Slashdot Mirror

It didn't help he (correctly) pointed out ecstasy is safer than horse riding, which happens to be relatively popular in the UK. The BBC felt obliged to publish an article arguing the dangers of riding were "tempered" by its health benefits and that, somehow, his assessment was invalid.

Professor David Nutt, the government's chief drug adviser, has been sacked a day after claiming that ecstasy and LSD were less dangerous than alcohol.

His claims are factual but go against official-opinion-on-the-matter(tm)

First of all, it's Professor David Nutt, not "Nut"

Second of all, it's the same Professor who was a British government advisor, who was sacked for "criticising politicians for distorting research evidence and claiming alcohol and tobacco were more harmful than some illegal drugs, including LSD, ecstasy and cannabis."

Seems like a scientist with integrity. Perhaps this is less the risible ramblings of a madnam, and more he's at the "...then they laugh at you" part of fighting the good fight.

(Unless, of course, you think LSD and cannabis are more damaging than alcohol and tobacco, in which case feel free to poke fun.)

No please don't mention climate change when extreme weather events like this occur, it upsets the children. And when it happens in the Phillipines it upsets the diplomats.

Whatever you do don't start talking about climate change!

We all know that so called ad targeting works by building up profiles on people intended to categorize their interests -- very much like the NSA's own automated profiling and analysis systems. But the profiling system can't tell the difference between a favorable interest and a disgusted interest (much like they can't tell if you've already bought those shoes you were searching for two weeks ago and so keep showing you ads for shoes).

That they've decided to show the guy recruiting ads because he's been reading articles about how the NSA is a bunch of nationalistic spying assholes is the cherry on top, a perfect demonstration how pervasive surveillance can't actually understand the intent of people and thus will have an overwhelming percentage of false positives.

If real people at the FBI can't even tell the different between someone reporting a threat against themselves and a threat against the FBI profiling systems can only automate keystone cop level of surveillance effectiveness.

Yeah. Google is breaking the internet, selling off its users, and generally being a Facebook parody, and YouTube co-founder Jawed Karim had something (however brief) to say about it. It's a case study in why selling off your internet startup that happens to fulfill your life dreams and customer needs should be a worst-case scenario, not a bloody business model.

I've been trying to sort out the "guns" issue from a scientific point of view. After some extended searching, I believe the answer is "more guns is better".

This is made enormously difficult by the vast ocean of misinformation put forth by advocates on both sides of the issue. It's an interesting exercise in clear thinking just to sort through the claims to come up with an opinion unfettered by bad logic. I've included some examples below.

In summary, the best measurable statistic appears to be "chance of death from all causes" at the national level. This statistic avoids most of the bad math and bad thinking, and it's easy to measure and verify. The US does not have good health care, and this [national] attribute has a large effect on the mortality rate unrelated to gun-related deaths, so you can't use the US for comparison purposes at the national level. A better comparison is made between two countries with similar national health care and different gun policies. England and Switzerland, for example.

Comparing England and Switzerland indicates that "more guns" is associated with "less mortality". This echoes comparisons made within the US at the local level, where areas with public access to guns have less crime and mortality.

It's pointless to debate the issues in this forum due to the enormous and convoluted "poor statistics" cited by people on both sides of the issue, and virtually everyone is cognitively dissonant and emotionally invested in the answer.

A good analysis of the issues can be found here.

Below are just a few examples of popular claims, and how they mislead the reader into one side or the other. There are misleading claims on both sides, so don't read too much into the choice of examples.

Example 1: "Guns do not make a nation safer, say US doctors who have compared the rate of firearms-related deaths in countries where many people own guns with the death rate in countries where gun ownership is rare." (source) (False comparison: when gun ownership goes down, deaths due to other causes rises.)

Example 2: England has fewer gun-related murders, but a much higher rate of beating murders. (Undecidable: In the US, a non-suicide gunshot victim is automatically a murder, in England it's not a murder unless there's a trial and conviction.)

Example 3: If you have a gun in the house, you're more likely to accidentally shoot a family member than a burglar. (Wrong statistic: Having a gun depresses the chance of crime for your neighbors, the overall gain in safety for the community may be more than the loss of safety for the individual. See Polio vaccine.)

Because having your money in the bank makes them so much more secure so much more secure.

Those particular numbers come from a Pew Environment Group report from January:

http://www.pewenvironment.org/news-room/other-resources/new-scientific-report-shows-pacific-bluefin-tuna-population-down-964-percent-85899441247

Complete with various articles discussing it:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jan/09/overfishing-pacific-bluefin-tuna
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/10/pacific-bluefin-tuna-overfishing_n_2448967.html

Here's a page designed by someone who misses Geocities that talks about the Atlantic stocks which includes several graphs showing the decline since the 60s and 70s:

http://www.bigmarinefish.com/bluefin.html

I would highly recommend that you watch the documentary End Of The Line. The data that they show and the conclusions that they reach are pretty difficult to argue against. The world and its oceans look like a massive, massive place that we cannot possibly influence. But, as they say in the movie, we are fighting a war against fish, and we are winning. If we keep doing what we're doing then there will in fact come a day when we won't have any more fish to eat. The scary thing is that it looks like that day is coming really soon. Things like the jellyfish swarms should be a red alert alarm that we have a major problem on our hands, but there are always going to be people who look at those concerned with the low levels of fish in the ocean and write those peoples and their opinions off as some sort of environmental fanaticism. Unfortunately, this is reality.

I'm just surprised they haven't tried yet to trump up some pedophilia or sexual assault charge on Snowden. That particular brand of character assassination seems to have replaced the old-fashioned assassination-by-bullet in the CIA arsenal of late, when someone starts leaking or questioning the U.S. dollar. It's probably only because they know he's in a country that isn't going to extradite him no matter what they try to trump up (or maybe they're afraid of overusing the technique and having the press realize it).

When did "citation needed" become the equivalent of "tl:dr"?

If it's not water, its air. The process produces hydrogen sulfide, benzines, radium and all sorts of nasty chemicals. One family from PA was given a settlement of 750k, as long as they never speak of it.

'

The Guardian seems to make the linkage pretty clear.

Here is what the Guardian said.

Spying row: Indonesia threatens to stop co-operating on people smuggling

The Indonesian foreign minister, Marty Natalegawa, has escalated the diplomatic row between Australia and Indonesia after revelations about Australia's intelligence gathering activities by suggesting co-operation on people smuggling operations may be reviewed.

Natalegawa made the comments in a press conference on Monday. Guardian Australia reported at the weekend that Australia was spying on Indonesia at the UN climate change conference in 2007, according documents obtained by the whistleblower Edward Snowden.

It's pretty straight forward - you might want to read more of the article. Trying to blame me for the fallout from the actions of Snowden and the Guardian is a failing game even if you approve of Snowden's actions. I have no influence over the foreign policy of Indonesia.

This certainly sounds like an attempt to go "Hey! You! Undecided people! Snowden is totally the bad guy because of this!

So, are you claiming that the Guardian and Sydney Morning Herald articles are false? The Guardian draws a direct line between the reports and the Indonesian foreign minister's statements.

Spying row: Indonesia threatens to stop co-operating on people smuggling

The Indonesian foreign minister, Marty Natalegawa, has escalated the diplomatic row between Australia and Indonesia after revelations about Australia's intelligence gathering activities by suggesting co-operation on people smuggling operations may be reviewed.

Natalegawa made the comments in a press conference on Monday. Guardian Australia reported at the weekend that Australia was spying on Indonesia at the UN climate change conference in 2007, according documents obtained by the whistleblower Edward Snowden.

It seems to me what is really going on here is that you are trying to blame me in some way for the fallout for Snowden's actions, and those of the Guardian. Do you really understand what is going on?

My suggestion is that you try actually reading the article before littering the forum with comments alternating between snark and false accusations. Maybe try this one. Someone with your intelligence should be able to figure out what is being said.

Spying row: Indonesia threatens to stop co-operating on people smuggling

Basically, Indonesia is leveraging the disclosures to force Australia to agree to exchange intelligence information to address the problem of human trafficking. Nowhere in the TFA says that Indonesia is going to cancel the talks with Australia over this. Australia broke the trust, its up to them to fix it.

It appears you either didn't read the article, or don't understand the diplomatic language being used. Maybe you should try that again.

Spying row: Indonesia threatens to stop co-operating on people smuggling

'If Australia feels that there are ways of obtaining information other than the official one then one wonders where we are in terms of co-operation,' says foreign minister Marty Natalegawa ... The Indonesian foreign minister, Marty Natalegawa, has escalated the diplomatic row between Australia and Indonesia after revelations about Australia's intelligence gathering activities by suggesting co-operation on people smuggling operations may be reviewed.

I get bored in lines and if there are advertising that I am interesded in displayed I will be more entertained. I can do without adds for tampons and justin bieber albums. That is the usefulness to me.

What benefit are some people being denied. The benefit of seeing ads they are not interested in?

Would you not be better served by a worker that you can say "no thanks" to as opposed to a CCTV system that will scan your face and pop up ads as you browse for your butter as it feels fit, not as you see fit? I think you are making my argument for me, though you may not realize it. The "automated" system will not be yours to turn off as you see fit, it turns on as the company sees fit.

Reference please. Where is your proof that the government was involved when it was the government that found it and stopped it.

You did not try very hard.

No, I am claiming that they will be easily caught and stopped if they tried it.

Because everything that the GCHQ does is public information available for you to scrutinize? Even if you knew something you would receive data on request? Come now, you can't be that daft can you?

There's only been one leak.... so far, so we really don't know the extent of Brazil's intelligence operations. As a major regional power with aspirations for wider global influence it's practically impossible to believe that Brazil doesn't engage in much broader espionage than what has been revealed in this report.

Also note that spying on diplomats was one of the things President Rousseff condemned in her speech at the UN.

Brazilian president: US surveillance a 'breach of international law'

"Also, Brazilian diplomatic missions, among them the permanent mission to the UN and the office of the president of the republic itself, had their communications intercepted," Rousseff said ... "Tampering in such a manner in the affairs of other countries is a breach of international law and is an affront of the principles that must guide the relations among them, especially among friendly nations.

Brazil has an international initiative to build a regionally focused internet section with direct connection to other regions. How do we know that part of Brazil's actual intent isn't to make it easier to spy on its neighbors? They have all the plans to do it in country, and we already know that the data is available to a Brazilian.

I thought Brazil was also upset about this:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/glenn-greenwald-guardian-partner-detained-heathrow

(Government harassment of Brazilian journalists who expose NSA mass surveillance for the non-clickers).

There have been plenty of incidences in which paywalled journals have also been shown to, um, let dodgy papers through. Although I agree, it would be interesting to see what happened with an identical test :) Also, here's another take on the entire thing - it's not open access vs paywalled, it's peer review (and shows an awesome opportunity to improve it!). http://www.theguardian.com/science/grrlscientist/2013/oct/08/1

The US hasn't used this data to physically harm anyone. There are plenty of allegations that the US used the data for economic advantage, but no examples of specific operations that did so. And if such operations existed Snowden would have exposed them.

Even if you don't consider planting backdoors and weakening crypto damage, Presidential Policy Directive 20 is about having ready for using those intrusions, backdoors and so on to harm. And Petrobras is an example of specific operation of using that data for economic advantage. But even snooping with other intentions than detect that is a terrorist there is damaging enough, even if it is just to find how to access and plant backdoors in a otherwise secure network (i.e. Tor users)

It's also clarifying to see who cheers for Snowden, the Kim Philby for our age. Enjoy Russia Mr. Snowden, and the new surveillance they are implementing based on your leaks that you will now be living under!

i don't trust "news" from osnews

How about the the source osnews used for this, the Guardian? http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/oct/24/google-breaks-promise-banner-ads-search-results

Like I said, all the counter-arguments are self-defeating.

Oh... you mean the land they conquered just like every goddamn nation out there before the 20th century?

This is canard is full of holes, starting with the issue of what century was 1948 in, again? The world wasn't operating by the same rules as in 1448, and countries were no longer allowed to keep land won in aggressive wars of conquest. Other problems with your canard:

1. If "might makes right" is your argument, then it's no big deal for you if the A-Rabs were actually able to invade and force out the Joos, right?
2. If "this was done before so it's okay" is your argument, ethnic cleansing goes back a long way in human history as well. Would be as blase if you found out that some other people have been the victims of ethnic cleansing - lets say the Jews?
3. If your argument is "this happened too long ago, deal with it and move on" did you have the same opinion as Israel was pursuing former prison camp guards and suing Swiss banks for assets stolen in the 1930's, much less the 1940's?
4. The creation of modern Israel is utterly without precedent in human history. Unless you can find another example of two superpowers giving aid and support to ideologues and refugees as they conquer themselves a nation.

Self. Defeating. Finally, your argument is invalid because wrong is wrong. Conquering land from a native population is wrong when Zionists were doing it in the 40's, it was wrong when they did it for the first time thousands of years ago according to the Bible, it was wrong when English colonists were doing it to the Iroquois, it was wrong when the Spanish conquistadors were doing it to the people of Peru, it was wrong when the Romans were doing it to the people of the Mediterranean and Europe.

But there are no living Inca or Seminoles being denied the Right of Return. That is the case for Palestinians, some of whom still have keys to the houses they were forced out of in 1948, much less 1967. If we were a mere 46 years after the conclusion of Manifest Destiny, hell yes lands should be returned to the Navajo, the Apache, the Chinooks. Wrong. Is. Wrong. But not all wrongs are recent and ongoing events.

Assassination is strickly anti-zionist. Any group that claims to be zionist and assasinates is by their very nature invalidated.

That's funny, since the realization of Zionism, like it's twin Manifest Destiny, is that it was impossible to realize without violence. The assassins of Folke Bernadotte, a hero who saved thousands of Jews from Germany, included one Yitzhak Shamir, who only became prime minister of Israel. Further showing just how much Israelis really feel about terrorism, Bibi openly celebrates the Hotel David bombing while providing excuses that would be laughed out of the room the Muslim group of your choice were offering the same.

But then you go into some rhetoric about "stolen land" from some "native population". There, right there, I have to ask, are you high? Stolen from *whom*? What exactly do you know of palestine before brittish rule?

Your inability to read citations is your problem, not mine. Jews were less than 10% of the population in 1900, and only waves of European immigrants allowed them to swell to a whopping 40% of the population, who then up and declared ownership of 60% of the land. Same process that European colonists used to dispossess Native Americans of their land.

On behalf of all of zion I am truly sorry that your rosy version of history is complete and utter bullshit.

Reality has a well-known anti-Zionist bias. Again: like Manifest Destiny before it, Zionism was impossible to achieve without war, murder and ethnic cleansing.

am truly sorry t

Engineers are among the most unbiased people you will find.

Sorry to burst your bubble:
http://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/security/extremist-engineers
http://atheism.about.com/b/2009/08/04/engineers-terrorism-and-creationism.htm
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jan/02/extremism-engineering
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/magazine/12FOB-IdeaLab-t.html?_r=0

You on the other hand strike me as someone who has read far too much people who have no education in mechanical engineering related to power generation and just shoot off beautiful political slogans. Most of which aren't rooted in reality, but are based on wishful thinking, which is why there's a massive coal build up going on in "we're transitioning to wind!" Germany. Because people cannot face reality, and instead base large plans on wishful thinking. Which ends up doing the exact opposite of what it's supposed to achieve.

Finished? Nice strawman. As a scientist, I'm merely debating technicalities. I do have an opinion on sustainable energy, of course, but it's quite nuanced. You will see below that it's very different from what you're assuming it is.

My opinion? Stop the bullshit, quickly push research into fission, build thorium reactors and update the current older generation nuclear plants to modern standards to avoid Fukushima-style failures. At the same time massively overfund the material research facility in Japan that is working on solving the fusion's material problems to expedite functional deuterium-tritium fusion reactor's arrival.

As mentioned in our other discussion, material science is not what is holding fusion back. I don't understand where that bizarre materials obsession of yours comes from - are your family members working on materials, perhaps?

Anyhow, the exact thing you're accusing me of actually apply to you. Yes, funding for fusion research should be a multiple of what it is now, but I'm not so naive as to think this alone (coupled with building fission plants based on not-yet-mature technology) will solve all our problems overnight. Fusion still has significant fundamental milestones to pass, and no-one can predict when that will happen. What can be reasonably predicted is that from the reaching of these milestones onwards, it will be 30 more years before a significant fraction of the world's energy needs are met by fusion; that's just how things go in any kind of industry (ask your family members). So we need something in the intervening time. Thorium is not ready for prime-time either (though I could see it beating fusion), and its economic profitability is unclear. What's ready for prime time are some of the newer generation uranium-based fission reactors, but the political and financial (including insurance) costs are not as favorable as they were in in the nuclear boom period. Compared to that, alternative energy sources are available right now, and are advancing at a steady and rapid pace. If you compare their complete lifecycle cost to the current lifecycle cost of a new nuclear plants, they're pretty close. They each have their weak spots, but those are largely complementary, so from a pure availability perspective, an all-of

Fact-check: the "star trek set thing" concerned Keith Alexander's time at the Army's Intelligence and Security Command. Alexander is now head of the NSA, yes. And it was intelligence-related. It was not, however, the NSA.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/15/nsa-mind-keith-alexander-star-trek

Much more likely it is an NSA/GCHQ malware USB stick given they have been caught red handed spying at the G20. Even going as far as setting up dummy internet cafes which are a lot more expensive than distributing a few USB sticks.

Accusing Russia at this point of a few malware USB sticks without presenting any hard evidence is really just lame and shows how desperate they are to divert media attention off their own despicable actions (i.e. spying for industrial and economic espionage purposes, G20 has nothing to do with terrorism).

Step forward with the hard evidence if your trying to justify your own criminal actions by accusing others of what you have been caught doing... and even if true it hardly excuses the fact.

Edward Snowden to start work at Russian website Former NSA contractor who was granted temporary asylum in June finds job providing support for unnamed site http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/31/edward-snowden-work-russian-website-nsa-contractor, must be true as it is reported in TheGuarian. . .

The problem for Australia is the legality of 20 years of 'privacy' laws and gifting Australian only data to the USA.
Australia was great for Rhyolite satellite ground station back in 1970 and no encryption was added to save weight. Australia traded its location over generations for US hardware, staff and a constant flow of data.
Australia is also on a network that was once Intelink-C so you have a lot of chatter world wide bringing staff/contractors generational closer to each other than to any elected Australian government.
We saw that with Germany where one branch of the gov 'gives' a German cleared encrypted phone while another German group works with the US gov to subvert all German encryption.
The "revelation" should be of a wake up call to old and new Australian political parties and their relationship with 'expert' gov security staff. Who's side are they really on long term?
How safe is that fast optical internet per politicians office?
Gone are the days of 'just for' watching Japan, China, the Middle East or Soviet Union. Australia always watched inwards and in the digital age everybody is in on the big privacy joke.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/12/telstra-deal-america-government-spying

The people we are waterboarding, on the other hand, have demonstrated both the desire and the ability to do us harm

Except for the innocent.

A cursory search reveals:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/04/former-state-department-official-team-bush-knew-many-at-gitmo-were-innocent/275327/
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/opinion/sunday/notes-from-a-guantanamo-survivor.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8471907/WikiLeaks-Guantanamo-Bay-terrorist-secrets-revealed.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/19/ex-bush-official-guantanamo-bay-innocent/
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=1997083
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/25/guantanamo-files-wrong-place-time
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/4/25/wikileaks_documents_reveal_us_knowingly_imprisoned
And many more.

You've never experienced the fanatical hatred these "people" have for those who don't share their ideology.

I lived in Israel from 1973 to 2000, 7 of those years I spent in the IDF (mandatory + standing army) and then did reserve service (as Captain) before emigrating.
I have experienced the hatred of people that would bomb a school-bus just to make headlines and I still find your attitude toward torture despicable.

Your post was an attempt at sarcasm, but it does have a serious side.

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2009/jan/08/barack-obama-favours-filesharing-opponents

RIAA heads at the Justice department? Not looking good for the NSA if they DO get taken to court by the RIAA and co.

The thing to remember about the BBC is that is the elite, who know they are the elite, getting an elite salary living in the elite section of London being quite ashamed about being elite, ridled with white guilt but not to the point of you know, hiring a "black" person. It is fun when you watch a show like "Have I got news for you" and you realize that 99% of the presentors and guests make more per episode then most Brits make in a year. "Deayton's salary was halved to £25,000 a show but the latest revelations forced Ms Heggessey's hand." http://www.theguardian.com/media/2002/oct/29/broadcasting.bbc6

That was ten years ago. HALVED TO, so it USED to be 50.000 pounds. Per episode. The series used to do two seasons per year of around a dozen episodes. And 50.000 pounds was his fee PER SHOW!

Now I don't know the exact economics of the UK but I think it is fair to assume that for most people, 50k a YEAR would be a nice salary to have. This guy gets it for a couple hours "work". His co-hosts frequently portray themselves as either being "working class" or defender of the down-trodden but they get similar fees and have other jobs besides this show.

Top Gear host Jeremy Clarkson made a joke about the UK soldiers who were captured by Iran that they made quite a nice salary "oh that is per year!?! never mind" he then quipped. It is funny but it shows the complete separation between normal people (the audience of the BBC) and its stars. What do these people, whether they host a popular entertainment program, a news show or the news itself about losing their job and not knowing how you are going to pay next weeks rent (and no, not knowing how you are going to pay the mortgage on your 3rd 5 million pound summer home is not the same thing).

Or do you think Angus Deaton getting his salary halved from a mere 50k to 25k for an half hour show is on the same level as a pensioner having their benefits cut?

The BBC used to be a rare mix of working class and oxford silver spoon people making TV if not together then at least in the same building. This has changed. The pay has gotten so good that even if they were working class when they started, they aren't after a few years. This has rotted the BBC to the point you can see it in their news service, they just don't get the working class, let alone the class without jobs anymore. They feel sorry for them but like a nobel who sends his butler with the remains of the turkey dinner to the orphanage. Watch some HIGNFY eps were there are working class union reps on. The hostility is palpatable, how dare these people who make less then 20k a year tells us what it is really about.

NSA doesn't have nuclear weapons aimed at NATO countries

Well, that they've told the public about. Fortunately, all the US nukes are under careful control at all times and the strategic targeting systems probably aren't run off anything involving a computer. And even if they were, the NSA aren't much into computers, don't have any experience writing viruses that penetrate command and control systems, and certainly don't have any access to computer networks that they shouldn't.

Yeah. Thanks for that bit of nightmare fuel.

Will someone remember Snowden is pointing out info to everyone. The most important info. Heck, the Russians pale in comparison to the dangers of the NSA. Ever heard of transparency? Got a clue?

Interesting comment from an Anonymous Coward, and provably wrong. I think you would have to point to genuine transparency on the part of Russia. As to the danger of Russia compared to NSA, to start with, NSA doesn't have nuclear weapons aimed at NATO countries, Russia does, and that's not all. Russia has apparently continued the former Soviet practice of killing dissidents and defectors. Of course Snowden was welcomed to Russia after he made arrangements with the Russian consulate in Hong Kong.

Russian general says Poland a nuclear 'target'

Number of Russian spies in the UK back to Cold War levels, say security services

Russia supported Litvinenko murder, says security official

The Russian government supported the murder of the former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko, it was reported last night.

A senior security official told BBC's Newsnight there were "very strong indications it was a state action" and that the Russian security services continued to have a "willingness to consider operations against people in the west".

Last year, the CPS issued an extradition warrant to bring Lugovoi back to the UK from Russia, but Putin refused to hand him over, saying it would be in breach of his country's constitution to do so.

Newsnight said it was told Russia's internal security organisation, the FSB, operated with far more autonomy than organisations usually entrusted with foreign espionage operations.

The source said: "We very strongly believe the Litvinenko case to have had some state involvement."

The source used an MI5 operation last summer in which officers arrested and deported a man they believed to be on a mission to kill another Russian dissident, Boris Berezovsky, as an example of "continued FSB willingness to consider operations against people in the west".

If America stopped exporting food, so many countries could finally get domestic food supply on financially viable track and get self-reliant and people in those countries would get up economically out of poverty and hunger. Agriculture is the first industry of any country and we are denying them to opportunity to build it, basically keeping them in the stone age.

On top of that people in US starve, while US exports food. How can you put that together other than the US Food Aid being basically a money giveaway to the local agriculture industry. You need to read some more on this "achievement" you mention. It is the one policy that basically decimates central america and africa and keeps them from developing. It is almost as bad as the fact that since they are now fully reliant on the food aid, we dictate policiies like no condoms in a continent fighting the worst AIDS epidemic.

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2012/jul/18/us-multinationals-control-food-aid

Make sure to get your flag ready.

The kind of PM talk UK newspapers can expect

In related news Dianne Feinstein has turned around her opinion and stated she is now 'totally opposed' to NSA surveillance of US allies.

Quite surprised at this, hopefully it is not empty rhetoric and actually goes somewhere. Very interested to see what the two leading goons of the NSA have to say for themselves in front of the House intelligence committee on Tuesday.

Peace,
Andy.

Guardian article from 2008 called 'Captcha is broken, now what?', which in turn references a Captcha-breaking algorithm that was created in 2005, "and demonstrated it by posting automated comments to nearly 100 blogs to demonstrate their vulnerability."

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2008/aug/28/internet.captcha

The point isn't to be completely NSA-proof. The purpose of efforts like this are twofold:

1.) Avoid automatic siphoning. Yes the NSA probably has the ability to get almost any kind of information, but by targeting the major providers (Apple, Google, Microsoft) they can automatically grab 90% of information. They could still get mine if they wanted but there's a chance it won't be automatically added to thir database.

2.) At this point the NSA has set up a wide surveillance net and they're grabbing everything by reflex. Because so much is unencrypted and easy. But, in the words of Bruce Schneier, "They're limited by the same economic realities as the rest of us, and our best defense is to make surveillance of us as expensive as possible."

The Korea's are amongst the most educated ironically enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Index

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/dec/07/world-education-rankings-maths-science-reading

I don't know what the fuck this article or the summary are on about.

Amazon is profitable. They (and many other multinationals) claim not to have profits on their ginormous revenues by shifting those profits offshore to avoid paying tax in their core market countries.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jul/19/oecd-tax-reform-proposals-amazon
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/22/us-eu-tax-avoidance-idUSBRE94L0GW20130522

Sweden had not concerns on doing it against Russia. And UK tapped cables in a lot of places. But they (along with other european countries) are just US minions, they had to obey, no matter what national or international law say.

I'm surprised we haven't had more "I don't recall..." moments from Obama. He'd be in good company.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/17/gulf-oil-spill-bp-chief-tony-hayward

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1990-02-23/news/9001160085_1_john-poindexter-recall-reagan-testimony

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Gonzales

http://www.fairtax.org/site/MessageViewer?em_id=34241.0

The US is using its national intelligence agencies to obtain intelligence on terrorists trying to kill people.

Yes, and obtaining intelligence on political movements like Occupy Wall Street.

The intelligence agencies themselves don't have police powers.

Oh? What's that you say? TFA is about warrantless surveillance undertaken by the FBI, which is the federal agency with explicit domestic police powers.

The suspect in this case is accused of assisting a terrorist group.

Under the USA PATRIOT Act, providing "material support" to a terrorist group can be as simple as expressing support for it. And having a terrorism suspect browse your web site is enough to spark a secret investigation of your organization which scares away many of the donors who keep it in operation.

East Germany's secret police had both an intelligence function and police powers.

The FBI, Secret Service, Drug Enforcement Agency, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, at least, are agencies with police powers and intelligence operations. Heck, even the NYPD is in on the deal.

Their primary purpose was to keep the East German Communist party in power.

Given that NSA snooping hasn't indisputably foiled even a single terrorist plot, and the FBI instigated virtually all of the "terrorist" plots they've busted, I have to wonder what is the primary purpose of these agencies. Surely not to intimidate political dissidents!

You could be arrested and imprisoned for such things as making jokes about the nation's leadership, wanting to form a new political party,

Here in the U.S., they've at least figured out that making jokes about the leadership is essentially harmless and does nothing to erode their power. If people started to rise up to challenge them, we might see that change; the architecture of oppression is in place. As for forming a new political party, it does no harm to talk of it, because it's essentially impossible due to the laws in most areas which protect the two incumbent parties.

being a member of an unapproved church,

Like a mosque?

trying to leave the country without permission (could get you shot on the spot)

It won't get you shot, but you apparently can't leave without permission. The U.S. apparently has more finesse than East Germany did.

and many other possible infractions.

There are plenty of other infractions that'll get you in trouble, like walking while black,

How are we, the U.S., different from East Germany?

Easy. The US is using its national intelligence agencies to obtain intelligence on terrorists trying to kill people.

Except when they entrap people who are too stupid to find their way to the bathroom and lead them by the hand into a Hollywood terrorist plot that they never would have come up with on their own. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/16/nyregion/16terror.html http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/dec/12/how-terrorist-entrapment-ensares-us-all

His Title of Lord should be revoked as well, unless thats automatic when being kicked out of the lords.

Also he has recently been awarded a CBE by the Queen for services to defending National Security. Also stripworthy.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/25/leaked-memos-gchq-mass-surveillance-secret-snowden

Or to jump start the economy ""We cannot live with unemployment and cost-of-living increases while our economy is at a standstill. It is therefore necessary that we eliminate zero tolerance towards uranium now," Greenland's prime minister, Aleqa Hammond, was quoted as saying by local newspaper Sermitsiaq during the debate." VIA http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/25/greenland-green-light-uranium-rare-earths-mining

that argument no longer holds water, now that we have the DNA testing and other advanced forensics that set those people free.

Those techiques are only as reliable as the people who do them, which is to say that they can, and do, go wrong.

If the EU position were a principled one, they would not be sending the same drugs to Iran. In fact, the policy remains popular among citizens in Europe.

If the EU position were a principled one, they would not be sending the same drugs to Iran. In fact, the policy remains popular among citizens in Europe.