Slashdot Mirror

If you have enough money in the bank, you don't have to pay taxes.

You obviously aren't American (or one of the herd) if you believe that crap.

Well, in America the richer you are, the better equipped you are for tax evasion. You probably also pay less of a percentage of your income than a middle class person. For example, Warren Buffet pays around 17.7 percent and his secretary around 30.0 percent (See "Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary" at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece)

At a corporate level instead of a personal level, many corporations such as Google and GM get away with paying close to 0% taxes. Google pays 2% in taxes.

So, while you call it "crap", there is actually a lot of truth to what he says.

30,000 feet is about as high as Everest. People have walked up Everest and survived... ...in fact I'm not sure I believe their conclusions. You'd be down to almost 'normal' conditions in about a minute.

People have survived half an hour at altitudes higher than that, eg. Ewa Wisnierska.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4901449.ece Why should a Church have access to INTERPOL data? Funny separation of Church and State ? And also why does a Church need armed guards? Why don't other religions need private police forces.
And should the Catholic Church have any access to INTERPOL considering the abuse potential?

"January 23, 2009 -- President Obama 'orders Pakistan drone attacks'"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5575883.ece
"Security officials said the strikes, which saw up to five missiles slam into houses in separate villages, killed seven "foreigners" - a term that usually means al-Qaeda - but locals also said that three children lost their lives. "

See also, my comments:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html

The previous Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, was also embarrassed over this issue. In an interview he claimed that he mostly listened to The Beatles on his iPod. At the time, there was no digital download available for any Beatles songs, and ripping songs from a CD is illegal under UK copyright law. When this was subsequently pointed out, there was a hurried statement that Brown had mis-spoke and listened to the Beatles on his CD player, not the iPod. Hilarious.

So here's what clarkson had to say at the time. From the times online:

Phone calls were made. Editorial policy wallahs were consulted. Experts were called in. No “i” was left undotted. No “t” was left uncrossed. No stone remained unturned in our quest for truth and decency.

Tesla could not complain about what was shown because it was there. And here’s the strange thing. It didn’t. But someone did. Loudly and to every newspaper in the world.
..

This was weird. Tesla, when contacted by reporters, gave its account of what happened and it was exactly the same as ours. It explained that the brakes had stopped working because of a blown fuse and didn’t question at all our claim that the car would have run out of electricity after 55 miles.

You would figure that if these claims were so outrageous, tesla would have contradicted them at the time.

The real problem with any religious activity is that it's a drain on human energy. There's no value in attempting to prove which particular set of fairy tales is true.

Quite wrong.

As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God

The UN is supposed to promote peace, not war. More about promoting dialogue. In either case it is not supposed to become a world government in itself. Read this paper on the matter which pretty much reflects a huge chunk of US Foreign Policy: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/52425/jesse-helms/saving-the-un-a-challenge-to-the-next-secretary-general So if interfering in other people's affairs is necessary why is the international community supporting the fight in Bahrain AGAINST the rebels and doing nothing in Yemen, just like they did in Rwanda not so long ago. Besides even the Lybian issue is starting to get messy, as this Arab League recent statement shows: "What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians," This is regime change disguised under humanitarian action. Crimes against the civilian population is just the excuse to get in. Hell, there are crimes against the civilian population in Palestine and nobody gives a damn, and it's not only Israel, Egypt is also blocking their side of the frontier. So try to come up with something better than "war crimes are comitted against civilians". Read this if you are still not convinced: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5470047.ece

Wasn't without cause in what sense, exactly?

Media campaign for Iraq war started in advance of any intelligence findings at all
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB254/index.htm

No imminent threat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Report_on_Pre-war_Intelligence_on_Iraq

"The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence found that many of the allegations in the speech were not supported by the underlying intelligence."

MI6 warns Blair that no WMDs exist - Bush admin ignores it
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4466512.ece

There's like 50 of these, get a grip. We were railroaded into the war under the false premise that these were the people who attacked us. It was probably for ideological reasons, but plenty of big players dipped their beaks as deep as they could go. As for "proximate" causes (which, one can easily argue, would not have even happened without our involvement), the civilian casualty count in Iraq was greater than tens of thousands, with lowest estimates starting upwards of 100,000.

I can't believe I'm still arguing these points. How much evidence is required? Yes, I hated Bush II, but we aren't talking about some red-blue pissing match. This blood was spilt from and by our children, and it was based on fabrication and hand-waving. Won't someone... PLEASE actually think of the children - like, for real this time?

So is a fleshlight. Would you give those to a child to play with?
How about something with a less specific use - like a laser pointer. Or a starter pistol.

You may consider the iPhone to be JUST a toy, but it is a portable communication computer likes of which didn't exist when you were born.
Also, it contains an explosive battery packed into a housing that heats up when in use AND a microwave device that is still argued about regarding if it causes cancer or not.
And that's just the physical injuries that it can cause to an unsupervised toddler.
But what do I care. Your kid, your money, your problem.

I read an article by Richard Hammond about that episode, and in the episode they made it look like the hosts were in A LOT less danger than they really were.

Ah finally dug it up:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/features/article6858884.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1

They also don't have any borders. If you piss them off, they will come to you and stir polonium 210 into your tea when you're not looking. Or, they'll come to your apartment and kill you in your elevator. Or, if they really want to make an example of you they will straight up shoot you in the face on the street in broad daylight.

How about doing some research?

I may not have had all the details correct, but as I said, it was something I heard on the radio. To be more accurate (now that I've bothered to look deeper into it) a grandmother in Iraq was part of plan to single out women, have them raped, and then she'd "console" them by talking them into blowing themselves up, rather than letting themselves be murdered by their families for the dishonor of being raped. There are reports of a similar plan being used against boys in Afghanistan where they are raped by men and then giving the option of blowing themselves up and getting into heaven, or being executed for having "participated" in gay sex and going to hell.

You mean like how the rich pay more in taxes than anyone else? (both in percentage of income and in total amount).

If only that were true.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece

The rich know full well they pay proportionally less tax. That you don't know it indicates you're not rich. You're just a wannabe.

Have you ever seen a child support payment that really was equal to half the cost of feeding, clothing, housing, and medical care for the child? It doesn't happen.

Which fantasy world are you living in? How about a man that was jailed because he's refusing to pay significantly more than half of the cost of feeding, clothing, housing and caring for his children:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article1985796.ece

Or ignoring whether it's half the costs of caring for the children, is 80% of a man's income a fair amount to take? No wonder the guy killed himself:
http://www.mensrights.com.au/Men_Suicide_Statistics_Australia/Australian_Father_Suicide_Victim_Hounded_Over_Child_Support-Canberra_Times_15NOV2000.aspx

Oh, and it's not rosy in the US either. Check the stats from New Hampshire before you go on another sexist rant:
http://ulocal.wmur.com/service/displayDiscussionThreads.kickAction?as=63455&w=177326&d=570454

Any man that whines about child support isn't a man.

Any woman that wants me to pay for her children lets them grow up in my house. I don't raise them, I don't pay for them. I'm not dealing with the stress and hassle of working for a living if I have to give my income away to someone. I'd rather quit my job and raise my children myself.

If you don't like that, don't fuck me or plan for an abortion.

2004.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846.html

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

The CBO estimated that of the $2.4 trillion long-term price tag for the war, about $1.9 trillion of that would be spent on Iraq, or $6,300 per U.S. citizen.[9][10]

Perhaps you are thinking of the current cost.. ignoring all future costs.
The CBO estimated that of the $2.4 trillion long-term price tag for the war, about $1.9 trillion of that would be spent on Iraq, or $6,300 per U.S. citizen.[9][10]

http://articles.cnn.com/2007-11-13/politics/hidden.war.costs_1_war-costs-iraq-oil-prices?_s=PM:POLITICS

The total war costs could grow to $3.5 trillion by 2017, the committee estimated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Trillion_Dollar_War
The total cost of $3 trillion is consistent with numerous government studies. These include the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, which estimated that the war will cost $3.5 trillion,[2] and the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, which has projected that the total cost will reach between $1.4 and $2.2 trillion.[

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3419840.ece

Larry Lindsey, President Bush's economic adviser and head of the National Economic Council, suggested that they might reach $200 billion. But this estimate was dismissed as âoebaloneyâ by the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. His deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, suggested that postwar reconstruction could pay for itself through increased oil revenues. Mitch Daniels, the Office of Management and Budget director, and Secretary Rumsfeld estimated the costs in the range of $50 to $60 billion, a portion of which they believed would be financed by other countries. ...
From the unhealthy brew of emergency funding, multiple sets of books, and chronic underestimates of the resources required to prosecute the war, we have attempted to identify how much we have been spending - and how much we will, in the end, likely have to spend. The figure we arrive at is more than $3 trillion. Our calculations are based on conservative assumptions.

Hell, even FOX NEWS says it's going to be at least 1.5 trillion.

Different sources give different numbers. I get that. 3 trillion is a widely used figure. Over 3 trillion isn't uncommon. The figures blow away the figures which Rumsfield used to justify the war by a factor of 15 (using your numbers) to a factor of over 60 (using the highest end 3.5 Trillion dollar costs).

A lot of this is also "off books"- who knows what's happening in the black ops budget.

Only if they catch you.

For they all are guilty of mental masturbation when it comes to physics. Oh, and include whomever postulated that the Higgs is so abhorrent to nature that it comes back through time to prevent its discovery.

It is a general "parallel universe" or "alternate reality" problem, and not any problem with your understanding. You (and everyone else) have failed to identify the matter/energy constraint. That is to say, if there is an alternative, it must be expressed in matter, and maintaining more than one reality requires additional matter (or base state of energy). I've conceptualized it with a familiar software developer concept: MVC: Model-View-Controller. Anytime when looking at gobs of data (including the state of reality) you need to look and interact with data in a uniform way. MVC allows for this. The model is the data model - the structure of, and data itself. List, tree, etc. The universe would probably express this as dimensional (3 or 10) planes of energy. Next is the view, with is the manifestation of the model. This would be an instantaneous snapshot of the universe, including velocities, etc. Finally the controller are the laws that work on the data. They do not work on the view, as the view is dependent of the model.

Every time you propose an alternate time line, then you need to copy the model (you can share the viewer and controller (if you didn't things would be "noticeably different")) But to copy the model is to acquire the energy to express a whole other universe, and not once, but at every decision point on the time line.

Physicists are just now starting to realize this and many are starting to argue that space-time is quantized on the order of Planck length (and time). While this is infinitesimally small, it vastly reduces the possible outcomes from infinite to a manageable number, possibly 1. Quantized space time locks down the source state and limits the possibilities of the next state, so it is feasible that the laws of the universe would only allow 1 possible next state. Heim was the first (that I know of) to argue for quantized space-time. I've since seen other people derive it on their own and get a similar (yet not identical) result
(but all are some close value to Planck length)

Then there was the “boil-in-the-bag” fiasco, when it was revealed that one of Ramsay’s restaurants, Foxtrot Oscar, in Chelsea, West London, used preprepared food that was heated and sold with mark-ups of up to 586 per cent. Ramsay tells me that there was pressure on him to apologise publicly. “Apologise for what?” he says, almost spluttering with indignation. “When I was working at the Gavroche all those years ago, the duck terrine wasn’t made there. It was made outside, then brought to the restaurant wrapped in plastic. This is standard practice. What on earth was the fuss about? That doesn’t make the food bad. We were doing wonderful navarins. It really annoyed me.”

It seems Ramsay doesn't see this practice as an imperfection ("We were doing wonderful navarins"). The food was also prepared specifically for Ramsay's restaurants--it's not TV dinner-style food, like your link sounds like it's implying.

They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

I didn't say that she said she could see Russia from her house. Did you not read my post?

For the record, what she actually said was "They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."

And she also said "As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there, they are right next to our state."

Clear now?

She did not draw crosshairs on ANYBODY

OK, so drawing crosshairs on people's locations, then naming which person in each location the crosshairs are indicating, and telling those reading the list of names to not retreat, but instead "RELOAD" does not at all give you pause? As to the rest of that line, I'll paraphrase you: "Keep getting your news from Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Beck if you like, but. . . " Well, you know the rest.

did not see her map

Understand that I am not accusing Palin of actually intending for Giffords to get shot but. . Prove that he didn't see the map. And since you can't prove that, stop spouting it.

The liberal outlets were very careful to specify that they were not accusing her of ordering a murder, but rather of extreme poor judgment - something you'd know if you turned the dial from FNC from time to time.

She could easily have completed her time as governor, but the Democrats who hate her with such venom kept filing baseless ethics charges in Alaska

You mean baseless ethics charges like these? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4924041.ece

monkeys fling poo, people should engage in actual discussions

Anyone running around starting sentences with "you libs" (note that I have not once called you a republitard or a con or any of the other pejoratives that are bandied about on the airwaves), and who spouts lies, assumptions, and misinformation in his rebuttal, has absolutely no grounds to criticize the discussion tactics of anyone.

Don't blame you. By all means - look up the study if you want to. It was published in nature about a year ago - can't remember the author, some genetics professor from Jerusalem.

But it took me all of thirty seconds on google to find a link:
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article5504478.ece

This isn't the original article I first read (which was mostly science rather than the political stuff added in the times) but it's a good start.

Bill Gates, 1998: "About 3 million computers get sold every year in China, but people don't pay for the software. Someday they will, though. As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-212942.html

Bill Gates, 2007: "It's easier for our software to compete with Linux when there's piracy than when there's not."
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article2098235.ece

Steve Ballmer, 2001: "Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches. That's the way that the license works."
"Microsoft CEO takes launch break with the Sun-Times" (1 June 2001) Chicago Sun Times

Barack Obama, 2011: "So we were just in a meeting with business leaders, and Steve Ballmer of Microsoft pointed out that their estimate is that only one customer in every 10 of their products is actually paying for it in China. And so can we get better enforcement, since that is an area where America excels -- intellectual property and high-value added products and services."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/19/press-conference-president-obama-and-president-hu-peoples-republic-china

The numbers, 2009: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/19/software-piracy-in-china/


Microsoft wants hegemony in China over free (and freedom-respecting) options like GNU/Linux. It has always viewed piracy as a way to achieve this goal, but it doesn't have any real plan to turn those pirated copies of Windows and MS Office into revenue. Are they changing strategies and trying to muscle China now? Or is the U.S. gov't playing hardball for its own reasons? Or is it all just bullshit sabre-rattling? A real crackdown on Windows bootlegging would almost certainly make GNU/Linux the dominant platform in China. Parts of the Chinese gov't have pushed the Red Flag Linux distro in the past (specifically to avoid Windows licensing costs in Internet cafes), and there has been plenty of talk about the arrogance of Microsoft and the West, along with fears of potential backdoors in Windows. I'm sure the Chinese would prefer to be distributing a homegrown distro rather than having to pay up when Microsoft and the U.S. gov't come to collect.

Except that Zuckerberg has had many chances to 'cash out' for obscene amounts of money already.

(I tried to find better citations, but http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article2134328.ece from July 25, 2007
says they "would consider a buyout offer in excess of $10 billion", and various other 'reported' offers previous to that.)

This feat is even more amazing than we first thought considering
all
Chinese
people
look
alike.

being smart enough to win a prize

You needn't be that smart to win a Nobel Prize

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6868905.ece

Now that you put it that way, I can see the burning cars and places of worship all across France in my mind right now. ;)

That's nothing new.

Why 112 cars are burning every day

France's New Year's Tradition: Car-Burning

Anti-Semitic Violence Sweeps France

France: Thickening Anti-Semitism

Anti-Semitism seen rising among France's Muslims
 

All CD's are compressed hard (audio compression, not data compression) so all the life is sucked out of it.

This is a choice. CD's have a usable dynamic range of 93+dB and many bands (especially those who self-produce, -promote, and -sell) have gone back to having CDs that use 10-14dB of dynamic range (as opposed to 3-6dB for the "major"'s CDs). This is enough to allow the dynamics of the music to come through well while still having enough "loudness" to make them play above the noise floor of a car or other high-noise environment. They sound better on the radio, too. I agree that major commercial releases suck in this regard, but that doesn't necessarily mean that everything on CD sucks.

> This is so much hyperbole it is not even funny.

Right, because we've never executed people for this sort of thing before. And, even though we'd put innocent US citizens in Gitmo, there's no way we'd do that to someone who isn't even a US national, neatly sidestepping all that "fair trial" nonsense by labeling him as some kind of "enemy combatant" or whatever.

And, even though we have politicians calling for Julian Assange to be assassinated, there's no way that anyone would ever even think of taking them seriously. Ever.

That's total hyperbole, right? Nobody here is that crazy... right?

Wow... does that mean that David Prowse who played Darth Vader will finally see some money from Georgie Lucas?

> We could even go with the fashion industry's concept, which doesn't have any copyright protection at all.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/retailing/article4036308.ece

While you are correct about the religious-like fanaticism, the problem is that some people cite one of these facts and act as though it debunks every bit of science out there.

From the skeptics point of view, the citation of one of these facts tends to result in the warmers redefining it as further proof of warming... er, climate change. Look at Mann's model. Some statisticians entered random data into Mann's model and it produced hockey sticks. Rather than admit the model was flawed, Mann seems to insist that random data should produce hockey sticks. Wow! Amazing science there.

Frankly, I don't know of a scientist that is never wrong. Scientists are wrong all the time. That is the nature of science. They have a hypothesis, they test it using the scientific method, and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, and sometimes results are mixed. The problem skeptics have with the warmers, is that the believe they are right despite any any contradicting studies (a.k.a. Oil Shills!!). Warmers get one test or one model to show whatever reinforces their beliefs. Then they declare "consensus" and refuse to consider retesting. Sorry, but science doesn't work that way. Real science must be able to stand up to the harshest criticism. The warmer's exhibit a "circle the wagons" mentality. They refuse to share data, hiding it by claiming it is some sort of intellectual property, or through outright destruction of data. Fear of scrutiny may not prove they are wrong, but it is a pretty strong indicator.

TFS contains at least two major errors:

1) according to the linked wik entry on the Dalton Minimum, "Recent papers have suggested that a rise in volcanism was largely responsible for the cooling trend." I.e., not a decrease in solar activity.

2) Local climate != global climate. Many models expect that even as global temperatures rise, England will cool, due to shifts in the Gulf Stream.

Laugh all you want: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece

Thanks, I will: http://en.allexperts.com/q/UFOs-Aliens-2138/IRAQ-WAR.htm

It was about oil. It's still about oil. It's going to be exiting, about oil.

It was about sugar plums and unicorn farts. And sand supplies for Big Glass. It's going to be exiting, about sand.

Laugh all you want: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece as it still doesn't have a "reasoned argument". It was about oil. It's still about oil. It's going to be exiting, about oil.

WHEN Steve Ballmer, the head of Microsoft, visited Paris earlier this month to open a new French headquarters, he agreed to hold only three private meetings. Two of them were with cabinet ministers. The third, to the dismay of distinguished politicians and businessmen who had put in bids for a word with the executive titan, was with a 23-year-old undergraduate known in the French press as “Prince Jean”.

Fair enough, I may have cocked up on that one.

My understanding was based on statements made by some of the more wealthy Americans, such as Warren Buffet, and other tricks to avoid income taxes (the typical one being a salary, but high income from stock dividends which are taxed at a much lower rate). Both WB and Steve Jobs reportedly pay a lower tax burden than their secretaries - jobs pays ~15%, which is roughly the same rate as the 20k/yr example in your link.

From media reports I'd been led to believe that was fairly standard practice - apologies if that's not in fact the case.

That's not really true. Microsoft has always been strongly against piracy.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article2098235.ece "It's easier for our software to compete with Linux when there's piracy than when there's not," the Microsoft co-founder and chairman told Fortune magazine.

http://blogs.computerworld.com/node/2803
WSJ: But those were stolen, correct?
Gates: Stolen's a strong word. It's copyrighted content that the owner wasn't paid for. So yes.

Hey, Steve, just because you broke into Xerox’s store before I did and took the TV doesn’t mean I can’t go in later and steal the stereo.”
–Bill Gates

“In my case, I went to the garbage cans at the Computer Science Center and I fished out listings of their operating systems.” –Bill Gates

Bill Gates on Piracy: "They'll get addicted, and then we'll collect"

your position assumes that you violate ideas of justice or equal rights simply by not giving someone half of what you have.

Actually I believe that his position is that rebuilding in a shape that is advantageous to you, or with conditions attached, is not as charitable as it seems.

Besides which, it wasn't exactly charity.

Maybe we need a new meme in building measurements.

http://labs.timesonline.co.uk/blog/2009/11/16/the-worlds-largest-buildings-in-albert-halls/

Artisis are making the same as they always have.

The actual numbers disagree.

How about we just stop killing and otherwise pissing off brown-skinned people?

You don't understand what is actually happening. Read Bin Laden's Letter to America. You will see that the actual demand isn't to be "left alone". Bin Laden's first demand is:

(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.

Bin Laden demands that we convert to Islam. He follows that up with demands that we ditch the Constitution, implement Islamic Sharia law, and do away with the separation of church and state. Among other things we would have to start killing homosexuals and adulterers, end the charging of interest on bank loans, put an end to drug use, pornography, and alcohol use, amputating the hands of thieves, and many other things. Dressing "immodestly" could get you whipped, which probably means burkas for women. Men would have to grow their beards out, or face a whipping. Crucifixion may be a required punishment for some crimes. Afghanistan under the Taliban was almost ideal to them. If we do not agree to this we can expect that his minions will continue to try to kill us.

It is not especially significant that Bin Laden issued that demand to the United States, in time every country will have to deal with it. Subduing the United States is just one step along their path, and they understand that it could take 500 years. Many countries have been attacked. Stockholm had a suicide bomber this weekend. (Thankfully it appears that one of the Stockholm terrorist's bombs blew prematurely and he couldn't get about five more planted - otherwise it might have been another Madrid, London 7/7, Bali, or similar bombing.)

What Do the Terrorists Want? [A Caliphate]

In nearly all cases, the jihadi terrorists have a patently self-evident ambition: to establish a world dominated by Muslims, Islam, and Islamic law, the Shari'a. Or, again to cite the Daily Telegraph, their "real project is the extension of the Islamic territory across the globe, and the establishment of a worldwide 'caliphate' founded on Shari'a law."

Terrorists openly declare this goal. The Islamists who assassinated Anwar el-Sadat in 1981 decorated their holding cages with banners proclaiming the "caliphate or death." A biography of one of the most influential Islamist thinkers of recent times and an influence on Osama bin Laden, Abdullah Azzam declares that his life "revolved around a single goal, namely the establishment of Allah's Rule on earth" and restoring the caliphate.

Bin Laden himself spoke of ensuring that "the pious caliphate will start from Afghanistan." His chief deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, also dreamed of re-establishing the caliphate, for then, he wrote, "history would make a new turn, God willing, in the opposite direction against the empire of the United States and the world's Jewish government." Another Al-Qaeda leader, Fazlur Rehman Khalil, publishes a magazine that has declared "Due to the blessings of jihad, America's countdown has begun. It will declare defeat soon," to be followed by the creation of a caliphate.

Good background here.

Ignoring them won't make them go away. They have their own goals - nothing we do other than covert to Islam or fight them will dissuade them. Trying to buy them off or deal with them only delays the inevitable. We are in for a long struggle that will be far bloodier for us if we aren't clear about it. Al Qaeda has a f

These generous people are funding eugenics.

More info
More info
More info
More info
More info
More info

What I said is fact, and nothing in your reply did anything to contradict any of it. The attacks are the result of fundamentalist (or extremist, if you like) Islamist thought; the funding and the manpower came from Saudi.

WRT Bin Ladin, it matters not one whit where he is -- kill him, another will rise. The Bin Ladin hunt is just theater for the gullible. Say we caught him; It'd be like them capturing and/or killing Obama or Petraeus: all that would do is further annoy us. Either side would have a replacement in zip time. But if a leader has no funding, and has no stream of ready recruits, then he has nothing.

So you either take care of this at the source, which is definitely radical Islam within Saudi Arabia, or you haven't taken care of it at all.

Afghanistan and Iraq are meaningless here. The strictly represent a sink for military effort, which in turn is a huge financial boon to the corporate entities that control congress. In order to accomplish anything significant militarily, Islamic interests and power bases within Saudi Arabia have to be the objective.

Look:

Where the money comes from (UK intelligence)

Saudi funds Taliban

Ramadan is key source of funding

Saudis greatest fund source for terror (US diplomatic cables)

If you can actually maintain the illusion that Afghanistan is the source of this problem, I'm sure there's nothing I can say or point to that will dissuade you - but that doesn't change the facts, which are plain and simple. The problem is Islam, it is centered in Saudi Arabia in both the financial (most important) and manpower senses. Either that gets addressed, or no solution is possible. Which shows up the Afghanistan and Iraq wars as no more than money-channeling theater. Not to mention a complete waste of American soldier's lives, not that such a thing matters to politicians other than as media opportunities.

The raw data, in the climategate case, is not available:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

"In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”"

Yes, you can try to weasel out of that by saying that the original data still exists, somewhere unidentified in the ether, where it was originally collected from, but without knowing exactly what data was used as an input to the CRU dataset, it's like saying "the sand we used to build that sandcastle that got washed away is still somewhere on the beach" - good luck reconstructing that sandcastle with the exact same sand grains used the first time.

Even more alarming is the constant, unattributed adjustments that regularly happen to the other temperature records like GISS:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/28/nasa-giss-adjustments-galore-rewriting-climate-history/

Some basic version control needs to be implemented for both the raw and adjusted data. If google does that, they'll be doing everyone a big favor.

The USA is actually one of the most stable countries in the world.

Hahahahahah, are you serious or do you mean 'stable' as in not getting better? How can a country that's been constantly at war with everything and everyone since it was formed be stable? How can a country that's got worse homicide rate than Afghanistan and Iran (for example) be stable?

Sure, it's not all bad but I wouldn't put it in the top 10; actually, The Times put it in the 24th

The USA could do so much better and and it's a huge disappointment not to see that happening.

Saudi King saying the West should bomb Iran? Uh-oh.

Are you kidding? They have publicly given Israel permission to use Saudi airspace if they want to bomb Iran.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7148555.ece

It's quite absurd for you to call Iran dangerous; they haven't been at war for years.

You're joking right?

Longstanding Support for Terrorism

U.S. officials describe the Iranian regime as the world's "central banker of terrorism." Indeed, Tehran has a nine-figure line item in its budget to support terrorism, sending hundreds of millions of dollars to various groups each year; the payments to Hizballah alone are as much as $200 million annually. According to Canadian intelligence, "[I]n February 1999, it was reported that Palestinian police discovered documents that attest to the transfer of $35 million to Hamas from the Iranian Intelligence Service (MOIS), money reportedly meant to finance terrorist activities against Israeli targets." Illustrating how such support is part of official government policy, from 2001 to 2006, Iran transferred $50 million to Hizballah fronts in Lebanon by sending funds from its central bank through Bank Saderat's London subsidiary.

Iranian support for terrorism goes well beyond the financial realm, however. Its well-known sponsorship of Palestinian terrorist organizations, for example, has included training and related contributions. Shortly after the second intifada erupted in September 2000, the regime assigned Mughniyeh himself to help Palestinian militant groups. According to a former Clinton administration official, "Mughniyeh got orders from Tehran to work with Hamas"; he was tasked with assisting PIJ as well.

Similarly, according to the U.S. government, Iran's al-Qods Force -- a wing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) -- has a "long history" of providing all types of support to Hizballah, including training, guidance, and arms. In addition to running training camps in Lebanon, al-Qods has trained more than 3,000 Hizballah operatives at its own facilities in Iran. The unit also played an important role in rearming Hizballah following the summer 2006 war with Israel. According to the Treasury Department, al-Qods has provided a wide variety of weapons and financial support to the Taliban as well, in support of the group's anti-coalition activity in Afghanistan.

Iran also keeps threatening to cut off the world's oil supply by closing the Straight of Hormuz.

Of course they are concerned that the US may invade since Iran has wealth to extract and won't play along with the US, so they're developing nuclear weapons.

That's a laugh. The US gets the oil it needs from other countries while Japan, China, and other US allies and friends buy Iran's oil. That also doesn't take into account the large oil reserves that the US has that are undeveloped.

No, the Iranian's have a very different outlook.
Ahmadinejad: Destroy Israel, End Crisis
Iran's missiles are ‘ready to destroy Israel’

“If this [an Israeli attack] happens, which, of course, we do not foresee, its ultimate result would be to expedite the last breath of the Zionist regime,” Ahmad Vahidi, the Iranian Defence Minister, said on state television.

Iran says can cut energy to Europe, hit enemies

“Iran is standing on 50 percent of the world’s energy and should it so decide Europe will have to spend the winter in cold,” Hossein Salami, deputy commander of the elite Revolutionary Guards, said in a meeting with war veterans and volunteers in Ker

I know it is a bit of an hyperbole... but I've been reading a lot of "OMG Think of the children" reaction both here in slashdot and in Reddit lately, in reaction to the children-patdown.

Well, at the risk of being modded down, I just want to comment that kids have been indeed used to transport illegal material through flights (specifically, packages of cocaine).

A real example of that is a Mexican woman with two children that where caught with several cocaine packages in London Heathrow airport. You can read about that in this book... or here

Now... this does not mean I am in favour of the children molesting that the TSA is currently doing... nevertheless we should have in mind that there is a possibility of a terrorist filling his kid with explosives just for the sake of it :-/

What a fucked up society we live in today... isn't it?

...and it resulted in some crooked MPs losing their seats, others are facing criminal prosecution. Good. Well done Telegraph.

The Sunday Times did some excellent work on the House of Lords expenses. Well done Sunday Times.