Slashdot Mirror

It's probably all accidental, but Apple seems to be making sure that newer devices still work with the existing car tech.

You're kidding, right? My car, a 2010 Subaru Forester doesn't work with anything past an iPhone 4 because the device says that the car's stereo system is not an Apple compatible device. I'm pretty sure this is due to the stupid resistors they put into the sync cable. I can plug in anything prior to the 4S and it works like a champ. The iPod nano 5th gen+ do not work either, so its not just the iPhone. And Subaru had to release a new cable ($30) just to get an iPhone 4 to work.

Additional information could include a combination of factors, like whether the passenger paid for their ticket in cash, or if they have ever been on a watch list

Great idea, that way anybody that has ever been put on a watch list can be harassed for ever! Not because a court of law determined they did anything wrong, no, but because they're on a list (or have been on one). You see, they probably did something wrong or else they wouldn't have been on that list in the first place...

Never mind the fact that this is all done in secret, with no judicial oversight, no accountability and no way to appeal those decisions and that people basically end up on those lists for exercising their political rights.

Try working as a journalist/filmmaker and reporting on the global war on terror, try actively opposing the US drone war or try supporting wikileaks (or any organization that the US has secretly decided they do not like) and see how quickly you end up on those watch lists.

Of course, you'll never know you're on one of those lists until the next time you try flying to the US, then you'll be detained and questioned (not to mention laptop seizure etc.). It happened many times to Jacob Appelbaum, a Tor developer, it happened to Imran Khan, one of the most popular politician in Pakistan and it happened repeatedly to Laura Poitras, an Oscar-and Emmy-nominated filmmaker. These people are spied on and harassed because of their political opinions, thanks to the global surveillance state we now live in.

How submissive have we become that as people living in democracies we even accept the existence of "watchlists"?

Back in the day, there was some concern over the fact that domain names are universal. Someone wanting Amazon in the US for example has different rights than someone wanting Amazon in Brazil. Many people suggested that we go to location-based domains.

Amazon has mostly followed this model. You order from Amazon.de if you're in Switzerland, or Amazon.co.uk if you like toast with your Earl Grey.

Maybe this approach should be re-revisited for domain names in general. Is it fair that one person gets amazon.com, even though there is a region, at least one bookstore, and a tribe of warrior women vying for the name?

Free speech and limited government left the Democrat party after the Viet Nam War. Read Camile Paglia or the WSJ's Free Speech Died on Campus.

Conservative talk radio is jammed with talk of the importance of liberty (Example, Mark Levin, who wrote Liberty and Tyranny). Libertarians, too are obviously against intrusive government, for example, Ron Paul's farewell speech.

A lot of people think that Republican's are just a bunch of Christian, gun-toting hicks, and Democrats are the protectors of the little people, but of course the truth is more complicated..

Many "legit" stores do not benefit the artists!

Some sell the artists music without permission and do not reimburse the artists
http://torrentfreak.com/apples-itunes-sued-by-artist-for-pirating-music-110812/
http://forum.tunecore.com/post/Album-on-iTunes-without-permission-5680939

Sometimes the artists get no money because of extraordinary business practices by their music publishers or associations
http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/23482610186.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091203/1853507190.shtml
and for interest
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120323/18055718229/how-ascap-takes-money-successful-indie-artists-gives-it-to-giant-rock-stars.shtml

Sometimes the artists get no money because their music publishers instruct them not to register with the copyright agency of that country SO THAT the publisher can claim that the seller is not legitimate because the artists get no money.
http://www.transmissionentertainment.com/entry/russian_based_all_of_mp3coms_former_owner_may_see_jail_time_fines_and_a_mor/
http://allofmp3.ru/press/centre.shtml?s=994&d=66219728 : "Even without an agreement between ROMS and the rightsholders, it is our understanding that ROMS, in particular, has sent several letters to the major record labels inviting them to collect their royalties. Those notices have been ignored."
http://techcrunch.com/2007/07/25/former-allofmp3com-owner-faces-jail-time/

Sometimes it's a choice between
1. not paying
2. paying and the artist gets no money
3. paying and the artist gets no money and you support an abusive music industry
4. paying and the artist gets money and you support an abusive music industry

For mass music I opt for 2 where I can because I think it does least harm.
For less popular music I use CD-Baby and other self publishing sites or buy direct from the artist.

The College Republicans regret the controversy surrounding our planned lecture featuring Ann Coulter. The size and severity of opposition to this event have caught us by surprise and caused us to question our decision to welcome her to Rose Hill. Looking at the concerns raised about Ms. Coulter, many of them reasonable, we have determined that some of her comments do not represent the ideals of the College Republicans and are inconsistent with both our organizationâ(TM)s mission and the Universityâ(TM)s. We regret that we failed to thoroughly research her before announcing; that is our error and we do not excuse ourselves for it. Consistent with our strong disagreement with certain comments by Ms. Coulter, we have chosen to cancel the event and rescind Ms. Coulterâ(TM)s invitation to speak at Fordham. We made this choice freely before Father McShaneâ(TM)s email was sent out and we became aware of his feelings â" had the President simply reached out to us before releasing his statement, he would have learned that the event was being cancelled. We hope the University community will forgive the College Republicans for our error and continue to allow us to serve as its main voice of the sensible, compassionate, and conservative political movement that we strive to be. We fell short of that standard this time, and we offer our sincere apologies.

Ted Conrad, President

Emily Harman, Vice President

Joe Campagna, Treasurer

John Mantia, Secretary

(emphasis added)

IOW, some kids made a mistake, realized it, owned up to it, and dealt with it appropriately in a mature fashion. In the meantime, a spiteful, mean woman was told exactly what she was. THAT's the real story here.

I'm only superficially aware of the rules and procedures in Congress so perhaps I've been mistaken. It might be that 2005/2006 bill H.R. 22 was different from the later bill H.R. 6407 which passed under suspension of the rules and voice vote (under a voice vote the names or numbers of representatives voting on each side are not recorded).

Helpful article on the subject: http://www.salon.com/2012/03/14/congresss_war_on_the_post_office/singleton/

I guess we'll find out soon enough:

http://www.salon.com/2012/11/07/donald_trump_loses_it_calls_for_revolution/

Thanks, nearly went through this whole thread without receiving any delicious schadenfreude from sweet conservative butthurt.

But then, everyone with a brain knows that Romney's economic plans were a disaster waiting to happen. http://www.salon.com/2012/11/05/free_market_defenders_agree_vote_obama/

When both the Financial Times and The economist support a (worst ever) socialist for US president over a republican candidate with a business background, then you know said republicans plans must be truly bad. It is not like these newspapers drank the koolaid, they are very reluctant to endorse Obama are sad to do it but they have no choice. Romney would be just to all destructive to tolerate as president.

But hey, you know more about economy then two leading newspapers.

Admit it, you just supported the republicans in thinking their anti-science and hatred of all human beings policies won them your vote. Because they know their economic policies were crap, that is why they kept flip flopping on it. This election wasn't about the economy for the republicans, it was about saving the south from civil rights. And you voted for them.

(same equipment as 2 years ago, I think)

Not quite, according to salon.com, "uncertified, 'experimental' software patches have been installed on machines in 39 counties of the key swing state."

Not quite? There are 88 counties in Ohio, so you have no idea whether this person used the same machine/software as two years ago. What I used today in Ohio sure looked to be the same as two years ago, right down to the crappy review page at the end. In truth, I have no idea, but you also can't say without more information.

(same equipment as 2 years ago, I think)

Not quite, according to salon.com, "uncertified, 'experimental' software patches have been installed on machines in 39 counties of the key swing state."

the Ohio Secretary of State has illegally placed "experimental" software on voting machines in some counties; illegal because he should have gotten approval from a board. This was done just a few days before the election and an emergency suit has been filed to stop it.

http://www.salon.com/2012/11/05/ohio_republicans_sneak_risky_software_onto_voting_machines/

An "indirect" example: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/11/voting-already-mess-florida/58682/

A possible "direct" example: http://www.salon.com/2012/11/05/ohio_republicans_sneak_risky_software_onto_voting_machines/

Mod me troll if you must, but I find this article most interesting.

Given that some polling locations are likely to not have power on election day:

http://www.salon.com/2012/11/01/power_loss_threatens_vote_in_6_plus_states/

the problems w/ unnecessarily using machines is obvious.

Use a paper ballot. Use machines to count them. Have standards for how said machines communicate the totals.

Above all, have a physical paper trail for the inevitable recounts.

This article says that

A U.S. district judge sided with the Justice Department to rule that it was reasonable for DEA agents to enter a property without permission or a warrant to install multiple “covert digital surveillance cameras.”

Again, this is a curtilage case, in that the Judge ruled that this is OK outside of your curtilage.

You fail to provide a standard. This sort of subjective 'weak logic' is used all the time to suppress freedom of speech. Most of the time it is under the guise of some weasel-word like 'reasonable'. All too often unpopular opinions are stifled because they're not politically correct or they offend a certain group. Just try to criticize Israel's actions here in the US and watch how AIPAC reacts.

The first part is easy to verify, there are hundreds if not thousands of sources. This was the top one on my google search right now. Check out the spin, it's a very pro-us story, but if you actually read it you will find Bush quoted saying "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty" and the Taliban spokesman is still asking for evidence, and even offering to hold him over to a third party. They were desperately trying to get rid of him. That particular story is quite late, this went back many months earlier, even before the attack in 2011 in fact.

Yes, it was difficult for them to do so, because of the importance of hospitality and protecting guests in Pashtun society, and because Bin Laden originally came to Afghanistan back in the 80s, spent his personal fortune and millions more from the CIA arming, training, and organising the Afghans against the Soviets, making him a bona-fide Afghan war hero, even though he was a foreigner. Yet they were clearly not just willing but eager to do so - they offered to turn him over directly given some evidence, and even offered to turn him over to a third party just to get the hot potato off their laps. They wouldnt have been making such offers if they didnt want to get rid of him, and honestly their offers seem reasonable enough. The US administration was just determined not to dignify them with any sort of actual negotiation, they stuck to a blunt ultimatum followed by bombing and invasion. Thjs is a pretty thorough condensed version of the whole saga, which contains quite a few choice quotes with original sources listed. I will leave you with a single telling paragraph.

At least twice before 9/11 Bush repeated Clintonâ(TM)s warning to the Taliban that the US would hold Taliban responsible for an al Qaeda attack. (Washington Post 1/20/02) March 2001, a Taliban envoy offered to turn over bin Laden to a third country. A CIA official later said, âoeOurs was, âGive up bin Laden.â(TM) They were saying, âDo something to help us give him up.â(TM) I have no doubts they wanted to get rid of him.â The envoy also proposed holding bin Laden long enough for the US to locate and destroy him. (Village Voice 6/6/01) Offers regarding bin Laden continued until 9/11. (Washington Post 10/29/01) Taliban offered to surrender bin laden after 9/11 âoeif proof was offered of his involvement in the 9/11 attacks.â(The Guantanamo Files, Andy Worthington, Pluto Press, London, 2007)

yea, unfort the law isn't applied equally, http://www.salon.com/2012/04/11/when_stand_your_ground_fails/

After seeing so many comments on Miranda rights, I couldn't help drop this link: http://www.salon.com/2011/03/24/obama_rolls_back_miranda/
I think it pretty well shows that Miranda warnings aren't what they used to be, if they are anything at all.

What better way of demonstrating this than by looking at the hidden messages contained within the names of some of Linux's most outspoken advocates:

• Linus Torvalds [microsoft.com] [microsoft.com] is an anagram of slit anus or VD 'L,' clearly referring to himself by the first initial.
• Richard M. Stallman [geocities.com] [geocities.com], spokespervert for the Gaysex's Not Unusual 'movement' is an anagram of mans cram thrill ad.
• Alan Cox [microsoft.com] [microsoft.com] is barely an anagram of anal cox which is just so filthy and unchristian it unnerves me.

I'm sure that Eric S. Raymond, composer of the satanic homosexual [goatse.cx] [goatse.cx] propaganda diatribe The Cathedral and the Bizarre, is probably an anagram of something queer, but we don't need to look that far as we know he's always shoving a gun up some poor little boy's rectum. Update: Eric S. Raymond is actually an anagram for secondary rim and cord in my arse. It just goes to show you that he is indeed queer.

Update the Second: It is also documented that Evil Sicko Gaymond is responsible for a nauseating piece of code called Fetchmail [microsoft.com] [microsoft.com], which is obviously sinister sodomite slang for 'Felch Male' -- a disgusting practise. For those not in the know, 'felching' is the act performed by two perverts wherein one sucks their own post-coital ejaculate out of the other's rectum. In fact, it appears that the dirty Linux faggots set out to undermine the good Republican institution of e-mail, turning it into 'e-male.'

As far as Richard 'Master' Stallman goes, that filthy fudge-packer was actually quoted [salon.com] [salon.com] on leftist commie propaganda site Salon.com as saying the following: 'I've been resistant to the pressure to conform in any circumstance,' he says. 'It's about being able to question conventional wisdom,' he asserts. 'I believe in love, but not monogamy,' he says plainly.

And this isn't a made up troll bullshit either! He actually stated this tripe, which makes it obvious that he is trying to politely say that he's a flaming homo [comp-u-geek.net] [comp-u-geek.net] slut [rotten.com] [rotten.com]!

Speaking about 'flaming,' who better to point out as a filthy chutney ferret than Slashdot's very own self-confessed pederast Jon Katz. Although an obvious deviant anagram cannot be found from his name, he has already confessed, nay boasted of the homosexual [goatse.cx] [goatse.cx] perversion of corrupting the innocence of young children [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org]. To quote from the article linked:

'I've got a rare kidney disease,' I told her. 'I have to go to the bathroom a lot. You can come with me if you want, but it takes a while. Is that okay with you? Do you want a note from my doctor?'

Is this why you were touching your penis [rotten.com] [rotten.com] in the cinema, Jon? And letting the other boys touch it too?

We should also point out that Jon Katz refers to himself as 'Slashdot's resident Gasbag.' Is there any more doubt? For those fortunate few who aren't aware of the list of homosexual [goatse.cx] [goatse.cx] terminology found inside the Linux 'Sauce Code,' a 'Gasbag' is a pervert who gain

Iran's pissed off a lot more countries than just the US, and it wouldn't be having the problems it is if that wasn't the case.

Iran isn't running a drone war campaign in half a dozen countries that it hasn't even declared war on, or invade two others based on lies. Iran didn't set up a torture regime after being a proud signatory of the U.N. Convention Against Torture. Iran isn't violating the U.N. charter by threatening a hostile war of choice on another nation.

It would be like watching Stalin bitch about how poorly the British treated their colonial subjects. Have a nice cup of self-awareness and STFU, kthxbai.

The slashdot summary has this sentence quoted from a doctor: "We as a society have been unwilling to invest in very effective nonpharmaceutical interventions," hyperlinked to this blog post on Salon. However, there appears to be no logical link between the quote and the blog post. The blog post doesn't describe any "effective nonpharmaceutical interventions." Actually, what it describes is a situation where a sixth-grader wasn't interested in doing his school work, the parents tried dealing with it using normal parenting techniques, that failed, and what worked was ... a pharmaceutical. The story told in the blog post leads to a conclusion that's precisely the opposite of the words in the hyperlinked quote.

What exactly does it mean in this context to have "society invest?"

Whoever put together the misleading slashdot summary seems to have in mind that we should have "society invest" in better schools. But the situation described in the blog post is one where basically the kid wasn't interested in doing school work, enjoyed wandering around the school and helping to fix computers, etc., and although some of his teachers thought it was cool to let him do that, not all of them did, and the principal didn't either. This situation doesn't seem to have anything to do with how much money their state was spending on schools.

I suspect that the doctor being quoted actually had in mind options like talk therapy, which is more expensive than prescribing pills. (WP says that specific types of non-drug therapy that are effective include "psychoeducational input, behavior therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT), family therapy, school-based interventions, social skills training, parent management training, neurofeedback, and nature exposure.") But the thing is, society *is* investing a ton of tax money in treating disabled kids. Special ed programs are extraordinarily expensive. At the community college where I teach, we have a whole disabled student center, with half a dozen full-time employees, who seem to spend most of their time helping the huge number of students who are diagnosed with ADHD.

If it was true that kids with ADHD just needed expensive non-drug therapy, and then they'd be fine, then we'd expect to see affluent parents paying for it out of pocket. But that's not what we see at all. What we really see is that affluent parents make sure their kids get drugs.

The real problem isn't that we need to have "society invest" more money in kids with ADHD. The real problem is that (a) kids lie on a bell curve in terms of their ability to learn (in a school environment, but also in any environment), and (b) there has been a long-term historical trend of requiring people to be more and more educated (e.g., a doctor in the 19th century usually has only a few years of college education). If education was really an equalizer in our society, smart working-class kids would end up being more successful than dumb affluent kids -- or more successful than affluent kids who just hated school. This would be unacceptable to affluent parents. It's an arms race, and everyone has the highest possible motivation to get their kid diagnosed with ADHD and get the kid taking the drugs that will allow him to compete.

The problem isn't occurring because of a lack of "investment" by society at large. Society has been investing for a couple of hundred years now in raising the level of education. The result of that investment is the extremely competitive environment we have now, where there is intense pressure on kids who are at the low end of the bell curve in terms of "doing school." Investment by society at large isn't the cure for the problem, it's the cause of the problem.

I looked this up, and found that Bain Capital was actually responsible for the success of many companies that have tons of employees (Staples and Domino's among them.)

In a huge "fuck you" to Bain, Staples just published a press release titled "Staples, Inc. Announces Strategic Plan to Accelerate Growth" in which they announced plans to CLOSE 60 stores.

Bain's strategy is to take over a company with a small amount of their own cash and a large amount of debt. They increase the company's revenue through acquisitions (which may hide any revenue which is lost relative to the the sum of the individual company revenues prior to the acquisition), and sell their interest in the companies. The companies, meanwhile, have the responsibility of paying the debt that Bain used to take them over.
http://www.salon.com/2012/10/02/how_mitt_romneys_bain_harvested_sealy_mattress_company/

I'm not going to say that half of those companies fail, but if you think that a failure rate of nearly half is acceptable, I have no idea what planet you're from. Failure rate among Bain's acquisitions is vastly higher than it is among operating businesses in general.

The DoE did make loans to some green energy companies that failed. Not "half", as Romney claimed during their debate, but less than 10%. That's in line with start-up businesses in general. It's disappointing, but realistic. That's not pilfering, it's not even a sign of bad choices.

The word "Spork" made it into the dictionary in 1909, but people had to wait 61 years before it was patented and trademarked. http://www.salon.com/2012/10/06/consider_the_spork/ How horrible it was for people to know what something was, but be totally unable to use it because there wasn't a company to own the idea. (:-)

His father was first elected to the Georgia state senate in 1963. Southern Democrats were a different kind of animal then.

His father was a different sort as well, as per this Salon article about Junior:

But the creation story of Paul Broun Jr. is also a powerful illustration of the political evolution that has taken place in the Deep South. His father, Paul Broun Sr., who died in 2005, was a Democrat who served in the Georgia Senate for 38 years, arriving in Atlanta in 1962 as a moderate from the university town, in the era of segregation and Lester Maddox. Broun Sr. was a Southern populist who fought to have government dollars spent inside his district to build up the infrastructure for a booming economy. One of his greatest bricks-and-mortar achievements is the perimeter highway that now circles the congested downtown of Athens; today that road is named the Paul Broun Sr. Highway. The father’s success and those road signs provided priceless name recognition and a kind of free advertising for Paul Broun Jr. — even though the son is an ultra-conservative Republican who is dedicated to fighting to kill the types of government projects that his father had championed.

Today, Paul Broun Jr. talks of his dad as someone with whom he differed politically at times but for whom he had enormous respect. The favor wasn’t always returned. “His father denied him,” a Democratic state lawmaker from junior Broun’s congressional district — Alan Powell of Hartwell, Georgia — says. Powell was a close friend of the father who initially doubted the two men could even be related to each other when he heard of the Republican Broun’s extremist views in the 1990s. “That’s my crazy-ass son,” Powell says his colleague sighed after he asked Broun Sr. about it at lunch one day.

Actually, this makes me wonder if he's developing a disorder of some sort.

Developing? As per a Salon story about him:

Meanwhile, some people around the country — joined by some voters in Broun’s own 10th District — were starting to ask, just who is this guy, anyway? There was a time when Paul Broun Jr. asked the same question of himself. It happened in 1986, when the 40-year-old baby boomer was into booze and into his fourth marriage already — and having problems with both. Broun was at an NFL football game and drinking heavily when he noticed the fan who was a quasi-celebrity back during the Reagan years, the guy with the crazy rainbow-haired wig who stood in the end zone seats with the sign, “John 3:16.” Broun said in a speech on the floor of Congress after his election to Congress two decades later that he was captivated by this “gentleman with this big type hair wig on.” A few weeks later, after another fight with his new wife, he took out a Bible, read the verse, and decided to dedicate his life to Christ. (Ironically, it was the exact same year and at the same age that George W. Bush quit drinking as well.) Broun now considers his odyssey to the corridors of power the result of Jesus’ calling. He fails to add the kicker to the story, that the wig-wearing fan, a fellow named Rollen Stewart, is currently serving three life sentences for kidnapping.

Or, to steal and tweak Cheech and Chong's line, "I used to be all messed up on booze. Now I'm all messed up on the Lord." It's sad that some people need something in their lives to keep their brain from racing off in the wrong direction; unfortunately, they either abuse substances and hurt themselves or they abuse religion and run the risk of hurting others.

US has no problem with WikiLeaks here, but with Jullian

Distinction without a difference.

who knowingly worked to release secret materials

Do did Daniel Ellsberg - of a much higher level of classification. So do the NYTimes and WaPo on a regular basis. But more to the point....so does the Obama Administration, when it's done to puff up Obama's image as much as a Mission Accomplished banner. You know, like simultaneously bragging about the effectiveness of the drone program and denying it exists because "it's classified".

However, It is interesting because if he was seriously considered a threat, he would be already in US, because of time in freedom he was in UK.

It's easier for the U.S. to get people extradited from Sweden than from the U.K. For one, the U.K. has a problem with the death penalty (something Assange could be charged with), whereas Sweden has let people be kidnapped so they could be tortured.

Furthermore, people think that Sweden is some liberal utopia because they have free health care and education. But their justice system doesn't operate by "guilty until proven innocent". They have Star Chambers and can keep suspects incommunicado for extended lengths of time.

This charge is actually more or less to prevent anyone with access to secret government/military networks in US to cooperate with WikiLeaks. For Good or for bad, but that's how any military would react.

Sure it is. But for one, just because something is commonplace doesn't mean it's okay (see: slavery), and for another, it's not what Obama promised when he was running for office in 2008, when he vowed to protect whistleblowers.

And freedom of speech - Jullian has it, tons - from outside, from inside, Jullian that, Jullian there, he even has live video stream with UN.

Whoosh. Yes, it's all about Julian, rather than the massive amounts of corruption revealed by Julian, WikiLeaks, and allegedly, by Bradley Manning. This is not an accident.

Show me another journalists or unfortunates who had problems with arrests and "enemy of the state" tags, for example, in Russia.

Obvious red herring is obvious. This is the same misdirection perfected by the Bushies, who tried to derail any conversation about their incompetence or criminality by talking about what a very very bad person Saddam was and how the world is a better place now that he's gone.

Except: the American taxpayer wasn't funding Saddam (after the Iran-Iraq war at least) anymore than they are supporting Putin in Russia. The American taxpayer has been supporting torture and illegal wars whether they like it or not.

No US government has closed any newspaper because they printed leaked material - in detail.

Not closed - but you find yourself closed off from the must-have "access" if you don't play ball. Or you might find yourself on a terror watch list or dealing petty harassment at the border, or some errant missile strikes if you are Al Jazeera.

Was Swedish situation just a coincidence or they really trying to extract him to US? Personally I don't think so. Any backslash it's not just worth it.

They're throwing out centuries of diplomatic policy by threatening to raid the Ecuadorian embassy or stop any diplomatic vehicle leaving it.

I'm getting tired of all this WikiLeaks BS. It supposed to be recover corruption, co

US has no problem with WikiLeaks here, but with Jullian

Distinction without a difference.

who knowingly worked to release secret materials

Do did Daniel Ellsberg - of a much higher level of classification. So do the NYTimes and WaPo on a regular basis. But more to the point....so does the Obama Administration, when it's done to puff up Obama's image as much as a Mission Accomplished banner. You know, like simultaneously bragging about the effectiveness of the drone program and denying it exists because "it's classified".

However, It is interesting because if he was seriously considered a threat, he would be already in US, because of time in freedom he was in UK.

It's easier for the U.S. to get people extradited from Sweden than from the U.K. For one, the U.K. has a problem with the death penalty (something Assange could be charged with), whereas Sweden has let people be kidnapped so they could be tortured.

Furthermore, people think that Sweden is some liberal utopia because they have free health care and education. But their justice system doesn't operate by "guilty until proven innocent". They have Star Chambers and can keep suspects incommunicado for extended lengths of time.

This charge is actually more or less to prevent anyone with access to secret government/military networks in US to cooperate with WikiLeaks. For Good or for bad, but that's how any military would react.

Sure it is. But for one, just because something is commonplace doesn't mean it's okay (see: slavery), and for another, it's not what Obama promised when he was running for office in 2008, when he vowed to protect whistleblowers.

And freedom of speech - Jullian has it, tons - from outside, from inside, Jullian that, Jullian there, he even has live video stream with UN.

Whoosh. Yes, it's all about Julian, rather than the massive amounts of corruption revealed by Julian, WikiLeaks, and allegedly, by Bradley Manning. This is not an accident.

Show me another journalists or unfortunates who had problems with arrests and "enemy of the state" tags, for example, in Russia.

Obvious red herring is obvious. This is the same misdirection perfected by the Bushies, who tried to derail any conversation about their incompetence or criminality by talking about what a very very bad person Saddam was and how the world is a better place now that he's gone.

Except: the American taxpayer wasn't funding Saddam (after the Iran-Iraq war at least) anymore than they are supporting Putin in Russia. The American taxpayer has been supporting torture and illegal wars whether they like it or not.

No US government has closed any newspaper because they printed leaked material - in detail.

Not closed - but you find yourself closed off from the must-have "access" if you don't play ball. Or you might find yourself on a terror watch list or dealing petty harassment at the border, or some errant missile strikes if you are Al Jazeera.

Was Swedish situation just a coincidence or they really trying to extract him to US? Personally I don't think so. Any backslash it's not just worth it.

They're throwing out centuries of diplomatic policy by threatening to raid the Ecuadorian embassy or stop any diplomatic vehicle leaving it.

I'm getting tired of all this WikiLeaks BS. It supposed to be recover corruption, co

Leaking information to legitimate journalists regarding specific wrongdoing is protected

Apparently not.

We are not required to give free speech to citizens of foreign nations

the first amendment has no exception for foreign nationals

who leak diplomatic confidential communiques and battle plans

the first amendment has no exception for "classified" information

And basically here is the crux of the problem the politicians seem to have with the Internet - they literally treat it as a singularly-owned company that can be strongarmed to subscribe to their notions of legality.

That may be true in a larger scale, but in this specific case, it is a politician/judge who thinks that a company within it's jurisdiction is responsible for files it hosts.

We seem to break down on the have-office->respect-law line. I understand that completely, and actually I really do agree with this - it's just that in this particular case i find it hard to accept that any law was actually broken, since Youtube as a whole is not actively "broadcasting" on Brazil's territory - it's just... connected to the Internet. If someone wants to request youtube's server, no problem - but doing so, it should be the user who is liable to potentially breaking the law.

Well, that is definitely a defense Google can try to use. I doubt it will work when their tag line was broadcast yourself for a long time.

The provider himself would only be liable if he was operating illegally where the actual servers hosting the material are standing, and the facilitator has no way of knowing whether his client has any illegal actions in mind. The datacenters are standing in the US as far as we know, and those materials are not illegal in the US, so Brazil telling Google to take down something that is not illegal where it is hosted and penalizing them for not complying is, in my opinion, an excessive use of local law.

And here is where "what should be" and "what is" breaks down. For instance, the US expects US citizens and US companies to follow US law anywhere it goes unless there is a specific law in a specific place that contradicts US law. This means that a US citizen who goes to a hash-bar in Denmark is violation "free" but a citizen that gets smashed in Columbia where there isn't the same laws allowing the drug use can be in violation of US law as well as Colombian law. Similarly, a US company operating in Denmark could potentially sell drugs that would be illegal in the US but in Columbia, they are subject to US law if they are not prosecuted under Colombian law.

Other countries have the same issues. If a company has offices within the country, they cannot use the outside portions of the company's to skirt the local laws without the local portion of the company being held liable or the potential to be held accountable for those outside actions.

This gets more complicated because not illegal does not always translate to legal if someone is attempting to use foreign legal concepts to cover certain actions. Google has even less of a leg to stand on because the already blocks access to certain content in certain countries they have offices in because of local laws.

http://www.salon.com/2012/09/19/youtube_blocks_anti_islam_film_in_saudi/

Obama defines militant as "a man or boy killed by drone". You can either modify your thinking, or accept the fact that you are an evil fuckwad who supports random murder. Those are your two choices.

http://www.salon.com/2012/05/29/militants_media_propaganda/

And this makes indiscriminate murder(*) OK then?

Remember, when the news media quotes Obama's administration as having killed "militants", all it means is a man or boy killed by drone. It doesn't mean the people were militants in the traditional sense.

http://www.salon.com/2012/05/29/militants_media_propaganda/

America has been making weapons-grade nuclear material for somewhere near 70 years now so I am sure they know how to keep it safe and out of the hands of the bad guys.

we've given nuclear warheads and material to a country that uses state sponsored terrorism and has attacked united states warships in the past. it has not, nor will it ever sign the nuclear non proliferation treaty.
the only difference to recognize here is that at no point is the IAEA going to inspect any US facility.
every INFCIRC entered for the united states basically confirms that despite our running 'new war every four' policy, we get basically the same rubber-stamp report year after year. The same status is not enjoyed by Iran, whom if the US had their way would be tracking roentgens in the colon of every persian on earth.

It's true, many on the left are overly skeptical about nuclear power. But at least liberals change their opinions when educated.

Nuclear power is a classic test case for liberal biasesâ"kind of the flip side of the global warming issueâ"for the following reason. Itâ(TM)s well known that liberals tend to start out distrustful of nuclear energy: Thereâ(TM)s a long history of this on the left. But this impulse puts them at odds with the views of the scientific community on the matter (scientists tend to think nuclear power risks are overblown, especially in light of the dangers of other energy sources, like coal).

So are liberals âoesmart idiotsâ on nukes? Not in Kahanâ(TM)s study. As members of the âoeegalitarian communitarianâ group in the studyâ"people with more liberal valuesâ"knew more science and math, they did not become more worried, overall, about the risks of nuclear power. Rather, they moved in the opposite direction from where these initial impulses would have taken them. They become less worriedâ"and, I might add, closer to the opinion of the scientific community on the matter.

You may or may not support nuclear power personally, but letâ(TM)s face it: This is not the âoesmart idiotâ effect. It looks a lot more like open-mindedness.

According to what I have read, anyway.
It's a little un-Apple-like.

The people saying this is justified to combat voter fraud seem especially ridiculous here on slashdot, which theoretically is a bastion of scientific skepticism and empiricism, when there is absolutely no evidence at all for it being anything more than a tiny fraction of a percent of votes. It's a scare tactic used by authoritarians to drum up support for antidemocratic measures such as this. It's extremely depressing to see a site like this use anecdotal "well I saw plenty of people spoofing votes, trust me" as somehow equal to actual evidence.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12fraud.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
http://www.thestate.com/2012/02/23/2164540/state-election-commission-finds.html#.UF4CX1H5DZQ
http://www.postcrescent.com/article/20120524/APC010405/305240040/Recall-Roundup-Numbers-don-t-support-fraud-fears-story-video-?nclick_check=1
http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/policy_brief_on_the_truth_about_voter_fraud/
http://www.salon.com/2008/04/28/scotus_2/

OOPS. forgot to provide a link noting the expansion of the PATRIOT Act...

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/20/obamas_dismal_civil_liberties_record/

Blanket denial in the face of facts is also well correlated with conservativism.

Agreed. Something has to be done. Censorship and wrongful take downs are just one aspect of the many problems with our copyright laws. My biggest issue with them is that they prevent young artists from remixing anything from their generation. This needs to be fixed by repealing the DCMA and reforming these draconian copyright laws.

Before Disney, copyright granted authors protection for 28 years. I’m fine with that. The problem is it’s pushing 100 years now. This stifles our culture and innovation.

For example, Star Wars was released in 1978, so it should have gone into the public domain by 2005. With existing laws, George Lucas retains exclusive rights to butcher the SW universe until 2072!!!! 95 YEARS! Imagine what new aspiring authors could do with his work, instead of the sterile Jar Jar crap that Lucas served us, recently? Thank you, copyright.

Do you think your favorite authors would not have created their material, if it was not protected for 70 years after their death? The copyright system is designed make companies, like Disney and RIAA, rich at the expense of our freedom.

The irony is Disney made its fortune by ripping off the great works of others. Walt Disney was a master of this. At its origins, Mickey Mouse was a parody of the Buster Keaton film Steamboat Bill Jr. And almost all of their great work since then has continued this tradition of copying. Just to name a few: Pinocchio, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Alice in Wonderland, Jungle Book, Sleep Hollow, Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermaid,

With the RIAA, SOPA and Courtney Love’s excellent essay on how they screw over artists should give you an idea of how this industry works. http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/

If you want to know more, Kirby Ferguson's series "Everything is a Remix" at
http://www.everythingisaremix.info/watch-the-series/
is a great watch!

I have no problem with a living author reaping the benefits of writing a bestseller for his entire natural life, and his descendants for another 14 after that.

Copyright does this and much, much more. And that's also the root of the problem. Before Disney, copyright granted authors protection for 28 years. I’m fine with that. The problem is now it’s pushing 100 years. This stifles our culture and innovation.

For example, Star Wars was released in 1978, so it should have gone into the public domain by 2005. With existing laws, George Lucas retains exclusive rights to butcher the SW universe until 2072!!!!! 95 YEARS! Imagine what new aspiring authors could do with his work, instead of the sterile Jar Jar crap that Lucas served us, recently? Thank you, copyright.

Are you telling me your favorite authors would not have created their works, if it was not protected for 70 years after their death?!? The copyright system is designed make companies, like Disney and RIAA, rich at the expense of our freedom.

The irony is Disney made its fortune by ripping off the great works of others. Walt Disney was a master of this. At its origins, Mickey Mouse was a parody of the Buster Keaton film Steamboat Bill Jr. And almost all of their great work since then has continued this tradition of copying. Just to name a few: Pinocchio, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Alice in Wonderland, Jungle Book, Sleep Hollow, Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermaid,

With the RIAA, SOPA and Courtney Love’s excellent essay on how they screw over artists should give you an idea of how this industry works. http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/

Young artists need the freedom to remake and remix. The current laws prevent them from using anything from their generation. This is wrong and needs to be fixed.

Finally, Larry Lessig explains the problems with CC much more eloquently then I can at this TED talk:
http://www.ted.com/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity.html

Obama has launched twice as many drone strikes in 3 years as Bush launched in 8!

Bzzzt.

Bush: 52
Obama: 291

That's 5.6x Bush's score in half the time.

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/

That means he's killed twice as many terrorists.

That's pretty easy when you define "militant" to mean any male of military age irrespective of the beliefs, actions, or record. Essentially, all you have to be to be counted as a terrorist is be a non-infant male, but it sure sounds better in the headlines to say "militant" than "random innocent male kid".

http://www.salon.com/2012/05/29/militants_media_propaganda/

On the downside, he's killed twice as many innocent bystanders.

This is especially easy to do when one employs the classic terrorist tactic of a second bomb going off to get the rescuers or gangland notions that shooting up a funeral is a moral thing to do.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/20/us-drones-strikes-target-rescuers-pakistan

But hey -- he passed the Lilly Leadbetter Act! O-ba-ma!

(How's that lesser evil workin' out for ya?)

They're threatening to wipe Israel off the face of this planet with any means of destruction they can get their hands on.

Never happened.

The Iranian Government is receiving sanctions for threatening parts of the world with destruction.

Another lie, and maybe you shouldn't throw stones in a glass house.

What should actually be noted by Obama apologists, is that his plan to "close" Guantanamo was not a plan to stop the practices of Guantanamo, but to move those practices to a Federal prison in Thompson IL. Many in congress, including liberals Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders, voted against Obama's plan not because they're neocon authoritarians, but because it made Gitmo worse by importing its unconstitutional practices to the US at great expense.

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/23/the_obama_gitmo_myth/

So yeah, Congress interfered with Obama's plan to spend lots of money importing Gitmo to the states. This really doesn't mean however, that Congress interfered with his liberal motives, as is so often implied by Obamabots. Kind of like how they give him credit for ending the War in Iraq, when what actually happened is that despite intensive lobbying of the Iraqi government, he failed to extend the expiration of SOFA beyond the Dec 2011 deadline GWB established, and as a result, his choice was to leave soldiers in Iraq subject to local prosecution for crimes, or pull them out. Obamabots give him credit for ending the war when he only deserves credit for failing to extend the war.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/26/obama-iraq_n_1032507.html

That output does not rise or fall in direct proportion to the number of hours worked is a lesson that seemingly has to be relearned each generation. In 1848, the English parliament passed the ten-hours law and total output per-worker, per-day increased. In the 1890s employers experimented widely with the eight hour day and repeatedly found that total output per-worker increased. In the first decades of the 20th century, Frederick W. Taylor, the originator of “scientific management” prescribed reduced work times and attained remarkable increases in per-worker output.

By 1914, emboldened by a dozen years of in-house research, Henry Ford famously took the radical step of doubling his workers’ pay, and cut shifts in Ford plants from nine hours to eight. The National Association of Manufacturers criticized him bitterly for this — though many of his competitors climbed on board in the next few years when they saw how Ford’s business boomed as a result. In 1937, the 40-hour week was enshrined nationwide as part of the New Deal. By that point, there were a solid five decades of industrial research that proved, beyond a doubt, that if you wanted to keep your workers bright, healthy, productive, safe and efficient over a sustained stretch of time, you kept them to no more than 40 hours a week and eight hours a day.

Evan Robinson, a software engineer with a long interest in programmer productivity (full disclosure: our shared last name is not a coincidence) summarized this history in a white paper he wrote for the International Game Developers’ Association in 2005. The original paper contains a wealth of links to studies conducted by businesses, universities, industry associations and the military that supported early-20th-century leaders as they embraced the short week. “Throughout the ’30s, ’40s and ’50s, these studies were apparently conducted by the hundreds,” writes Robinson; “and by the 1960s, the benefits of the 40-hour week were accepted almost beyond question in corporate America. In 1962, the Chamber of Commerce even published a pamphlet extolling the productivity gains of reduced hours.”

What these studies showed, over and over, was that industrial workers have eight good, reliable hours a day in them. On average, you get no more widgets out of a 10-hour day than you do out of an eight-hour day. Likewise, the overall output for the work week will be exactly the same at the end of six days as it would be after five days. So paying hourly workers to stick around once they’ve put in their weekly 40 is basically nothing more than a stupid and abusive way to burn up profits. Let ‘em go home, rest up and come back on Monday. It’s better for everybody.

Assange faces no charges in Sweden.

There is not even an indictment.

One of the women has retracted her allegations.

To reiterate, Julian Assange does not have any outstanding criminal charges against him in Sweden; he is wanted for questioning over allegations of sexual assault that surfaced after WikiLeaks made international headlines for exposing possible war crimes and gross illegality by governments. Were Assange unwilling to face the charges against him, it could be seen as a tacit admission of guilt. But, as both Assange and the government of Ecuador have made clear, he is willing to return to Sweden to confront the allegations against him as long as Sweden guarantees that he will not be extradited to the United States to face other, far more grave charges stemming from WikiLeaks.

http://www.salon.com/2012/08/17/britains_assange_overreach/

The "rape" allegations were cleverly manipulated and brought to public attention in an attempt to do several things.
- Prey upon Assange's personality and identify his persona as a synonym for Wikileaks.
- Move the core issues exposed by Wikileaks to the periphery of any examination.
- Assault the liberal/humanitarian orientation of any naturally inclined to support Wikileaks and Assange, creating dissension and re-aligning former supporters.

You either get the idea here, or you're the kind of authoritarian-trained mind-set, that values passionate conviction above nuanced insight.

Also, you have zero evidence that the US will have Assange "abducted, tortured, and likely killed."

If by zero evidence you mean what happened to Haiti's president Aristide (kidnapped by the US in 2004); Manning's treatment thus far which includes his attorney's allegations of sleep deprivation, lights on 24/7, and "the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture, have concluded that solitary confinement may amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment;" and what happens to "unlawful combatants" (e.g. drone attacks, Guantanamo Bay); then yes, Assange has zero worries about fair treatment.

Don't forget, there's is no such thing as unbiased reporting. We're really looking more for distortions and agendas; something that's almost impossible to define, but we know when we see it.

And sometimes we don't. NPR is often incorrectly perceived as 'left' due to their story selection - broadcasting from Istanbul just sounds unusual to US ears. And often, they are correctly perceived as coming from the left, but they usually do OK in their more in depth stories. Separately, the bias toward sensationalism that you noted is very common in the broadcast world. That's one where we as audiences share some of the blame; the ratings from stuff like that ensure that we'll get more if it.

Fox News is still in a league of their own. Executives send out memos directing their people to adopt terminology to mirror Republican talking points. They'll have their commentary programs say something, and then the straight new segments will report that "some people are saying" that something. Their commentary shows will let Steve Doocy deliberately distort facts to try and make points (yes, opinion shows get more leeway than straight news, but there are limits).

Having said all this, one of the more troubling bits of bias shows up almost everywhere. We can call it 'pro-status-quo', or 'pro-institutionalism', or any of a number of things. One of the better chroniclers of this is Glenn Greenwald, currently with Salon, soon to be with the Guardian.

Greenwald's work is valuable not becuase it is 'unbiased' (as noted, there's no such thing), but because he always states his case thoroughly, and he shows his work. Here's a recent example.

Careful - that's a dangerously slippery slope. What if the company donated to planned parenthood? What if the mayor banned atheists from owning businesses?

In short, what about the first amendment?

Glenn Greenwald discussed this at length: http://www.salon.com/2012/07/30/free_speech_and_donations/