Slashdot Mirror

"What is truly scary is...this is it folks, this is the BEST the parties have to offer. Kinda sad isn't it?"

Obama may be no Bill Clinton, but with a less Obstructionist opposition he could have done a lot of good the last four years. How do you deal with a party that says we will not negotiate on anything and will go to the wall on every issue regardless of the consequences?

What's insanely scary is the leadership of the Right has just said this morning that they have no intention of trying to compromise AT ALL PERIOD for the next four year. They said it is 100% on Obama to come to them. What the fuck McConnell?

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/11/07/McConnell-stiff-arms-Obama-Senate-Dems/UPI-55861352214084/

It is a great forum for diplomacy.

Not to mention, if we bailed on the UN, how would we control who gets recognized as having a right to exist?

That's right, I went there.

Suck it, Bibi.

For the first time - and I'm saying this from the perspective of having used Windows from before it could network - I think you're right. The GUI change of Windows 8 is dramatic enough that a user retraining effort/cost will be incurred, plus there will be a hardware cost, plus licensing costs. If you're running a shop with more than a dozen systems...no, scratch that: Everybody should seriously look at whether they're willing to continue on the path of buying new Windows stuff because Microsoft says they have to.

The big question: Is the U.S. economy going to provide us with the income to meet Microsoft's demands for expenditures? I don't see anybody doing anything about the inequitable nature of free trade; that is, I still see other countries rigging their currency exchange rates to ensure that the United States is not competitive, and I still see U.S. corporations - to include Microsoft - prioritizing "shareholder value" and the CEO's pay over the longevity of the corporation itself and America herself. Further, I still see the banks and America's HNWIs using the oil and gasoline commodities markets as the vehicle from which they can levy their own private taxes - which means the cost of living in America will continue to rise. And as America's jobs continue to go offshore, that means the ability of offshore nations to outbid America for food raised and grown in America will continue to increase.

Finally, there are plenty of efforts underway to export U.S. shale gas as well as refined fuels such as gasoline and diesel...and there are moves underway to export U.S. crude oil. What does that mean? That means we will not be able to bring manufacturing back to America by using our own cheaper energy to offset the offshore labor made cheaper by rigged currency exchange rates.

My point is stupid policies - forced oil addiction, voodoo economics, inequitable free trade, and deregulation - have decimated our manufacturing and service sectors...savaging the bottom of our tax base while cutting taxes at the top. That means we're becoming third-world; we need to - as individuals, and as businesses - look at cutting costs.

One way is getting off of the Microsoft permanent upgrade cycle. Our leaders won't save us...they're owned by the 0.01% who are getting fatter and wealthier by destroying America. You and I - Main Street - must look to saving ourselves.

That's UP TO 750 million on TOP of the 450 million already ordered.

Nope, don't know where the 750M comes from, since it says right in the contract that the max is 70M rounds per year, and it's a current year +4(IE 5 year) contract. 70M*5=350M. Page 25 of their horrible scanned contract. "The maximum limit for the resultant award(s) is 70 million rounds per year. If more than one (1) contract is awarded, the maximum limit will be split between all awards".

As for the 450M, their 'source' says that that is ANOTHER 'up to' contract. "The order comes under an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for HST bullets."

Here's what I'm seeing: The DHS is ordering 'up to' 350M rounds of training ammunition; which would be a 'incredibly unlikely doomsday scenario' level. They MIGHT buy 70M one year and have a good amount of stock for subsequent years if they get a windfall of money. It's what happens in other departments.

The 'up to 450M' rounds order is for OPERATIONAL ammunition, and again, is a 5 year order.

This is not for training rounds.

Page 1-2: "This contract is for commercial leaded training ammunition (CLTA) in accordance with this document"
I already addressed how many rounds you can go through to train a single person, such that the quantities requested are actually pretty reasonable. Unless you think that 500 rounds a year, split between rifle and pistol, is unreasonably high? You can go through 60 rounds just sighting in a rifle - 10 groups of 3 for iron sights, 10 groups for scope - Sight picture training makes it practice as well, which is why you don't just have like 3 sets of 3. You have to assume that the firer doesn't fire anytime other than training/qualification, so you have to work the basics a lot.

A few seconds of searching brings up this article saying "prehistoric small-scale agricultural societies had already caused widespread ecological change" and "Prehistoric people practiced deforestation to reorient their settlements and intensify corn production". The theory of it causing the little ice age is probably wrong, but Native American impact on the environment was significant and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. Remember the arrival of Native Americans was a major extinction event as well.

Here's an alternative article, the linked one appears to be down or /.'d. http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2012/07/02/NASAs-Orion-spacecraft-arrives-in-Florida/UPI-87191341254811/?spt=hs&or=sn

you must be from Winnipeg.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2012/06/07/Teachers-let-kids-eat-moose-droppings/UPI-41501339102360/

One 13-year-old boy ate one and then rushed to a river to rinse his mouth, while the second, a girl with braces, threw up, the report said.

I don't know why JWR is pussyfooting around, here's explict quotes without the ambiguity of the WSJ article.

Israel "aided Hamas directly -- the Israelis wanted to use it as a counterbalance to the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization)," said Tony Cordesman, Middle East analyst for the Center for Strategic Studies.

According to U.S. administration officials, funds for the movement came from the oil-producing states and directly and indirectly from Israel.

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2002/06/18/Analysis-Hamas-history-tied-to-Israel/UPI-82721024445587/

But the Islamic Palestinian leaders viewed the relationship with Israel differently. They were eager to accept Israel's financial backing and an easing on their activities...

http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/01/18/sharon-and-hamas/

So there's plenty of evidence that the Israeli intelligence services, especially Shin Bet and the military occupation authorities, encouraged the growth of the Muslim Brotherhood and the founding of Hamas.

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/1/26/how_israel_and_the_united_states

Thanks to Israel's intelligence agency Mossad (Israel's Institute for Intelligence and Special Tasks), the Islamists were allowed to reinforce their presence in the occupied territories.

http://www.wariscrime.com/2008/12/29/news/hamas-was-founded-by-mossad/

"It won't affect glaciers on land. I don't see where you get that. The glaciers on land are melting too by the way. The glaciers on land melting will cause the sea levels to rise (Antarctica etc.)."

The concern is similar to that in the Antarctic, where most of the large glacier meet the sea. Water has a high heat capacity, once heated when it reaches the tongue of a glacier, it is capable of melting the ice from below faster than the ice may otherwise melt from exposure to air. As the tongue melts the faster ice in the glacier, which is essentially moving river of ice, moves, since the ice in front of no longer impedes its flow. As it moves faster, if it is not added to at is source faster than it flows, it recedes until it is completely gone.

This can be readily seen as in this video of the retreat of the Columbia glacier near Valdez, Alaska: http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/extreme-ice-survey-article.html

Note toward the end of the video the speed of the ice on the glacier to the left of the video. This phenomenon was not previously well modeled in atmospheric models relying on air temperature alone and one of the reasons many oceanographers and climatologists now believe explains why such models have consistently underestimated the amount of ice loss. If the process accelerates, there is a distinct possibility that most arctic ice masses will disappear far more quickly than had previously been supposed, based solely on atmosphere only models.

There is also the issue of albedo. Without an ice cover the entire ocean will be directly exposed to the sun directly heating the water rather than being largely radiated into space because of its ice cover. Consequently, the entire arctic environment will be warmed more quickly because more solar heat will be retained by the system. It is not yet clear, how abrupt the change will be but studies show that presently the extent of winter arctic ices is the lowest on record at 463,000 square miles of ice less than seen in 1979-2000 period baseline, with a total loss of all oceanic ice during summer sometime between 2015 and 2050, although some are predicting a much earlier time.

From a biological perspective this implies a total restructuring of arctic ecosystems within the next 20-50 years.

Monkeys can be trained to detonate land mines. Morocco offered the US 2000 for that purpose during the initial Iraq war. The US refused. We'd rather use (human) combat engineers for that.

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2003/03/24/Morocco-offers-US-monkeys-to-detonate-mine/UPI-14431048506179/

Good call. You couldn't do a sea level canal. But...

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2008/09/09/UAE-eyes-canal-to-bypass-Strait-of-Hormuz/UPI-43471220996795/

That's because the public overwhelmingly does not want them to do so. This is known as "listening to your constituents."

The public are idiots. They want substantial cuts, yet they don't want to cut anything: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/11/21/Poll-Partisan-divide-on-taxes-spending/UPI-74281321927685/

"six in 10 are against major cuts in military spending and 57 percent are opposed to major changes to such entitlement programs as Social Security and Medicare."

So the only thing the public actually agrees on is raising taxes on the rich, and there isn't enough revenue there (even if we take all their money) to handle the deficit. And the public doesn't want us to touch defense or entitlement spending. So maybe, just maybe, the opinion of the public isn't the best way to address this issue.

It kind of falls in nicely with the 1% vs. the rest of us issue that is pretty clearly established as our biggest political issue of this era.

So continues the vicious cycle of :
1) Rich people influence government
2) People demand bigger government
3) Degree of government influence increases
4) Goto step 1.

And sadly, people somehow think this cycle will magically disappear with more government regulation. I would say the biggest political issue of this era would be people recognizing that their government no longer works for them, rather than demonizing a bunch of rich people and solving nothing. Why isn't OWS calling for a 3rd party? Why do they emphatically support the Democratic party that has failed them? You think the Republicans were the ones that bailed out the banks with no stipulations? Look at the votes.

Clinton did.

Fantastic -- all we have to do now is make sure our economy is always operating in "boom times" mode -- deficit solved.

In fact, the math and the facts overwhelmingly demonstrate that Bush's tax cuts on the rich are the primary structural driver of our deficit.

Only if you choose to completely ignore the other trillion+ dollar expenses this country is engaged in (mandatory spending, I'm looking at you).

Social Security could be made solvent for another 75 years by simply raising the cap on taxes for those making more than 106k.

Or how about we do away with concept of a "separate tax" and just merge it with the rest of the budget where it belongs, instead of pretending it doesn't exist as an actual expense in the budget balancing debate? I could care less if it can "become solvent" via some separate tax scheme. When it comes down to it, it's costing us hundreds of billions a year, fast converging on a trillion+ -- that is money being spent inefficiently. Just because you can magic up the money by raising taxes doesn't mean that spending a trillion dollars a year in a poorly designed program that funnels money to the wealthy is a good thing.

. . . so you need to steal my Social Security benefits to pay off Bush's wars?

If I stole TWO YEARS of your Social Security benefits, it would pay off ELEVEN YEARS of Bush's TWO WARS. That is the magnitude difference here.

I EARNED MY MOTHERFUCKING SOCIAL SECURITY. That money IS MINE.

As did I, and I don't want it. I will GLADLY throw away every cent of the money I've paid the 10 years I've been working if it means I don't have to throw another cent at that program for the rest of my life. Especially considering I probably won't see a dime of it when I actual do retire.

When climate scientists say is often used to justify restricting in various ways things that most people either rely on or enjoy.

I challenge you to present me one published paper where a climate scientist tells me what I can and can't do. Or even where they merely suggest restrictions of what a person can do. All the papers I read say things to effect of "In X years, the northern ice cap could recede to Y size" or "Greenhouses gases have contributed to a rise in temperatures." What you want to do with that information is up to you. It's not the place of scientists to call for political or even international policy on carbon credits or cap and trade or whatever you want to do to control this problem. So why do the scientists get attacked? Attack the politicians and say "I'm okay with fucking up the Earth for my children because I want the freedom to buy a Hummer that gets 8 miles to the gallon." Use your voice and stand up for yourself, don't attack the scientists. They aren't setting the policies, they're just telling you what is happening. What's that? That sentence makes you sound like an idiot? Well, go ahead and attack the scientists then but be warned you've got an awful lot of targets.

So the un paper was calling for action was signed by unicorns? Oh wait nope, it was scientists calling for political action.

As to telling you what is happening that is also crap since anyone that disputes it is attacked (like this guy did) with innuendo rather than facts. That is the whole problem with Global Warming, there is no discussion or dispute allowed. Now they have even changed the name to Climate Change (when is it NOT changing) to avoid the fact the predictions have failed.

When climate scientists say is often used to justify restricting in various ways things that most people either rely on or enjoy.

I challenge you to present me one published paper where a climate scientist tells me what I can and can't do. Or even where they merely suggest restrictions of what a person can do. All the papers I read say things to effect of "In X years, the northern ice cap could recede to Y size" or "Greenhouses gases have contributed to a rise in temperatures." What you want to do with that information is up to you. It's not the place of scientists to call for political or even international policy on carbon credits or cap and trade or whatever you want to do to control this problem. So why do the scientists get attacked? Attack the politicians and say "I'm okay with fucking up the Earth for my children because I want the freedom to buy a Hummer that gets 8 miles to the gallon." Use your voice and stand up for yourself, don't attack the scientists. They aren't setting the policies, they're just telling you what is happening. What's that? That sentence makes you sound like an idiot? Well, go ahead and attack the scientists then but be warned you've got an awful lot of targets.

The climate scientists are the experts. You're not suddenly compelled to rip apart the latest Computer Science study as an armchair computer scientist because you haven't studied it. Why are people suddenly compelled to call climate scientists -- who are basically the same figureheads in academia that computer scientists are -- into question? When did everyone get PhDs in climate science? Why wasn't I given one? And why are all the major journals publishing and defending global warming studies only to be ignored?

Surprise surprise, no one cares. You can point out the scientific consensus or ask why there are no political witch hunts in other fields and people just don't seem to even respond to my concerns because they just saw a two minute YouTube video and suddenly they're informed and ready to discredit someone who has devoted their life to studying this field and reading papers. CFCs were bad, that was okay, everyone gobbled that up. Everyone saw maps of the ozone layer and totally trusted the scientists that it was CFCs doing it ... not just a regular natural process. Show someone a map of ice coverage on the Arctic Circle and tell them it's greenhouse gases at work. Suddenly the same scientists are lying to them. What the hell is different about these two scenarios? I've pretty much given up the fight ...

And in Portland, they drain an entire reservoir after one guy takes a leak
http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2011/06/16/Reservoir-drained-due-to-urine/UPI-10781308249177/

This data -- or at least the end-result manipulated data -- has been debunked, and the methods used to manipulate it seriously called into question (see the Wegman Report). But the alarmists just keep going along as though that never happened and nothing is wrong.

Wegman report? Do you mean this Wegman report

The guy has been completely discredited. He is a fraud and a plagiarist, and if GMU has any integrity at all, he will soon be an unemployed ex-faculty member.

BTW, who's paying you come here and spout this propaganda `Jane Q. Public'? Which right-wing `think tank' or petroleum-funded `research institute' do you work for?

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/06/01/Pentagon-Cyberattacks-deemed-acts-of-war/UPI-17821306915200/

Try and keep up with the class

American government have no problem stomping on rights of citizens because of the "war on terror" (read: against us, Muslims), surely, they would have no problem restricting them in order to suppress the culture of drugs in US.

You must not have been paying attention: our rights have already been stomped on by the war on drugs, right from the very beginning. You do realize that cocaine was first made illegal because congress was told that "cocaine niggers" (black men who used cocaine) became unstoppable monsters with superior aim with a handgun, right? Shortly after the New York Times published the story detailing how "the cocaine nigger sure is hard to kill," souther police forces began increasing the caliber of their standard issue handguns. Marijuana was made illegal under similar circumstances; it helped that industries that competed with the hemp industry put pressure on congress.

You think your rights have not been stomped on? Take a look around. The United States has police forces that can only be described as paramilitary squads. When the local cops are as heavily armed as a small army unit, we are in serious trouble. If you need something more concrete than the abstract, "militant police forces are a problem," consider this:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/interviews/wald.html

Yes, the obvious reading is the correct one: a police force that pays its own wages by seizing assets from drug dealers. This is not limited to Florida:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91490480

The only reason you do not perceive your rights being stomped on by the war on drugs is that it has been happening for so long now that you and most other people have generally forgotten that they ever had the rights they lost. Remember the days when the police had to obtain a warrant to search your home? Not anymore:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/05/16/Warrantless-searches-expanded-in-drug-case/UPI-27821305557337/

It has gotten so bad that the DEA can now unilaterally declare a drug to be illegal for an entire year, without congressional approval:

http://www.dosenation.com/listing.php?smlid=8021

You used to be able to make large cash transactions in private; now that is automatically reported to the government, as part of an effort to crack down on drug dealers. Even so much as a misdemeanor drug offense now causes a person's right to buy a gun to be denied. Any company that does contracting work for the government is required, by law, to maintain a "drug free workplace." A drug offense can mean the loss of scholarships for students, regardless of their academic merit.

Your rights were trampled long ago, sir.

Germany apparently has gas but it is not clear it will drill for it: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2011/04/13/Public-slows-Exxons-German-shale-gas-bid/UPI-70281302709161/

The essentials of the story didn't change:

Navy SEALs flew to Pakistan in helicopters to Bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad where they shot him dead, and one of his wives in the leg after she came between the SEALs and Bin Laden. The SEALs took Bin Laden's body and the US buried it at sea in accordance with Muslim custom. The rest is relatively minor detail.

Then they don't even keep the body around long enough for anyone else to verify it. They just go dump it in the sea? Seriously?

They didn't just dump his body in the sea, they buried it at sea in accordance with Muslim tradtion (though there are disputes among Muslim scholars about when and how it is permitted). Muslim custom requires quick burial. Besides, DNA tests provide all the certainty needed. (How many other 6'4" Muslims that look exactly like Bin Laden are there in Pakistan living in million dollar compounds with vast quantities of communications with Al Qadea and Bin Laden's wives present? That many?)

Why is it so important for a Muslim to buried their dead in a day?

Muslims strive to bury the deceased as soon as possible after death, avoiding the need for embalming or otherwise disturbing the body of the deceased.

Islamic Scholars Split Over Sea Burial for Bin Laden

... Mr. Brennan said that appealing to other countries would have exceeded the time frame that Islamic custom requires, of burial within 24 hours of death.

I don't think there is any serious reason to doubt a quick burial at sea, especially since the US is trying to account for Muslim sensitivities.

They are all pathological liars in my book.

President Obama announced Bin Laden was killed by American forces:
Obama Announces Death of Osama bin Laden

Al Qaeda has announced he is dead:
Text: Al Qaeda statement confirming bin Laden's death

Iran says he is dead:
Iran's intelligence chief says bin Laden died long before the 'alleged raid'

Family members denounce his death:
My father's death was criminal and I may sue the U.S.

Locals protest his death:
Pakistani tribesmen protest

So tell me, are all of these people with multiple and conflicting interests lying about Bin Laden being dead? Is it just to fool you? If so, why?

I do not trust the government to tell the truth on matters this large. While I doubt bin Laden is alive, I doubt the official version of his death even more.

Let's see..... the US Government announces he is dead:

Obama Announces Death of Osama bin Laden

The terrorist organization he headed announces he is dead:

Text: Al Qaeda statement confirming bin Laden's death

The regional troublemaker with a strong intelligence agency and an avowed enemy of the US announces he was dead before the operation:

Iran's intelligence chief says bin Laden died long before the 'alleged raid'

Family members denounce his death:

My father's death was criminal and I may sue the U.S.: Bin Laden's son slams Al Qaeda leader's killing

The locals are protesting his death:

Pakistani tribesmen protest

At this point, I think anyone doubting Bin Laden's death is about ready to star in their own personal Truman Show, and doesn't really need more news or photographs.... maybe a shrink or philosopher. Cogito ergo Bin Laden moritur.

The looney bin is getting crowded. Sanity: step 1, step 2....

What would be the point of using lasers? You're not going to affect the orbit of a piece of space junk just by shining a laser on it.

UH WHAT. We discussed this here but slashdot search is like fucking a blackberry bush

Unfortunately, it's might not be your imagination. Hair loss drug linked to less libido, ED To be honest, that possibility wasn't even on my list of things to consider when I opted not to treat my baldness.

Baldness and *ANY* hair related thing is clearly related sexually just look at your genitals ffs you hairy primate.

Unfortunately, it's might not be your imagination. Hair loss drug linked to less libido, ED To be honest, that possibility wasn't even on my list of things to consider when I opted not to treat my baldness.

It's not like the tablet fad caught Microsoft completely by surprise:

Bill Gates unveils Microsoft's new Tablet PC in 2002

And as for the internet thing, what you really mean is: Microsoft didn't get into the World Wide Web until 1995. This isn't terribly surprising, since the WWW hadn't been around yet when windows 3.1 was released. At the time, the WWW was one of several possible futures. The one MS first wanted to bet on was the 'Microsoft Network'. Of course, that's not the path history ended up taking, so they had to adapt.

I mean, stress can be enhanced by pain. So, I am good if I say, stub my toe. But what if I am in schock? I guess I won't get the help I need.

This is why voting bodies specify quorum rules and time limits for voting. If someone doesn't want to participate actively, they can't slow it down or prevent it.

Of course, even with a quorum rule there are exceptions (thank goodness).

Honestly, I don't get why anyone in an educational setting isn't just counting raised hands...

What I'm reading is that the biggest concern isn't reactors two and three that were active at the time of the tsunami and appear now to be breaching containment and venting mildly radioactive steam. It's reactor four, which holds no fissibles in its containment. Its fissibles were put on the roof in the spent fuel pond for maintenance last November. Since then of course, the pond appears to have been damaged - perhaps in the hydrogen explosion that blew the roof off, but more likely in the quake. Regardless, the heat from this non-spent reactor fuel is supposed to be dissipated by cooling which is not now operating, the pond is boiling off - possibly leaking as well, and there doesn't seem to be any way to get boron-laced seawater into this cooling pond to restart the cooling and prevent a meltdown in the open air.

After some time on the roof exposed to air, it's possible this fuel would melt down to the bottom of the pond. In that case, in the precise words of the utility, "The possibility of re-criticality is not zero.'' A criticality accident is when a bunch of fissibles reaches critical mass. Contrary to what you might think, this does not cause a nuclear explosion. It is, however, a Big Deal.

This still isn't as bad as Chernobyl. At Chernobyl in addition to this they had carbon rods that would burn - and they did, explosively - sending something like 10% of the fissibles high into the air. As you probably know, in that incident between 15,000 and 30,000 people died and over two million saw health effects.

Now the hole in the roof isn't directly over the pond. The pond needs some water and boric acid solution. It's boiling off radioactive steam and hydrogen and oxygen, so flying a helicopter in and doing the needful thing is a one way trip uncertain of success. We need a hero - probably several. Somebody to blow the rest of the roof off with a missile, and some other bodies have to fly suicide missions into the hole to drop the nuclear retardant. And it has to happen soon.

If somebody doesn't get in there and stop this then attempted operations in the area won't just be suicidal - they'll be pointless, as the radiation will become immediately fatal before the heroes can do their work to cool the other reactors and their "spent" fuel ponds. Oh, and the ponds on top of reactors five and six are heating up now, reactors 1, 2 and 3 still have issues to deal with. Not a good day to be in Tokyo. Fortunately the winds are offshore today.

It takes a special kind of retard to equate Obama with Mao.

Isn't that a rather harsh way to refer to the Chinese? Seems to have been popular with them.

Is this Anita Dunn’s favorite clothing store?

It takes a special kind of retard to equate Obama with Mao.

Isn't that a rather harsh way to refer to the Chinese? Seems to have been popular with them.

Is this Anita Dunn’s favorite clothing store?

Ellsberg only avoided conviction and a long prison sentence as a result of government misconduct of a gross nature surrounding a break-in of his house.

He *should * have spent a half-century in jail or so.

And because of the government misconduct, we cannot truly be sure of what the outcome of the trial would have been, nor what the appeals process would have led to. Two days after Ellsberg's surrender, SCOTUS determined (6-3) that their publication of the documents "outweighed the government's claim to potential harm to national security."; this likely would have affected at the very least an appeal made by Ellsberg, if not the possibility of a conviction itself.

Exactly. If we responded to national protests in dictatorships by saying "go Democracy!" and picked sides based on their support for liberty and civil rights rather than their susceptibility to bribery, we could suck a lot of the oxygen out of muslim extremism.

Would it really be so bad if the US and the Muslim extremists were on the same side of the barricades?

There's a lot of people in this discussion claiming that the US is *always* backing dictators with whom we have existing relationships. I want to give two recent counterexamples:
  Tunisia: President Obama hailed the “courage and dignity of the Tunisian people,” and said the United States joined the rest of the world in “bearing witness to this brave and determined struggle." The US has had friendly relations with Tunisia for decades.

Ivory Coast: President Obama "sent a letter to President Gbagbo, urging him to step aside and warning him of consequences if he does not." While the US has never supported Gbagbo after his coup, US companies (especially chocolate companies) have a big interest in the country's stability.

Fish and Game Officials Hopeful Wolf Attacks Will Soon Stop

Wolves attack joggers' dogs on Fort Rich

Bold Anchorage wolves attack dogs, circle joggers

Woman, dogs attacked by Alaskan wolves

Teacher killed by wolves in Alaska, police say

Awww man, you only asked for one.

Sued for having and using inactive and false profiles to trick people into renewing.

I know it sounds crazy, but some people have moral hangups about killing people unnecessarily.

If you don't shoot the pirates then you may get away, but they'll attack the next ship. If you do kill them then they're no longer a problem, and it will help to discourage the others.

What's 'moral' about running away and letting these people attack someone else?

Well the problem is that it might cause the pirates to become more desperate and violent. Pirates don't kill often (only in the movies do they do that). And this has happened. In 2009, pirates took over the Maersk Alabama US Navy ship and demanded money. In the end, the US killed 3 of the pirates and the pirates claimed "After the action they took yesterday (the sniping of the 3 pirates), we will respond with action, We're warning the owners of the other ships that if they try to attack, we will kill the crews and burn their ships." Now according to a U.N. report released in Nov 2010, a year and a half later, U.N. report says pirates more violent. Maybe shooting pirates wasn't the most 'moral' idea in the end?

http://www.militarybudget.info/WorldwideSpending.html
http://www.militarybudget.info/WorldwideMilitaryExpenditures.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Budget_Breakdown_for_2011
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/01/06/Gates-Shrinking-budget-means-fewer-troops/UPI-42921294353456/?dailybrief
vs.
http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/TLSF/theme_a/mod02/www.worldgame.org/wwwproject/index.shtml

All links are save to look at:
link nr. 1
link nr. 2
link nr. 3
link nr. 4
vs.
link nr. 5

Here, let me read Wikipedia to you.

Saddam Hussein in the past was seen by U.S. intelligence services as a bulwark of anti-communism in the 1960s and 1970s[25]

Let's go to the cite.

While many have thought that Saddam first became involved with U.S. intelligence agencies at the start of the September 1980 Iran-Iraq war, his first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim.

Who was Qasim? Back to Wikipedia.

Qasim soon withdrew Iraq from the pro-Western Baghdad Pact and established friendly relations with the Soviet Union. Iraq also abolished its Treaty of mutual security and bilateral relations with the UK. Also, Iraq withdrew from the agreement with the United States that was signed by the monarchy from 1954 to 1955 regarding military, arms, and equipment.

So, it looks like Saddam was put in power by the US to replace the guy who deposed the former king, was backed by the Soviet Union, and started implementing socialist reforms. You know, just like Operation Ajax that lead to the Islamic Republic of Iran.

These charges are mostly just to distract the media from Mugabe's involvment with blood diamonds, but it's not obviously working.

We've also got lovely summaries of Mugabe's criminality by U.S. ambassadors.

Btw, the 'sanctions' being discussed don't hurt people beyond Mugabe's immediate circle.

It seems just as likely that the guys running Turbines for your local power company are no better equipped to handle this than Iran. In Iran, they have unlimited budget and first call upon the best brains in the country.

Your local power company? Not so much.

I dunno man.

I'd put my local power company up against those "Your nuclear power plant control software license has expired please obtain a valid license" clowns any day.

The local guys may be clowns too. But the difference is that my clowns can at least download a patch.

Everyone seems to have missed news from Japan that Toshiba has a fab that just experienced a single millisecond glitch in the power supply to the whole factory. Every chip in production may have been ruined and many industrial processes totally destroyed. The effect may last until Fed or March and could affect the global price of certain chips.

I wonder if this was an effect of an accidental Stuxnet controlled glitch in Japan affecting the power in the Toshiba plant? It is so strange that it happened to the whole plant and lasted for a mere fraction of a second.

It seems just as likely that the guys running Turbines for your local power company are no better equipped to handle this than Iran. In Iran, they have unlimited budget and first call upon the best brains in the country. Your local power company? Not so much.

I dunno man.

I'd put my local power company up against those "Your nuclear power plant control software license has expired please obtain a valid license" clowns any day.

The local guys may be clowns too. But the difference is that my clowns can at least download a patch.

Assange is going to come out of this a hero. The "rape charge" is already falling apart. The press is now mostly supporting Assange. Give it a week, and there will be calls for resignations of some Government officials.

Some of his opponents are already in trouble. One of the "commentators" calling for calling for Assange to be killed is now the subject of a complaint that he was inciting to commit murder.

Meanwhile, Wikileaks remains online, and response times are good.

Julian Assange was arrested in London, by Interpol, for crimes committed in Sweden.

This makes the US guilty of doublespeak on this because... well, I guess they said some mean things, at one point?

"The U.S. Justice Department is considering possible avenues to indict WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange beyond the 1917 Espionage Act, officials said. Possible offenses under consideration include conspiracy or trafficking in stolen property, The New York Times reported Wednesday."
- http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/12/08/Justice-mulls-WikiLeaks-prosecution/UPI-23201291830680/

While he has not been charged yet, it is really only a matter of time.

"I don't want to get into specifics here, but people would have a misimpression if the only statute you think that we are looking at is the Espionage Act," Holder said Monday. "That is certainly something that might play a role, but there are other statutes, other tools that we have at our disposal."

This can be found somewhere more mainstream.. no need to promote the Brietbart site:

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2010/11/18/Man-rejects-fruit-jar-suit-settlement/UPI-38081290112519/

It's equally likely neither Russia nor China would be very happy to see a nuclear Iran, but not want to be visibly seen discouraging them on the international stage. Stuxnet, lets either of them slow Iran's nuclear program, test a new concept of warfare, and leave the US and Israel holding the bad as "most likely."

Yeah, uh huh, and it's equally likely that someone besides OJ killed Ron and Nicole too.

Come on, Israel doesn't even hide it. They even announced their intentions to engage in preemptive cyberwarfare at a conference last spring. What do you want them to do, send you a signed letter saying "We did it"?

The "theory" that Iran sabotaged itself is the most bizarre bit of denial to come out of this whole Stuxnet mess. It reminds me of a friend who was such a Chris Brown fan that when reports first started coming out about him beating the crap out of Rihanna, his first reaction (I kid you not) was "Bitch probably did it to herself to get his money." It's no secret that Israel has a new cyberwarfare division that does just this sort of thing. It's no secret that Israel wants to stop the Iranian nuclear program at all costs. And it's no secret that western intelligence agencies have done this sort of thing before. So the idea that Iran sabotaged its own nuclear program just to frame Israel is just beyond the pale here. Like Fox Mulder and his "I want to believe" attitude, you can delude yourself to believe anything if you REALLY want to. But in the real world, everyone knows damned well who did this and why.

Of course. Though budget buys time, which buys patience and 911 pretty much secured interest. Oh look: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/10/28/US-intelligence-budget-tops-80-billion/UPI-37231288307113/

7 to 1 in September, then later in the year it almost evened up to 40% spent was for democrats.

Then the totals for ALL races in House it was 2:1 and total for ALL senate races 4:1 - So yes A HUGE SPENDING SPREE BY GOP PACS. Just not 7-1 outside of September:

In all House races, Republican-leaning outside groups spent $38 million on television, compared with $13 million by Democratic-oriented groups. But Democratic candidates outspent Republican ones, $97 million to $49 million. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee also outspent the national Republican Congressional Committee, $30 million to $26 million.

In the Senate, television spending by the candidates has been roughly equal, with both sides spending more than $80 million, while Republican-leaning third-party groups have swamped their Democratic counterparts, $58 million to $21 million. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has outspent its Republican counterpart, but the difference comes nowhere close to eliminating the gap among independent groups.

I think Occam's Razor usually applies to suspects too. And in this case the most obvious suspect, with the most to gain by far, is Israel. There is even some evidence in the code that this is the case, and the Israeli government itself has openly acknowledged that it has extensive cyber-warfare plans.

Now of course, there are any number of ways to dismiss this if you REALLY want to believe that Israel wasn't involved (and it's always possible that they weren't). But you can do that with any case, no matter how clear-cut. I can make the same argument that O.J. Simpson never killed anyone (maybe it was just someone making it LOOK like he did it, there were probably other people with some reason to kill Ron and Nicole too). But is that the logical conclusion or just wishful thinking on my part because I don't want to believe that O.J. did it?