Slashdot Mirror

They are switching drugs in Missouri, while adding a team of compounding pharmacists, so the drugs will be made on site and therefore not subject to Europe's politics. Also some of the European flexing here is a direct result of NSA wiretapping.

It's an example of how 95% of cyclists in my city and many others ride.

ANECDOTES ARE NOT EVIDENCE. You used it to support your claim that all cyclists are law-breaking, reckless, and cause their own injuries.

Cyclists are not reckless compared to anyone else using the road, and their behavior is substantially less reckless given that when they commit the same traffic infractions, they only endanger themselves. NYC counts cyclist-on-ped injuries and they account for less than 1% of total pedestrian injuries; the other 99% are motor vehicles.

Further, your claim that this reckless behavior equates to causes of injuries and deaths, is also bullshit. There are numerous studies and reviews that disprove this myth.

Again: just like women who blame rape victims for getting raped (she was drunk, she was dressed inappropriately, she shouldn't have been on that street, she shouldn't have been alone, etc) you're constructing a myth to convince yourself that you're better, and won't get injured or killed because you're better. You're doing it again, sanctimoniously talking about sport/recreational riders now (what does their clothing have to do with it?) Some day, a driver is going to do something illegal, you're not going to be able to avoid it despite how amazingly awesome a perfect bike rider you are in your non-spandex shorts. Then you'll get to witness first-hand the victim-blaming crap I've experienced.

Here's some real facts and studies:

Australian helmet cam study: http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/study-blames-drivers-for-bike-crashes-20101122-18330.html

London study: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/drivers-to-blame-for-twothirds-of-bicycle-collisions-in-westminster-8602166.html

UK-wide study: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study

Toronto study which found cyclists at fault in TEN PERCENT of crashes: http://www.examiner.com/article/study-claims-cyclists-at-fault-only-10-percent-of-crashes

Huh? Erosion of Trust? Are you familiar with the Organized Labor movement in most countries? It's fraught with conflict and violence. I will give you an example of how things go.

Let me give you a quick refresher. Jan 29, 1933 Ford employs the use of Strike Breakers. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1129&dat=19330130&id=z_8MAAAAIBAJ&sjid=YGkDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2487,5787301

in April, 1941 more violence with Ford.. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=7-RfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=IgMGAAAAIBAJ&pg=4483,1409316&dq=ford+hires+strike&hl=en

PATCO workers in a sick out in 1970.. http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10C14FD3E5A157493C5A9178FD85F448785F9

Organized labor exists because workers aren't happy with their working conditions. Unfortunately over the last 30 years with the decline in US manufacturing and with concerted efforts by companies to keep unions out, we're seeing a reduced influence by Unions in general. With growing wage disparity however, we'll probably see a resurgence in the movement. In fact, recently we've seen it with Walmart and McDonalds workers and it's been openly encouraged by the past few administrations. More and more states are pushing for Right to Work laws, which on the surface may seem good but that also makes workers more of a commodity by driving out unions, rather than a vital part of any organization.

So, when you say erosion of trust, I'd like to know exactly what era, or company you're talking about because when you work for somebody else, you're a cog in the machine and they'll do whatever they want with you within the definition of the law. If you're in a Right to Work state, you can get fired without cause so don't expect any kind of trust to be developed there.

While I don't agree with tracking employees, I think it's a natural problem we have with privacy. Privacy in this country is eroding faster than a sand castle at high tide and unless we start pushing on our elected officials to get legislation that protects us form these kinds of things, well companies will do all kinds of things that by lack of decree, they'll be able to do and you won't be able to stop it. Even in Norway, companies are using such novel ideas like bathroom alarms limiting you to 8 minutes per day.... Think of how that works for your rights and your trust with your employer.

I have an older version, but effectively the injury/death rate is mostly effected by poor decisions by the cyclist, not the car.

First off, "the car" doesn't do anything. The driver does. You're attributing behavior to an inanimate object, something I see people do constantly.

Second: several decades of research proves your claim wrong. Most collisions are due to the driver doing something illegal, sometimes simply failing to yield because they think they have right-of-way over someone on a bicycle.

Australian helmet cam study: http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/study-blames-drivers-for-bike-crashes-20101122-18330.html

London study: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/drivers-to-blame-for-twothirds-of-bicycle-collisions-in-westminster-8602166.html

UK-wide study: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study

Toronto study which found cyclists at fault in TEN PERCENT of crashes: http://www.examiner.com/article/study-claims-cyclists-at-fault-only-10-percent-of-crashes

The list goes on. Keep in mind that studies which are based off police reports that aren't carefully analyzed are typically faulty because police very often incorrectly side with motorists, don't interview cyclists, witness statements are wrong, etc. It's common to review a report, see obvious signs that the motorist did something illegal, and police do not cite them, and often cite the cyclist.

This guy was hit and two witnesses and the driver claimed he ran a red light; police tried to give him a ticket for running the light. He knew he hadn't. He found video from a traffic camera showing very clearly that he was cut off by the driver - what we call a "left cross": http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/19284/it-must-have-been-your-fault-cmon-you-are-a-biker/

It should make you stop and think to consider that many cyclists ride with helmet cameras. There's a reason - drivers lie, police don't believe us (or very often we're incapacitated or otherwise unable to defend ourselves), and witnesses are discriminatory towards cyclists or simply don't understand traffic laws or think they saw what they didn't.

That appears to be a problem with your driving. You don't drive at a speed that's safe for the automobile traffic around you, you drive at a speed that's safe for the road you're on, and apparently you're on a road that's frequented by cyclists. If you were on a limited access highway, maybe you could get away with your style of driving, but anywhere else you need to drive at a safe and prudent speed and expect obstacles in the road - bikes, pedestrians, stalled cars, dogs, cows, etc. I once narrowly avoided a refrigerator that was left in the middle of the road after it fell off a truck.

So basically, you expect drivers to do 15mph in a 35 just because you're too much of a dick to get the fuck out of the way.

Wow, don't they teach Driver's Ed in schools any more? Here's a legal definition of prudent speed:

A. A person shall not drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances, conditions and actual and potential hazards then existing. A person shall control the speed of a vehicle as necessary to avoid colliding with any object, person, vehicle or other conveyance on, entering or adjacent to the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to exercise reasonable care for the protection of others.

Do you think that a speed necessary to avoid colliding with a stationary object on the road means driving at zero mph?

All drivers have trouble avoiding something unexpected in the road when it's hard to see.

So your problem isn't in avoiding cyclists, it's that it's hard to see them? How could you see a pedestrian in the road if you can't see a cyclist, since they are about the same size?

Actually, many roads were first built because of lobbying by cyclists -- it wasn't until cars came later that bikes were pushed off to the shoulders.

Actually, roads were first built for horse-drawn vehicles. Then they were improved for automobiles. If you want to make extraordinary claims, you need some actual data to back it up. Otherwise, it's just bullshit.

Sorry, sometimes I assume that others have the same access to Google that I do:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2011/aug/15/cyclists-paved-way-for-roads

Oh, I understand my mortality when I'm on my bike, and since I know i'm not going to change the laws of physics, I've continued to encourage my legislators to write laws that hold cars more responsible when they are at-fault in collisions with cyclists. If car drivers thought they might face jail time for side swiping a cyclist, or hitting a cyclist "because I didn't see him" or "I was going too fast to stop", then perhaps they'll drive a little more carefully.

And if cyclists thought they might face jail time for not obeying the laws of the road as the majority constantly do, then perhaps they'd bike a little more intelligently. (Actually, that's obviously not true because cyclists already face serious injury and death for being stupid on the road, and they do it all the time anyway.) But no, let's make legislature with outrageous penalties to punish people for using the roads as they were intended.

You even admit that your argument makes no sense, yet you still use it? As you said, cyclists already face *far* more punishment and face disproportionate risk for traffic accidents.

After all, your right to bike is clearly more important than the right of ANYONE to drive a car.

Bottom line though is you're being quite stupid about all this.

Well no, sorry that you misunderstood me, I don't think that drivers should be banned from roa

Don't forget jealousy.

But anyway, I hear the European "union" is not a happy one.

Railing against the 'Fourth Reich': Anti-German Mood Heats Up in Greece

And someone is the family might be hearing the voices of ghosts of the past.

Germany shocked by secret service link to rightwing terror cell

And the "hired help" has caused some concerns.

Kohl wanted to reduce Germany's Turkish population by one half

Who can tell what will happen?

You don't think there are more possibilities than your binary choice? They can only be either looking for terrorists or "industrial espionage for fascist criminal gangster military/industrial complex profits"?

How do you know it might not have been for diplomatic intelligence given the growing possibility of the EU splitting up over the financial crisis and problems between Greece and Germany?

Railing against the 'Fourth Reich': Anti-German Mood Heats Up in Greece

How do you know it wasn't regarding internal policy discussions about Germany's recently revealed ethnic problems, one that will become relatively more important in the coming years?

Kohl wanted to reduce Germany's Turkish population by one half

Especially in light of the fact that Germany was home to one of the 9/11 terror cells?

The Hamburg connection

German prosecutors said the Hamburg cell consisted of eight members: three suicide pilots, three logistical planners and two others whose role remains vague, but who might also have become suicide pilots. The cell was active and embarking on the plot to attack US targets by the summer of 1999, the prosecutors said. Mohammed Atta, a wealthy Egyptian, is believed to have been a key figure in the Hamburg cell, but also the ringleader of all 19 of the 9/11 hijackers.

Or perhaps there was a concern about government links to neo-Nazis?

Germany shocked by secret service link to rightwing terror cell

An agent working for Germany's answer to MI5 was at the scene of one of the 10 murders carried out by neo-Nazi terrorists, the domestic intelligence agency has confirmed, fuelling speculation that the killers' movements were known to the authorities during their 13 years on the run.

Perhaps there is a concern about another country developing WMD with assistance from German companies?

HALABJA / ANFAL 1988 - 2013

in 2010 the German government stated in response to a parliamentary enquiry: “The responsibility for the events of Halabja lies with the past Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein.” Many documents and sources, though, not only suggest that German cooperation was essential for the Iraqi poison gas program. They also show that there was already some awareness about this in Germany back then. All the same, the relevant goods were delivered. ....

The German government is jointly responsible for the suffering of the people of Halabja. 70 percent of the equipment for Iraqi chemical weapons plants were delivered by German companies. German foreign intelligence service personnel had been present in at least one of these companies. Most parts to enhance Iraq’s rockets, grenades and missiles were delivered from Germany.

Since you want to follow conspiracy theories, how do you know that it wasn't a possible crypto-communist in the administration deliberately undertaking high risk activities with the US intelligence apparatus that were likely to be discovered, to expose it and cripple it prior to the end of the administration?

There are certainly many more possibilities than just the two you propose. The one thing obvious to me is that you are not a serious person.

I don't know, but you will have to bypass that last remaining 50c switch or no boom-boom: http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/sep/20/goldsboro-revisited-declassified-document

... if all the lauch codes are zero anyway?

(Well, alright that was some time ago, but really... this points to systemic issues, and I don't think they'll have been fixed within a few years.)

If you are deliberately killing innocent people with drones, you aren't doing it right. That is why they don't deliberately target innocent people.

That's the point: they don't deliberately target innocent people. Drones seem to still kill a fuckton of civilians, though.

Former US drone pilot quits, regretting bombing innocents, including children

U.S. Accused of Using Drones to Target Rescue Workers and Funerals in Pakistan

Living Under Drones: Stanford International Human Rights & Conflict Resolution Clinic"

Why don't you demonstrate your true manliness and post something more along these lines?

Or do you not want to end up in a video on Facebook or Youtube? Move along, nothing to see .... if you want to keep your head.

No problems there. Nope. Nope. It seems to be a successful strategy for them. You seem to be encouraging it.

South Park Muhammad Cartoon Sparks Jihadi Death Threats

Why don't you demonstrate your true manliness and post something more along these lines?

Or do you not want to end up in a video on Facebook or Youtube? Move along, nothing to see .... if you want to keep your head.

No problems there. Nope. Nope. It seems to be a successful strategy for them. You seem to be encouraging it.

South Park Muhammad Cartoon Sparks Jihadi Death Threats

Let's get real. The worst christians is Westboro Baptist Church and what do they do? Protest funerals and tell everyone how gay lovers will burn in hell. Let's try an experiment: Paint Jesus in Feces in a Christian country and see what the worst thing that will happen to you as a result? Next, pain Mohammed in feces and see what will happen to you in a Muslim country. Or even a European one (death threats anyone)?

Oh wait, you were trying to make a lame attempt at equating the two.

George W. Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq'

From http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa:

> One of the delegates, Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at the time, said: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."

> Mr Bush went on: "And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it."

Invading nations for religious beliefs seems serious. I don't think Bush was talking about Allah. Westboro Baptist Church isn't in his league.

Sweden - NSA Codename "Sardine" - more than likely receives secret funding from the NSA to establish the infrastructure, just like the UK does. They may even recieve more funding than the UK given their gateway status to Russian internet traffic.

Also check out the professor blog website I linked previously - you cannot trust Swedens perception of "strong protections" anymore - there are good reasons why Sweden is now rated below Botswana, Romania and Senegal in the WJP Rule of Law Index. Sad how bad it has got there, really.

Has anyone noticed that they now describe Man Made Global warming, which nobody uses anymore to describe climate change based on man made contribution, or that is, to initiate a world wide carbon tax, is now generic Climate Change?

You boring little toad.

Why do you bother spouting the same crap that other ignorant toads have spouted before you.

Please come up with something new.

Look, even "Yahoo Answers" can point out your idiocy. What a failure.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111107085541AAO1w0v

Heeeres Luntzy...

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange

The phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", Mr Luntz says

How do you define a country's cuisine? South & South East Asian cuisine was very different before European traders took chillies and tomatoes. Potato is common in Europe, but also comes from South America.

Curry made in Britain is different to what's known in India (see here). Wikipedia suggests curry was here before fish and chips.

"Sunday Roast", as cooked by most people, is crap. Not so much because of the meat, but because most people serve it with boiled vegetables. I put up with this for 18 years, as my dad insisted on cooking on Sundays, and that's all he would cook. Sometimes my mum would make leeks in cheese sauce as a side dish, which is a good improvement to an otherwise bland meal.

I think if I had to make something particularly British, it should be a meat or fish pie, maybe something like this chicken and leek pie (I like leeks). There's plenty of opportunity for flavour.

I don't know what "nasty pudding" is. "Hocky pucks" sound Canadian. I've not heard of "fruitcake cocktail" either.
Dundee cake is good -- although very heavy. If you have space, make it in autumn, leave it in the kitchen, and pour a spoonful of brandy over it every time you walk past. Serve at Christmas. If iced with marzipan and royal icing it's called a Christmas cake. Trifle is the other good opportunity to get all the children tipsy.

These guys are probably not true Scotsmen^WEuropeans either.

And we've yet to see what else those leaks hold about other countries - next batch is about France and Spain, let's see what they have to say about them.

Bin Laden's stated goal was not to turn the west to Islam. Why would he want a bunch of white devils screwing up his precious Islam. He hated us remember?

Islam is open to people of all races. It isn't a question of race, and I'm not sure how you got that.

In his letter to America, Bin Laden's first demand was for conversion to Islam. That is consistent with al Qaida's long term goal of bringing about Muslim rule of the world under their variety of Sharia law. Providing such a warning is also consistent with the demands of their culture in making holy war.

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.

As to your Bin Laden quote, that is only to achieve an intermediate aim of reducing the US ability to resist their goals. The long range goal is the same - conversion to Islam, or destruction.

The Future of Terrorism: What al-Qaida Really Wants

"In the UK, obviously they have fewer levers to pull so they may, again, have to have that difficult 'social contract' conversation."

I don't think we do. There are plenty of places we could cut first and save a fortune. For example, in the UK if you have a kid and earn less than £50k a year you get a few grand a year for free.

I imagine we'll stop giving free money to people for no other reason than the fact they chose to have kids long before we start denying people healthcare.

Our government wants to spend £50bn (assuming it's even on budget) on a new train line too which seems to have no financial case judging from impartial and non-partisan scrutiny.

Then there's our nuclear submarines we want to replace.

That's before you consider other benefits:

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/08/uk-benefit-welfare-spending

We can even stop giving free TV licenses, free bus passes, free money for fuel bills and a state pension to wealthy retired baby boomers also if necessary - yes, that's right, even if you're a millionaire you get money to help pay your fuel bill and a free bus pass past a certain age all paid for by the state.

Really, there's an awful lot that can go before we need to start considering restricting access to healthcare with literally no negative impact on society. As much as they'll still bitch and moan anyway because that's what they do does anyone really think that denying the thousands with even only half a million in assets and a pension access to a free bus pass would have any negative effect on society whatsoever given that they could trivially afford to just pay for the bus with their existing money like anyone else?

Couple that with getting competent people rather than the typical lifelong public sector jobsworths they normally get to pretend to improve the situation (and who inevitable fail) of efficiency in the NHS and I'd wager not only can we deal with that £30bn gap, but we can still have change left over for another carrier group or nuclear submarine or whatever else we fancy.

Free care in the NHS isn't going anywhere at all in at least the next few decades, if ever.

Or if Labour are in at the time (not that I'm a fan of the Tories FWIW) we'll probably just stick it on the national credit card and grow the deficit to pay for it instead, because that's far easier than dealing with the actual problems like free handouts to those who neither need nor deserve them, and major problems of inefficiency largely due to lack of accountability.

Actually, it is true. If you go by percentage of GDP it's even worse for the U.S.

Even going by your source, and using your metric, the numbers still don't match your claim. Based on that OECD chart, as a percentage of GDP, no countries in Europe are paying only half as much for health care as the US...

In countries like the U.K. the doctors are employees and so don't go out of business.

And this is EXACTLY what happens in every discussion... Proponents pick and choose feature X from country Y, pass over the shortcomings, and combine them into a theoretical system that sounds great, but doesn't exist...

If you'd like to compare the US and UK, fine, but say so, and keep everything strictly confined to those two...

Insurance can't make healthcare less expensive in the aggregate, it can only spread the cost evenly across the insured population.

That's complete nonsense. Insurance companies negotiate prices with individual hospitals and private doctors, and can dictate to their customers which doctors they can and cannot visit. The prices for Kaiser Permanente are completely and totally different than for BlueShield, and the former was studied by the UK Health Service because they were lower-cost than the UK.

Under socialized medicine, wait times for elective procedures can be longer than in the U.S.

Let's grab a few quick numbers about the NHS:

"1 in 10 dentists having left the NHS totally."

"An NHS trust has spent more than £12,000 on private treatment for hospital staff because its own waiting times are too long."

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jun/03/nhs-waiting-times-getting-longer-report

"The average wait before having a new knee fitted rose from 88.9 days to 99.2 days, while patients needing hernia surgery typically waited 78.3 days in 2011"

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/apr/19/david-cameron-pressure-nhs-waiting-times

Even that's too fair to the NHS as the average doesn't mention the longest people have had to wait and suffer. Wait times are a way to ration health-care, just as much as increased prices are. It would be a hard sell to the US public that they can't get treated right when they need it, but need to wait months. And the competition between NHS and private insurance is just as much a reality when two private insurance companies must compete.

Actually, it is true. If you go by percentage of GDP it's even worse for the U.S.

Even going by your source, and using your metric, the numbers still don't match your claim. Based on that OECD chart, as a percentage of GDP, no countries in Europe are paying only half as much for health care as the US...

In countries like the U.K. the doctors are employees and so don't go out of business.

And this is EXACTLY what happens in every discussion... Proponents pick and choose feature X from country Y, pass over the shortcomings, and combine them into a theoretical system that sounds great, but doesn't exist...

If you'd like to compare the US and UK, fine, but say so, and keep everything strictly confined to those two...

Insurance can't make healthcare less expensive in the aggregate, it can only spread the cost evenly across the insured population.

That's complete nonsense. Insurance companies negotiate prices with individual hospitals and private doctors, and can dictate to their customers which doctors they can and cannot visit. The prices for Kaiser Permanente are completely and totally different than for BlueShield, and the former was studied by the UK Health Service because they were lower-cost than the UK.

Under socialized medicine, wait times for elective procedures can be longer than in the U.S.

Let's grab a few quick numbers about the NHS:

"1 in 10 dentists having left the NHS totally."

"An NHS trust has spent more than £12,000 on private treatment for hospital staff because its own waiting times are too long."

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jun/03/nhs-waiting-times-getting-longer-report

"The average wait before having a new knee fitted rose from 88.9 days to 99.2 days, while patients needing hernia surgery typically waited 78.3 days in 2011"

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/apr/19/david-cameron-pressure-nhs-waiting-times

Even that's too fair to the NHS as the average doesn't mention the longest people have had to wait and suffer. Wait times are a way to ration health-care, just as much as increased prices are. It would be a hard sell to the US public that they can't get treated right when they need it, but need to wait months. And the competition between NHS and private insurance is just as much a reality when two private insurance companies must compete.

Re Or ask to people die early
The usually tame UK press started to find out about the Liverpool Care Pathway. So the term Liverpool Care Pathway is no longer used.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jul/15/liverpool-care-pathway-independent-review
The UK will have to work with what it has: a cheap pharmaceutical list, citizens only care, hospice early and often.
Redefine old age health care back to the point of handing out free canes for knees/hips or dark glasses for cataracts?
Blood transfusions and cancer treatments just dont work so well with older retired people "new" studies show....say over 50?
You will get good cancer surgery but unless you make an effort to enquire about more treatment options you will be sent home.
If you dont have family or friends in the health care sector to help with treatment questions your surgery and pain meds will be only burden on limited tax payers funds... till the hospice.
Tax "breaks" for "selecting" private life long health insurance. You still get free care but you might opt to use your private care.
Another top tip: - much fewer pathologists or epidemiologists. They tend to find things and tell the world.

NHS has clearly been under pressure for quite some time. Strange that it rarely comes up in discussion.

Complaints about doctors 'double in five years'

Crackdown on migrants rights to NHS and council homes
Patients facing eight-hour waits in ambulances outside A&E departments
Watchdog issues NHS with financial health warning
Why do the UK's cancer survival rates still lag behind the rest of Europe?
Thousands of NHS operations cancelled because of blunders as complaints about standard of treatment rise
The frightening truth: NHS-managers are incentivized to ignore problems
Hungry, thirsty, unwashed: NHS treatment of the elderly condemned
Dying for a drink: Over 12,000 killed by dehydration in hospitals every year

Labour must bear the blame for the shameful decline of the NHS

Eh, our whole country adopted nonce for nearly four decades.

http://slashdot.org/story/13/04/04/1825231/want-to-keep-messages-from-the-feds-use-imessage These guys called it http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130405/01485922590/dea-accused-leaking-misleading-info-falsely-implying-that-it-cant-read-apple-imessages.shtml So leaked documents are being used for disinformation. Hmm... http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/oct/04/tor-stinks-nsa-presentation-document

Apple admits, âiPhone 5s Fingerprint Database To Be Shared With NSAâ(TM)

Um, no.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/27/no-nsa-iphone-5s-fingerprint-apple

Important quote, in case you decide to not read the linked article:

Reality check: the article claiming this comes from a right-wing "satire" site. Why are people confused? Because the satire's badly executed.

And, before you don your tinfoil hat in an attempt to refute this information, please try to remember that my source is The Guardian - you know, the source of the Snowden information.

So, yeah - please do think twice before spouting off moronic stupidity.

In Bristol, UK, a $25m police firearms training centre was torched by locals. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/28/anarchist-fire-police-firearms-training

I guess it depends on the terms "establish" and "train" and the name/branding/flag of the 'freedom fighters" at the time CF :)
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jul/08/july7.development
"The struggle against terrorism cannot be won by military means" by Robin Cook (Foreign Secretary in the UK from 1997–2001)
ie ..." literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians."

"The plain fact is that what has happened has damaged national security and in many ways the Guardian themselves admitted that when they agreed, when asked politely by my national security adviser and cabinet secretary to destroy the files they had, they went ahead and destroyed those files. So they know that what they're dealing with is dangerous for national security."

After an unannounced visit from GCHQ the Guardian destroyed some harddrives, but not the ones the data was on ..

How would we know if there were simply enough investment, and real economic growth on a sustained basis wouldn't benefit much from additional investment?

Unless you're in a 1990's style bubble, you should see returns drop.

Admittedly I am again choosing an outlier here, but look at Apple. They have $150 BN of cash, how can they POSSIBLY use that productively just to develop the next smartphone or tablet? They can't and they aren't.

People refer to it as "cash" but it's not cash. It's a big ass hedge fund. As of last year, they had $90B in "long term marketable securities". The fact that they can't invest that money productively in their own super-optimized operation doesn't mean they aren't investing it productively elsewhere. In fact, the very fact that Apple can get *better* yields investing broadly in other stocks than it can by investing more in its own absurdly profitable operations is an indicator that current returns are very good (or that it has bad incentives to do weird things due to broken tax policies).

If returns to capital were crap and labor was really where it's at, the top 1% would not be seeing such rapid income growth, and the top 0.1% wouldn't be shooting ahead as quickly as they were. We'd see a much flatter income distribution. What we actually see is that the income brackets that get most of their income from capital are growing the fastest. That was briefly not true during the crash, but they recovered rapidly while labor continued to stagnate.

There's a lot of money looking for a safe place to earn a good yield instead of chasing productive new investment. For the past few years, anybody with the capital to risk and the patience to wait for the return to normal has done very well in riskier investment. The fact that people can't park their money somewhere safe and earn a good rate of return isn't a symptom of too much investment overall, just too much investment in safe assets.

The Guardian has a great companion article detailing several ways the government has used the term "threat to national security" to cover up nothing more than embarrassing facts about the way it conducts itself.

One example:

National security was said to be under threat in 1972, journalists were bugged and blackmailed by police, and threatened with prosecution under the Official Secrets Act, when the director of public prosecutions ordered Scotland Yard to identify the source of a leaked document.

The reason? The document, from the Ministry of Transport, disclosed that ministers were quietly considering the closure of 4,600 miles of railway lines - almost half the nation's network. And if the culprit would leak that secret, the ministry and the DPP reasoned, what else would he or she expose?

No, in fairness to Clegg, he has stated he wants to update oversight of the intelligence agencies

This is Nick "I will oppose any increase in tuition fees, honest" Clegg we're talking about, isn't it?

No, in fairness to Clegg, he has stated he wants to update oversight of the intelligence agencies:

British deputy prime minister Nick Clegg is to start conversations in government about how to update the legal oversight of the UK's security services in the light of disclosures by the Guardian that powerful new technologies appear to have outstripped the current system of legislative and political oversight.

According to Julian Borger, diplomatic editor of The Guardian, they destroyed the hard drives containing the files so they could keep reporting about the case.

NSA files: why the Guardian in London destroyed hard drives of leaked files

Most will end like a frog in boiling water. Releasing the documents bit by bit don't let people absorb how bad the whole thing is. They got the first memory, and then all is more of the same, without analyzing what implies or what new thing had come to light.

Also had been a good media (and social networks) campaing downplaying it, it was just metadata, then was just snooping, then that others governments do something similar, and so on. By the time most of people know someone affected by this would be already too late.

Regarding the rest of the world, some of them are doing something to protect themselves (i.e. Brazil), some are partners in crime (i.e. UK), and others behave like minions (like some european countries).

Since 2000, we have seen serious major acts of terrorism in this country typically once or twice a year.â

Really? I don't recall one or two major acts of terrorism a year since 2000. In fact I only recall one (7/7), and maybe you could count the bungled attempt to bomb an airport but those guys were laughably dumb. So what are the other 20 odd major acts of terrorism that I somehow slept through?

( Note to moderators: The question was asked, I'm answering it. )

Here is a starter for you. I'm quite sure there are more out there since this was just a hasty search. When I started this post I was assuming that plots would count as "acts," but it looks like the number goes well over anyway between the various Islamists and the Real IRA. (As this was done in haste I may have posted something redundant, but it really doesn't alter the outcome much. A more careful search would no doubt turn up more.)

Bomb plot: Life sentence for Irfan Naseer, ringleader of Birmingham men planning wave of UK suicide attacks

London terror bomb plot: the four terrorists

Four men pleaded guilty to plotting a Christmas bomb attack on the London Stock Exchange and causing a 'Mumbai-style' atrocity.

Fertiliser bomb plot: The story

Five men have been convicted of plotting to build a bomb which police say could have killed hundreds of British people. The men were caught after police and MI5 launched a massive surveillance operation.

British terrorists conspired in bombs plot - security officials

Counter-terrorism officials said last night they believe British terrorists who are still at large were involved in the conspiracy to launch car bomb attacks on London and Glasgow.
Details emerged as it became clear that five of the suspects under arrest are doctors working and training in the NHS, and one is a doctor working in Australia where he was arrested last night.

Airline terror trial: The bomb plot to kill 10,000 people

On honeymoon in the sunshine, Britons who forged a terror plot to plant peroxide and bleach bombs in Jewish areas

Shasta Khan and her husband also had beheading videos, bomb-making guides and bleach at their home
Police found the terror-related material after being called to a domestic dispute at their house
A satnav showed they had been on multiple trips to Jewish populated areas looking for targets

British soldier hacked to death in suspected Islamist attack

A British soldier was hacked to death by two men shouting Islamic slogans in a south London street on Wednesday, in what the government said appeared to be a terrorist attack.

A dramatic clip filmed by an onlooker just minutes after the killing showed a man with hands covered in blood, brandishing a bloodied meat cleaver and a knife. "We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you. The only reason we have done this is because Muslims are dying every day," the black man in his 20s or 30s, wearing a wool jacket and jeans

And here I thought the biggest threat was the ISP's themselves.

Revealed: How US and UK Spy Agencies Defeat Internet Privacy and Security

The agencies, the documents reveal, have adopted a battery of methods in their systematic and ongoing assault on what they see as one of the biggest threats to their ability to access huge swathes of internet traffic – "the use of ubiquitous encryption across the internet".

Those methods include covert measures to ensure NSA control over setting of international encryption standards, the use of supercomputers to break encryption with "brute force", and – the most closely guarded secret of all – collaboration with technology companies and internet service providers themselves.

Sorry, I posted this somewhere esle - should have been here: Sadly nothing new here in terms on government "understanding" of the need to: 1. Freeze the specs. 2. Have your Lawyers look at the contract for the tiniest of loopholes and then hold the contractors to it. 3. Be aware that contractors (especially the big ones - no acronyms supplied here) will indeed be like Lawyers and say "ooh you didn't specify that - it's a change request" 4. Test early, test often - and then test, test & test again. 5. Pay good attention to usability. Check this out: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/18/nhs-records-system-10bn [theguardian.com]. Sixteen billion US expended so far (and still counting) - negligible returns.

Sadly nothing new here in terms on government "understanding" of the need to: 1. Freeze the specs. 2. Have your Lawyers look at the contract for the tiniest of loopholes and then hold the contractors to it. 3. Be aware that contractors (especially the big ones - no acronyms supplied here) will indeed be like Lawyers and say "ooh you didn't specify that - it's a change request" 4. Test early, test often - and then test, test & test again. 5. Pay good attention to usability. Check this out: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/18/nhs-records-system-10bn Sixteen billion US expended so far (and still counting) - negligible returns.

Hundreds of open access journals, including those published by industry giants Sage, Elsevier and Wolters Kluwer, have accepted a fake scientific paper in a sting operation that reveals the "contours of an emerging wild west in academic publishing". The hoax, which was set up by John Bohannon, a science journalist at Harvard University, saw various versions of a bogus scientific paper being submitted to 304 open access journals worldwide over a period of 10 months.

With all due respect, Malala's greatest accomplishment until today is getting shot and having it spinned all over the news. While talking and raising issues is important, practical contribution to general peace is far from having been established (yes, Obama peace prize was a major mistake). Her wiki page has only 3 meagre paragraphs on political career and activism which is not at all on par with Nobels of 2010 and 2011 who would be comparable to her. She's too young and she has much more to prove. I believe she will in time but not yet.

The Guardian has an article describing in some more detail the works of OPCW. They have been overseeing the destruction of about 80% of declared chemical stocks all over the world. This is a dangerous job and an appreciation is totally deserved, and they probably need it now more than ever. It's a great Nobel prize rewarding an agency which is just silently doing its job to clean humanity up of some of the nastiest stuff it had invented.

Well, not directly

Skype allows the government to monitor way more than just your calls and messages. It can also access your browser data such as bookmarks and plugins as well as other data on your computer.

Skype is being investigated by Luxembourg's data protection commissioner over concerns about its secret involvement with the US National Security Agency (NSA) spy programme Prism, the Guardian has learned.
The Microsoft-owned internet chat company could potentially face criminal and administrative sanctions, including a ban on passing users' communications covertly to the US signals intelliigence agency.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/oct/11/skype-ten-microsoft-nsa?CMP=twt_gu

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.

Looks like us sane peole should start emulating the Napoli football fans who recently staged a protest for the right to be insulted by Milan fans after said fans were banned from their own stadium for "offensive language".

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/09/italian-football-fans-abuse-milan-napoli

Fuck all these whiny pussies who want to turn the world into some sort of cotton swaddled PC playgrond for retards.

It mostly tells me that Sweden respects the principle of legality more than you do. In Sweden extradition requests are negotiated before a court. What you want is the government to tell the judge what the outcome of such a case should be. That may work in Mother Russia but it doesn't fly in Sweden.

Ooo, look, anther Zombie Lie. The Swedish courts can prevent the government from extraditing someone, but they cannot compel it.

4 Points
1) Diversity is good, but... You must keep in mind that is not sufficient reason to read a source. A 'diversity' of falsehoods is worthless.
2) You can't read everything. Choose the areas that mean the most to you (international affairs, economics, national or local politics, etc) and try to find 2-3 sources that seem to do good work in those areas.
3) Be aware who is paying the bills. The consumers/adverisers in typical newspapers? Purely advertisers as in television/online reporting? Government in state funded broadcasting? I don't believe reporters will bend their views to match the person paying the bills. Instead reporters with unsympathetic views will often not get hired in the first place (probably not a lot of leftwingers in Fox or rightwingers on MSNBC). I'd strongly recommend reading Manufacturing Consent for more information.
4) Let your choices evolve. The editors today may not be the editors tomorrow. Companies get bought out, new ones arise. How much longer will the Guardian's editor remain?

My recommendations:
The guardian -- You already have your reasons. I think their dissimenating the NSA leaks and wikileaks info when no one else would is justification enough.
al jazeera -- Particularly foreign viewpoint, high quality.
Democracy Now -- Not the best quality but clearly believe what they say and is run off donations. Also provides an American (important to me as I am one) viewpoint on things.
Their are others I think are probably good and have seen other posters mention already but I'm not experienced enough with them to know.

Already happened, to great bemusement on the part of the Guardian.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/21/nsa-nick-clegg-guardian-leaked-files

No worries, from an article about the destruction of hard drives:

The editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, had earlier informed government officials that other copies of the files existed outside the country and that the Guardian was neither the sole recipient nor steward of the files leaked by Snowden, a former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor. But the government insisted that the material be either destroyed or surrendered.

"I explained to British authorities that there were other copies in America and Brazil so they wouldn't be achieving anything," Rusbridger said.

Would you want the police or security services to be able to listen in on the phone calls, or read the emails, of a gang that had kidnapped one of your loved ones and threatened to mail you various body parts each day until you paid the ranson?

Tortured Mexican kidnap victim says: 'I would sit there wondering how people could be that bad'

For a week he was a side-show for gunmen who beat him with planks and pistol handles and gave him electric shocks to intensify his screams when they put him on the phone to his poverty-stricken family, demanding money for his release. The rest of the time, he says, he was forced to watch his captors going about the more serious business of torturing information out of captured members of the Gulf cartel by cutting off different pieces of their bodies each day for about a week. Then they were killed, their mutilated bodies burnt to dust on the mountainside.

"They told me the same thing would happen to me, if the ransom didn't arrive," he says.

The police can invade pretty much any home that they need to, why don't they? If there are limitations on them invading homes, how can there not be for electronic surveillance? Their numbers are not unlimited.

You may disagree with him, but I think this interview with Sir David Omand, former GCHQ Director, is worth listening to.

And where is the sharing of that information with Israel? And where is the part where this is not surveillance, but directly hacking into personal machines and servers planting backdoors on them? Also, if your private data have some corporation interested on it, would it go there?