of Iran's neighbors want a nuclear armed Iran even less than war.

You are also wrong about the coup. It was a counter-coup that restored the Shaw to power - that would be the Shaw that was the lawful head of government in Iran prior to the coup that pushed him out and the counter-coup that restored him to power. So, your point there is also nonsense, particularly in light of the ambitions of the radical Shia who formed Iran's government.

And I'll throw in a bonus since you get so much else wrong: State Sponsors: Iran

For bonus points, I grew in Wells, ME, about 10km south of Kennebunk

I guess you grew up there some time ago.

just make prostitution legal (and regulated) like most of Europe.

A very long time ago.

Maybe it is better if the US doesn't legalize prostitution like the !most of Europe, and the part of Europe where it is legal but being moved against?

French minister for women seeks abolition of prostitution in Europe

France's minister for women is to organise a consultation on ways to abolish prostitution in France and Europe, she has told the Guardian.

Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, the high profile women's rights minister and government spokeswoman, said in an interview that she would be organising a conference of experts on how to contain the sex-trade and human-trafficking and was seeking to meet the home secretary Theresa May for input from the UK.

"Since the 19th century and the role of [the Victorian feminist] Josephine Butler, Britain and France have been the core countries in the international mobilisation against prostitution. I really hope that these common roots are still alive," she said. She wanted a meeting with May on how Britain and France approach prostitution and human-trafficking. In France prostitution is not illegal, but activities around it are. Brothels were outlawed in 1946 and pimping is illegal.

In 2003 a controversial law against soliciting was introduced by Nicolas Sarkozy, then interior minister, making it illegal to stand in a public place known for prostitution dressed in revealing clothes.

Last year, the French parliament adopted a resolution on the abolition of prostitution saying its objective was a "society without prostitution".

The consultation would consider recommendations made last year by a cross-party commission of French MPs that it should be illegal to pay for sex. The MPs had suggested all clients of sex workers, meaning anyone who buys sex from any kind of prostitute, would face prison and a fine. Clients of sex-workers face prison in a handful of European countries, including Sweden, Norway and Iceland.

Spain, the world capital of prostitution?
In Spain, Women Enslaved by a Boom in Brothel Tourism

LA JONQUERA, Spain — She had expected a job in a hotel. But when Valentina arrived here two months ago from Romania, the man who helped her get here — a man she had considered her boyfriend — made it clear that the job was on the side of the road.

He threatened to beat her and to kill her children if she did not comply. And so she stood near a roundabout recently, her hair in a greasy ponytail, charging $40 for intercourse, $27 for oral sex.

“For me, life is finished,” she said later that evening, tears running down her face. “I will never forget that I have done this.”

La Jonquera used to be a quiet border town where truckers rested and the French came looking for a deal on hand-painted pottery and leather goods. But these days, prostitution is big business here, as it is elsewhere in Spain, where it is essentially legal.

While the rest of Spain’s economy may be struggling, experts say that prostitution — almost all of it involving the ruthless trafficking of foreign women — is booming, exploding into public view in small towns and big cities. The police recently rescued a 19-year-old Romanian woman from traffickers who had tattooed on her wrist a bar code and the amount she still owed them: more than $2,500.

In the past, most c

I'm right, they're trying to pin it on Iran.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/world/middleeast/us-suspects-iranians-were-behind-a-wave-of-cyberattacks.html?_r=1

Frankly, New York City can do more to improve its citizens' health than banning certain sizes of HFCS drinks (because calling them "sugary" simply ignores the fact that soda can be made using real sugar).

What's silly is your assumption that HFCS is a problem and not cane sugar, or the idea that cane sugar is a good nutrient to pad calories with. "Sugary" is meant to cover both cane sugar and HFCS.

Here's some quotes from the ban:

"(1) Sugary drink means [..] (B) is sweetened by the manufacturer or establishment with sugar or another caloric sweetener;"

"Americans consume 200-300 more calories daily than 30 years ago, with the largest single increase due to sugary drinks.10 Sugary drinks are also the largest source of added sugar in the average American's diet, comprising nearly 43% of added sugar intake.11 A 20 ounce sugary drink can contain the equivalent of 16 packets of sugar. These drinks are associated with long-term weight gain among both adults and youth.12,13,14,15 With every additional sugary beverage a child drinks daily, his/her odds of becoming obese increase by 60%.16 In addition, high consumption of sugary drinks is linked to an increased risk of heart disease and diabetes.17,18,19 These drinks are the primary source of added sugars (sugars and syrups that are added to foods or beverages when they are processed or prepared) in children's diets.20 Sugar intake has also been linked to heart disease risk factors in adolescents.21"

And it's been posted before: Is Sugar Toxic?

OK, let me correct that to "before after D-day". Already in June? Reports form whom? Allied forces? Did they reach concentration camps that soon? Or the red cross?

Well, I've found this - American press had finally got whiff of it - which reported on the exact place, nature and scale of events. However, the information had been diffusing ever since Wetzler, Vrba and others escaped from Auschwitz. Wetzler and Vrba passed their report to Hungarians, and those were unwilling to believe it for quite some time. As far as non-public information is concerned, even before that, Witold Pilecki had been sending his reports to the Brits between 1941 and 1943, but they kept dismissing them as an unreliable exaggeration. And what about this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/19/science/small-telescope-helps-make-big-discovery.html?_r=0

One of the reasons the Post office is losing money is that they have to fund their employee's health benefits for 75 years in advance. That is to say, it has to fund employee benefits for employees that haven't even been hired yet. Its an artificial crisis created by congress.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/19/us/politics/postal-service-set-to-default-on-billions-in-health-payments.html?_r=0

I'm not defending how the post office is run, just saying there are other issues on its balance sheet.

Vint Cerf gives a very good answer, though that was for the Internet and not Mobile Broadband. "For example, at one time if you didn’t have a horse it was hard to make a living. But the important right in that case was the right to make a living, not the right to a horse. Today, if I were granted a right to have a horse, I’m not sure where I would put it." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/opinion/internet-access-is-not-a-human-right.html?_r=0.

I think he's referring to the time Amazon deleted copies of 1984 and Animal Farm , ironically enough. Amazon had sold a version to which it didn't have the rights, so when it discovered the error, it deleted everyone's copies and refunded the cash. While Amazon later promised to never do it again, they do have the capability to do so, which makes people understandably nervous. That is one of several reasons I went with a Nook instead of a Kindle - while B&N probably has the same capability, at least they haven't exercised it yet.

I think my favorite thing about my Nook is that I can get old, out-of-print, and barely-extant scifi books that are acknowledged classics but will probably never be printed again - often for free, because the copyright has expired. My Nook has over 200 ebooks on it, from Gutenberg and Baen and other sites, and I've only bought seven of them, I believe.

I think he's referring to the time Amazon deleted copies of 1984 and Animal Farm , ironically enough. Amazon had sold a version to which it didn't have the rights, so when it discovered the error, it deleted everyone's copies and refunded the cash. While Amazon later promised to never do it again, they do have the capability to do so, which makes people understandably nervous. That is one of several reasons I went with a Nook instead of a Kindle - while B&N probably has the same capability, at least they haven't exercised it yet.

I think my favorite thing about my Nook is that I can get old, out-of-print, and barely-extant scifi books that are acknowledged classics but will probably never be printed again - often for free, because the copyright has expired. My Nook has over 200 ebooks on it, from Gutenberg and Baen and other sites, and I've only bought seven of them, I believe.

"Breaking the Law is useful in enforcing the Law that is illegal under the foundation of Law."

Wonderful little police state you got there.

Most people here will mistakenly think your comment is snide, but isn't it closer to the mark to call it appreciation tinged with envy?* Of course it isn't true, the United States isn't a police state. Defending yourself against would-be mass murderers, that is terrorists as opposed to political dissenters, is not oppression. Neither is surveillance on people in direct contact with Al Qaida oppression. You'll know the United States is a genuine police state when "slandering the state" earns you 10 years in a labor camp as was common under various socialist regimes of the sort you don't seem to criticize much.

The United States isn't quite there yet as President Obama's "Green Jobs Czar", Van Jones, was just a little too openly radical for the present age.

Proposed Soviet Legal Code to Retain Execution - By ESTHER B. FEIN, Special to the New York Times, December 18, 1988

Groups and individuals monitoring human rights have been anticipating the legal changes, hoping that they would eliminate articles that have been used to suppress and punish political dissent - in particular, Article 70, which sanctions imprisonment for anti-Soviet agitation, and Article 190, which allows it for anti-Soviet slander. But the ''guidelines for criminal legislation of the U.S.S.R. and the constituent republics,'' do not mention either article. They deal with some, but not all, of the individual statutes, and mostly offer direction to the 15 republics for rewriting their criminal codes.

* Nobody should be confused about the willingness of would-be revolutionaries to fight the system they intend to overthrow with its own procedures (Rule 4) to maximize their opportunity to act legally while working to subvert the nation. (Once power passes to them, surprises can follow.) The founding leadership of the ACLU is a case in point:

First, Roger Baldwin: Baldwin was the founder of the ACLU . . . Baldwin was an atheist. He was also a onetime communist, who, among other ignoble gestures, wrote a horrible 1928 book called Liberty Under the Soviets. Notably, he was smart enough not to join Communist Party USA (CPUSA). Other early officials of the ACLU, which was founded almost exactly the same time as the American Communist Party, included major party members like William Z. Foster, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, and Louis Budenz (who later broke with the party). Communists used the ACLU to deflect questions from the U.S. government over whether they were loyal to the USSR, were serving Joe Stalin in some capacity, and were committed to the overthrow of the American system. . . .

So bad had been the ACLU in aiding and abetting American communists that various legislative committees, federal and state, considered whether it was a communist front. The 1943 California Senate Fact-Finding Committee on Un-American Activities reported that the ACLU "may be definitely classed as a communist front." The committee added that "at least 90 percent of its [the ACLU's] efforts are expended on behalf of communists who come into conflict with the law." That 90-percent figure was consistent with a major report produced by Congress a decade earlier, January 17, 1931. --- The ACLU's Not-So-Holy Tri

China is the most dangerous country in the world today. And the information about how horrible the Chinese, despite them getting MUCH worse given the economic situation, the information flow has been nearly shut down since 2007 timeframe. There were big 60 minutes type exposes in 2007 but since then the Police State has seen that information regarding our forced consumption of Chinese Walmart Plastic with Federal Reserve Notes remains in place.

China tires bad:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118278927863547228.html

The organizing committee of Beijingâ(TM)s Olympic games has promised to investigate charges that official merchandise is being manufactured using child labor.

The PRC Chinese poison dog food:
http://www.themoneytimes.com/articles/20070523/chinese_protein_export_scandal-id-104033.html

The PRC Chinese poison toothpaste:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/02/us/02toothpaste.html?ex=1181620800&en=d26dab8b2bd85303&ei=5070

The PRC Chinese poison Children's Toys:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070614/thomas_recall_070614/20070614?hub=CTVNewsAt11
http://blogs.eastbayexpress.com/92510/2007/06/thomas_why_hath_thou_forsaken.php

Chinese Seafood Detained for Safety
http://www.topix.com/forum/food/TFSGN6836LFM2QFV7

Melamine put into milk formula, dog food, etc.
http://www.treehugger.com/green-food/got-melamine-53000-chinese-children-did-in-their-milk.html

- Cow milk so inundated with antibiotics you can not make Yogurt from it.

- Pigs force-fed waste water.

- Lard made from separating fats from sewage.

Made in China: tainted food, fake drugs and dodgy paint
http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,,2118920,00.html

China Jails 2 Protestant Church Leaders
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/china-jails-two-protestant-leaders/58150/

The PRC Chinese government has murdered countless people:
"DEATH BY GOVERNMENT: GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER"
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.TAB1.GIF
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.FIG1.GIF

Given modern industrial process and productivity, I don't even see how using Chinese slave labor saves that much in the face of having to crate up and ship the goods from china to consuming markets.

The bean counters saved maybe 10% at best making product, and now with the price of shipping goods going up due to petrol, they are probably paying more to have it made in China.

The only real reason it may never come back to the US is a host of states (NY, CA) and The Fedzilla / US government that have a long list of anti-business laws making a return to the US difficult.

You want Made in the USA? Tell state and federal congress to stop doing everything to drive up the cost of business compared to China and India (the only two competitors that matter); stop buying Chinese crap where possible.

Slave Labor rented at a PREMIUM with low quality results is still apparently cheaper than coming back her

You sure it's tens of millions of years? Carbon dating has been found to be possibly inaccurate recently.

It could just be tens or hundreds of thousands...or depending on if you're a Creationist or not, it could be [ n] thousand years.

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us/errors-are-feared-in-carbon-dating.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2001/may/10/carbon-clock-could-show-the-wrong-time

It's a joke; it's pure class warfare. Doesn't matter if you invented it, if you can't afford to patent it, then fuck you. Why not reinstate poll taxes while you're at it? Why let non-property owners vote at all? Fuck it, just kill the poor.

Fuck you. Who the fuck needs to sell into America anyway? Think I can't make a living selling into the the EU, and a good one at that? Just fucking watch me.

America cares about one thing and one thing only- how much coke can the CEOS and lawyers shove up their noses? America is so fucking fucked. Don't sell software in America- that's the only lesson here.

If you wanted to have a great career you might do what Michael Phillips did, spend 30 years learning the arcana of some academic microworld and be widely known as one of the if not the most brilliant researchers in that world and then apply that knowledge in a societally useful direction by forming a software company and bringing a product to market.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-among-tech-giants-can-stifle-competition.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

All that would be great, it's certainly what society says it wants, it represents a best case scenario in terms of societal investment and payback in an individual citizen.. and you might think that this is a successful life, a life worth imitating.. but you'd be wrong.. You'd be wrong because it all ends when a lawyer knocks on your door the first time with the strategy to file baseless software patent cases against you until your money is gone, then force you to sell your company to him .. and oh, and become his employee so the integration of your product goes well for him.

Fuck America. don't sell software in nations that permit software patents. That's the ONLY solution. America is the sole possession of the coke snorting class .. we just had that genetic junk tank the entire economy and whine for a bailout and now this slimy take over artist / con man stands to win the Presidency and turn them loose to do it again. Obviously, we're in a societal death spiral we're not going to be pulling out of because at least half the electorate believes in creationism, the magic market bunny and denies global warming. Pretty much it's the end of America as a super power and the beginning of the the rise of Europe as the guardian of the Enlightenment. America is a nation of religious and political / social zealots whose zealotry is unfortunately the kind that closes itself off to self correction. Too bad, but it's time to face reality.. America is past its prime, WAY past its prime and is in the throes of unraveling. That's what happens when you permit religion to lay claim to knowledge superior and truer to science.. citizens are trained up to believe just anything that comes out of the mouths of preachers and politicians because they lack critical thinking skills and worse, are suspicious of them. A population like that is nothing but a societal death sentence being played out over generations.

It would take a really silly rich person to spend his money on general consumer goods instead of airplanes and "yachts in Dubai" which an increase of production in would not help the general population.

It's funny that you mention this. The yachts in Dubai used to be yachts in Miami. What changed? When Bush Sr. broke his "no new taxes" promise, one of the taxes is a luxury boat tax. What happened? People with enough money to buy yachts stopped buying them here. Overnight we destroyed an industry and lost 600,000 jobs. Why? Because some petty assholes thought it would be a good idea to punish the rich. The problem with that kind of thinking is that it's limited. The rich weren't punished. The tradesmen who used to make boats for the rich were punished.

Of course, don't let reality get in the way of ideology

LK

I like looking shifty you insensitive clod!

But seriously, dollars per mile (or how about pounds sterling per kilometer, just to keep the mix of units) doesn't really work well either because diesels typically cost more up front.

On the dollars per mile front, the best bet is to get an all-electric car. But the price premium upfront for that hardly ever makes up for the savings in euros per furlong side of things.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/04/business/the-cost-of-higher-fuel-economy.html

A good article that gives a better description is here http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-among-tech-giants-can-stifle-competition.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 but the problem was more that creative had patented something "on a portable media player" not that they patented "a media player".

Interesting article, thanks, I think I'll submit it to /.

Not just Early Engines..

Let's see, there was the Titan IV which took out a facility at Edwards AFB on April Fools Day in 1991. Now that was an Air Force engine, but fairly modern. There was another Titan IV which exploded in more spectacular fashion.

Recently, we have the NASA Morpheus Lander Explosion.

Then there's the Delta II, which is a newer launch system which has exploded at least twice that I'm aware of. Once in 1995 and another in 1997.

The point is that NASA and the Air Force and their various subcontractors, SpaceX not included, don't have a perfect record on launch vehicle malfunctions. You can't have lots of propellant with oxidizer burning without some sort of malfunction. While still rare, these events can and do happen and it's good to see SpaceX plan for these kinds of things unlike the Soviets did when their Moon Rocket went "boom" when they were testing in the 60s In Fact, all four launches of the N-1 were failures.

Not just Early Engines..

Let's see, there was the Titan IV which took out a facility at Edwards AFB on April Fools Day in 1991. Now that was an Air Force engine, but fairly modern. There was another Titan IV which exploded in more spectacular fashion.

Recently, we have the NASA Morpheus Lander Explosion.

Then there's the Delta II, which is a newer launch system which has exploded at least twice that I'm aware of. Once in 1995 and another in 1997.

The point is that NASA and the Air Force and their various subcontractors, SpaceX not included, don't have a perfect record on launch vehicle malfunctions. You can't have lots of propellant with oxidizer burning without some sort of malfunction. While still rare, these events can and do happen and it's good to see SpaceX plan for these kinds of things unlike the Soviets did when their Moon Rocket went "boom" when they were testing in the 60s In Fact, all four launches of the N-1 were failures.

Remember Creative, the maker of Soundblaster cards? They were also one of the first makers of MP3 players. ("Less space than an Nomad, lame")

When Apple came out with its own MP3 player called the iPod, Creative sued... because it infringed on Creative's patent for a "portable device that plays MP3 files". Apple settled three months later for $100 million.

Afterwards, Steve jobs vowed never to get caught with his pants down again. When developing the new iPhone, he declared "we're going to patent it all". Basically, Creative took Apple to school on patents, and Apple learned real fast.

I'm not sure of your version of history. The patent fight was not over creating a portable device that plays mp3 files it was over menu navigation on a media player[and 5 other patents] "The patent in question was Creative self-titles Zen Patent"

FYI
"A method of selecting at least one track from a plurality of tracks stored in a computer-readable medium of a portable media player configured to present sequentially a first, second, and third display screen on the display of the media player, the plurality of tracks accessed according to a hierarchy, the hierarchy having a plurality of categories, subcategories, and items respectively in a first, second, and third level of the hierarchy "

A good article that gives a better description is here http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-among-tech-giants-can-stifle-competition.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 but the problem was more that creative had patented something "on a portable media player" not that they patented "a media player".

Thought I'd throw this out there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei_Symantec and this http://www.huaweisymantec.us/ and this http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/technology/symantec-dissolves-alliance-with-huawei-of-china.html?_r=0 Is the alliance is over?

Also, for most of the US, Walmart caps their maximum wage at $15/hour. Once you hit that, you'll never get another raise in that position as long for as you work at Walmart. http://graphics.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/business/20061002_WALMART/20061002_walmart_memo.pdf