Slashdot Mirror

Taking links from a website I know cannot handle a Slashdotting:

Waleed M Alshehri - alive and well in Casablanca, Morocco

Marwan Al Shehhi - Alive; same link as above

Ahmed Alghamdi - Alive; same link as above

Wail M Alshehri - Alive

Ahmed Alnami - Alive; same link as above

Abdulaziz Alomari - Working for Saudi Telecom

Khalid Almihdar - alive and living in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

Salem Alhamzi - Working at a petrochemical company

Saeed Alghamdi - Alive; same link as above


We do not know who the hijackers actually were.

Benchmarking results brought to you by the new Apple Information Minister.

Well air traffic controllers might not be needing this software because they are going to be
replaced anyway.

From a biological standpoint reproductive success is the only form of success.

That's a different standpoint from most civilised people.

Civilized just means cityized. As soon as there are trade centers where there is a sedentary population engaged in trade and not in survival (hunting, gathering, farming, etc.), a culture is civilized. If you are going to argue advanced or something similar to that, it was only recently (the last 200 years or so) that the British were anything but another semi-developed backwater. England was less advanced than China for the vast majority of history. In 1066, for instance, when William the Conqueror invaded England, China already had multi-stage, ship-to-ship, anti-personnel missiles. England did not have these until the 20th Century. By "civilized" standards, that is an advantage.

However, is it China or England that is still barbaric enough to have a monarch?

Try this simple test: hand out leaflets saying that the people in charge of the country are liars and crooks. Call us if you ever get out of jail. Britain has a monarch with no powers, China has absolute dictatorship instead. Much better!

Consider this: The prison population in the USA is greater than that of China. According to the figures in this article, the USA, which has a population of 260 million, has 1.85 million prisoners. China has a slightly lower figure or 1.4 million despite having a population of 1.2 billion. It appears that the "free world" may not be so free. According to the article, Britain has one of the highest prison populations in Western Europe. China's rate of imprisonment, by these figures, is approximately 117 people per 100,000. This is as opposed to the USA's 680 and Britain's 125 per 100,000. So, maybe you are not as free as you think.

quantity has nothing whatsoever to do with quality

explan again why you think "reproductive success is the only form of success." Use both sides of the paper.

You quoted a fragment of what I wrote. By changing the context, you have altered the meaning. What I said was:

From a biological standpoint reproductive success is the only form of success.

From a survival standpoint, quantity is an indication of quality. Species that exist in greater numbers do so because they are more capable of survival (well, currently, at least). What I was hinting at but did not wish to go into was that, from an anthropological standpoint, all progress is driven by population pressure. If it were possible for everyone to live in the forest hunting and gathering, everyone would still be doing that. Technology and civilization are adaptations to overpopulation. Therefore, biologically successful populations are forced to be the most technologically advanced in order to create a mechanism for survival for increasing segments of the population not devoted to food production. These societies then rely on subsequent technological advances to keep their massive populations from starving. So, the most densely populated areas are predisposed to have the most rapid technological advancement.

This pattern was demonstrated through most of history. It ended in the middle 1800's when Europe had absorbed enough of other culture's technologies to produce things domestically that were useful. The most important one was probably gunpowder, a Chinese invention that came back to bite the Chinese in the Opium war (an unjustified war that the British fought to preserve their drug trade). England had been selling drugs to China because she was too poor to afford to pay for the tea she wanted in silver. So, once again, what is civilized about a bunch of backwater pirates goi

Slightly offtopic, but: Are there any papers in the UK that aren't tabloids?

The Grauniad is the most respected newspaper among the politically aware round here (and also suits my political stance of ``well over to the left''). Then, heading more towards the right, you get the Indy, the Times, and the Torygraph.

here

Next time learn to fucking google.

There's a place in the UK similar to what you have described. It's called Mole Manor. Located in Gloucestershire, it was documented in several web pages. I saw the documentary on TV once, and I thought it was really cool to live like a hobbit. In case you're interested in looking for the opportunity to buy an underground house in the UK, there's adedicated property guide. Interestingly Mole Manor was valued at 950,000 pounds (around 1.4 million dollars) about a year ago.

There is also an underground log cabin in Idaho. Could this be similar to the place you described.

put bugs (listening devices) in the walls of the governmental buildings around the country

You mean like the US planted bugs in the new Chinese presidential airplane?

but when it comes to national security

It's a computer chip. Plug it in, it crunches numbers.

What would stop them from putting data-wrangling code into the Opteron chips?

Because the numbers that it crunches would be wrong. Remember Intel's bugs? People find them. Besides, computational experiments are built with a certain redundancy and lots of checks.

It's a non-issue and you're being paranoid. Been watching a little too much Faux News recently?

so now it will be-
Diamonds are a geek's bust friend ? Offer a diamond ring to your gf without emptying your pockets?

--
Seriously though, if diamond experts have difficulty saying its not earth extracted diamonds then what effect, if any will it have on the diamond hoard of 2 billion $ that De Beers has under its headquarters in SA/London?


Here's a article from the Guardian, article in the Forbes.

Wow, if these new diamonds become popular, then platinum will be the only cool thing to hoard.

Finally Rubin (of RSA fame) speaks up and the scandal gets respect and coverage.

Now Chaum (another famous cryto patent holder) gets banned?

What is next, Robert Morse turns up sleeping?

... a relatively modest invasion of privacy ...

Yes, Canadians pay less on health care than Americans. But ours is the 2nd most expensive system in the world. Australia, Sweden and much of northern Europe operates "as good or better" systems much cheaper AND most allow people some level of choice in health care (like Australia's 2 insurance systems or Sweden's private hospitals who compete for your government voucher). England is going through some serious rethinking of their "national health system" right now with people considering a change to an Australian system.

But not all is doom & gloom, some cutting edge work is being done here.

Slipping in goatse links is easy. Too easy even. There are a number of redirector services (shorl.com) which allow you to hide the URL, and even most mainstream sites do have some way to redirect.

No, simply slipping in goatse into a comment is so easy that it has become uninteresting. The real art now is to have a goatsy comment moderated up rather than down as the usual troll or flamebait. Seems so far it is working well (+4, and counting...)

Next challenge: slip one into a story submission!

When searching for some background information on trial by combat, i came across This interesting article.

From the article:

Court refuses trial by combat
By David Sapsted
(Filed: 16/12/2002)

A court has rejected a 60-year-old man's attempt to invoke the ancient right to trial by combat, rather than pay a £25 fine for a minor motoring offence.

alexhmit wrote:
I remember reading that the right to trial by combat wasn't removed until 1780 somthing...

Actually, it appears to still be on the books. Someone attempted to invoke it just last year. Apparently it hasn't been actually used since the 1800's, but it seems to still be on the books.

Speaking of weapons, do you remember the idea to redirect an asteroid to fall on Telford, obliterating a large chunk of Great Britain? There are even pictures!

Speaking of weapons, do you remember the idea to redirect an asteroid to fall on Telford, obliterating a large chunk of Great Britain? There are even pictures!

"UK Parliament Clears Govt of Misleading on Iraq" - Reuters/Washington Post.

"Campbell cleared by MPs over Iraq dossier" - Daily Telegraph.

"Dossier report clears Campbell" - The Guardian.

"Iraq weapons claims criticised" - BBC headline.

Miscarriages of justice and mistakes can occur anywhere; but overall, I would have much more confidence in the British system than in the US system.

Although I have had no expirience with (and limited knowledge of) the British justice system, I still somewhat agree with your judgement. My post is definately influenced by my expiriences as a juror in the U.S., and the few court cases that I have followed closely.

But, Britain's national position on the death penalty has not always been so enlightened, and there are motivations other than politics that can lead to corruption

Probably because his European family disowned him.

Actually, it's the drugs; the licensing thing is just a cover. No, really. Apple got wind of the fact that most Euros are covered in cocaine. Macs are supposed to be associated with hallucinogens, not stimulants.

Actually, we have high powered telescopes capable of viewing Neil Armstrong's footprints on the moon.

If Neil Armstrong happen to have feet that are 400 ft across, that is.

People have even started using txt shorthand for school essays, as shown by this case from England earlier this year.

SCO should hire This Guy, I hear he's out of a job lately

The judge called it a tragic accident.

Accident? Aren't guns banned in the UK? Anyone with a gun in the UK is a criminal just for having a gun. The judge's attitude toward the criminal seems to be "Poor, poor laddie he dinna mean to kill her. He just committed a tragic series of voluntary criminal acts by getting a gun and loading it and then accidentally shot her to death." Yeah, right.

This is as bad as Tony Martin being refused parole as 'danger to burglars'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2003/01/17/nmart17.xml

Maybe tagging everyone is a good idea and let's cache the data on where everyone has been for about a year. <sarcasm>Then execute everyone that is reported to be within 500 meters at the time of death if a death cannot be ruled as 'natural causes'.</sarcasm>

They probably won't target everywhere, but areas of suspected subversive activity and suspected enemies of the state. Imagine directing that array and being able to use it to scrutinise someone you don't like.

Xix.

She has already suffered because of her affiliation with DoubleClick:

"DoubleClick's appointment in particular tends to make privacy advocates suspicious, since the company's selling point is using logging data generated as users wander around the Net, to serve ads targeted to their interests.

The company's new chief privacy officer, Nuala O'Connor, appearing at the same conference, found herself bearing the brunt of years of resentment against her company. The logical question: what do these people actually do?"

and she deserves more...

Ad- and Spy-ware are the worst thing to happen online in the last 2 years and it just keeps getting worse...

Every once in a while, I'm really motivated by a Slashdot post, and explore the problem further with some quick and light research and writing. By the time I've finished, most readers and moderators have long since left the post for fresher news and I'm left with a relatively small audience. In the spirit of Slashback I thought I could reincarnate those old posts for a second viewing.

While risking my Karma for something that could be seen as off topic, I do think it adds value to Slashdot and really doesn't fit anywhere else.

Ecosystem and Economy: In response to the standard environmentalist-versus-economist arguments that were flying about in a previous Slashdot post in reference to a Daily Telegraph article, I sought out a fresh viewpoint based on reductionism and the conservation of energy.

Social Network Theory: A Slashdot post led to a Register article, which was steeped in an unusual amount conspiracy theory. Suggesting that Google was gamed by a group of A-list bloggers, perhaps it is all simply just a result of social networks. This is a new topic to me, so if you know anything about social network theory, I'd love it if someone could take me to school.

First-Generation TiVo: In a discussion concerning second-generation TiVos I thought I'd whip up a quick script that would allow people to see what I'm currently watching as proof that my house wields the mighty sword of TiVo modding.

Mystery Treasure: I also put a not-so-well hidden page on my site to see if anyone would gravitate towards it, but it as of yet remains undiscovered. Hint: MSIE users will not get far. Consider it pay back for not doing PNG transparency. :P

Michael.

The Washington Post released a shocking report, but nobody really paid attention during Christmas season.

Now we have the death of 2 afghan prisoners in US custody, ruled a Homicide from "blunt force trauma"[Beating] by the Army investigators. This is the first kind of fatality in US custody, since the US government officially states it does not "torture" people.

Now that Sheikh Muhammad has been captured, the newspapers are debating the ethics over whether it should be legal to torture him for information. Israel's and our official policy is to not torture anyone, even if there's a hidden ticking bomb somewhere. However, this doesn't stop them from getting shipped-- I mean "rendered" to the custody of Jordan, Morocco, Egypt, and Pakistan, who do perform that.

Such efforts were successful in the past; in 1995 an Al Qaeda agent was arrested in the Phillipenes. They knew he was in on a major operation, but they didn't know what. So they tortured him the old fashioned way, breaking his ribs and burning his testicles. After two weeks he broke, and revealed the plan to hijack 11 planes. Of course, a poll on AOL's front page voted 70% Yes to using some form of torture. Editorials aren't so rosy either, one says we should kill terrorists and smear them with pig fat so they won't get into heaven somehow.

I seem to remember the philosopher Nietzche who said "Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster." That means we shouldn't sink to their level or worse. Who would be the barbarian then? We seem to be ignoring the "innocent until proven guilty" law, even though it's better to let ten guilty men walk free than let one innocent one suffer. The US will never officially condone any cruel or unusual punishment, but Israel taught them that sleep deprivation, chaining in uncomfortable positions, harsh lights, and interrogation by women will usually yield results.

May I remind you that Saddam tortures children in front of their fathers to make them confess. That's horrible. However, I'm a bit worried about Sheikh Muhammad's two young sons, 9 and 7, being arrested by the CIA and flown to America to help pressure their father to confess. Of course, the US won't deny that the man himself is being subject to "Stress and duress" right now. "Let's just say we are not averse to a little smacky face. After all, if you don't violate a prisoner's human rights some of the time then you aren't doing your job?" said a CIA officer, admitting they honed their interrogation techniques since Vietnam.

The Washington Post released a shocking report, but nobody really paid attention during Christmas season.

Now we have the death of 2 afghan prisoners in US custody, ruled a Homicide from "blunt force trauma"[Beating] by the Army investigators. This is the first kind of fatality in US custody, since the US government officially states it does not "torture" people.

Now that Sheikh Muhammad has been captured, the newspapers are debating the ethics over whether it should be legal to torture him for information. Israel's and our official policy is to not torture anyone, even if there's a hidden ticking bomb somewhere. However, this doesn't stop them from getting shipped-- I mean "rendered" to the custody of Jordan, Morocco, Egypt, and Pakistan, who do perform that.

Such efforts were successful in the past; in 1995 an Al Qaeda agent was arrested in the Phillipenes. They knew he was in on a major operation, but they didn't know what. So they tortured him the old fashioned way, breaking his ribs and burning his testicles. After two weeks he broke, and revealed the plan to hijack 11 planes. Of course, a poll on AOL's front page voted 70% Yes to using some form of torture. Editorials aren't so rosy either, one says we should kill terrorists and smear them with pig fat so they won't get into heaven somehow.

I seem to remember the philosopher Nietzche who said "Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster." That means we shouldn't sink to their level or worse. Who would be the barbarian then? We seem to be ignoring the "innocent until proven guilty" law, even though it's better to let ten guilty men walk free than let one innocent one suffer. The US will never officially condone any cruel or unusual punishment, but Israel taught them that sleep deprivation, chaining in uncomfortable positions, harsh lights, and interrogation by women will usually yield results.

May I remind you that Saddam tortures children in front of their fathers to make them confess. That's horrible. However, I'm a bit worried about Sheikh Muhammad's two young sons, 9 and 7, being arrested by the CIA and flown to America to help pressure their father to confess. Of course, the US won't deny that the man himself is being subject to "Stress and duress" right now. "Let's just say we are not averse to a little smacky face. After all, if you don't violate a prisoner's human rights some of the time then you aren't doing your job?" said a CIA officer, admitting they honed their interrogation techniques since Vietnam.

And everybody knows it was an accident. But okay, let's have it your way. Oh no, blood and gore! Let's end the war! Would ending the war end the suffering? Saddam would like us to pack up and go home so he could resume power and get back to the tyrant's regular business of inflicting suffering of a brutal and excruciating nature on his subjects; this kind of suffering as opposed to the comparatively few, inadvertent casualties due to the war.

Having no war in Iraq allows persecution. Having this just war is causing suffering for a time, but will end most of the suffering in the long run.

Horrible suffering like what you mentioned is imposed affliction du jour in Saddam's regime. Its torture methods include:

• Medical experimentation
• Beatings
• Crucifixion
• Hammering nails into the fingers and hands
• Amputating the penis or breasts with an electric carving knife
• Spraying insecticides into a victim's eyes
• Branding with a hot iron
• Committing rape while the victim's spouse is forced to watch
• Pouring boiling water into a rectum
• Nailing the tongue to a wooden board
• Extracting teeth with pliers
• Using bees and scorpions to sting naked children in front of their parents

Report on the fact that the people of Iraq don't want to be "liberated."

Nine in 10 Iraqis welcome US invasion

With a smug smile they say, "We will liberate you from your God, your money, and your dignity."

"You just arrived. You're late. What took you so long? God help you become victorious. I want to say hello to Bush, to shake his hand. We came out of the grave." - liberated Iraqi

Listen to the experience of a former human shield in Iraq:

The human shields appealed to my anti-war stance, but by the time I had left Baghdad five weeks later my views had changed drastically.
...
I was shocked when I first met a pro-war Iraqi in Baghdad - a taxi driver taking me back to my hotel late at night. I explained that I was American and said, as we shields always did, "Bush bad, war bad, Iraq good". He looked at me with an expression of incredulity.

As he realised I was serious, he slowed down and started to speak in broken English about the evils of Saddam's regime. ... It scared the hell out of me.

The problem is that Bush and his Administration decided to go to war first, then started looking for a justification. When they did not find any, they went to war anyway.

The decision to go to war was made by Saddam Hussein 12 years ago when he refused to obey UNSEC 687. His defiance of 687 and the 16 other resolutions has given the UN security counsel members all the justification they need.

That is simply untrue. 1441 was only agreed upon by the security council because it did not include the automatic application of force by any country. Why do you think a security council with a majority of members opposed to war would have ratified a resolution that authorizes war?

Sounds like you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the UN charter. The 17 UNSEC resolutions passed against Iraq were all passed under the 7th chapter of the UN charter, which requires enforcement by one or all members of the security counsel.

1441 only threatens "serious consequences" of an unspecified nature (i.e. yet to be agreed upon) in the case of "a material breach" (which has not been declared to have happended by the UN)

It is not that hard to figure out what "serious consequences" means in the context of resolution 1441. And, yes, Hans Blix did say that Iraq was in material breach after they submitted an incomplete report on 12/8.

12+ years of chances to do what exactly? Destroy WOMD? Well, they didn't find any

They were not looking for WMD! They were looking for the proof that Iraq was required to provide that they destroyed the WMD that we know they have. Do you honestly think that Saddam secretly destroyed his WMD over the last 12 years (including the 4 years when the UN inspectors were kicked out of his country) and never told us that he did even though he knew he was required to do so? Do you think he would have killed his weapons chief if he had nothing to hide?

"If Saddam Hussein fails to comply and we fail to act or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of sanctions and ignore the commitments he's made? Well, he will conclude that the international community's lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on doing more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. The stakes could not be higher. Some way, someday, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."
-President Bill Clinton in 1998

Excellent post. be sure to read this. I made you a slashdot friend.

Full text here.

Here's an interesting review of a reality-based game called Live and Learn. Enjoy!

when un's "authority and jurisdiction" are convenient they are quoted. when they are inconveneint, they are ignored

It is the UN's authority and jurisdiction gave us this responsibility (not right) to act against Iraq this week. There are 17 unanimously passed UNSEC resolutions passed under the 7th chapter of the UN charter, which requires enforcement of the resolution in the case of non-compliance. Even France voted for this 17 times. The only people who are ignoring the UN are those who refuse to enforce the 17 resolutions that require the UN to act.

you do not know that iraq has these so-called weapons of mass destruction

Come on! Listen to yourself and this ridiculous stance you are taking. There is no dispute that Iraq had WMD -- it is a plain and simple fact. The UN resolutions required Iraq to destroy these weapons in the presence of UN Observers. Saddam waffled on this for 8 years and eventually kicked the UN inspectors out of the country and for the past 4 years (until last December) he had absolutely no supervision on his weapons program. You are insanely arguing that he secretly disposed of these weapons on his own even though he knew he had to provide proof that they were destroyed, and has been hiding the evidence even though he knew he would be attacked because of it. Give me a break!

In reality, he is harassing the UN inspectors, and has even killed his Missile chief because he didn't want the UN to pry any secret information from him. Does this sound like the actions of an innocent man who has already done everything we asked him to do?

they are not concerned about the "people of iraq" (except when convenient for public relations). you will notice that the "people of iraq" were never mentioned until two weeks ago

President Bush talked about the people of Iraq in his first state of the Union address 14 months ago. Amnesty International has been talking about the people of Iraq for years, as had the Human Rights Watch. If you have not heard people talking about the people of Iraq, it's because you haven't been listening.

the united states is only concerned about one thing: securing iraqi oil for american capitalism.

Ah. We get to the root of your argument. You are not anti-war, you are anti-capitalist. In fact, the entire anti-war movement appears to be motivated by political idealology rather than any kind of respect for peace or humanity. Otherwise we would have seen protests in the street when Clinton was bombing passenger trains in Kosovo and lobbing cruise missiles towards Iraq and Afghanistan. The deafening silence from the left when Clinton was in office doing the very same thing speaks volumes for your motivations today. You don't care one bit about Iraqi civilians or peace, you just don't like President Bush and see this as an opportunity to undermine his presidency.

I'm sure you have heard the oil rebuttals many times, but I'll give it another shot. Opening up the worlds 2nd largest oil reserves will only do one thing: cause oil prices to plummet. The US oil companies don't get the Iraqi oil because it has already been earmarked by the UN for the rebuilding of Iraq. The only thing the US oil companies get is a 30% reduction in revenue when oil prices drop.

Besides, if the US wanted to seize the worlds oil supply, why haven't we done anything in Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, or Kuwait (I mean, we already have troops there, and they don't have any mustard gas or VX waiting for us)? Or why didn't we do it in Iraq 12 years ago?

And he seemed like such a nice man....

This got in the news in the UK at the end of last year - a woman drunk antifreeze by mistake and got prescribed whisky when she went to the hospital. Two glasses immediately followed by one an hour for 24 hours. I'd imagine she was pretty rat-arsed after that (free) session!

Oh, silly me. This was in the business section, home to as many fluff articles as the sports page.

We won't have any bananas in 10 years!

'Scientists warn today that the world's favourite fruit could be extinct within 10 years because it is unable to fight off a rampaging plague of pests and disease'

Defenceless banana will be extinct in 10 years

The important things in life?

Well right up there, behind health and safety of your family, must be the right to go about your life without being forced to live your life under an oppressive surveillance society. For it surely is oppressive, knowing this information could be used against you for any purpose the authorities wish.

This is quite part from the minor fact it is very leaky - example seen here in UK news today: Revenue staff selling tax secrets. Quote, "There have been a number of instances of celebrity-browsing or looking up details of family or friends out of idle curiosity. But there is also evidence that some people are using the information maliciously, for example finding out how much an ex-spouse earns and passing the information to the Child Support Agency, or even selling the information to outside agencies. This is a clear breach of customer confidentiality and the Data Protection Act." ... "But the Board had become aware about the levels of unauthorised browsing of customer records. They realised the Department needed to draw together a policy to clarify the rules on computer usage and to tighten up the disciplinary consequences of misuse."

The main thing is this - Not enough importance is placed on our Liberty.

Why can't everybody see the blatant use of propaganda, when it is so clear?

I have placed the following on this board many times - the regulars must be sick of it by now - sorry for that :-)

Subject - Ask Security Services to deny this:

First - a quote from the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency: "The goal of the Total Information Awareness (TIA) program is to revolutionize the ability of the United States to detect, classify and identify foreign terrorists -- and decipher their plans -- and thereby enable the U.S. to take timely action to successfully preempt and defeat terrorist acts."

The declared GOAL is to, quote: "identify foreign terrorists" - what rubbish. They know you are American citizen, not even a suspect foreigner - yet want to know what you buy, where you travel - everything. They want to profile you, like a criminal. I find it hard to believe that U.S. politicians are that dumb to go along with this violation of the American Peoples Rights. Looks like TIA initials stand for Totally Ignorant Acceptance (for their propaganda).

Okay then -

Ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:

Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.

Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught!

Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - "Meet you in the pub Monday" (meaning, human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).

The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.

The terrorism argument is a dummy - total bull*.

INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - THAT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA

This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.

Government say about surveillance - "you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law"

This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something illegal.

It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - they want a surveillance society.

They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.

This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from ZDNET: "Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet protocols."

"Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home", you may foolishly say. Or, just as dumbly, "They will not be interested in anything I do".

This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in UK when government looked for dirt on individuals of Paddington crash survivors group. It was led by badly injured Pam Warren. She had over 20 operations after the 1999 rail crash (which killed 31 and injured many).

This group had fought for better and safer railways - all by legal means. By all accounts a group of fine outstanding people - with good intent.

So what was their crime, to deserve this investigation?

It was just for showing up members of government to be the incompetents they are.

As usual, government tried to put a different spin on the story when they were found out. Even so, their intent was obvious - they wanted to use this information as propaganda - to smear the character of these good people.

Our honourable government would rather defile the character of its citizens - rather than address their reasonable concerns.

The government arrogantly presume this group of citizens would not worry about having their privacy invaded.

They can also check your outgoings match your income and that you are paying enough tax. What do you think all this privacy invasion is for? The War on Terrorism? You poor dupe. All your finances for them to scrutinize; heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent.

The authorities try make everything they say sound perfectly reasonable.

e.g. Officials from US Defence Department agency have said they want, quote: "the same level of accountability in cyberspace that we now have in the physical world".

Do they keep record of all the people that you send letters and faxes to (and receive from)? Worse still - record the text? Do they record your phone conversations? Do they keep a record of peoples houses, shops and establishments you visit - or the magazines and books you pick up to browse? Do they keep record of books you take out of library? Do they keep record of purchases you make from the shops?

Indeed - do government currently keep records of everything that you say, touch and do in the physical world to analyse?

No they do not. So then - is that the same level of accountability?

They wish to keep an electronic tag on you, like some kind of animal. Actually it is even worse than this - like some pervert sex offender - a child molester that they have to keep track of.

Would ANY person of intelligence call that accountability?

Do not believe the lies of Government - even more of your money spent on these measures will not protect us from terrorists. Every argument they use is subterfuge - pure spin.

In UK, the RIP Act is unjust - dim-witted ill-informed MPs believed governments 'experts'. Remember - they will get everything about you, your phone calls, emails, TV viewing - everything. It would be like having a spy living in your house.

Americans - the Total Information Awareness plan, USA Patriot act and Homeland Defence - you are generally more technologically aware, are you really that easily misled?

I cannot stress enough - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them. I know from experience, as fact, they have no morals and will purposefully twist this information to use against you. I have documentary evidence of this - actual government agency case notes. Should government take legal action to deny that they pervert how personal information is used, then these documents may be viewed in a court of Law.

It should be noted that the UK government will be violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - which we have adopted.

Article 12 states: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

Bush's pernicious zealotry is mainifesting itself in far more that revisionism; last July, he cut funding to the UN Population Fund (normally at http://ww.unfpa.org , but I can't seem to get in ATM).
An enthusiastic bunch of our right-wing friends in the Population Research Institute claimed - without evidence and despite UN law to the contrary - that the UNFPA supported coerced abortions in China. Everyone from Colin Powell down who knew anything on the subject derided the PRI's claimes - check out the PDF from the House of Representatives - but despite all the evidence to the contraray, Bush went ahead and cut funding.

Interestingly, I googled to check the facts before posting (going against /. tradition, I know. Forgive me.), and came across a plethora of news stories on the topic, most of which run along the lines of "Bush cuts funds to UN body that supports coerced abortion", usually with a denial from some Chinese official. Here's the Telegraph version.

The PRI are here; couldn't find a link to the story.

I can't speak about gun crime in Australia, but you can read this for an exemplary article on just how much banning guns has reduced gun-related crime in the UK.

While I don't have any hard statistics to back it up, it's been my observation that states where firearms are used routinely for sporting purposes such as WV, NC, VT, and TX have much lower accident rates than the "liberal infiltrated" states like Kalifornia, New York, and New Jersey.

I, for example, have been around guns all my life, and my parents never had to lock them up to keep me away from them. I was taught that they weren't toys and that I'd be in the shit if I messed with Dad's guns, and here I am, 30 years old without ever blowing a hole in my own head, or anybody else's for that matter. Parents nowadays are stupid. They don't want to parent thieir children, they want the government to do it for them. Our society is becoming more braindead with every new law, and every new Supreme Court ruling that becomes "case law."

As an aside: Why do you call yourselves "liberals" when all you want to do is take away?

At some point, the story of the CIA Spy Cat was also posted. Maybe as part of Quickies? At any rate, searching this site has become impossible.

What he did say is that US has more such crimes. Not that hard to understand, nae? Would you please try and turn your brains on.


Maybe you missed the link to this story:

England has worst crime rate in world

How does that mean the US has more crime?

I assure you my brain is on an functioning quite well. I have all my teeth, tie my own shoes and don't wear flannel.

Not that most pro-gun freaks probably own the...organ in question.

The ones I know are some of the smartest people I've met in my life. I would suggest you do a bit more research on the subject and open your mind a bit more. I fear the information on it that you have received up till now has been very onesided and emotionally charged.

Hmm lets see:

Man threatened in own home with gun

HELP POLICE CAPTURE GUNMAN

Tower block gun terror

England has worst crime rate in world

These are all UK stories. Would you like me to going I have over fifty of them just for the past month(you can find them here by searching for UK), or have I ruined you little puppies and snowflakes view of the world enough for one day?

sorry, not gun violence, just "England has worst crime rate in world"

This is so very true...

"The Electronic Telegraph has an interesting editorial about this, but I guess the truly paranoid would never dare to click on that link... "


My, aren't you the diligent little troll. First MSNBC, now this!

And, what's more, we're talking about home networks here. If you're house burned down, the loss of your data would probably be the least of your concerns! The Electronic Telegraph has an interesting editorial about this, but I guess the truly paranoid would never dare to click on that link...