Slashdot Mirror

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0CE2D7103CF931A25754C0A96F958260

There, written by Safire himself:

If that failed, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin could not be rescued. Mission Control would have to ''close down communications'' and, as the world agonized, let the doomed astronauts starve to death or commit suicide.

While we may not be wasting our congress persons time with debates on fox hunting, we are wasting their time with debates on flag burning.

It's been more than two years since the last proposed amendment on flag burning failed by one Senate vote [reg].

I don't think churches can donate money to political causes, because that would violate their tax exempt status (though I may be wrong). No, the Mormon Church did not donate money to support Proposition 8, but they openly advocated for it, even issuing a four-page decree telling its members that the "formation of families is central to the creator's plans."

Sure, there's sometimes a fine line between political activism and encouraging people to vote, but what the Church did was openly support Proposition 8. The amount of money, the organization of the campaign, and everything else points to it.

Actually, I'm not a betting person myself, but in this case I would bet that he is anything BUT boned. Why? Because it just never looks good on the SEC's part to have a loose cannon send an email like this one to an intended suit target, especially BEFORE the suit is filed. Makes it look like the suit is retaliation, not an actual case.

Civilization existed for thousands of years before the modern regulatory and welfare state.

Yes, and it was, where larger than a simple tribal band, pyramid-shaped, with a wealthy few atop masses of exploited laborers.

The market did not "fail miserably". What problems there were with meatpacking, for example, were well on their way to being remedied when the Pure Food and Drug Act came about. The only thing the Pure Food and Drug Act did was limit competition at the behest of big meatpacking firms, representatives of such firms being the ones who wrote and oversaw the regulations.

That's quite an assertion. Care to back it up?

So where are all the rats?

Well, there's been a sharp uptick in meat recalls due to contamination--that's "shit in the meat", in the vernacular--recently. Please do explain how there's not actually shit in the meat, though; I'd like to hear this.

But there are still people selling snake oil. Yet most people see through their scams.

There are laws regulating how these things can be labeled and what they can contain, which is why people aren't overdosing their kids on unlabeled laudanum.

Rice and beans and other basic foods are cheap and widely available, and would continue to be if WIC were eliminated. WIC exerts no downward pressure on their prices. What the US government does do however, is exert upward pressure on food prices through tariffs and agricultural policy.

Wait, you're pointing to US agricultural subsidies as something which makes basic staple foods expensive? How?

If capitalism causes shanty towns, we should expect to see more shanty towns in more capitalist places, instead of less capitalist places. We do not in fact see that.

Please, please tell that to the inhabitants of those things-which-are-not-shanty-towns outside any major city where globalization has taken hold.

And, again, I'm pointing out that Section 8 and the like are keeping people out of shantytowns, and you're responding that we don't have shantytowns here in the United States. Do you think you're arguing against my point?

Did you know that the entirety of the President's speeches & news conferences are available on whitehouse.gov and have been for a very long time?

Yes, I did know that. I also knew that there have been accusations of revisionism, some warranted and some not. Let's get past that.

Riiight, because clearly the media were blocking Obama's message.

The election is over. Coverage will drop. That's not necessarily a bad thing, as immersion in divisive issues has ramped the rhetoric to unpleasant levels. The work of the republic goes on even if, and probably especially when, nobody is watching.

Even those who aren't actively watching television tend to show negative side-effects if a TV is on in the same room. I recall this one study about background TV causing abnormal development in attention spans.

This doesn't surprise me. I grew up constantly bombarded by TV and I hated it.

I also found it mesmerizing and addictive. Which only made me hate it more. And even if it was a show I hated, I often couldn't get away from it, because I could hear it from my bedroom-- or, when visiting my dad's house, my "bedroom" was the livingroom with the TV in it, so there was nowhere I could go to escape when the damn thing was on. And I couldn't even go to bed until everyone else in the house was done watching TV for the night.

Yes, I know there are a lot of good shows that I miss out on by not having a TV. But having finally, finally escaped it's tyranny, I have never in my adult life been able to bring myself to set one up in my house.

I wasted enough hours in front of the TV growing up-- sometimes willingly, sometimes not-- to last a lifetime. I'm DONE.

The data suggest to us that the TV habit may offer short-run pleasure at the expense of long-term malaise.

Even those who aren't actively watching television tend to show negative side-effects if a TV is on in the same room. I recall this one study about background TV causing abnormal development in attention spans.

Just to add to that, these very same companies often have exclusive distribution rights for specialty drugs that often cost thousands of dollars a month. "Pharmacy benefit managers" reap huge profits from these drugs, even though it runs against the company's supposed goal of saving money.

I hope the lost business is "provide safe transportation".

I think they were trying to avoid this case.

IMHO, if the cleaning/farming company can show that they can do safe transportation, then they should be okay.

How can you retire the shuttle fleet without replacement?

Aren't the shuttles like 20 years old and hanging together with bubble gum and duct tape as it is?

The reason the shuttles are so old, is that NASA doesn't have the budget to GET NEW ONES!

Or so I'm told.

Oh come off it, 75% of indian technical graduates aren't qualified to work ANYWHERE. The other 25% are mostly subpar, and nearly 100% of those that are ANY good at all come over here to take jobs in the US. If you're an Indian in a technical field working in India its because you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

Any time we outsource any development, it takes six times the time, which really negates the fact that the developers make 1/3rd the salary. Oh and to boot anytime we actually get someone to be productive, the leave to take a better job, HERE IN THE STATES.

I read this article in the Times a year ago and it still makes me hungry to think of it: A Fruitcake Soaked in Tropical Sun, covering the tradition of "black cake, a spicy, fragrant fruitcake steeped in dark rum and tradition that is a Christmas classic throughout the English-speaking Caribbean." I foresee a trip over to brooklyn sometime in my near future. ;)

Sharp's exec staff is taking a 10-30% pay cut for the next 3 months.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/technology/13panel.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

PM me for the address for the $50.

And so, now that we have found out they have fixed prices, we can all feel free to sit with thumbs up our asses about the jacked prices we had to pay to feed companies that agree to pay a fine that is higher than the average amount of money 5 families make in a lifetime.

And $50 says the CEO's won't be taking a dip in their salaries to compensate for the fine; nope, chances are they'll lay off some people and give pay cuts out to everyone that just does their job without trying to find a way to make a quick buck.

According to The NY Times many Sharp executives are taking 10-30% pay decrease for 3 months to improve investor confidence.

Not that it's much.

Indeed. The NYT recently had an article about this. They have some interesting figures -- a gallon of diesel can move one ton of fright 59 miles via truck, 202 miles by train and 514 miles via canal barges. A pretty impressive figure.

You know, all the tools and information available to advertisers from google is documented in abundance. It's called AdWords (advertise for keywords on google or content sites) and AdSense (host ads on your content site). The ads for any given search query or AdSense page are ranked in an auction based on an advertisers bid multiplied by a "quality score" (clickthrough and a bunch of other "quality" fudge factors). Here is an article on google's ads group. Note that advertisers call it a "black box"; for users that is a good thing, and tends to refute the common idea that google is selling out super-detailed user profiles to advertisers.

If people want to continue speculating about what google *could* be computing, or what it is sharing with advertisers, go wild I guess. But since advertisers or normal people too, the information is out there. After learning about how web ads actually work in the last year or so, it's been worrisome for me to see how few people actually know how web advertising works, even though it underpins the funding for the modern web.

The financial institutions that I use have much scarier data on me than google gathers, even though I use many google products. That's because credit card history, bills, pay stubs, and withdrawals now all go through your bank, with strong links to your identity. Both google and my bank could be joining and computing all sorts of scary stuff -- but no matter how you try, you can't really control what some group can compute about you when they have the data. What you can control, and what I'd argue is more important, is what they release to others. Just like my bank is limited in who and what it can release, we need that kind of privacy policy (or legislation) for online companies. People seem to be preoccupied with chasing the bogeyman though, rather than thinking what kind of lasting change that'd make the system work.

Or you could game the system to try and force the government to pre-emptively quarantine an area. Have a neighbor you don't like? Log on to his wireless network and spam google with symptoms 24 hours a day!

Don't think the government would do such a thing? Read Executive Order 13375,

which changes the Revised List of Quarantinable Communicable Diseases made in E.O. 13295.

(c) Influenza caused by novel or reemergent influenza viruses that are causing, or have the potential to cause, a pandemic

I wonder what it means by "reemergent influenza viruses?"

It couldn't be because the government recreated the 1918 flu virus 3 years ago, could it?

The specific 1918 virus was lost to the world for decades, until it was reconstructed about three years ago using genetic material from victims.

The genetic material was found in 1997.

The only thing this information truly proves is that I need to get laid.

Rowling sued the book before ever seeing a single rough draft of it. Her lawyers insisted it copied verbatim without rewriting any passages based off the web site.

Citation Needed. From the actual decision written by the judge, there were numerous example of verbatim copying in the manuscript. How did Rowling know that? Because Rowling was aware of the site. The site had verbatim copying. She was fine with that when it was a non-profit website. The minute they tried to make money off her writing, she objected.

The book's publisher claims that those entries were largely rewritten for the lexicon.

Despite the publisher's claims, the judge found that the majority of the book would have been in quotes had the Lexicon properly attributed the work to Rowling.

Given that neither of us have read the lexicon (as it is not published) we are left to believe one side or the other. What I find curious is how Rowling was so sure of her side of the story without having read the book herself.

Again, she was aware of the website which had verbatim copying. You don't have to believe one side or the other. The judge having read Lexicon made a determination that the Rowling was correct: Lexicon copied a lot from her book. The question is if you believe the judge.

She has also threatened law suits at cases clearly covered by parody. I don't think she is evil, so much as she is strongly attached to the world she created.

Given the fact that Rowling has not sued other companion books like MuggleNet.com's and the Complete Idiot's Guide to Harry Potter, Rowling isn't against companion books per se. She was against this particular one.

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

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

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

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

He didn't even attempt to negotiate with McCain or anyone.

Yes, he did.

Obama's spokesman Bill Burton said "and it was immediately clear that McCain's campaign had no interest in the possibility of an agreement.".

Now, you can feel free to dispute how much Obama pursued it, but, frankly, at this point you're rather obviously uninformed about the facts. There was an attempt made, and it failed.

McCain could have explained a proposal he had, but never bothered to do so, simply because there's no way he would have been willing to restrict the 527s, which Obama repeatedly said would be part of the deal.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE1DB153FF93AA35756C0A96F948260 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE6DD1E31F933A05751C1A96F948260

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE1DB153FF93AA35756C0A96F948260 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE6DD1E31F933A05751C1A96F948260

i can't decide, is the 40Gbps spike was related to fighting between criminal organizations. so its mollifying that this tool is so far only being used at such screaming proportions as turned on its creators:

The Arbor Networks researchers said a 40-gigabit attack took place this year when two rival criminal cybergangs began quarreling over control of an online Ponzi scheme. "This was, initially, criminal-on-criminal crime though obviously the greatest damage was inflicted on the infrastructure used by the criminals," the network operator wrote in a note on the attack.

the new york times had a good summary:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/technology/internet/10attacks.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

its notable that a lot of this potential is just sitting around, waiting for a chance to be used. if china goes to war with taiwan, or as when russia declared war on georgia, you will see/ saw these countries get DDosed off the face of the earth. that's the really worry: using DDos as a tool of war. the usa can sit around and wait until DDos used against vital government and civilian systems, or get ahead of the curve now

also notable: reflective amplification. that's the methodology employed. i'm not really sure, but i think that's where you dupe completely unrelated systems into responding to forged packets. someone wiser than me on these issues: is that the general drift?

It was reported, you ignoramus (that's not an insult, but the literal truth).
Hillary's campaign brought it up in Dec 2007, right before the Iowa caucus, and the media spent a whole week on it.

Obama himself not only wrote about it in the 90's in his first book (which diffuses the issue anyway), he spoke about it a couple of weeks before Hillary tried to run with it.

Romney and Guiliani also brought it up around the same time.

The media covered all of this.

Then NY Times did an extensive article on it in February.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/us/politics/09obama.html

It was reported.

If McCain thought it would help him, he would've brought it up himself or run ads on it. He didn't waste time because even he knew nobody cared.

a truly remarkable list of "present" votes in such a relatively short career

130 out of more than 4000, often as a strategic move, & something that is not uncommon in the Illinois state legislature.

For example, he has voted very consistently for increased gun and ammunition restrictions. Including openly supporting the DC ban and voting in favor of a similar ban in Chicago. Yet he stood behind a podium and said he believed the second amendment "must mean something" and was an individual right, rather than a collective.

He said "I think there is an individual right to bear arms, but it's subject to commonsense regulation" (like background checks), and "The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can't initiate gun safety laws to deal with gang bangers and random shootings on the street isn't born out by our Constitution." Additionally there is ample discussion about how to interpret the 2nd, and case law that roams back and forth on the issue (and note, that Heller was a divided decision). So I don't think I totally buy your premise that to say the 2nd is an individual right requires that you not support local firearm regulations. Inconsistency would be to support incongruous sides of an argument, but to hold a consistent (if not extreme originalist/black-and-white) view doesn't qualify in my mind. In fact, I bet most people are somewhere in the middle and neither "AK-47s for everyone!" nor "Only squirt-guns allowed!"

An individual right != an unlimited right, note SCOTUS in Robertson v. Baldwin the late 1890s:

the "Bill of Rights," were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. [...] Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (Art. I) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons

-Ted

I'm pretty comfortable with an imploding AIG myself.

Anyone who says that doesn't understand the role of AIG in the economy. Go learn about credit default swaps and loan underwriting. Then read a bit about what would happen if all that insurance suddenly evaporated. Here, let me get you started. Try reading this.

Trust me. You wouldn't be terribly comfortable if AIG imploded. No one would be.

Perhaps Obama resonated with Americans because the media portrayed him so positively? The fact that you don't see a problem is exactly the problem. Liberals look at CNN ABC CBS NBC NPR Wash Post NY Times LA Times and don't see anything wrong because those outlets reflect their worldview. Conservatives get exasperated because the other side is not presented. Moderates don't notice the difference because they aren't really political people.

And in a country that even in this down year for Republicans identifies itself as 22 percent liberal, 34 percent conservative, and 44 percent moderate, when 85% of the "journalists" voted for Obama (a fair estimate, since those numbers voted for Gore in 2000), there is a problem. Liberal reporters see a liberal worldview, and don't see anything wrong. Conservatives see bias.

For the record, for a guy like Obama with a short resume with no real accomplishments running for leader of the free world, his associations are relevant, especially when said candidate tries to constantly associate McCain with Bush.

And McCain was proposing a tax credit for healthcare for the vast majority of Americans, something I have been wanting for years and Democrats have fought (because they think it should be a government-run entitlement). Only small amount of people would see their benefits get a net tax. I guess your fair media didn't mention that.

And for you Euros out there dying to tell we Americans that US liberals aren't really left, that is irrelevant. We are talking American politics here, where the center is obviously to the right of Europe.

In 2000, Gore had 42% to Bush's 56% of white voters (and if you recall, Gore won the popular vote).
In 1996, Clinton won with 42% to Dole's 46% of the white vote.
In 1992, Clinton won with 39% to Bush's 40% (and Perot's 20%) of the white vote.

What I'm saying here is that the media isn't reporting something that isn't newsworthy. The Democrats have lost the white vote since at least 1972.

According to the bestselling book Good to Great from 2001, Circuit City was a great company that was "built to last." The Freakonomics guys also noted this a little bit ago.

Interesting how a slicker competitor displaced Circuit City, seemingly so easily. Oh, and Fannie Mae was another company recognized in this manner in the same book.

I'd be interested to see if the Freakonomics Blog does any coverage on this. They usually have a great take on these matters.

Like most things, TFA only looks at a part of the equation, and a few posters here have pointed out some of the different variables that show the problem with the media-bias argument, including:

- The volume of negative attacks by the republican camp upped the number of articles about Obama.

- The possibility of the arguably "most powerful man in the world" being a black man. That in itself is making history in the modern world.

- Whats more interesting news? A young, charismatic african-american or another old white guy?

- The length and ferocity of the Democratic primary alone skews the numbers in a huge way.

I'm only scratching the surface here - You could analyze this by any number of angles, and the truth is that these types of statistics are influenced by a huge number of factors where MANY and ALL of the factors result in the final the result.

Saying it's simply "media bias" is a really incomplete answer. It certainly is one of the factors, but far from being the only or predominant factor.

A Major problem the media (both traditional and alternative) is everyone is trying to distill very complex issues into very simple answers (or at worst, soundbites).

I was a serious photojournalist for 15 years,and watched the slow transition from what used to be a separation in News and Entertainment.

The Press used to (generally) be the watch-dog of culture and government. Now everything is "The Media" which values the dollars and ratings over all else, and the news is now a sub-set of the media.
That's not conspiracy BS, it's just the way of the world.

You can think of modern media as we used to compare internet users to AOL users.
-Internet Users knew that it was more difficult to use the net than AOL, but it resulted in a more satisfying experience with more individual control and personal security.
-AOL users just want it quick and easy, regardless of the loss of security or quality.

Media and news outlets now compete to give us their version of intellectual fast food; unfortunately far too many people take too much at face value, without any further thought or investigation.

Every media outlet and news organization have a bias (clearly some more than others); and depending which one you listen to, you are likely to be influenced by that bias, especially if it is a source you believe to be authoritative.

Sadly, we want it cheaper, faster, easier. And while this certainly appeals to the lazier aspects of everyone's nature, it comes at a great cost.

Secondly, the press did cover Biden's "gaffes".

They did cover gaffes — socially awkward or tactless acts. But not the "gaffes" — stupidities and outright lunacies smoothed-over as mere gaffes. For example, if it were anyone from the opposing ticket, claiming:

When we kicked -- along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, "Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don't know -- if you don't, Hezbollah will control it."

MSNBC would've had a "Lebanon History Special" at prime time to show the entire nation, just how pathetically wrong that statement was — and on how many levels!

But it was Biden and up until very recently even a well-meaning slashdotter (not some Joe Carpenter) didn't realize, just how far from this Universe the man, chosen by Obama for his "foreign policy credentials," really lives.

McCain chose Palin. That was part of his strategy to energize the Religious Right AND an attempt to get the female vote.

And Obama chose Biden. That was part of his strategy to alleviate the concerns of his own foreign policy inexperience and reduce the impact of racial prejudices. That one strategy worked and the other didn't is works of the press and their now-documented bias towards Obama. The media — dishonestly — claimed, that Palin's inexperience trumps Obama's (as if they ran for the same post!), while looking the other way as Joe Biden mounted one lunacy over another.

Now that Obama has won, we might see more penance from the reporters and editors. We may even get some buyer's remorse from the voters. But they'll be justified, claiming, the papers misled them. This will be studied in journalism courses as a great example, of how not to write...

Oh, and when asked about his drug use back in October 2006 said "Of course I inhaled. That was the point". On video.

No, I have no idea why the media would not want to spend reporting resources and column inches covering this repeatedly.

And would you agree that Obama has been far more open about his illegal substance abuse than certain other presidents?

In the 1890s, high-pressure steam, electricity and compressed air weren't available outside the biggest cities, at any price.

In 2008, it is still hard to see how you make the "alternative fuel" available, attractive and affordable outside the urban core.

The New York Times posted a story on the revival of the Erie Barge Canal:

The canal still remains the most fuel-efficient way to ship goods between the East Coast and the upper Midwest. One gallon of diesel pulls one ton of cargo 59 miles by truck, 202 miles by train and 514 miles by canal barge. A single barge can carry 3,000 tons, enough to replace 100 trucks. Hints of Comeback for Nation's First Superhighway

Forcing people to do labor with people you're literally afraid of isn't a traditional form of therapy.

Sure it is! It's called exposure therapy and is the accepted way of dealing with phobias.

But if you aren't talking literal fear, but rather apprehension or dislike, this is still the right way to make it go away. Read what this article has to say about easing racial prejudice.

> Then again I do hope that Obama gets up and gives a speech like Bill Cosby gave to the NAACP

He already has -- or at least, part of it. Got criticised for it too.

I read his position as cautiously pro-nuclear. Which is actually a good position to have if it's sincere, especially if he doesn't know all the details or science but is willing to keep an open mind.

Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate

For those who like to RTFA, there is another article.

Your word usage sucks ass.

I borrowed the phrase from a certain famous TV person, who became rather famous for grilling Sarah Palin with just such a phrase...

Are you honestly already attacking Obama's foreign policy when they have yet to take a single action?

Perhaps, you need to read the entire thread... I claimed, jokingly, that whatever an adversary may find on Obama campaign's computers, they'll be thoroughly confused by Joe Biden's statements, such as the one I quoted.

Brkello seems to think, there is nothing wrong with Biden's statements, and if anyone thinks otherwise, it can only be due to their watching Fox News.

So, I asked Brkello to suggest a news-source, which could've helped me (or anybody!) to make sense of the Biden's statement. Brkello responded with a change of subject, and I asked him again. He wouldn't respond — maybe, you can help out?

Which news-source could possibly help make sense of the statement: "When the US and France kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, Barack and I wanted NATO forces moved in to fill the vacuum. Otherwise Hezbollah would walk back in."

Note, the sentence above has already been edited by another Obama-supporter so that it does not, at least, contradict itself — unlike Biden's original words found in the transcripts. It only contradicts (on many levels and sub-levels) the facts from very recent history, which a "foreign policy wonk" — as Biden was presented to the nation — should know rather well...

So, do you think, you can help me find a news-source, that would help reconcile Biden's words with reality? Or will you take the "poorly worded" excuse and skip? Come on, what are afraid of — your team won, you can admit now, that the chosen vice-President is a senile doofus...

Wow, I was going to write that post. I lost my respect for Chrichton when he wrote Lost World, a sequel to the movie Jurassic Park, not his book (in the book, Malcom dies).

The only decent thing he wrote was this.

As an Amateur Radio operator, I have looked at several articles including the one linked from /., and the one on NY Times. Does anyone have an idea about what frequencies they are speaking of? Thanks

even though it's been debunked over and over and over and over again.

Where and by who? Remember I was alive during Clinton's Presidency. I actually remember what happened so don't try to re-write history on me.

The NYT can spin it as much as they want but the facts are all here... http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE1D71630F933A25754C0A963958260 And here is the New York Times again on the mortgage lending rules I was talking about. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE1DE163AF93AA35751C1A965958260

even though it's been debunked over and over and over and over again.

Where and by who? Remember I was alive during Clinton's Presidency. I actually remember what happened so don't try to re-write history on me.

The NYT can spin it as much as they want but the facts are all here... http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE1D71630F933A25754C0A963958260 And here is the New York Times again on the mortgage lending rules I was talking about. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE1DE163AF93AA35751C1A965958260

While "The One" was blasting NAFTA to gain support, he sought to secretly reassure Canadian government, that he has no plans to change the agreement.

His campaign position's on coal kept changing faster, than any hacker could download...

The lowest income, on which the taxes will be increased.

Fortunately, Joe Biden's foreign policy statements like:

When we kicked -- along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, "Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don't know -- if you don't, Hezbollah will control it."

...will confuse any adversary for good...

You're seriously misreading conservatives. If you've ever made the effort to listen to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, and you should if only to understand those you hate, you'd know that conservatives adore Ms. Palin; it's McCain they can't stand.

In any event, the popular vote was 52% to 47% - relatively close, and rather comparable to the 2004 election. Obama's much stronger electoral vote showing in 2008 than Bush's in 2004 is a testament to Obama's skills as a campaigner (and perhaps a little luck) - he managed to carry virtually every battleground state by a slim margin, without losing any of his expected-to-win states. Masterfully played, indeed.

You can thank Clinton for the bank mess that Bush was forced to clean up. Check this link out from 1999.. .to bad people didn't listen back then.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

Everyone knows Stevens is going to prison. His reelection just serves as a placeholder for the person who's actually going to take the Senate seat in his stead.

Not so fast. It turns out the juror who left DURING DELIBERATIONS because her dad was dying--turned out she just wanted to bet on the ponies. If that doesn't call for a retrial, I don't know what would!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/04/opinion/04tue1.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin

NYT editorial, so take grains of salt depending on your political slant, but...

Yeesh.

For those that think this thing started during the Bush era... The NYTimes predicted this bail-out in an article written in 1999. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9c0de7db153ef933a0575ac0a96f958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all Is there anyone that thinks giving mortgages to people that shouldn't qualify was a Republican agenda? You can try to blame the Republicans for not putting an end to it (which they tried to), but I find it extremely stupid to blame them for it.

Why? Is Obama really that much better than McCain?

Yes. McCain wanted to tax the poor to pay the wealthy. McCain was two footsteps from the grave with a ditzy anti-choice, creationist VP.

I dislike the VP choice as well, but taxing the poor? Where do you get that nonsense?

ANYONE but Clinton is better than Bush. That doesn't mean we can't do better than McCain.

Funny. I'd rather have Clinton than Obama (better the one you know than the one you don't).

If I ruled the world, my agenda for the Obama presidency:

- Fix Bush's financial mess.
- Re-establish our Constitutional rights (like, ban the PATRIOT act).
- Pull us out of Iraq ASAP.
- Go after Bin Laden where he really might be.

I'm with you on the PATRIOT act, but over all, you need to pull your head out of the sand. You want Bush to get us even more hated in the middle east by completely ignoring borders? The Democrats (Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer and Christopher Dodd were the most vocal, but they had plenty of help) had as much to do with it as the Republicans:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122091796187012529.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212948811465427.html

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print :
''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. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

In fact, Bush, McCain, and others were pushing for more transparency and regulation (imagine that... republicans calling for regulation!) since at least 2003.