Slashdot Mirror

I've heard from some Thai people that if your mother eats a lot of hot pepper during pregnancy you're more likely to go bald. I never believed it, but then I saw this video on epigenetics. The conclusion I draw from the video is that everything can be affected by genes and the environment.

In the video, there is a pair fifty-something twins, one has cancer, the other does not. Their genes were identical at birth, but now, there are many differences with regard to which genes are "on" or "off". In one twin there's a cancer suppression gene that got turned off later in life.

You have to spend tons of money on spying on those who will get pissed off about the tons of money that is being spent on spying, instead of doing far more productive things with the money that those who are being spyed on, would benefit by.

As an example of what people want vs. the amount of money being spend to support pseudo defense against terrorism. Money that clearly should instead be being used to remove the reasons for any terrorist to exist or have the ability to gain support....

It is interesting that the current economic ballout of $700 billion is ...... well see the chart at the above link to the then military budget. And note the cost of eradicating small pox from the world, and recall Bush publicly using small pox as a terrorist possibility....

And the terrorist of 9/11..... a little investigation very strongly points to world stock market manipulation via nickel and dime draining of south east Asia as the main motivating and force behind the terrorism of 9/11. Even Ted Turner publicly said 9/11 was an act of desperation.

Would you pay for a service that was not working for your benefit? I suspect the answer is NO.
But you are paying taxes for a service that is not working for your benefit. Why? Because you are being threatened, terrorized to do so.

Boston Tea Party is history.... we all need an organized "stop paying for a service that are being used against us" effort.
Its very clear that there is an unhealthy power and money addiction being backed by threat from the government controlled military and police.

The amount of money being spent today as "protection money" is most certainly criminal in comparison to what it can be better spent on to make this world a lot safer via. making it a better world to live in for everyone. (except for the power, money and war mongers which are less than 1% of the over 6 billion human residents of this planet...)

A peaceful and effective effort to stop paying for a service that is so clearly and obviously not working. Any suggestions?
   

"The Last Enemy" (from BBC/WGBH) was broadcast early this year in Britain and is currently airing in the U.S. (episode 1 last week, episode 2 soon):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/drama/lastenemy/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/lastenemy/index.html

It's the most vivid, tangible portrayal of a realistic society sliding into an Orwellian dystopia I've yet seen. The writing is sharp and maintains integrity without becoming too sensational or speculative. (It's even well-acted and smartly directed!) The main protagonist is a young, asocial mathematical physics prodigy who's become embroiled in the [fictional, near-future] British government's "Total Information Awareness" program, involving I.D. cards, 24/7 biometric monitoring, etc. (And he gets laid in the first episode. Seriously- did one of you guys write this thing??)

I think many readers around here would enjoy it on many levels: it's good TV for its own sake, it's thought-provoking, and topical. I'm not big on much in the "modern" genre of mystery/drama/thriller TV, but this one's worth it.

Now, for a bit of venting.

I'm glad to see that some Britons are cognizant enough of what is happening, where things are headed, and of the ramifications to those living in a modern society. It's nice to see it available to American audiences too as it's desperately needed in both places. But alas, it must compete with two major sports. It would be nice to see it slotted in prime time since the CSI/House/etc. crowd would enjoy it, but instead it will languish on "the dork channel" while the silverbacks spill beer over the meaningless and arbitrary ball/run/jump-centric antics of a few athletic specimens in lieu of this.

Alright, then the only justifiable thing to do, if you want such services, is to persuade your friends, family, neighbors, etc, to want it as well. Show them why it's better, why they should want it, why if they all unite, their desires will be fulfilled.

Sounds like they had done that. Otherwise the city officials would get voted out. If enough people are behind it, then the city can do it without fear of voter wrath.

Can you provide some sources for this?

Sure. Some good articles here, here, here, and here.

while i think this technology may have some useful purposes in the future, i'm a little disturbed at the type of applications it's already being marketed towards:

NeuroSky's products offer opportunities for its exclusive partners and developers to create next generation applications in markets as diverse as consumer electronics, health & wellness, education & training, transportation, market research and others.

i'm honestly afraid that this technology will be used by marketing/advertising firms to develop even more insidious ways of manipulating consumers. with marketing/advertising permeating all aspects of popular culture, even being used by politicians to frame political issues in ways that will win them public approval, we're increasingly living in a society of mass manipulation. we don't need to give the persuaders an even greater degree of control over us by letting them have unprecedented access to the thoughts and mental processes of consumers.

though i'm sure they'll probably start handing these out at focus groups so that they can tap directly into the subconscious desires of the individual as the ultimate form marketing research. marketing gurus are already helping major corporations appeal to the primitive reptilian minds of consumers to exploit people's subconscious associations. unfortunately, this results in consumers making irrational purchase decisions, which is at least partly responsible for the family SUV phenomena in the U.S.

A few years ago Bob Cringely wondered the same thing, but found India won't take you.

"So I went on the web to see how easy it would be to emigrate to India. I found NOTHING. I called the Indian Embassy in Washington, DC and asked how I could emigrate to India. They didn't know what I was talking about... The idea that I'd just arrive at the Mumbai equivalent of Ellis Island looking for a job, well they found that rather amusing." http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2004/pulpit_20040226_000453.html

Rest of the developed world is in an IT slump. Time for that Career B-Plan?

By your statement, electric cars were "here" in the 1830's. That's just stupid... the concept hasn't arrived until it's become mainstream, where normal people can afford and use them.

As for the telephone, Bell invented it in 1876. The first commercial telephone service (also started by Bell) had 230 phones in 1887. 230 phones basically in the world, and that was 10 years after Bell built it. That's not "arrived". Most people still hadn't even heard of a telephone at the time... it would almost be 1900 before phone systems were truly rolled out widely, and even then, they were still primarily the domain of the rich and privileged.

The person who did this is an old journalist and someone who's had problems with stock market advice/manipulation before.

Please don't parrot old media bullshit about this. The problem is not citizen journalism, the problem is that so many people trust the frauds who people old media itself.

Y'know, you can at least research this before jerking the knee, folks.

"The bill that ultimately repealed the (Glass-Steagall) Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (R-TX) and in the House of Representatives by James Leach (R-IA) in 1999. The bills were passed by a 54-44 vote along party lines with Republican support in the Senate[7] and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives[8]. Nov 4, 1999: After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bipartisan bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8-1 and in the House: 362-57-15. Without forcing a veto vote, this bipartisan, veto proof legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999. [9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act

"1996-1997: Fed renders Glass-Steagall effectively obsolete

In December 1996, with the support of Chairman Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve Board issues a precedent-shattering decision permitting bank holding companies to own investment bank affiliates with up to 25 percent of their business in securities underwriting (up from 10 percent).

This expansion of the loophole created by the Fed's 1987 reinterpretation of Section 20 of Glass-Steagall effectively renders Glass-Steagall obsolete. Virtually any bank holding company wanting to engage in securities business would be able to stay under the 25 percent limit on revenue. However, the law remains on the books, and along with the Bank Holding Company Act, does impose other restrictions on banks, such as prohibiting them from owning insurance-underwriting companies."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html

I participated in a seminar about ID in my college. The PBS site has a set of movies which offer an interesting insight into the debate.
PBS Nova

See also the PBS Nova documentary Judgment Day: Intelligent Design On Trial (Nov 2007).

(Don't forget to support PBS for providing this stuff available free online!)

- RG>

DUDE: Why was your boy Paulson *on his knees*, fucking literally, in Nanci Pellosi's office begging her to support the handout? You live in a dreamworld.

In fact, let's have a heart to heart. Seriously. I need to know. Are you just a republican fanboi or do you really have Republican values and have just been duped by the crooks in office?

Note where the capitals are--lowercase is for the posers known as the "republican party", capitals is for real Republicans like Senator Ron Paul. If you don't know what Republican means, look up "Republicanism" in wikipedia and memorize the first few sentences. The "republican party" these days are not, by and large, real Republicans.

If you are a real Republican, you would literally get sick to your stomach when a President who calls himself a "republican" asks for $700B to hand out to banks. SICK TO YOUR STOMACH. I have news for you and for every one else who has been duped: These are not Republicans.

They call themselves "republicans", but they aren't "Republicans". They do not follow the Rule of Law as evidenced by illegal wire tapping. They do not care for liberty, as illustrated by the Patriot Act. And they do not care for democracy or else they would put proposals like a $700B bailout to a popular vote. And they also do not believe in personal responsibility or the free market as evidenced by the proposal to bail out irresponsible banks.

Now, you will probably say something silly like "democrats are guilty of stuff like that too." And I will say, yes, but it doesn't matter because I'm not talking about democrats here, so don't try to change the topic. I'm not calling myself a democrat, so don't think I'm apologizing for them. I'm calling myself a Republican with a capital "R".

You probably have some naive notions, like "Rule of Law" means lots of cops with tazers. That is not "Rule of Law". That is fascism. Get this stuff straight.

You probably think that "Rule of Law" means more laws, like laws against smoking pot or having gay sex. Again, wrong. "Rule of Law" applies to the operations of the rulers. "Rule of Law" means that the rulers are ruled by law. It means that the no man is above the law. (Make sure you go study that wikipeda article before you argue that point.) "Rule of Law" does not mean that the subjects must be ruled by cops and draconian laws.

You are probably asking now, "how about the subjects? How about the people? What's going to keep them doing what I think is right?" Well, assuming your idea of "right" makes any sense whatsoever, in our Republic, which is also a federation of states, the idea is that most criminal law should be deferred to the states themselves. The exceptions would be laws against actions that adversely and DIRECTLY affect the operations of the Federal Government. (Some washed-up sixties flower child smoking a joint at a Jethro Tull concert does not constitute DIRECTLY affecting the operations Federal Government.) So, can a person have gay without getting arrested? Well, in the ideal "Republic" of states, this question is left to the states, NOT to the Federal Government. That's why they call it a "Federal Government", because of the concept of deferring most law to the states.

But is this *really* how true Republicans think? Surely they want federal agents breathing down every pot smoker's slimy back, don't they? NO THEY DON'T. I refer you to a concept called New Federalism, which was a reaction to the New Deal and was spearheaded by one of my favorite presidents, Richard Nixon. (I'm fucking serious about Richard Nixon, so unless you are prepared to read up on his history as president and his ideals, don't even think about questioning my sincerity here.) He was the closest thing we've had to a Republican in office in the last 50 years. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Now I ask you, since I recognize your name and the mindless "conservative" tone of yo

I wish I knew. When is the last time we as a people have been asked to sacrifice or had to sacrifice?

Possibly Carter's "Crisis of Confidence" speech? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/filmmore/ps_crisis.html

This is the one that people continue to mock by saying that Carter "told people to wear a sweater" (but he didn't specifically say that at all).

Sigh...

Moreover, I will soon submit legislation to Congress calling for the creation of this nation's first solar bank, which will help us achieve the crucial goal of 20 percent of our energy coming from solar power by the year 2000.

As for general attitudes, the US is generally more business friendly where as europeans tend to put people first.

I don 't think Europe puts people first. From what I heard, and watched in the news when the youth were rioting in France. It was hard for an employer to fire someone. That's not people friendly, if an employer can't easily fire someone then they aren't likely to hire either. And small businesses can't stay in business long if they can't fire people who can't, won't, or will only do their jobs slowly. When the government in France passed a law making it easier for employers to fire employees there were massive riots by the youth.

Longer work hours lead to more productivity

Put to a point maybe, but go past that point and you run into the law of Diminishing returns.

the state should not be people's nanny

That's right, the state should not be a nanny.

If on the other hand you agree with: Work should be distrubuted evenly, workhours should allow for enough free time to have a social life outside work and the state should together with employers and unions supervise that work hours are reasonable.

You should do that without government.

To contrast, I seen americans working ordinary jobs for no extra pay doing 80 hours a week without question

It's their choice. If they don't want to do that then they don't have to. Even if their employer is holding a gun to their head they don't need to do it. Free choice allows them to walk away from the job. It may not be a choice they like but it is a choice. Me, I see Americans who can start their own businesses instead of working for a PHB. I also see where an American can come from bottom rung of the economic ladder and climb up it. Heck one of the US's presidential candidates, Obama, is doing that.

But the simplest thing might be that buying MS is supporting MS

I bought my last Microsoft product more than 8 years ago. When it came to getting a new laptop I bought a MacBook Pro.

Falcon

> NASA astrophysicists have discovered what they claim is something outside the observable universe exerting an effect on the observable.

The third episode of Brian Greene's "Elegant Universe" documentary miniseries on PBS said that while matter is confined to the known dimensions, its possible that gravity isn't and so can move through dimensions. The example they feel is that we could possibly detect the gravity of 'something' in another Universe by its gravity, even though we could never actually touch it. Wonder if this is it?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/

"Wow, if the source is credible that's pretty damning. For those who don't like to RTFA:

One message includes bin Laden's denial of having anything to do with the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York City, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania."

Good Lord, do you people have short memories. Yes, Bin Laden initially denied complicity in 9/11. But as evidence gathered against him, he reversed himself and admitted Al Qaeda was behind it. He warned that unless the West complied with his demands, more attacks were coming. The Koran allows the faithful to lie in the course of jihad if it furthers the cause.

What pisses me off is that this article is going to be used as a justification by the Truther movement, when we have a videotaped confession by Bin Laden himself.

To the person who modded me troll,you want links? Here you go. MSFT lied to the Justice Dept,MSFT lied to get a better deal on the DVR patents ,MSFT lied with a fake ad trying to fight the "Mac VS PC" ads,MSFT lied about Xbox 360 features,hell I could do this all day long. Hell just typing "Microsoft lied" into Yahoo brings up over 3 MILLION hits!

So answer me this if I am a supposed troll: Given the fact that we are talking about a company that has a proven history of lying and only fessing up when actually caught in a lie,why should we take their word now? I mean if Diebold says "Sure the voting boxes are safe,trust us they are hack proof!" would you believe them without proof? Considering how much information can be gleaned from the average persons searches and how much money that could potentially be worth to data miners,give me one good reason why now we can trust Microsoft simply because they say it is so? After being lied to by MSFT so much in the past I don't think it too much to ask to have an independent source at least look at what is going on there with that data,do you? But as always this is my 02c,YMMV

Sounds like a Frontline documentary I've watched a couple years back.

frontline: the persuaders

That seems likely. I believe I did see it on PBS, and I do like Frontline. But it was years ago, so I'm not sure.

Another good documentary on this topic is The Century of the Self. Combined I think they've shaped my concept of advertising/marketing even more than working in advertising for a short stint.

This Ars Technicia article in which he claims the only books on the Amiga he could find where technical manuals?

After that he started to make up stuff based on biased PBS shows like "Triumph of the Nerds" that was basically Steve Jobs and Bill Gates bragging about how awesome they are and how they invented everything first except for Xerox, and the Amiga is just a footnote in that story. In fact Steve Jobs admits to stealing ideas to make the Macintosh "Ultimately it comes down to taste. It comes down to trying to expose yourself to the best things that humans have done and then try to bring those things in to what you're doing. I mean Picasso had a saying he said good artists copy great artists steal. And we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas ehm and I think part of what made the Macintosh great was that the people working on it were musicians and poets and artists and zoologists and historians who also happened to be the best computer scientists in the world."

He admits that Apple has always been shameless in stealing ideas. That proves my version of history about Commodore and the Amiga and Steve Jobs and Apple stealing ideas from them.

This Ars Technicia article in which he claims the only books on the Amiga he could find where technical manuals?

After that he started to make up stuff based on biased PBS shows like "Triumph of the Nerds" that was basically Steve Jobs and Bill Gates bragging about how awesome they are and how they invented everything first except for Xerox, and the Amiga is just a footnote in that story. In fact Steve Jobs admits to stealing ideas to make the Macintosh "Ultimately it comes down to taste. It comes down to trying to expose yourself to the best things that humans have done and then try to bring those things in to what you're doing. I mean Picasso had a saying he said good artists copy great artists steal. And we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas ehm and I think part of what made the Macintosh great was that the people working on it were musicians and poets and artists and zoologists and historians who also happened to be the best computer scientists in the world."

He admits that Apple has always been shameless in stealing ideas. That proves my version of history about Commodore and the Amiga and Steve Jobs and Apple stealing ideas from them.

Sounds like a Frontline documentary I've watched a couple years back.

frontline: the persuaders

If they haven't learned by now, and they haven't, they never will. The world has been perpetually ending for the entire 2000 year odd era of Christian thought alone, with God and Jesus coming down "any moment now."

Just off the top of my largely uneducated head on the subject, the world was supposed to end within a human lifetime of Jesus (Mark 13:1-13:30), in 1843 AND 1844 when the 1843 one failed to happen, the year 1000, the year 2000, and most currently both 2012 due to the Mayan calendar of all things and whenever the LHC switch is flicked in earnest.

Reminds me of the bee from the Bee Movie trailer (yeah, didn't WTFM either) bonking into the glass repeatedly saying "This time! This time! This time! This time!"

Is the world really that boring, and are we really that poor learners?

...is a fundamental conflict of interest.

When AT&T said "What they [Google, Vonage, and others] would like to do is to use my pipes free.", they meant "What they [Google --content provider--, Vonage --service provider--, and others --various providers--] would like to do is to use my [AT&T -- connection provider & content provider -- ] pipes free.

Now, if AT&T separated the connection service from the content, I think we could put a fair and equitable system in place. But as long as AT&T co-mingles the connection service (i.e. infrastructure) with any other service they provide they will never find it in their interest to give competitors equal access to the connection. This is easy enough to predict. Simply look at the current state of DSL providers that have to use AT&T's wires. They are practically non-existent. If AT&T is unwilling to allow connection competition and have the ability to avoid it, obviously they will be equally unwilling to allow search engine competition or digital TV competition or any other service they choose to get into or provide via partner arrangements.

I am no fan of increased government regulation, but if we end up with non net neutrality then we absolutely need government regulation that will set standard fees for network service costs to be paid to the infrastructure provider AND AT&T (and Comcast and DirecPC and everyone else) must be forced to separate the infrastructure business from the service business.

As an aside, I think the FCC should also require an accounting for the high speed infrastructure that AT&T and others promised when they gladly took advantage of the incentives they were given to build such an infrastructure and then never did. Had they kept their promise, it's likely we would not have the "PtP problem" (if it even exists) they are using to push the tiered internet idea.

No myth, you are very mistaken. Read this, this, and probably about a hundred other articles over the last couple of years about how the telcos take federal tax money as incentive to improve and expand their services while continuing to invest as little in infrastructure as they can get away with while charging absurdly high rates for services. The telcos are ripping us off blind with the government's blessing, and they get away with it because they own so many elected officials.

It's time they answer to the people. We've paid far to much for far too little for far too long. The same goes for the cablecos.

teaching creationism along with evolution violates no part of the constitution.

You're utterly mistaken. See Wikipedia on Edwards v. Aguillard in which "the Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools whenever evolution was taught was unconstitutional, because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion."

In addition, in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, "the plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution."

If you have an hour to spare, you can watch a highly interesting documentary on the latter case here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html.

The closing of the factories had a bigger effect in lowers non CO2 particulates.
It takes longer for CO2 to go away then the particulates.
There are two things going on, Global Warming and Global Dimming.
I wouldn't be surprised if the temperature in Beijing went up after the closed the factories do to more light hitting the ground.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/

ANDREW BACEVICH: (about Reagan) It's Morning in America. And you don't have to sacrifice, you can have more, all we need to do is get government out of the way, and drill more holes for oil, because the President led us to believe the supply of oil was infinite.

BILL MOYERS: You describe Ronald Reagan as the "modern prophet of profligacy. The politician who gave moral sanction to the empire of consumption."

ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, to understand the truth about President Reagan, is to understand why so much of what we imagined to be our politics is misleading and false. He was the guy who came in and said we need to shrink the size of government. Government didn't shrink during the Reagan era, it grew.

He came in and he said we need to reduce the level of federal spending. He didn't reduce it, it went through the roof, and the budget deficits for his time were the greatest they had been since World War Two.

BILL MOYERS: And do you remember that it was his successor, his Vice President, the first President Bush who said in 1992, the American way of life is not negotiable.

ANDREW BACEVICH: And all presidents, again, this is not a Republican thing, or a Democratic thing, all presidents, all administrations are committed to that proposition. Now, I would say, that probably, 90 percent of the American people today would concur. The American way of life is not up for negotiation.

What I would invite them to consider is that, if you want to preserve that which you value most in the American way of life, and of course you need to ask yourself, what is it you value most. That if you want to preserve that which you value most in the American way of life, then we need to change the American way of life. We need to modify that which may be peripheral, in order to preserve that which is at the center of what we value.

The connection of reckless consumerism supported by military imperialism, to the erosion of civil liberties is by now obvious, so I'll spell them out for the Republican readers. Reagan, and the GOP generally during and since his presidency, have simultaneously transferred wealth and legal privilege from the lower and middle classes to the upper class, and appealed to American consumers of "Law & Order" products like the interventionist foreign policy advanced by such crimes as the Iran-Contra treasons of Reagan and Oliver North, and the creep toward our present surveillance society in which victims have no functioning legal process for demanding documentation of federal government violations of our right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, because nobody knows which 3-letter agency to petition nor where to address our complaints. Public protest is the last legal recourse of those who have exhausted, or never had, any judicial remedy available for their grievances.

War and spying of course always go hand in hand, and convincing voters to fund either requires appeals to fear. Whether those fears are real or fabricated, accurate or exaggerated

Actually, this is a significant problem...

The market has a long-term 12% return, but most people only get 4-6% back on their mutual fund investments on average. In fact, the higher your salary, the less your investments tend to return.

This has been known for quite some time.

Why you're such a lousy investor.

For most people, a pension is better. The problem is a lot of pensions aren't much safer.

How Wall Street Wrecked United's Pension

Either way you're taking on significant risk.

In my case, I had the option of investing for myself or having a pension.

Investing for myself is risky, but I know how to invest. While there's almost no way I could invest to the insane level of return that the pension promises, it would require I work at my job for 30 years. I can't guarantee that my job or my pension will be around in 30 years. Moreover, I don't particularly want to be here 30 years.

The problem is, when everyone starts at my job, they get the same options. In the nineties, everyone was picking self investment, because the market was doing insanely well, but now that it's not so good, people can't maintain the value of their investments.

Anyway, to find out more, I highly recommend Frontline's segment Can You Afford to Retire?

It is not uncommon to give up your right to appeal through a plea agreement. It is done in all the 50 states and on the federal level.

Frontline did show on the plea process, the pros and cons.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/plea

They weren't able to stop this one, which, if you haven't seen yet, is pretty amazing.

There is definitely something wrong when laptop or PC manufacturers depend on shoving crap down customers throats to turn a profit. Is it too much of a stretch to think that profit should be a result of quality products and services and differentiation instead of corporate deals that offer little or no advantage to the customer who is actually buying the product from the maker?

Because the profit margins are so low OEMs have to make up for it somewhere. And with the economy in the shape it's in people are looking for ways to save, whether by keeping the PC they have now or by buying a low cost PC.

Falcon

PBS's Now the Ted Stevens Case went into some of the items she has fought them on, mostly taxes and trying to dig their tendrils out of the state government.

A lot more I disagree with her on than agree with her on, but it's not hard to suspect that oil companies that are used to having near complete control of the government would be happy to see her in a gilded cage.

Of course you never know - McCain's old - she might walk into the oval office in something slinky - he keels right over.

Pug.

He was the first interview of the very good NerdTV series of 2005.
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/nerdtv/shows/

Who's got other gems?

A lot of US car companies are going under because they have very generous pension plans and a lot of retired workers to pay.

That's not a big problem. Those US car companies should take a page from United Airlines and simply renegotiate the contract with the current employees to get out of paying pensions to retired employees.

At least there are still laws against that here in Canada.

- RG>

Someone seeing the terrorist's name: "Hey, you're that American Comic!"

Terroists looking very serious and dangerous: "NO! I AM NOT!"

Person: "Yes you are! You're so funny!"

Terroist looking even more pissed: "No! Absolutely not!"

Gotta watch it.

It runs on PBS every once in a while Ameican Crossroads.

Millions? Try BILLIONS. In 1996 Congress gave telcos across the country a total of $200 billion to implement 45mbps bidirectional fiber across the country by 2000. That's $2000 per household for which you get exactly dick.

No congressional hearings have been held. No one is going to jail for this fraud.

Look it up. The WT Towers were not built like other massive structures, much of the structural support is in the outside wall. Here is a link that describes them as 'tube buildings':

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/buildingbig/wonder/structure/world_trade.html

You'll note on the Wikipedia page that there are indeed citations on this section.

It really doesn't matter because a declaration of a state of emergency wasn't enough at the time for the feds to step in. All it did was expedite the process in which the state could ask for help because the state of emergency was already declared. Also, the link for the source doesn't provide a web page for the material;. If you follow the source, it prints something that on my printer that is nothing but gibberish. I don't even get a title that I can read.

Anyways, the Wikki article is misleading because the declaration of a state of emergency isn't or wasn't at the time, enough to send FEMA or troops in for assistance. This required a separate request afterwards. If you were to continue reading that page, it would clearly explain this. If you were to read even more of the article you cited, you would see the quote Nagin and Blanco were criticized for failing to implement New Orleans' evacuation plan and for ordering residents to a shelter of last resort without any provisions for food, water, security, or sanitary conditions. Perhaps the most important criticism of Nagin was that he delayed his emergency evacuation order until 19 hours before landfall, which led to hundreds of deaths of people who (by that time) could not find any way out of the city. ABC news reported that when natural disasters strike, it is the primary responsibility of state and local governments -- not the federal government -- to respond. and then state how that failed.

Of course Blanco took the position that Bush was sincere and honestly attempting to help in this PBS/Front line interview. She blames most of it on the chaos and time it took to move people around. Unfortunately, she doesn't acknowledge that she failed to follow the state disaster response plane and request help through the proper channels in a timely manor. This is illustrated in this CNN interview. I suggest that you watch all of it then edit your Wikipedia page to reflect the truth and reality that was. I'm not sure why you took the stand you did when the rest of the page you cited pretty much falsifies the part you quoted. This failure to ask for the proper help in the proper manor used to be right on the wiki page you cited. That is why wikipedia will never be a complete and valid source of information. I wouldn't rely on it as fact if I was you.

As for the changes to Posse Comitatus, don't be so quick to cheer the ability of the federal government to deploy troops without the consent of a state or its citizens. That kind of power while useful for emergencies like Katrina can also be used by less-than-scrupulous politicians in the future for purposes far less noble. The changes were a net loss for us as a country as far as I'm concerned, and a great deal because a president appointed a man who judged horse shows to be the head of federal emergency management.

Quit your damn uninformed fear mongering. First of all, a national state of emergency needs to be declared first. The federal government can't declare one in an areas if the state support it because congress with remove the emergency. Secondly, congress reviews the state of emergencies or national emergencies(see both 1621 and 1622) and can revoke them just as they can revoke the ability to use troops if ever necessary by removing the national emergency with a simple joint resolution. Third, the administration, whoever is president, h

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/dimming.html

However, every side does not use whatever advantage they have; otherwise Americans would have nuked both Afghanistan and Iraq long ago. Which, given the trigger-happy moron in charge, I'm pleasantly surprised didn't actually happen.

Look at this report concerning the Korean war and nukes. Atomic bombs have been seriously considered but diplomatically speaking it would have seriously impaired the US position (see the British reaction) and stratigically speaking there were strong doubts that it would help to win the war....And even if you wiped the ennemy out of a region...Well what did you gain? The "freed" area will be a no man zone. A position lost depending on your strategy. It would even make your troops movement more complex and healthcare more costly/complex.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/extraordinaryrendition/22203res20051206.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition_by_the_United_States

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/rendition701/timeline/timeline_1.html#

Having read up on Extraordinary rendition for an hour or so, I'm stuck with the conclusion that while Clinton should have yanked the reins, Bush broke out the whip. I know which one I'd rather have leading the country. Granted, neither would be best, but I know which I prefer, morally (hint: not Bush).

"The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen."

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html

I remember seeing a small documentary on PBS about China trying this once before. Ended pretty badly from what I remember. The city was called Huangbaiyu and here's the wiki and link to the documentary. Hopefully this new city works out better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huangbaiyu
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/fellows/green_dreams/

My understanding is that's exactly what they do. Read Cringely.

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070329_001882.html

Anyway, the IOC is a cabal, a Pentavirate and the Olympics have lost all credibility.

Can't wait till they come to my town in 2010 to screw the whole place up.

If you reduce the amount of aerosol in the atmosphere dramatically, you can measure the temperature difference within days. In another post, someone mentions the days after 9/11 when there were no airplanes generating contrails in the US skies. The absence of those contrails produced a noticeable effect on the high and low temperatures.

Some of you may remember that Bob Cringely had announced plans to enter the competition. They pulled out of the competition but still plan to land on the moon.

...electronic versions of the Rose Law Firm billing records.

Coincidentally I just watched an episode of Rough Science where they built a rocket (of the firework variety) using bat droppings.

..at least two years old

It sounds like you are accusing the Church of suppressing education and civilization.

He may not be, but I am. If you do not think the Church has suppressed education, then you need to go have a long look at texts describing the Inquisition. One single example is how the Church dictated the wholesale burning of every scrap of paper documenting the Mayan civilization because it was declared heresy. (Ref: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/maya). Another very famous example is the Church excommunication of Galileo for daring to suggest the earth orbits the sun. And of course there's the modern-day refusal to accept natural selection as a concept they'll tolerate being taught in schools. Many, many other examples are out there for the learning if you care to look.

Are you saying the collaspe of education and civilization had nothing to do with that whole burning and pillaging thing from the pagan barbarian hordes such as the Goths and Vandals?

They were largely disorganized. The Church is far and away the longest lasting, best-funded, globally-organized suppressor of education that has ever existed. No other example even comes close.

No,
Galileo was not excommunicated from the church because of his belief of the earth orbiting the sun. The Pope actually agreed with his claims. It wasn't until he insulted the pope in his book that he was excommunicated and seeing that he worked for the church it probably was not the smartest thing to do on his part.