Slashdot Mirror

This has been a very impressive PR stunt. Let's claim to be DRM free and then we're the heroes who stand up for the little guy, the customer. Let's not forget, they still encode e-mail addresses and names in these 'DRM free' tracks. I still consider that DRM. If we're gonna love someone for providing DRM free tracks, remember Amazon is providing actual unencoded MP3s.

I would tend to agree with you but this case could be considered as cyber-terrorism, isn't it ?

Ever heard the phrase, "Where you start out in life is a good indication of where you'll finish?" Class mobility and the "American Dream" are largely hoaxes perpetrated by the rich on the middle and lower classes (kind of like the lottery, only you have to work much harder and invest much more, and the odds are much lower.) Sure some people were born dirt poor, and end up with money to burn, and some people are born with the silver spoon in their mouths and die on the streets, but the very vast majority of people will remain in the class they're born into for the rest of their lives. This is not a coincidence. (Read that last sentence again if you have to.) Another old gem is "It takes money to make money." and the poor don't have it.

I am using a web-based service that, among other features, helps to control which calls will ring my phone(s): GrandCentral. It allows to define several groups of white-listed numbers with separate response behavior (ring, send to voicemail, etc.) and also includes a couple of different screening options. For dealing with known telemarketers they even offer to play a "number not in service" message, but most auto-dialers can't get past the call screening anyway. It's a free service while in beta, but they promise to keep basic features free indefinitely, including "unlimited inbound minutes, unlimited voicemail (up to 30 days old), and access to all of our core features". This NYT write-up describes a few of the options in more detail.

The NYT had a very interesting article about Grandcentral.com, which I believe would whitelist and much more, if you sign up for them, which at the time, I believe was free. Here's the article.

Tim Griffin, Michael Elston, Paul McNulty, Monica Goodling
Sara Taylor, Bradley Schlozman, Steve Biskupic, Alberto Gonzalez, David Safavian, Lurita Doan, Ken Tomlinson
Tom Delay, Bob Ney, Conrad Burns, Ted Stevens, Kyle Foggo, Duke Cunningham, Brent Wilkes, Mitchell Wade, Curt Weldon, Donald Rumsfeld, Jim Tobin
Scooter Libby, Manuel Miranda, Darleen Dryun, Thomas Scully, Chuck Mcgee, Pete Domenici
Porter Goss, Brant Bassett, Virgil Goode, Katherine Harris, Jerry Lewis, Ed Buckham, Steven Griles, Mark Foley, Paul Wolfowitz, Ken Lay, Conrad Black, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Roger Stilwell, Tony Rudy, Jack Abramoff, Michael Scanlon, William Heaton, Adam Kidan, Neil Volz,

btw, it's not a guarantee that companies won't have to pay as much or more than they currently do for their employees. Many of the proposed health plans require employers to provide health care or else pay into the gov't plan.

From this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/us/politics/06ed wards.html?ex=1182312000&en=a9c10ee5d734a607&ei=50 70

"One provision of the Edwards proposal certain to draw fire is a requirement that companies provide health insurance for all workers or pay 6 percent of their payrolls into a government fund to buy insurance for them. This type of "play or pay" program was an element of former President Bill Clinton's failed 1994 health care plan that was shaped in large part by Mrs. Clinton."

Like I said... there are all kinds of sides that need to be presented.

The current crowd in power really does seem to believe they can create their own reality. As Ron Suskind reported,

"The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'''

But, as Ronald Reagan said—quoting John Adams, consciously or unconsciously, without attribution—"facts are stubborn things."

Venus has a runaway greenhouse effect. Why don't you move there and report back to us your findings? Seriously though, it is not just "warming" that has me concerned, but it's secondary effects (runaway greenhouse effect not withstanding). When I look at the declining health of the oceans, the disappearance of honeybees, the loss in the bird population (we are actually seeing a lot of extinction of species right now), it is an alarming trend. I think these phenomena are indicative of the poor health of our planet and I fear humanity is too arrogant, ignorant, and complacent to actually do anything about it.

Richard Siegmund Lindzen, Ph.D., (born February 8, 1940) is an atmospheric physicist and the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen is known for his research in dynamic meteorology, especially planetary waves.

He has been a critic of some anthropogenic global warming theories and the political pressures surrounding climate scientists. He wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal in April, 2006, in which he wrote: "In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions."

Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science -- whether for AIDS, or space, or climate -- where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today.

The NYT is also reporting improvement: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Space-Shuttl e.html.
--
Hassle free solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

I want a warranty with my hospital stays, to cover any related expenses for the next 90 days or so. The linked article indicates that it's been a succesful program.

And apparently used during Guiliani's mayoral election 14 years ago.

That and the police presence at polling booths. <sarcasm>You know, to maintain the peace - not for intimidation.</sarcasm>

Sure.

After exhaustive effort, the Department of Justice discovered virtually no polling-place voter fraud, and its efforts to fire the U.S. attorneys in battleground states who did not push the voter-fraud line enough has backfired.

Really?Are you talking about a fictional country called Europe here, or the moon orbiting Jupiter?

Anonymize? How do they plan to do that? AOL released "anonymized" search data - they replaced each unique user with a random numeric ID. And people were tracked down. Consider this New York Times article:

A Face Is Exposed for AOL Searcher No. 4417749

The number was assigned by the company to protect the searcher's anonymity, but it was not much of a shield. No. 4417749 conducted hundreds of searches over a three-month period...

And search by search, click by click, the identity of AOL user No. 4417749 became easier to discern. There are queries for "landscapers in Lilburn, Ga," several people with the last name Arnold and "homes sold in shadow lake subdivision gwinnett county georgia."

It did not take much investigating to follow that data trail to Thelma Arnold...

Somehow I missed when this happened, but it should mean patent litigiation is going to totally rebalance issues of obviousness vs. prior art.

Can we look at Iraq?
There have been estimated 600,000 civillian deaths to the war on terror.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB11605289678 7288831-8l5AMVpCdg07M3w6XdmTXoPuzno_20061109.html? mod=tff_main_tff_topwsj
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/world/middleeast /11casualties.html?ex=1318219200&en=516b1d070ff83c 15&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rssNY Times

It's not like refundable tickets aren't available anymore. You can still get them if you want. Business travelers often do. There's some on every flight and it's probably they that are most the unpredictable. The number of non-refundable tickets sold is a factor the airlines use to decide how much to overbook.

There was a NYTimes article on this recently: http://travel.nytimes.com/2007/05/30/business/30bu mp.html. It does, in fact, cost more to the airline to have empty seats than to pay off passengers that are bumped.

I wonder how airlines choose who to bump if no one volunteers when they offer vouchers, etc. Is it by who paid the lowest fare? I can see how that'd get people upset!

Bottom line, worldwide travel doesn't always go like clockwork. Be prepared, be flexible, I say. Be one of those passengers who volunteers for a later flight, get a voucher for discount or free flight, and you won't be so annoyed by the system.

And what makes you think the Second Amendment is about that, as opposed to, say, a perceived need for a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State or something.

Um, cause they said so, maybe?

Fed #46:
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

Or, Fed #28?

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance.


Christ, even liberal jurists, who once maintained that the 2nd amendment is a collective right fulfilled by the existence of state police and militias, have begun to concede that it is an individual right. This was the reasoning behind the recent overturning of the DC gun ban.

And no, despite your immediate assumptions, I own no guns nor am I (or have I ever been) a Christian.

Seems if you want something not to be pirated in China, how about adding extras like the Dalai Lama, Falon Gong or Tiananmen Square? Software makers, be sure to feature a Falon Gong extra in the tutorials. Movie makers: How about a cameo by the Dalai Lama in the next Pirates of the Caribbean movie? Google Maps: when you zoom in on Tiananmen, show perspective mapped photos of what really happened.

Seriously: I have a friend who just got back from a visit in China. He said the Communist Party is very scared about losing its grip on society. They've very, very worried about losing control. Something you haven't heard in the mainstream media: Chinese, particularly the poorer ones, are really sick of the rich getting richer. When the Chinese Government wants to build a road, they pick a poor area, flatten it and kick the poor locals out. Increasingly, people are getting sick of it and the government is worried: This is why they're banning things left, right and center: http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/2275.asp http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/PEK165285 .htm http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/21/world/asia/21cnd -china.html?ex=1337400000&en=578ee101ec63e955&ei=5 090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

I wondered the same thing myself when I first saw this guy's opinion in the NYT arguing against network neutrality. Amazingly enough he seems to be expressing an opinion here independent of the usual confusion conservatarian scholars tend to have that anything good for big corporations is automatically good for the economy as a whole.

I think you are mistaken about what is going on here. The wiretaps do not fall under FISA court juristiction. They are non-citizens being tapped with calls to overseas non-citizens, or phonecalls orginating outside the USA. These are fair game for national security taps.

The orginal article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/15/politics/15cnd-p rogram.html?pagewanted=5&ei=5070&en=d86ae7e83e8477 91&ex=1181534400

says:

"Under the agency's longstanding rules, the N.S.A. can target for interception phone calls or e-mail messages on foreign soil, even if the recipients of those communications are in the United States. Usually, though, the government can only target phones and e-mail messages in this country by first obtaining a court order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which holds its closed sessions at the Justice Department. ...
Warrants are still required for eavesdropping on entirely domestic-to-domestic communications, those officials say, meaning that calls from that New Yorker to someone in California could not be monitored without first going to the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court.
"
Now, the New York Times claims that entirely domestic-to-domestic communications happened. However, as I pointed out before, several congresspeople, including Harry Reid, current Majority Leader got to look at the full records. They did not come out with a smoking gun. Now, maybe there was one, maybe there was not, niether of us know unless you have a clearnce for such things. BUT, I have no doubt Reid would have come out swinging. I think that is a fair representation of what they would do, not unlike yours about assuming the Administration would toot their own horn about using the wiretaps.

Now, here is where you and I probably differ. My guess is that if you and I were presented satifactory evidence of what really happened we would walk away with different views.

I would take the view that it is much like the Rodney King deal. The outrage is not that they beat King and they got off scott free. It is that the jury read the protocols of the LAPD and determined that they acted within those rules and therefore not legally responsible!

Outrage? Sure thing. But not illegal.

The same applies here, imo. You have a viceral reaction that the tappings were illegal, but you can not support that with facts, just as I cannot prove they did not do it.

Should it be changed? Maybe. But the law does not cover what they are doing. Change the law if you want, but you can't say he is liable for doing something illegal if it was not under the letter of the law.

If evidence showing that the did in fact wiretap ala Nixon and Hoover then I am all for getting the rope. But show me something concrete, like a tape or a transcript, any kind of record.

(P.S. there is one other loophole. if a US citizen is shown to be the agent of another country or power, they are fair game for wiretapping. But that requires a hearing and proof to set that status. Those do exist, how many I don't know.)

PPS. I will grant you that ALL of the terrorist plots were theoretically stoppable via normal police proceedures. However, America has a real problem following its own laws. Heck, the guy with Drug Resistant TB showed up as a "Detain" but the border guard let him go. Just like the 9/11 guys 15 of the 19 had false or expired travel visas. Simply enforcing those laws might have (not would have) stopped the plot cold.

Before you get too riled up, have a look at what the NY Times had to say:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/arts/24crea.html ?_r=1&ei=5087%0A&em=&en=3fce574910e89398&ex=118015 2000&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

They are a good example of open-mindedness.

Doesn't matter who I am so long as I'm right. Go ask some constitutional scholars, I bet you they will have grave doubts about the constitutionality. Had this article been a constitutional analysis that would have been one thing but it's more of a policy document than an analysis of the first ammendment. Sure if the loss of obscurity is as problematic as they seem to think it is then maybe SCOTUS will overrule it's 1st ammendment jurisprudence but right now I think any such attempt would be struck down.

The basic issue is that the exceptions to first amendment protection revolve around either a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' or the right to publicity, i.e., not to have your picture show up on a best buy ad. It's legally quite clear that if I take a photo of my friend on the street I can post that picture to my blog EVEN IF other people show up in the background or whatever. In fact there are actual judicial opinions holding that the 1st amendment protects photographs or total strangers taken on the street even if you choose to show them in a gallery.

Thus in order to hold that this scheme is constitutional without running afoul of prior rulings (admittedly the one I linked to is only precedential in NY) you would have to hold that saying, "ohh hey that person in your photo is so and so" is not speech protected by the first ammendment and that just isn't credible.

"The lawyers tell me there are no prohibitions against robots making life-or-death decisions"

2 so far.. The debate is really on to what extent is the earth's climate a solid state system. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/11/science/11cnd-ar ctic.htm?ex=1181188800&en=2eedff2644276c15&ei=5070

The original article, in dutch: http://www.nrc.nl/economie/article716907.ece/Econo mie_VS_staat_stil/.

Another supporting article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/01/business/01cnd-e con.html?ex=1338350400&en=13e891fe750026be&ei=5088 &partner=rssnyt&emc=rss/

Among the Republican candidates, both John McCain and Ron Paul are the least dishonest candidates -- even if you disagree with their political positions.

A military is needed to protect the civilian populations from situations like that occurring presently in northern Lebanon. The civilian population in the camp is suffering because no military was present to prevent an armed organization installing itself in it's midst. In an ideal world, no such forces would be present but as we do not live in an ideal world, we will always need armed forces to protect the sheep from the wolves.

One of the biggest mistakes that we Westerners committed was to admit the Russians into the G-8. The original G-7 was intended to be the group of leading industrialized democracies committed to Western values.

We admitted the Russians in the hope that, although Russia was still highly non-Western (in, for example, its treatment of sexual-orientation or ethnic minorities), being lenient on Russia would encourage the Russians to modernize their society along Western lines. Well, we were wrong. Just last week, the Russian police smiled in approval as ordinary Russians violently beat up participants in a demonstration calling for rights for homosexuals. Some of the victims of the violence were European politicians who had participated into the demonstration.

The Russians make a mockery of the G-8 and its principles. Now, Putin is idly threatening to point his nuclear missiles at Eastern Europe. Nuclear annihilation is serious business. Before Russia joined the G-8, no member of the G-7 ever threatened nuclear annihilation against a prosperous, Western democracy.

The time has come for us to end this nonsense. We should expel Russia from the G-8, restoring the orignal name of "G-7".

From 2001 to 2005, Mr. Cheney received "deferred salary payments" from Halliburton that far exceeded what taxpayers gave him. Mr. Cheney still holds hundreds of thousands of stock options that have ballooned by millions of dollars as Halliburton profited handsomely from the war in Iraq.

One of the biggest mistakes that we Westerners committed was to admit the Russians into the G-8. The original G-7 was intended to be the group of leading industrialized democracies committed to Western values.

We admitted the Russians in the hope that, although Russia was still highly non-Western (in, for example, its treatment of sexual-orientation or ethnic minorities), being lenient on Russia would encourage the Russians to modernize their society along Western lines. Well, we were wrong. Just last week, the Russian police smiled in approval as ordinary Russians violently beat up participants in a demonstration calling for rights for homosexuals. Some of the victims of the violence were European politicians who had participated into the demonstration.

The Russians make a mockery of the G-8 and its principles. This demand for licensing fees on supposed patents of a 60-year-old technology is the latest in a string of non-Western activities.

The time has come for us to end this nonsense. We should expel Russia from the G-8, restoring the orignal name of "G-7".

In fact, there was a recent New York Times article regarding the very subject of bird penises.

"Opponents say the decision is evidence that Mr. Chávez's definition of the enemy has been enlarged to include news media outlets that are critical of his government. Otherwise, say detractors like Teodoro Petkoff, the editor of the small opposition newspaper Tal Cual, Mr. Chávez would have also decided not to renew the licenses of Venevisión and Televen, networks whose coverage similarly supported the 48-hour coup in 2002. Those networks have become far less critical of Mr. Chávez, while RCTV has maintained its criticism.

Bad times? What are you smoking.

Here is today's article from NY Times Dell Reports Better-Than-Expected Profit http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/01/technology/01del l.html

The reason these people are laid off is because the companies want even more profits, not because they are losing money during "bad times."

Even if you were lucky enough to spot the camera in the ten to fifteen seconds it was visible, you still don't know how many millions of people just looked into your life at that moment.

... As if millions of people were waiting anxiously for the single image that would show, once and for all, that MARY CALIN-CASEY OF OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA HAS A CAT! OMG! IT SITS ON THE WINDOW SILL!! WHO WILL SAVE US?? BUY DUCT TAPE!!!1!!

Before you think I'm trolling, here is the image that's "peeping" into her life, "destroying her privacy".

This has to be the most ridiculous claim of privacy violation. Ever.

Did anyone here actually look at the picture she is complaining about? It's not the one on the front page of this article, thats one she posed for. This is the picture that was on google http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/06/01/bus iness/01private1.450.jpg

If she had a legitimate privacy complain, we might be able to discuss some issues here. But she is obviously seeking attention. And don't give me that "she didn't consent to the first picture" crap, if she felt her privacy was violated, she wouldn't let a reporter photograph the inside of her house and post it on the internet.

In an interview with NPR's Steve Inskeep airing May 31, 2007 on NPR News' Morning Edition, Griffin said the following: "I have no doubt that global -- that a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change.

"First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown, and second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings - where and when - are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take." [17]

James Hansen, a NASA climate scientist, stated that Griffin's comments showed "arrogance and ignorance", as millions will likely be harmed by global warming.[18] Jerry Mahlman, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said that Griffin was either "totally clueless" or "a deep antiglobal warming ideologue."

Gas prices are up, home sales down, the economic outlook is uncertain. U.S. Economic Growth Weakest in Over 4 Years So all discretionary spending is down.

But the Geek is just whistling in the dark when he claims that those that will be entering the market for a new PC won't be looking at Vista.

What draws these customers isn't the warmed-over XP box.

It's the tech they couldn't afford or which didn't exist the last time went shopping. The affordable big screen-wide screen LCD. HD media play. DX-10 at mid-line prices. The hybrid SATA hard drive. Etc. Etc.

If so, why was he surrounded by American soldiers?

Photo-op. Duh.

Given that this is the same guy who doesn't seem to realize that condoms reduce the risk of contracting AIDS why would we expect him to understand the first thing about net neutrality? As lots of people point out, it's incredibly difficult to get someone to understand something when he's being paid by AT&T to not understand it?

Few attacks originating in Russia could be traced back to Russia, some of the best crackers in the world come from St Petersburg.

Remember this? What about other high profile attacks at that time? These people haven't vanished, they just got serious and learned not to draw attention to themselves.

Hawkeye

I don't know if you caught the photo of the woman mourning on the grave of her fiance at Arlington today http://www.nytimes.com/pages/national/index.html click on "In Memoriam." Maybe this is too much to publish, but I kind of feel that a guy who makes money cause he can't balance his meds and spews it on the radio is just not that funny, and it is getting less and less funny as time goes on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/magazine/27Bottl e-t.html?hp

The Pentagon Papers and Iran-Contra never happened. Nope, not at all.

Good thinking! "The government has a history of doing bad things, so whatever bad thing I suggest must be true, and anyone who objects must be brainwashed and ignorant."

Let me try one: I posit that the U.S. government will soon throw sniff out all the drug users and throw them into camps. This is based on the following:

1. At the government's encouragement, drug screening is now widespread in private industry and schools.
2. The government has a substantiated history of collecting supposedly private information.
3. Halliburton received a contract to build detention camps in the U.S.

Obviously, these camps are part the "final solution" to the War on Drugs. You might want to say, "Perhaps there's another reason for building them, like preparations for mass deportation of illegal immigrants," but anyone who says this is just brainwashed, man, by the corpo-fascist thugs and their dastardly agents of deceit. Prove me wrong.

Fun as this is, I'm going to have to give it a rest. Arguing with a conspiracy theorist is exactly like arguing with a creationist: no understanding is possible in the presence of such different standards of evidence. Once the need to search for answers in empirical reality is disposed of, anything's possible. The appeal of having certain Truths, in the face of a world that rejects them, is undeniable and has formed the basis of most cults throughout history. (Christianity, for example, in the days when Christians were persecuted by harsher means than the removal of government-mandated prayer.) Far be it from me to screw with your personal religion, but if it'll make you feel better to reply to this post by once again asserting that a person you don't know is a helpless tool of forces that only those with your secret knowledge understand, go right ahead. It's still a relatively free country.

I have assume that National Geographic doesn't count as media because it devoted an entire issue to the decline of the world's fisheries....

# 13 # Homeland Security Contracts KBR to Build Detention Centers in U.S.

or the NY Times:

Halliburton Subsidiary Gets Contract to Add Temporary Immigration Detention Centers [February 4, 2006]

heh. Did you see the "dragon hall" ?
dragon hall

I guess the dragons didn't make it to the ark because they followed the unicorns.

Check out bogolight.com for a tech device that actually reduces misery in the third world (nytimes article will last for a while: here

Seems the NYT have it (registration required) http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/us/politics/16re pubs-text.html?_r=1&oref=slogin