Slashdot Mirror

I don't trust any court. That's why I bring my own lawyer.

Well, If you try that in Russia I hope you have a shovel.

Actually, she didn't.

She most certainly did, and that fact has been public knowledge since before the crack. "Palin also routinely does government business from a Yahoo address, gov.sarah@yahoo.com, rather than her secure official state e-mail address, according to documents already made public." -- Washington Post, September 10, 2008. The e-mail crack occurred days after that story was published, on September 16.

If someone knew that she was doing it, and then told someone, the information would become probable cause; than an affidavit is filed, and a warrant obtained. That's how due process works.

Warrants restrain governments, not private individuals. Due process protects individual citizens, not government agents in the course of their jobs. If this was a government agent, or a person working on behalf of government agents, investigating a private citizen, I'd agree; but this case was the exact opposite, a private citizen investigating a government agent's execution of her duties.

I do not see anyone suing Glock.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/20/AR2005102000485.html

Too bad it's not the U.S.

If it were, I'd say: make them take a polygraph, a urine test, and walk through a backscatter machine before entering the test room.

Ha. If this was the USA, they would get sued for administering the test in the first place. Really.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042402305.html

If an employer has a test, and blacks do poorly on the test, you're going to be spending millions in legal fees.

The thing that came out recently was the outright fraud in the research. Previously, the science was assumed to just be not reproducible.

Funny that you mention the mossad action in Dubya. Is it that different to drone attacks in Pakistan? Or to the CIA kidnapping people in western countries?

The US Government's own report concludes that the vast majority of people in Guantanamo (either historically or now) have no business being there and were or should be released (if they can find somewhere to send them).

Of the 779 people held at Guantanamo since January 2002 only 36 are being held for prosecution and 48 are marked for being held "indefinately". A handful of others have been handed over for prosecution in other countries. By my reckoning that makes at least 85% of detainees held without good, legal reason.

Well hey haw...guy....Hmmm... haw....
Are you by any chance a relation to Lord Haw ... Haw?
Well, never mind.

So, what sort of "education" do you suppose Gulet Mohamed was seeking in Somalia at a time when numerous other Somali Americans were returning to Somalia for training in extremist Islam, terrorism, and to engage in Jihad? (A number of them became suicide bombers.) Do you have any thoughts on that?

Although the Somalis I've met or worked with seem pleseant enough, clearly not all of them are.

Take this for example from last month:

The FBI arrested Mohamed Osman Mohamud, a 19—year—old Somali—born American, for plotting to detonate a bomb as thousands of people attended the lighting of the Christmas tree in the centre of Portland, Oregon.
Anwar al-Awlaki: terror plots linked to Yemen-based cleric

The Somalis are not the only ones engaging in so called Jihad. This Pakistani American who performed some curious travel to Pakistan was also a menace - he tried to detonate a bomb in Times Square.

I'm sure you must have some "progressive" ideas on the matter. Do you want to torture them too to get an answer, or only white people?

Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection

I'm sure that if anyone were falsely accused of being a leaker, they would no doubt have swift access to just recourse. This is the West, after all.

No doubt they would, just as soon as the investigation is done. There must be evidence at hearings. This is the West, after all.

If someone ends up in a such a situation and reports the contrary, their testimony is likely tainted because they are a dirty rotten leaker.

Although one would hope not, it's very possible.... very possible.

Ultimately, we are all safer somehow.

I quite agree. Preventing the outing of informants against terrorist groups when they fund and train terrorists who attempt attacks in our cities is a good thing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html

Quote:

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect." ...

Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous.

Actually it's China that has injected billions of dollars into the US. There Communism is what has been keeping the US's Capitalism alive. China is also a very fast growing economy, not a 'dead economy'.

You don't seem to realize that all this has only happened in the last 3 decades. Yes, China's government has given our government a bunch of loan money, but their government got all the money with which to give us loans from our private sector. Not their private sector. Their private sector has no fucking money. It's their government that has money. Their economy doesn't have any money, our economy is giving them money. And their government (and the government-controlled and government-controlling coporations) keep it all (and loan it back to us).

Their economy was completely stagnant before we started producing fucking everything in China 30 years ago, and without us it would return to its sorry state, because they don't know how to survive without us. They don't have any innovation of their own. They only know how to control their people and use the money that they get from us.

Yay Communism!

Actually it's China that has injected billions of dollars into the US. There Communism is what has been keeping the US's Capitalism alive. China is also a very fast growing economy, not a 'dead economy'.

This was an assassination, asshole. Education about gun safety had nothing to do with it.

Indeed. This is what happens when you have prominent candidates for major political office throwing ad hominem attacks at their opponents, telling people the world will end unless they win, and advocating violent insurrection if they don't win. At least three Tea Party candidates advocated actions like what happened today:

• Richard Behney
• Stephen Broden
• Sharron Angle

It's inevitable. If your rhetoric involves implying that violent acts are an acceptable means of political pressure, some percentage of people will believe your bulls**t, and eventually, somebody will take it too far. It's okay to disagree. It's not okay to act like these Tea Party idiots acted in this election season. When you act that way, events like those of today are what you get.

If there is any justice in the world, the three political candidates above will be arrested promptly and charged with treason.

However, I'm sure you've noticed the press is rarely accurate with these things and I'm sure we'll find out later it was just a regular semi-automatic handgun of no particular note.

The Washington Post is reporting that the weapon was a Glock handgun of unspecified caliber with an extended magazine. (Meaning, most likely, a clip that sticks out of the bottom of the handgun so it can hold a lot of bullets.) The gun is pretty typical for American handgun owners. The magazine is of some particular note, because extended magazines are themselves illegal in many states.

Compared to my home state (California), though, Arizona's gun laws are particularly lax. Phoenix recently passed a law eliminating the concealed-carry permit... meaning, Phoenix gun owners may now carry their firearms concealed on their persons in most public places. (I think schools and bars are excepted.)

How many public servants do you know who are serving prison sentences for breaking ethics rules?

You kidding? Just off the top of my head,
this guy, this guy, local to me this lady, and this guy who just got out last year.

But the question is not simply ethics violations, it's specifically that of maintaining personal data. How many people at TJX are going to jail for losing 50 million credit card numbers? Even more, how many people at your local supermarket chain are going to jail for selling their customer loyalty card data to outside interests? How many at your credit-score company get arrested for selling your profile to mortgage advertisers? Oh right, that's not a crime, those people got *promotions*.

I'm doing searches again now, but every article I've read has said Obama has been making cuts at NASA, including cancelling their next major mission to the moon.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/09/AR2010030902594.html

And again, I wish I had the chart in front of me, but Republicans have spent more on science than Democrats over the past 40 years.

I do agree that a budget should be judged by the President and Congress together, but a President does get credit for proposals they push for that succeed.

Bush publicly lobbied for increased spending on fuel cell research, stem cell research, NASA, and overall science budget.

Obama promised NASA funding and then came in with an ax.

All I've suggested is that this isn't cut and dry. That you can't say all Republicans hate science and all Democrats fund it all day long. You're talking in simplistic black and white views while calling me naive.

Take off your partisan blindfold and focus on the facts.

Is that like the city of Chicago, that relatively recently had their law made 'unenforceable' based on the Second Amendment? Based on the Supreme Court's ruling, it would seem to be only a matter of time before such bans would need to be removed in favor of "justifiable restrictions". Trust the NRA or some other entity to sue those places with bans to get that going.

Yeah, that's why you thought that somehow a surge up the Mississippi had anything to do with the New Orleans levees breaking. Even though it didn't. Anyone can check the facts.

My "ethos" is that when I know what I'm talking about and you don't, then I'm right and you're wrong - and you shouldn't open your mouth. Evidently that's not your "ethos". Your "ethos" is to yap no matter the facts or your familiarity with them.

Goodbye.

"The walls of the Industrial Canal were breached by storm surge via the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, while the 17th Street Canal and London Avenue Canal experienced catastrophic breaches, even though water levels never topped their flood walls. Louisiana State University experts presented evidence that some of these structures might have had design flaws or faulty construction.[8]"

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

The reference (8) above has support for both storm surge and faulty canals (be sure to read the whole thing... it would be easy to cherry pick a quote or two and jump to conclusions on either side of our argument). It also points out the lack of gates, although not the overall gate that I mentioned earlier. As I read it, the upshot of the LSU report is that the storm surge wasn't the primary cause of the Lk. Ponchartrain levee failures, but was isolated to the Industrial Canal failure. I would also point out that I didn't dig through the Wikipedia history & arguments section to see how much rewriting has been going on this section.

But, as I said, I would suggest that others look into these things for themselves and form conclusions on their own, rather than looking to you or I as their sources. Particularly if it is based upon where we've lived, or claims that we know what we're talking about and those who disagree with us don't.

Russia recently got dinged on the same issue with regard to the Su-27, which they allowed the Chinese to manufacture under license but that the Chinese then copied, and now they're refusing to manufacture the Su-35 in China as a result.

It should be pretty obvious to anyone that you can't have a democracy when the media is controlled by the person in power. It's also quite well documented on how the media in the countries I've listed has been taken over by the government or their freedom otherwise suppressed.

This is from just a quick Google search. The concept of freedom of the press and democracy goes back to the founding of the United States where the press is often referred to as the 4th branch of government or the 4th pillar of democracy. One needs a free press in order to expose corruption and provide an informed electorate which is vital for a healthy democracy.

It's well known among journalists in Russia that reporting on certain things is a good way to end up dead. In Venezuela almost all (if not all by now) of the major TV stations have been taken over by the government and spew pro Chavez propaganda without providing an outlet for the opposition.

http://www.un.org/democracyfund/XNewsSGFreePress.htm
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/21452
http://www.america.gov/st/democracyhr-english/2008/June/20080630215145eaifas0.6333842.html
http://www.atlanticphilanthropies.org/news/press-freedom-pillar-democracy-mzilikazi-wa-afrika
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51587-2005Feb24.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7321168.stm
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20100430/158814432.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,443543,00.html
http://www.advancingafreesociety.org/2010/12/14/russian-style/
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/fd/droi20071001_russia_004/droi20071001_russia_004en.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press_in_Russia

Anti-terrorism bag checks, coming to a metro near you!.

I'm not sure if you're able to view the article, but the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority is going to bring random bag checks to the Washington D.C. metro / subway system. The problem, as I see it, is that not only is this ridiculousness not stopping at airports, but the authorities who are in charge are now going to bring it to us locally.

If you don't live in the DC Metro area, driving from Northern Virginia into DC in the morning is pretty much out of the question if you want to get into work at a reasonable time without having to leave your house at 5 AM. Taking the metro still takes over an hour going from the orange line into DC, but at least you're not sitting in bumper to bumper traffic.

Sticking random bag checks will just create a bottleneck, as there will be tens of thousands of people rushing to work, ALL with bags.

At this rate, these "anti-terrorism" checks will just be brought home to us if we decide to avoid flying. There's already discussion about having some of these scanners at passenger train stations as well. 9/11 helped usher in a new bureaucracy that has employed almost 60,000+ employees. It's also helped give lobbyists and insiders lucrative contracts. So, what I am beginning to fear is that the amount of money to be made on employing such unnecessary and time consuming protocols will win out over the amount of money that airlines will stand to lose if we decide to use a different system.

Especially if that said-system is no different than the ones that we're supposed to boycott.

1) The sun is the biggest driver of the Earth's Climate

I have never heard anyone say otherwise. No sun == a very stable, if cold, climate. However, changes in solar irradiation have not been sufficient to explain observed changes in the climate.

2) There is already more than enough CO2 for a 'full' greenhouse effect so more will not make it 'worse.'

This statement is gibberish. See the explanation here: "Modern data show that even in the parts of the infrared spectrum where water vapor and CO2 are effective, only a fraction of the heat radiation emitted from the surface of the Earth is blocked before it escapes into space. And that is beside the point anyway. The greenhouse process works regardless of whether the passage of radiation is saturated in lower layers. As explained above, the energy received at the Earth's surface must eventually work its way back up to the higher layers where radiation does slip out easily. Adding some greenhouse gas to those high, thin layers must warm the planet no matter what happens lower down."

3) The Earth has been cooling since 2007.

Nope. In point of fact, 2010 was the warmest year on record. But such a short-term trend is irrelevant. A cooling trend over three days in May doesn't mean North American is not warming up as summer comes.

4) Current computer models of the Earth's long-term climate are not necessarily correct.

I've not heard anyone suggest that computer models of anything are 100% accurate.

Of course, these facts are inconvenient to believers of various irrational ideologies popular in the U.S. -- fundamentalist Christianity, laissez-faire capitalisms, etc. -- and so are likely to be rejected as heretical.

There's a supreme court ruling that the districts need to be contiguous. Still, why do it randomly? We could do it by income! http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/05/AR2010020501446.html

As a voter who normally leans Democrat...I'm not sure if I can support this. I think it perverts the process.

And I'm sure the Republicans appreciate your very honorable support by not perverting the process that they have so fervently sodomized for the last decade.

Meanwhile, they will continue their tactics of using verbal slight of hand to convince the ill-informed masses that you are a liberal, Muslim, God-hating, baby killer who wants to take away their guns and their access to medical care.

I don't support the plan to prop up Palin either, but the days of reasoned debate are behind us. It's a strategy game now.

As someone who lives in Delaware and had some part in covering the election, I'd like to point out a few things about the O'Donnell / Coons election.

First, I have a strong feeling that the only reason she won the primary at all is because the push to turn out Republican voters unhappy with Castle's centrist position (he was generally regarded as a 'Republican in name only') wasn't recognized by his supporters until it was too late. O'Donnell has done nothing of note for the past several years but run for office and failing to gain traction in the primary. As such, she wasn't seen as a threat to Castle until late into the primary when it was realized outside influences (e.g. Tea Party) were pushing her candidacy forward. The 'anti-incumbent' attitude may have played a large part in her primary win, particularly considering Castle would probably have easily beaten Coons in a general election (plenty of Democrats have crossed lines to support Castle before)

Second, I would hardly characterize Coons' win as a 'landslide' - considering just how astonishingly incompetent her campaign seemed to have been run, a mere 14%-16% win for Coons was hardly what a lot of people I know were looking for - including many Independents and Republicans. And now that it would seem the FEC is taking allegations of fraud on the part of her campaign seriously, I would like to think we've dodged a bullet.

To be honest, no one gave a damn about the Delaware elections until O'Donnell was on the general election ballot and it's easily understandable why - it just didn't matter for most people. But even though the Democrat won, I think the Delaware election is still an excellent example for why trying to gerrymander in an opposing candidate who is easily 'beatable' is a terrible idea: you simply don't know how it's going to end up - the primary showed that plenty well enough. How many of Castle's supporters didn't get out and vote because they though he was already a surefire primary win? It's a question the Democrats need to take very seriously lest they end up asking themselves a very similar one about Obama and Palin.

Where's USAID in Chechnya?

Providing support for the IRC to help farmers, small businesses, and vocational training?

Where's USAID for Palestine (oops, sorry, the "Israeli Palestinian Occupied Territories")?

Funding improvements in infrastructure, schools, agriculture, hospitals, and water distribution in both Gaza and the West Bank?

where are the FUCKING WMDs THE US WENT TO WAR OVER IN THE FIRST FUCKING PLACE?

They weren't there. Even Bush admitted it -- several times. Or perhaps you missed out on that point?

"All you really have to know about Net Neutrality is that its biggest promoters are George Soros and Google."

To begin with, the article linked is at www.dailykos.com, which is run by Markos Moulitsas. He is American born of a Salvadoran (a country with long standing socialist influences) mother and a Greek (more socialism) father, and grew up both in El Salvador and Chicago. Now I am from Indiana, not all that far from Chicago and know that a Republican in Chicago is regarded a Liberal in Indiana. He backed, and campaigned for Liberal Democrats throughout. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markos_Moulitsas]. He is a Leftist, and his web site reflects that.

The DailyKos article links to an article at thinkprogress.org, from which google tells us that Soros funds Thinkprogress and following the money, behind Net Neutrality, just as Rush alleged. And for that matter, reading the entire list of inter-networked organizations covered at http://discoverthenetworks.org/ finds George Soros deeply involved in funding a vast network of anti USA, anti-freedom, anti-capitalism, anti-Business organizations of the progressive Left. That includes the attack on the Chamber of Commerce.
George Soros, a statist Socialist who wants to control the world, is behind “Net Neutrality” [link here]

All of these individuals and organizations are committed Socialists and Progressives. The problem with that here is the USA, is that it is the diametric opposite of the US Constitution, Liberty, Capitalism (which is just people saving their money and investing it), and all else this country stands for. It is nothing new that Socialism has been infiltrating the USA for over 100 years. And it is nothing new that Socialism has never, ever, not one time, worked for an extended period of time. It seems to work, until it runs out of other peoples money. It will then die as it has always in the past, and with a fair share of suffering and violence as the throes of death proceed.

In short, Net Neutrality, especially done by the FCC, is un-Constitutional

The problem of the FCC “regulating” the internet is that they have NO governmental right to do so.

They were denied that right previously in court.

They were denied that right by Congress regardless of how many times it was tried.

Briefy, the Executive branch (President, and *his* FCC) cannot make law. Congress makes law, which when passed must be approved by the President. And that can be revoked in the Courts. The case here is that the President through the FCC is making law.

Obama, long before he was elected President, Obama lamented that the "Constitution is a charter of negative liberties". [audio]. The problem here is that the Constitution in every point, limits government and gives it NO right to do anything TO its citizens. That was done by design of the Founders. Obama laments that because he wants to impose Socialism and wealth re-distribution. These two, Socialism and the US Constitution, are incompatible.

I also cannot understand why people here ca

The Senate bill, which is what specifically what the Republicans voted down,

Incorrect. The Senate bill passed unanimously. The House bill was voted down.

The H.R. 2103, available here, doesn't explicitly say provide healthcare, but it does "provide assistance... [by] ensuring access to healthcare services."

So far he has recieved much better treatment by the Aussie government than David Hicks did.

What? You're saying that the Australian government actually treated an Al Qaeda trainee more harshly in some fashion than Mr. Wikileaks? For shame!

Jihad" diary reveals David Hicks terror training
DAVID Hicks's handwritten "jihad diary" gives new insight into the sophisticated terrorism training he underwent, exploding claims that he was an innocent abroad.
The confessed terrorism supporter used a school exercise book - complete with boy's-own images of fighter aircraft - to write up the detailed instruction he received in weapon use, explosives and military tactics from Islamic extremists in Pakistan.

After describing how "to kill a VIP", Hicks noted that guerilla war involved "sacrifice for Allah". He sketched the mechanism of the telescopic sight of a sniper's rifle and the circuitry of deadly rocket-launched warheads. The exercise book was released yesterday by federal magistrate Warren Donald who, in easing the interim control order covering Hicks since his release from jail last month, found that, on balance, he remained at risk of committing a terrorist act or of undertaking further terrorism training......

The exercise book was filled out by Hicks while he was training with the Lashkar-e-Toiba terror group in northern Pakistan between March and June 2000.

Hmmm.... Lashkar-e-Toiba .... where have we heard of them before?

US blames Lashkar-e-Toiba for Mumbai
About 10 gunmen landed in rubber dinghies in Mumbai on Wednesday and wreaked havoc with automatic weapons and hand grenades, in an assault that killed 188 and injured more than 300. The dead included 22 foreign nationals, among them two Australian men....

Jihad" diary reveals David Hicks terror training
The Adelaide man, now 32, went on to train with al-Qa'ida and the Taliban in Afghanistan, where he was captured and handed over to US forces.

Training with al-Qaeda.... hmm....
Mumbai attacks: al-Qaeda plotter behind Bali bombing linked to terror attacks

I'm sure most Australians remember the horror of the Bali Bombings and the many Australians killed there. Most people probably remember their handiwork on September 11, 2001 as well.

Of course, the Taliban are reaching out as well.

I would say that Mr. Hicks was involved with a rather nasty bunch, and is quite lucky he didn't get himself killed.

The Aussie politicians asked the federal police to see if Assange had broken any laws, they came back with a definite "no".

Well, it's actually a bit more subtle than that.

"The AFP has completed its evaluation of the material available and has not established the existence of any criminal offences where Australia would have jurisdiction," it said in a statement.

"Where additional cables are published and criminal offences are suspected, these matters should be referred to the AFP for evaluation."

Attorney-General Robert McClelland said the AFP had noted a number of offences that could be applied depending on the circums

Yeah, they've done a bang up job.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/graphics/web-fcc970.html

Take your Agency For American Censorship and cram it up your ass, you piece of shit.

To understand wind power, look at the wind map of the United States. Wind turbines aren't useful unless the average wind speed is in the 8 m/sec range and up. Note the huge high-wind area from the Texas panhandle up to Canada. That's where Pickens wanted to operate. Good place for wind turbines, but no nearby place that needs the power. So some long transmission lines were needed. The problem is not that "regulators" wouldn't let Pickens build transmission lines. It's that he wanted governments to pay for them. See Pickens' testimony before Congress. He wanted eminent domain powers and tax credits for high-tension lines. Back in 2009, though, he couldn't raise the $2 billion needed to build them.

Those wind charts come in much finer detail. Look at the California wind map. There are four really good wind areas in California, and they all have large wind farms operating. There's room for further expansion out at Mojave, but the other three sites are essentially full. Those are all successful operations, because they're reasonably near big loads.

Also, the Pickens claim that collecting wind power over a large area would provide significant base load capacity may be bogus. See the live data for the PJM grid. (This brings up a big Flash application showing what the power grid for the Northeastern US is doing. Switch one of the panels to "Wind Power" and set the scale to "All Data".) Within a 3-day period, total wind power for the entire Northeast US can range over an 8 to 1 range. That's from real, operating wind farms.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/29/AR2010062905299.html

The government at all levels is working to establish a massive database of people engaged in activities deemed "suspicious" by local law enforcement or even their fellow citizens. People who are not criminals, not engaging in any ILLEGAL activities, and aren't even suspected of any criminal wrongdoing.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/20/surveillance/index.html
(contains link to: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/monitoring-america)

Seems like the government has developed this idea that "protecting the United States" translates into "protecting the GOVERNMENT of the United States"(i.e. from the people). With the people now seen as an enemy from which the government needs to protect itself, any recording of government operations, employees or facilities is interpreted as a threat. Investigative journalism is now seen as "espionage". Likewise, anyone that criticizes government policy or advocates smaller, less powerful government instantly becomes a "terrorist", regardless of whether they are engaged in any sort of criminal activities. After all, if you want to shrink the government or scale back its powers in any way, you are, in a very warped way, an "enemy of the state".

Wikileaks is guilty only of receiving the data and publishing the parts they feel are morally justifiable to make public, not stealing, and not espionage, and certainly not treason (they aren't even eligible to commit that one).

Well, thats kind of the problem.

Taliban Study WikiLeaks to Hunt Informants
WikiLeaks Comes Under Fire from Rights Groups
Wikileaks Fails “Due Diligence” Review

This could turn into a feedback loop. If enough informants against the Taliban and Al Qaeda are killed as a result of Wikileaks, it could have consequences in the United States or Europe.

The diplomatic consequences have already been considerable.

What motivates Assange?

In December, 2006, WikiLeaks posted its first document: a “secret decision,” signed by Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys, a Somali rebel leader for the Islamic Courts Union, that had been culled from traffic passing through the Tor network to China. The document called for the execution of government officials by hiring “criminals” as hit men. Assange and the others were uncertain of its authenticity, but they thought that readers, using Wikipedia-like features of the site, would help analyze it. They published the decision with a lengthy commentary, which asked, “Is it a bold manifesto by a flamboyant Islamic militant with links to Bin Laden? Or is it a clever smear by US intelligence, designed to discredit the Union, fracture Somali alliances and manipulate China?”

The document’s authenticity was never determined, and news about WikiLeaks quickly superseded the leak itself. Several weeks later, Assange flew to Kenya for the World Social Forum, an anti-capitalist convention, to make a presentation about the Web site. “ No Secrets

Assange the Anti-American

Manning supposedly had some encrypted chats with Assange prior to releasing any material. It will be very interesting if those come to light.

One possibility is that Wikileaks and Assange are losing public support.

They are.

WikiLeaks: A Document Dump Too Far

WikiLeaks Comes Under Fire from Rights Groups

Reports that Wikileaks released the names of Afghan informants hasn't helped

Sad, but true. Hopefully none are killed. We need as many informants against the Taliban as we can, both to protect the Afghans, and to protect the US from more terrorist attacks.

WikiLeaks Reportedly Outs 100s of Afghan Informants

profiles of Assange (such as the one in the New York Times) don't paint him in a very flattering light.

They aren't the only ones.

10 days in Sweden: the full allegations against Julian Assange

The wildly promiscuous lifestyle of WikiLeaks boss Julian Assange: Look away now Jemima as our report reveals the sordid truth

Exposed: The 'creepy, lovesick' emails WikiLeaks boss Julian Assange sent to 19-year-old girl student

No one gains from this 'rape-rape' defence of Julian Assange

My understanding from the Times article is that even within Wikileaks, there is a lot of controversy about how Assange has acted.

Is WikiLeaks Reneging on its Financial Promise to Bradley Manning?

Former WikiLeaks Activists to Launch New Whistleblowing Site

‘Chaos’ at WikiLeaks Follows Assange Arrest

Although not internal to Wikileaks, thought provoking.

Wikileaks Fails “Due Diligence” Review

"Case in point is all the dark horse instigators the left places at right-wing events with the sole intention of causing an "incident" that might reflect badly on the organizers."

I think you need a citation for that. I did a quick Googleing of your claim and came back with nothing. Even after trying to reword it in different ways in an attempt to get better results. So, I tried reversing it, and glaringly, the opposite understanding of what you're claiming seems to be the actual case.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/81376642.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/17/AR2008071701287.html

I thought about listing several of the ones I found, but it actually became overwhelming, These two are just more recent cases, sorry but I don't have time to go all the way into it, but from the looks of it, this has been going on for a really long time. You might want to revise your understanding after going over this. Here's some additional reading if you have time.

http://scholar.google.co.jp/scholar?q=police+agitators+infiltration+of+anti+war+protests&hl=ja&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

The only people voting for this tragic regulation are Democrats:

On Tuesday, in a party-line vote, the three Democratic commissioners of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will adopt "net neutrality" rules."

No, it really hasn't turned out well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/04/AR2007120400730.html

While TFA does a lot of ranting and raving about the upcoming regulation, it doesn't actually give any details about what's in the regulation.

That's because the actual order being voted on has neither been published nor leaked; only earlier versions and comments by commissioners.

Everyone is reading their own fears into the vote, and both proponents and opponents of net neutrality are portraying it as virtually the end of the world.

One of the linked articles does a bit better, telling you what the bill lacks (seemingly any restrictions on paid prioritization, which makes me wonder how you can actually call it a "net neutrality" bill at all),

There is no "bill". There is an FCC order that is being voted on by the FCC. While drafts of the order have been published, the order actually being voted on has not. Anyone who has made claims about what it contains has done so on the basis of either assuming language in prior drafts remains unchanged, or interpreting statements made by commissioners. Mostly, aside from the prior draft, this seems to come from a Dec. 1 speech by the FCC chair on the proposal, though a lot of the interpretations go very far from what was actually said by the chairman. For instance, the chairman actually said:

The proposed rules also recognize that broadband providers must have the ability and investment incentives to build out and run their networks. Universal high-speed Internet access is a vital national goal that will require very substantial private sector investment in our 21st Century digital infrastructure. For our global competitiveness, and to harness the opportunities of broadband for all Americans, we want world-leading broadband networks in the United States that are both the freest and the fastest in the world.

To this end, broadband providers need meaningful flexibility to manage their networks -- for example, to deal with traffic that’s harmful to the network or unwanted by users, and to address the effects of congestion. Reasonable network management is an important part of the proposal, recognizing that what is reasonable will take account of the network technology and architecture involved.

The record also demonstrates the importance of business innovation to promote network investment and efficient use of networks, including measures to match price to cost such as usage-based pricing.

A slashdot poster in this thread has reduced this to "no restrictions on paid prioritization", which clearly isn't what was stated.

The chairman went on to say this:

The record in our proceeding reflects both the importance of openness principles to mobile broadband and the appropriateness of recognizing differences between fixed and mobile broadband. This is not a new point, but one that I’ve made consistently since the beginning of this proceeding. For example, mobile broadband is at an earlier stage of development than fixed broadband, and is evolving rapidly.

Accordingly, the proposal takes important but measured steps in this area -- including transparency and a basic no-blocking rule. Under the framework, the FCC would closely monitor the development of the mobile broadband market and be prepared to step in to further address anti-competitive or anti-consumer conduct as appropriate.

The same slashdot poster characterized this as "wireless providers can continue to do whatever they want".

Again, not quite was stated.

Can someone please tell me what's actually in this bill?

Its not a bill, and no one can tell you exactly what is in it.

Proposed to be changed.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gbLR9rd2uUzbSFy6SMkIYJZ2y7PA?docId=ccc0ce3ccf8146c48ea9a496ce852576
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/24/AR2010112401239.html
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/11/24/ap-exclusive-color-coded-terror-alerts-end/
Couldn't get a non-google link for the AP story.

A book I wrote: http://www.pdfernhout.net/reading-between-the-lines.html
"Post-Scarcity Princeton, or, Reading between the lines of PAW for prospective Princeton students, or, the Health Risks of Heart Disease"

From there:

The fundamental issue considered in this essay is how an emerging post-scarcity society affects the mythology by which Princeton University defines its "brand", both as an educational institution and as an alumni community. ...

Consider a prospective Princeton student evaluating whether an elite education at Princeton is a good investment of four years of her or his youth -- as well as a the direct expenses and indirect opportunity cost of lost wages. How should such a person evaluate the Princeton University "brand" these days, given, say, Donald Rumsfeld '54 as a PU poster boy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poster_child
"Children Pay Cost of Iraq's Chaos"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A809-2004Nov20.html
And also, how should a bright student interested in a future of independent intellectual effort see a PU investment in relation to perhaps a future PhD and professorship if they stay on the academic track all the way? Is it worth it? Should they really sacrifice, say, creating their own personalized "brand" on their own in the internet age from day one, as opposed to trying to build a life under the Princeton "brand" and so perhaps follow in Donald Rumsfeld's footsteps?

Here is an analogous example of someone choosing to pass up working at Apple to continue developing their own personal brand:
"Why I passed up the chance to work at Apple"
http://www.cameronmoll.com/archives/000809.html
A visitor comment from that web site:

Apple has nothing on Cameron Moll. Sure, Apple is a wonderful brand. But where Apple is in the business of design, Cameron strikes me as one in the business of the art of design, and that may appear to be a subtle difference at first glance. But it isn't. ... You have built a brand for and of yourself, and I personally admire your accomplishment. I believe you describe an important self-discovery: you value the Cameron Moll brand more than you value the mighty Apple brand.

By coincidence (if such really exist? :-), such a prospective student need look no further that the current (May 14, 2008) issue of the Princeton Alumni Weekly (Cover story: "The new rules of financial aid"):
http://www.princeton.edu/paw/archive_new/PAW07-08/13-0514/table_of_contents.html
to understand how the "Princeton University" brand may need to be rethought in a collaborative GNU/Linux & Wikipedia internet age. Is it still advisable to align oneself with the historic Princeton University brand in an emerging post-scarcity society? Or, to be fair, to align one's personal brand with how that historic PU brand is now seen by the public, acknowledging there is always a lot going on at Princeton in different directions? I'd also suggest there are more alumni than just me who have stopped buying PU-related automobile window stickers (see below for more on that).

That choice of self-branding versus main-stream branding in the internet age is related to the idea of "post-scarcity". I will define that better later, but for now, let's just imagine a future where beer everywhere in t

but I'm fairly sure that if you're living a reasonable lifestyle then genetics completely dominates. After that it's probably as much down to happiness as anything else.

That's what you get for 'being fairly sure' instead of actually investigating. We've noticed a lot. We've noticed that exercise keeps your telomeres long. Also important in that study, the more exercise, the longer the telomeres. There are lots of studies like this that show exercise can reverse the effects of aging. This one is not related to aging directly, but exercise helps you grow new brain cells. Some researchers at Berkeley did a 20 year study of more than 100,000 runners, and found that the more you run, the longer you live, up to 50 miles a week (the benefits probably extend beyond 50 miles a week, but they couldn't find enough people who run that far to get good numbers). It's pretty clear there are a lot of things you can do to live longer.

You also may consider reading a book about nutrition, since you likely have some misconceptions in that area, too.

I got the impression from watching the news that the repeal of DADT will allow homosexuals to openly serve in the military.

The slashot introduction to this thread states:

While this does not permit homosexuals to openly serve,

And the Washington Post article linked to in the introduction states:

The U.S. military will for the first time in history allow gays to serve openly after the Senate voted Saturday to repeal "don't ask, don't tell," the policy that has required such troops to hide their sexual identity or risk being expelled from the services.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/18/AR2010121801729.html?sid=ST2010121803394

What is the deal?

While this does not permit homosexuals to openly serve ...

I can find nothing in the linked article that says that homosexuals can not openly serve. In fact, the very first sentence says:

The U.S. military will for the first time in history allow gays to serve openly after the Senate voted Saturday to repeal "don't ask, don't tell," the policy that has required such troops to hide their sexual identity or risk being expelled from the services.

So is TFS wrong?

Really, Bank of America should not be helping Wikileaks in any way - Wikileaks is threat to their corporate future. They'd be stupid to help Assange, et. al. bring them down.

Full disclosure: I have a financial interest in Bank of America's stock underperforming (the market only took BAC down 3% on the Wikileaks news - my target is $4.50). This news makes me feel positive about that speculation. Wait, am I on Slashdot or the investing site? ;)

Cut the NSA, CIA, FBI, ATF, DEA, and all that anti-democratic shit.

Just those?
A Washington Post article counted 1271 government organizations. Maybe that's something worth looking into...

There was an opinion piece in the Washington Post recently talking about this very thing (under point 1). Basically the punchline is that we want to avert them really being crazy, so we do a little something, they do less than we want and things are copacetic again for a time. Rinse, repeat every decade.

Would this eventually get to an unsustainable point? Perhaps. Personally, I think we'll see at least another few decades of this (i.e. at least one or two with the youngest son) but I hope that by then reunification will be under way.

Cause about 30 of them "liked" the new photo.

Hopefully, if Manning is being tortured, someone on the staff there has at least a little human dignity and will let the world know.

From the article you quoted, but apparently didn't read:

The WikiLeaks documents reveal numerous cases of torture and abuse of Iraqi prisoners by Iraqi police and soldiers,

As you may recall, the United States isn't Iraq. Manning is not Iraqi, and is being held in the US. And, for what it is worth, Iraq is a sovereign state. The United States can influence them, but they make their own decisions. The US has been able to influence the Iraqis to improve in many areas, but old habits die hard.

Bradley Manning will go down in history as the agent of one of the largest thefts of secret documents during wartime* in US history. He knowingly provided them to an actor who he knew would disseminate them as widely as possible, including to the enemies of the United States. The Taliban have made it known they are researching the documents, no doubt Al Qaeda is as well. I doubt he will ever be free again - he will probably be lucky to avoid execution.

The Taliban and Al Qaeda are going to keep trying. I expect that some people here will not seriously question some of the nonsense they believe until something truly dreadful happens.

*Yes, the Authorization for Use of Military Force counts.