Slashdot Mirror

There appears to be more to this than meets the eye.

Once again, our point is proven, there are bad people on both sides.

Not only is the economic downturn having an effect on high-tech companies in Scotland but there also seems to be a spate of Health and Safety issues arising. In a similar light do the people of India remember the tragedy of Bhopal as a warning to developing countries with not so stringent heath laws not to be the centre for industries that cannot afford the massive compensation claims of employees in developed countries?

you're not too far off hahaha

The impression I got was that our paedo brothers would be forced to wear this, irrespective of whether they were still on probation. I quote: 'if they have been released, they should be free to live their life in liberty. This muddies the waters between guilt and innocence,' said Mark Littlewood, campaigns director of Liberty.

The other article I read on the subject - in the Sunday Herald - implies more strongly that it is only for those on probation, but at the same time presents a much scarier view of the device. Overall, it seems to me that the question is being deliberately avoided, with happy terms like 'virtual probation officer' being used to give the false impression that it'll only affect those on probation.

IMHO this is yet another example of how academic projects are judged by the amount of attention they attract, rather than on whether they advance the state of the art. This is the reason why people like Kevin Warrick can stick a dog tag in their arm and go around claiming they are the world's first cyborg - all while being lavished with attention by the mainstream media.

All of this leads to an academic system that increasingly rewards self pubicity at the expense of real reasearch.

Oh, BTW - I listened to the radio station, it sounds like a garbled mess - I certainly couldn't determine the point of this from listening to it, but then I could say the same thing about rap.

There are no evidence of any Iraqi involvement with Sept 11. Also:

The Bush administration has admitted that Saddam Hussein probably had no weapons of mass destruction.

link

Here.
Here.
Here.
Here.

The US has been giving weapons to certain regimes to fight other regimes for decades now. Two instances which even the American public know about are the weapons we gave to the Contras in Iran, and the weapons we gave to the Muhajideen (who would go on to become the Taliban) in Afganistan. So these reports from the "tinfoil-hat" people are much more grounded in reality than most people would like to believe.

What you say is true. It's also no acccident. Child porn is to the Internet as Saddam Hussein is to the Middle East.

In the words of Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, et al:

"While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein"

Remember: the actual goal is not necessarily the stated goal.

and this war isnt about oil .. is it?

Of course not.

It's not really about the oil, it's about "OPEC momentum towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard".

They tried diplomatic pressure and other means with America alongside. It didn't work.

But it did work, in the end there were results and that's why a lot of countries wanted the weapons inspectors to go on with their work. If there is proof, that the Iraq has a significant number of B- or C-weapons the USA never presented it. In the end the Iraq was complying (though grudgingly) with the demands layed down by the UN. In the meantime north Korea more or less publicly announced their intention to produce nuclear bombs, so shouldn't Bush et al. strike at north Korea before going for the Iraq?

So when Bush couldn't convince the world that Iraq was threatening the world with weapons of mass destruction he switched rhetorics and talked about having to free the Iraq of that evil dictator Saddam. Now Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator, but that's none of the USAs business, as it hasn't been for the past 20 years (like when the USA even supported the current Iraqi regime). The last demand that Saddam now leave the country within 48 hours is not an ultimatum, it's a joke. Everyone can imagine that that'd be suicide for Saddam.

This war isn't about terrorism either, it's easier to construct a link from Osama bin Laden to Bush than to Saddam Hussein, and war isn't a means to get at terrorists who're probably not even in the attacked country. As a result of the war even more terrorist attacks are expected in the US and the threat level is raised.

So the war isn't about chemical weapons or terrorists, neither is it an idealistic mission to free the Iraq people from their evil dictator (or do the USA now intend to attack any country where the government isn't to their liking?). Many people (even inside the US) see it that way and that's how they arrive at the conclusion that the war isn't justified but is just about oil and distracting the american people from their problems at home.

This war is also a very bad precedent, as it shows that the USAs government doesn't care what the UN have to say on the issue, they do what they damn well please anyway. So now whenever any country wants to start a war all they need are some unsupportable and made up reasons and then they can go ahead? Or is that only right for the USA but noone else?

Also the arrogant way the USA dealt with the UN and other nations (and also opposition at home) has weakened the UN and hurt diplomatic relationships worldwide. More and more the USA is percieved

Most people seem to share the view that New Labour 'aspirations'
mean absolutely nothing, and we'll probally end up in 2050 with
more coal/gas/nuclear (best option in my opinion) powerstations than
ever before.

not without global jurisdiction they won't. The DCMA only applies to amerikans. - for now.

Now the fear mongers are talking up the terrorist in an effort to promote an agenda of world domination. In the process, they are holding persons, sometimes U.S, citizens, indefinitely and without charges. Furthermore, torture is being seriously discussed. The recent U.S. election shows that the majority of the U.S. supports these suspensions of due process. Money is being diverted from domestic social programs. Again, under the assumption that the vast majority of Americans can consume and exist without worry of being subject to these new laws.

And we have the gall to complain that a few people have been arrested for stealing bandwidth. We expect to be taken seriously when we say we believed the laws would only apply to real criminals. Sometimes the hypocrisy of the country is beyond even my cynical belief.

A quote comes to mind
"First, they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me."
Niemöller.

When we are willing to really willing to move beyond our fear, then we can talk about how bad it is the goverment has the power to take stuff without due process.