Slashdot Mirror

Given the deep hate of spam around here, I don't imagine you'll need to bring much to make a stop by Ronnie Scelson's house to point and laugh.

How can you say that this war does not demand R&D when we have 50 soldiers getting killed a month?

For one, we need to have research in ways of detecting IEDs by other means besides having them blow up on us, and the government is working on this:

http://www.hsarpabaa.com/main/BAA0503_solicitation _notice.htm

http://www.emclab.umr.edu/research/IED_Detection.h tml

http://www.special-operations-technology.com/print _article.cfm?DocID=1129

And we are building a better armored vehicle to replace the HUMMER.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-08-23-hum vees-main_x.htm

And we need to have a means of intercepting RPGs in flight.

http://www.deagel.com/pandora/cicm_de00400001.aspx

In case that hasn't made the market small enough, the price is around EU 599 (~$720). :-)

A quick search will find many news articles featuring the jacket (and similar ones from other manufacturers) but no indication where you can buy it. I suspect you can't really.

It was true two years after the fact.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06 -poll-iraq_x.htm

It's probably still true today.

There have been stories about the marine mammal program before, and regular fights with animal rights groups. It is no longer classified though, so anyone can go find out plenty of information at the project's official website. You can also check out their FAQ. It pretty clearly states that dolphins and sea lions are only used for marking and tagging, and that they are not used offensively since they can't really distinguish friendly forces and foes. It seems some people still refuse to give up on speculation however.

Anyway, I seriously doubt that dolphins are being used with poison darts, since the Navy seems to prefer using sea lions now (They don't need storage pools, work better in tight areas like harbors and piers, and tolerate more varying temperatures). And even if there *were* poison dart weilding dolphins, why on earth would they be left armed while at a training facility during a storm?

Except I think the parent may have been refering to this - States settle CD price-fixing case

Which is in fact price fixing, and they paid a (tiny) settlement for their actions.

Actually, I think the FCC indends to auction off the entire analog TV spectrum. But they've run into a couple bumps:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2005-07-12-dig ital-tv-usat_x.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_television#An alog_switch-off
http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,68091,00 .html

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/askjack/ wfaqhurm.htm

Hydrogen bombs wouldn't do anything. Hurricanes are HUGELY powerful things, comparatively, a hydrogen bomb would do nothing.

Also, why would you? Hurricanes are necessary for the climate. They help balance the heat of the earth. They aren't SUPPOSED to be stopped.

Extensive facial disfigurement cannot be corrected by one skin graft. It must be done in many small pieces with current technology. Do you have any idea how severely an automobile collision or a fire can damage a person's tissue?

Paragraphs 32, 33

Please note the risks, complications, and expected recovery times for each full skin graft.

Although this article clearly opposes facial transplants, it supports the assertation that current grafting methodologies are slow, painful, and dangerous; and new procedures are needed to reconstruct facial tissue in larger pieces with fewer surgeries. Dr Thomas Stevenson, president of the Plastic Surgery Educational Foundation and a member of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, said:

The difficulty with previous techniques was harvesting a thick, uniform piece of skin and closing the wound where the incision was made, to minimise scarring. Through this combination of surgical techniques, a burn patient has only one operation rather than multiple procedures, reducing pain and recovery time.

Whenever Microsoft has a major new thing, they tout their $100 million marketing budget. Whether it's the new MSN Search, Media Center PCs, a campaign to maintain interest in Win XP as OS X Tiger was released or Windows Longhorn Vista, Microsoft marketing is at the ready with the $100 million check to buy mindshare (except for MSN 8, back in 2002. They got a $300 million budget. Remember that campaign? Me either). The best part is that, as this Slashdot article can attest, just saying you're going to spend $100M is enough to start getting some free press, though maybe not as much press as the $1 billion Windows 95 campaign.

Oh, to be fair, Apple isn't much better.

"Really? Name one. I'll wait.
Still waiting."

Jesus, give me a chance!

Ok, a quick Google srearch turns up:

How we survived jail hell (Observer, respected, non-tabloid British newspaper)

Britain frees all five former Guantanamo detainees (USA Today)

Returning Afghans Talk of Guantanamo (Washington Post)

British Guantanamo Terror Suspects Released Without Charge (ATSNN (?))

Men Held at Guantánamo Months After Deemed Innocent (New Standard News (?))

Guantanamo Bay Prisoners Complain of A Year Long Torture by US Military (globalpolicy.org (?))

And that was just on the first page.

Do I get my apology now?

"You're not going to get ANYWHERE arguing that individuals who have engaged in covert military action against the US aren't enemy combatants."

No, of course many of them were. However, the correct term for an opposing fighter taken prisoner in a war is "prisoner of war".

Classifying them as "enemy combatants" is a weak legal loophole designed solely to avoid the US's Human Rights obligations under the Geneva Convention.

"The "loophole" you describe has been used by other countries before"

As you said, name one.

You'll also not I'm not automatically assuming you're wrong, merely asking you to prove it. Because I don't know for sure you aren't.

This is careful and rational argument, and not just arrogantly assuming I'm automatically right. We try to do this where I'm from, although I know the US isn't big on it at the moment.

"and quite frankly, the people who are being detained violated the Geneva Conventions themselves by not clearly identifying themselves as combatants. When they did that they forfeited their protections."

I don't recall a passage or clause under the Geneva Accords that says you have to clearly identify yourself as a combatant, but if you show me an excerpt I'll concede this point.

Nevertheless, this is what a trial is for - to establish whether or not the person actually is guilty. If they're all denied a trial, how can the innocent ones be freed?

"C. If they're US citizens, then their first protection should be the CONSTITUTION, not some ridiculously weak loosley related aggreements between previously (and sometimes currently) warring countries."

How many of them are actually US citizens? As a member of "the rest of the world" (you guys remember that place, right?) you can do what you like with your own citizens, but as I recall most US-native citizens captured were dealt with quickly, and there were barely any of them. Likewise, citizens of other western powers had an expedited release or repatriation for judging in their own countries.

The remaining prisoners are mostly Afghani (or other nationalities that the US feels safe in upsetting), and they aren't going anywhere, not even to trial.

Oh, and the Geneva Convention rights aren't "weak" - they state explicitely what's allowed and what isn't. Humiliation, torture and unlawful imprisonment aren't allowed.

The only reason you think they're weak is because your government has (illegally and immorally) tried so damn hard to weasel out of them, and nobody else is big enough or brave enough to take on the biggest, most nuked-up, violent and paranoid bully in the world at the moment.

"You're a partisan shill. And the worst part

And stick the evidence of Chertoff's miserable failure up your ass, too.

Or maybe you'll be pleased to read how Bush called R-MS Governor Barbour several times, but D-LA Governor Blanco couldn't even get Bush to return her calls during the catastrophe. Maybe that's why you suck up to these lethally incompetent partisans: you think they might cut you in on the booty, instead of leaving you to drown.

You're running cover for murderers now, rightwing asshole. Enjoy it while you can. Because none of these Neros hears all the hard work you're doing - you're just as expendible as the next schmuck.

I agree with your view of Europe, but Japan could be viewed as being more competitive than U.S. In Japan, there are far more suicides than any other first world nation (more than double U.S.). And about 1/4 of these suicides are from "joblesses and bankruptcies." You're right in that they don't have much of a "i want it now, society be damned" view, but their view of suicide being acceptable* in the face of economic failure is troubling.

*I'm not saying the society is pro-suicide, but the people in that society are more likely to think (and act on) the idea than in U.S.

I would tend to agree. If you estimate a small nuclear reactor at 8 tons, and even if the reactor weight only made up 1/4 of the weight of the plant/ship, and even if the entire reactors and the entire ship were fashioned from just plain old steel, you still have 64 tons (2 reactors * 8 tons * 4) of steel worth $500 a ton at the going price which is $32,000 just for the raw materials. Not to mention all of the work you'd have to do to turn that steel into working nuclear reactors and a floating power plant.

How about...
Bloomberg, ZDnet, Financial Times, BBC, Reuters, USAToday, or Washington Post?

That's why we need assassination politics

See this news item - "Chinese banker sentenced to death for corruption". Now that's how to deal with board members :-)

Have you tried CNN.COM or The Palm Beach Post or Newsmax or The Washington Post or how about USA Today.

In case you think any of those are too Bush friendly try out the New York Times.

Outside of media sources there is also the Wiki entry.

As for the panhandle disenfranchisement try:

Newsmax again.

Or the US Senate investigation.

As for the disenfranchisement of voters through poorly created criminal lists try:

Common Dreams (reprinting a Palm Beach Post article)

John Lott (you can read the whole thing but his conclusion sections should do)

Essentially the criminal lists did little to affect the vote, and most calls of African American disenfranchisement (the Democrats backbone support) were actually due to a disproportionally high vote rejection rate in 'Black districts', not the lists. But as several reviews have shown, these were do to voter error in marking their ballots, not any particular attempt to actively disenfranchise them. And before you try to make a case that they used different style ballots in 'Black Districts' (which was the case in some areas) remember, those districts, being predominately Democrat, were run by Democratic election boards who designed those ballots.

There was a good site that summarizes all the various debates, but I can't seem to find it right now. If I do I'll reply with a link. As for the Supremes roll in all this, it's pretty much a a moot point but if you want to dig further at least 7 justices saw some problem with the way the Florida Supreme Court had ordered the count to go forward, and at least 3 saw the December 12th deadline as an important part of their decision. They vast majority had issues with the lower courts rulings but each of the SCJs had a different idea as to what the solution should be.

I think the word has been redefined over the years into something that no longer has any definition.

Refuge is defined http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=refuge as:
      1. Protection or shelter, as from danger or hardship.
      2. A place providing protection or shelter.
      3. A source of help, relief, or comfort in times of trouble. See Synonyms at shelter.

So I guess we'll just call them "People taking Refuge" ?

Sorry, but it just seems odd to me that people in 3rd world countries were called refugees when the tsunami hit on Boxing Day this past year. http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-02-06-tsu nami-maternal_x.htm

No one seemed to care about the use of the term then. Oh wait, they were in poverty! It's ok to call them that then. Spare me.

I live in the USA and work at a tech corporation. Not all companies have such short-term outlooks. If not from their own reasoning, they get the message by seeing the failures of others who were short-sided. Look at how Carly ran HP into the ground by cutting R&D and focusing only on short term gain.

What the hell are you talking about? Carly did a GREAT job at HP. She got paid $21 million upon leaving, not counting the millions she made while still there. That's about 210 times the average annual cost of a normal white-collar employee. I wouldn't even get paid for unused vacation if I quit my job. Obviously HP highly valued her performance, and was sorry to see her go, so I don't understand this charge of "running them into the ground" you make. And HP is still a very large, well-known company with many employees, so it's not like they've gone out of business due to any bad decision here.

But it does provide long term competitive advantage. Improved output, efficiency, quality, customer perception, there are a large number of advantages that a strong R&D component provides.

You may think so, but your example of HP shows how wrong you are. Carly cut R&D, and upon leaving the company got a sweet $21 million. Obviously, cutting R&D is very profitable. And this stuff about "long term competitive advantage" is clearly ridiculous, as Carly wasn't in charge that long; she got in, made many millions of dollars, and got out. Short-term is all that matters when you're an executive, and they're the ones running things.

Things like that will happen from time to time. If they happen regularly though, it shows incompotent management, then it's time to find a new company, because it's going under soon.

"incompetent".
It's nice to think that bad decisions cause companies to fail, but it doesn't happen. Your little example of HP shows this again; they're still around, and not going anywhere soon it seems. Even SCO is still alive and kicking, and their executives are raking in cash. Bad management can kill a small company pretty quickly, but big ones seem to survive forever, though they may morph into something a little different.

If it isn't blindingly obvious by now, most of my posts in this thread have been highly sarcastic, but my main point is that while I as an engineer certainly favor long-term outlooks, investment in R&D, etc., and realize how this is good for a long-term stable economy and society, I simply don't see this being practiced in America these days. Instead, I see people being rewarded for cutting these things and focusing on the short-term instead, and I believe that this will lead to complete and utter disaster in the future.

It really surprises me we don't bar Judges from political parties as well.

Even the new proposed constitution for Iraq does this:

Article (96): It is forbidden for a judge or a member of the prosecution to:

1st --simultaneously hold a judicial position and a legislative or executive position or any other job.

2nd -- belong to any party or political organization or engage in any political activity.

(Source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-08-24 -iraqi-constitution-draft_x.htm)

JUSTICE O'CONNOR, JUSTICE KENNEDY, and JUSTICE SOUTER delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III, concluding that consideration of the fundamental constitutional question resolved by Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 , principles of institutional integrity, and the rule of stare decisis require that Roe's essential holding be retained.

As for Roberts, neither of the two most popular quotes of his are relevant. Quote #1 of "We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled" was made when he was solicitor general and charged to represent the views of President Reagan. Apparently contradictory quote #2 "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land," was made when he was being confirmed for a lower court -- what else could he have said? No, the most important quote is "I don't think it's appropriate for me to criticize [Roe] as judicial activism. ... My definition of judicial activism is when the court departs from applying the rule of law and undertakes legislative or executive decisions." That indicates he sees nothing glaringly wrong with Roe v. Wade and thus will not vote to overturn.

The scary part about Roberts, though, is his close ties to Bush and support for his policies such as Guantanamo Bay. With the Chief Justice gone, my fear is that Bush may make Roberts Chief Justice rather than the earlier favorites of Thomas or Scalia.

Thomas, at least, voted for medical marijuana (along with Rehnquist) as a vote for states rights and constitutionality. Thomas would be the strict Constitutionalist ideological heir of Rehnquist for the Chief Justice seat, but we're likely to end up with a neocon like Roberts instead.

Wow, i just read http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/20 05-08-09-our-view_x.htm and it made me laugh, you guys are better at watsing money than our government (UK)

One of the weird things is that the first major breach happened on one of the few sections that had recently been upgraded:

No one expected that weak spot to be on a canal that, if anything, had received more attention and shoring up than many other spots in the region. It did not have broad berms, but it did have strong concrete walls.

Shea Penland, director of the Pontchartrain Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of New Orleans, said that was particularly surprising because the break was "along a section that was just upgraded."

[link]

It is not surprising that there were multiple levee failures, given the underfunding of the system... especially during the Bush administration.

But on the other hand, to really do it right and improve the system to survive a direct hit from a category 4 hurricane was estimated (in 2002) to cost around 14 Billion dollars. link

It's obvious to everyone now that this would have been a bargain compared to the loss of life that is going on today. But politically it would have been almost impossible to commit that kind of federal funding without a major disaster happening first. The reason the levees were improved to handle a category 3 hurricane was the flooding and deaths caused by Hurricane Betsy in 1965. And in any case, such a project was estimated to take over ten years to implement.

It is sad that practically all of this was foreseen, and that the government did not have the will to do anything about it. Clinton (and the Republican Congress of the time) at least increased rather than decreased the funding. But even then, it was nowhere near enough of what was needed to handle a storm like Katrina.

One of the weird things is that the first major breach happened on one of the few sections that had recently been upgraded:

No one expected that weak spot to be on a canal that, if anything, had received more attention and shoring up than many other spots in the region. It did not have broad berms, but it did have strong concrete walls.

Shea Penland, director of the Pontchartrain Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of New Orleans, said that was particularly surprising because the break was "along a section that was just upgraded."

[link]

It is not surprising that there were multiple levee failures, given the underfunding of the system... especially during the Bush administration.

But on the other hand, to really do it right and improve the system to survive a direct hit from a category 4 hurricane was estimated (in 2002) to cost around 14 Billion dollars. link

It's obvious to everyone now that this would have been a bargain compared to the loss of life that is going on today. But politically it would have been almost impossible to commit that kind of federal funding without a major disaster happening first. The reason the levees were improved to handle a category 3 hurricane was the flooding and deaths caused by Hurricane Betsy in 1965. And in any case, such a project was estimated to take over ten years to implement.

It is sad that practically all of this was foreseen, and that the government did not have the will to do anything about it. Clinton (and the Republican Congress of the time) at least increased rather than decreased the funding. But even then, it was nowhere near enough of what was needed to handle a storm like Katrina.

What part of my argument specifically is it that makes you 'see red'?

Give me just ONE example of where COPYRIGHT (NOT trademarks, and NOT patents) prevents innovation. Just one. In fact, I'll settle for a conceptual model. You see, I've heard this argument again and again, and I've never seen anybody actually manage to justify that statement about copyright stifling innovation.

You must be new here. I'll be happy to provide more than one. Music? Remixing has been affected. Internet radio has certainly been stifled by copyright law too. Of course, you can't mention copyright infringement without mentioning P2P. Here, the law puts Bram Cohen's BitTorrent in possible legal jeopardy because of what he said, not how his software works. That's tantamount to thought crime. Why is there no iTunes-like software for my DVD collection? Probably because circumventing CSS, or distributing software that does the same, is a felony in the US. Being an author, you'll find this interesting: Encryption researchers are afraid to publish their findings thanks to copyright law.

But it's not just music, software, movies, and books being affected, it's everything. A frickin' universal garage door opener manufacture got hit with a DMCA lawsuit. If you don't have bags of money sitting around, one lawsuit, regardless of whether or not you are victorious, can put you out of business. I could go on, but I think I've more than adequately met your requirements. Copyright in the USA has gotten way out of hand and is damaging innovation and invention in practically every industry.

In fact, it's COPYRIGHT that protects the open source movement from being downright raped by corporations like Microsoft!

I assume you are referring to the GPL. You do realize that the GPL was designed to be the anti-copyright, right? Allow me to quote the pertinent part:

The GPL, on the other hand, subtracts from copyright rather than adding to it. The license doesn't have to be complicated, because we try to control users as little as possible. Copyright grants publishers power to forbid users to exercise rights to copy, modify, and distribute that we believe all users should have; the GPL thus relaxes almost all the restrictions of the copyright system. The only thing we absolutely require is that anyone distributing GPL'd works or works made from GPL'd works distribute in turn under GPL. That condition is a very minor restriction, from the copyright point of view. Much more restrictive licenses are routinely held enforceable: every license involved in every single copyright lawsuit is more restrictive than the GPL.

In other words, if it weren't for copyright, there would be no need for the GPL. It exists because of copyright.

Looking at the coldest temperatures here, it looks like Minnesota tied North Dakota's coldest temperature of -60*F in 1996 (1936 for ND). I was up at my in-laws place in NW Minnesota that time and their outside thermometer was pegged at -66*F.

Without block heaters or a heated garage, we were running the cars every so often to ensure they'd start when we needed.

At that temperature, you walk slowly or you make your own wind chill.

Obviously that's on a geographical basis, but if you are dropped in any random point in the United States, most likely you'll be in the midst of conservatives. :)

You are a moron because of the content of your post. It wasn't just some random name calling.

What are you talking about? Corporations are being audited, fined, and executives are jailed.

You ACTUALLY believe that if this guy had operated the same illegal activity from behind a corporation, that he would not be going to jail?

Oh, and if you think the big corps are all clean wrt spyware, think again. The big corps have been _the_ big advertising dollars that have kept spyware companies running. How many of these huge corps have been hit as hard as this small-time guy Diabl0? None.

Just a few "big" quotes for you:

Mercedes-Benz says its ad was carried to hard drives last year by an agency it has since fired (like MB didn't know what their "advertiser" was doing).

Computer maker Dell USA has fired "a handful" of affiliates for carrying Dell's coupons and ads over adware.
"This is not a practice we condone," said Dell spokeswoman Jennifer Davis.
Uhh, yeah, you didn't condone it, you just paid for it.

God Hates Trailer Parks: http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2000/wtorn418 .htm

According to this article, Andrew Barron (Rice University) seems to think we could see this technology used in Formula One racing cars, as early as next season. Although he's probably being a little optimistic, something like a Formula One team would certainly have the sponsors to experiment with tech like this, and develop cheaper manufacturing processes (if possible).

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/techinvestor/2004-02- 04-google-cover_x.htm

From a WTO ruling last year: "The ruling followed a suit by Antigua and Barbuda, claiming U.S. restrictions amounted to unfair trade practices. The economy of the Caribbean nation relies heavily on Internet gambling. The nation points out that the United States allows gambling within its borders. And, in the case of state lotteries, the gambling is sometimes government-sponsored.

The Caribbean country views the WTO ruling as a victory. It sees two options for the United States. The first is that the United States must ban all gambling. The second option would be to grant offshore companies access to the market. The Justice Department did not return calls for comment."

So, it's interesting that the Australian government is taking a stance against Google and online gambling, considering that they are part of the WTO as well. I imagine that this will only leave them open to a suit by the small countries to force them to open their borders up to online gambling.

Then again, the WTO ruling hasn't had much effect on the States, where online gambling is still in pretty murky areas. On the other hand, one look at Google for searches such as poker or online poker and you'll find ad-sense placements filled to the brim. I think until someone actually slaps the search engines on the wrist and sets clear precedence, they will continue to see it as a (lucrative) revenue stream.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-02-28-voip- usat_x.htm

VW is selling 84 MPG vehicles since '99 http://www.usatoday.com/money/consumer/autos/marev iew/mauto497.htm The problem is not really making a high MPG car, it is that people, especially in the US, don't want to buy them. Not even the best technology can make an energy efficient car handle like a porsche or sound like a truck.

I'm not sure how much different this situation is, from say, Lexmark inkjet printers.

Just something to think about, when next you purchase something that is a controlled consumable (such as a console has become)...

Can you point me to a study that comes to this conclusion that accounts for continuity of employment?

This study by the GAO found a 20% salary gap, even after correcting for the facts that on average women have fewer years of work experience, work fewer hours per year, are less likely to work a full-time schedule, and leave the labor force for longer periods of time than men; and also for factors such as industry, occupation, race, marital status, and job tenure.

What a strange thing to say. Is there some movement afoot to prevent women from getting x-rays or diabetes medication? Or are you being incredibly disingenuous in order to make the legitimate disagreement over abortion seem illegitimate?

I was speaking primarily of wingnut pharmacists, though wingnuts who want to roll back the clock and send women to back-alley abortionists also qualify.

I agree completely. However, that move should still have rightly left up to the discretion of a private party (the store owner) and not the government.

Pharmacists (like other medical personnel) are regulated by the government for the safety and welfare of all citizens. Medical personnel are not permitted to withhold treatment to anyone based on race, sex, or religious beliefs. Nor should they be able to.

I've yet to hear of this happening. Can you provide some supporting evidence, or is this a rumor? The case in question did not involve refusal to give back the prescription (that is, assuming that there was a prescription in the first place).

Here you go. Sixth paragraph.

No, an unwanted pregancy is not an ailment. It's a consequence. The natural state of the human body tends towards reproduction. The term "ailment" is defined by dictionary.com as "A physical or mental disorder, especially a mild illness." Pregnancy cannot be a disorder because a woman's body is naturally predisposed to child bearing, and sex is the natural means for pregnancy.

The relevant definition of "disorder" from the same site is:

3. An ailment that affects the function of mind or body: eating disorders and substance abuse.

It's a bit circular, but the main point is that an ailment affects the function of the mind and body. The negative mental and physical effects of pregnancy are well documented. That's not to say that a pregnancy can't be an overall positive, if it's wanted.

Pregnancy is the natural consequence of sex, in other words, it's primary biological purpose. By definition, pregnancy cannot be a disorder but it is indeed a very real consequence of sex.

Biology is not destiny. Pregnancy may be the primary evolutionary purpose of sex but we as a people do not govern ourselves according to the dictates of evolution, nor should we. Pregnancy is one possible consequence of sex; it is not the only or even (I would argue) the most important.

When did I ever argue against preventative birth control?

When you said that what the pharmacists were refusing to provide was not medicine. Birth control pills are preventative and as this article indicates, pharmacists are refusing to fill prescriptions for them.

the constitution does not guarantee a right to the "morning after" pill

The Constitution doesn't guarantee any rights. It recognizes them and provides limits on government action accordingly. The founding fathers knew that they couldn't list every right so they provided the ninth amendment, which states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." I'm getting pretty tired of people arguing against every right that isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

The question at the heart of this issue is: Should the government have the power to force mandatory access to non-vital pills over people's rights of freedom of religion and of self-determination?

No, the question at the heart of the issue is this: Should the government have the power to require medical personnel to do their job. And the answer is YES! It's no different than a doctor refusing to perform a blood tranfusion or provide assistance to a Muslim or atheist because it's against her religion. Incidentally, birth-control and morning-after pills are as vital as almost any prescription medicine available. The majority of prescription medicine is not of the "if you don't take this you'll die" variety.

Here's a solution for people who don't want to fulfill prescriptions for medicine that violates their religious beliefs: DON'T BE A PHARMACIST.

I find it odd that the Slashd

If you've got a problem with a pharmacist that refuses to fill a prescription, you can go find another pharmacist. There's no issue there.

Not when the wingnut refuses to transfer the prescription to another druggist - or to give the script back to her. Or when there's only one open pharmacy when you need the "morning after" pill.

It puts the pharmacist in an untenable position when the express purpose of that medication is to (in the view of some people) kill one of the two people standing in front of him.

For birth control pills, the purpose is to prevent there being "two people". For the standard pill there is not even a zygote yet present when the prescription is filled. One would also hope that a pharmacist would have enough understanding of biology to grasp that a zygote or a blastula that may exist when a woman needs the "morning after" pill is not a person, since personhood requires more than an undifferentiated ball of cells.

As I understand it a great deal of what we consider mistreatment of women in Islam is actually an attempt to protect them. For example: Early in Islam's history Muslims were very much persecuted by others in the Middle East. Many Islamic men were killed and as a result there were many widows and orphans and not a lot of men. Polygamy was a very practical solution to this problem: there weren't enough men to go around otherwise and a lot of women would be left with noone to protect them (from the Meccans in particular if I recall correctly). See what the Quran has to say on the subject (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html).

Now, there are Islamic groups who do in fact mistreat women, but that really has nothing to do with Islam itself: there are also Christian groups who mistreat women. Unfortunately Americans pay a great deal of attention to such Islamic factions but not such Christian factions.

As for your points about how wonderful your precious Nation Under God is, having apparently invented separation of church and state (the seeds of which were present in the Magna Carta, long before the US Constitution), there is a difference between espousing these values and actually practicing them. The fact of the matter is that at the moment "fundie christians" do rule the United States. I become very concerned when I see a nation or administration claiming to be blessed or chosen by God (this includes any Islamic nations that may make this claim). This kind of thinking can easily turn into the assumption that one can do no wrong and that anything one does is right. Case in point.

Americans seem to hate to admit it, but a lot of the ideas they pretend to have invented actually appeared in England long before the colonization of the New World, and probably have roots much farther back in time than that. The US has its virtues, but it does not have a monopoly on virtues and it also has plenty of vices.

This can all be summarized in one word: hypocrisy (on both sides).

Ask and you shall receive.

I do believe that the present Emperor of Japan had visited a Korean shrine on the island of Saipan in June 2005, but otherwise, apologies from the emperors seem sparse. News reports: [1] [2]

The Prime Ministers on the other hand, seem to have issued many war apology statements.

According to a poll today, 66% of Americans think everyone should be required to carry a mandatory federal ID card.

With the current bunch running the government, I'm sure that's only a matter of time.

For those, who don't know Hölle is German for Hell.

"you have huge sections of the country that put religion above science, or at least give it equal time, you have the basis for lower education standards"

"above science"...what does that even mean?
do you put science "above religion"?
do you pray to F = M*A or maybe P = M*V?
science is ONLY our attempt at MODELING reality so that we can predict what will happen next. that is it. science != truth.

"Now add in an economy where many of the jobs that really use your brain get offshored, and what's left are service jobs that require not as much education, and you have an increasing pressure not to care about higher education. Just get one of those service jobs and root for your team and have a beer after work and all is well in your world. Right? "

whose fault is it that all of those jobs get sent to india while the CEO gets a pay raise? it's not the fault of the education system. it's not the fault of the teacher trying to teach a class full of 30 students while having to worry if she can keep her lights on and pay back her student loans at the same time.
it's the fault of the theives in government who TAKE IT UP THE ASS from the corporations and then turn around and give themselves a raise and call it a cost of living increase.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-04 -congress-pay-raise_x.htm

china's economy is "strong"?

tell that to the SLAVES working for 3 cents an hour to make clothes.

oh, wait...if you told them that, the police would most likely SHOOT you!

you moron.

Microsoft said the company has no plans at this time to require users running automatic updates to provide proof that their copies of Windows are genuine.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-01-26-micro soft_x.htm

I did this myself until I got a proper version.

"They" (the media) only hinted at that in January. But if you look they said that at least initially even those with pirated copies could get security fixes.

"purpose seems to be to intimidate scientists rather than to learn from them, and to substitute Congressional political review for scientific peer review."

The site is of no consequence, I pointed you there because the original copy of the article is inside pay-per-view archive of the Wall Street Journal. The author is Kenneth R. Timmerman, an expert on Middle-East affairs who used to publish in WSJ. This particular article is I think available in his $1100 a year newsletter for executives.

ll it says is that North Korea and China sold arms to Iran, both of whom at the time had large arsenels of old Soviets weapons available for sale, and neither of whom was by any means under the thumb of the Soviets at the time.

No it actually says much more then that, it describes the shift of the USSR's sympathies.

Also, to wit, you should note that Iran never officially supported the Taliban and in fact at one point in time appeared to be gearing to go toe-to-toe with them (or according to some, it did). That is because even though Iran sports an Islamic Theocracy, it is a brand of Islam hostile to that of Wahhabism to which Taliban subscribed. That is why Osama is finding traction in the Sunni areas of Iraq but not in the Shia ones.

This does not mean that various individuals within Iran did not attempt to communicate or even aid Taliban, but it is contrary to your assertion of great animosity between USSR and Iran.

In this article from USA Today Gates seems disappointed that kids and students using the technology don't seem more interested in it. And I don't blame him. I don't know about many other Slashdotters around here, but every time I used to get a new gadget or toy, I wanted to know how it worked.

Oh, and Maria Klawe seems like a qualified lady to be talking about this subject.

Same article was posted last week, was it not?

And anyways; big whooping deal!

1. It will *fail*. The cable companies, and alternate provides (like TiVO) will crush Intel, Microsoft, and anyone elses who attempts to develop a media pc. Why? Because the average consumer is much more willing to have an instant-on appliance managed by an outside operator which looks to cost very little (only $5 more on your monthly bill!) than an expensive looking ($500-$1000 at your local electronics store) box with a moderately arcane setup (all you have to do is use this IR transceiver to transmit codes to your cable box, and then program it for the right codes!, or something to do with this new 'cablecard' deal, which few people (especially the cable companies) seem to know much about)).

Also, I suspect the Windows-based media boxen will be notoriously unreliable and buggy. Also late. Look at Microsoft's IPTV initiative. It's running *way* late. Even for the providers that are already signed up! SBC's techs are sweating bullets right now:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2005-06-07-sbc -usat_x.htm
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/01/ms_iptv_st rategy_in_tatters/

While it *looks* like Microsoft is on-track with Comcast, Comcast excutives have repeatedly said they are evalutating both iGuide (their current supplier) as well as Microsoft for their boxes. And historically, Microsoft has a terrible record when dealing with cable companies:
http://www.windowsitpro.com/Windows/Article/Articl eID/15996/15996.html

Do you *really* expect to have any of these companies roll out a full MS solution on-time without siginificant bugs? I don't, and as soon as one supplies switches, or has a miserable failure (ready Comcast's Oregon MS set-top system freezes for a week) the whole market will break loose.

Which, incidentially, is how Microsoft lost the *rest* of the world regarding IPTV and set-top boxes, which is especially ironic given their size (4737489372 pound gorrilla), and that most content providers started out by saying that the MS solution was their future.

2. Intel's DRM will be cracked. Anyone play a DVD on linux? Did you do it using your licensed player, or your technically illegal libdvdcss? (Except, of course, in a few countries in the world. U.S. is *not* including). This is the primary way that people play DVDs on linux; this is not a niche solution.

3. Most likely, Intel will provide a closed-source kernel module that will provide an API to interact with a closed-source graphics driver. Nvidia and ATI will do the same thing, as well. So you'll be able to get gimped, DRM TV on your linux box, as well.

People have been crying that the sky has been falling for a long time. The problem is, Intel/Micosoft have never been able to deliever the 'killer' solution that ends all competition. They are always a day late and a dollar short. I really just don't consider them a serious threat.

A *far* more serious threat to home linux theatre PCs is the arcane setup required for most linux DVR projects. Fix that mess, and you'll see cheap linux home theatre pc's avaliable at walmart.

Not that I'm blaming the MythTV developers, or the Freevo developers. But it is hard to get those projects up and running correctly at home, and I imagine that from a developer perspective it looks easier to build an MS solution than a Linux solution, which is why the big media distribution companies are looking at MS first.

Once they get their hands wet (as the European firms did), they give up on the MS bugs. I expect an annoucement from Bellsouth to that effect shortly.