Slashdot Mirror

History already shows that Kerry won Palm Beach County by over 100,000 votes.

So if there was election fraud it was either A) totally incompetent or B) not done by the republicans.

From the Trivia section of the Wikipedia article: Karl Rove's reputation for political dirty tricks is such that, among both his supporters and critics the phrase "Rovian" has come to be used as a synonym for "Machiavellian". The documentary Bush's Brain "...depicts Rove as the most powerful political consultant in American history and, in essence, a co-president" according to USA Today. [101] [101] links to a USA Today article: http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2004-03-1 1-southwest-film-fest_x.htm

"Smoke gets in your Eyes" - New York Times article: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB 0916FB345B0C728FDDA90994DD404482&n=Top%2FReference %2FTimes%20Topics%2FPeople%2FR%2FRove%2C%20Karl

OK, I would not say that any of these links constitute absolute proof (except for the first one, but this wasn't the main point of our disagreement), but they do indicate that my opinion is not outside mainstream thought. Sorry for not bringing up more articles, but I really do not have a total source list for this matter handy.

Now, if you could find solid proof of the dreaded WMDs that George W. was so worried about before the Iraq invasion (and he still half-heartedly allures that exist), I would be very impressed.

More choices are rarely a bad idea. I dislike bundled crapola that I'll never need or want.

It appears you have never heard of the paradox of choice.

In a nutshell, too many choices often lead to a inability to decide. It is the same reason people take so long to decide on an ice-cream flavor at Baskin-Robbins or on a dish from a chinese carry-out menu: too many choices. Most people simply don't want to think too hard when making a purchase, so it's a good idea for companies to make the range of choices as few and distinct as possible.

Here is an excerpt from the book.

Then what about these guys actually passing city ordinances requiring camera coverage on private property?

Let's see: Daly, Chicago, Democrat. Baltimore City Council, Democrats, Milwaukee, Democrats...

I think what you are missing is that the reality is that government at all levels is doing more to violate civil rights and while you can be a partisan and blame that on Republicans when they happen to be running the government in question, the reality ignored by the old media press and by people like this /. story submitter (by convieniently leaving out the party affiliate of Democrats who do bad stuff like this) is that both parties do it when they are in power.

In fact, I can name at least a couple of Republicans in Congress who adamently oppose all unconstitutional civil liberties violations (Ron Paul-R TX and Jeff Flake-R AZ), but can't think of any Democrat in Congress opposed enough to vote against all forms of it. Perhaps you can name a couple?

The reality is that when a Democrat is in power, they tend to be even worse on civil liberties than the Republicans, so the solution isn't going to be replacing one with the other.

The argument that the ethanol production takes more energy than it creats makes no sense. All energy conversion process is energy negative. The amount of energy contained in the crude oil is more than that of gasoline made from it. The reason we convert crude oil to gasoline is not producing more energy but making it more usable form, a.k.a. liquid fuel. Same is with ethanol. Sure you lose some energy during the production of ethernol if you count all the electricity, natural gas and mostly notably the light from the sun. But it is not easy to run cars with electricity, natural gas, or light itself. Just the liquid form of ethanol has more economical value than what we need to produce it.

Having said that, fueling E85 right now does not make sense. Currently E85 costs more than regular gasoline.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-02-14-e85-u sat_x.htm?POE=TECISVA

Furthermore, E85 contain only 70% of energy of the same amount of gasoline, and you have to fuel more. The current major use of ethanol is gasoline additive. The conventional gasoline additive to improve the octane rate is fading out due to health concern, and ethanol derivative is added to today's gasoline. So you are using some ethanol if you drive a gasoline-engine car, evee if you don't know it.

After the Red Team exercises that demonstrated how flimsy the system security was, he really should want the system upgraded and re-scrutinized.

USA Today Article
RABA Technologies PDF Report on Security Assessment

I don't know where you are getting your facts, but E85 is NOT cheaper than gasoline, at least not anymore.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-02-14-e85-u sat_x.htm?POE=TECISVA

Excerpt:

Nationwide average price for gasoline has sunk to $2.286 per gallon, according to travel group AAA's daily report.

To be an even-up energy value, E85 would have to sell for 72% of that, $1.646.

But E85 wholesale prices have jumped to more than $2, so retailers can't afford to sell it for that.

Sorry to bust up the joke, but the wasps are kept in a plastic wand.

>and every other bombing short of another Uwe Boll film.

How about a Theo van Gogh film?

Considering that "in BlackBerry-centric Washington, D.C., [...] every congressman, lobbyist and political operative worth his expense account has one in his pocket." I would have to say yes. Reference.

You can already get pants which are kind of like that. The fabric goes by the brand-name Nano-Tex.

Article: Cutting-edge science creates stain-free pants

Last year an activist group called THONG (Topless Humans Organized for Natural Genetics) apparently organized a topless protest against the use of this material in clothing.

http://www.boingboing.net/2005/05/09/protest_again st_eddi.html

Yes they do, manipulation, extorsion (sp?) and monopoly are their 3 main business rules

For your archives(the article is disappearing with time's passage):

Speaking of Duplicity

My only comment here is that Henry S. Rowen was one of GW Bush's picks to the "nonpartisan" Silberman/Robb Committee.

You seem bright enough to handle this.

Your insistence that the US did not defeat Hussein in 1991 really says it all for your argument. Where's bin Laden?

Of course you'll deny how the CIA and the Pentagon refused Clinton's orders to bomb bin Laden on his mobile phone coordinates, each trying to pass the buck to the other. Because Bush's CIA and Pentagon continue to fight each other, damaging our ability to fight terrorists. Where's bin Laden?

And of course you'll throw a completely irrelevant old Clinton hatred into your smokescreen. Where's bin Laden?

The FACT is that Bush has turned our country on its head after BIN LADEN attacked us, instead invading Iraq, and leaving bin Laden free to continue terrorizing us. Where's bin Laden?

...although it's almost a year old. Nonetheless, it goes into the details a lot more.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/robotics/2005-04 -19-qatar-camalbots_x.htm

I remember it because I thought it was so bizzare, and because I had no idea there was a black market in young boys who were good camel jockeys. Weird.

So its not OK to spam search terms, but if your Mazda and you give Google some cash, it ok to get your site listed when people google Pontiac.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-01-30-googl e-gm-mazda_x.htm

Huh.

I wish I had some mode points to give you anonymous you have just described the problem not just with the Super Bowl but America in general since the Reagan era-error, that has only accelerated since 911.

No wonder the world hates us:

"Eleven of the 16 countries surveyed by the Pew Research Center -- Britain, France, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands, Russia, Turkey, Pakistan, Lebanon, Jordan and Indonesia -- had a more favorable view of China than the U.S.

India and Poland were more upbeat about the U.S., while Canadians are as likely to see China favorably as they were the United States.

The poll, which was released Thursday, found suspicion and wariness of the United States in many countries where people question the war in Iraq and are growing wary of the U.S.-led war on terror.

"The Iraq war has left an enduring impression on the minds of people around the world in ways that make them very suspicious of U.S. intentions and makes the effort to win hearts and minds far more difficult," said Shibley Telhami, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution."

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-06-23-worl d-poll_x.htm

I far one don't welcome or new war based 1984ish (we've always been at war against Golstein Bin-Laden's east Asia) police states, "open source: secuirty sensors, or not.

The RIAA may want you to think it's illegal to hold down the Shift key, but it's never been decided in a court of law.

If pressing Shift is illegal, is it illegal to disable autorun in the Registry? Is it illegal to insert the CD in a computer that doesn't run Windows?

Even SunComm wisely decided not to sue Halderman who publicized the workaround.

I think she should countersue the RIAA for the price-fixing scheme for CDs she never even bought.

I wonder if the DARPA Grand Challenge competition had anything to do with this? Personally I'd like to see more competitions like that. The success of the X-Prize should tell us how well competition drives creativity and inovation.

Make up lots of objective goals and make the prize awards really big because you can afford to since you're paying for results rather than mere proposals to achieve results.

Making the real achievers of objective goals rich beyond their wildest dreams will lead to far more effective R&D spending of those dollars than will handing them over to life-time bureaucrats.

PS: A big problem is exemplified by a USA Today article about prize awards for technical achievement

Last June, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation put an exclamation point after "grand challenge" when it announced one of the richest in history. The Grand Challenges for Global Health pledged $436.6 million (including $31.6 million from British and Canadian sources) toward solving some of the world's worst health problems. Preliminary funds have been granted to 43 groups attacking 14 challenges.

The fact that no one understands the difference between awarding a prize for achieving X vs awarding a grant for a proposal for achieving X is illustrative of why technology policy fails miserably generation after generation.

I'm not going to tell you what company I work for but it is easily in the top 50 of the Fortune 500. And, yes, Skype is banned--my employer would never let anyone use Skype.

On top of that, I don't have administrative rights to install anything on my computer. I have to go through a large control process to achieve that which requires me to explain what the software will be used for (and it better be a company resource). Therefore, it's almost out of the question to ask for it to be installed.

My company (and I have the feeling that many others are like this, too) would far rather throw truck loads of money at AT&T rather than risk something going wrong with the P2P aspects of Skype.

Furthermore, any kind of free software scares my employer. Big time. I know Skype isn't necessarily free so this is about other software I may want to use. They have this fear that they would be a large target if whoever wrote said software decided to take legal action upon discovering that employees of company X all used it to complete their daily jobs.

Not even stadiums full of lawyers claiming that, due to some software licenses, there's nothing to worry about could convince them otherwise.

Ok, here's one from kindergarten: Actions speak louder than words.

Ok, I'm fairly certain that I can find a lot of evidence revealing how many leaders of academia actually feel about George W. Bush. And there's a lot of documentation on his actual actions regarding science and research in the nation.

Harvard's Howard Gardner calls Bush's science adviser a "prostitute." And we all remember the Scientists and Engineers for Change organization compromised of sixty Nobel scientists and Tech Leaders. I'll let you guess out their stance on bush. Don't forget their open letter to the American people stating, " President Bush and his administration are compromising our future."

Remember, he only said he supports it. Let's see some actual actions to follow that up.

And if you have time to read up on Bush's actions in the science community, take a look at the Politics and Science in the Bush Administration. I find it hilarious that anyone could expect me to swallow Bush's "scientific research and technology proposals" when his actions are no more proposals than death knells.

Indeed, it seems the hardest issue regarding science that Bush is struggling with is how to silence it.

There is a lot of evidence of massive cell phone use in developing nations, accomplishing much of what this laptop program is trying to accomplish. There is no evidence currently to support the laptop program.

Over 10 million people in Nigeria have cell phones: http://fellows.rdvp.org/davidlehr/blog/cellphoneus echangeslifeinafrica/ - that they use to find sellers or buyers of their crops.

Cell phones are providing a way to do low-cost banking in South Africa: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/gear/2005-08 -28-cell-banks-africa_x.htm/

They've been called a "lifter from poverty" - http://www.smartmobs.com/archive/2005/11/26/mobile _phone_as.html/ and the "pocket answer to the digital divide" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4446966.stm/

The only thing stupid that MS is doing here is assuming that you need a keyboard and a tv. You don't. You just need a very capable phone.

Recently, he said that the shuttle and ISS were mistakes, and that the trick will be to re-make the space program without causing too much damage (like irritating the ISS partner nations).

Certainly, I find the 'it was our 9/11' comments to be slightly more disturbing.

Because, at the very least, wasn't 9/11 their 9/11? Or did they not feel enough 'ownership' of that tragedy?

Several Republicans did not like the number, 500000.

Soon afterwards, Shinseki was forced to retire from the army. Yet, the fiasco in Iraq proved that Shinsek was right -- all along. We needed 500,000 troops.

Truth be told, the average age of the Gamer is climbing, in fact, 70 years old isn't too old to be a Hardcore gamer. If games are just for kids, then shouldn't most modern pasttimes be for kids only?(ie. Hockey, Football, Basketball, Golf, Movies, etc)

It is ridiculous that 47% of Americans are not completely up-in-arms about this. We can't have our president breaking any law that he wants to.

Mr. Bush actually has a good argument for legality here... provided that this really is limited to international calls with suspected terrorists on one end (as the New York Times said in its initial report).

I don't agree with all of his argument, but here's my understanding of it:

The US said that it is at war with al Qaeda. This authorizes Bush to kill suspected terrorists in other countries. But.. although blasting them into smithereens or turning them into jelly is A-OK, he's not allowed to tap their phones without getting a court order? Since when does the judicial branch get involved in foreign war operations?

Furthermore, Congress is limited to those powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution. Thus, Congress has the power to raise an army, fund it, and declare war. It doesn't have the authority to limit the President's ability to direct military operations as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. Congress can increase or decrease funding (the ultimate check on executive power), but it can't pass a law saying "The President is not allowed to launch cruise missiles at Switzerland." Spying on foreign terrorists during a war on international terror is essentially a military operation.

[IMHO, that last bit is the weakest point of the argument.]

---

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-gutfeld/finally -the-roe-v-wade-_b_14437.html

• The refusal for giving data over a subpoena to the US Government has nothing to do with my privacy. See this NY Times article. I hate the fact that Google is pretending that this has anything to do with my privacy. Come on Google, we're not that stupid - if you're worried about your trade secrets, fine, just say so. Don't pretend you're protecting me.
• Rolling over and panting with eagerness to help the communist goons in China hardly qualifies as doing no evil. The whole point of Google's stock structure where the shares of Brin/Page/Schmidt (see here) are worth 10 times the ordinary schmo's shares voting-wise was precisely because they said that this way they could run the company they way they wanted without worrying what the shareholders thought. The only conclusion is that Google wants to be communist enforcers, and is too worried about their valuation to stand up for core values.

Also, I want to ask the Google apologists - how many of you work for Google? If you do, then stop eating the free food and drinking the kool aid.

I think the problem is more the opposite: elections aren't hotly contested enough. Consider that in the 2004 elections only 2% of the of the seats in the House of Representatives we're considered "in play". That means that 98% of of congressman pretty much had re-election "in the bag", and didn't have any need to make political compromises in order to get more votes and be re-elected. Because of that, they have no motivation to do anything but play to their established base.

And for the "illegitimate president thing".

Not for sure what you mean, Bush won by a large margin in 2004. See here:MAP

It was dismissed by a Democratic judge who even tried to make himself look better by saying he voted for Saurbrey (He later admitted that he didn't). Indeed they proved that dead people did vote in that election and clearly fraud had been comitted in those heavily Dem areas. Fraud that was so easy to do that ANY idiot could do it under the old punch card system that was used at the time. If the lawsuit had proceeded a lot of people believe Saurbrey would have been declared the winner. Justice denied. Maybe I should have brought up Washington State's clear violation of law - http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-06-06 -washington-governor_x.htm ? They stole that election and everyone knows it. The "late" and felon vote again. Plenty of examples of this throughout the country. Dead people shouldn't vote!

The problem is that a secure system is one that denies access by default. But a democratic (small-d) voting system must allow access to the polls by default.

The whole thrust of the original /. article is that we need more security. Maybe you are criticizing the original article? Elections need to have integrity or what good are they? Allowing someone to win through fraud is a really bad thing and you should be very opposed to that. Do you want people comitting fraud? They will if they think they can get away with it. Feel free to suggest your own method of one man, one vote. Also keep in mind that most states, if not all states, it is illegal to not have a photo identification on your person if you are over 16 years of age. If you get arrested for something, you could spend a long time in jail until they figure out who you are. Thought I would mention it since a lot of people don't know that.

I don't understand your reference to checksums.

A method to authenticate a piece of paper loosely called a checksum. It is not really a checksum, something to ensure it is one vote, authentic and not a copy. Otherwise we could have a situation whereby people are making copies of votes. Just hit 100 copy and viola! 100 more votes the way you want them. The point I wanted to make is that they can absolutely ensure that a receipt or a paper log is authentic. It can also be done inexpensively. Expense is an issue for many jurisdictions. Especially after blowing so much money on the last systems of questionable integrity. Ideally I would like to not hear whining after the next election from the looser, whoever that is. Right now we can discuss that very well since we have no idea on either side who will be running. Just vote for the better man, or woman as the case may be regardless of party.

It's nobody's business but my own (and the poll workers) whether I've been to the polls or not. Marking people who have voted in a manner that is publically accessible is a bad idea.

Funny, this hasn't been an issue even in Iraq or Afghanistan where voting could get you killed. In fact they display it proudly. Maybe you are insecure? Afraid of the man? It doesn't show how you voted, just the fact that you did. Here in the US I have more respect for those who actually do vote. Too many complain a lot and never vote. In fact many people weren't even registered and to fix that they had the motor-voter law in most states. Of course you don't have to vote if you don't want to. I don't understand why you are concerned, they even show people who voted on TV. It is even a matter of public record, along with information on your house, marriage and other information. Maybe you don't know how exposed you already are?

Did you actually follow the links, or are you just bitching about the URL? Because, you know, they didn't write either of those. One is from the Washington Post, and one is from the Arizona Republic.

You posted four links, documenting gifts (skybox seats, plane tickets, and hotel fares) which you claimed Abramoff gave to Republicans, but not Democrats.

I responded and provided a number of links 1, 2, 3, 4) showing that every single item you mentioned had been given to Republicans and Democrats alike -- sometimes moreso to the latter than the former (you expressed outrage, for instance, that Tom DeLay got to sit in Abramoff's skybox, yet Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) got the skybox all to himself to hold a fundraiser in, and has yet to reimburse anyone for this gift).

Game over, man.

BTW I second that call to break away from that computer and take a walk.

But there's no reason to pretend obesity is a killer just like tobacco. It's not even in the same league.

That is the pattern. Democrats got campaign contributes from random groups trying to make their case like they always did. As did Republicans. Some of these groups were serious about influencing people, so they hired various lobbists. Sometimes the lobbist they picked was Abramoff.

Republicans also got free unreported trips, free unreported flights, free unreported skyboxes, and reported money directly from Abramoff. Democrats did not. It is those things that, for example, Ney is indeed under investigation for.

Actually, I'd like to go into more depth on this one, since even on your own terms your claim here is false on its face. Let's look at some of the gifts Democrats got directly from Jack Abramoff, shall we:

• Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev) -- Beneficiary of a fund-raising dinner held in his honor at Abramoff's request by Abramoff employee Edward Ayoob
• Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) -- received the same free skybox seats that you claim it was a crime for Republicans to receive.
• Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) -- not only received the same skybox seats, he held two fundraisers in Abramoff's skybox, for which he never reimbursed anyone.
• Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) -- received free plane tickets and hotel fares, the same thing you have just told us it was a crime for Tom DeLay to receive.
• Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS) -- received the same (see same link)

In other words, even if we took your own absurd definitions at face value, Democrats are guilty of everything you accuse Republicans of.

Is that so? Interesting.

Oh, I'm sorry. Those are, in order, donations to a scam charity, skyboxes, and airplane tickets. There is, indeed, no money there. Except the donations to a 'charity' that doesn't do anything.

Here's some actual money. Hey, look! Campaign contributions to the tune of 4000 by a tribe. And to the tune of 17,000 by Abramoff's own firm.

That is the pattern. Democrats got campaign contributes from random groups trying to make their case like they always did. As did Republicans. Some of these groups were serious about influencing people, so they hired various lobbists. Sometimes the lobbist they picked was Abramoff.

Republicans also got free unreported trips, free unreported flights, free unreported skyboxes, and reported money directly from Abramoff. Democrats did not. It is those things that, for example, Ney is indeed under investigation for.

And, yes, it is because none of those things were declared. I don't understand why you understand that, but then somehow think that reported campaign contributions have anything to do with this. The fact that Abramoff and anyone who's ever hired him, and any money they spent, have become incredibly trainted in DC doesn't mean there is any actual wrongdoing associated with those reported and, as far as we know, legal campaign contributions.

Which, incidentally, means half the Republicans linked to this scandal probably don't belong there either. But none of the Democrats do.

And, just to be through, I will explicitly answer the two questions:

If there is not even the hint of a crime in taking money from Mr. Abramoff's clients and then voting in the way he asked you to, why are politicians of both parties falling over each other to give back the money?

Because the media, at the prompting of the GOP, has made the legal campaign contributions the issue instead of the illegal bribes. Because if they try to spin it as legal contributions, well, everyone gets those.

And there's not the slightest bit of evidence that any legal campaign contribution has swayed the vote for any Democrat, or even any Republican, although there is at least one Republican vote-change that looks fishy. However, now that Abramoff has cut a deal, we shall soon see.

And, well, you want the real answer? Because Democrats are fucking morons who refuse to stand together with any sort of message. Oh no! The GOP is lying about us! We better immediately cave in instead of putting out some sort of counter to their RP!

A number of clients paid Mr. Abramoff a whole lot of money to tell them which politicians (of both parties, as I've demonstrated) to give money to in order to get votes. What were they paying for if, in fact, they had (as you claim) no expectation of getting votes in return for the outlandishly large donations Mr. Abramoff directed them to give?

So you're arguing that not only are campaign contributions evidence of wrongdoing, but hiring a lobbist is? Um, no.

You hire lobbists because the lobbists are the middlemen between you and politicians. They know the politicians, just as importantly they know thir cheif of staff, they know who's on what committee, they know who the enemies are, they know how present arguments that are likely to work, etc.

Not that I like the damn system, bu

Oh, of course, it all boils down to more money, doesn't it? Funny thing, though, we already shovel mountains of money into our public schools, by far more than any other country even on a per-student basis, and yet they continue to deteriorate. And the same pattern holds true within this country too. No school district spends more money per student than the District of Columbia, but it is a cesspool of corrupt cronyism and union featherbedding, with worse performance than almost any other district in the country.

We can easily solve 90% of our educational problems with current or even lesser levels of spending. Just introduce "follow-the-student" funding policies such as France does, paying the fees for any public or private school the student wishes to attend. Schools which teach children will thrive, and schools which do nothing but provide cushy sinecures for lazy, overpaid union educrats will fail.

-ccm

I'm afraid i can't point you to the specific patents that gemstar owns but i just quickly googled "gemstar tvguide patents" and got a lot of references to suits filed by gemstar. Here is a small selection of news stories, most of which seem to be from around 2002 (i would investigate further, but this tends to wind me up ;)

http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2002-01-31-gem star.htm
http://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/stories/2003 /06/09/daily7.html
http://www.socaltech.com/fullstory/0002006.html
http://www.newscorp.com/news/news_110.html

And an example of them losing:

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1:87727511/GEMSTAR-T V+GUIDE+LOSES+PATENT+RULING+OVER+INTERACTIVE+TV+PR OGRAM+GUIDES.html

Many schools in east tennessee tried this method. The air conditioning units were used for *YEARS* and then they switch to this method. 5 years later they start getting black mold issues.. http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2002-11-25-sch ool-mold_x.htm

Now, I know people are saying the reason is "poorly insulated cooling pipes", but this is very false. I've been installing cat5 in classrooms for a while, and saw no mold around the pipes, this isn't just a one classroom incident in a building, but the entire school. The ventilation systems built up condensation from the precooling the building each morning, and letting the building get hot at the end of the day.

I might not be thinking correctly, but doesn't 2 million dollars per building in mold removal exceed the amount of energy saved in a 5 year period?

Now I'm not a financial guy nor do I know a whole lot about investing and the like, but I am wondering why Google has not split this stock long ago?

Because the Google guys like Warren Buffet, and they probably agree with his reasons for not splitting the stock price:

Google joins ranks of stocks north of $300

"Buffett has long opposed splits. Berkshire first outlined its "no-split policy" in detail in its 1983 annual report. In the report, Buffett said stock splits only attract unsophisticated investors with a "short-term focus." (Berkshire has less-expensive class B shares that could be had for a mere $2,782 at Thursday's close.)"

Buffett's philosophy is that people should only buy companies if they're in it for the long haul, because they completely understand its financials, respect its management, and so forth. Buffett is against people who would say, "Wow, that Google stock is $400! It's so expensive." In a way, I guess he is trying to protect investors from themselves. And that's probably what Google's founders are doing as well.

I personally don't think Google is shutting out smaller investors. I mean, you really shouldn't be buying anything unless you have at least $1000 to invest, or the trading fee of $10 (or more) is going to be significant. $1000 is enough to buy 2 shares of Google, so any normal investor can get in if they want to.

Gates has already dismissed mp3 players and ipods as a passing fad.

I have to agree with him on this... I play mp3's through my Imate SP3 phone which has a 1 gig Mini-SD ram card. It's smaller and more light weight than an ipod, the sound quality is fantastic, plus it also acts as my organiser and mobile phone... all for about the same price as the cheapest ipod. Pretty much all new mobile phones will offer this same functionality, where does this leave the ipod ? Nowhere is the answer.

I really can't see the value in buying an ipod today. From what I've seen personally people buying these things today are doing it as a prententious fashion statement more than anything else. Which by definition would make gates absolutely right on this one.

if you're innocent, you shouldn't have to worry (true, but only if the government isn't violating the rights of the innocent, and leads to the possibility of forfeiting other rights).

The sad thing is that even the innocent have to fear these days. I'm sure if you look hard enough you can find the story about the toddler on the no fly list and other examples of the innocent being at the very least inconvenienced. At some point we have to draw the line and say enough is enough. Unfortunately I think that line should've been drawn about 10 years ago...

I'm also from near Charleston, you insensitive... oh, never mind.

Anyway, I was pleasantly surprised to see that most posters around here are staying on-topic instead of making bad jokes about West Virginia. Yes, they've got their problems, not the least of which are a lack of good tech-related jobs and a rapidly graying population, but they really are good people who don't deserve the abuse that the pop culture wizards at Abercrombie try to pile on to them.

Anyway, Gremlins only fiddle with airplanes.

On the other hand, if the money is big enough, would you really say no?

Yes, would you let someone kill you're wife for enough money? That is a very extreme example, but principles and human life are more important than money.

Insurance companies can set these guidelines very easily...

Sure, like insurance companies have regulated the height and strength of bumpers to make rear end collisions a non-repairable issue. Government should set guidelines, that is what they are there for. We trust them to make decisions that are best for all of us. If we don't like the decisions, we do what we want otherwise. The government standardized on the metric system over 100 years ago. For various reasons, we rejected that decision. Driving on the right side of the road is arbitrary, but it is much better standardized across the country, if not the world. Remember, cars came before insurance. Insurance is a scam. If you get into a wreck or drive perfectly, insurance companies make money off of you either way. They actually make more money off of you when you wreck.

Let the local governments regulate the environment. The federal and state governments are some of the worst polluters in history.

No. That is a federal issue. If its the local or state government, then companies will go where its cheapest to operate. Its also inefficient to have each local government analyze the data and make guidelines. Releasing potentially fatal or harmful things into the environment should not be allowed anywhere.

Why would a terrorist attack a nation that is peaceful, has open borders with no trade restrictions, and doesn't murder tens of thousands of people a year? Our country would not be a target if we returned to the days when we were friends to everyone and hated no one.

That was a joke to begin with, but OK. No, it goes against species preservation instinct to harm another person intentionally. Harm is done out of anger via revenge. Oh, and we are on order of at least 100k deaths per year, not measly 10k. A poll in Europe demonstrated that out of Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and the USA, that most everyone polled said that the US was the largest threat to world peace. The data should speak for itself. Iran and Iraq only have hurt each other and their neighbors (still bad). North Korea hasn't attacked anybody. They did have a civil war a while back. USA has bombed every single one of these countries, and now the government is talking about going back and killing Koreans because its been a while. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/20 03-09-01-carter_x.htm

Funny you should ask this. Sagan said it in Cosmos, I just read that portion last night. From a quick Google search:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndN uclear/photon_mass.html
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answer s/960731.html
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae180 .cfm
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/basics/w onderquest/photonmass.htm
http://www.ibiblio.org/lunar/school/library/massph ot.html

Most texts I've read state simply that photons have no mass. Those that disucss the topic in depth usually indicate that most phycisists believe that photons do not have mass. Just because someone didn't have the same schooling/texts as you does NOT make them ignorant.

Oh, and for what it's worth, GWB was educated by Yale and Harvard. Too bad he didn't have the benefit of a quality education like one might receive in Texas.

Ok, Scientology, this an exelent example. Especialy when that group is claiming to be a religion. Reporting on a group and thier inerworkings is free speech. Using thier material might still be subject to copyright law though. Maybe someday someone with enough money will gain enough legal ground to beet them.

Unfortunatly, I'm not sure I see the relevence in the disney case. Your still free to comment on thier actions. You can comment on the actual movies themselves. But taking thier property to enforce your free speech is a bit of a stretch on the first amendment. Copyright law allows for newsworthy items to be duplicated, educational uses and critics already. So if you can get ahold of them then I'm not sure whatb would stop it form being used in those manors but, the first amendment doesn't compell them to give access to anything they own. It is copyright law allowing you to use someone elses content for your free speech.

Maybe i'mm missing somethign. I can see the want to use the originals. I can see the impact it would have. However i just cannot see were the first amendment allows you to compell them to lend you a copy. If you can obtain a copy by any other (legal)means, then i don't see how they could stop you from using it though. OR is this the case? This article seems to show they are availible.

"Under Nevada law, a person stopped by a police officer under a reasonable suspicion standard "shall identify himself". After 11 denied requests for identification, Dove finally arrested Hiibel, who was subsequently convicted of resisting an officer."

A few more references.

It is not clear to me whether or not a verbal "My name is Joe Smith", assuming your name actually is Joe Smith, would meet the requirement of 'shall identify himself' - some will most assuredly take that to mean "prove" it with official papers. Keep in mind that the Nevada Supreme Court *upheld* the charges against Hiibel, so thinking this was overturned on the first appeal, as it should have been IMHO, would be incorrect.

Living outside the system in Nevada means buying a lot of shoes, apparently. Or, perhaps, never leaving the house, as Hiibel wasn't driving at the time.

I suppose if this continues that it would be could ease the parental fears suggested in this article I saw on USAToday.com http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-01-...e-sid ebar_x.htm . Time will tell whether this is a site killer though.