Slashdot Mirror

I don't think he meant a 'big-government project'; just a 'big project for the government'. There have been some very embarrassing very big IT project failures for the UK government in recent years - the NHS records system for one, as well as a few DWP and CSA projects. These have resulted in £bn write-offs.

I don't know whether in each case the project goals were just too ambitious, or whether the projects were incompetently planned or managed (probably all of the above), but there seems to be systematic failure when it comes to large IT projects procured by government bodies in the UK and elsewhere.

I'd like to know if there are there any examples, worldwide, of large (say >$400m) government IT projects that are completed and have been widely judged a success. If so, what made them different?

Google gives you (the option) of control, and supplies ample warning before the user chooses to this, it is an option on some phones...even a selling point, mainly used to load none play applications (Android is Eden...with gates).

Basically nothing like each other.

That's for darn sure. Android still doesn't let users override an app's demand for permission to access stuff like GPS, contacts, cell data, photo album, etc.

Sure, you can simply not download an app based on what it says it demands when you try downloading it, but that's beside the point; for all Android's claim to empower the user, why is this of all things not a user option, years after iOS started doing it?

The UK getting record snowfall despite AGWers claiming the UK wouldn't see snow after 2008.

It goes back and forth. In 2000, they were saying that AGW would get rid of snow. In 2008, they were saying the snow was a result of AGW.

No doubt you will see a reversal again when there is no snow.

Like I posted earlier:

It works for the NSA. No reason why it won't work for CSIS.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/19/fisa-court-documents-nsa-violations-privacy

To summarize:

FISA judge is told by NSA that they have repeatedly violated his warrants for years. He's mad. And he does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT IT, other than write a report about how they aren't listening to him.

Unless there is some actual penalty that is applied when the law isn't followed, there is no point to having the law. And right now, the three groups that the power to actually penalize the NSA for flagrantly violating the law, namely the DOJ, Congress and the Senate are not willing to do so.

Apparently a knighthood is a living title; Anyone holding a knighthood loses it on death so I don't think it can be awarded posthumously (according to the Cabinet Office)

In 2009, Prime Minister Gordon Brown already apologised for the "inhumane" treatment of Alan Turing on the behalf of his government.

> That's precisely the trouble with all of Snowden's crap.

Snowden's Crap? What PR agency are you from? Seymor Hersch is certain that NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden "changed the whole nature of the debate" about surveillance. Hersh says he and other journalists had written about surveillance, but Snowden was significant because he provided documentary evidence. Editors love documents. Chicken-shit editors who wouldn't touch stories like that, they love documents, so he changed the whole ball game" http://www.theguardian.com/media/media-blog/2013/sep/27/seymour-hersh-obama-nsa-american-media

Yes! America went so far as making a special law to protect their citizens exercising their free speech rights from being sued by British libel laws http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2010/aug/11/medialaw-barack-obama

The Guardian ran the story. If it wasn't true RSA could sue their arses off in court for the value of their now worthless business. Guardian wouldn't dare run it unless they could prove it is true. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/20/nsa-internet-security-rsa-secret-10m-encryption

Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages â Secret files show scale of Silicon Valley co-operation on Prism â Outlook.com encryption unlocked even before official launch â Skype worked to enable Prism collection of video calls â Company says it is legally compelled to comply http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa-collaboration-user-data

"Collection directly from the servers of these U.S. Service Providers: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple" http://gizmodo.com/google-to-government-let-us-publish-national-security-512647113

And look at the chronology of this:
23 September 2013: BBC News - RSA warns over NSA link to encryption algorithm http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24173977
21 December 2013: NSA Gave RSA $10 Million To Promote Crypto It Had Purposely Weakened https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131220/14143625655/nsa-gave-rsa-10-million-to-promote-crypto-it-had-purposely-weakened.shtml How apt: Techdirt said the story was from the "from the say-bye-bye-to-credibility,-rsa dept"

Fuck you RSA. Fuck you NSA.

It works for the NSA. No reason why it won't work for CSIS.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/19/fisa-court-documents-nsa-violations-privacy

To summarize:

FISA judge is told by NSA that they have repeatedly violated his warrants for years. He's mad. And he does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT IT, other than write a report about how they aren't listening to him.

Unless there is some actual penalty that is applied when the law isn't followed, there is no point to having the law. And right now, the three groups that the power to actually penalize the NSA for flagrantly violating the law, namely the DOJ, Congress and the Senate are not willing to do so.

This is more like if the NSA misled the FISA courts

Sorry, NSA did lie to the Congress.

NSA's director James Clapper, when testified, under oath, to the Congressional Oversight Committee, LIED.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/19/5228672/lawmakers-slam-intelligence-chief-james-clapper-for-lying-to-congress

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/18/rand-paul-clapper-lying-nsa-surveillance?guni=Network%20front:network-front%20main-3%20Main%20trailblock:Network%20front%20-%20main%20trailblock:Position2:sublinks

Perhaps I should cherry pick my examples in the same way you have, so I can show that Catholics (in the form of the IRA) kill many people every year?

It was the GP that cherry-picked (by having a cut-off date that excluded 2001) - I used National statistics. I think that if you wanted to show that Catholics killed a lot of people you would have to cherry-pick a few decades ago. We used to be evacuated from shopping centres and things fairly frequently with bomb scares, but haven't been for years

Or would it be unfair, because many/most of those Catholics are white, which would show that religious extremism isn't limited to those evil Muslims?

You seem to have a hang-up on race here. It may surprise you to know that not all Catholics are white, and not all Muslim terrorists are brown. people like Richard Dart, Samantha Lewthwaite, Colleen Renee LaRose, to name only a few are just as much murdering muzzy scum as any other muzzy.

An alliance of corporations and conservative activists is mobilising to penalise homeowners who install their own solar panels- casting them as "freeriders" - a sweeping new offensive against renewable energy, the Guardian has learned.

These people are actually freeloaders but of course he can't say what they really are because of political correctness that forces him to use softer words like "freeriders".

Further details of ALEC's strategy were provided by John Eick, the legislative analyst for ALEC's energy, environment and agriculture program.

Eick told the Guardian the group would be looking closely in the coming year at how individual homeowners with solar panels are compensated for feeding surplus electricity back into the grid.

"This is an issue we are going to be exploring," Eick said. He said ALEC wanted to lower the rate electricity companies pay homeowners for direct power generation - and maybe even charge homeowners for feeding power into the grid.

"As it stands now, those direct generation customers are essentially freeriders on the system. They are not paying for the infrastructure they are using. In effect, all the other non direct generation customers are being penalised," he said.

Eick dismissed the suggestion that individuals who buy and install home-based solar panels had made such investments. "How are they going to get that electricity from their solar panel to somebody else's house?" he said. "They should be paying to distribute the surplus electricity."

I don't want sewage electricity being forced down my throat after it's been on some other guy's filthy roof already! I'm an American; I have a right to choose clean electricity!

In November, Arizona became the first state to charge customers for installing solar panels. The fee, which works out to about $5 a month for the average homeowner, was far lower than that sought by the main electricity company, which was seeking to add up to $100 a month to customers' bills.

IN THE BEGINNING God created heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was floating on the surface of the waters. God said "let there be light" and there was light. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness with a thin film of perovskite on glass so that the material formed tiny crystalline islands. The islands absorbed photons and converted them unto electrons, whilst light striking the empty areas passed through. And God saw that it was good. Then God said "let the rooftops sprout with panels: panels bearing light from the heavens"; the ceilings brought forth electricity, freeriders yielding current with voltage in it, unto the grid. And God saw that it was good. Then to be fair he charged the freeriders $100 per month, which Arizona reduced to $5, for those who drilled the formless void of the earth for the Spirit of God, and have to distribute the unwanted surplus electricity. And God saw that it was good.

As opposed to fitting into the mindset of people who trust Clapper when he admits yeah we spy on foreign companies like Petrobras but it's not industrial espionage when we do it?

You don't attack the process you attack the value. It seems that China has started. If that kind of devaluation happens a few more times then all confidence in Bitcoins may be lost and the value drop to 0. It is irrelevant if people can use Bitcoins if their value is 0.

Yes Thanks to Snowden we have an understanding for the ~"3" now known ways into some tame US .coms:
1. Muscular: to collect data from US .com trunk lines (unencrypted).
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/10/nsa-hacked-yahoo-google-cables/
2. Collecting from between your browser to the US .com internet service.
3. Prism: Asking for the data from the US .com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)
Expect to see the usual sock puppets trying to avoid the "making clear that it will not in any way subvert, undermine, weaken, or make vulnerable generally available commercial encryption" aspect on page 22 of the linked pdf or the http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/16/nsa-phone-surveillance-likely-unconstitutional-judge ongoing US law ref or aspects.
A huge PR stunt to show one part of the collection side is now 'over' and can be quoted as been legally 'fixed'.

Apparently your education suffered at some point.

Anti-Bush but not anti-American

In common with other surveys, this suggests that public opinion worldwide has recoiled from Mr Bush. The US President is still the leader of the free world, yet the free world is less inclined to approve of him.

Presidential Recruitment

Presidential recruitment is a major issue in American politics. The president is considered to be the leader of the free world and the chance to become America's president despite your background neatly fits in with this concept.

I will admit that President Obama and changing conditions may be altering that.

The guardian (Snowden's paper of choice apparently) Says the entire story about this is 'dubious' "The lack of specificity made cybersecurity expert Robert David Graham dubious that the plot NSA claimed to discover matched the one it described on TV. “All they are doing is repeating what Wikipedia says about BIOS,” Graham blogged, “acting as techie talk layered onto the discussion to make it believable, much like how Star Trek episodes talk about warp cores and Jeffries Tubes.” " http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/16/nsa-surveillance-60-minutes-cbs-facts The details the author poins out about the rest of the NSA statements are revealing as well.

Probably a good thing. Using corn or other edible crops has been linked to rising food prices that have been painful in the third world, the US, and Europe.

Record Food Prices Linked to Biofuels
How biofuels contribute to the food crisis
Biofuel rule puts turkey farmers in fret over corn costs
EU votes on crucial cap on biofuels made from food crops

There are other ways to do it.

'Biofuel from non-food crops within 15 years'
U.S. to Pay Farmers for Non-Food Crops for Biofuels, Vilsack Says
Quest for cheap, nonfood biofuel starts with a brewery

Of course it may not be popular is some states.

That is what Snowden has exposed, with official, secret documents. The NSA, FBI and CIA have, with the new digital technology, surveillance powers over our own citizens that the Stasi – the secret police in the former "democratic republic" of East Germany – could scarcely have dreamed of. Snowden reveals that the so-called intelligence community has become the United Stasi of America.

I suspect the those pesky real journalists probably don't enough about the tech side of things to ask the questions they really need to be asking in order to debunk this.

The 60 Minutes piece has already been trashed by multiple outlets:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/12/60-minutes-hearts-the-nsa.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/16/nsa-surveillance-60-minutes-cbs-facts

http://www.thewire.com/national/2013/12/60-minutes-nsa-good-snowden-bad/356174/

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/why-did-em-60-minutes-em-let-the-head-of-the-nsa-fool-its-audience/282377/

http://www.thenation.com/blog/177598/sad-decline-60-minutes-continues-weeks-nsa-whitewash

An interesting article by David Simon on a similar theme.

A little more google searching will show that the police have strong incentives to underreport and misreport crimes, and the steady tick of news reports continues apace. It is whitewashed with typically British class, yet the troublesome misrepresentation of UK crime rates continues.

News reports like this http://www.express.co.uk/expressyourself/347592/The-guns-and-grenades-of-gangland-Britain and this http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/aug/30/ukcrime1 do not jibe with your pretty little idea of a peaceful Europe.

At least criminals here in the US are not using grenades.

Read the judge's full ruling.

Where the hell do you think you are? Wikipedia? No references here!

Read the judge's full ruling.

This doesn't stop Amazon from just cancelling your account anytime they feel like it.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2012/oct/22/amazon-wipes-customers-kindle-deletes-account

Or maybe just dropping their video biz.

Not to mention you can't transfer ownership, will it to your kids etc.

Sorry DRM is stupid all day. Give me the physical media every time.

My thoughts exactly, to that end it seems now the thing to do is to discredit Snowden who I consider a true patriot.

If Snowden is a patriot in your eyes then surely he is a unique patriot. What other "patriot" can you think of that left the country where he performed his "patriotic act" and now has a constant guard of KGB officers (FSB) to protect him? Ah, the key is you left out the word "American." So you don't regard him as an American patriot, but to use your words, as someone who worked to "expose what the NSA was up to to the world." So in your mind patriots steal American intelligence information and release it to the world. Based on your account name and post, British Leftist I presume?

The fact that he wasn't motivated by money isn't necessarily creditable to him. Many foul deeds have been done for ideological reasons. Snowden's acts resemble nothing so much as those of Kim Philby who betrayed Britain and fled to Russia where he was feted and revealed to be a KGB officer. Snowden is the Philby of our day, having not only harmed American intelligence, but also visiting the worst ever loss for British intelligence. (You can probably add Australia to that as well.) Nobody should be surprised if he meets a similar end to Philby.

Now here is something interesting, it may be that the ones to feel the eventual sting coming from this massive loss of intelligence information won't be Americans, but mainly people in other countries. The NSA revealed that it has had a hand in foiling 50 terrorist plots worldwide, and few of those were in the US. Terrorist groups have already started to exploit the information that Snowden leaked by changing tactics to avoid detection. Now they are in a better position to carry out their plans over the next several years - and that is the timeframe for many of their plans: years. The real party hasn't even started yet. That means more bombs exploding overseas. Will it be another London bombing, or Madrid, or one of thousands of other examples? Will the next plot in Germany or Sweden succeed and kill hundreds? Only time will tell. One thing seems likely - in the future various people are likely to look back at Snowden's leaks and think to themselves, "It seemed like something to cheer.... at the time." Of course now it is too late. Snowden's existing and future leaks will have committed us to a future he chose in an undemocratic, vigilante fashion. Who voted for Snowden to oversee this? Nobody. But you will get to live with the consequences none the less - he chose for you, not even consulting you or your representative in government/parliament/ legislature. Perhaps the most ironic thing is that Snowden is now living in Russia, and the Russians are using information he leaked to upgrade their internal surveillance apparatus to make it more effective. Snowden has been hoisted on his own petard.

Well, if someday you are in the tube on the way to a football match, or in a pub enjoying a game of darts with some friends, and an extremist with a suicide vest that slipped by busy MI5 agents comes in and detonates himself, you'll know who may have helped the Jihadi avoid detection.

Cheers.

My thoughts exactly, to that end it seems now the thing to do is to discredit Snowden who I consider a true patriot.

If Snowden is a patriot in your eyes then surely he is a unique patriot. What other "patriot" can you think of that left the country where he performed his "patriotic act" and now has a constant guard of KGB officers (FSB) to protect him? Ah, the key is you left out the word "American." So you don't regard him as an American patriot, but to use your words, as someone who worked to "expose what the NSA was up to to the world." So in your mind patriots steal American intelligence information and release it to the world. Based on your account name and post, British Leftist I presume?

The fact that he wasn't motivated by money isn't necessarily creditable to him. Many foul deeds have been done for ideological reasons. Snowden's acts resemble nothing so much as those of Kim Philby who betrayed Britain and fled to Russia where he was feted and revealed to be a KGB officer. Snowden is the Philby of our day, having not only harmed American intelligence, but also visiting the worst ever loss for British intelligence. (You can probably add Australia to that as well.) Nobody should be surprised if he meets a similar end to Philby.

Now here is something interesting, it may be that the ones to feel the eventual sting coming from this massive loss of intelligence information won't be Americans, but mainly people in other countries. The NSA revealed that it has had a hand in foiling 50 terrorist plots worldwide, and few of those were in the US. Terrorist groups have already started to exploit the information that Snowden leaked by changing tactics to avoid detection. Now they are in a better position to carry out their plans over the next several years - and that is the timeframe for many of their plans: years. The real party hasn't even started yet. That means more bombs exploding overseas. Will it be another London bombing, or Madrid, or one of thousands of other examples? Will the next plot in Germany or Sweden succeed and kill hundreds? Only time will tell. One thing seems likely - in the future various people are likely to look back at Snowden's leaks and think to themselves, "It seemed like something to cheer.... at the time." Of course now it is too late. Snowden's existing and future leaks will have committed us to a future he chose in an undemocratic, vigilante fashion. Who voted for Snowden to oversee this? Nobody. But you will get to live with the consequences none the less - he chose for you, not even consulting you or your representative in government/parliament/ legislature. Perhaps the most ironic thing is that Snowden is now living in Russia, and the Russians are using information he leaked to upgrade their internal surveillance apparatus to make it more effective. Snowden has been hoisted on his own petard.

Well, if someday you are in the tube on the way to a football match, or in a pub enjoying a game of darts with some friends, and an extremist with a suicide vest that slipped by busy MI5 agents comes in and detonates himself, you'll know who may have helped the Jihadi avoid detection.

Cheers.

For a liar to be caught in a lie, he has to speak first.

Oh so someone other than James "Least Untruthful Answer" Clapper or the Jean-Luc Picard wannabe Keith Alexander? I'm pretty sure both of them having been saying lots of things.

Uruguay's president José Mujica: no palace, no motorcade, no frills

In the week that Uruguay legalises cannabis, the 78-year-old explains why he rejects the 'world's poorest president' label

Jonathan Watts in Montevideo
The Guardian, Friday 13 December 2013 13.37 GMT

Article: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/13/uruguay-president-jose-mujica
Author: http://www.theguardian.com/profile/jonathanwatts

=

Image: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2013/12/11/1386784118202/Jos--Mujica-009.jpg

José Mujica, the Uruguayan president, at his house in Montevideo. Photograph: Mario Goldman/AFP/Getty Images

=

"If anyone could claim to be leading by example in an age of austerity, it is José Mujica, Uruguay's president, who has forsworn a state palace in favour of a farmhouse, donates the vast bulk of his salary to social projects, flies economy class and drives an old Volkswagen Beetle.

But the former guerrilla fighter is clearly disgruntled by those who tag him "the world's poorest president" and â" much as he would like others to adopt a more sober lifestyle â" the 78-year-old has been in politics long enough to recognise the folly of claiming to be a model for anyone.

"If I asked people to live as I live, they would kill me," Mujica said during an interview in his small but cosy one-bedroom home set amid chrysanthemum fields outside Montevideo.

The president is a former member of the Tupamaros guerrilla group, which was notorious in the early 1970s for bank robberies, kidnappings and distributing stolen food and money among the poor. He was shot by police six times and spent 14 years in a military prison, much of it in dungeon-like conditions.

Since becoming leader of Uruguay in 2010, however, he has won plaudits worldwide for living within his means, decrying excessive consumption and pushing ahead with policies on same-sex marriage, abortion and cannabis legalisation that have reaffirmed Uruguay as the most socially liberal country in Latin America.

Praise has rolled in from all sides of the political spectrum. Mujica may be the only leftwing leader on the planet to win the favour of the Daily Mail, which lauded him as a trustworthy and charismatic figurehead in an article headlined: "Finally, A politician who DOESN'T fiddle his expenses."

But the man who is best known as Pepe says those who consider him poor fail to understand the meaning of wealth. "I'm not the poorest president. The poorest is the one who needs a lot to live," he said. "My lifestyle is a consequence of my wounds. I'm the son of my history. There have been years when I would have been happy just to have a mattress."

He shares the home with his wife, LucÃa Topolansky, a leading member of Congress who has also served as acting president.

As I near the home of Uruguay's first couple, the only security detail is two guards parked on the approach road, and Mujica's three-legged dog, Manuela.

Mujica cuts an impressively unpolished figure. Wearing lived-in clothes and well-used footwear, the bushy-browed farmer who strolls out from the porch resembles an elderly Bilbo Baggins e

Uruguay's president José Mujica: no palace, no motorcade, no frills

In the week that Uruguay legalises cannabis, the 78-year-old explains why he rejects the 'world's poorest president' label

Jonathan Watts in Montevideo
The Guardian, Friday 13 December 2013 13.37 GMT

Article: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/13/uruguay-president-jose-mujica
Author: http://www.theguardian.com/profile/jonathanwatts

=

Image: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2013/12/11/1386784118202/Jos--Mujica-009.jpg

José Mujica, the Uruguayan president, at his house in Montevideo. Photograph: Mario Goldman/AFP/Getty Images

=

"If anyone could claim to be leading by example in an age of austerity, it is José Mujica, Uruguay's president, who has forsworn a state palace in favour of a farmhouse, donates the vast bulk of his salary to social projects, flies economy class and drives an old Volkswagen Beetle.

But the former guerrilla fighter is clearly disgruntled by those who tag him "the world's poorest president" and â" much as he would like others to adopt a more sober lifestyle â" the 78-year-old has been in politics long enough to recognise the folly of claiming to be a model for anyone.

"If I asked people to live as I live, they would kill me," Mujica said during an interview in his small but cosy one-bedroom home set amid chrysanthemum fields outside Montevideo.

The president is a former member of the Tupamaros guerrilla group, which was notorious in the early 1970s for bank robberies, kidnappings and distributing stolen food and money among the poor. He was shot by police six times and spent 14 years in a military prison, much of it in dungeon-like conditions.

Since becoming leader of Uruguay in 2010, however, he has won plaudits worldwide for living within his means, decrying excessive consumption and pushing ahead with policies on same-sex marriage, abortion and cannabis legalisation that have reaffirmed Uruguay as the most socially liberal country in Latin America.

Praise has rolled in from all sides of the political spectrum. Mujica may be the only leftwing leader on the planet to win the favour of the Daily Mail, which lauded him as a trustworthy and charismatic figurehead in an article headlined: "Finally, A politician who DOESN'T fiddle his expenses."

But the man who is best known as Pepe says those who consider him poor fail to understand the meaning of wealth. "I'm not the poorest president. The poorest is the one who needs a lot to live," he said. "My lifestyle is a consequence of my wounds. I'm the son of my history. There have been years when I would have been happy just to have a mattress."

He shares the home with his wife, LucÃa Topolansky, a leading member of Congress who has also served as acting president.

As I near the home of Uruguay's first couple, the only security detail is two guards parked on the approach road, and Mujica's three-legged dog, Manuela.

Mujica cuts an impressively unpolished figure. Wearing lived-in clothes and well-used footwear, the bushy-browed farmer who strolls out from the porch resembles an elderly Bilbo Baggins e

This article? Drones should be banned from private use, says Google's Eric Schmidt

Uruguay's president José Mujica: no palace, no motorcade, no frills

In the week that Uruguay legalises cannabis, the 78-year-old explains why he rejects the 'world's poorest president' label

Jonathan Watts in Montevideo
The Guardian, Friday 13 December 2013 13.37 GMT

Article: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/13/uruguay-president-jose-mujica
Author: http://www.theguardian.com/profile/jonathanwatts

=

Image: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2013/12/11/1386784118202/Jos--Mujica-009.jpg

José Mujica, the Uruguayan president, at his house in Montevideo. Photograph: Mario Goldman/AFP/Getty Images

=

"If anyone could claim to be leading by example in an age of austerity, it is José Mujica, Uruguay's president, who has forsworn a state palace in favour of a farmhouse, donates the vast bulk of his salary to social projects, flies economy class and drives an old Volkswagen Beetle.

But the former guerrilla fighter is clearly disgruntled by those who tag him "the world's poorest president" and â" much as he would like others to adopt a more sober lifestyle â" the 78-year-old has been in politics long enough to recognise the folly of claiming to be a model for anyone.

"If I asked people to live as I live, they would kill me," Mujica said during an interview in his small but cosy one-bedroom home set amid chrysanthemum fields outside Montevideo.

The president is a former member of the Tupamaros guerrilla group, which was notorious in the early 1970s for bank robberies, kidnappings and distributing stolen food and money among the poor. He was shot by police six times and spent 14 years in a military prison, much of it in dungeon-like conditions.

Since becoming leader of Uruguay in 2010, however, he has won plaudits worldwide for living within his means, decrying excessive consumption and pushing ahead with policies on same-sex marriage, abortion and cannabis legalisation that have reaffirmed Uruguay as the most socially liberal country in Latin America.

Praise has rolled in from all sides of the political spectrum. Mujica may be the only leftwing leader on the planet to win the favour of the Daily Mail, which lauded him as a trustworthy and charismatic figurehead in an article headlined: "Finally, A politician who DOESN'T fiddle his expenses."

But the man who is best known as Pepe says those who consider him poor fail to understand the meaning of wealth. "I'm not the poorest president. The poorest is the one who needs a lot to live," he said. "My lifestyle is a consequence of my wounds. I'm the son of my history. There have been years when I would have been happy just to have a mattress."

He shares the home with his wife, LucÃa Topolansky, a leading member of Congress who has also served as acting president.

As I near the home of Uruguay's first couple, the only security detail is two guards parked on the approach road, and Mujica's three-legged dog, Manuela.

Mujica cuts an impressively unpolished figure. Wearing lived-in clothes and well-used footwear, the bushy-browed farmer who strolls out from the porch resembles an elderly Bilbo Baggins emerging from his Hobbit hole to scold an intrusive neighbour.

In conversation, he exudes a mix of warmth and cantankerousness, idealism about humanity's potential and a weariness with the modern world â" at least outside the eminently sensible shire in which he lives.

He is proud of his homeland â" one of the safest and least corrupt in the region â" and describes Uruguay as "an island of refugees in a world of crazy people".

The country is proud of its social traditions. The government sets prices for essential

Uruguay's president José Mujica: no palace, no motorcade, no frills

In the week that Uruguay legalises cannabis, the 78-year-old explains why he rejects the 'world's poorest president' label

Jonathan Watts in Montevideo
The Guardian, Friday 13 December 2013 13.37 GMT

Article: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/13/uruguay-president-jose-mujica
Author: http://www.theguardian.com/profile/jonathanwatts

=

Image: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2013/12/11/1386784118202/Jos--Mujica-009.jpg

José Mujica, the Uruguayan president, at his house in Montevideo. Photograph: Mario Goldman/AFP/Getty Images

=

"If anyone could claim to be leading by example in an age of austerity, it is José Mujica, Uruguay's president, who has forsworn a state palace in favour of a farmhouse, donates the vast bulk of his salary to social projects, flies economy class and drives an old Volkswagen Beetle.

But the former guerrilla fighter is clearly disgruntled by those who tag him "the world's poorest president" and â" much as he would like others to adopt a more sober lifestyle â" the 78-year-old has been in politics long enough to recognise the folly of claiming to be a model for anyone.

"If I asked people to live as I live, they would kill me," Mujica said during an interview in his small but cosy one-bedroom home set amid chrysanthemum fields outside Montevideo.

The president is a former member of the Tupamaros guerrilla group, which was notorious in the early 1970s for bank robberies, kidnappings and distributing stolen food and money among the poor. He was shot by police six times and spent 14 years in a military prison, much of it in dungeon-like conditions.

Since becoming leader of Uruguay in 2010, however, he has won plaudits worldwide for living within his means, decrying excessive consumption and pushing ahead with policies on same-sex marriage, abortion and cannabis legalisation that have reaffirmed Uruguay as the most socially liberal country in Latin America.

Praise has rolled in from all sides of the political spectrum. Mujica may be the only leftwing leader on the planet to win the favour of the Daily Mail, which lauded him as a trustworthy and charismatic figurehead in an article headlined: "Finally, A politician who DOESN'T fiddle his expenses."

But the man who is best known as Pepe says those who consider him poor fail to understand the meaning of wealth. "I'm not the poorest president. The poorest is the one who needs a lot to live," he said. "My lifestyle is a consequence of my wounds. I'm the son of my history. There have been years when I would have been happy just to have a mattress."

He shares the home with his wife, LucÃa Topolansky, a leading member of Congress who has also served as acting president.

As I near the home of Uruguay's first couple, the only security detail is two guards parked on the approach road, and Mujica's three-legged dog, Manuela.

Mujica cuts an impressively unpolished figure. Wearing lived-in clothes and well-used footwear, the bushy-browed farmer who strolls out from the porch resembles an elderly Bilbo Baggins emerging from his Hobbit hole to scold an intrusive neighbour.

In conversation, he exudes a mix of warmth and cantankerousness, idealism about humanity's potential and a weariness with the modern world â" at least outside the eminently sensible shire in which he lives.

He is proud of his homeland â" one of the safest and least corrupt in the region â" and describes Uruguay as "an island of refugees in a world of crazy people".

The country is proud of its social traditions. The government sets prices for essential

No, France, Germany, Mexico, Brazil, and Britain aren't the enemies of the US. But some of the people in those countries are.

Interesting spin. So how does monitoring 35 world leaders fall into that "the bad guys are amougst us" line.

There are many reasons that nations spy on each other besides being an enemy. Although all of our nations are basically open, they are not necessarily completely transparent. Being able to understand your allies, the pressures they face, the practical considerations is important if you are going to engaged in coalition diplomacy

In other words, the NSA Surveillance Destroys Diplomacy and Democracy:

How do democratically elected officials (the president, congressmen or senators) get control of a stand-alone secret government bureaucracy that was operating long before they arrived and will survive them after they've gone? A bureaucracy that knows everything there is to know about them, too? They don't. They can't. So the surreptitious, illicit actions of a US spy agency can undermine the diplomatic work of months and years. And the president - the elected official chosen to lead the country - is so hamstrung by the NSA that he cannot stop the interceptions and order an immediate investigation.

"Every country is unique, but Australia is more similar to the US than is, say, Japan or England. We have a frontier history and a strong gun culture. Each state and territory has its own gun laws, and in 1996 these varied widely between the jurisdictions. At that time Australia's firearm mortality rate per population was 2.6/100,000 -- about one-quarter the US rate, according to data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the US Center for Disease Control. Today the rate is under 1/100,000 -- less than one-tenth the US rate. Those figures refer to all gun deaths -- homicide, suicide and unintentional. If we focus on gun homicide rates, the US outstrips Australia 30-fold.

The 1996 reforms made gun laws stronger and uniform across Australia. Semi-automatic rifles were prohibited (with narrow exceptions), and the world's biggest buyback saw nearly 700,000 guns removed from circulation and destroyed. The licensing and registration systems of all states and territories were harmonised and linked, so that a person barred from owning guns in one state can no longer acquire them in another. All gun sales are subject to screening (universal background checks), which means you cannot buy a gun over the internet or at a garage sale.
-
Australia didn't ban guns. Hunting and shooting are still thriving. But by adopting laws that give priority to public safety, we have saved thousands of lives."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/14/america-mass-murder-australia-gun-control-saves-lives

I dont think you understand how cookies work:

Spare me the condescension, this is slashdot, nobody reads it without knowing how cookies work.

But of course your consent was implicit in choosing to visit that URL and request resources from that server; its your fault if you walk into a store and then complain that you're now on their CCTV because you chose to visit that store and play by their rules.

There's no such thing as an implicit consent. A web site can't force me to buy an encyclopaedia because I visited their URL. That's because entering a URL doesn't imply buying encyclopaedias, or selling your own private information. Stores have notices that tell you there's CCTV installed, and most importantly, they won't share tapes with your face, name and timestamp with all the other stores, and in particular they won't sell that information.

A lot of browsers (including IE starting with v6) allow you to disable cookies, or prompt you when they are requested. If this actually mattered to you, you could easily be notified when google cookies are "aimed" at your computer, and deny them, and then refuse to visit those sites.

Why, there are lots of legitimate uses for cookies beyond spying my life. I can't be forced to renounce them because some commercial company wants to sell my personal information without my consent.

And regarding the "multiple countries fined google", the US did not.

http://www.ct.gov/ag/cwp/view.asp?Q=520518&A=2341 http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/16/net-us-google-fine-idUSBRE83F00Q20120416 http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/aug/09/google-record-fine-ftc-safari

Find me a conviction for it in the US, otherwise really not interested in what a german court had to say about google.

Not only Germany. The list of countries that fined Google is much longer. Considering that the federal government used Google (and Yahoo, and Facebook, and whomever else) to spy their own citizen and those of the rest of the world, it's no wonder that they couldn't make a big fuss about privacy. Apparently the States are more sensitive about their citizens' privacy.

Your computer is already receiving the traffic, all google did was record it.

I'm certain that Google made no use of the accidentally collected data. The problem is, that when you're collecting large amounts of private data from the whole world, and gathering that information into a single place, you have to be extremely careful about what you do with that much data, and whose hands you put that data in.

We perhaps learned something from behemoth reactors running near the physical limits of the materials used in them? That and the exceptionally impressive results when they do go south?

Here is a good list of nuclear energy lessons learned [1952-2011]. Also have a look at some NRC uptime data for 104 US reactors [2006-2013].

All in all in terms of gigawatt-hours over fatalities nuclear power is the safest 24x7 base load energy source ever devised by humankind.

And yes, I would be very much in favor of a small plant running in a conservative and over-engineered manner in my area. I would however fight strenuously against a megaplant. All the excuses, all the "That disaster was because of the old (and dangerous reactor that we told you was safe when we built it)" just make the rationale for the megaplants have zero credibility.

There is very little in the 'lessons' list that was not known in the days of Weinberg and Wigner. Weinberg even sacrificed his career in 1973 over his publicly expressed safety concerns (putting LFTR research into limbo). The effects of Xenon-135 buildup, which was a contributing factor to Chernobyl, had been discovered in the earliest reactor pile built and had been addressed in US designs. Fukushima was a '19th century fail' because in the 1800s the human race already had the technology to make water-tight compartments to secure precious things such as emergency backup generators. That had no business being in the basement. TEPCO really managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory there.

The Westinghouse AP1000 is a "best of breed" which would make a fine addition to Our Town. If you dispute that fact perhaps this will convince you.

Didn't think so. I thought pasting in Westinghouse's own artistic rendition as background would make these folks seem glad that it was in their back yard, but they're as grumpy as ever. And that pitchfork looks threatening.

But all of the catastrophic fire, meltdown and kaboom scenarios listed involve issues associated with solid nuclear fuels, water, hydrogen gas, graphite and (temperature-hot) zirconium cladding. If a small or even large scale LFTR was built in your area there would be no towering containment building because there is no explosion/steam risk. And it is not layers of applied cooling and containment systems acting in perfect harmony that says so, it is designers' consensus that the chemistry is so. Some clever people from the 50s onward have looked at molten salts and (unlike the water reactor issues which were documented early on) no one seems to have found any serious explody life-threatening oversights. Even the Hastelloy corrosion concerns are issues of cost projection that would affect frequency of replacement, not safety. The fluorine-beryllium chemistry is weird and embodies occupationally hazardous material but it is well within our current understanding and use in industry. Under all conditions imagined thus far the salts would be content to stay in salt form.

In reactors here's hoping that history will favor a reliable deep throated Harley design over some exciting but explody Japanese screamer.

As Netflix and YouTube combined make up more than 44% of US internet traffic.
If they don't watch videos, then the only possibility is that there is less bot traffic in the US than in the rest of the world or Netflix doesn't use HTTP.

For most of the stories about Assange and Wikileaks on Slashdot you can generally count on two things: massive praise for both, and heavy down mods for any criticism of them. It doesn't matter if they are verifiably true or personal opinions, down they go, -1. Assange effectively has his own cult of personality that will defend him no matter what. I have little doubt that will be true even if he is eventually convicted of rape.

I don't claim that what I post is, to use your phrase, "everything that person is." But there are serious issues, and serious criticisms regarding Wikileaks from serious people. They are worth considering to balance out the praise and defense that is all but guaranteed to come from others. And how many of the Assange / Wikileaks fans are going to offer any criticism at all? Precious few.

As far as I go, it seems to me you are at best the pot calling the kettle black. I don't see you really adopting a balanced criticism of me. Shall I say that is your usual modus operandi? That you are a troll?

Rest easy though, the moderators will almost certainly be gentle with you. You come to defend Julian, not to criticize him. But frankly, your criticism in this case has little credibility with me. I've seen the pattern these discussions take all too often. It is already occurring - the head of this thread is -1. No surprise, the pattern is well established. Criticize Assange at your peril.

Let us close with this piece of wisdom for Julian: " A reporter worried that Assange would risk killing Afghans who had co-operated with American forces if he put US secrets online without taking the basic precaution of removing their names. "Well, they're informants," Assange replied. "So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it.""

You better hope you never come between him and his goal, or he'll take pleasure in crushing you.

Unfortunately I think most of us are bastards to him.

The treachery of Julian Assange
Wikileaks Fails “Due Diligence” Review

What Does Julian Assange Want?
Exclusive: Former WikiLeaks Employee James Ball Describes Working With Julian Assange
Wikileaks are for-hire mercenaries - Cryptome

Actually, no. Since we know from the Snowden leaks that the Swedish FRA is in cahoots with NSA and GSHQ, anything that passes through Sweden will automatically be scanned. A new undersea cable that bypasses Sweden thus has infinitely better chances of being secure.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/01/gchq-europe-spy-agencies-mass-surveillance-snowden

Bezos' neat trick has knocked several real stories about Amazon out of the way. Last week's Panorama investigation into Amazon's working and hiring practices, suggesting that the site's employees had an increased risk of mental illness, is the latest in a long line of pieces about the company's working conditions – zero-hour contracts, short breaks, and employees' every move tracked by internal systems. Amazon's drone debacle also moved discussion of its tax bill – another long-running controversy, sparked by the Guardian's revelation last year that the company had UK sales of £7bn but paid no UK corporation tax – to the margins.

This most likely had more to do with the announcement. I can't believe you got modded up...

No competition from Amazon. Have we already forgotten it was a hoax?

Your link doesn't even prove that it was a publicity stunt, and here's why: its conclusions are based on false premises and it's full of fud. It's also clear why you didn't bother to link to the full article; it doesn't say what you want it to say either.

First FUD: "The practical issues are manifold". Yes, welcome to the real world. FUD, not a specific objection. The specific objections are then made, and they are stupid. "[...]how does it [the drone] then find the package's intended recipient?" Probably it homes in on the mobile device used to make the order, and you'll probably have to use one. How is the transfer of the package enacted? Depicted in the video. It knows where it's being delivered. What stops someone else stealing the package along the way? You mean, by shooting it down? Ah yes, this line item was expanded into two, for filler purposes. And what happens when next door's kid decides to shoot the drone with his BB rifle? The same thing as when next door's kid (the house has a child?) shoots anything else that doesn't belong to them. Except in this case, it's recorded by high-resolution camera.

Then we have an outright lie: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which regulates this area, intends to make commercial drones legally viable and workable by 2015, but this deadline is all-but impossible No, no it isn't. It probably won't happen anyway due to lobbying from entrenched interests. But there's no reason why existing regulations can't be applied to commercial drones. The area below 500 feet is already available due to existing restrictions on civilian air traffic.

Meanwhile, Wired claims that Amazon's delivery model makes the drones unworkable, but that is just fucking stupid. It's stupid because Amazon has already changed their model partially to add more services, and there's no particular reason they can't do it again. Sort of like how Wired changed their magazine from having purple text on black backgrounds to having black text on neon green backgrounds to having black text on white backgrounds. Two changes, see? The drones won't be able to deliver everything in Amazon's catalog. It'll be small, high-value items often ordered by themselves by people willing to pay extra for rapid delivery.

In short, while it might well have been a hoax, nothing you have presented (nor any other evidence) proves it to be so.

2) reliable paternity testing,

there's actually no reason for any kind of marriage.

Paternity testing is reliable within limits. There are multiple cases where one woman has had sex with identical twins and paternity tests can't resolve the situation.

Secret papers show extent of senior royals' veto over bills.

Interesting article in the Guardian this weekend which talks about the failings of capitalism:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/08/david-simon-capitalism-marx-two-americas-wire
I think the Pope has it right... we have gone off the cliff worshiping the golden calf.

Happy to assist you. The first thing to realize is that much of what you recite is tactics. The ultimate strategic goal for Bin Laden and his followers is a world of Muslims living under Sharia law. It is a long term goal to be sure. But getting the US out of Saudia Arabia and all the rest is just short term goals. Ultimately they want to see the US converted to Islam, and living under Sharia law. The language is somewhat stylized, in accordance with their religious nature, but fairly clear if you will see. The demand for conversion is pretty straightforward, and the call for Sharia only slightly diffused but you can see it - and it follows naturally from the conversion demand.

Full text: bin Laden's 'letter to America'

(Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

(a) The religion of the Unification of God; of freedom from associating partners with Him, and rejection of this; of complete love of Him, the Exalted; of complete submission to His Laws; and of the discarding of all the opinions, orders, theories and religions which contradict with the religion He sent down to His Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Islam is the religion of all the prophets, and makes no distinction between them - peace be upon them all. ....

(i) You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator. You flee from the embarrassing question posed to you: How is it possible for Allah the Almighty to create His creation, grant them power over all the creatures and land, grant them all the amenities of life, and then deny them that which they are most in need of: knowledge of the laws which govern their lives?

If you read in the area of the section I quote you will see many things that they hate that are generally allowed by our freedoms.

If you want real religious nut-cases, here are some who went about London trying to "impose" Sharia law on otherwise peaceful Londoners going about their own quiet, lawful business.

This is the problem with religion. At the moment it just happens to be Islam that's in fashion with the young and impressionable.

The court had been told that Horner and the 23-year-old man drove alongside Joshua Bilton and Anna Reddiford in Bethnal Green and yelled at them through a megaphone. Horner shouted: "Let go of each other's hands. This is a Muslim area!" The couple initially believed it was a joke but the group repeated the warning until they let go of each other's hands.

The world is full of nut-cases who think they know better than everyone else and who think it is their business to "put things in order."

The older I get, the less I respect the "religious" (of all religions, not just Islam).