Slashdot Mirror

The major telcos aren't turning over individual content. It's better than that - they just pipe everything through the NSA. Investigations with warrants, how so 20th century.

Just a coincidence, but the tech writer at WaPo has an article up today about speech recognition software, FWIW. I used to use one that I have forgotten the name of unfortunatly on Mac classic..good for not much, but would open applications, that was fun enough "Computer! Open Netscape!" And that was about it. I imagine they have to be just a scosh better now. It's a goldmine though, if anyone really nails it, we have an aging population, the ones that have disposable income, who are getting arthritis in their fingers. Personally, I would like such a system for using the computer while doing some jobs, such as working on equipment and you get greasy hands, or say, you are fooling around on your bench and want to yak at the computer to display stuff because you have a hot iron in one hand and tweezers in the other. Very useful I think if it is ever perfected better.

"... Thursday, June 5, 2008 A mere 12 hours after claiming the Democratic presidential nomination, Barack Obama appeared before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee yesterday -- and changed himself into an Israel hard-liner. ..."

When Obama promised "change", somehow I didn't think reversing his campaign promises was what they had in mind.

Oh well,,, how's that old saying go?
"People know what kind of government they want, and they deserve to get it good and hard"
~

Obama is a leftist, bordering on marxist

For extremely meaningless definitions of "marxist", perhaps. He is less marxist than many 20th century presidents, including Eisenhower and Teddy Roosevelt.

Washington Post

Boy, he did miss a lot of votes. I'm not going to check everything he voted on, though. He usually votes with the party, he very rarely votes with the Republicans against the Democrats, and for some earmarking issue I don't pretend to understand he voted against both parties.

From his voting pattern, he doesn't come across as a dangerous nutcase. Apart from his regular absence.

see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/06/AR2008110600027.html

It's a shame more people don't realize how equally-lousy Clinton was. He's responsible for a whole mess of things, like the dot-com crash of 2000, the failure to increase U.S. border security to prevent 9/11, and the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act that brought-down multiple banks.

The dot-com crash was only Clinton's responsibility in the sense that Clinton didn't fire Greenspan. Greenspan caused the dot-com boom/bust when he cut rates to inflate his way out of the 1980's S&L scandal and the subsequent 1991 recession. Monetarism — the idea that the government should price-fix credit by artificially limiting interest rates — was thoroughly embraced by Republicans, then and now, and Greenspan's adherence to it was the very reason Reagan appointed him. Clinton's work toward balancing the budget and paying down the deficit probably limited the growth rate of the bubble and helped prevent the crash from being a bigger mess than it could've been. (Not that Clinton was consciously embracing Austrian economics or the like. But he had the common sense that it's a bad thing to spend money you don't have, which both the Keynesians and the Monetarists have repeatedly refused to learn. Of course, Republican contrariness helped a lot — I doubt that Clinton would've had that kind of fiscal discipline if both the House and Senate had been Democrat-controlled.)

On border security... the 9/11 hijackers all entered the US under their own names, with genuine Saudi Arabian passports, and had been granted genuine US visas to live here legally. Either they should have been spotted and stopped during the visa approval phase, or the FBI and other agencies should've caught and arrested them after they had incriminated themselves within US borders (as the agencies came painfully close to doing). Customs agents at an airport aren't in a position to single people out and accuse them of having long-term terroristic intentions. Nor are they equipped to deal with the subtle passport fraud employed by the hijackers to hide which countries they'd visited recently. Border guards are even more irrelevant to terrorism — the 9/11 hijackers didn't enter the US through Canada or Mexico, and no amount of added security on the Canadian and Mexican borders would've stopped them since they didn't even pass through those borders.

Regarding the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act... the Act had Republican fingerprints all over it. Gramm, Leach, and Bliley were all Republicans; it was passed along partisan lines (Senate Republicans: 53-0, Senate Democrats: 1-44; House: uncounted voice vote, which the Democrat minority didn't feel a need to contest); and Bill Clinton signed it for... actually, I don't know why Bill Clinton signed it, but the bastard signed the Defense of Marriage Act, too, so it's not like "Bill Clinton signed a piece of legislature" means that the piece of legislature was actually supported by Democrats.

More than all that, Clinton didn't get us into any conflicts until there was an international outcry for intervention, and he generally conducted foreign policy in a way that was, at worst, adequate. He kept an eye on Iraq without engaging in any of GWB's blustery rhetoric and sabre-rattling, much less actually invading it with ground troops, and he put CIA attention on Al-Qaeda and bin Laden even before the 1998 US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, then stepped up scrutiny afterward.

All in all, I can't understand why Clinton is so reviled by Republicans. The Monica thing was unfortunate, but nothing worse than the (then unknown) adulterous peccadilloes of the very Republican congressmen who were so keen on having Clinton's head. The Republican uproar over Bosnia, and their shouts of "wag the dog", seem quaint

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54556-2004Sep1.html

He would overhaul Medicare, Social Security and public education; cut taxes; reinvigorate the military; restore civility to the political system; and help the poor with tax credits for health insurance, assistance buying homes and charitable-giving incentives. "We will use these good times for great goals," he said. "We will confront the hard issues."

Four years ago, Republican nominee George W. Bush rehearsed an acceptance speech containing a menu of ambitious campaign promises. (Bill O'leary -- The Washington Post)

Thursday night, President Bush will accept the party's nomination for a second term here with a mixed record on those hard issues. On some -- tax cuts and education -- he made enormous progress toward his goals. On others -- Medicare, the military and his "compassion" agenda -- he made partial progress. And on the rest -- Social Security and attempting to "change the tone" of Washington -- nothing much has changed.

Bush's 2000 acceptance speech was widely seen as having successfully introduced the nation to a leader with strong principles, clear policies and a determination to return dignity to the Oval Office after President Bill Clinton's scandals. The speech's main refrain -- "They had their chance. They have not led. We will." -- neatly encapsulated Bush's message to the largest audience the relatively little-known Texas governor had ever faced.

But the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, made the Bush presidency largely unrecognizable from the one he outlined in Philadelphia. He did not even mention terrorism in that speech, and the speech reflected the country's inward-looking priorities. After promising a "humble" foreign policy on the stump, his main non-domestic proposal that night was for a missile defense system first debated two decades earlier.

Sept. 11, said Bush campaign chairman Marc Racicot, "redefined the planet." And it would be impossible to assess Bush's work toward his campaign promises without considering the way the attacks necessitated an entirely new agenda for his presidency: a Department of Homeland Security, the USA Patriot Act, and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and against al Qaeda.

Even so, a look at Bush's record on his original promises shows that he was more successful at achieving specific policies such as tax cuts and changes in federal education support than he was at translating into specific achievement the broader promises he used in 2000 to present himself as "a different kind of Republican" -- a promise of bipartisan cooperation and help for the poor and disadvantaged.

Just to add to my point, an article detailing a meeting between Obama and Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes and also Owner Rupert Murdoch regarding what Obama felt at the time was unfair treatment by Fox News. This story was written by a writer for the Washington Post, which endorsed Obama for President, so I doubt that they'd do anything to try to make Fox News look good and Obama look bad, and the writer told it like it was. Both sides cleared the air, Obama at that point agreed to come on O'Reilly's show, and Aires told him to give him a call if he felt he was getting a bad rap from Fox News. Note that there are zero stories of that call ever taking place, and Obama staffers have many times cited that since that point, Fox News has been nothing but fair to him. Hell, Fox has hardly talked about anything but Obama since he won, other than of course about Michael Crichton passing away, which is a truly sad story considering he was always one of my favorite writers. Furthermore, O'Reilly never insists that his show is anything but a pundit show, and distinguishes that from the position he had while working in Denver where he was a news reporter, not a pundit. There is a distinct difference and the requirements for each job are different. O'Reilly has been called unfair by both liberals and conservatives, which I think is hilarious. In reality he is fair to everyone but doesn't put up with people trying to spin their way out of answering or trying to put out bs answers. Yeah, he's a bit of a jerk, but that doesn't make him in the tank for anyone. And to further my point even more, once it was put out there that no weapons of mass destruction were likely to be found and that some of the intelligence regarding the whole matter was invented, O'Reilly blasted Bush pretty harshly for it and pretty much said that he had no further use for President Bush.

>> I don't know about you, but I like some
>> civility in my politics. Maybe I'm being naive,
>> but then I voted for a guy who sort of shares my
>> beliefs, and gave a classy shout-out to his losing opponent
>> (and the Republican party, incidentally,
>> by reminding them of what they once stood for) today.

> If you were honest about wanting civility in politics
> then you would not have voted Republican since their whole
> MO is screeching hatred and epithets. "Your either with us
> or against us".

Geez, is everyone here stuck in a 2000/2004 time-warp?

Quick, re-read what I posted and then tell me whom I voted for.

Hint:

I just received a very gracious call from Senator McCain. He fought long and hard in this campaign, and he's fought even longer and harder for the country he loves. He has endured sacrifices for America that most of us cannot begin to imagine, and we are better off for the service rendered by this brave and selfless leader. ... Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. Let us remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House - a party founded on the values of self-reliance, individual liberty, and national unity.

I'm not "insane" or "clueless" and I read both sides of the issues.

Obama is a leftist, bordering on marxist (in fact, if you had read his autobiography, you'd know he sought out marxist friends quite frequently).

But since you can't be bothered to pay attention to facts, here's a few more places on his record:

Votesmart
Washington Post

Also, you attack National Journal without ever bothering to pay attention to facts (in fact, I doubt you've ever read it). IF you'd bothered to even look it up, you'd find it's nothing like you portray it as.

How much does bandwidth actually cost for a major ISP? ... Imagine if the cable companies capped how much TV you could watch per month.

Less than $5.00 per month their cost, for what we would pay $50 or more for per month for. IMO $50 per month for 100MB / 100MB or .5 per Gig is too much. If only never-to-be-throttled 100MB / 100MB would be offered to us...

Of course 100 MB / 100 MB is not yet available to us here in the USA. But it is coming, and when it does watch out...

In Japan they have had, thanks to forced government de-regulation, 100MB / 100MB since 2000 for around $25 per month.

I liked this quote from the above link:

"Obviously, without the competition, we would not have done all this at this pace," said Hideki Ohmichi, NTT's senior manager for public relations.

I heard another Japanese telecom executive state that it cost them less than $5.00 to provide services to customers on a PBS show. You will not hear American executives telling American consumers that it costs them less than $5.00 per month. The American telecom executives on the show / panel had pained expressions on their faces. I am sure they are counting on their customers remaining oblivious to how much we are getting hurt by charging more for less; throttling services based on type of services; putting caps on services; etc....

If it costs less than $5.00 per month for a fiber link, than why is anyone, anywhere else in the world paying more for less. And once you learn of these facts, it really does make you mad when shills for the US cable and DSL companies come out complaining the opposite is true. I am sick of the lies and many innocent people jumping on the band wagon only because they are in the dark and do not know any better, WAKE UP please for all of our sakes.

Eventually there will be a company in your area offering uncapped, fiber-last-mile connection to your home, apartment, community and you will be able to thank your ISP for years of abuse by churning.

The more they piss off customers, the less sympathy any of us should have for them. I know I do not feel sorry for any of them. And marketing campaigns to buy American and get screwed will not work on me and many others either.

Now in Japan they are upgrading from 100MB / 100MB to 1GB / 1GB because their infrastructure, Fiber, will allow them to make this change simply by changing out the router on each end. Or if you already have a fiber router, just changing out the firmware in it. The expected cost for 1GB / 1Gb is expected to be less than $55.00 per month. Forum posts discussing the new technology; UK Inquirer article. I wish we had this available in the USA.

USA consumers should have had this back in 2000, perhaps as early as 1998 in some larger cities, definitely by 2003. Here it is 2008 and we still can't get service anywhere near 100MB / 100MB. Pathetic and definitely NOT FORGIVABLE! How many of you reading this understand that the telcos promised higher speeds and collected money for those promises that they reneged on?

We, the USA High Speed Internet consumer, have been getting screwed for years. Our only chance will be if government steps in as they did in Japan and forces the hands of the major telcos, cable companies and related telecommunications companies. Normally I am NOT for government regulation however, as Japan has proved and the US telcos have shown by their lack of keeping promises they made, in thi

his clear anti-torture stance - which went against the general Republican stance at the time - was something he should be admired for

It's funny you pull mention his talking-point on waterboarding, because John McCain in fact voted against a ban on waterboarding. So his stance is maybe not as clear as you think.

An email that reached 35,000 people was sent from the "Provost" last night at 1AM EST telling students the election is being held on Wednesday. I'm sure someone out there believed it. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2008/11/gmu_e-mail_hoax_election_day_m.html?hpid=topnews

which is really wealth redistribution from the working middle class to the lazy bums

Read this and then tell me that this is about wealth redistribution from the "working middle" to the lazy bums. You think people earning $600K+ are the "working middle class"? This is about redistribution of wealth from the robber barons that run the country today TO the working middle class. The people that are suffering today aren't the lazy bums who refuse to work - they're the ones who are constantly under threat of losing their jobs because they're being shipped overseas, the ones who are making some $40K to $60K a year. Look at who is going to give the REAL middle class a bigger tax break.

Hint: Obama will be the one giving tax breaks for the middle class - anyone earning less than $110K a year will be getting a bigger tax break than McCain is planning. Redistribution from the middle class to the poor and lazy my ass.

sex on TV is linked to teenage pregnancy

Qwest lost pentagon contracts for refusing to illegal wiretap when it was asked to in February 2001 . The 9/11 attacks are a strawman argument for the executive branch grabbing as much power as they can.

As to impeachment, Pelosi has said impeachment is off the table for quite awhile. Kucinich has tried to start impeachment hearings but they got killed in subcommittees. The two parties may bicker at some level but they wouldn't actually want to oh, follow the law or anything when it comes to trampling personal liberties.

If indeed Bush and friends trampled on your beloved Constitution and laws in doing so, I say they're more dangerous to you than what they claim they were protecting you from.

This much is obvious. Look at how many Americans died because of Bin Laden's orders. Roughly 3000. How many Americans died because of Bush's orders? Over 4000 in Iraq and over 600 in Afghanistan. How many American dollars were wasted because of the 9/11 attacks? We may have lost half a trillion dollars in GDP. But the Iraq war will cost us 3 trillion or more.

So yeah, with friends like these who needs enemies? Even if you care only about American lives and American dollars, Bush has clearly done more harm to the US than Bin Laden. And so, he should be treated no kinder than Bin Laden.

Yeah the ten trillion was a mistake, I saw it mentioned in a different, inaccurate article. But you know what the actual value is still ridiculous - 3 trillion. Still an amount far in excess of the cost of universal health care.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846_pf.html

I would still like you to respond to my question on why you think its ok to spend tax dollars on war but not healthcare?

wonder what the heck you are doing in Iraq all the years

From Bush's point of view it appears to have been primarily a personal vendetta, possibly based on a misunderstanding? All I can say is that if you seriously think that invading Pakistan is sensible you are crazy mad. Pakistan has getting towards 200 million people (compare with Iraq 30 million or Iran 70 million), nuclear weapons and a reasonably modern army. There is probably only one possible way to get the country organised and united in doing something.

Actually the Washington Post has this interesting article that Al Qaeda or the Taliban favor McCain. Some commentary on a pro-Taliban website has said:

Al-Qaeda will have to support McCain in the coming election," said a commentary posted Monday on the extremist Web site al-Hesbah, which is closely linked to the terrorist group. It said the Arizona Republican would continue the "failing march of his predecessor."

It seems Al Qaeda sees little difference between McCain and Bush. And they seem not to be at all scared of Bush. In a way it makes sense for although Bush might be cowboy, he has also alienated our allies and has stretched our forces very thin with a dubious war. The Taliban have always known that they could never win with military might and they are planning on a war of attrition. Take it all with a grain of salt though.

Look at how he has run his campaign, indeed, without holding to his promise to use public funding (which McCain did, and has been polling close up until recently).

Wrong:

Despite the media outrage over his "broken promise" (Washington Post, 6/20/08), Obama's stance on public financing has actually been much more qualified; he pledged in a 2007 questionnaire only to "aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election" (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 2/18/08). Similarly, Obama stated at a February news conference (New York Times, 2/15/08): "If I am the nominee, I will make sure our people talk to John McCain's people to find out if we are willing to abide by the same rules and regulations with respect to the general election going forward."

By doing a fair job at shaking off all of the baseless right wing smears of associations he has had with crazies.

Fixed that for you. Playing the "associations game" is for fools and tools, because there isn't a person on this planet that can't be connected to an unsavory individual in one or two steps.

The only reason that he has made it this far is the lack of a critical eye on the part of the media.

Another tired lie that was debunked months ago. Yes, Obama got much love from the media - just ask anyone who supported John Edwards in the primaries - but that all changed when he passed Hillary Clinton. The media spent two months obsessing over Rev. Wright while Hillary's Bosnian Sniper Rifle fable was a one day story.

If you don't already know, that's when Gibson asked Obama why he would raise Cap gains to 28, when revenues from the tax increased when Clinton lowered it to 20, and again when Bush lowered it to 15. Revenues, for your edification, means the money the government took in. His answer: to make it more fair.

The reason revenues go up after tax cuts is simple: the population keeps growing. But the budget has to grow to meet the needs of that increasing population, so while revenues may go up after a tax cut, they don't go up enough to make up for the loss in revenue. Or, more simply, this talking point was debunked when Clinton raised taxes and revenues went way, way up, not down.

The guy is a lunatic.

You're wrong about everything.

I wonder if they count the nose cone fuse assemblies the U.S. Air Force accidentally exported to Taiwan.

You forgot the part about him of the US, and therefore not even eligible to be president.

Now..that being said...the federal case filed about this, was recently thrown out due to what seems to me as a weird ground...that he didn't have 'standing' to file the suit. Not that the suit was without merit, but, that he didn't have standing to file it. Strange...a voter, doesn't have standing to file suit against someone potentially running for president illegally? I'm not saying it is true mind you...just that it seems strange a judge would rule in general that a US citizen as a voter, has not standing in seeing if someone running for high office is breaking the law?

Anyway...it seems this will go to appeal...and as I understand it, it is also in several courts at the state level in several states...to have Obama taken off the ballot.

I just heard of this yesterday...dunno if it has any merit, but, I love a good conspiracy theory as the next guy...wouldn't it be wild if this indeed played out??

It would make the Bush v Gore decision by the SCOTUS look like childs play next to this one...

They were wrong. part of the problem is Government intrusion into the market. The market should be allowed to determine what lives and what dies

What the hell do you think Greenspan did? Jesus fucking christ, that was his *entire policy*! And now what does he say? "Oh, sorry, I assumed self-interest would be enough for businesses to protect shareholders, but... I guess not." Translation: people are douchebags, and leaving the market to regulate itself is a recipe for disaster.

Mark my words, this disaster will see the end of popular support for libertarian economic ideals, for at least the next decade. And rightly so, IMHO.

The current economic situation is not the result of deregulation and "libertarian economic ideals". For starters, the government has had its grubby hand in this mess long before Hoover tried to suspend wages (ironically enough, Hoover's administration has been accused of a failure of laissez-faire economics) and has continued mucking around in it:

• The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977 has encouraged lenders to give credit to surrounding communities, particularly low and moderate income neighborhoods.
• The outpooring of federal money into companies such as AIG is anything but a hands-off policy. Look at how AIG is spending its newly acquired money, they're holding expensive parties at posh resorts. What a perfect use of government regulation and intervention.
• On that same note, the money from the $700b bailout was intended to buy up depressed mortgages but we're now learning that many banks are looking to expand and acquire other institutions with the money or, simply, hold on to the money. Banks aren't the only ones looking for action though, as Insurers, automakers and American subsidiaries of foreign banks are all lobbying the Treasury for a piece of the pie.
• Libertarians were harping on Fannie and Freddie back in 2003, knowing that it could lead to a problem in the housing market. This problem, is attributed to government intervention.
• Sarbanes-Oxley was supposed solve the most pressing problem at the time: accounting fraud. The SEC had its budget doubled, new laws imposed stiff fines and lengthy prison times were threatened. However, legislators were behind the curve and new problems emerged precisely because of our regulating authority's encouragement of unsound banking practices. This demonstrates that, no matter what, Government cannot foresee the future and will always be behind the curve in regulation.
• And then there's the Fed, which, with its low interest rates and steady supply of new credit, encouraged the housing boom.

America has never fully tested libertarian ideals in the economy, but has a history of criticizing them for government failures in the economy. Government has proven its inclination to reward private-sector failure with its 85 billion bailout of AIG. Bailouts, reregulation, and tax increases are not the solution; such measures are the root cause of our current crisis. The American public must come to recognize the true nature of our current problems in order to avoid further deterioration of our liberties.

Yeah, maybe it wasn't the greatest idea for us to elect a former heavy drinker and cocaine user, the now-infamous George W. Bush.

I'm so glad we don't have a candidate who's done that running this year...

Except we do. And according to many of the polls, that seems to be the new road to the White House.

"So, how long before I can use my OpenID to post on Slashdot?"

So how long before governments require OpenID to eliminate internet anonymity?

Given that the government has been pumping the idea for a while that somehow terrorists are "recruiting" online in places like Second Life , not long at all.

From the first article:

It is certain that virtual reality is doing real damage with intelligence, recruiting, fund raising and the spread of Islamic extremism. This assault may start with bytes, not bullets, but American generals will tell you, its a hot war all the same on a battlefield called "jihad.com."

Asked if the Internet is training up new battalions of those young people, Custer tells Pelley, "It's a self-fulfilling prophesy thats exactly what the jihadist Internet is there to do."

So in the name of protecting your freedom and liberty from terrorism, and protecting the children from the "jihadist internet", OpenID will become required to access any site worth accessing. That way terrorists can have their OpenID revoked, and your "freedom" is saved. It's very convenient, and besides, you have nothing to hide, right?

I'll be voting my values instead of who I decide that I can tolerate. Too bad more people didn't do that ...

Or maybe the problem was that too many people did. After all, one of the major deciding issues in both 2000 and 2004 was "Who would you rather have a beer with?" You can't get much more values-oriented than that.

Last Sunday's Doonesbury was a good comment on the topic, tying in the "Joe the Plumber" campaign meme. Google for it if that link doesn't work for you.

This story comes from the guy doing the Tasering, not from the child being Taser'd. Weight the evidence accordingly.

From the Anchorage Daily News (reporting on the formal investigative report):

In his interview with troopers, the stepson said it hurt for about a second, according to Wall's report. The boy said he wanted to be tased to show his cousin, Palin's daughter Bristol, that he wasn't a mama's boy. The probe left a welt on his arm, he said. His mother was upstairs yelling at them not to do it, the boy said.

http://www.adn.com/politics/story/476430.html

There is some dispute as to how much it hurt the boy, but all parties in the incident seem to agree on the general outline: the kid wanted the father to do it. The dad maybe shouldn't have done it, but the kid got at most a little bit of temporary pain. This is all quite contrary to the original implication, which holds that Wooten is a monster who tasers the crap out of kids.

Palin, as governor of the state, is essentially the CEO of the state. State employees technically work for her. She felt the PSC wasn't doing his job and removed him. If he'd been dragging his heels on a case like this I'd have fired him, too

But she didn't fire him because of Wooten! She fired him because of something else. Then it was something else. I think along the way he was being too helpful to rape victims or something. The reasons kept changing. In any case, let's be clear about this whole "Wooten is CEO and can do what she wants line". There are strong limitations on what the governor can do with regards to state employees.

... With each of the calls, Monegan became more concerned and warned each caller about exposing the state to litigation from Wooten. Monegan told Tibbles: "This is not your issue. This is something I am supposed to handle. Every time we talk about this, it is discoverable. Do you want this trooper to own your house?"

Basically the guy who "wasn't doing his job" wasn't doing it because he was concerned he was breaking state law and exposing the government to massive liability. Which /is/ his job to avoid.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/30/AR2008083002366_3.html?hpid=topnews

And Al Capone was sent to prison for tax evasion because that's the only thing the government could get on him. Doesn't mean that Capone wasn't guilty of far more heinous things the government couldn't get a solid case on.

Al Capone was a murderer and criminal. Wooten's rap sheet includes things like misusing cellphone time and shooting a moose without a permit (apparently the permit was in his wife's name and she asked him to pull the trigger). He once said something threatening about his father-in-law, which was truly nasty but doesn't make the guy into a monster.

But let's forget about the pesky details. The simple fact is that Sarah Palin has a lot of baggage beyond this one thing. So much baggage that more than 55% of those polled cite her as the reason they're not voting for McCain. She gutted the "inexperience" argument they'd built against Obama over many weeks. For whatever reason you choose, she's a lousy candidate to have on a ticket that wants to win. McCain's people should have done enough research to figure that out and stayed the heck away. Now they're going to lose the election and have nobody but themselves to blame.

Wow.. And if you would have put a little effort in this, you wouldn't have come out looking like an idiot. We aren't talking about Delegates dumb ass. We are talking about the Super delegates. That aren't the same.

Here are some articles concerning the super delegates that we are talking about. There are/were in 2008, 842 super delegates that had no obligation whatsoever at all to any primary or caucus results. There were 796 unplugged super delegates when Dean made them chose over a risk of losing their voice at the convention. After Dean made his declaration, they _told_ Hillary to stop campaigning when Obama reached the number of delegates required. However, seeing how 441 of Obama's delegates where super delegates and by DNC rules had until the convention months later to decide, Hillary could have easily convinced some of them to goto her camp and Obama wouldn't have gotten the nomination. There is no guarantee that she could have but the rules said that the risk to Obama and the challenge to Clinton should have been there until the convention at the end of August when the votes where counted and if she could have convinced enough of the super delegates to vote for her, she would have had the election.

You cannot deny that. It is fact and hiding behind regular delegates as if your acting ignorant of the facts doesn't make you right or correct. As a matter of fact, rule 9a and 9b speak specifically of the super delegates and their roles in the very links you provided. Of course they listed them as unpledged party leader and elected official delegate as well as add on delegates but I assumed that since you were taking a stand on them that you know this or at least had the wherewithal to google for super delegate in which one of the first pages would have told you about this. I also like the way you think it is perfectly ok to punish democrats of a state that is controlled by republicans who change the timing of the election. That's a bit like citing the passenger of the car for speed and driving without a license because the driver got the ticket. But in the case of preferring Obama, I guess it is worth it, right? And no, I'm not making this up, after the penalty to Michigan and Florida for something that the democrats in the states had no control over, you find that they still favored Clinton over Obama. In fact, the results in Florida was 33.5 Obama to 52.5 Hillary and in Michigan it was 29.5 Obama to 34.5 Hillary. Now if you remember, they cut the delegates in half for Michigan and Florida so Hillary should have gotten 105 in Florida and 76 in Michigan and if the full count would have been listed, Hillary would have had 87 more for a total of 1983.5 which is only 135 below the minimum needed to win. When Dean made his demands, about 320 super delegate votes where up for grabs and some of the already committed super delegates have already switched pledged alliances. Deans own words were The party "cannot give up three months of campaigning and active healing time,"

Don't whine about the political slants of the sites either. I did a simple google search and those are the sites that came up. I'm not getting paid to educate you and I'm not going to invest the time to do it past what is easy for me. You can find the same information on other sites from going deeper into the google search or by even useing a different

Don't blame the CRA, it only prohibited red-lining (denying a loan based on geographic area rather than individual credit rating), and only applied to banks, not independent mortgage companies.

The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) applied to banks, mortgage companies, and other lenders. Read what the Boston Fed was telling lenders about it...stuff like "Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor...In reviewing past credit problems, lenders should be willing to consider extenuating circumstances. ". There also was the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Fair Housing Act.

Let's also not forget the FHA zero-downpayment program.

Don't blame Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac either. They weren't the ones making the loans.

But they did buy or guarantee nearly $400 million of Alt-A and subprime mortgage investments. At a conference in spring 2005, Fannie Mae Executive Vice President Thomas Lund warned about the danger to borrowers, asking, "Are we setting them up for failure?"

Besides the desire of the GSEs to get into the >80% LTV loan secondary market on pure profit grounds, they were also pushed by Congress. For example, see Schumer Unveils New Freddie Mac Plan With HSBC That Includes Low-Interest Low-Downpayment Loans.

Ironically, it was the repeal of the section of the Glass-Steagall Act (passed in response to the depression) which strictly separated banks from securities firms (to help assure the stability of banks) which exacerbated this mess and resulted in such massive failures.

No one has explained to me how this has changed the situation - "unified banks" have actually done a better job recently weathering the storm compared to banks with no investment side or pure investment banks. And they did better during the Great Depression as well. Glass-Steagall came from a war between the Morgans and Rockefellers rather than any actual data.

No honest person can say that government entities or regulations were "the cause" of the recent credit crisis, but certainly many regulations, Congress (in a bipartisan fashion), and the GSEs were on the side of "affordable housing" and "creative underwriting" for political profit, just as much as the private sector was in it for the monetary profit.

that depends on which European country you're talking about.

and it's not just an issue of advertised speed. it's an issue of quality of service--bandwidth caps, overselling, traffic throttling/shaping, packet monitoring & other usage restrictions. and all of these ultimately tie to _value_, which is what we need to compare.

we don't need to be faster than everyone else or as fast as Japan and Korea. that's not what i'm arguing. but we shouldn't be paying more for less. Japan is far and ahead of the U.S. because their government has focused on developing this vital infrastructure through government subsidies and technology initiative. in the U.S., we tax payers are still subsidizing the ISPs & telecoms but we're not getting anything out of it because our government cares only about business interests.

even BusinessWeek puts us at #16 out 46 surveyed countries. even countries like Lithuania, Latvia, and Slovenia are doing better than U.S. in terms of broadband quality. but more importantly, if we are to be a technology leader, or just continue to be relevant in the information age, we need more competitive broadband pricing. the current business model used by U.S. ISPs is basically preventing our broadband infrastructure from being upgraded in step with growing demand.

the blind greed of corporations is not driving technology forward. it's ever-growing consumer demand that is usually the driving force behind technological progress. but now ISPs are trying to suppress that demand by villanizing power users and manipulating internet usage. not only that, but the lack of industry regulation means ISPs can abuse their monopoly to artificially inflate broadband prices, thereby further manipulating bandwidth usage/demand economically.

Though I've long admired Amazon's EC2 platform, Spamhaus evidentally considers it a hive of spammers.

Well, of course, haven't you read the terms of use. They've got this great section on indemnification where they wash their hands of any responsibilities from their users.

I could see a really bad pattern of someone approaching Amazon with claims of spamming and Amazon saying that they notified the user of improper behavior and that they are not liable for it.

Thank god they claim you shouldn't be able to do this though:

4.2. Restricted Uses Generally.
4.2.1. You may not interfere or attempt to interfere in any manner with the functionality or proper working of the Services.
4.2.2. You may not compile or use the Amazon Properties or any other information obtained through the Services for the purpose of direct marketing, spamming, unsolicited contacting of sellers or customers, or other impermissible advertising, marketing or other activities, including, without limitation, any activities that violate anti-spamming laws and regulations.
4.2.3. You may not remove, obscure, or alter any notice of any Mark, or other intellectual property or proprietary right designation appearing on or contained within the Services or on any Amazon Properties.
4.2.4. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, you may generally publicize your use of the Services; however, you may not issue any press release with respect to the Services or this Agreement without our prior written consent.

So really you should see these things get fixed ASAP. Should. I bet spammers are just as good as avoiding being shutdown at EC2 as they are anywhere else.

Though I've long admired Amazon's EC2 platform, Spamhaus evidentally considers it a hive of spammers.

Are you ready for the inevitable conspiracy theory? Here it is, cooked up between my wife and myself after discussing the implications of renewing our passports shortly.

The problems are actually a feature. Let me explain. Remember how the old Soviet-bloc countries didn't like their nationals traveling because they would see how much better the rest of the world was? (Don't get me wrong, I like it here just fine.) Well, if everyone who hears about this says "I guess I won't be traveling any time soon", it effectively stops travel (usually by the intelligentia) all the while allowing the govt to say "We have no travel restrictions on our own citizens".

Of course, all this is nonsense. Our current administration would never feign incompetence to obtain other goals. Yet there's plenty of other information that suggests there's no tom-foolery about this and that the incompetence is real.

So in short, I'm not sure which it is, but the bottom line for me is that I'm waiting until the last minute in the hopes that some of the recommended features are implemented by then.

I took a look at at the statistics from Iraq Body Count and these seem to corroborate. Note however that the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count states that "Actual totals for Iraqi deaths are much higher than the numbers recorded on this site. ".

I haven't actually been following the whole situation lately, most of my knowledge stems from mid 2007, but there are still some critical voices. For example, take a look at this documentary by a Iraqi journalist with the Guardian from March who investigated U.S. claims concerning the success of the surge. In the beginning of the video concerning Baghdad he states: "It has been transformed into a city of walls.".

Note the following footage from before the invasion in 2003.

That might give you some more insight into the some of the reasons behind the statistics. There are a couple of more videos that I know of. Though note it was a while ago that I saw these, but I believe the information it offers is still quite important.

Such as the following short news report from March 2007, a quote:

"Here in Anbar province America cannot defeat Al-Qaeda with the troops it has, so it's turned to the tribes. Baathists and nationalist insurgents of the Salvation Council. Virtually contracting out parts of the battle against Al-Qaeda to tribal fighters. The deal is simple America gives local leaders free reign as long as they root out and kill Al-Qaeda."

Another (more lengthy report) aired on the September 2007 edition of People & Power, a news program by Al Jazeera English. It's made available through YouTube, Part I and Part II..

Here's a transcript from one of the interviews with some sort of local leader:

Q: Which tribes signed the agreement today?
A: The Tamimi, Zobai, Al Obeidi, Al Jumeilli, Fallahi.

Q: How many of the tribes were once involved in fighting the Americans?
A: Your time is up. It's $100 for an extra minute.

And the introduction from Part II:

"In defending its Iraq strategy the Bush administration increasingly points to success in turning Sunni tribes that fought an insurgency against them into allies in combating Al-Qaeda. Embedded with the U.S. military filmmakers Rick Rowley and David Enders witnessed the strategy and practice at first hand. They discovered that Shiite populations are paying the price for the peace that now reigns in areas where the Sunni insurgency once raged. And that sectarian hatred can still easily erupt as they found out after rushing to the scene of a car bombing with the U.S. 7th Cavalry Regiment."

Note that the sheik interviewed in the video (but not the one I transcripted above) and apparently portrayed by the U.S. as a key figure in controlling the tribes was assassinated shortly after arriving in Iraq.

Also I'm not sure if Angelina Jolie was amazed, her article in the Washington Post uses words such as "positive" and "hopeful". Amazed might be too strong of a word in this case.

I'm interested in your comments.

You forgot "at taxpayer expense".

Spraying this stuff into the atmosphere won't do anything to fix the growing acidity of the oceans due to CO2 uptake, and might allow us to continue that kind of pollution longer. That's bad news for corals and shellfish.

Chemical weapons, handed to him by Rumsfeld

Yes, and China is threatening the USA with weapons handed to them by Nixon, right?

If you read a bit of recent history, you would realize that Iraq was armed by the Soviet Union. The US offered some gestures of conciliation to Iraq after Iran suffered the Islamic revolution, but Saddam was always a Soviet puppet.

Iran demonstrated the capability to make similar weapons but emphasized that use of WMDs even in retaliation to enemy's action is against religious principals.

(I suppose you mean religious principles). Muslim religious principles are very mixed, they don't have a Pope to declare what is acceptable or not. The Quran has both commandments that can be interpreted as "death to Israel" and commandments that say that Jews and Christians should be respected because they worship the same God as Muslims. There are political leaders, religious leaders, and generals in Iran that would be happy to make peace with Israel and the USA, there are others that would be happy to annihilate Israel and the USA.

Now you are suggesting that Iran would nuke the second most sacred Islamic religious site after Mecca in a suicidal mission?!!

Actually, the second most sacred Islamic religious site is Medina, but I guess you are right, they wouldn't bomb Jerusalem, their third holiest site. Can't say the same about Tel Aviv and a number of other Israeli cities, though...

And where in my post did I say anyone was denied emergency treatment based upon their ability to pay. The person I helping could have paid for surgery in cash. But, the facility lacked a staff doctor capable of performing the surgery. (Actually given the size of the hospital it's more likely none of the staff physicians were willing to perform the surgery. Why? I don't know.) When we did find a specialist, the condition was treated at that facility.

What was the point of bringing it up in the way you did then? Obviously, both of you had sufficient medical coverage, you simply didn't have the facilities around. This has nothing to do with John McCain's plan or opinion of your coverage. In fact, it had nothing to do with your coverage at all if this really was the case.

That is true. And since she was not bleeding at a rate the would have killed her immediately, apparently the staff felt that, apart from a large amount of pain, she was capable of finding a specialist capable of treating her condition on her own.

The law says she can't get worse. It isn't enough to simply slow it down. They have to make an effort to stop it from getting worse. Bleeding out is getting worse, unless they were putting as much blood in at the rate it was going out, they weren't in compliance.

Yes, they are. But, provided you aren't going to die in the next hour or so, and are conscious, they apparently don't need to locate a facility or a treating physician for you. The staff members in California hospitals have learned not to waste time on activities that don't generate revenue. If the patient had wanted another $75 Tylenol, I'm sure the staff would have provided it.

Yes, they do have to locate the facility. The law states that if they can't handle the problem, they have to transfer you to somewhere that can. The law also states that you either have to be stable enough for the transportation or that the condition makes it necessary against being stabilized. If what your saying is true, they violated the law and this reflect nothing on either candidates positions or opinions of the health care system or coverage. What would you expect McCain to do, amend the law saying "we really mean it"? Anyways, if they violated the laws, they are subject to penalties as well as civil awards.

And don't think for a minute that the hospitals aren't gaming the system by making sure ambulance companies properly "judge" the location of the nearest "capable" emergency room based upon the "condition ($$$)" of the patient. When that doesn't work, hospitals will close emergency rooms to make sure that they don't have one near the patients in "severe condition". Those patients need to go to the county hospital.

Hospitals get special tax breaks for treating the poor. They are allowed to charge up to 4 or 5 times what they would charge an insured person and then deduct the entire amount as a loss. This is something that happened at the hospital that Barack Obama's wife worked at where she got a promotion and huge salary increase after he got elected to the state senate and pushed a grant for the hospital through. Although this is illegal and actually closing an emergency room is grounds for a lawsuit. I think your relying too much on TV hyperbole but I did find a recent study citing 75 California hospitals to have been in violation of the EMTALA laws. You do understand that no matter what laws are made, if someone breaks the law, it isn't a reflection of any of the current political candidates views.

Blithering stupidity is best dealt with by wide exposure.

Turns out that that is not the case.

The difference is that people are, for whatever reason, absolutely terrified of W. A Democratic congress refused to even censure him for anything he's done. And he's done a lot that's wrong - just ask Dennis Kucinich. You'd think after the whole Bill Clinton impeachment fiasco they'd be dying for some payback. But they didn't go for it. Why?

Dick Cheney can shoot someone in the face, and what happens? The victim goes on TV and makes a public apology. For being shot in the face.

This administration is absolutely terrifying. And everyone is afraid of them. That makes a coup possible. Improbable, sure. But not impossible.

Again, I'm pretty certain I'm worrying over nothing, as you suggest. However I'm not 100% certain. I just want 1/20 to come and go as quickly as possible so I don't have to worry about it anymore.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/14/AR2008101403343_pf.html today was also fairly interesting to read, even though it does lack (references to) some background info needed to fully understand the impact..

What would happen to a politician that challenged the media? They would be torn apart in the press.

Palin, anyone? But why would the media support Obama at all costs? Why, did Pelosi promise the media a new Shield Law? Or is it that Obama is outspending McCain 3 to 1? Elections sure is good for bid'ness.

Exactly what is proof of that? Can you provide any evidence? Which email(s), *specifically*, are you referring to as proof? Or are you just pulling this out of a bodily orifice? To my knowledge, there isn't any evidence that Palin either used her Yahoo email account for official State business, or used the official government email system for non-State business.

Were you saying that you wanted something?

While that may be an article reporting it - there is something that caught the attention of the judge to require them to retain them.

See this one for the updated discussion.

Note that you ARE expected to prove this. Let's see you provide a link by a credible source that they exist first.

Fine. Here's a link. You can find dozens more with a quick Google search.

And if Obama will stoop as low as anyone else, that's not a good sign at all. What would his response to 9/11 have been ? Nuking Mecca ? After all "it's all the same", right ?

You have to do better than the other bastards. "The same" is not good enough, and "basically the same as the rumours" is an abomination.

That's kind of the point. There's really no story here on either side. They both want to refute claims made by the other side. Given the ads that are running now, that's pretty understandable. That's all either one of them has said they will do. You're trying to turn it into a conspiracy.

you can hide the micro sd card in your cell phone behind the battery

They search cellphone as well as laptops: Kamran Habib, a software engineer with Cisco Systems, has had his laptop and cellphone searched three times in the past year.

or inside the laptop, where even Mr. Xray wont notice it. There are a lot of un exciting places to hide that most tiny of cards without raising even the slightest suspicion

They're willing to confiscate not just laptops but cellphones, mpg3 players, and other electronic gadgets as well. If they're willing to take one thing they can take other things also.

Falcon

Hard to sniff out sd cards, tho. Heroin/explosives have chemical signatures

But can those chemical signatures be detected when the heroin or explosives are in your stomach?

SD cards presumably just smell like every other bit of silicon.

Which can be searched. Kamran Habib, a software engineer with Cisco Systems, has had his laptop and cellphone searched three times in the past year. Once, in San Francisco, an officer "went through every number and text message on my cellphone and took out my SIM card in the back," said Habib, a permanent U.S. resident. "So now, every time I travel, I basically clean out my phone. It's better for me to keep my colleagues and friends safe than to get them on the list as well. " Homeland Security can seize electronics indefinitely".

Falcon

Searches of laptops at border crossings for information, not explosives, are no myth, according to this "story". Business travelers are taking precautions to avoid interference with the conduct of their business because of this situation.

Perhaps that's the sort of thing the GP was referring to.

Yes well, THANKS for that stereotype that we're all rootin-tootin-shootin cowboys and all. It's completely false, but thanks for playing.

Meanwhile, in the UK you guys are sooo safety conscious that you've even banned certain dog breeds for being too dangerous. (BTW, did you know that only ONE of former football player Michael Vick's fighting pit bulls that were seized had to be put down for being too vicious? And one is now a licensed therapy dog?) Then you've put cameras everywhere. If it's all that safe, why do you need all the security cameras? And if someone breaks in to your home, you're at their mercy because it's illegal to shoot the burglar.

Meanwhile (from 2004), violent crime is up 14%

Thanks mate, but I'll keep my dogs (which include 2 Rottweilers) and my handgun safely tucked in the nightstand. I'd rather be able to be alive and show the police the body of a criminal I shot when he kicked the door in than cower in the bathroom with the phone or hope the police can locate my killer or attacker with their surveillance cameras.

Read the linked article. She was using a Yahoo account for official business. Just not the account that was hacked.

And you need to re-read it. It doesn't say she has more than one Yahoo account. She has a personal Yahoo account and the official, government account. Two accounts, only the personal one is on Yahoo. The reporter also makes the unproven allegation, "Palin routinely uses a private Yahoo e-mail account to conduct state business. Others in the governor's office sometimes use personal e-mail accounts too."

But later in the article they admit they don't know what's in the emails. So they don't know what emails are being sent and if those emails are inappropriately being sent via a personal account or vice-versa--there are emails she's not supposed to send on her government account too. And it's not illegal to have a personal email for personal business. So the idea the reporter can claim she's conducting state business on her Yahoo account is bogus. It's an unfounded accusation.

There are 2 Yahoo accounts that are being discussed. gov.palin@yahoo.com which is the one that was personal and got hacked, and gov.sarah@yahoo.com which is what she uses for state business.

From the article:

As far as McLeod can tell, all but one of the e-mails to the governor used her private e-mail address. The one time an aide e-mailed the governor's state account, he was reminded not to.

"Frank, This is not the Governor's personal e-mail account," an assistant to Palin wrote to Bailey in February.

"Whoops~!" Bailey responded in an e-mail.