Slashdot Mirror

That is the pattern. Democrats got campaign contributes from random groups trying to make their case like they always did. As did Republicans. Some of these groups were serious about influencing people, so they hired various lobbists. Sometimes the lobbist they picked was Abramoff.

Republicans also got free unreported trips, free unreported flights, free unreported skyboxes, and reported money directly from Abramoff. Democrats did not. It is those things that, for example, Ney is indeed under investigation for.

Actually, I'd like to go into more depth on this one, since even on your own terms your claim here is false on its face. Let's look at some of the gifts Democrats got directly from Jack Abramoff, shall we:

• Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev) -- Beneficiary of a fund-raising dinner held in his honor at Abramoff's request by Abramoff employee Edward Ayoob
• Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) -- received the same free skybox seats that you claim it was a crime for Republicans to receive.
• Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) -- not only received the same skybox seats, he held two fundraisers in Abramoff's skybox, for which he never reimbursed anyone.
• Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) -- received free plane tickets and hotel fares, the same thing you have just told us it was a crime for Tom DeLay to receive.
• Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS) -- received the same (see same link)

In other words, even if we took your own absurd definitions at face value, Democrats are guilty of everything you accuse Republicans of.

Admittedly, Bush has begun to discuss the issue, and I believe that he has a genuine desire to solve this problem.

What I doubt is his ability to achieve a meaningful change in policy due to current political chaos. Remember what happened to Social Security reform?

This issue is frustrating because the solution is simple: put more bodies on the border. Use the National Guard until the border patrol has been given the manpower and resources it needs to truly patrol the border.

We don't need a fence (although I'm not against one). We don't need a miracle. We don't need to rehabilitate Mexico's economy. And we certainly don't need to kowtow to idiots like Fox. All we need is a government willing to follow the will of the clear majority of people who want more border security.

After all, it's the law.

Engineers can devote 20 percent of their time to projects of their choice.

The Fourth Amendment includes requirements for the issuance of search warrants, and many critics of the NSA program seem to assume that this means that all searches must be executed pursuant to a warrant. This assumption is wrong. There are dozens of situations where warrantless searches have been approved by the courts. The overriding principle is that searches of Americans (defined to include resident aliens) must be reasonable.

One of the many situations where warrantless searches have been approved is when the government is seeking foreign intelligence information, such as information relating to potential terrorist threats. Next to the Constitution itself, of course, the highest authority is the United States Supreme Court. At least three Supreme Court cases have discussed this subject.

The judges modified only two search warrant orders out of the 13,102 applications that were approved over the first 22 years of the court's operation. In 20 of the first 21 annual reports on the court's activities up to 1999, the Justice Department told Congress that "no orders were entered (by the FISA court) which modified or denied the requested authority" submitted by the government.

But since 2001, the judges have modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for court-ordered surveillance by the Bush administration. A total of 173 of those court-ordered "substantive modifications" took place in 2003 and 2004, the most recent years for which public records are available.

Warrant requests rejected

The judges also rejected or deferred at least six requests for warrants during those two years -- the first outright rejection of a wiretap request in the court's history.

Most scientists and techies and as we have seen, a lot of Slash-dotters, are very dismissive of Cold Fusion. Why? Because renowned universities like MIT have discredited the results.

When MIT reproduced Pons and Fleishmann's original Utah experiment, they claimed that it hadn't work. However, evidence has surfaced that they _doctored the data_. Eugene Mallov, who was the chief science writer at MIT at the time resigned over this issue, (link) he was so upset at MIT for publishing doctored data to discredit another institution's work. This would have been in MIT's financial interest since Pons and Fleishmann had applied for Department of Energy funding for their projects. MIT does a lot of research in Hot Fusion, and recieved millions of dollars in DOE grants every year, Cold Fusion would have competed with that. Also, and probably more importantly, it was a huge blow to their pride - if Cold Fusion is real it means the changing of geopolitics and the end of our dependency on oil. How is it possible that some dinky Utah University would discover this, and not the prestigious MITs or Stanfords? Cold Fusion could be a reality if people would stop laughing at it. more info here .

Because they forgot how to teleport!

man, i thought everyone knew that already .. all you had to do was ask them.

Cal Tech shouldn't be worrying about beating back old riddles posed by the flocks and get back to the business at hand of figuring out how to hack scoreboards.

However, Don Asmussen of San Francisco Datebook notoriety has again nailed it and skewered bystanding bigwigs in Washington DC and Hollywood on his followthrough.

But will he try out for the 2008 Olympic Political/Social Commentary squad, that's the big question

I'm going to assume you actually aren't aware of what's going on, and that you're not deliberately trying to pretend, and supply you with some reading material. Please consider the following articles in support of my statements:

Let's start with the no-fly list:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/07/25/no_fl y/index_np.html
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/ 09/27/MNNOFLY.TMP&nl=top
http://www.globenet.free-online.co.uk/reports/prot estersdetained.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/957183/po sts

This one's just fun: they barred Ted Kennedy (the senator):
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/19/senator_on _terror_watch/

And this one just basically says the No-Fly list is managed rather stupidly:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/07/aclu-suit/

Now lets look at the Patriot act:

First, this google search returns almost 3 million hits on patriot act abuses:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Patriot+Ac t%22+abuses&btnG=Google+Search

Here's a detailed analysis by the ACLU about what's wrong with the Patriot Act:
http://www.aclu.org//safefree/general/17203leg2003 0214.html

Here's a Register article about how the Patriot Act isn't being used against terrorists, but rather regular criminals (a group for which the act was not meant to be used, I'd consider that an abuse), side-stepping their civil liberties:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/05/22/us_antiter ror_law_used_against/

Here's an article about an interesting talk that went on at Harvard about the subject:
http://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/voices/2003 10/1010abuses.html

Here's a fun reprint of a Village Voice article about the NYPD seeking to spy on protestors and such:
http://www.refuseandresist.org/police_state/art.ph p?aid=619

I could go on and on, but I think I've made my point. The Patriot Act should be quietly killed off and our civil liberties re-affirmed.

Enjoy your readings...

They appear to be working towards doing the right thing since they've picked it up for a 3rd Season.

That's coming to a close soon, and they've apparantly decided not to pick up the last 9 episodes of the third season, which is shame. All is not hopelessly lost, though, so if you're a fan, visit SaveOurBluths and show your support.

Safety level? People can play indecent words like "lez" on television! Think of the children!!

...then the plasma discharges probably will. Shuttles come in relatively slowly, yet at least one of them has been photographed with something that looks suspiciously like a "Blue" Jet (they aren't all blue) striking it, immediately before it blew up.

Interestingly, one of the analyses used to back statements that there was no lightning involved provides a fairly sound reason for it: there was no warning, no change in the Shuttle's acoustics right up to the point when it all came apart. A strike that high, coming down would be nearly soundless, quickly drowned in the breakup noises, and recovered pieces of the damaged wing show damage characteristic of a high-powered electrical discharge.

Anyone who wishes to assert that such things don't happen is invited to read up on Positive Giants, Rocket Lightning, Geophysical Meteors and Ball Lightning before replying.

Can you publish politically dissenting views?

Not if you want to keep your job

Can you openly criticize the government?

nope

Are you allowed to practice any religion you want without punitive recourse?

My (non)religious views allow abortion, gay/group marriage, assisted suicide and stem cell therapy. I hear some folks are being prosecuted or assaulted for trying to do these things.

Are you executed for being in possession of mind-altering drugs?

Killing someone is not the only way to destroy a life. A lengthy prison term and/or prison rape will do.

Can you freely travel to most parts of the world?

Sure, that's because most parts of the world, including China, make it easier to get a visa than US.

Can you read any publication in print or the web without gettign thrown in prison?

You got to be kidding!

When I first started using RSS, I subscribed to yahoo, cnn (about 4 of their feeds), and abcnews news feeds. I was thinking, "I'll get multiple perspectives on major stories, and make comparisons". Ahh, the starry-eyed idealism of ignorance...

Then I learned the truth. The spin happens at journalist-time -- the talking heads (or the writers behind the talking heads, whatever) get their news from the same Associated Press feed, and spin it their own way. In internet-land, there's no talking head -- just the AP story (and inherently the bias of the original AP journalist).

If you're looking at AP news stories online, everyone is just reposting the same exact story verbatim anyway. And generally non-AP topics don't get covered by many different perspectives.

every other organization using "leap" and/or "a" and/or "head" in their slogans will have to change? I seem to remember people using slogans in the form of " Inside" were hunted by Intel. Even non-profits with nothing to do with computers had to watch out.

Stephen Mansfield, author of The Faith of George W. Bush, goes on to say: "Not long after, Bush called James Robison (a prominent minister) and told him, 'I've heard the call. I believe God wants me to run for President.' " Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention heard Bush say something similar: "Among the things he said to us was: I believe that God wants me to be president, but if that doesn't happen, it's OK.' "

Source

We are no longer fighting a great enemy, we are asserting a great principle: that the talents and dreams of average people - their warm human hopes and loves - should be rewarded by freedom and protected by peace. We are defending the nobility of normal lives, lived in obedience to God and conscience, not to government.

Source

In Dilip Hiro's book "Secrets and Lies," Hiro quotes the Tel Aviv newspaper Ha'aretz of June 24, 2003, reporting that Bush told Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas: "God told me to strike at Al Qaida (sic) and I struck them, and then He instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did."

Source

Of course, perhaps you can provide some sources that state otherwise?

There seem to be quite a few examples of the FBI engaging marketing students on 'Projects' NPR was talking about it last week too http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/ a/2005/11/22/state/n081156S81.DTL&type=printable http://www.ur.msstate.edu/news/stories/2004/fbimar ketingplan.asp

Everything you need to know you can find out right here.

In other news Endgame for Bush and Rove?

My favorite:

"Why in the world would you think your (cell) phone would work in your house?"
(Ivan Seidenberg, CEO of Verizon)

What an idiot. For that reason alone, I'll never sign up with Verizon while he's in charge. Hey Ivan, can you hear me now?

(Link to the originating article)

PS: If this pops up on the Wired page, it's cause I posted there. I ain't no plagiarist. ;-)

Since it is Christmas, I shall be kind to such a response. Mars is experiencing Global Warming.

So is NASA lying? Or don't you believe in their facts?

"I say potato you say potatoe", said Dan Quayle.

How about tracking Syrianta ?

Putting the Mona Lisa Smile technology to use.

"I say potato you say potatoe", said Dan Quayle.

How about tracking Syrianta ?

Putting the Mona Lisa Smile technology to use.

qz

Mars.. Is... Leaving... Winter...

That's pretty amazing. Here all this time I thought that only half of a planet could be doing something like leaving winter, while the other half would have to be leaving summer. I bow in awe before your superior wisdom. It was the ellipses that convinced me - someone who isn't right couldn't use so many.

I had mistakenly believed that this trend had been supported by continued observation since first reported in the December 7, 2001 issue of the journal Science. However, Mars is leaving winter, so that doesn't matter. I'm glad that your punctuation set me straight.

And... Solar... Irradiance... Is... In... DECLINE

Or increasing, but nevermind that. Still, Pluto continues warming despite moving away from the sun for over 10 years now, and is anticipated to continue warming for at least the next decade as it moves yet farther away. It's almost as if, even on a planet with such thin atmosphere, the climatic effects of irradiance don't - and aren't expected to - turn on a dime. Crazy. Happily for you, I guess the Earth's can. I feel so foolish now.

The name Greenland was an exercise in marketing. Erik the Red had been banished from Iceland (for murder) and wanted to attract settlers to an otherwise inhospitable land.

Certainly, all the Norse trading vessels that visited Greenland wouldn't bring back any news to contradict such a claim if it were false. It's not as if news travelled by sail in those days, right?

The norse settlements subsisted mainly on sheep in the early years. We know they hunted cold-weather animals by goods they traded (like walrus tusks), and even that they had to hunt different areas by season, so Greenland clearly wasn't another African veldt. It must have been temperate enough then for a settlement to graze a sizable herd though, and yet today archaeologists have to chip their artifacts out of permafrost.

They lived mainly on fish later, before they disappeared - this suggests to me that, for whatever reason, the sheep thing wasn't working out very well by then. If memory serves, they weren't doing so hot with the farming then either. It's speculation, but not exactly wild, that climate shift had made herding and farming unsustainable.

Read just an article or two on archeology in Greenland. Hit up Google, and pick something from a source that looks reputable to you. There's plenty of support for climate change during the span of Norse settlement.

The scientists who study this stuff, who know this stuff, and who are highly educated about this stuff,

Uh-oh... an appeal to "the experts", and such an effort to establish their authority too. That never smacks of an independant conclusion.

have pretty much unanimously concluded that the current spate of climate change is primarily due to human activity.

Wow, such a consensus? Well, unanimous except for these 17,000 quacks and hacks, I suppose you mean. But gee, if all of the experts say that I'm wrong... hey, wait a minute! Didn't the experts also all agree that the earth was flat, the universe orbited the earth, and the sun was a fiery chariot? And that the 1970's marked the dawn of a new ice age, the barbary lion was extinct and giant squid didn't really exist. Medical science 'pretty much unanimously concluded' that there was no such thing as female orgasm until the last half of the 20th century - and a female is a lot easier to collect data on than a planet. How could it all have been wrong? I don't understand - they all agreed! Isn't reality imposed by a democratic body of scientists?

Incidentally, being that you seem fond of mythology, this huckleberry might hol

Oakland crowds leave wake of debris after Super Bowl

Hmm... Other right-wing killers... Sadam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, ... Of course communists, fascists, and extremist national socalists from the past are completely representative of the contemporary left, and contemporary right-wing mass-murderers are an aberration which we should ignore right?

'Course, you can save a lot of face right now and call me out as a naive libertarian, yah?

Vote Nader next time.

who wishes it were available for use earlier this month.

Clearly, this is a bad idea.

All it will result in is more cyber-bullying, among other things.

http://www.google.com/jobs/lunar_job.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2 005/09/28/GOOGLE.TMP

We are all just "Dust in the Wind."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/ch ronicle/archive/2004/06/11/MNGTL73SSM28.DTL

Or perhaps you could take the time to actually look it up. Yes dogs respond to tone. So do people, go ask ten people to do something rudely, then ask another ten people politely. Compare your results. Just because they do does not suggest that is ALL they respond too. For instance hunters often train to hand signals, because the dog can see them from a distance where voice commands are impractical. Herders have long used a combination of hand signals and whistle sequences. This is not one data point. This is a tradition that dates back centuries.

As for words specificlly, the example of Pico and other similar research have shown that many animals (not just dogs) can develop vocabulary in the sense of understanding that a word refferes to a specific object.

Unbelievable. I should have paid attention when /. hit that iceberg.

Has sulli ever been to a hospital and seen how long it takes for a nurse to get to a patient now? I've been there and seen it in person. These nurses aren't lazy, there simply are too few of them for all the patients on a given floor.

Here's some information for sulli to read and be educated.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2 001/08/16/ED211776.DTL

Now, as for IT security, may sulli's credit card data be guarded by companies run by execs who follow his/her line of reasoning. Not mine.

How could such an utterly factually wrong and trollish post get a +1? The credibility of moderation on here is shot to crap with pluses being given to such intentionally stupid comments.

As you were saying?

PORNOGRAPHY
Psychiatrist labels porn nation's most addictive substance
University of Pennsylvania psychiatrist Dr. Mary Anne Layden told a Senate committee that pornography should be classified as an addictive drug due to its destructive nature.

"It [pornography] is more toxic the more you consume, the harder the variety you consume, and the younger and more vulnerable the consumer," Layden said.

She explained how pornography damages a person's beliefs and behavior. Belief damage includes the adverse effect of normal "attitudes about what constitutes healthy sexual and emotional relationships."

As far as behavioral damage, pornography can cause tendencies toward psychologically unhealthy actions, socially inappropriate actions and even illegal actions.

In addition, research reveals "that 40% of sex addicts will lose their spouses, 58% will suffer severe financial losses, and 27% to 40% will lose their jobs or their professions."

Layden considers pornography the most dangerous addictive substance available in America and is urging Congress to investigate the harm it causes.

AgapePress, 12/1/04

I find my tastes have changed and I still get the paper. And since I get most my international news online, I stopped reading the Chronicle (and it's biased writing) and switched to the Sacramento Bee. It covers most the issues and if sparce their website fills in details. Plus when I'm reading a newspaper, I'm doing it to relax. So the Bee with it's two pages of comics, interesting articles and main news with the important parts covered in decent detail. Enough to perk my interest if I want to later research it. But not so much that the brain hurts.

So I'll scan the front page, go to business, Scene & Comics, and then the Fry's AD, and Region... and then if I have time I'll scan the other section... checking sports if there was something I missed or what not.

Don't even get me started on the Napa Valley Register with pages of retractions and corrections equaling the rest of the paper. I don't even get it to line the bird cage... don't want to upset the bird. Mind they have a website in which is better quality then the actual paper, but no freaking images. They'll comment on what the picture shows... but no picture. gah!

Obligatory Links:
SacBee -> http://wwww.sacbee.com
Chronicle -> http://www.sfgate.com
Napa Register -> http://www.napanews.com

A computer security expert from Finland will try to demonstrate that machines made by Diebold are vulnerable to hacker attacks and can be used to manipulate election results.

http://www.kcautv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4164929&n av=1kgl

it has bee postponed
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/ 11/29/BAG8TFVC2M1.DTL

I disagree with many of your comments. First, while I do think it's senseless to live in NO right now because of the way it is, it doesn't have to be. Do don't need to "develop the technology" to do anything; we just have to stop doing the stupid stuff that's screwed up NO. The reason NO didn't have any protection from the Katrina was because all the wetlands and barrier islands that used to surround NO, and provide a buffer between the city and the Gulf, are gone thanks to our screwing with the ecosystem by diverting the river there and preventing silt from the Mississippi from reinforcing those wetlands, so they got washed away. See this article for more details. Katrina's devastation was our own doing, not some random natural disaster we were powerless to avoid. Even worse, scientists knew that this would happen years ago, but politicians didn't want to do anything about it. The responsibility here lies with the people, who voted these stupid politicians in.

As for abandoning NO, I don't see how that can happen as long as we operate a port there. A port needs to be there because of the Mississippi and all the goods it carries. To have a port, you have to have a city; thousands of port workers don't really want to live in a temporary trailer city with no families, no communities, etc.

As for raising the city, it seems to me that that again is our own doing, by diverting the river. If we hadn't screwed around with the river, NO wouldn't be below sea level. But what's done is done, and it's still possible to raise the city. This was done in Galveston, TX back in 1906 after a cat5 hurricane hit them. If they can do it in 1906, they can certainly do it in 2006.

So as far as NO goes, I think the country needs to make a decision whether we actually want to go to the trouble and expense of rebuilding it at all. Since Americans are generally cheap and shortsighted, I think the answer is going to be "no". Of course, with this, we should go ahead and shut down the port, and stop importing and exporting goods via the MS river. Eventually, the economy will collapse, but we really deserve it, and it's not like we weren't warned.

Same goes for California. Maybe we should put it to a vote to the American people whether we should bother doing anything about CA's water problem. I predict the answer will be "no", judging by the responses right here on /. Of course, with so much of the economy tied up in CA, that means our economy will utterly collapse, but again I think we really deserve it.

Then, for hundreds of years afterwards, students in other countries learn from this as an example of how rich nations/empires fall when their citizens become lazy, selfish, and greedy.

its ok. they dont want to take your calls either.

"Das, who quit the job after four months, said she learned to dislike Americans. "Rarely, there are people who are good," she said by e-mail, "but then others remind me that all they believe in is cursing, and they don't have respect for others.""

two sides to every coin my friend

How about this? Or this? Or this? Or this?

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/news/a rchive/2005/11/22/national/a091747S60.DTL&o=0

It lived 14 years and made people happy.

Um, actually, the MIT team went out to San Francisco on the Discovery Channel's dime, and failed to recreate their own results. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2 005/10/22/state/n121443D54.DTL You might want to reconsider the MythBuster's credibility...

Its hard to imagine that video games are bigger than Hollywood, but having thier own award show is just stupid. The first time I heard about this, I was like wtf? Who's retarded idea is this? I'm sure not many people watched Spike's award show last year and G4's award show a few months ago. Just because they're bigger than Hollywood doesn't mean they have to copy them http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chron icle/archive/2004/12/18/MNGUOAE36I1.DTL

Not even close, they have been promoting this same line of BS for five years now. http://www.sfexaminer.com/articles/2005/07/13/news /20050713_ne01_barcell.txt http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2 003/03/28/BA298009.DTL&hw=nextel+bart&sn=003&sc=16 7

...the BART subway system has been completely outfitted with cells to allow cellphone usage everywhere on the line.

You can start here.

You didn't even google it? Tons of reputable sources exist. Your tirade is moot.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/ch ronicle/archive/2005/10/07/MNGNVF3SFM1.DTL

It comes down to who you believe, the White House or a bunch of high-ranking Palestinians. Given the White House's track record on truth telling so far, that's not an easy question...

Along this line, I recently read of a frat candidate who died of *water* poisoning. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/ a/2005/02/04/BAGNSB576121.DTL

Does it help to use "fuck" a lot to get mods?

Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.

Hey you stupid shit, the pentagon and the Administration are always looking to screw the little guy in the forces. Also, you're clearly too shortsighted to remember what his daddy, and the earlier republicans have done. Friends of the Military, they are not. Why so many servicemen support them defies me. They're always closing hospitals and bases (screwing over the towns that need them). They're always going after pensions and health care. They're always going after bonuses and hazard pay.

If one kept a journal of every time they tried to fuck over the backbone of the military, you'd have a thousand page book in short time. But since you're so sold on the party line, and how "liberals" (aka anyone against "them") are the spawn of Satan, Saddam, Lenin, Carl Marx, Mao, Stalin, Adolf Hitler and The Smurfs, then no amount of enlightenment is likely to eject your head from your ass, but it's worth a try, I guess.

Witness:
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292259-1989 240.php/
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/20 03/08/14/MN94780.DTL/
http://www.iupa.org/newsroom/PayDiff.html
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,74425, 00.html
http://actforvictory.org/act.php/truth/articles/20 06_wont_be_first_year_bush_cuts_support_for_vetera ns

But, hey, they vote, and people support them also tend to vote, so they aren't so quick to clusterfuck their pawns in front of public scrutiny:

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry= 7830

And when they do get around to giving pay increases, they're often less than the cost of living!

Here's an explanation of who They are.