Slashdot Mirror

Bin Ladin supposedly didn't realize that we were tracking him via his satellite phone until that fact was leaked by a member of the Clinton administration. He kept using it right up until the point that the story appeared in the press.

Lolz

it's also foolhardy to think that these types of disclosures don't have any real world implications.

It's even more foolhardy to be so credulous.

The percentage of Americans who believe global warming is happening has dipped from 80 to 72 percent in the past year, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll,

28% is a minority, but I wouldn't dismiss it as tiny. Especially since low voter turnout in the US can has influenced elections & laws.

Firstly if you think for one moment that prisons in the USA are going to provide appropriate mental health treatment you are living on another planet.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/06/AR2006090601629.html

Secondly the issue with prisons in the USA is very much about punishment. Why is this guy liable to get up to 70 years in prison? It's about revenge. 70 years = dieing in prison - no option in being rehabilitated and existing later on outside prison in such a state. If it was about rehabilitation the sentence would be 6 months to a year in a treatment facility.

And is all the rape that is common in American prisons part of the rehab? Maybe on your planet it is - not on this one.

Reminds me the first episode of Leverage this season. People who rob us blind, like the senator from alaska and bank executives and middle management, get of nearly scott free, while this guy, who made "thousands of dollars" is going to probably be nailed to the wall. It is like spending billions fighting street drug dealers, while letting the high level drug users off the hook.

I cannot imagine to which presidents you are referring. Maybe Jimmy Carter didn't read it or Ronald Reagan. Maybe John Kennedy or Dwight Eisenhower did not. Maybe Bill Clinton or Barack Obama did not. Maybe George W. Bush did not (although, he is more likely to have read it because he reads so much): http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060817/17bushbooks.htm

and: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/29/AR2008122901896.html

and: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123025595706634689.html

Anyway, I've read portions of The Prince and was not impressed.

I am not afraid of another terrorist attack.

Why?

It is 100X more likely to die from smoking
http://thescooponsmoking.org/xhtml/faq.php

It is 10X more likely to die in a car accident
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/22/AR2006082201152.html

And 9/11 was a single event. There others happen every year.

By the way, about 500 people a year are hit by lightening
http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/users/holle/public_html/phx6.html

I'm not worried about that either

I liked the Scientology advertisement featuring Tom Cruise. Not entirly sure it's not on youtube any more...

Fortunately there's a mirror (just about):
  * http://torrents.thepiratebay.org/3978925/Tom.Cruise.Scientology.Video%5BBanned.from.youtube%5D.3978925.TPB.torrent

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/celebritology/2009/11/tom_cruise_scientology_need_i.html

I didn't go into the details in my original post but here's some evidence to back up what I said about network redundancy:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A23689-2003Jul7?language=printer

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/01/70040?currentPage=all

If they run a cable to cross a river/chasm via a bridge, it's going to cost a bit to build another bridge just for your cable. They could take the "down" route, but that's not cheap either...

Satellite = high latency. Wireless could be an option (but usually still involves cables at some point).

Even the spooks have troubles with diggers: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/30/AR2009053002114_pf.html

But they sure have a bunch of alert people monitoring their lines (which are probably used to monitor your lines ;) ).

I didn't go into the details in my original post but here's some evidence to back up what I said about network redundancy:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A23689-2003Jul7?language=printer

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/01/70040?currentPage=all

If they run a cable to cross a river/chasm via a bridge, it's going to cost a bit to build another bridge just for your cable. They could take the "down" route, but that's not cheap either...

Satellite = high latency. Wireless could be an option (but usually still involves cables at some point).

Even the spooks have troubles with diggers: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/30/AR2009053002114_pf.html

But they sure have a bunch of alert people monitoring their lines (which are probably used to monitor your lines ;) ).

My dad had a damaged shouler, and they had it fixed just 2 weeks later. (more below)

Of course, many Americans have a very long wait time for healthcare services, because they never receive them.

(And as for those wait times, you know, here on the web, it's traditional to actually link to sources that you cite, rather than say "The BBC, May 2009".)

Many people in the U.K. have some private healthcare, and so don't wait. But if those without a private plan have to wait for lower priority procedures, that's a lot better than not getting them at all, or being forced into bankruptcy to get them.

why people say the U.S. has the best healthcare in the world, because the cure rate is soooo much higher than in countries where care is monopolized by the government.

And then you "prove" this by cherry-picking one statistic? One that's been widely debunked?

The measures of prostate cancer "survival" rate are not comparable because of differences in screening and detection. In the U.S., your diagnosis of "prostate cancer" may well be based on an abnormal PSA reading, whereas a U.K. diagnosis is more likely to be based on an enlarged prostate -- a much more advanced form of the disease. This selection bias skews the five year survival rates, but makes little difference in actual outcomes; the prostate cancer mortality rate is roughly the same between the two countries.

Overall, cancer deaths are much lower in the U.K. than in the U.S., and life expectancy and infant mortality are better in the U.K. than in the U.S.

They are suppressing data. They aren't falsifying data, they are tampering with the scientific process.

Science needs to be open.......all the evidence needs to be there for anyone to examine, otherwise it's not science anymore. In this case, they are actively working to get people fired when they disagree with them. Quote: "I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor" (source). There are more examples in that article of how they tried to block any opposing views, including redefining peer review.

That's bad stuff. That's not scientists being humans, that's scientists being dumb.

Now, you might say, "OK, but that isn't evidence against global warming" and you are right, but maybe you would have heard the evidence against global warming if they hadn't been working so actively to stifle opposing opinion. The water has been tainted.

It's not tampering with the results, it's the tampering with the scientific process. For science to work well, there needs to be open discussion of the issues. Scientists don't try to push a viewpoint, they try to figure out what is really happening, and they are willing to hear any and all evidence.

In this case, there is evidence of 'scientists' actively trying to suppress evidence they don't like. For example, one guy says, "Kevin and I will keep [these papers] out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" (read here to get the full context). How is that in any way scientific? There is no one who denies that global warming has become politicized, but these emails show the depth to which it goes. They are literally trying to get people they don't like fired. This isn't about 'finding the truth,' it's about pushing a viewpoint.

We need to get back to science.

For those agonizing over the morality issues, note that there's an excellent Doonesbury Comic today on the topic. It's about torture rather than censorship, but it's probably good enough to apply to most moral and ethical quandaries.

The prediction of an increase in concentration in carbon dioxide predates the 1970s. Arrhenius first predicted it in the 19th century. That's why Keeling started measuring the concentration on carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the 1950s. In 1979, the Jason Committee predicted a doubling in the concentration of carbon dioxide and a warming of several degrees Celsius by 2035. At this point, we have decades of data confirming these predictions.

I'm sorely disappointed in Obama, too. He is in no way leftist or progressive. He is a right-center Reagan worshiper. He has admitted that Reagan is his favorite president.

However, it is in fact a complete fabrication that Obama won't put his hand over his heart:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/11/obama_nabbed_by_the_patriotic.html

http://robinhoecker.wordpress.com/2009/05/26/obama-observes-memorial-day-at-arlington/

http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/go9LID8MV0W/Obama+Gives+Commencement+Address+Arizona+State/xOfJ7prujMA/Michael+Crow

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0eMG9fn0agffK/340x.jpg

http://herstory07.wordpress.com/2008/01/28/this-is-why-i-hate-fwdfwdfwds/

So, you have provided me with another example of the lack of logic and facts regarding Obama-hate.

And putting legislation online at least five days before it's voted on.

Like the health care bill was put online on the 29th of October, the Manager's amendments on the 3rd and the vote on the 7th (more than 72 hours prior as promised and more than 5 days after the bill)?

And allowing congressmen enough time to read legislation rather than ramming it down their throats at 2am.

Number of votes in the house after midnight this session 0. Number in the senate this session of congress 0.

And putting legislation online at least five days before it's voted on.

Like the health care bill was put online on the 29th of October, the Manager's amendments on the 3rd and the vote on the 7th (more than 72 hours prior as promised and more than 5 days after the bill)?

And allowing congressmen enough time to read legislation rather than ramming it down their throats at 2am.

Number of votes in the house after midnight this session 0. Number in the senate this session of congress 0.

relax, relax, there are lots of ways to get out of a Verizon contract

Exactly the same thing that happened to Steven Rambam at HOPE...

I was there man, saw it all go down like watching numbers on the elevator.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/03/when_macs_attack.html

Hi, Pot, my name is Kettle. Pleased to meet you.

For the second time, you're the one making claims, so it's up to you to give proof. I'm assuming you're a grad student, so I'd love to see you pull this in your thesis defense: "Mr. Minwee, you have presented nothing but conjecture and handwaving to justify your argument." "Well, where's your proof that I'm wrong?"

You've already said that adjuncts do their job because they love it, and from my experience there's no shortage people wanting the job, in spite of the miserable pay. So, given the current situation -- a large pool of qualified applicants willing to do the job for peanuts, because they "love" it -- it's counter-intuitive to expect that outcomes would improve by increasing pay. Again, I ask you for evidence to the contrary.

And although you should know that the following argument is terrible:

While you're at it, why not have the students teach themselves? Then you could get out of hiring teachers altogether and reduce class sizes to one!

it's actually a serious suggestion by some.

I think it's clear that there's a failure of the market when it comes to adjuncts: the decision to start a Ph.D. is too far removed from the career consequences of that choice, so too many bright people -- who could have valuable, personally fulfilling, lucrative careers in other fields -- do it. My solution would be to heavily restrict the intakes to Ph.D. programs in fields where the only employment opportunities are at universities, because there just aren't enough spots to go around.

Anyway, I've got real work to do today, and it's been fun. Peace.

We have a radical fringe, just like the Dems and the Repubs.

The radical fringe of the environmentalists composes 80% of the environmentalists. I deeply care for the environment, but it seems like no-one sensible is allowed to call themselves an environmentalist.

More of us are interested in coal being a problem than nuclear plants.

Now you are. The hot topic/semi-religion now in environmentalism is “global warming”. 20 years ago it was nuclear power. The arguments against nuclear power were mostly scare tactics and fallacies of reasoning. The environmental movement (to me at least) lost all credibility after that.

At least the founder of Greenpeace (Patric Moore - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html ) had the intellectual honesty to admit that he and the organisation was completely wrong about nuclear power.

The problem with nuclear plants are that they don't behave well, and leave nasty poo that doesn't become safe for about 300,000 years. Look it up.

Firstly, coal powerplants spew nasty radioactive waste directly into the atmosphere (on the same order of magnitude as nuclear power plants). Oh, and they spew a lot of other nasty shit in the atmosphere too. This causes a lot of unseen health problems (cancer, lung disease). Millions of people die each year because of the effects of coal power stations (and more than 5000 in coal mining accidents alone).

Secondly, you may never have heard of reprocessing of nuclear fuel or fast breeding reactors. With any of these steps the amount of nuclear waste left is minute, and its half-life is about two centuries. But no, they would rather prefer acid rain and global warming.

Unfortunately it seems as if environmentalists want to destroy the economy in addition to the environment with their coal power plants and unfeasible and extremely expensive “renewable energy” pipedreams. Neither wind nor solar are feasible. Their bio-fuel (ethanol from maize or sugercane) pipe dream destroys the environment at such a rate. But they would rather we chop down rainforest to plant sugarcane than to use oil.

That said, you can scrub anything. It depends on how much it costs as to whether it's practical. Coal burning plants are difficult to scrub.

Carbon-Dioxide recapturing in coal power stations is also something of a pipe dream. I suspect that they are only doing it to try and get money from the government.

Oh, yeah. Why do they hate GM foods? Would they rather see people starve? Nobody forces them to eat GM foods. GM maize may just lessen the wholescale environmental destruction that their bio-fuel pipe dreams create.

--- Sorry for the harsh tone, but environmentalists is really one group that (for me at least) is one of the most harmful hate groups of modern society.

According to what I've read, in Japan you get health insurance through your employer's private plan if you're employed, although if you're not then you sign up for a government plan. So most people there have private insurance. Nonetheless, prices for medical services are set by the government.

Looks like Bruce saved the day: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/05/AR2009110502344.html?hpid=newswell

The shoppers also make Rockville Pike a particularly frustrating road to travel on weekends this time of year. Given that the control system will not be repaired until at least the middle of next week, this weekend is probably going to make for some horrendous driving in that area.

Too bad we spend a trillion dollars invading the wrong country based on obvious lies and fabrications. I think we would have been better off spending that money on cool space toys or at least getting Afghanistan right the first time.

We will be paying for the George W Bush's disastrous presidency for a very long time.

There really is no reason for us to be in Afghanistan either, but the media and White House has framed the debate on whether we sould "stay the course" or add more troops. That is the exact stupid debate we had about Iraq a few years ago. Our only support is from local warlords who don't care about our laws and are only loyal to us because we give them taxpayer money and allow them to engage in the drug trade. Even the NYtimes admits that the Presidents brother is in charge of a lot of the drug running and is on the payroll of the CIA.

The Afghanistan War was never about getting Osama bin Laden. The FBI still doesn't list 9/11 as one of the reasons why he is a Wanted person because they have no proof he was involved. The only "proof" is a video released in December 2001, supposedly found in a house in Afghanistan which supposedly had bin Laden admitting to being involved in the plot. The US media were the only ones to not question its authenticity.

Why can't people get past the obvious shell game being played?

I think most rich people are born rich, having money passed on to them.

I don't think that. But instead of guessing arbitrarily I do research.

Aside from rich people having more educational resources and opportunities, I don't really think intelligence and money are related.

Performances on IQ tests, the SAT/ACT, etc. are positively correlated with income.

Er, that's not what he means. Obama was elected on essentially not being Dubya, and much of the enthusiasm behind his campaign came from people who believed his promises of ending much of the unpopular Bush stuff. War. Wiretapping. Gitmo. Almost a year into his presidency, he has precious little to show for it.

The violence in Iraq is still there, albeit better than 4 years ago, but that tenuous improvement in stability came from the surge (under Bush) that Obama vigorously opposed before having to admit that it worked. The troop reduction roadmap in Iraq that Obama is following was laid out by Bush before leaving office. Now Obama is caught in another war escalation debate regarding Afghanistan. Which way will he go?

Guantanamo Bay still holds enemy combatants, and likely will "indefinitely". Corporate bailouts got rolling under Bush, and continued under Obama. Evidently, warrantless wiretapping will continue. He excorciated Bush for all this evil stuff, and is now perpetuating it himself. He marketed himself as "Change We Can Believe In", but there has been little or no "change" (certainly not on the issues he campaigned on), and we are learning that we can't "believe in" him.

So I'd say the old boss == new boss observation is pretty valid.

I guess the question is not whether there are some few policy differences between them, or whether Obama has worked on one of his campaign promises while abandoning most of the others. Rather, why?

• Theory #1 - They are all out to do evil stuff, and the evil stuff will get done no matter who is in office, and no matter what they promised in the election.
• Theory #2 - Obama campaigned without really knowing (or likely caring) about the serious reasons these unpopular things are in place. Reality is catching up.
• Theory #3 - I read once that stopping an aircraft carrier required about 10 miles of ocean. I'm guessing Obama is the equivalent of about 1 mile into that process, and never realized it would be this hard.

Now we're paying far more in taxes than we ever have

No, we are not, not in constant dollars per capita. I suggest you stop getting your tax information from the teabaggers.

Federal income tax burden is near its lowest level in three decades: the average American family pays about 9% of its income in income taxes. The peak was 12% in 1981. Meanwhile state and local tax burden per capita hasn't changed much, and is now slightly lower then its peak.

And Americans are, compared to almost every other industrialized nation, under-taxed. The only countries with comparable standards of living with lower tax burdens are Japan and Switzerland. (Nations with low defense spending that don't try to run empires...)

and we're trillions of dollars in debt.

Because conservatives have created the myth that taxes are too high, and so we cut taxes on the aristocracy -- shifting the burden to those who work for a living. Restore those taxes, end the pointless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we can start climbing out of the hole that decades of Republican borrow-and-spend policies have given us.

Now we're paying far more in taxes than we ever have

No, we are not, not in constant dollars per capita. I suggest you stop getting your tax information from the teabaggers.

Federal income tax burden is near its lowest level in three decades: the average American family pays about 9% of its income in income taxes. The peak was 12% in 1981. Meanwhile state and local tax burden per capita hasn't changed much, and is now slightly lower then its peak.

And Americans are, compared to almost every other industrialized nation, under-taxed. The only countries with comparable standards of living with lower tax burdens are Japan and Switzerland. (Nations with low defense spending that don't try to run empires...)

and we're trillions of dollars in debt.

Because conservatives have created the myth that taxes are too high, and so we cut taxes on the aristocracy -- shifting the burden to those who work for a living. Restore those taxes, end the pointless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we can start climbing out of the hole that decades of Republican borrow-and-spend policies have given us.

Welcome, Reverend Falwell

China no longer pegs their currency to the dollar.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/21/AR2005072100351.html

lollll...you are a little behind the curve, there. Ever heard the phrase "dual-use" technology?

The Washington Times' article is just revisionism, designed to conceal what the Republicans had already done with free trade by shifting the responsibility forward in time.

See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011801029.html/

Actually that's incorrect, there's been several recent studies which do show some relationship. And these aren't just op-eds from right-wing bible beaters with an agenda to prove.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/02/AR2008110202392.html
http://www.scienceblogs.de/weitergen/bloody%20games%20hostile.pdf

I'm not arguing for censorship or banning games, etc, I've been a gamer for years myself, but it's not accurate to say there's no study indicating links between violence and some games.

"stupid people decided that the realism of a VIRTUAL game is somehow parallel to how "realistic" an idea is."

Read the second link and also this if you think that. This article shows VR being used to help people with PTSD, so the realism can be viewed as relevant http://www.disaboom.com/disabled-veterans-general/video-game-helps-disabled-veterans-conquer-ptsd

So are they're upset because of the "dont ask dont tell" policy with regards to killing civilians?
If the graphics are quite real in COD6 then shouldn't the content be real too?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/14/AR2009091403262.html
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/iraq-journalists.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6046950.stm
http://www.newssafety.org/index.php?view=article&catid=314%3Apress-room-news-release&id=3786%3Airaq-war-toll-rises-with-killing-of-tv-reporter&option=com_content&Itemid=100077

Wouldn't it be more accurate if it showed that some of the terrorists worked for the government and were engaged on false-flag operations ?

It would also be more accurate if the government you were trying to install in a foreign country comprised of drug lords and war criminals.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/hp/ssi/wpc/ResignationLetter.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/asia/28intel.html?_r=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/world/asia/05afghan.html

I suspect that the DOD has a hand in putting things like this in popular video games (not to mention TV and movies). It is a great way to make such atrocities seem acceptable to a young, susceptible audeicne. These types of things have been in games for awhile. These types of messages have been in TV shows and movies for a long time. 24 turned into an advertisement for torture. The DOD has long been in the TV and movie business, giving producers equipment and information for positive messages and propaganda.

The last expansion of World of Warcraft had many quests to torture people for information. They also added a quest chain to spread disinformation about a group of dissenters in Theramore, then assassinate their leader. It reminded me of the FBI operation known as COINTELPRO.

You can call me a conspiracy theorist all you want but you can find plenty of proof with a few simple google searches.

Bullshit.

The lighter ban was instituted because Washington geniuses who decided that IF AND ONLY IF the shoe bomber had tried to light the fuse with a lighter, he MIGHT have had slightly more success.

The lighter ban was nothing more than a knee-jerk, crack pipe smoking, hypothetical scenario dreamed up by our elected officials - the TSA even opposed it.

citation and citation

I have lived overseas for 17 years, smoke, and fly internationally regularly. Lighters have no problem with flying, pressure differentials, or any other such shit. Morons make stuff like this up to make issues where there are none.
           

likely hundreds of solar systems in our immediate vicinity at our disposal

Not really. The nearest star to ours is about 2.5 light years away. Even assuming we could have a quantum leap in technology that allows us to get to HALF the speed of light, that's a 10 year round trip. To make any sort of mining/resource gathering/anything happen would require a round trip of ten years. Further assuming that you wouldn't be able to just touch down and start the trip back, you would need to add more time before the return trip/shuttle. Extrapolating that, if your return trip is that amazingly long, you better have either an amazingly valuable cargo (unlikely) or you would need to return with enough of the stuff in a trip to make over ten years of investment pay dividends.

I think a much more likely scenario for extra solar travel would be likely not to get out there, make some cash and return, but make a one way trip and seed a colony of sorts. I am not saying I don't think it's worth it. I really do think that general scientific research and space program's should be getting a much bigger slice of the pie compared to what they get, after all if there is so much money being thrown around right now, why should only the people who were BAD at their business get the "general fix this economy funds" thrown their way.

I don't think that cutting welfare is the best option for a country. I do however think that if a tenth of the money that the US spends on the military was spent instead on NPOs in other countries, even the very ones that you are at war with right now, there wouldn't be a need to be at war with them. Each day at war costs around $720 million dollars (Source Washington Post) and if instead of spending that much money to effectively do nothing (sorry, it's been such a miserable failure) the same money was spent on building hospitals, schools and general infrastructure in the same areas, there would not be such a high level of hostility and resentment from that region to the US. You don't make someone like you by invading their country, throwing out their leaders (no matter how they got there) and then telling people how to live. You make them like you by doing nice things for them. How can someone hate you when you built the school they went to, donated the hospital their family goes to and fixed their water and electricity supply from something shoddy and broken to functioning?

So, cut the war budget, be a little altruistic to other nations and do your "shock and awe" through sending amazing pictures to the world of what you did. Make a moon colony. Send a space ship to Mars. Send some real probes in hordes to every planet in the system. That will once again give people some awe of your country.

This won't make you directly rich by bringing back intergalactic booty, but it might just make you richer in ways you didn't expect and through other money you won't have to spend.

- Fluffeh.
(Posting Anon Cow because I already moderated in this forum)

A rebuttal to the "socialist agencies" comment I quoted is here by "hiram":
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2009/08/a_savage_mob.html

Hiram makes some good points. Still, is not regulation of monopolies something you need a government for? Also, much drug research is fundamentally based on publicly funded (NIH) studies. Also, broadcast media was in general much better for families when there was an equal time law and restrictions against advertising to children. So, some of the problems he points to are the result of deregulation as well as shifting government resources away from "butter" and into "guns". I agree public schooling is a big problem (see John Taylor Gatto and my other post).

We need to separate out various functions of government like regulation and oversight or taxing and redistributing wealth for legitimate public purposes (including avoiding a concentration of wealth that is bad for democracy, like with a progressive tax up to 91% under Roosevelt after WWII) from the issue of who actually provides the services.

But, as I said earlier, take a look at this video of a high speed robot hand from Japan and tell me *anything* about our economy will make sense as-is in ten or twenty years:
http://www.hizook.com/blog/2009/08/03/high-speed-robot-hand-demonstrates-dexterity-and-skillful-manipulation

Or even this:
From:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2159038/posts http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/02/AR2009010202191.html
"Armed robotic aircraft soar in the skies above Pakistan, hurling death down on America's enemies in the war on terrorism. Soon -- years, not decades, from now -- American armed robots will patrol on the ground as well, fundamentally transforming the face of battle. Conventional war, even genocide, may be abolished by a robotic American Peace.
The detachment with which the United States can inflict death upon our enemies is surely one reason why U.S. military involvement around the world has expanded over the past two decades. The excellence of American military technology makes it possible for U.S. forces to inflict vast damage upon the enemy while suffering comparatively modest harm in return. ...
The rapid emergence of the armed unmanned air vehicles (UAVs) that roam over Pakistan is a sequel to Moore's Law. Onboard computers became far more powerful, so automatic pilots became far more competent. Signal processors became more sophisticated, facilitating collection and processing of more interesting intelligence. Global Positioning System receivers shrank and could be economically employed on small robotic aircraft. Precision-guided munitions could deliver lethal firepower. And so forth. ...
The U.S. Navy has arguably moved farthest toward substituting treasure for blood. A generation ago the Reagan administration brought World War II-era battleships out of mothballs to provide gunfire support to onshore operations. With a crew of more than 1,500, these ships were designed to be manned by the low-paid draftees of the 1940s, not the more amply rewarded volunteers of the 1980s. The Navy couldn't afford them, and the ships were soon returned to mothballs. In their place, the Navy came up with the new DDG-1000 Zumwalt destroyer, an automated warship with a crew of only 150."

I came across that while looking what the freepers say about robots:
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/robot/index?tab=articles

Anyway, many conservatives don't get it about technology invalidating muc

The Real Reason for More Troops in Afghanistan

We can all look back at the wonderful decision that was made to send more troops to Korea. If we had not, we could have been bogged down in a quagmire there that would have required 50 plus years of American lives, involvement and money. What a wonderful decision it was to send more troops to Vietnam. If we had not, we could have lost over 58,000 soldier's lives; killed millions of Vietnamese soldiers and civilians and been forced to flee the country with our tails between our legs, deserting our allies to the horrors of communist retribution. Good thing our wonderful leaders had the wisdom and courage to send "more troops." Now we are forced with the same dilemma; send more troops or face military defeat.

The question is: why are we in Afghanistan in the first place? Now that time has erased the emotions of retaliation for the events of 9/11 and our country elected a new leader who campaigned on the principle of bringing an end to our involvement in these costly wars, why the call for more troops? Could it be we are again simply following the dictates of the power cabal as Major General Smedley Darlington Butler so eloquently outlined in his outstanding work, War is a Racket ?

Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of our quest for empire over the past six decades realizes that Obama's contemplation of whether to send additional troops to Afghanistan is simply those who control him providing Obama with the opportunity to look "presidential." The decision to send additional troops was reached prior to the situational comedy of General McChrystal's leaked "confidential report" to the Washington Post and Obama's National Security Advisor's public admonishment of McChrystal's failure to follow the chain of command. All of this is nothing but a well-rehearsed, though poorly camouflaged hoax. Additional troops will be sent to Afghanistan within a very short period of time and Obama really has no say in the matter. The question is: why?

Could it be the US-installed puppet government in Afghanistan has new suitors who represent a very real threat to the United State's control of Afghanistan and her abundant natural resources? Is the entry of Russia and Chinese influence into Afghanistan the real reason for the need for more troops? Russia reportedly made its entry back in 2007 with the reopening of its embassy in Kabul. The Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Ivanov, met privately with President Karzai and offered military assistance through the Collective Security Treaty Organization. (CSTO) The CSTO is made up of Russia, Belarus, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. Russia is the driving force in this organization, as one might understand, due to the economic and military weakness of the other members. There were meetings with CSTO delegation in Kabul and neither the US nor the UK were invited. Were the US/UK

He got a flu shot along with his family but it wasn't for H1/N1.

Banks sometimes evict people but don't complete the foreclosure process. This does 2 things:

1) keeps the evicted person on the hook for taxes and maintenance, e.g. weed control.

2) keeps the property off of their balance sheet so they do not look insolvent.
I'm supposed to ba happy about the bailouts why?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/23/AR2009062303500.html

http://exurbannation.blogspot.com/2009_03_01_archive.html (references a NYT article)

You are making the wholly unfounded assumption that half of the dead kids were obese. Where is your justification for that?

Over half the US population is obese.

It sounds like you have a personal issue with obese people. That's well and good, but that doesn't translate into "data"

Ya, but i'm not putting together the data, I'm just telling you about it. Really, is google now beyond the means of the average /.er?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-07-10-swine-flu_N.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/19/AR2009051902609.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601202&sid=aM.7Dg3Z_msI

http://www.naturalnews.com/006781.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/dec/11/medicalresearch.health
http://health.families.com/blog/a-link-between-obesity-and-your-immune-system

It's happened in the U.S., and was once wide spread. This is one of the strongest reasons most strong democracies have a secret ballot now. If I remember my history right, it was a major issue in West Virginia during reconstruction.

It's happened in Mexico in modern times, and it's one of the big criticisms of the recent election in Afghanistan.

I don't have citations at the moment as I'm not home, but I'll be happy to provide them tonight when I'm home if you're interested. Of course intimidation happens as well, but vote buying has, and will continue to happen. The best we can hope for is to make it inconvenient enough to not matter on any kind of large scale. But people are creative. I remember a report in which vote buyers were asking for cellphone pictures as proof of Mexicans' votes, but I can't find the article now. Read up on this however.

I agree 100% that intimidation is a larger problem. But to dismiss vote buying as a problem that "has almost never been done under any system anywhere" is incredibly short sited, and naive.

Bubble? Where the hell do you live? Housing prices around here are 1/5th what they were just a few years ago. That's lower than pre-bubble prices, while the population has been growing the whole time.

What does population have to do with it? There's no demand; the ratio of housing prices to income is still too high, houses are still unaffordable. As a nation, median household income grew by 60% from 1990 to 2006, but median home prices more than doubled (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/14/AR2007091401170.html, http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/son/index.htm). In a lot of places, it was much worse than the median. A correction was and still is due if you expect people are actually going to buy any of these houses.

Hmmm.... I wondered why I had been moded as Troll so I revisited TFA today... and now it looks like a normal Washington Post article (no longer a large font), and the blue "Advertisement" tag is only visible in an actual ad, and horizontally, not vertically.

Yesterday I saw the tag both in an ad located in the same place in the page, and out side, next to the article page....

Ah, wait... if I follow the link repeatedly, I get the version I got yesterday about 10% of the time. I wonder if it's a bug in the code, a problem with their server, or a rendering bug in Safari.

Weird.

Examples of Exxon's animosity towards green energy, and items outlining their profit motivation:
1. Exxon records huge profits this year amidst recession: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/30/AR2009013003744.html
Why not help us out and lower oil prices? Or show interest in alternative energy besides publicity stunts?

2. Exxon's own website: http://www.exxon.com/USA-English/Lubes/Products_Services/Products_Services_Collection.asp
Not a single service regarding 'green energy'. And this company make billions, but where are the alternative energy options? They don't care. They have the monopoly among many others in the OPEC conglomerate.

3. "In this class action, the class representatives proved that Exxon failed to provide the agreed reduction in wholesale prices...":
http://www.exxondealerclassaction.com/faq.php3

4. Exxon buys out global-warming, green energy think tank, denies global worming: http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/02/news/companies/exxon_science/index.htm

5. Exxon flips on global warming because the rockafeller tell them they will lose money: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/28/climatechange.fossilfuels

6. Exxon contaminates water amidst its own scientist suggestions otherwise: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125598438080394827.html?ru=yahoo&mod=yahoo_hs

7. Oil Congress: http://www.exxposeexxon.com/ExxonMobil_politics.html

8. Overall campaign contributions: http://www.campaignmoney.com/exxon_mobil.asp

7. I know correlation is not causation, but consider the following: Exxon is the largest publicly traded oil company: finance.yahoo.com
They even state that on their own website. They have flip-flopped on global warming to please politicians, so they can please their constituency. They have donated money to people who have money in their company. Lets see, largest traded oil company, has Washington in it's back pocket, they protect their financial interest over anything else.

They're already talking about banning dark color cars: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/26/AR2009032603316.html
While at the same time mandating that we only use darker color paints: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cool-paints/draft_regs_coolcars_032709.pdf

My big problem with all this behavior legislation is that I want a black sports car because it makes me happy, and I'm willing to pay a lot of extra money in order to get it. The government of a free country should not stop that pursuit. The stupid car is supposed to get poor MPG! It's a damn race car! And it's black because black is the best color and I'll keep driving black race cars until they make a darker color race car. It costs me more money not you. So stay the hell outa my business!

Yeah, on the one hand, it makes sense: loaning money to someone unlikely to pay it back is a risky investment, and risky investments demand higher returns. If presented with a risky investment or a risk-free investment, both offering the same return, you'd never make a risky investment.

On the other hand, you're taking the very people who are least likely to be able to pay their loans off, and you're making it even harder. That makes no sense. It's just another example of it being more expensive to be poor.

Direct loans were cheap, and the consolidation brought them down to ~5% afair.

I had a similar experience -- don't think I ever paid more than ~4% and some of them were cheaper. A lot of it depends on your lender/servicer, though, and they're not always particularly nice institutions...

thats because some idiot decided having non-direct loans and promising a profit to everyone who serviced them. Doh!

Yep. According to this article on student loans, that would apparently be congress circa the mid 1990s.

Over the last 4-5 years, it's been increasingly recognized that this has led to abuses that's getting to be systemic.