Slashdot Mirror

The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer is a good start.
For no-holds-barred expose' nothing touches NOW with Bill Moyers--stuff no other video broadcast outlet will air (e.g., Michael Powell & the FCC. ABC mentioned it momentarily--once--at 3:30AM).

gewg_

The media isn't conservative, and it certainly isn't liberal... it's simply profitable.

My first reaction was "Yeah, that's the truth." But then I started thinking: I am a regular listener to NPR, and though their coverage of news is better (in my opinion) it's still not all that different. It could be because they still have to get corporate contributions, or is it more than that? One could also look at network news vs. the newshour on PBS to see the difference. Does that difference account for everything that's wrong with the news? I'm not sure it does.

Personally, I have a few peeves I'm not sure that other people share. One is that the media is not factual enough. Sure they will sometimes quote a statistic out of context, but they often don't have enough in depth covereage of the hard facts to give you a real idea of what they are. It's mostly a few statistics, press releases from political parties or corporations, and pundits, none of which give you much idea of the facts alone. Another issue is that they seem to believe that being unbiased means giving equal time to each viewpoint, rather than considering it on the basis of the facts that they're supposed to be reporting. If a polititian is wrong, they should say so, even if one is wrong more often than another. Finally, they need to challenge officials more in interviews, not so much in the O'reilly style of just barking their opinion (which is useless) but by assulting them with the hard facts to make it clear to everyone when they're lying. Those are my 2 cents, anyway.

There are shows out there that are science based, but how many people watch them?

Nova has been around for ages, as has Nature. Both are excellent shows, but what kind of audience do they have? Sadly, not enough. Even with such excellent programs as this: The Elegant Universe. (Note, you need to downgrade your version of quicktime if it is new to view it due to a quicktime bug. I reccomend the full screen version BTW.)

Up here in Canada I have been watching The Nature of Things for as long as I can remember. We also get Quirks and Quarks on CBC radio, which is actually quite popular up here. (I reccomend downloading some episodes in MP3. Jay Ingram from Daily Planet used to host this show.)

So, there are good shows out there for such a network, but the question becomes, would people watch? I know I would, hell, I would subscribe to a cable channel of that nature in an instant. However, as it is, I use my ATI All-In-Wonder and the PVR software that came with it to record and play back these shows, so I have a "custom" science channel of my own.

Michael Schermer has been working towards this for some time: as shown here.

I think though, that one VITAL thing to add would be along the lines of what Schermer already does (and the Mythbusters TV show does to some degree as well): Teach Joe Sixpack the nature of scientific thinking, specifically critical thinking as outlined in Carl Sagan's The Demon Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Dark. Once more people begin to understand this concept, they will likely become more open to scientific televison, well, that is what I hope for anyhow.

"If it is a TFT vs TFT situation, both players will alternately cooperate/defect."

In reality, both would continue to cooperate ad infinitum, since no one would defect at the first turn.

As to an anonymous society, I really do not know, but I remember another "real life" view of the prisoner's dilemma especially relevant in this Internet era: sales via catalogue.The formalisation, if you come to think of it, is almost the same, especially if you make a a turnstile-like mechanism of exchange.
this is Offtopic, butI wonder if other slashdotters can help me on that: I remember having read in a sci-fi book an encounter between two civilizations in which, to assess which goods could be traded, the aliens had built a carousel mechanism by which you could take something out only by putting something in return. I remember that the aliens took only cigarettes, tat were like cocaine for them (that tells you how old are the book and I :-( ). Does someone remember the title and author?

can be found here . Also, PBS.org has a similar storie here involving a man with robotic arms.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/ The Elegant Universe

Check it out, It's worth a visit to the Quantum Cafe.

Aside from not wanting to deliver the data in a format that can be read on a non- MS-Windows platform, there is the strategy of delay. It's a favorite of MS, but recently Cringley brought it up in the case of records retention:

Burst claims Microsoft avoids damning documents being discovered when a record retention rule is in place. The short version of this Burst argument is that Microsoft deliberately identifies the wrong people so that retained records are useless, and records that probably should have been retained are destroyed.

If you look past the marketing and lobbying, there isn't much future for that company.

This is the guy profiled on NOW with Bill Moyers on PBS:
http://www.pbs.org/now/science/climateqanda.html
He has been heating up sections of a meadow in Colorado for more than a decade. The heated sections are releasing more carbon into the atmosphere than the sections without heaters.

And this page --http://www.pbs.org/now/science/climatedebate.htm l --has a lot of interesting links on the topic....

This is the guy profiled on NOW with Bill Moyers on PBS:
http://www.pbs.org/now/science/climateqanda.html
He has been heating up sections of a meadow in Colorado for more than a decade. The heated sections are releasing more carbon into the atmosphere than the sections without heaters.

And this page --http://www.pbs.org/now/science/climatedebate.htm l --has a lot of interesting links on the topic....

What about nuclear power?

Well, that, as you know, has been a very contentious issue in the United States and in other parts of the world. Since the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl nuclear accidents, no nuclear power plants have been built, and there are many, many sets of issues having to do with the disposal of radioactive materials and the proliferation of weapons-grade material and so forth.

But leaving those safety issues aside for the moment, how does nuclear compare with renewables?

Well, in contrast to renewable energy, nuclear power is a very high-density source of energy. Biomass energy per unit area can produce a few watts per square meter. By contrast, the boiler of a nuclear power plant, where the nuclear energy is being converted into steam, produces tens or hundreds of thousands of watts per square meter.

But like renewables, it's a limited source of energy, too.

Yes, there is a limited amount of uranium around the world, at least that we've been able to find. There's actually a lot of uranium in the Earth's crust, but you have to find uranium ore that's very concentrated. (And there's only a very minute fraction of fissionable uranium in natural uranium -- only about 0.3 percent.) If we look at the estimates of the available uranium ore around the world, at cost effective prices, and we ask the question, if we were to burn it in light-water reactors (conventional nuclear reactors used in the United States and Western Europe), how long would the reserves of uranium last if we were to extract energy at the rate of ten terawatts? Well, it turns out that you only have about ten years of U-235 power from all of the cost-effective uranium reserves. (U-235 is the isotope of uranium that undergoes nuclear fission.)

What about breeder reactors?

Well, breeder reactors could extend the amount of natural uranium by a factor of 100. That is, if you took the rest of the uranium, the isotope U-238, and irradiated it with neutrons in a breeder reactor, you could convert it to a burnable nuclear fuel. But it takes a long time to do this. It takes about 20 years to create the same amount of energy in the U-238. The other bitter pill about this is that, with breeders, you're making weapons-grade plutonium, which presents a whole other problem: having enormous inventories of plutonium around the world.

Perhaps, but not pollution . . . as global prosperity increases, so does global pollution. Efficiency of energy and resource usage increases, but overall consumption also increases such that overall there is a net increase in environental impact. One may argue that Kuznet's curve predicts that as people become more wealthy, they care more about the environment. this has been shown to be true in many locals; however, I'm not convinced that this has been demonstrated on a global scale. In other words Kuznet's curve might hold true except that "Not in My BackYard" pushes environmental damage to remote locations . . . e.g. Yucca mountain, developing countries, etc.

Additionally, poor people in developing couuntries don't throw away broken VCRs and DVD players and buy new ones . . . they fix them because it is economically viable to do so. In the US, we even throw away cars just because they are ugly or old. I would agree that our technology makes our use of energy and resources more efficient in manufacturing, but we also also tend to produce enormous amounts of trash due to product packaging and the fact that it is cheaper to buy a new item than fix an old one.

Many have postulated that the environment would be stressed to the breaking point if everyone in the world lived like the most privledged people (western developed world). PBS's NOVA did a fantastic two part series on this and other issues. The website is here.

> If any of the governments of the world were thinking ahead though they would start investing very heavily in alternative power generation technology.

Like France, which gets 76% of its electricity from nuclear power?

Diamonds do oxidize, but NOT "readily". Heat a diamond red hot and drop it into liquid oxygen and it'll burn up completely. URL for the doubtful "In this lab a real diamond is being heated to over 1500 degrees centigrade. After being dropped into liquid oxygen, the diamond burns completely. "

Of course, this will all seem very odd to Americans, because you're not used to the idea of TV that has no political or advertising association.

I hate to undo my moderation, but how could you have missed PBS? It's got loads of high-quality, commercial-free programming. Some of it is coproduced with, or even purchased from the BBC, and it's free and available everywhere.

As for FOX, why do you compare it with the BBC, rather than Murdoch-owned press in the UK? Talk about a straw man.

Schedule for Bill Moyer's Now

The Third Parties

Conventional assumptions about the electorate as polarized Republican and Democratic camps misses the trend of the last three presidential elections -- third-party candidates are tipping the outcome of presidential elections.

-- Lawrence R. Jacobs, director of the 2004 Elections Project for the Humphrey Institute PBS's ONLINE NEWSHOUR reports that the United States is home to more than 54 political parties, 37 of which have had candidates run for President. Although only a handful of third-party candidates have received more than 10% of the vote in all the years since 1860, third parties are often thought to have a major influence on U.S. policy and political debate.

Third parties often raise issues that major-party presidential candidates neglect, sometimes leading to substantial change in the public dialogue. Ross Perot, running on a platform that advocated reducing the federal budget deficit, received 19 percent of the vote in the 1992 election. The fact that Perot's key issue has been an important question in almost every campaign since is seen as somewhat of a victory for the Reform Party, even though their candidate lost the election.

In 2000, what might have been seen as the next high point for third parties was marred by controversy. Ralph Nader gained more than two million votes as the Green Party candidate, but some Democrats blamed Nader for causing candidate Al Gore's defeat by attracting votes that might have otherwise gone to Gore. But it is rare that third parties garner enough votes to warrant this kind of complaint. More often, third parties struggle to raise the millions necessary to run a presidential campaign, and have a hard time getting a fraction of the media exposure the Republican and Democratic candidates receive. Read about how third-party candidates are regularly excluded from the televised presidential debates.)

In the end, some voters who might support a third-party candidate's platform worry that their votes will be "wasted" on a candidate who is unlikely to win. Because of the way the United States electoral system works, only the candidate who wins the majority of popular votes in most states receives any electoral votes. (Learn more about the electoral college system.)

Despite these challenges, third parties continue to endorse candidates for the presidency. Each election year, dozens of people decide to run for the presidency. In October 2004, with the election less than a month away, Ballot Access News reports five third-party candidates will appear on a significant number of state ballots, an accomplishment in itself. Although there are few requirements for eligibility, a significant amount of paperwork is required to become a viable candidate. Each state has its own ballot laws, each one requiring that a party obtain a different number of signatures to get on that state's ballot. This is why third-party candidates are seldom listed on every state ballot.

THE WASHINGTON TIMES reported in September 2004 that third-party candidates in this election are as much or more of a threat to President George W. Bush than they are to his challenger John Kerry. Libertarian presidential hopeful Michael Badnarik told the TIMES, "We are playing to the conservatives who do not have a party to vote for. For example, Republicans have traditionally stood for smaller government, but this president has not adhered to that standard." Badnarik is currently on

Schedule for Bill Moyer's Now

The Third Parties

Conventional assumptions about the electorate as polarized Republican and Democratic camps misses the trend of the last three presidential elections -- third-party candidates are tipping the outcome of presidential elections.

-- Lawrence R. Jacobs, director of the 2004 Elections Project for the Humphrey Institute PBS's ONLINE NEWSHOUR reports that the United States is home to more than 54 political parties, 37 of which have had candidates run for President. Although only a handful of third-party candidates have received more than 10% of the vote in all the years since 1860, third parties are often thought to have a major influence on U.S. policy and political debate.

Third parties often raise issues that major-party presidential candidates neglect, sometimes leading to substantial change in the public dialogue. Ross Perot, running on a platform that advocated reducing the federal budget deficit, received 19 percent of the vote in the 1992 election. The fact that Perot's key issue has been an important question in almost every campaign since is seen as somewhat of a victory for the Reform Party, even though their candidate lost the election.

In 2000, what might have been seen as the next high point for third parties was marred by controversy. Ralph Nader gained more than two million votes as the Green Party candidate, but some Democrats blamed Nader for causing candidate Al Gore's defeat by attracting votes that might have otherwise gone to Gore. But it is rare that third parties garner enough votes to warrant this kind of complaint. More often, third parties struggle to raise the millions necessary to run a presidential campaign, and have a hard time getting a fraction of the media exposure the Republican and Democratic candidates receive. Read about how third-party candidates are regularly excluded from the televised presidential debates.)

In the end, some voters who might support a third-party candidate's platform worry that their votes will be "wasted" on a candidate who is unlikely to win. Because of the way the United States electoral system works, only the candidate who wins the majority of popular votes in most states receives any electoral votes. (Learn more about the electoral college system.)

Despite these challenges, third parties continue to endorse candidates for the presidency. Each election year, dozens of people decide to run for the presidency. In October 2004, with the election less than a month away, Ballot Access News reports five third-party candidates will appear on a significant number of state ballots, an accomplishment in itself. Although there are few requirements for eligibility, a significant amount of paperwork is required to become a viable candidate. Each state has its own ballot laws, each one requiring that a party obtain a different number of signatures to get on that state's ballot. This is why third-party candidates are seldom listed on every state ballot.

THE WASHINGTON TIMES reported in September 2004 that third-party candidates in this election are as much or more of a threat to President George W. Bush than they are to his challenger John Kerry. Libertarian presidential hopeful Michael Badnarik told the TIMES, "We are playing to the conservatives who do not have a party to vote for. For example, Republicans have traditionally stood for smaller government, but this president has not adhered to that standard." Badnarik is currently on

Schedule for Bill Moyer's Now

The Third Parties

Conventional assumptions about the electorate as polarized Republican and Democratic camps misses the trend of the last three presidential elections -- third-party candidates are tipping the outcome of presidential elections.

-- Lawrence R. Jacobs, director of the 2004 Elections Project for the Humphrey Institute PBS's ONLINE NEWSHOUR reports that the United States is home to more than 54 political parties, 37 of which have had candidates run for President. Although only a handful of third-party candidates have received more than 10% of the vote in all the years since 1860, third parties are often thought to have a major influence on U.S. policy and political debate.

Third parties often raise issues that major-party presidential candidates neglect, sometimes leading to substantial change in the public dialogue. Ross Perot, running on a platform that advocated reducing the federal budget deficit, received 19 percent of the vote in the 1992 election. The fact that Perot's key issue has been an important question in almost every campaign since is seen as somewhat of a victory for the Reform Party, even though their candidate lost the election.

In 2000, what might have been seen as the next high point for third parties was marred by controversy. Ralph Nader gained more than two million votes as the Green Party candidate, but some Democrats blamed Nader for causing candidate Al Gore's defeat by attracting votes that might have otherwise gone to Gore. But it is rare that third parties garner enough votes to warrant this kind of complaint. More often, third parties struggle to raise the millions necessary to run a presidential campaign, and have a hard time getting a fraction of the media exposure the Republican and Democratic candidates receive. Read about how third-party candidates are regularly excluded from the televised presidential debates.)

In the end, some voters who might support a third-party candidate's platform worry that their votes will be "wasted" on a candidate who is unlikely to win. Because of the way the United States electoral system works, only the candidate who wins the majority of popular votes in most states receives any electoral votes. (Learn more about the electoral college system.)

Despite these challenges, third parties continue to endorse candidates for the presidency. Each election year, dozens of people decide to run for the presidency. In October 2004, with the election less than a month away, Ballot Access News reports five third-party candidates will appear on a significant number of state ballots, an accomplishment in itself. Although there are few requirements for eligibility, a significant amount of paperwork is required to become a viable candidate. Each state has its own ballot laws, each one requiring that a party obtain a different number of signatures to get on that state's ballot. This is why third-party candidates are seldom listed on every state ballot.

THE WASHINGTON TIMES reported in September 2004 that third-party candidates in this election are as much or more of a threat to President George W. Bush than they are to his challenger John Kerry. Libertarian presidential hopeful Michael Badnarik told the TIMES, "We are playing to the conservatives who do not have a party to vote for. For example, Republicans have traditionally stood for smaller government, but this president has not adhered to that standard." Badnarik is currently on

Schedule for Bill Moyer's Now

The Third Parties

Conventional assumptions about the electorate as polarized Republican and Democratic camps misses the trend of the last three presidential elections -- third-party candidates are tipping the outcome of presidential elections.

-- Lawrence R. Jacobs, director of the 2004 Elections Project for the Humphrey Institute PBS's ONLINE NEWSHOUR reports that the United States is home to more than 54 political parties, 37 of which have had candidates run for President. Although only a handful of third-party candidates have received more than 10% of the vote in all the years since 1860, third parties are often thought to have a major influence on U.S. policy and political debate.

Third parties often raise issues that major-party presidential candidates neglect, sometimes leading to substantial change in the public dialogue. Ross Perot, running on a platform that advocated reducing the federal budget deficit, received 19 percent of the vote in the 1992 election. The fact that Perot's key issue has been an important question in almost every campaign since is seen as somewhat of a victory for the Reform Party, even though their candidate lost the election.

In 2000, what might have been seen as the next high point for third parties was marred by controversy. Ralph Nader gained more than two million votes as the Green Party candidate, but some Democrats blamed Nader for causing candidate Al Gore's defeat by attracting votes that might have otherwise gone to Gore. But it is rare that third parties garner enough votes to warrant this kind of complaint. More often, third parties struggle to raise the millions necessary to run a presidential campaign, and have a hard time getting a fraction of the media exposure the Republican and Democratic candidates receive. Read about how third-party candidates are regularly excluded from the televised presidential debates.)

In the end, some voters who might support a third-party candidate's platform worry that their votes will be "wasted" on a candidate who is unlikely to win. Because of the way the United States electoral system works, only the candidate who wins the majority of popular votes in most states receives any electoral votes. (Learn more about the electoral college system.)

Despite these challenges, third parties continue to endorse candidates for the presidency. Each election year, dozens of people decide to run for the presidency. In October 2004, with the election less than a month away, Ballot Access News reports five third-party candidates will appear on a significant number of state ballots, an accomplishment in itself. Although there are few requirements for eligibility, a significant amount of paperwork is required to become a viable candidate. Each state has its own ballot laws, each one requiring that a party obtain a different number of signatures to get on that state's ballot. This is why third-party candidates are seldom listed on every state ballot.

THE WASHINGTON TIMES reported in September 2004 that third-party candidates in this election are as much or more of a threat to President George W. Bush than they are to his challenger John Kerry. Libertarian presidential hopeful Michael Badnarik told the TIMES, "We are playing to the conservatives who do not have a party to vote for. For example, Republicans have traditionally stood for smaller government, but this president has not adhered to that standard." Badnarik is currently on

The moms love the SUVs coz they feel safe - problem is, when they hit a Smart even slighly, they kill the occupant.

Not necessarily. Smart is designed with safety in mind and has pretty good crash test results. Don't forget that crash tests describe only the passive safety (can you survive when bad things happen?), while Smart excels in active safety (can you avoid the bad things to happen in the first place?). I was driving a rented one on a business trip and the thing is agile like a TIE-fighter. Unless you're asleep at the wheel, you will be able to make an evasive manoeuvre avoiding getting hitted by the SUV.

On the other hand, large SUVs are hopeless in active safety (a pick-up truck with a wagon-like interior will always remain a pick-up truck in terms of agility), they prone to rollover and the frame chassis does not add to passive safety, contrary to popular belief. Yes, the chassis will remain untouched by a minor collision, but it does not mean your spine will remain untouched as well. If someone drops you in a steel cage from a steep cliff, the cage might itself remain untouched on the bottom - but your spine probably won't. Modern cars wreck so horribly precisely because the chassis takes all the energy that would otherwise release - among other things - on your spine. It's no wonder that the safest 4x4 according to NHTSA is subaru forester. It's a car-based SUV that gets totally wrecked in a crash - but that's because the driver leaves from collision in perfectly good health. Someone has to explain this to all the SUV moms...

Criticize George W. Bush? That's easy. Check this out: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government

Or this:

U.S. Government: Borrowing money to kill Iraqis. 140 billion borrowed. With interest, you pay 200 billion.

Or this:

15 of the 19 9/11 attackers were Saudis. Many don't like the U.S. Gov. influence on their country.

Did you see the network footage of George W. Bush holding hands with a Saudi man the Bush family knows as "Bandar Bush"? Since it was Saudis who attacked on 9/11, why did Bush invade Iraq? Was it a smokescreen to get attention away from the Saudis?

for one thing, although it is done by a private corporation, it is funded by the government.

It would be more accurate to say that it's funded by the Democratic and Republican parties. Do you remember when the debates were sponsored by the League of Women Voters (or the Simpsons episode where a debate was sponsored by the League of Uninformed Voters)? Eventually the two parties started making demands to weaken the debate process, and the League decided it could no longer support the process. So a "private corporation" was formed to oversee the debates, and ensure they run by the rules desired by the two parties. They exclude other parties when they see fit, and include them likewise.

Lots of details here.

LOL, here I go. Kopel has been shot down pretty hard already. I'd LOVE to see you say anything about the Saudi Arabia connection and information. That's kinda SLIGHTLY more important than the tiny things that you are still wrong about.

1. "With information provided from the Voter News Service, NBC was the first network to project Gore the winner in Florida at 7:48 pm. At 7:50 pm ,CNN and CBS project Gore the winner in Florida as well." By 8:02 pm , all five networks and the Associated Press had called Gore the winner in Florida. Even the VNS called Gore the winner at 7:52 pm. At 2:16 am, Fox calls Florida for Bush, NBC follows at 2:16 am. ABC is the last network to call the Florida for Bush, at 2:20 am, while AP and VNS never call Florida for Bush. HERE

2. Ten minutes after the top of the hour, network excitement was again beginning to build. At 2:16 a.m., the call was made: Fox News Channel, with Bush's first cousin John Ellis running its election desk, was the first to project Florida -- and the presidency -- for the Texas governor. Within minutes, the other networks followed suit. "George Bush, Governor of Texas will become the 43rd President of the United States," CNN's Bernard Shaw announced atop a graphic montage of a smiling Bush. "At 18 minutes past two o'clock Eastern time, CNN declares that George Walker Bush has won Florida's 25 electoral votes and this should put him over the top. HERE

But it's just the liberal media right?

3. The Florida Department of State awarded a $4 million contract to the Boca Raton-based Database Technologies Inc. (subsidiary of ChoicePoint). They were tasked with finding improperly registered voters in the state's database, but mistakes were rampant. "At one point, the list included as felons 8,000 former Texas residents who had been convicted of misdemeanors." St. Petersburg Times (Florida), December 21, 2003.

4. Database Technologies, a subsidiary of ChoicePoint, "was responsible for bungling an overhaul of Florida's voter registration records, with the result that thousands of people, disproportionately black, were disenfranchised in the 2000 election. Had they been able to vote, they might have swung the state, and thus the presidency, for Al Gore, who lostin Florida. Oliver Burkeman, Jo Tuckman, "Firm in Florida Election Fiasco Earns Millions from Files on Foreigners," The Guardian, May 5, 2003 HERE. See also, Atlanta-Journal-Constitution, May 28, 2001.

5. A] consortium [Tribune Co., owner of the Times; Associated Press; CNN; the New York Times; the Palm Beach Post; the St. Petersburg Times; the Wall Street Journal; and the Washington Post] hired the NORC [National Opinion Research Center, a nonpartisan research organization affiliated with the University of Chicago] to view each untallied ballot and gather information about how it was marked. The media organizations then used computers to sort and tabulate votes, based on varying scenarios that had been raised during the post-election scramble in Florida. Under any standard that tabulated all disputed votes statewide, Mr. Gore erased Mr. Bush's advantage and emerged with a tiny lead that ranged from 42 to 171 votes. Donald Lambro, "Recount Provides No Firm Answers," Washington Times, November 12, 2001.

As for any other comments, WHO CARES. How important are your tiny points compared to the huge looming things presented by the movie that you simple CAN NOT REFUTE. Go ahead. Take on the Saudi Arabia connection. Take on the military spending and cut funding for OUR SOLDIERS. Take on the Unocal connections. Take on the Carlyle group connnections. YOU CAN'T. You may draw comfort from taking issue with moores ridiculously slanted style, but you can't shoot down a single fact in the movie. And you haven't. So sorry. Thank you for playing.

"And it was supposed to debut on the Tonight Show."

It DID debut on the Tonight Show, last night, 2004-10-08. The Tonight Show paid for it to be made.

Anyone smart enough and knowledgeable enough about current events to be a comedian is smart enough to understand a few of the facts about George W. Bush's lack of analytical ability. Both David Letterman and Jay Leno joke about that, perhaps 3 times a week.

Inside the U.S., it is possible to get fired from advertising-supported media for being too obvious about thinking negatively about George W. Bush. Outside the U.S., even government leaders call George W. Bush "moron", "idiot", and other words that are not so positive. The foreign leaders are wrong, of course. He is not a moron. George W. Bush's failings are entirely consistent with the characteristics of dry alcoholics: Angry, secretive, dishonest, insensitive to the feelings of others, and, at times, extremely likable.

Most people in the U.S. have very, very little understanding of the activities of their government. But there are people who are beginning to see the hints of corruption. The Fahrenheit 9/11 DVD sold 2 million copies the first day.

--
15 of the 19 9/11 attackers were Saudis. Many don't like the U.S. Gov. influence on their country.

• Making hooks and combs, then carrying the tools around with them -- and sharing them with others.
• Using car traffic to crack nuts.
• Raiding mountaineer food caches marked with flags.
• Counting and expressing their desires in words.
• Playing around with speed dial buttons and speakerphones.
• Leading other birds to food.
• Commercial transactions with people.

I remember seeing that the guy with the mutation was told to check himself after he had spent a large number of years, like the older woman in the article, having relations with his fatally infected homosexual lover and several others. This was during the AIDS scare back in the 1980's.

The tests were run several times by exposing his genetically mutated blood to 300 times the required contagious dose of the virus, and seeing the cell walls resist the normal absorption that protects and carries the virus to delicate parts of our system.

I'm not a biologyst --as well as I can remember this is what was described in the program, and the first half was about his medieval family tree. It confirmed that he had the same genes that were curiously immune to the HIV-like virus of the Black Plague, back in the dark ages.

• a group of Kenyan prostitutes believed to be HIV immune but no longer
• the case of David Crohn and others who lack secondary CCR5 (for macrophages) or CXCR4 (for T-cells) receptors and are thus resistant to HIV infection. NB: CCR5 and CXCR4 are believed to be secondary to the CD4 receptor, found on both cell types, in the HIV binding process.

Friday on PBS' NOW with Bill Moyers, the four major third-party candidates take on the issues they believe are being ignored by the two main political parties. On the evening of the second Presidential debate in St. Louis, NOW's David Brancaccio moderates a conversation between the candidates that were excluded: Reform Party Presidential nominee Ralph Nader and Green Party candidate David Cobb and between Constitution Party candidate Michael Peroutka and Libertarian Party candidate Michael Badnarik.

NOW with Bill Moyers airs Friday, October 8, at 9 p.m. on PBS: check local listings

Click here to watch it.

Those 600 purported North Korea computer crackers are NO MATCH against software programs coded to not trust the user or their input unless it's *absolutely* correct.

Unfortunately, there is ALMOST NO DEFENSE against a computer cracker impersonating a legitimate user located at an authorized TCP/IP address that TRACEROUTEs to it in an authentic fashion presenting legitimate system logon credentials in order to infiltrate and compromise a computer system.

There is also ALMOST NO DEFENSE against a 'botnet' launched against the target computer system in the above fashion in order to overwhelm the target system and exhaust their computing resources in the 'classic' Denial-Of-Service style.

Since it is IMPOSSIBLE for the target computer system to tell the difference between a legitimate user and a 'evil computer cracker' who is correctly and successfully impersonating a legitimate user, it is up to the target system's system operators and administrators in 'meatspace' to monitor their systems closely for anything anomolous--no matter how small or insignificant. Case in point: Clifford Stohl's celebrated true-life tale of computer security documented in his book, The Cuckoo's Egg. I read the book when it first came out back in the early 1990s all in one sitting--it took HOURS but was worth it! I even saw the NOVA show based on the book. This book should be required reading by all conscientious people in the computer security industry. If all computer networks were ran by people with the dedication, intelligence, and tenacity of people like Clifford Stohl, computer crackers wouldn't stand much of a chance performing their mischief in cyberspace.

Unfortunately, this would then move the problem into 'meatspace' like never before--with such things as 'line cuts' and 'social engineering' to gain access to the computer systems and networks they want to disrupt, compromise, and/or disable.

Thus, it is up to the computer system operation, administration, support, and security personnel to be conscientious and ever vigilant to thwart these threats--whether they are paid well or barely enough to make ends meet.

If you *TRULY* care about your job in this capacity in the computing industry, the amount of your pay *DOESN'T* dictate the level of your dedication and attention to your job.

The North Koreans have great leverage using this as a threat. Our computer systems are vulnerable, as the US government found out during "Eligible Receiver". Yes, there are some sites saying that this was misreported or overreported, but the bottom line is that we are vulnerable to computer terrorism. And it could be more dangerous when combined with a real state like North Korea. Imagine if they invade South Korea right after they pull the plug on internal American communications.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cybe rwar/warnings/

Although this is slightly offtopic, I recommend spending three hours behind your computer to watch Greene's NOVA program The Elegant Universe

Actually, I did go through all of Kerry's points from his web [site] in another post.

You haven't linked to the aforementioned post. I'm pretty incompetent with the Internet; for some reason I can't seem to find it in the history listed at your user page. Did you only mentally review the Kerry campaign's platform?

I shouldn't have to hold somebody's hand and explain in detail why [the campaign's promises] are meaningless and the difference between a point that has substance and one that does not.
To the first: your condescension drips from the screen. You are not obliged (at present) to make or abstain from any decisions about whose hand you choose to hold and when. However, your blatant disregard for, say, a nine-page white paper summarizing an economic plan which is pretty specific, is troubling. Likewise, I'd like to hear what you have to say about the promise to "fully fund [the] No Child Left Behind Act, adding an average of about $10 billion per year". Would you prefer we "take the pain, stay the course", as Rod Paige (US Secretary of Education) advises the millions of students in failing schools do? (These are students whose schools are being cut off from all federal funds in the theory that this will somehow reduce failure rates.)

To your second issue, regarding the difference between a vague idea and a solid plan:
The only post of yours I've seen that addresses the current administration's policies and future plans states

Actually, Bush has been flexible on strategy and tactics, but has been firm on his goal; which is to rid us of the threat of terrorism.

March 2002:
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,

Gosh - that sounds firm. And let's not forget that there is still no link between Iraq and al'Qaeda, nor were there weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; Bush picked the nation for, at best, altruistic motives of liberation that don't seem to have been very well-coordinated. (I mustn't forget Poland here; they are a notable exception and gain a gold star, even if their leader says they were misled.)

So if Bush is so firm, why have his policies ignored Saudi Arabia, which was the home to 15 of the 19 September 11, 2001 attackers? Why has he accepted the tentative "oh, we stopped the terrorist!" cries of Saudi leaders while the independent princes of the region continue to funnel millions of dollars into terrorism - far greater a bounty than Hussein ever could have offered? (This line of questioning even gives you the supposition that he funded al'Qaeda at all.) Saudi Arabia is guilty of at least as great religious and political oppression as Iraq; why haven't we liberated them?
Is it really necessary, in waging a war on terror, to maintain the USA PATRIOT Act? Can a libertarian state support such an infringement? Or is our state one of expedience? For a conservative to support such egregious encroachments on liberty is frightening. For a pragmatist, who just wants "a solid policy so I know what not to do", a slightly fascist state is fully tolerable - but I worry about anyone who will tolerate such encroachment lightly.

Kerry just waves in the political wind like a willow (I'm for the war, I'm

Mr. Bush, why is our government protecting one of the world's most notorious arms smugglers, Victor Bout, known affectionately as the "merchant of death" and is suspected of supplying weapons to Al Quaeda? The administration has pushed to protect Bout from international sanctions claiming he's "assisting" the US in Iraq. Why is our country protecting this criminal? Why would the US do business with a man who has been supplying terrorists with weapons? Why is this story not being covered by the mainstream media?

"Professor Ingrao, in also this statement that was released on Milosevic's behalf today he blamed his arrest on this March 31 deadline that was imposed by the U.S. Congress for the new government there to cooperate with the war crimes tribunal or face a cut-off of aid."

"...according to four officials at the Central Intelligence Agency and two senior administration officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity."

Oh yeah, there's credibility just oozing from this story. We're talking two years after the fact and these anonymous sources are only now growing a spine? On conditions of anominity??? Oh, and it just happens to be election year! What a coincidence!

And while we're on the subject of amazing coincidences, where was this scandal coverage in 2002? I mean, you supposively had top CIA officals who knew, you had the Department of Energy who knew, America's leading nuclear scientists who knew as well as any number of intelligence experts and Martha Stewart who knew. No doubt the current administration put the screws to all of them to supress this damning story and loosened them just in time for the Primaries. I mean, what better time is there to shoot yourself in the foot by letting key sources blather away about political secrets that you'd managed to keep anybody from knowing for the last two years?

Are we stretching the bounds of credibility yet? No? Then it's a good thing for the NYT that investigators there have found no evidence of hidden centrifuges or a revived nuclear weapons program. I mean, you'd almost think this administration acted without cause...

This is an interesting article.

The Navy decided to outsource their entire network (not just the IT component) via the Navy Marine Corp Intranet (NCMI) contract. A 8.9 Billion, dollars which is best described as a system design in a vacuum at the top with no input from the working level, emphasizing centralized control and is centered around Microsoft core products.

Dissension is strictly forbidden at all levels - even constructive criticism. All press releases are rosy. But from the inside the situation is anything but rosy.

Some at the upper end forgot that Scientist and Engineers work for the Navy and need a wide range of tools to do their job and be innovative. Very little open source software is on the approved for use including dangerous software like Apache or Firefox. Strangely we are required to use IE instead of Mozilla or Firefox.

In practice what is see happening is that the old "legacy" netowrk is staying around why everyone just uses the NCMI network to read email and access the web. So in effect the Navy just hobbled its budget by $8.8x 10^9 dollars. Great winfall for Microsoft and Dell though.

A while back Cringely had an interesting article on the comparision of the NMCI venture and the way Walmart does IT. In a protracted war he placed his bets on Walmart winnng.

I'd just like to direct everyone to this.

I, for one, welcome our new avian overlords.

BBC World is on at 6 EST, but I am a Groening addict so I get my Beeb from news.bbc.co.uk ... and for the ever vigilant news junkie, you can follow the Israeli view of the middle east conflict at debka.com

Ask and ye shall receive.

full debate rules

Just to warn you, it's a 32 page PDF--might take awhile to load.

(I found it kind of scary that they said that the virus was probably still extant in the bodies, and that researchers were going to dig them up to get samples.)

That happened in 1988, and 1986 isn't mentioned in that interview. John Anderson is mentioned, but not at all related to Perot. Perot is mentioned, but not in 1986 or anywhere until the 90s as you would expect.

So I have no idea what she is talking about. It sounds to me like she might just be mixing up dates and stories.

A more detailed analysis that backs many of the points made in the NPR article.

The worst part of this is that it puts incumbants and poll leaders in a great position. The underdog wants the chance for the other guy to screw up. The leader of course doesn't want this to happen, but doesn't want to look afraid to debate.

This year it puts Kerry in a tough spot. He needs the media exposure as much as he needs the President to screw up. The Bush campaign could have easily walked away from it without serious reprecussion. Instead they used Kerry's needs to sanitize the affair. Kerry gets a gamble made worse by the negotiations, and America gets another boring infomercial where two guys stand up and declare how awesome it is to be them, and how awesome America will be if you BUY NOW!

Of course, if this is treated in any way like the Conventions, media coverage will be irrelevant. Most of the cable news channels featured Chris Matthews or Ron Reagan or Larry King or Bill O'Reilly talking over the majority of the convention. They're already fighting over how to present the debates; the networks want cut-aways that show one guy talking and the other listening.

This transcript link works more betterly:

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript339_fu ll.html

Ironically, this is also from PBS. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "extremely short period of time", as the article I read states: "...it was not as rapid as an explosion: the changes seems to have happened in a range of about 30 million years, and some stages took 5 to 10 million years.
".

The article sums up a good deal of what is known by the "explosion" and theories of why it occured (increased oxygen, extinction period prior to the Cambrian period). My favorite topic is that of the "genetic tool kit" formulation.

Just my $0.02....

Watch it online then...

The Elegant Universe

George Fara (author of No Debate [non-referral link]) was on an Episode of NOW with Bill Moyers. Full transcript is here. I found the program to be incredibly interesting.

The text below is from a PDF document:

In 1986, the Republican and Democratic National Committees ratified an agreement for the "parties to take over the presidential debates." Fifteen months later, then-Republican Party chair Frank Fahrenkopf and then-Democratic Party chair Paul Kirk created the CPD, which immediately seized control of the debates from the genuinely nonpartisan League of Women Voters.

The link comes from a PBS program web page, Now with Bill Moyers. Was the League of Women Voters actively undermining America enough that both parties got together to change the debate rules?

I'm really looking forward to hearing Andy Knoll's comments about the origin of life.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/knoll.html

Folks who like PBS should remember that when pledge week comes rolling around. The ultra-conservatives have their designs on shutting PBS down by yanking funding.
http://www.pbs.org/aboutpbs/aboutpbs_support.html/
(it'd be a good thing if pbs's pledge site was /.'d)

Darn, forgot the link http://www.pbs.org/previews/parties_2004/