Slashdot Mirror

Just because he works in IT doesn't mean he was well paid, and it certainly doesn't mean he was rich. It's not like the guy was a Google co-founder or something, he was a civil servant for a medium sized city. I doubt he made more than $80k a year (not as much as it sounds in San Francisco).

$149,269 in 2007 according to public documents.

source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/14/BAOS11P1M5.DTL

It sounds to me like this "evidence" is just another case of bullet matching, which for those that haven't heard the term was the rage at the FBI for awhile and I'm sure there are innocent people rotting in jail right now over its bogus findings.

What we have to be seriously careful about with these pseudoscience "tests", is the simple fact that juries love CSI style mumbo jumbo that makes solving a case little more than a magic box pointing out someone and saying "He did it". And just like bullet matching juries would put far too much weight onto this type of evidence, strictly because of the "CSI Factor" and how scientific it sounds. That is why I am always leery of these kinds of "helpful evidence" simply because juries will give them much more weight than the science behind them says they are worth.

Don't forget bullet matching which I'm sure there are plenty of poor bastards rotting in jail RIGHT NOW because some FBI guy got on the stand with a nice 3 piece suit and said "This test tells us with 100% certainty that the bullet found in the victim was from the box of ammo found in the suspects home".

That is why I hope this story about DNA gets plastered all over the news. Juries just love any kind of gadget that takes out the guesswork and lets them just not think. And anyone who has had dealings with the cops for any length of time knows that crooked cops and prosecutors that care more about using cases as a stepping stone to higher office instead of justice aren't exactly rare. cases should be built on a preponderance of the evidence, not on some magic tech that solves the case instantly, which is what DNA has been, like bullet matching and fingerprints before it.

its not a problem with juries per say. of course, that statement is such a reach ill just figure you have no idea what youre talking about. the problem is with expert witnesses. to be able to call to the stand someone who takes that guess work for you with years of experience that you just have to trust they arent biased while they are getting paid for their services. especially when both sides will have conflicting expert witnesses. dna, fingerprints, bullet matching et al should be used for the investigative process only. prosecutors using expert witnesses is just another way of taking advantage of the magic of science. it doesnt matter if people in the jury are intelligent or not. even if you are the most intelligent person on the planet you cant absorb 15 years of dna or fingerprinting science in 2 weeks.

Don't forget bullet matching which I'm sure there are plenty of poor bastards rotting in jail RIGHT NOW because some FBI guy got on the stand with a nice 3 piece suit and said "This test tells us with 100% certainty that the bullet found in the victim was from the box of ammo found in the suspects home".

That is why I hope this story about DNA gets plastered all over the news. Juries just love any kind of gadget that takes out the guesswork and lets them just not think. And anyone who has had dealings with the cops for any length of time knows that crooked cops and prosecutors that care more about using cases as a stepping stone to higher office instead of justice aren't exactly rare. cases should be built on a preponderance of the evidence, not on some magic tech that solves the case instantly, which is what DNA has been, like bullet matching and fingerprints before it.

Counties in Texas have about the same number of deaths per capita, in the same circumstances. Other counties across the US wind up with similar circumstances as well, so much so that "Custody Death Syndrome" is being bandied about as a term now.

The jails in Texas are nothing like Maricopa County's. In fact, their jails very much resemble a Motel 6. Free bed, free cable TV, free exercise equipment, free library - the only thing you don't have that you have in a Motel 6, is the ability to leave.

You can use statistics to lie about anything. For example, anti-police groups use a so-called "steady rise in taser-related fatalities" to try to argue that police are too quick to use tasers. The problem? Their "statistic" matches almost exactly the timeline of increased issuing of tasers to police and increased changes in police policy to favor the use of Tasers over a drawn gun. What you've proposed regarding Arpaio is just another out-of-context "statistic" that means nothing once examined.

needed

And replacing batteries every 2 years, you did say "battery will last for 2 years max", if not sooner will be expensive for GM. Some Slashdotters above said the Volt was going to cost $35,000, however here's a "Forbes news item that says it will cost $40,000. Now I don't know how much the batteries cost but if they cost $2000 replacing them every 2 years, if not sooner, will cost more than $10,000 over 10 years. And that's just counting the cost of the battery not labor or other expenses. Suddenly that $40,000 is now less than $30,000. That is unless the costs of the batteries fall.

And your Prius thing is just one of the ignorant arguments that need to die. Toyota uses different chemistry there (NiMH to be exact).

Okay, so I may of been wrong in using the batteries Toyota uses as an example of how how they will last. I was ignorant, didn't know, they used different battery technologies.

Falcon

"Microsoft is right. Linux is Unix. It's why I started using it. Can it legally be called Unix? No" - by DesScorp (410532) on Tuesday August 04, @10:22PM (#28950899) Homepage

Technically? Linux HAS already been classified as a *NIX (UNIX) variant by others, & thus, it IS a UNIX...

See here, on that account/note:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1998/09/08/BU85830.DTL&type=tech_article

----

PERTINENT QUOTE EXCERPT:

"Linux is a form of Unix, the system that runs the basic functions for big corporate computer networks. But unlike most other kinds of Unix, which are designed for computer workstations, Linux works fine on your average Intel-based desktop computer."

----

and, here also:

http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2006/02/letter_writers.html

----

PERTINENT QUOTE EXCERPT:

"Taylor and other writers have pointed out that Unix as an operating system is not disappearing because of Linux. Linux is Unix"

----

Good enough for me... &, apparently others from information week &/or sfgate.com also!

APK

P.S.=> Personally, I've always considered Linux a UNIX for the PC, which is the "why" of why I bought it back in 1993-1994 at a local computer fair in the city I then lived in - to have an actual UNIX for the PC, that was free (to keep 'brushed up' on *NIX scripting really)... apk

I have seen these trucks that carry the crude oil from gas wells get into accidents. I have seen bridges totally destroyed from burning oil under them (concrete breaks down under the extreme heat).

Damned right.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2007/04/29/BAGVOPHQU46.DTL&o=6 and other pix in the left panel.

That article doesn't have much to do with smart appliances. The governor was placed on the guy's electric meter because he didn't pay his bills. Also, they never shut off his gas, but his furnance might have also needed electricity to function. Here's the article I got the information from: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/01/26/national/a114852S89.DTL

With regards to the back flip carried out by Obama when he became president (where he changed from opposing the wiretaps to supporting them)

There was no such flip. Obama ALWAYS supported warrantless wiretaps. How do I know? He voted for telecoms immunity. He had some bullshit excuse about it, but no excuse is possible. Believing Obama was ever against those wiretaps is fucking stupid. Check the voting record, understand that you have been duped, and move on.

Obama supported these wiretaps before becoming president:

The law that Congress passed last summer, with the support of then-Sen. Barack Obama, authorized the wiretap program and sought to dismiss lawsuits against companies that had participated.

Believing politicians' campaign promises only makes YOU an idiot. It says nothing about them.

Irrelevent to the article, which is the the game industry revenue is down.

It's actually extremely relevent. If the game companies are selling less total copies because gamers are turning to used game outlets due to the ridiculous price of new releases, they are going to see hits to their bottom line.

Is that the only reason for the sales decline? No. Of course not. But it is definitely a contributing factor and one of prime concern for game makers.

Yeah, but you don't have as many guns at your disposal as Ted Kennedy, so his opinion holds more weight

Chicken feathers! They keep the bird comfy, hold hydrogen, and may replace silicon in microchips!

however looking at the original AP story, it doesn't mention the diameter.

Anyways, the general answer to your question is 'check other reasonable sources.'

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090624/ap_on_sc/eu_germany_prehistoric_flute

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/06/24/international/i100006D91.DTL&tsp=1

The story of Adam's Block is instructive. Someone set up two good high-resolution cameras looking out at a high-crime area in San Francisco's Tenderloin, and put them on the Web. Viewers could comment in real time, and log interesting events for later interest.

The drug dealers were angry. There were death threats. The camera owner finally had to take the cameras down and move.

Ahem.

At least there's a length limit on Twitter.

Yesterday, this article by Jon Caroll appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle. This guy is a paid columnist. He wrote about forty column-inches about taking his car to a car wash. Nothing exciting happened; he just washed his car. This is how far down the print media have come.

The Chronicle is considering shutting down their print version. This guy may not have much of a career left.

Please contemplate the reason that Google recently begged and pleaded that only developers download the *developer* release of Google Chrome for Mac and Linux, and begged people not to blog and whine and bitch about its shortcomings. (They were aware of its shortcomings. It's a work in progress.)

If you want to know more about filesystems, start here:
Filesystems @ Wikipedia (Hint: the blue words are links. Click on them to read and learn even more.)

If you want to know more about ZFS, start here:
ZFS

If you want to know more about designing and building filesystems, there is an excellent discussion here (this book should be required reeading for all software developers and systems administrators, regardless of what types of systems you tend):
The Design and Implementation of the 4.4 BSD Operating System

If you want to know more about the chief failing of the human intellect (our own limitations) start here:
Incompetent People Really Have No Clue, Studies Find: They're blind to own failings, others' skills
Personally, (just between you and me, the internet, and alien archeologists a billion years from now) I interpret this finding to be scientific evidence supporting The Dilbert Principle: "People are stupid." That is to say, we are all stupid about most things, most of the time. The trick is to figure out when you don't know what you're talking about, at which point you stop talking, and start reading or asking questions.

Complex and revolutionary software systems, like good food, take time. ZFS has tremendous potential. It might not be finished yet, or Apple might take the lessons learned from ZFS and use them in a different way (HFSEFK - HFS Extremely Fraking Cool).

You're one of those terrible, terrible people who the Games Industry complained about, aren't you? One of those poor misguided suck...foo...'consumers' who thinks that just because you bought it and there's legislation (in the US at least) that gives you certain rights when you purchase something then you should be able to do what you like with it, making a profit, a profit, without sharing any of it back to the poor, deserving and penniless publisher that let you have it in the first place.

Yeah, I agree, give me the physical copy any day rather than yet more digital downloads. Ditto with things like Steam - some people rave about it, but even ignoring the bandwidth required I wouldn't want to trust its invasive and ingrained DRM solution that relies on remote servers, meaning I can't re-sell it and could lose it at any time.

oops forgot links http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/1998/09/24/NEWS7742.dtl http://vadim.oversigma.com/Tetris.htm

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/31/BAPB1227KF.DTL Tom Sepa would rather not be called homeless. "That word is loaded," he said. "I prefer 'urban outdoorsman.' " It is true that Sepa has a lot of things that aren't generally associated with the stereotypical San Francisco homeless person - like a full-time job.

And he'll be the center of everybody's attention, which is all he wants.

Speaking of axes to grind, until you can produce evidence, the answer to all your questions may as well be "no." Seriously, how is this modded Informative or Insightful? There's not a single link to evidence for these claims. In a quick Google search, I found nothing about Yee being picked up for being a john - though lots to suggest he has fought against prostitution for years - and the only thing about shoplifting was this article referencing a 1992 incident that appears to have been a big, dumb mistake.

Mods, honestly, why did you mod this up? Do you know something I don't?

Because standing up for your rights is frequently messy and risky - see the police crackdowns on perfectly legal protests around political conventions and economic summits. You should be thankful that people like Mr. Becker stand up for our civil liberties so people like you can enjoy them.

Come to think of it, the very video you linked to is an example of that. The jury looked at the same video, and didn't see any misconduct.

Uh, no, that's the BART shooting from early this year, and charges are still pending.

Agreed. But we're not discussing the fairness of having to be polite to somebody who's being rude to you.

Exactly, because this goes way beyond mere "rudeness".

We're talking about the consequences of being rude to somebody with the authority to throw you in jail.

No, we aren't, as said somebody has to have a reason to throw you in jail, which is something the cops never had in this case.

The loss prevention guy had the authority to detain him until the cops arrived.

Not just no, but HELL no. Was he vandalizing the store? No. Was he trying to shoplift? No - and even if he was, loss prevention has to wait until AFTER you leave the store, not while you're inside.

Saw the video. Simplistic nonsense.

That include the highly respected Supreme Court justice and veteran police detective with decades of experience? Stop maintaining that firm grip on your ankles and watch the video again, paying particular attention at 8:30.

But there are certainly times when it's necessary. If you're ripped off, try filing an insurance claim without a police report. And if there were a guy on your front porch carrying a machete and wearing a hockey mask, you're telling me you wouldn't call 911?

Except the obvious context is when the police think you are a suspect.

Hmm, just remembered the last time I interacted with a cop. I was driving home at 3 AM, and the place where I parked had been well lit, so I forgot to turn on my headlights. Got pulled over, and asked, "Do you know why I pulled you over?" By then I'd figured out why I'd been stopped, so I said yes. As soon as he saw I wasn't a drunk (which is what he was trolling for), he gave me a lecture and let me go.

What would have happened if I'd refused to say anything to him? Certainly an expensive traffic ticket and probably a few hours jail time.

Uh, no, what came out of you mouth had nothing to do with him letting you go. The police officer made a determination that he didn't have probable suspicion that you were drinking and driving. Anything you said could only hurt you, not help you.

When I deal with cops, I rely on self-restraint and common sense. And somehow my interactions seem to come out better than with people who fancy themselves street lawyers.

No, they don't. See above.

Time bombs are a myth? OK then, but I'm pretty some serial killers are not.

Time bomb scenario. Reading comprehension, it does a body good.

You can call the cop a cocksucking piece of shit and there's jack she can do about it

There are a lot of stupid self-trained legal "experts" on Slashdot, but you have to be the stupidest.

What a surprise, you're wrong. Again. You have every Constitutional right to tell public officials - including police officers - off using profanity. And there are plenty of court cases backing that right up. What people are arrested for isn't swearing at the officer, but for the favorite cop catch all: disorderly conduct.

So the officer can arrest you for screaming "fuck you!" at her in a store, but it's for disorderly conduct, not swearing. But calmly telling her to fuck off while she's attempting to question you certainly is within your Constitutional rights.

Anyone notice the increase in stories in the mainstream media connecting Craigslist to various crimes - the "Craigslist robber", selling babies on Craigslist, Cragislist hookers, Craigslist attempted murderers, Craigslist scammers, etc, etc.

It seems that every struggling newspaper in the country goes to some effort to tie Craigslist to any local crime. I don't recall any of these papers connecting crimes to their own classified ads. It's almost like these papers have some sort of agenda...

Sure, feel free to speculate. But have you ever been to San Francisco? It's commonplace here. Most of the Chinese-operated massage parlors are semi-tolerated brothels. Law enforcement has ongoing concerns about human trafficking, but it's hard to prove when the proprietors and the sex workers all deny it. (And why wouldn't they?)

Of course nobody is going to post an ad on Craigslist that says, "Truckload of Chinese virgins! Bulk pricing! Serious buyers only!"

The fact that so many "enlightened, sex-positive people" are so willing to wish this kind of stuff into the cornfield is precisely what makes the sex trade so insidious. But if you come to my city -- or any city -- walk its streets and really get to know it, you'll understand that the realities of prostitution for most of the participants are not nearly as pretty as the "independent sex worker entrepreneur" crowd will tell you.

I'm willing to bet that the ability to post ads on Craigslist really does cut down on some of the danger and crime associated with prostitution for some women. That still doesn't make me comfortable with it.

It's one thing if spores cause an infection- but going to the hospital cause you don't like a smell? I mean come on. Grow a pair, you know?

I read an article about this before it appeared here. The problem wasn't the smell, it was that the woman used two incompatible cleaning chemicals and created some kind of magical gas that can kill people. You know, kind of like mixing ammonia and chlorine bleach? But this wasn't as bad as that.

The linked article says the following:

[...] while using two cleaning chemicals to scrub down the mess. The mixture of old lunches and disinfectant caused 28 people to need treatment for vomiting and nausea.

But a superior article came out today:

The woman, who was suffering from a sinus problem and couldn't smell the chemical, then used a second solution, Stallard said. The two chemicals interacted in the air, adding to an already pungent odor caused by the rotten food.

"Discarding the food isn't so critical, but more critical is the cleaning chemical, making sure you know what you're using," Stallard said. "Don't combine chemicals - you're never supposed to combine chemicals."

See, it's not the smell, it's the chemical. When I went to interview for a job with Mendocino County, there was a very nice pamphlet with citations by the same title. (It appears on this Mendo Mental Health Board agenda as a footnote... I have contacted MCWOW to see if I can get my hands on a PDF) But the simple truth is that chemicals even from different perfumes can combine into potentially hazardous compounds — the added scents from the two cleaners could well have combined into something genuinely toxic. Generally speaking, the nausea from simply smelling something disgusting is extremely transient.

Another fscking amateur lawyer.

The lady had a gun. There are circumstances in which she is authorized to use it. This kind of situation doesn't usually escalate into those circumstances, but it does happen. Which is why the cop cut the conversation short so abruptly.

And even if that weren't an issue, what does it matter whether the cop is "authorized" to use their gun? Cops do sometimes use their guns when they're not supposed to. They're often punished for doing so, but that's small consolation when you have this big gaping hole in your chest.

I make it a rule never to argue with somebody who's armed. I guess that makes me a wimp. I can live with that. "Live" being the operative word.

If you want good healthy food, go for fresh vegetables (and fruit, meat and fish) instead of the processed kind.

Unless it's tainted spinach. Or tainted peanuts. Or tainted organic eggs. Or tainted organic sesame seeds. Or tainted organic alfalfa....

while they aren't hobbits, they are similarly ancient, diminuitive peoples of southeast asia whose history may be instructive of how succeeding waves of human and proto-humans competed with and replaced each other. based on the experience of the aeta, i wouldn't be surprised if the last flores hobbit died at the sharp end of a homo sapien's stick

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

The term Negrito refers to several ethnic groups in isolated parts of Southeast Asia.[1] Their current populations include the Aeta, Agta, Ayta, Ati, Dumagat and at least 25 other tribes of the Philippines, the Semang of the Malay peninsula, the Mani of Thailand and 12 Andamanese tribes of the Andaman Islands of the Indian Ocean.

Negritos share some common physical features with African pygmy populations, including short stature, natural afro-hair texture, and dark skin; however, their origin and the route of their migration to Asia is still a matter of great speculation. They are genetically distant from Africans at most loci studied thus far (except for MCR1, which codes for dark skin). They have also been shown to have separated early from Asians, suggesting that they are either surviving descendants of settlers from an early migration out of Africa, or that they are descendants of one of the founder populations of modern humans.[2]

essentially, ancient remnant isolated melanesian populations in largely malay and thai areas across indonesia, malaysia, the philippines, and thailand. the malays took over the coastal areas over time, and now the aeta live in tiny mountain tribes. they also existed in china until recently. han and malay peoples just either outright exterminated them, outcompeted them, or genetically intermarried and swamped them out of existence

http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/the-black-african-foundation-of-china-honouring-the-aboriginal-black-people-of-china/

Chinese historians called them "black dwarfs" in the Three Kingdoms period (AD 220 to AD 280) and they were still to be found in China during the Qing dynasty (1644 to 1911). In Taiwan they were called the "Little Black People" and, apart from being diminutive, they were also said to be broad-nosed and dark-skinned with curly hair. After the Little Black People -- and well before waves of Han migrations after 1600 -- came the Aboriginal tribes, who are part of the Austronesian race. They are thought to have come from the Malay Archipelago 6,000 years ago at the earliest and around 1,000 years ago at the latest, though theories on Aborigine migration to Taiwan are still hotly debated. Gradually the Little Black People became scarcer, until a point about 100 years ago, when there was just a small group living near the Saisiyat tribe. The story goes that the Little Black People taught the Saisiyat to farm by providing seeds and they used to party together.

in the philippines, the aeta famously came to light after the eruption of mount pinatubo, and this isolated group of peoples, probably living on the mountain isolated for hundreds if not thousands of years, were suddenly driven into the modern world

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/11/11/MN206799.DTL

the island of negros in the philippines gets its name from the spanish who found large numbers of aeta who lived there, at one time. now the island is almost completely malay

the dutch hurried along the process of the supplanting of the aeta with more cooperative malay slaves by genocidally emptying some strategic spice islands because the aetas proved uncooperative in the profitable nutmeg trade:

Well if China says it's safe, that's good enough for me!

Their safety record speaks for itself.
http://www.businessweek.com/debateroom/archives/2008/10/product_safety.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/fury-as-china-baby-milk-scandal-escalates-934993.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/08/19/MNV1RKN0L.DTL
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/business/worldbusiness/19toys.html
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/series/toxicpipeline/index.html

Yes, just as we saw with the FISA amendment. First Obama said he would fight to get rid of the telecom immunity Then when he flopped I seem to remember some supporters here spewed the same constitutional scholar crap saying he would probably get rid of the immunity clause when he was elected. Now we see that was completely false. The only thing that his being a constitutional scholar means is that he has a good idea of what rights of the people he's violating as he's doing it.

I've not tried the Woodford Reserve myself, but it did win a Double Gold and "Best Bourbon" at the SF Spirits competition, so it better be a good sipping Bourbon. ;) denttford says that it has a smoky characteristic, so I agree that it probably doesn't have the right flavor profile for mixed drinks.

I suggest reading these articles, but as always, there's a lot more to explore:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/dining/28bour.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/01/02/WI144547.DTL
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/19/WIBC14LRGR.DTL

I tend to drink more Rye than anything else, though.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/29/dining/29wine.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/16/WIRYE.DTL

I've not tried the Woodford Reserve myself, but it did win a Double Gold and "Best Bourbon" at the SF Spirits competition, so it better be a good sipping Bourbon. ;) denttford says that it has a smoky characteristic, so I agree that it probably doesn't have the right flavor profile for mixed drinks.

I suggest reading these articles, but as always, there's a lot more to explore:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/dining/28bour.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/01/02/WI144547.DTL
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/19/WIBC14LRGR.DTL

I tend to drink more Rye than anything else, though.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/29/dining/29wine.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/16/WIRYE.DTL

I've not tried the Woodford Reserve myself, but it did win a Double Gold and "Best Bourbon" at the SF Spirits competition, so it better be a good sipping Bourbon. ;) denttford says that it has a smoky characteristic, so I agree that it probably doesn't have the right flavor profile for mixed drinks.

I suggest reading these articles, but as always, there's a lot more to explore:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/dining/28bour.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/01/02/WI144547.DTL
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/19/WIBC14LRGR.DTL

I tend to drink more Rye than anything else, though.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/29/dining/29wine.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/16/WIRYE.DTL

And Bruce, my esteemed smart opinionated guy?

It still goes unreported.

There was no journalism in that piece. Just opinion and commentary.

There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but I agree that some *real* reporting is necessary, and it still is.

So let us, I guess, hope that Wired is on the beat -- since this is their beat -- and I'm sure I'll see something in the next RISKS Digest, as well, if not more than one item.

Indeed, PGN mentions this piece, though it's not as long as I expected from his note.

Lets not all go blaming terrorist organizations on this one.

My money is on unionized workers facing layoffs or payroll cuts. They would best know how to hurt the system and this sort of sabotage being linked to unions is not exactly unheard of.

I am not sure how it played out nationwide - but locally its been widely reported and was a major story ( here is Cronicle article)

From the story:

The vandalism comes as AT&T is in talks with the Communications Workers of America for a contract covering more than 80,000 employees, who have been working under their old deal since it expired at 11:59 p.m. Saturday. Union members voted in late March to authorize a strike but have not scheduled one.

Funny... wasn't it AT&T's cables that were cut in exactly the spots that only people working for AT&T would know would cause damage....

-Em

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/11/MNJB170JM7.DTL

.. Or, hung off bridges?

Maybe we could get the toilets named RIAA or something?

Similar things have almost happened for real:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/17/BA7A11QU1S.DTL
   

I think your Christian friends would fully understand. After all, how would they feel if their son/daughter had a lesbian teacher who made a wedding to her girlfriend a teachable moment? What if their child gets indoctrinated into homosexual lifestyle? I would imagine it would create quite a barrier with mom and dad.

The problem is, this kind of thinking fragments our society into ever smaller groups. Kids only allowed to participate in activities of white, atheist, heterosexual friends will grow up friendless and intolerant. Will your son really see the bible any differently than a fairy tale reading if any follow up questions are answered by parents in a similar manner?

apparently they didn't read the sign then.

Agreed. It started at the top and rolled down hill. There was even a clip of someone who was invested by the feds for making a not so kind comment about Bush at his local gym. He was visited by the nice men in blue suites. Totally out of control and scary as hell to think it could have gotten that far.

I remember the story like it was yesterday. It sent chills down my spine. To say it wasn't the (then) presidents administration pushing the buttons is ridiculous.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2001/12/18/eguillermo.DTL

Dissenting Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justice David Souter, said Cooper had properly used her authority under the environmental law after finding that unrestricted sonar use could harm thousands of creatures. Instead of conducting an environmental study as the law required, or asking Congress to change the law, Ginsburg said, the Navy undermined the law with a "self-serving resort to an office in the White House" for an exemption.

This study represents a "nail in the coffin" type of study, where it is now known unequivocally that 203 decibels will harm wildlife. To logical people, this is what's known as "proof". Knowing this, you can now measure the sound level of the Navy's sonar tests and if it's above 203 decibels, you have direct evidence that the Navy IS harming marine animals. It sounds silly and trivial, but this is how logic works sometimes, you have to prove something beyond a shadow of a doubt, and past a shadow if you want to change society.

Weirdly logical, except I wonder how all the people who do not have guns manage to survive without them?

Despite all the popular belief and all the Hollywood movies, crime rate in the USA is not *that* high so that you have to carry a weapon with you all the time :-) There are maybe 50 cases per year when an armed homeowner confronts an intruder, and out of these even fewer result in shooting. Most of guns that are owned for personal defense are purchased "just in case" and most likely will never be used for the stated purpose - they are like a fire extinguisher, you don't want to need it, you don't expect to need it, but you own one anyway, just to be prepared. If you shoot an intruder there will be an investigation, and you may be charged with a crime if you exceeded certain limits of self-defense. For example, it is OK to shoot within your house, but majorly not OK to shoot a burglar outside. These decisions are not taken lightly. But there are cases every year when a burglar breaks into a house and is promptly shot by an old lady. I can't think of any alternative to that, except that the old lady may beg the burglar to spare her.

Surely, if criminals obtain their guns illegally, most of them would come from stealing legal guns from their owners, therefore less legal guns would eventually result in less guns for criminals.

This assumption is most definitely not true. Many simpler guns (single shot) are homemade; they are massively illegal, but as I mentioned that doesn't bother criminals. On the other end of the scale, military style weapons are also effectively banned for decades, but recently a gangbanger in Oakland managed to get an AK-47 and shoot two police officers with it. You and me, if living in CA, can't go to a store and buy AK-47, they are not available at all. Nevertheless he got one. How? Illegal import. International weapon trade is a very active market, and you get to pay no taxes, and you have no serial numbers, and no registration, and so on. Very few legal weapons are stolen and used in crime - in part because that's dangerous, they are registered since the moment of manufacturing, many have been test-shot and bullets saved, so if such a well-known gun shows up at a crime scene it instantly gets traced and a whole new set of clues may lead to the criminal. Criminals hate that, they want "clean" guns. This is exactly why removal of legal guns will have no effect on reduction of crime - just as removal of birdshot shells from stores in Texas will not stop Mexican drug cartels from owning anti-tank rockets (and they do have those.)

I would have thought that one of the main advantages of not having guns in society in general is that the sight of a gun is unusual, and therefore promptly reported to police, and rapidly removed.

And that raises many rights questions in the USA. Why would an honest, law-abiding citizen be not trusted with a gun when pretty much anyone is trusted with a car? It's a matter of respect. If, say, my neighbor walks his property with a revolver in a holster this will not cause any alarm in me; I trust him with a gun just as I trust him with his truck and with his chainsaw and with every other tool that is potentially dangerous. Lawful, trained firearm owners are least likely to shoot you; where I live, the highest level of danger comes from a random rattlesnake that might find its way onto my land. I have deer too, but they are harmless and do good job on cutting the grass, so I do not interfere with their work. [Also a deer tag is a hassle to get, and you can't hunt them whenever you want.]

Complementary to that train of thought, yes - a society where guns are banned will definitely identify an open-carry gun quickly, and if you trust your police that may be a good thing. However only long guns will be visible like that, and there are very few crimes committed with long guns. Most sho

People can home school their kids if they don't like public education. They certainly are not thrown in jail if they are home schooled.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you're wrong.

Of course, this is just the beginning, but it will continue in this direction. Already the voucher program has been killed in D.C. (it was part of the "stimulus" bill), so now the elite in Washington have the actual (educating) schools to themselves, and none of the poor are allowed to go there now instead of the indoctrination centers.

There are a lot more serious privacy problems than modern, secure medical data transfer. It's possible that your medical information has already been transmitted in an unspecified manner overseas and beyond the reach of US law enforcement because health care companies can save a nickel or two per line of medical transcription.

I'm all for taking reasonable precautions with this data but we're not especially careful with it now so this plan seems reasonable.

Here's an actual story about what is happening.

The top like what 10% or the money makers in the US already pay abou 90% of the taxes

Well, yes, that may be true, but the top 10% of money makers make something like 98% of the money. If you actually break it down by percentage of income earned to percentage of taxes paid, it quickly becomes clear that the top wage earners actually pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than do the lower incomes. And that doesn't even include the billions of dollars of tax-free income that are 'earned' by the 'overseas' (read: Cayman Islands) branches of US corporations. In fact over a quarter of large US corporations (>$250,000,000 in assets or >$50,000,000 in gross receipts) paid no US income taxes in 2005. About two-thirds of U.S. companies and foreign firms doing business in this country paid no federal income taxes from 1998 to 2005. Sure some of those companies legitimately lost money, but hard to believe they all did.

The reality is that while the rich like to complain about their high tax rate, few people in that top tax bracket actually pay anything close to the amount they owe. When you earn a million or more a year, you can afford to hire a very good accountant. You complain about your high taxes paid, but remember, if the rich actually paid the same percentage you did, everyone's tax rate would go down.