Slashdot Mirror

I think the biggest problem some people have with the Global Warming issue is how it's presented. The people pushing it claim that the debate is over and there is a 100% consensus that we are fucked which is not the case. They are telling us the earth will heat up dramatically and the oceans will rise unless we take these drastic measure of reducing CO2 emissions. You ask what could be their motive aside from wanting to save the planet? I dunno ... maybe money. Shysters like Al Gore are looking to get rich of this. I think the bottom line is that there needs to be more research into Global Warming and it's causes, before we take these drastic measures. The temperature for the planet has been going up since the last ice age ... well only way is up from bottom. If our emissions are 100% responsible for this, why has the temperature gone down in the last couple of years while we have been hella emitting as usual? Some researchers claim that C02 levels in the atmosphere cap at a level where they trap heat, and further levels have marginal impact. Other researchers claim that the temperature readings(ground based) used to create the fear mongering campaign were faulty and irrelevant, that the atmospheric temperatures indicate that no warming has taken place. Who's right? I want to see these paths taken before drastic measure like sending a trillion fucking mirrors up into space at god knows what expense are taken. There are other sides to the debate which are never covered by the media. I found this an interesting documentary http://www.surfthechannel.com/episode/61506/32989.html. This was a pretty good read http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html. There are tons of other online documentaries and articles that present rational counter arguments to what is in the media.

Pfizer to pay $2.3 Billion to Settle Marketing Case. Still No Cure for Cancer.

Not to reply to my own post, but here's an interesting article about the cellular "suicide mechanism". Fascinating.....

I vowed that if McCain had won, I would leave the US. Now, I'm considering doing it anyway. It feels like the decline is irreversible now.

Krugman has an excellent column today about how corruption has not only made the rich richer, but has hamstrung our ability to govern at all. We've incapable of reacting in reasonable ways to real problems.

It's the Decline and Fall all over again. Why couldn't I have been born 50 years ago?

Just find a company that has a clue and cares with respect to actual work done per dollar productivity. There have been multiple studies that have found a nap in the afternoon substantially boosts alertness and productivity, so the employer gets more work done for their money and the employees are also generally happier.

The Tata Nano is reviewed here. The dashboard is ... interesting, but who needs to pay attention to all those dials anyway?

You are right, the Slate article doesn't state that. I don't know which specific bit of Jewish religious law the Slate article is referring to, I had assumed it was the "pursuer's decree", which only applies to Jewish lives. That was the legal ruling that some Rabbis used to justify the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, ("Under Jewish law, if a pursuer is chasing a Jew with the intent to kill him, one is required to kill the pursuer to save the life of the intended victim. This is one of the few exceptions to the general rule against killing.") It may indeed be the case that this was not the particular legal decree applied to justify organ smuggling.

In other news, Nvidia's Boss: Kill Your Company a Bit Every Day

The last 2 years were DEM controlled sure, just as all the crap from the first 6 years came home to roost. Not exactly the fault of the DEM's that when the economy tanked, we'd ALREADY spent our way to 5 TRILLION in Debt unnecessarily. That made the NECESSARY spending for economic reasons tougher to deal with. Bush's last budget was 700 Billion deficit.

Wow, my head just exploded.

So let me follow your logic:
1) Bush's 700B deficit (which was manly due to spendulus)... was bad?
2) Obama's spending, which has doubled or tripled over Bush's record (also due to spendulus)... is good?

They both spent up a ton of money for the same reason, and both publicly expressed regret about doing so (who you choose to believe, of course, is left as an exercise for the reader).

A fair bit of the blame is due to the dems, especially Barney Frank. ("These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.) And the bill died in congress.

Educate yourself:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

Big problem with how those sources get their data. I'd suggest reading up on their methodology.

You may want to review these locations:

http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/book_grad_rates/
http://www.nber.org/reporter/2008number1/heckman.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/education/20graduation.html

Of course, noone's going to be reading this reply, since I just gave it what The New Republic declared to be the most boring headline in the world. Still. hooray. hooray for canada. *golfclap*

By the same logic you can't blame the bankers who ruined the world economy

You can't blame them, but for a different reason. The seeds of the devastation were planted in 1999, when the congressional Democrats forced Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac to lower their lending standards — suddenly, millions of people, who hitherto would not qualify for mortgage, were able to obtain one. The same supply of the real estate now faced a spiked demand, which in our highly efficient capitalist economy resulted in spike of both prices and building activity to meet the demand.

Unfortunately, helping the poor qualify for mortgage does not help them pay it off. That the Democrats were able to blame Republicans (whose only fault was in not fighting against it hard enough) for this is a spectacular feat of mind-manipulation...

What about the much-maligned easing of banking regulations? Nope, that's not, what caused the problem — even if it exacerbated it. Would you blame a powerful engine for an accident, when the car slams into a log lying across the highway? Sure, if it weren't running at high speed, the driver could've stopped safely without hitting the obstruction. But the blame is solidly on those, who placed the log across the road, not on the car-maker, that gave you the speedy vehicle...

No I explain where they were located in the "political spectrum" ... slightly more to the center of Stalin ... massively to the left of everyone else.

Socialist theory was racist (look up "eugenics") for the better part of the 20th century.

And as for the "right-wing" nature of nazis ... why don't I just let liberals themselves do the talking ?

You see a certain ... extreme left ... newspaper berates European countries for not being as Nazi as Obama (I'm not kidding, read the article)

More than any other country, Germany â" Nazi Germany â" then set out on a serious stimulus program. The government built up the military, expanded the autobahn, put up stadiums for the 1936 Berlin Olympics and built monuments to the Nazi Party across Munich and Berlin.

The economic benefits of this vast works program never flowed to most workers, because fascism doesnâ(TM)t look kindly on collective bargaining. But Germany did escape the Great Depression faster than other countries. Corporate profits boomed, and unemployment sank (and not because of slave labor, which didnâ(TM)t become widespread until later). Harold James, an economic historian, says that the young liberal economists studying under John Maynard Keynes in the 1930s began to debate whether Hitler had solved unemployment.

(note that all left-wing governments are diametrically opposed to independant unions, you see this in the Soviet union, nazi germany, and in today's Venezuela)

What they do with the weapons: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/03/world/americas/03venez.html?_r=1&hp
What violent games do: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/02/AR2008110202392.html

See, that's what's so beautiful about it. Obama actually follows the law to some degree(Though I wish he'd ignore more of the court precedent for letting the government stretch the constitution, that's not really something I'd expect to see from any president besides Ron Paul).

I shudder to think about how long the gun wielding folks in Bush's town hall meetings would last before being sent by Cheney's secret police to the secret torture centres in Europe.

As for your proof, Wear an anti-Bush T-shirt, get arrested, lose your job, and Article: Sheehan arrested before Bush address: Woman was wearing protest T-shirt under clothing that she revealed upon taking her seat and further, Woman Arrested at McCain Event for "McCain=Bush" Sign

I lean liberterian/right since I tend to side with Ron Paul on economic issues and thus I tend to be against the Federal government meddling in social issues at all for better or worse. Regardless, despite the flaws, Obama's administration is such a step above what we've seen for the past 8 years, you literally can't compare the two. Allowing people to do something they're legally allowed to do without bending the law to arrest them anyway(despite such people being a clear and present danger to the well-being of the president) is just one good example.

Are the assertions about the Powell engine pretty well documented? Because every few months Popular Science features some amazing breakthrough in some scientific field that later turns out to be a bunch of nonsense.

For example, for a few years I followed with interest the press releases from the Coates Engine company in New Jersey. They claimed to have developed a spherical valve replacement for typical internal combustion engine valves that allowed for far higher compression and far less engine power losses from friction. The head of the company was later arrested for mail fraud. http://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/23/business/engine-inventor-accused-of-fraud.html?sec=&spon= ... so are you sure Powell was the real deal?

I'm not too sure I understand the circular argument - people are sentenced to death on some legal basis, not arbitrarily. After this basis has been demonstrated your rights are removed.

RE: the high party member's son with the kidney problem, I admit that the system can be corrupted and misused, but that happens everywhere. That doesn't mean the system itself is broken though, you have to deal with the fundamental problem of corruption.

Not quite true for lethal injection according to (e.g.): http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/28/international/asia/28LETH.html. Footnote: This aspect of lethal injection was even the basis for a plot of the televison series "Monk":"Mr. Monk goes to jail" http://www.usanetwork.com/series/monk/theshow/episodeguide/episodes/s2_goestojail/index.html. (I do not assume that the last quote is scientifc proof, just an intersting footnote).

The hubbub is about a article published in the Swedish newspaper "Aftonbladet" on 17th of August this year (link in swedish: http://www.aftonbladet.se/kultur/article5652583.ab) claiming that IDF harvested human organs from palestinians. This caused the israeli foreign minister to demand that the Swedish government condemn the article. The Swedish government responded that they would not due to freedom of press. (link to NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/world/middleeast/24mideast.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=aftonbladet&st=cse)

Regardless of comparative levels of restraint -- I mean, that's a bit like saying one lunatic's genocidal campaign was a little less bloody than another's, but I did get your meaning -- there have been a couple of reports recently that seem to indicate that the Chinese government intends to tighten up (read, make a tad more fair) the criminal court system and severely reduce the number of crimes that could earn you a bullet in the head.

Here's a 2006 USA Today article reported that the Supreme People's Court would have something like final say and/or oversight on capital sentences. FTA:

Chinese legal scholars and lawyers welcomed this week's announcement by the government that the country's Supreme People's Court will review all capital punishment cases.

The change is "an important procedural step to prevent wrongful convictions," said China's top judge, Xiao Yang, according to the state-run Xinhua news service.

China was responsible for 81% of the world's known executions â" 1,770 out of 2,184 â" last year, according to Amnesty International. Amnesty said the actual number of executions in China could be several times higher. In the USA, 60 people were executed in 2005.

A month ago, it was widely reported that they would also limit the crimes incurring death to "a small number of serious crimes, particularly those that threaten social stability", which would be a huge improvement since, FTA:

More than 60 crimes can draw the death penalty in China, including tax evasion, embezzlement and drug trafficking

Now, I'm against capital punishment on principle, but if a country is going to have it, then big time drug trafficking should probably be on that list. But tax evasion or small-time embezzlement? Geez!

On the upside, they do take that tough stance towards corruption in politicians (even if only of those who've made their actions *too* public) that we in the west so often deam of.. ;)

If there are judges sentencing innocent kids to jail time for kickbacks, then I don't think it's a stretch to assume it would happen with death row inmates and organs. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/us/13judge.html?_r=2&hp

No, that'll just send the Chinese economy into the crapper. And the American one as well. And the European one...

And you base that on what? Free-market sloganeering or an understanding of economics?

Actually, the House bill (or, at least, one version of it - I haven't kept up) does impose trade penalties on countries that don't limit greenhouse gas emissions. Economists who have studied this argue that this is not only sound economics but that the WTO would consider this to be fine under international trade laws.

This test worked for me.

Rendition of Terror Suspects Will Continue Under Obama

WASHINGTON â" The Obama administration will continue the Bush administrationâ(TM)s practice of sending terror suspects to third countries for detention and interrogation, but will monitor their treatment to ensure they are not tortured, administration officials said on Monday.

Right. Obama says he'll make sure they're "not tortured".

Just like he'll balance the budget, and give 95% of us a tax cut.

Riiight.

Obama's doing in Afghanistan what Bush did in Iraq. Obama still hasn't pulled US troops out of Iraq. Obama still hasn't closed Guantanamo.

And if Bush spent like a drunken sailor, Obama's spending like an entire drunken navy.

I guess that's CHANGE for you.

I guess it depends on Ellison - will his hate of all things MS make him sink millions into OO and make it a true competitor to MSO, or will he head the bean counters and cut it lose?

The geek sees an office suite.

Microsoft sees an office system that scales to a business of any size:

Microsoft, Google, and VMware redefine the OS, Microsoft's SharePoint Thrives in the Recession

100 million seats for SharePoint.

This is the market in which Ellison must compete - and throwing a few more pennies into OpenOffice.org doesn't yield much of a return.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/20050515_CLASS_GRAPHIC/index_03.html

Barely more than half of the people in the top 20% of the income bracket were still there even 10 years later. Not even close to the 99% intergenerational figure you were trying to claim.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html?_r=1

That appears to be a reasonably balanced look at who/what was "responsible" for the budget being $1.2 trillion in the hole, rather than $800 billion to the good.

To save you the trouble of reading it, it's the economy, Bush 43, and then Obama, in that order. Bush messed the budget up and Obama is either making it worse or not fixing it.

Sure, Obama's stimulus package didn't help, but neither did Bush's tax cuts, drug benefit, spending on homeland security, or increase in military spending.

The best thing we could do if we don't want IBM and other companies going abroad is what John Doerr and Thomas Friedman have suggested:

We should be taking advantage. Now is when we should be stapling a green card to the diploma of any foreign student who earns an advanced degree at any U.S. university, and we should be ending all H-1B visa restrictions on knowledge workers who want to come here.

Because it's often difficult or impossible to import international engineers and scientists with valuable or unusual skills to the United States, the logical alternative is to go to where they are. Want this kind of behavior on the part of IBM and others to, if not stop altogether, then at least to slow? Implement Friedman's suggestion. Otherwise, don't implicitly (or, in the case of many commenters on this thread, explicitly) complain when companies react to the conditions that politicians, and by extension voters, have placed on them.

Microsoft is becoming AOL. A crappy, proprietary, expensive, unreliable impediment to getting onto the internet. Their applications have plateaued, and open-source desktop and web-based competitors are improving rapidly. They'll hang on longer, but they've begun their long decline.

The true Slashdot geek can't post about Microsoft without his brain dissolving into mush. Fantasy rules and reality is an intrusion.

Listen to one of your own:

And then there's Microsoft. The company prints billions of dollars worth of profits each quarter from its Windows franchise, yet for years it has been quietly developing its next big operating system. And no, I'm not referring to Windows 7.

Microsoft has created a bridge "between personal productivity and line-of-business applications," one that stitches together Microsoft's "desktop" dominance with its cloud ambitions.

It's called SharePoint, and with over 100 million seats and $1 billion in revenue, the odds are that your company already has it installed.

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer long ago declared that "SharePoint is the definitive operating system or platform for the middle tier," and I don't think he's using the term "operating system" lightly.

Increasingly, SharePoint is the center of the Microsoft universe, at least, for enterprise computing. SharePoint serves as the hub for Microsoft's suite of operating systems, applications, and third-party software. It is a content application server, of sorts, one that provides the platform upon which so much of Microsoft's value is now being built.

I've disparaged SharePoint in the past for its tendency to lock customers into its proprietary repository. But let's be clear: a large number of companies seem perfectly happy to make that trade-off and are actively using SharePoint at the heart of their intranets, extranets, and Web sites.

Microsoft, Google, and VMware redefine the OS

Matt Assay is vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management.

He was even blunter when speaking to The New York Times:

SharePoint is saving Microsoft's Office business even as it paves the way for a new era of Microsoft lock-in. It is simultaneously the most interesting and dangerous Microsoft technology, and has largely caught its competitors napping."

Microsoft's SharePoint Thrives in the Recession

What I've never fully understood is why Google doesn't just do two passes before they post a photo. I realize the world is a big place, but it should be possible to remove moving objects from a scene from two photo sets. With a single pass many fast moving things should be able to be removed from the multiple angles, and a second pass should be able to remove slower moving objects from another set of multi-angle photos (with the possible exception of certain cats).

AT&T denies any role in rejecting the google voice application. Apple, also denies rejecting the application, but claims it is still studying it.

This is sort of interesting to watch, whose business relationship is decaying faster, Apple and Google's or Apple and AT&T's? (Or Microsoft's and Dell or MS and HP, but that's a different thread.)

AT&T denies any role in rejecting the google voice application. Apple, also denies rejecting the application, but claims it is still studying it.

This is sort of interesting to watch, whose business relationship is decaying faster, Apple and Google's or Apple and AT&T's? (Or Microsoft's and Dell or MS and HP, but that's a different thread.)

That, and pretty much everything else in the AFP article was already covered in the NY Times article mentioned in the earlier Slashdot story on forging DNA.

Maybe not, but my representative is much more accessible than the state senator or the US president. I can walk up to the guy (when he's home) and speak to him. He answers my letters at least somewhat thoughtfully. He's up for election every 2 years, so he's more afraid of local activism.

I understand the desire to hold a 'local' person accountable, but I think that you overvalue it greatly. If you manage to convert your representative to your cause, it is only one vote of 435, so he would have to convert many of his colleagues. I don't see that happening unless many of their constituents are also converted to your standpoint. So if you want to change something on the national level, local activism in one region is not sufficient. You need to convince people nationally. I don't see how that is much harder for the slightly more distant House of Reps that I propose (remember that you have 4 reps per state). If you can't even convince one of your reps to champion your cause, then what chance does your cause have in national politics?

The regional representation that you currently use for both Senate and the House means that it is very difficult for unclustered minority opinions to get any traction. This is far easier in a party system where even a 5% minority is heard and whose voting power can be significant. The way I see it, there is no real conflict between the Senate and Congress in the current system, which results in a lack of checks and balances. For instance, they both want as much pork as possible for their region and feel no responsibility to the overall budget. It is far easier to get non-regional politicians to commit to getting rid of pork.

I'm also not quite comfortable with your system since it further removes the significance of the separate states... I am a big proponent of returning more power to the states rather than marginalizing them further.

Currently both the Senate and the House of Reps do two things:
1. Consider issues based on their ideology
2. Wonder about the effect on their state & the limits of federal power

In practice, they implement 2 mostly by trying to get pork for their state. They pretty much ignore state rights and constitutional limits. During elections, Americans mostly vote based on ideology, so the politicians get away with it. My system would seperate these two responsibilities. The new Senate would be ideological and Americans vote for parties based on their opinion about abortion/gun rights/taxes/etc. The House of Reps would focus on the limits of federal power and the consequences to the states. Hopefully, Americans would understand the seperation and would vote for representatives that reflect their opinion on state rights and state issues, rather than ideology. If so, the power of the states could be greatly strenghtened.

I share his concerns, but saying that the media needs to be a watchdog over government and then funding it with the same government seems counterproductive.

Science research is funded by the government, but politicians do not determine what research is done by scientists. The supreme court is funded by the government, but politicians have no say in the rulings. Similarly, you could have a focused media organisation that is 100% aimed at researching and disseminating facts (the spin is for the networks). The leadership could be put in the hands of a small group selected by American newspapers.

It seems that some very clever Iraqis managed to hoodwink most of the US government, and the media. I'd like to fault the Times, but it's very hard to imagine how they would get high-quality information out of Iraq, which had no freedom of press to speak of.

I disagree with that, just as the Times did later on. Fact is that at the time, there was absolutely no solid evidence that Iraq still had WMDs. Good journalism (and good

Single payer has come up several times as a system and several more progressive groups are angry that Obama has said quite simply, that it's off the table for discussion. However, while he never said he'd like a single payer system now, he did say if we were starting from scratch, that's what he would do. It almost seems contradictory, but here's an example: "Well, if I had to start over, I'd buy a Mac. As it is, I'm going to upgrade to Windows 7 rather than sticking with Windows XP".

I don't necessarily see anything wrong with the current proposals, but I'm a liberal. I also really like the healthcare co-op idea that's been floated -- but unfortunately the early report is that pundits can't tell the difference between a non-profit and a gov't I guess -- despite its success in conservative places like northern Idaho.

1. After cutting the upper-class taxes there was a recession. Regan did it in the 80s and Bush did it in the last decade. Each time the economy stagnated. Progressive policies are very good for the economy as Poor people spend money. That money revs up the economy and keeps it going. People saving money or investing money does not actually rev the economy in the same way but they get all the benefits (see link on growth of economy later in this post)

2. I agree that there is some problem in American school systems. But most of the problem is that American culture of apathy and short attention spans. Kids don't have the attention span to finis...

3. You talk abut how socialism is such a weak systems but Russia had essentially 3rd world infrastructure and yet was a superpower on par with the US for most of our lifes. I don't think we could have done the same given the same infrastructure as them with government that we have. Also most of Europe does quite well with higher standards of living. Also I grew up on welfare. None of my family is on welfare anymore but it was a critical service when dad walked off and refused to pay child support. Since my family has worked directly with the poor (Health services and counseling) I think I have a better idea of who receives welfare than you do. It is often those with medical problems, mental problems, or even drug problems. Drug problems you say? Well let them rot! Well that is the problem. You have a drug conviction and suddenly you can't get many jobs, or and you can't get funding for college. How and the hell do you handle these people? You either put them on welfare or you throw them in jail which is still state funded living. But yay you are still hard on crime and the war on drugs goes on! Rah rah!

But what really incensed me with your post was your assertion that people have an easier time getting ahead in America. BZZZT! Nice try the US is harder to advance out of poverty and it is getting harder all the time. For all our vaunted freedom you can move around in the middle class, but if you want to be an executive you really NEED be in the right class or society to get your funding or to land that job due to your uncle's connection. There are some people who manage to found a company and build it to that level, but what are we talking about one in ten million? I get better odds at the lottery.... Every company founder I personally have known has gotten kicked out when the company stabilized and an interm CEO (who gets along with the VC and board) has been appointed to manage the continued growth of the company. I have yet to personally meet someone who actually manages to fight off the wolves and make it past upper middle class. But hey, they exist, I mean we see them on TV.

And before you rip on my liberal ideal with no real world backing let me drop some links. http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/20050515_CLASS_GRAPHIC/index_03.html I see those darn Scandinavian countries are more upward mobile despite their socialist trends and higher standard of living! Yes click around on that link and you will see the US is actually HARDER to climb out of poverty. But don't worry your capitalistic master are having a great time jerking your leash. You know that when the economy is growing rapidly the middle class still shows no upward mobility? http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/b1579981.html but I guess the upper class sees great returns on their investments.

Basically the American dream is a great PR piece to help insure there is cheap labor to fill factories. But Rah Rah for Capitalism. The idea that giving the money to private companies is also fallacious they tend to be very good at maximizing profit. (FOR

Of course, those who were born into poverty who have some sort of religious belief are significantly less likely to stay in poverty.

that's as full of shit as the "people who have strong religious beliefs have better surgical outcomes." It was an article of faith until someone actually looked at the figures, and religion had zero predictive value.

Oh yeah, there have been studies that show that many teenagers who become pregnant had access to birth control.

"Many" is not "most", or even "a statistically significant number." Ask Sarah Palin. On second thought, don't - she has two sets of rules - one for her and her kids (and other "good religious white folk") and another for "the rest of those trash."

Check out the stats - you'll see that the Repub states take up most of the top in teen birth rates, online porn use, divorce.rates, etc. http://lippard.blogspot.com/2009/06/republican-states-lead-in-divorce-teen.html. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/27/opinion/27blow.html?_r=1

From the NY Times:

While conservatives fight to "defend" marriage from gays, they can't keep theirs together. According to the Census Bureau's Statistical Abstract, states that went Republican in November accounted for eight of the 10 states with the highest divorce rates in 2006.

Conservatives touted abstinence-only education, which was a flop, when real sex education was needed, most desperately in red states. According to 2006 data from the Guttmacher Institute, those red states accounted for eight of the 10 states with the highest teenage birthrates.

And, a study titled "Red Light States: Who Buys Online Adult Entertainment?" that was conducted by Benjamin Edelman, an assistant professor of business at Harvard Business School and published earlier this year in the Journal of Economic Perspectives found that subscriptions to online pornography sites were "more prevalent in states where surveys indicate conservative positions on religion, gender roles, and sexuality" and in states where "more people agree that 'I have old-fashioned values about family and marriage.' "

The correlation between right-wing religion (abstinance only, promise rings, etc), teenagers having kids, and stupidity in general is pretty apparent from the stats.

it was in local news.... _LOCAL NEWS_ in the NYC metro area in 2007... thats 2 full years ago

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/13/technology/13iht-13halo.7093255.html

Only Greece rivals the US in plumpness.

I call bullshit. For one, your BC study is out of date by a decade, and in that decade, healthcare costs in the US have risen 87%.

And even granting the fact that Greece is as fat as us, or fatter, Greece has national healthcare and ranks fourteenth on the same scale that rates the US as #37 (2005). And the Greeks spend the least per-capita on healthcare in the EU at $2,179/person, per the 2007 UN Human Development Report. (not, however, the least as a percentage of GDP, according to the first link). The US, per the same report, spends $6096/person.

So what accounts for the other $4000? We aren't 3x as fat. Just 3x as stupid because we accept this state of affairs.

New York Times good enough?

I don't read newspapers online much, but that theme was hot for couple of weeks on news channels where I saw it. You can probably find quite more sources if you have a little more time then I had. And speaking about cost, that money goes straight in those contractors pockets. Very very little has been rebuilt.

Concerning the conquered country theme. I have a friend who drives oil trucks for big money doing contracting work for a US company there. As I have no reason to distrust a friend he told me that all the oil infrastructure is de facto owned by american companies. And that even is completely logical. When you invade a country, you don't necessary turn the population in slaves, settle your people there or whatever. All you need is to control the heart of the country and in iraq that is oil. Of course, first you have to destroy their army which is already done. Then you install puppet government and take key resources. You don't even need puppet government, you just need to install non-hostile government, and when you still have your troops on the ground, they will not dare to do anything. That isn't something new, this is known from the dawn of civilization. Moreover, you don't even need even troops on the ground, sometimes you require only a handful of people when you can always implicitly threaten with force which can be located on another part of the globe.

I'll give you just one example of this. When my country (croatia) wanted to retake the occupied territories by jugoslav army in 1995, they first had to secretly get approval from CIA for the operation. And that is almost 5 years since the country became, well, a sovereign country. So when you have a country with government who acts in like 99.5% of cases completely independent, but in that 0.5% of cases it needs to ask for permission, then you don't really have a sovereign country, you have a colony (or banana republic, as you wish) masked as an independent country.

It will be a total sham and a waste of time.

Votes are being sold for $10 a pop, nobody expects the elections to be fair so whoever wins election results will be contested, election ink safeguard is washable (then again, that may save some people's fingers), 13-year-olds vote, there are reports of people being hanged for voting and somehow Britney Spears is registered to vote.

But yeah. Sure...
A map and a bunch of anonymous SMS messages will SURELY fix all that.

Want to know why medical costs are so high? Because hospitals pay out their ass for malpractice suits.

Really? Everything I've read says that it's a very small slice of the problem. For example, Texas passed a law that severely limited malpractice damages a few years back.

They haven't seen a significant increase in the quality of care or cost control. They have, however, seen a big spike in doctors coming to practice in Texas.

That's probably a good thing, since Texas has a high obesity rate and fewer doctors per capita than average. But would you want your life in the hands of a doctor who came to your city specifically because it's harder to sue him for malpractice there? I wouldn't.

[src]

It sounds to me like you don't think consumers should have any protections at all. If you can't sue a company for a) sending their representative who b) punches you in the face and then c) chokes you and finally d) chases you down a flight of stairs, then the company e) does not fire the representative who chased, choked, and punched you, then what do you think would be worthy of a lawsuit?

This lawsuit will no doubt add fractions of a penny to your monthly Verizon bill, so I can see why you're indignant about it. But perhaps you'd happily a slightly lower bill for a slight increase in Verizon techs punching you in the face. I wouldn't make that trade, though.

So, as an ignorant American I am baffled by the rest of the list. The Sharp SH-06A is the no. 2 phone? It seems to be a fairly boring clamshell phone with a nice camera. Am I missing something?

You are indeed missing something. The Japanese cell phone market is completely different from the European or US market. The whole things is well explained in this New York Times article

Basically it's a software vs hardware thing, and it boils down to this: Unlike the rest of the world market, which is software oriented right now (and this one of the reason apple is doing so well), the Japanese cell phone market is actually much more technologically oriented.

All it takes for a phone to be "cool" in the west now is a big touchscreen and facebook/twitter apps (and let's face it, it also probably needs to be an apple product). But seriously, what sells phone is software: email, IM, internet apps, etc. What sells in Japan is hardware features, because internet-enabled cell phones aren't a novelty there anymore, internet at 3G speeds is old news (2001), it's just part of what a phone is supposed to do, not the selling point anymore.

Then the form factor, this is a completely subjective thing, you only find the Sharp SH-06A boring because it's a clamshell phone... and this is exactly why it is cool in Japan. The candybar (a la iphone) phones are seen as business-like/boring there. The vast majority of japanese phones are clamshells but that form factor is basically dead in the west, it had its time, but it's gone out of fashion.

The Sharp SH-06A is a great phone, I'd buy in a heartbeat if I could. Why?

- 848×480 resolution: There are very few non-japanese phone with those kind of resolutions. Yet this is a major feature as far as browsing goes, plus videos can be watched in their full native resolution glory. Resolution is one of those area where the iphone dominant position is actually holding the market back (by setting low norm/expectations).
- High quality Sharp AQUOS screen (also a touchscreen by the way)
- 10MP camera
- High-res video recording
- It looks a lot cooler than any iphone/blackberry/palm!

Actually, just found Taubes' response. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/books/review/Letters-t.html?_r=1&ref=revie I think it's fair to say that he eviscerates the review.

If you're referring to this review, I understand him more to be citing a single countervailing study to dispute one core point of Taubes' argument. I'd actually like to hear a response from Taubes to that point (haven't found one) but otherwise the review is actually pretty positive.

I haven't seen the one you reference but a good general article by this same Gary Taubes: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if-it-s-all-been-a-big-fat-lie.html?pagewanted=print

(And every first-year biochem student is saying, "No shit, sherlock!")

While our lifestyle has become more sedentary (the computer era hasn't helped!) all the "healthy eating" of the past couple decades is, in my observation, the REAL culprit in the obesity "epidemic".

Me, I eat the old-fashioned way -- red meat first and foremost, then pretty much whatever I want, but my diet is mainly protein and fat. I weigh the same at 54 as I did at 24 (even tho I sit on my ass more now than I did then). I don't think this is coincidence.

completely wrong forum for it, lol

the demographics of slashdot are not exactly friendly to "julie and julia"

and your opinion is well-bourne out

http://movies.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/movies/07julie.html

The unevenness of "Julie and Julia" is nobody's fault, really. It arises from an inherent flaw in the film's premise. Julie is an insecure, enterprising young woman who found a gimmick and scored a book contract. Julia is a figure of such imposing cultural stature that her pots and pans are displayed at the Smithsonian. The fact that Ms. Ephron, like Julie herself, is well aware of this gap does not prevent the film from falling into it. All the filmmaker's artful whisking can't quite achieve the light, fluffy emulsion she is trying for.

Here, read: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if-it-s-all-been-a-big-fat-lie.html?scp=3&st=cse&pagewanted=1

Not in a peer-reviewed journal, but compelling and extremely interesting nonetheless.

better than children of men or eternal sunshine of the spotless mind

http://aintitcool.com/node/42012

When I went into this film, I knew that the budget was $30 million. I knew that no name actors were involved, that it was a first time director, who had impressive short film work and who was the man directing the HALO movie for Peter Jackson... back before that fell apart. So, I expected great things, but you know... you never know.

At the budget... well, JULIE & JULIA cost $10 million more. How big could this really be? THE HANGOVER cost $5 million more. How "big" could this film be?

This is EPIC science fiction taking place in a Shanty Town outside Johannesburg, South Africa. This is, to me, the most accomplished, provocative and intelligent science fiction I've seen in this new century. On Twitter I declared that this is the first great science fiction film of the 21st century - and was instantly slammed by people that love CHILDREN OF MEN and SUNSHINE. All I can really say is this, "Have you seen DISTRICT 9?" Because if you haven't. You can't even enter the conversation yet, and this is a conversation that you will want to be in on.

and it won this weekend box office

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/movies/17box.html

LOS ANGELES -- The low-budget alien movie "District 9" was No. 1 at the weekend box office with an estimated $37 million in ticket sales, a stronger than expected result fueled by a quirky marketing campaign.

"District 9," an R-rated social satire about a spacecraft that stalls over Johannesburg, cost only $30 million to make. Peter Jackson of "Lord of the Rings" fame was the driving force as a producer, and the 29-year-old Neill Blomkamp, whose previous feature experience is almost entirely confined to visual-effects work, was the director.

the backstory is this south african guy blomkamp was hired by peter jackson to direct a big screen rendering of halo, but then sony backed out of financially backing the deal (conspiracy theorists, take note of sony's video game console conflicting interests here). this was after blomkamp, jackson, wife, and crew had devoted a considerable ramping up of effort on the movie. jackson, feeling chagrined, pretty much said to blomkamp: so, uh, i feel bad, so is there another movie you want to make? the idea was to expand a short blomkamp made about aliens living in a shanty town in johannesburg. as an added unlikely twist, jackson let him star a complete acting unknown who was just his old friend and more of a producer, and not much of one at that: sharlto copley

and thus scifi was history was made

if they made the halo movie, i bet it would be a $200 million popcorn muncher for 10 year olds that would barely eke out a profit after marketing costs and would be utterly forgotten after viewing, like gi joe and transformers this summer. sure, those are fun movies, but do they challenge your mind? and thus, no one will care about them in a month. devoid of any impression-making and watered down to pap by hollywood suits taking meetings with the producer and director

but instead of halo, we get a smart, 30 million historical utterly groundbreaking and original piece of cinema. not bad for a barely known visual effects dude

in a way, thank you sony, for being such asses, but mostly, thank you jackson (yet again) and blomkamp for blowing our minds

more backstory:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/movies/06district.html

The plight of the film's crustaceanlike extraterrestrials can be easily read as a metaphor for the persecution of South African blacks under apartheid. But Mr. Blomkamp said he was also trying to comment on how the country's impoverished peoples oppress one another. While "District 9" was b

better than children of men or eternal sunshine of the spotless mind

http://aintitcool.com/node/42012

When I went into this film, I knew that the budget was $30 million. I knew that no name actors were involved, that it was a first time director, who had impressive short film work and who was the man directing the HALO movie for Peter Jackson... back before that fell apart. So, I expected great things, but you know... you never know.

At the budget... well, JULIE & JULIA cost $10 million more. How big could this really be? THE HANGOVER cost $5 million more. How "big" could this film be?

This is EPIC science fiction taking place in a Shanty Town outside Johannesburg, South Africa. This is, to me, the most accomplished, provocative and intelligent science fiction I've seen in this new century. On Twitter I declared that this is the first great science fiction film of the 21st century - and was instantly slammed by people that love CHILDREN OF MEN and SUNSHINE. All I can really say is this, "Have you seen DISTRICT 9?" Because if you haven't. You can't even enter the conversation yet, and this is a conversation that you will want to be in on.

and it won this weekend box office

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/movies/17box.html

LOS ANGELES -- The low-budget alien movie "District 9" was No. 1 at the weekend box office with an estimated $37 million in ticket sales, a stronger than expected result fueled by a quirky marketing campaign.

"District 9," an R-rated social satire about a spacecraft that stalls over Johannesburg, cost only $30 million to make. Peter Jackson of "Lord of the Rings" fame was the driving force as a producer, and the 29-year-old Neill Blomkamp, whose previous feature experience is almost entirely confined to visual-effects work, was the director.

the backstory is this south african guy blomkamp was hired by peter jackson to direct a big screen rendering of halo, but then sony backed out of financially backing the deal (conspiracy theorists, take note of sony's video game console conflicting interests here). this was after blomkamp, jackson, wife, and crew had devoted a considerable ramping up of effort on the movie. jackson, feeling chagrined, pretty much said to blomkamp: so, uh, i feel bad, so is there another movie you want to make? the idea was to expand a short blomkamp made about aliens living in a shanty town in johannesburg. as an added unlikely twist, jackson let him star a complete acting unknown who was just his old friend and more of a producer, and not much of one at that: sharlto copley

and thus scifi was history was made

if they made the halo movie, i bet it would be a $200 million popcorn muncher for 10 year olds that would barely eke out a profit after marketing costs and would be utterly forgotten after viewing, like gi joe and transformers this summer. sure, those are fun movies, but do they challenge your mind? and thus, no one will care about them in a month. devoid of any impression-making and watered down to pap by hollywood suits taking meetings with the producer and director

but instead of halo, we get a smart, 30 million historical utterly groundbreaking and original piece of cinema. not bad for a barely known visual effects dude

in a way, thank you sony, for being such asses, but mostly, thank you jackson (yet again) and blomkamp for blowing our minds

more backstory:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/movies/06district.html

The plight of the film's crustaceanlike extraterrestrials can be easily read as a metaphor for the persecution of South African blacks under apartheid. But Mr. Blomkamp said he was also trying to comment on how the country's impoverished peoples oppress one another. While "District 9" was b