Slashdot Mirror

We are technically at war with North Korea, and have been for 50 years now. The North Koreans are a major source of ballistic missile proliferation as they continue to develop and export a range of sophisticated missiles to nations such as Iran and Yemen. They have tested components for a missile capable of reaching the United States. They either have, or are close to having nuclear weapons. The North Koreas bought 12 decommissioned Soviet submarines and have used them to advance their technology and may deploy weapons on them.

North Korea regularly threatens to attack the United States.

To get a sense of the nature of the North Korean government you can just look at how they treat: orphans, the US deserver who just returned after 40 years, the Japanese they kidnapped to teach their spies, and last, but not least, the victims of their gulag.

The North Koreans could teach lessons to the Iraqi Information Minister. They deny having dug the tunnels into South Korea, some of which are big enough to drive vehicles. (A handy thing if you were of a mind to invade the South, no?) They no doubt also deny their regular attempts to infiltrate groups of agents into South Korea.

The North Korean Army had million soldiers in it in 1992. The North Koreans have been willing to starve the population, significant numbers to death, in order to sustain the army.

North Korea is a designated member of the "Axis of Evil."

They seem like a bunch you might want to protect yourself against.

• Try these:
• 
  
  • Telegraph | News | Four killed in Japan's worst nuclear power accident
    
    
  • New Scientist: Japan's nuclear safety "dangerously weak"
    
    
  • Wired News: Nuclear 'Glitches' in Japan
    
    
  • Japan Economic Institute: EXPLOSIVE FIRE BLASTS JAPAN'S NUCLEAR POWER PLANS - No. 16, April 1997
    
    
  • More search results
    
    

• • Corrosion and pollution in Japan: Maps and data
    
    
  • More search results
    

"why would vote one way, then be ashamed of it 5 minutes later"

Perhaps they were ashamed of it when they voted? When you do something you're not particularly proud of you're unwilling to divulge it to anyone whose reaction you're not sure of. This was evident spectularly in the 1992 General Election here in the UK and has become known as (amongst other things) 'shy Toryism'.

There was an article in the Daily Telegraph about this effect which speculates about a similar bias in the Presidential election just gone.

I'm not sure that I necessarily agree with the statement in the article that "That shouting [about pride in patriotism and small government] has gone quiet, under the assault of Michael Moore, mainstream European opinion and the slivers of liberal America that run down the East and West coasts." - from over here it seems like there's been plenty of 'shouting' in favour of Bush for the last few years.

The story.

"Big Arctic Perils Seen in Warming!"

Big Solar Sun Seen in Warming!

Can't admit there's any holes in your argument can you. Let's check out the facts
1) During the taliban's rule Afghanistan was the largest supplier of poppy to the world.
2) The taliban used money generated from the sale of opium to support terrorists (al-Qaeda.)
3) Less than 6 months after the Taliban was ousted Afghanistan was miraculously exporting poppy at almost the same level as before their self imposed ban (must have been instant poppy.)

Sources
1
2
3
4
5

Just one question: Is ignorance really bliss?

Don't mess with Texas.

According to CBS _60 Minutes_ and the IMF, Arafat diverted over L560M from 1995 to 2000 from the PA to his personal fortune, and over L176M has been documented in a single Swiss account. That diversion count was current half its lifetime ago, before Arafat completed his totalitarian control of the PA, before he became the central propaganda figure for the global jihad. And that's just the documented tip of the iceberg, a couple of successful investigations.

None of this is secret anymore - you can easily find out more of the easy answers for yourself. You might also question how it is that you aren't aware of these facts - your Swedish and British mediasphere is protecting you from them. It's an easy story to equate Sharon's tyranny and fearmongering with the Nazis, and up the ante to the Israeli nation as a whole. In fact, given recent developments in the US, it's easier (though not easy) to sympathize with the German people exploited by Nazi propaganda and tyranny, and see how it can be performed elsewhere. But you're doing yourself, truth, and the chances for peace a disservice by defending Arafat with only his propaganda machine to support.

This propostion was actually tested by a curious experiment conducted by the left-wing Guardian newspaper in the UK.

The Guardian selected Clark County, OH as a hotbed of undecided voters, and put together a letter-writing campaign to them. Some 14,000 letters were sent and the universal response from Clark County voters was, well, unprintable.

The sample letters I read were horribly condescending and quite frankly unpersuasive to anyone not already having anti-Bush views, but it's pretty clear that the American man on the street really doesn't want to be influenced by foreigners.

Which, come to think of it, might have doomed Kerry's multilateral candidacy from the start.

D

This article suggests approval;

The Mathematical Association of America and the American Statistical Association each elect their committees by a new method called approval voting.

Those might have been different studies, but the point is that in the United States, creationism remains popular among non-scientists. According to several evolution polls over the last decade, 60-65% of Americans believe that "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years." About 10% believe that the evolution of species occurred without any divine intervention. The latter figure is higher among the upper class, Internet users and among college graduates, higher still among scientists (about 55% believe that evolution occurred without God over millions of years according to a 1997 Gallup poll), and higher still among biologists and geologists. These data have remained relatively stable over time.

In 1987, Newsweek reported: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly.'" A 2000 poll by People for the American Way examined the question of popular support for evolution and creationism in schools, and showed that a majority of 83% supported the teaching of the theory of evolution.

The United States fundamentalist Christian community has no real parallels (in terms of numbers, prominence, and political influence) elsewhere in the Western world (aside from possibly Canada), and because most vocal creationists are from the United States, it is generally assumed that creationist views are not as common elsewhere. Statistics are not clear on the issue.

According to a PBS documentary on evolution, Australian creationists claimed that "five percent of the Australian population now believe that Earth is thousands, rather than billions, of years old." The documentary further states that "Australia is a particular stronghold of the creationist movement." Taking these claims at face value, "young-earth" creationism is very much a minority position in Western countries other than the USA.

In Europe, creationism is a less well defined phenomenon, and regular polls are not available; however, the option of teaching creationism in school has never been seriously considered in any Western European country. In Roman Catholic-majority countries, papal acceptance of evolution as worthy of study has essentially ended debate on the matter for many people. Nevertheless, creationist groups such as the German Studiengemeinschaft Wort und Wissen are actively lobbying there as well. In the United Kingdom the Emmanuel Schools Foundation (previously the Vardy Foundation), which owns two colleges in the north of England and plans to open several more, teaches that creationism and evolution are equally valid "faith positions."

Of particular note for Eastern Europe, Serbia suspended the teaching of evolution for 2004, under education minister Ljiljana Colic, only allowing schools to reintroduce evolution into the curriculum if they also taught creationism. "After a deluge of protest from scientists, teachers and opposition parties," says the BBC report, Ms. Colic's deputy made the statement, "I have come here to confirm Charles Darwin is still alive," and announced that the decision was reversed. Ms. Colic resigned after the government said that she had caused "problems that had started to reflect on the work of the entire government."

(Fragments taken from Wikipedia licensed under GFDL)

During the last 2 billion years the Earth's climate has alternated between a frigid "Ice House", like today's world, and a steaming "Hot House", like the world of the dinosaurs.

Don't forget the fact the Yanks give God knows how many billions of Dollars to a regime that's in violation of over 100 UN Resultions and has killed over 3000 innocent civilans since 2000... oh the fucking irony.

Nobody ever gives the other size of that particular equation--over a thousand innocent Israeli civilians will killed by palestinian terrorists in the same time frame. Also, the EU has given over a billion dollars to the Palestinian Authority over the last decade, some of which has been diverted to terrorist organizations. But blaming America is an international sport, so what the hell.

I used to be... let's not say anti-Israel, but rather of the opinion that there was no "right" side in that particular conflict. And then it was presented to me that Israel isn't trying to kill civilians--the terrorist leadership make their homes in highly populated areas so that if Israel ever comes knocking they either have to take ALOT of trouble to do so surgically, otherwise they risk killing large numbers of civillians. Sometimes Israel does the former, but usually the latter.

The Palestinians, on the other hand, intentionally kill civillians--it isn't collateral damage, they're the primary fucking target.

So excuse me if I don't feel the outrage others do when Israel assassinates the leader of the Islamic Jihad, or when they blow up the leader of Hamas and bystanders get caught in the crossfire. It also never ceases to amaze me how anybody can regard things like the above as "crimes."

All of the above said, I still think there are some things Israel does that are horrible--personally, I find things like destroying the homes of families of terrorists to be barbaric. I also don't like the amount of money my country sends to them each year. But all-in-all, Israel certainly has the moral high ground.

He went to Vietnam with the apparent desire to get on a PT boat(Swift boat) and rack up some medals to further his political career and follow in JFK's footsteps

A strong leader does form some conviction on issues. Kerry does in fact adopt the position he thinks will be most politically advantageous at each point in time and has NO reservation about completely reversing himself, often multiple times, all the while kidding himself that no one notices.

Despite those blocks it is a remarkably cohesive, very dangerous, very unified party of people, mostly WASP's, who seem to have a remarkable oneness of thought.

Personally I am glad that you are willing to 'hold your nose' and vote for Kerry, but I am sorry that you feel that way. In a perfect world Kerry wouldn't have been my choice either (Halle Berry, but only if she dressed up like catwoman for the inaguration), but he is a good man, he is a strong leader, he has *vision* and he will be a welcome change from the current administration.

The normal people are so food-deprived, there are claims of cannibalism in the North. Screw satellite pictures: technology is the least of North Korea's people's problems.

Thank you for your informative post; too bad it was modded flamebait. Here are some links for those who reckon it's "flamebait" to point out that starving people probably don't give a shit about their country's "intelligence warfare capability".

I dunno- try asking this guy. Oh wait, he's actually a Lt. General. Perhaps they decided the nutcases should rise above brigadier.

For the record (if you RTFA), I think all religion is a waste of thought.

What about the vast sums of money and vast numbers of AQ fighters arriving in Iraq - am I imagining them?

Err... seems to have stopped the euro-pricing that was about to happen, doesn't it? Pretty good for America that crude is only ever bought and sold in dollars.

There are none so fucking blind as those who will not see.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/02 /18/philippines.iraq.ap/
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/08/19/mideast. nidal/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2002/08/25/wnidal25.xml
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2002/html/199 88.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/sprj.irq .centrifuge/
http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2002/fyi/news/07/31/ iraq/
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/27/sprj.irq .bio.scientist/
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/19/sprj.irq .un.missiles/

Since you and I seem to think along the same lines, thought you might like this story.

I'm not going to go hunt for that analysis. I saw it in the last week or two. I don't remember the web site, but it wasn't some fringe source, it was something about as respectable as the New York Times, I just don't remember who.

I think I saw the same one. It is a professor in Utah who runs a media center. He is one of the experts consulted by CBS. The folks at Little Green Footballs claim to have caught him manipulating the evidence to support his claims that the documents were created on a typewriter. Of course, LGF is hardly without their motives either but it is certainly interesting. There is no proof either way, and besides, they just agree with the general knowledge that Bush pulled some fast moves and walked away from his obligation, whether with tacit approval because he wasn't worth prosecuting or not.

There is no "general" knowledge here. As best as I can count, there are only two people claiming that the Bush "pulled fast moves", Barnes and the Colonel's secretary, both of whom have ulterior motives. There are *lots* of people who say Bush served honorably. In addition, there is weird circular reference going on. Most of the questions raised in the memo had been brought up in previous election by Burkett. He was widely discreditted at the time. This time, he made the same allegations, but with documents "proving" his case. Ironicly, many have said that perhaps the documents are forged but the content was accurate - when the fact may have been that the very reason they were created was to support the "accurate content".

whether with tacit approval because he wasn't worth prosecuting or not.

Prosecution for what?! You must be talking about missing a flight physical since there is ample evidence that Bush met all his guard requirements. As for the physical, let me let you in on a little secret. I am a Naval Aviator - and I have missed a required flight physical I was at graduate school at the time but missed my physical date by a month. Guess what... nothing happened. I got my physical and resumed flying the next year.

As for Bush lying, he was told several times by the very CIA who was boosting the case for war that the Nigerian yellowcake document was an utter forgery. He kept on putting it in speeches, they'd vet the speech and tell him to take it out, and the next speech, it would go right back in.Do you have a reference for this? I don't mean to bust your chops, but this would be clear-cut evidence of lying and I haven't heard that the CIA knew that the Nigerian docs were forgeries. I did hear that the CIA used language that was more conservative than the president's language, but that is a far cry from being told specificly that the documents were forged. It is true that at some point, it became known that the story was false. However, bear in mind that British and Russian intelligence both corroborated that Iraq had WMDs. While we are on the subject, how about this little gem I have been following for a couple weeks... allegations that France forged the Nigerian documents to sabotage the US's case for war. Doubt it is true but what would you think if it ends up being true?

He also had started making plans to invade Iraq as soon as he got into office, well before 9-11.

As well he should have. I think the administration's biggest mistake was trying to sell Iraq mostly on WMD claims. I would have placed far more emphasis on the simple fact that Iraq had been in violation of the GWI cease fire for over 10 years simply by firing on US aircraft pretty-much daily. Again, let me let you in on a little secret ... we have plans to invade pretty much every country on Earth.

In short, he was fishing for any excuse to finish daddy's war. H

Not to be pedantic about the poster's phrasing, but I would have though the proof went *against* the five-second rule (although this is the first I've heard of such a rule - up until now I've always thought of food on the floor as being garbage-fodder... Catching it in mid-fall is the thing to do, thus managing to foil the buttered-toast rule :-)

It depends on which part of the claim you are looking at. If you take the claim as "Food that has been on the floor less than 5 seconds is safe to eat" then the claim holds up, mostly because he proved that the time doesn't matter much at all. What he seems to have demonstrated is that most of the floors he looked at were clean enough to eat from. He did disprove that the time is the relevant factor, however.

There's always a difference between clean and sanitary. Relevant to this is that we may actually be too clean.

Also, John E. Mack was killed earlier this week after being hit by a drunk driver while crossing the street on foot.

And I'll take you up as I like to use facts to back up statements instead of using my literary ability to talk out my ass!

What did Iraq have to do with 9/11?

"* Abdul Rahman Yasin was the only member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at large in the Clinton years. He fled to Iraq. U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, that show that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and monthly salary."

"* Spanish investigators have uncovered documents seized from Yusuf Galan -- who is charged by a Spanish court with being "directly involved with the preparation and planning" of the Sept. 11 attacks -- that show the terrorist was invited to a party at the Iraqi embassy in Madrid. The invitation used his "al Qaeda nom de guerre," London's Independent reports."

"* An Iraqi defector to Turkey, known by his cover name as "Abu Mohammed," told Gwynne Roberts of the Sunday Times of London that he saw bin Laden's fighters in camps in Iraq in 1997. At the time, Mohammed was a colonel in Saddam's Fedayeen. He described an encounter at Salman Pak, the training facility southeast of Baghdad. At that vast compound run by Iraqi intelligence, Muslim militants trained to hijack planes with knives -- on a full-size Boeing 707. Col. Mohammed recalls his first visit to Salman Pak this way: "We were met by Colonel Jamil Kamil, the camp manager, and Major Ali Hawas. I noticed that a lot of people were queuing for food. (The major) said to me: 'You'll have nothing to do with these people. They are Osama bin Laden's group and the PKK and Mojahedin-e Khalq.'""

"* In 2001, Saudi Arabian border guards arrested two al Qaeda members entering the kingdom from Iraq."

Please read the rest for your self here

And yet more evidence here

Saddam's economy was in the tank. His infrastructure to reconsititue any weapons program was evicerated and atrophied to the point of being worthless.

Iraq's economy was bad, yes. But Saddam had the money he needed coming from the France and Germany through the oil for food program. One wonders why they were not supportive of US actions when they had such a sweet deal.

The irony is that since there were no weapons, and so Saddam was in complience afterall.

Hmm the UN doesn't seem to agree with you on that one. Please read The May 2004 Quarterly UNMOVIC Report which states:

"In his testimony, the head of the Iraq Survey Group noted that the Group continued to look for weapons of mass destruction. He also said he did not believe that the Survey Group had sufficient information and insight at that time to make final judgements with confidence as to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programmes and to determine the truth of their existence."

"Mr. Duelfer's publicly released testimony mentions, as an example of uncertain Iraqi intent, that the Tuwaitha Agricultural and Biological Research Centre had equipment suitable for the production of biological agents and that research work there on the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis would be important to a biological weapon programme."

"The Commission's experts are conducting an investigation...regarding the discovery of items from Iraq...at a scrapyard in the Netherlands....to investigate increased radiation readings...By comparing the serial production number on the engine with information in the UNMOVIC database, the experts were able to confirm that the engine was one from an SA-2 missile that had been tagged by United Nations inspectors in the past and had not been declared as having been fired. Representatives of the scrapyard company indicated that a number of similar engines (5 to 12)

No evidence? Other than that the memo was typed on a typewriter that didn't exist 30 years ago (IIRC, it was justified - no military typist would have been capable or willing to do that). It was so obviously faked.

As to where Bush was - he never claimed he was anywhere but flying around in the ANG. Kerry claims to be a war hero and makes up all sorts of lies to support it - that's what bothers me. Bush never claimed to be a war hero. Kerry bases his entire "I'm tough" image on his "heroism" in Vietnam. Never mind that he came back and protested against the war and undermined the safety of the comrades he left behind. Never mind that he came back because he shot himself in the foot a few times and conned doctors that never worked on him that his bandaids justified Purple Hearts. Never mind that once his exploitation of that honorable medal was through, he pretended to throw it on the White House lawn (it was actually another veteran's medal - Kerry still has his, another lie). Never mind that he admits to shooting a wounded, fleeing VC in the back. Pretty heroic, I must say. Then the whole Cambodia lie - first he claims that it was "seared" in his mind that he was there on Christmas Day, 1968. Then it turns out that can't have been, so he revises his story. He claims the Khmer Rouge were firing at him - never mind that they didn't enter the fighting until the 1970's.

Yep - purely honest and heroic, that John Kerry. I'm sure glad he's going to fight a "more sensitive war on terror".

It never ceases to amaze me how vastly and blindly left-wing the Slashdot audience really is. And before you accuse me of being blindly right-wing: I'm not right-wing or blind. But John Kerry will not get my vote. When the British think a guy is too pompous to be our President, something's definitely up.

You can read more information about this process here.

And like his namesake on the SciFi channel, he channels dead people too!

Only Microsoft would make a picture a vector for a computer virus. Next thing you know the BSOD will expose a security hole.

Yes, because we all know how effective bans on Nazi paraphenalia have been at getting rid of the ideas.

uh, a liberal democracy?

What have you been smoking lately?

You might want to look at this,
this and you might want to read up on how they shut Al Jazeera down.

Youre post was so rife with disinformation I had to reply.

>The many thousands of Kurds and Iraqi Shi'ites gassed during Bush I and Clinton

The gassing of the Kurds happened in 1988, before Gulf War I and Clinton. Also, remember 1988, Saddam was friend and lover of all things US! I have photos of Rumsfeld shaking his hand if you want one.

>Actually, we don't know that, since we never had any confirmation that the reactors they were actually using for weapons research were ever "sealed" to begin with.

Its common accepted fact that those were REAL UN seals, sealing REAL URANIUM.

>The notion that they developed such a program in three years is laughable.

They escalated to a controlled threat under clinton to launching test missiles over Japan under Bush, while laughing at the US. You tell me whose foreign policy made more sense. They can hit Alaska and possibly California now.

They simply took advantage of the Bush admin's incompetence and focus on oil rich nations.

>Actually, most nations believed that the Iraqis still had WMDs

This stuff that has been debunked before the war even started. UN, Scott Ritter, Blix's reports, Saddam's son in law, etc. On top of it Powell using discredited info at the UN told the world this was a sham war. Cherry-picking reports with huge cavaets and presenting them to the public Cheney style does not a WMD threat make.

Please, tune into Fox News tonight and tomorrow for better talking points.

CNN is also covering the story.

More information:

The relationship between space and survival has been expressed by many others, such as Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, Martin Rees, William Burrows and Robert Shapiro.

Right you are. But he left them there until it became politically unpopular to do so (the massacre of October '93). Then he puts our troops in danger again in Kosovo, and Iraq. So we have two "draft-dodging" presidents (W only being suspected of doing so by the left) who have both sent our troops in to harm's way. If you're going to scrutinize Bush, you should at least be honest and put your own party under the same level of scrutiny.

Now let's assume for a moment that you guys are correct, and Bush DID dodge the draft. Well guess what? The only difference between Bush and Kerry was that Kerry tried to do the same thing, but failed.

As to the alleged smear on McCain, obviously it's not that big of a deal, since McCain spoke on Bush's behalf at the RNC.

Within John McCain, you are witnessing an amazing amount of swallowing of pride to fulfill an agenda. John McCain has a plan. Right now he's the least divisive politician in the GOP. If they had him running instead of W, they'd have a compelling ticket that would be hard for Kerry / Edwards to beat. But the GOP can't switch horses and maintain face. So they have to stick with Bush / Cheney.

McCain is playing his party-faithful role because of three possible outcomes working in his favor:

1. Bush loses in 2004. McCain will be the go-to man in 2008 for the GOP. His party-faithful performance at the RNC would have won back the neo-cons. It would also help restore the conservatives who voted Kerry (or didn't vote) in 2004 because they were upset over Bush / Cheney running the country into a $400 billion deficit.

2. Bush wins in 2004. Can't run again in 2008. Cheney is too frail to run. McCain again becomes the go-to guy for reasons posted in point #1.

3. Last minute desperation for Bush ticket. Cheney withdraws from race complaining of heart issues lingering from his quadruple heart bypass. McCain put on ticket as replacement. They win, then McCain runs in 2008.

In any event, I would bet that after the 2004 election is over, McCain will not be buddies with Bush. All that dirty stuff the Bush campaign did in 2000 with the push polling telling voters McCain fathered an illegitimate black child is unforgivable.

Funny you should mention that. On the oft-pilloried claim of Saddam trying to buy yellowcake from Niger routinely used by the "Bush lied" crowd, Italian diplomats are claiming France is behind the forged intelligence.

On the one hand, having schools churn out mindless automatons for industry is a horrible waste of human potential. On the other hand, not all alternatives are appealing.

Can you trust the BBC knowing that they have people murdered on the taxpayer dime?

See also here...

I agree the BBC usually seems relatively-impartial, but I have an awfully-hard time trusting a source that (seemingly) uses its power to kill people...

In any case, I'm not sure impartiality is a good thing. IMO, a polarized media -- FOX vs. PBS here in the states, for example -- is a better system. At least that way you know what you're getting; you don't have to watch CNN for hours and hours to determine if they have a "slight liberal streak" or "slight conservative streak"... (personally, I think CNN is slightly left-ish and PBS moreso, while FOX is off-the-charts right-wing, except economically, where it's pretty standard Republican fare. MSNBC seems to pander to whichever way the winds of ratings are blowing...)

The good news is another 7 americans are dead today

enjoying the war still ?

In the UK, the BBC is independent of the government and is supposed to maintain an independent stance of e.g. political parties by law (with certain exceptions where British interests are concerned).

Of the nespapers, the centre-left Guardian is pretty good -- they print regular corrections, and are owned by a trust so they can print what they want.

Of the papers on the Right, the best (in terms of accuracy, not politics) of a bad bunch is probably the Torygraph.

"Prof Marois said that a VSTM capacity of four was probably not much of a problem in the relatively slower-paced lives of our hunter-gatherer ancestors. Not so today, however. The fast pace of modern life is stretching our Stone Age brains to the limit." The article is here.

http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=1028302004
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2004/09/02/walien02.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/09/02 /ixworld.html

After some new legislation coming into force (or already here?) in the UK that states that all creatures have rights we can no longer kill slugs and snails that eat our gardens, I wondered about fabricating some sort of Snail Trebouchet/Trebuchet. I'm thinking something triggered by the snail weight and garnished with lettuce!

If not the middle of next week, I should be able to fling the fuckers into the next garden!

The Telegraph says, The government says it has stocks of petrol, paraffin and rice to last about two weeks. It seems the rebels haven't even set up any roadblocks. They control 80% of the country and are maintaining the blockade through threats.

But I think they'll be alright when their basketball team comes home.

• The current population of the US,
• The base of the Taliban and al-Qa'ida,
• A question about the Euro (I can't believe ANY Europeans could've possibly got this wrong),
• A question about Kashmir,
• The location of the US on a world map (the Russians, Japanese, Mexicans, Italians, and Swedish all did better at locating their own countries),

I wouldn't expect the average person to know the answer to some of the questions (for example, the question on El Nino), but the ones above are real howlers. I think part of the problem is the 'tabloid culture' that exists (on this side of the Atlantic, anyway). People need to stop reading toilet paper and start reading real newspapers.

And just for the record, I got 18 out of 20. I guessed the religion question wrong and incorrectly stated that China and Russia both have populations of over a billion.

Borders? The US has borders? I thought we just let everyone, even potential terrorists through?

I recommend this product as featured in the Telegraph. It should once any for all remove and masculinity from your household.

Okay, the EU. Hmm...and this from a correspondent there: Here!

Its so strange to me that everytime I hear Bush say "the terrorists hate our freedom", I think of the 3 items you just laid out.

Bin Laden's complaint was never with our freedom, rather it was for the exact 3 things you lay out above. You know why I think that? Because that's what he said

YET ANOTHER QUALITY STORY fuckdot rejected!

Alcohol sharpens your brain, say researchers
By Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent
(Filed: 01/08/2004)

It is news guaranteed to raise a cheer among those who enjoy a glass or two: drinking half a bottle of wine a day can make your brain work better, especially if you are a woman.

Research to be published tomorrow by academics at University College London has found that those who even drink only one glass of wine a week have significantly sharper thought processes than teetotallers.

Sir Michael Marmot of UCL led the study

The benefits of alcohol, which are thought to be linked to its effect on the flow of blood to the brain, can be detected when a person drinks up to 30 units of alcohol - about four to five bottles of wine - per week.

The researchers were unable to test the effect of higher levels of alcohol consumption, although drunkenness probably negates any positive effects on the brain.

The findings have surprised health officials, who issued yet another warning last week about the dangers of overdrinking.

According to figures released by the Office for National Statistics, one in six women now drinks more than the Government's recommended limit of 14 units of alcohol a week - an increase of 70 per cent since the late 1980s. The recommended maximum weekly intake for men is 21 units.

The latest findings on the benefits of alcohol are drawn from a study of the long-term health of 10,000 British civil servants. Known as the Whitehall Study, it was originally set up in 1967 to identify links between health and factors ranging from smoking and obesity to age and social status.

In the latest research, a team led by Sir Michael Marmot, a professor of epidemiology and public health at University College London, gave psychometric tests to more than 6,000 civil servants.

The questions ranged from verbal and mathematical reasoning problems to tests of short-term memory. The civil servants' performance was then matched against their drinking habits.

The study took into account all alcohol consumption and was not specific to wine. However, the results showed that those having even a single glass of wine a week scored significantly higher in the tests than more abstemious drinkers. Teetotallers were twice as likely as occasional drinkers to achieve the lowest scores.

The benefits were most marked among women drinkers and, to the researchers' surprise, showed no sign of flattening out with increasing consumption.

Those who downed the equivalent of half a bottle of wine or two pints of beer a day scored best of all. The effects were apparent even after the results had been adjusted to take into account factors such as physical and mental health.

"Our results appear to suggest some specificity in the association between alcohol consumption and cognitive ability," said the team. "Frequent drinking may be more beneficial than drinking only on special occasions."

The team, whose findings are being reported in the American Journal of Epidemiology, suggests that the results may reflect the fact that alcohol can reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease and increase blood flow to the brain - factors linked to improved mental function.

The researchers also speculate that women might benefit more because of the different way in which they metabolise alcohol. However, they acknowledge that the benefits of alcohol can be outweighed by the increased risks of getting diseases such as cancer and cirrhosis, and that the findings should not be used as an excuse for heavier drinking.

Dr Guy Ratcliffe, the medical director of the Medical Council on Alcohol, said that the study would add to earlier evidence that moderate drinking could be beneficial - offering advantages such as a reduced risk of heart disease and

YET ANOTHER QUALITY STORY fuckdot rejected!

Alcohol sharpens your brain, say researchers
By Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent
(Filed: 01/08/2004)

It is news guaranteed to raise a cheer among those who enjoy a glass or two: drinking half a bottle of wine a day can make your brain work better, especially if you are a woman.

Research to be published tomorrow by academics at University College London has found that those who even drink only one glass of wine a week have significantly sharper thought processes than teetotallers.

Sir Michael Marmot of UCL led the study

The benefits of alcohol, which are thought to be linked to its effect on the flow of blood to the brain, can be detected when a person drinks up to 30 units of alcohol - about four to five bottles of wine - per week.

The researchers were unable to test the effect of higher levels of alcohol consumption, although drunkenness probably negates any positive effects on the brain.

The findings have surprised health officials, who issued yet another warning last week about the dangers of overdrinking.

According to figures released by the Office for National Statistics, one in six women now drinks more than the Government's recommended limit of 14 units of alcohol a week - an increase of 70 per cent since the late 1980s. The recommended maximum weekly intake for men is 21 units.

The latest findings on the benefits of alcohol are drawn from a study of the long-term health of 10,000 British civil servants. Known as the Whitehall Study, it was originally set up in 1967 to identify links between health and factors ranging from smoking and obesity to age and social status.

In the latest research, a team led by Sir Michael Marmot, a professor of epidemiology and public health at University College London, gave psychometric tests to more than 6,000 civil servants.

The questions ranged from verbal and mathematical reasoning problems to tests of short-term memory. The civil servants' performance was then matched against their drinking habits.

The study took into account all alcohol consumption and was not specific to wine. However, the results showed that those having even a single glass of wine a week scored significantly higher in the tests than more abstemious drinkers. Teetotallers were twice as likely as occasional drinkers to achieve the lowest scores.

The benefits were most marked among women drinkers and, to the researchers' surprise, showed no sign of flattening out with increasing consumption.

Those who downed the equivalent of half a bottle of wine or two pints of beer a day scored best of all. The effects were apparent even after the results had been adjusted to take into account factors such as physical and mental health.

"Our results appear to suggest some specificity in the association between alcohol consumption and cognitive ability," said the team. "Frequent drinking may be more beneficial than drinking only on special occasions."

The team, whose findings are being reported in the American Journal of Epidemiology, suggests that the results may reflect the fact that alcohol can reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease and increase blood flow to the brain - factors linked to improved mental function.

The researchers also speculate that women might benefit more because of the different way in which they metabolise alcohol. However, they acknowledge that the benefits of alcohol can be outweighed by the increased risks of getting diseases such as cancer and cirrhosis, and that the findings should not be used as an excuse for heavier drinking.

Dr Guy Ratcliffe, the medical director of the Medical Council on Alcohol, said that the study would add to earlier evidence that moderate drinking could be beneficial - offering advantages such as a reduced risk of heart disease and