Slashdot Mirror

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/30/AR2008093002699_pf.html

The Yahoo inbox posted on the Internet contained family photos, notes from well-wishers and official state correspondence on pending legislation. "She had a number of personal addresses," said John Bitney, a former close aide who was fired by Palin. "I don't know why so many."

I'm not American but if I were, I'd be furious about how much taxpayer money is wasted in Iraq. Especially if I read this and this and then did the math. Such figures should of course be taken with a grain of salt but nobody can dispute that a number of manned missions to Mars could've been funded with the same money. Obviously I'm not in a position to tell the US how to spend money but am quite sure that many Americans agree that there would've been much better options than the Iraq war. I must also say that I think it's a shame that we Europeans haven't contributed as much as the US has to space exploration and I would personally donate some money to a (credible and realistic) space mission - completely regardless of which nation it was - if such an option was available (and said mission recognized that it was funded by others too).

I'm sometimes curious as to what "news" Fox is covering on their morning show as compared to everyone else. While CNN, MSNBC, CNBC et al are covering the falling markets, what each campaign is doing, comments and the like, Fox is covering the dirty tricks of Ohio and how the Democrats are trying to steal the election.

What dirty tricks you say? The fact that people can register and vote on the same day for a one-week period. Now, as Fox spins it, this opens the door for fraudulent voting and other dirty tricks since there was a big push to register voters and have them vote on the same day.

Mind you, Fox didn't say word one when the head of Diebold made his infamous statement because after all, that wasn't a dirty trick nor even the appearance of a dirty trick.

So have no fear, Fox will report all the dirty tricks the Democrats attempt to pull.

I cannot find a single reference to the Gary Weiss book, but seeing as how I just read about his book in the Michelle Singletary column in the Washington Post, this deserves mention. His book is Wall Street Versus America: a Muckraking Look at the Thieves, Fakers and Charlatans Who Are Ripping You Off.

Perhaps he has a reason in this game of chicken?

Supposedly, Singletary intends to have him on her webforum on Oct 23.

(And as far as I'm concerned, the bailout is a very cleverly performed confidence game)

I've been using a computer since I was a kid, 25 odd years now. I can't write. I don't believe I ever really learned it.

That's pathetic. Your parents and grammar school teachers should be caned.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001475_pf.html

The neurological process that directs thought, through fingers, into written symbols is a highly sophisticated one. Several academic studies have found that good handwriting skills at a young age can help children express their thoughts better -- a lifelong benefit.

There was an article in last Sunday's Washington Post that described one house on the market after a foreclosure. The article was very instructive about what was really going on. The entire financial mess is a result of the gambling casino mentality of the derivatives market moving over into housing and mortgages. The mentality of the derivatives market was allowed to exist and continue as a result of financial market deregulation.

Many financial experts, most notably Warren Buffett, the Sage of Omaha, have for years warned that there are derivatives nobody understands and that they will cause trouble. Based on the article, it is clear that we now have mortgages nobody understands and derivatives on those mortgages that nobody understands, either. Derivatives in the form of "portfolio insurance" caused the stock market crash of 1987. Since then there have been several occasions (such as Long Term Capital Management) in which derivatives threatened to collapse the world financial system. Well, they've done it again.

The article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/27/AR2008092702587.html
describes how the homeowner was solicited to refinance her home and took the bait. The interest rate was a teaser. Over a year into the
mortgage she discovered that it was a "negative amortization loan" where the principal increases every month. The transaction probably came nowhere near compliance with Truth in Lending laws. It is shocking that such a piece of financial garbage exists. However, Wall Street wanted mortgages to feed the highly profitable derivatives market and there was a lot of pressure to produce the mortgages, no matter how.

The article doesn't cover what happened next, but the mortgage was likely bundled into a collateralized mortgage obligation that likely had
credit default swaps written on it. Here are some relevant Wikipedia links:

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_(finance)

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

It turns out that many of the derivatives are really side bets on prices of financial securities, and that the total outstanding value of the derivatives often exceeds by huge factors the total outstanding value of the securities. Furthermore, the derivatives are highly leveraged.

According to a recent program on NPR's This American Life there are about 4 Trillion in bonds and about 60 Trillion in derivatives betting on whether the bonds will pay off.

In the absence of strict regulation, the "free market" becomes the Fraud Market. This mess can be laid squarely at the feet of financial deregulation and Fraud Market Conservatism. Adam Smith's "unseen hand" doesn't work. The financial markets are much more in keeping with Charles MacKay's book "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds". This has been proven over and over, and is now being proven once again.

One part of the eventual cleanup will need to be a shutdown of the derivatives casino. Some of these financial instruments are valuable to
producers and users of real commodities, but most of them need to be eliminated. Whatever remain need to be understandable and should not be
side bets. Eventually, the tails will stop wagging the dogs.

If you want to go into guilt-by-association

Nice try, but the association of the candidates with "corrupt former CEOs" of federally-subsidized lobbying/lending institutions was the first topic you opened as an example of liberal media bias. I only disproved what you said about that topic, with a few pertinent counterexamples.

Ah yes, the Gramm-Leach-Biley law, signed into law by Bill Clinton. Innuendo on your part does not prove any misdeeds on the part of either Gramm or McCain.

I will not take your "Bill Clinton" bait. Gramm-Leach-Biley was a bad bill, and everybody who supported it was wrong to do so, including the self-described "social liberal & fiscal conservative" who was too little of both for my liking. Now, back on-topic, what "innuendo"? Once you introduced the subject of associations of candidates for President with "corrupt former CEOs" of federally-subsidized lobbying/lending institutions the cause of the current financial crisis is 100% apropos. If you have honestly had trouble understanding why my references to Gramm are rebuttal, not diversion, you are an utter moron. The press is right to highlight that scumbag's track record of prioritizing corporatist gluttony over citizens' liberty and the general welfare.

If you think I'm mistaken, that's one thing. If you think I'm deliberately misleading people, that would be a case of lying. You have demonstrated absolutely no evidence to back up your assertion that I'm lying.

Incorrect. You first asserted that the relatively brief press scrutiny of Barack Obama's associations with the two peripheral [to the Obama campaign] supporters, former adviser Johnson, and supporter-of-no-proven-status-whatsoever-in-the-campaign Raines, demonstrate the tired old GOP gripe of a "liberal media bias" in comparison to the relatively long intervals of press scrutiny of McCain's ongoing employment of Rick Davis as his campaign manager while "Davis's lobbying firm, Davis Manafort, also received monthly payments of $15,000 from Freddie Mac as recently as August." Unequal treatment of similar cases would indicate bias, but as I have already explained, and you have not disputed, the unequal scrutiny of the two candidates' associations with "corrupt former CEOs" of federally-subsidized lobbying/lending institutions is due to dissimilarity, not to bias. Now pay attention. I did not waste my time on your tangents about media commentary about racism in McCain's ad about Raines nor about the sex ed program to include "age appropriate" instruction in avoiding pedophilic predators. I went straight to the crux of your whining, "that Obama had 2 corrupt former CEOs of Fannie as economic advisors, one of which was [briefly] the head of his VP search committee. We didn't hear about that until McCain ran ads about it. And then, did the media focus on the story?" Obama promptly severed those two ties, to Raines and Johnson, as I have already explained. McCain was more scrutinized, true, but not because of media bias. He continues to be suspect as a result of his continuing employment of Rick Davis, as vivid summary of McCain's 26-year-long record of unwavering support of voodoo economics: the superstition that in high finance, rule of law equals government abuse of the rights of the wealthy, when in fact it is the valid purpose of the United States government as set forth in its charter documents, protection of the rights of the individual against tyranny, whether by government itself or powerful private parties. To Gramm and McCain and their ilk, "unregulated free markets" are the euphemism for anarchy, dominance by the powerful and lazy, financially elite

Captchas alone don't solve the problem, but maybe combined with some kind of behaviour blocking, or add more human/machine detection (i.e. sometimes require an answer to be able to send the Nth email) after the account was created could make things a bit less profitable for spammers.. Or other kind of solution.

I'd say it's dark about 11/24 of the time on average.

11/24 == one half for a greater portion of the US than any other industrialized country!

Probably along the lines of this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/07/AR2006040701972.html [washingtonpost.com]

The picture this arcticle paints leads me to believe that proof is optional in the arrest, charge, convict process.

Probably along the lines of this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/07/AR2006040701972.html

Here's the Washington Post take on the vote:

"It's no coincidence then that of the 205 Members who voted in support of the bill today, there are only two -- Reps. Chris Shays (R-Conn.) and Jon Porter (R-Nev.) -- who find themselves in difficult reelection races this fall. The list of the 228 "nays" reads like a virtual target list for the two parties."

Source: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/09/the_failure_of_the_financial.html?nav=rss_blog

The Fannie Mae CEO in the ad that McCain linked to Obama was not associated with Obama's campaign. They had like one conversation before Obama even started running. He was black though. And since James Johnson the (white) head of Obama's VP Vetting committee had closer ties to Fannie Mae, it made no sense for them to try to pursue this tenuous connection when there was a much closer one there. Some people saw this is racism, but Obama never said as much.

McCain's campaign has Fannie Mae's former head lobbyist (Aquiles Suarez) and many others with much more direct connections, so his charges against Obama are pretty lame and he's lucky that he didn't get called out more so be careful what you wish for.

Let's take a deep breath here. No need to go name-calling without cause.

We can argue over how bad/close the association with Franklin Raines is. But note that the Washington Post stood by their reporting, and even Raines is not denying, that Raines took calls from the Obama campaign to give advice on "general housing, economy issues".

Once the furor erupted, they were quick to distance themselves from each other, and say he was never an official advisor. I couldn't care less whether he had an official status. If they're asking for the opinions of a shady character like Raines, that says something about their judgment.

Re: James Johnson, it's true he wasn't fined millions like Raines. But neither is he a paragon of virtue. The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight found that when he was CEO, Fannie improperly deferred millions of expenses, allowing Johnson to reap a 1.9 million dollar bonus he otherwise would not have received. Either he knew about that (in which case "corrupt" is apt) or didn't, in which case he was simply asleep at the helm. Take your pick.

Take, for example, the Fannie/Freddie debacle. Consider that Obama had 2 corrupt former CEOs of Fannie as economic advisors, one of which was the head of his VP search committee.

The truth is that although Jim Johnson was a CEO at Fannie Mae before becoming a leader of Barack Obama's VP search committee, he has not been convicted of any crime, but Obama accepted Johnson's resignation from the Presidential campaign anyway. In June, you hypocrite. Jim Johnson has also not been even accused of any crimes, just smeared for being associated with a corporation which operated in the lawless environment introduced by Gramm-Leach-Biley. Compare to Carly Fiorina, who was personally responsible for making a mess out of Hewlett-Packard. Johnson didn't sign Gramm-Leach-Biley into law. Measured by stock price, Fiorina was, in the eyes of the investors with enough previous financial success to determine stock prices, personally responsible for Hewlett-Packard's problems. If we're going to spend $700 Billion bailing out the country's wealthiest investors, we had better trust their judgment enough to uphold their verdict on Carleton S. Fiorina: as toxic as a portfolio full of foreclosed mortgages.

Former Fannie Mae executive Jim Johnson, who was a leader of the vice presidential search committee for presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama, resigned from that unpaid position today amid criticisms that Johnson represented a world of influence and special interests that stood in stark contrast with what Obama's campaign purports to stand for.
...
"We don't need any lectures from a campaign that waited fifteen months to purge the lobbyists from their staff, and only did so because they said it was a 'perception problem,'" said Obama campaign spokesperson Bill Burton.

And Franklin Raines was never any kind of adviser to Obama at all.

The Obama campaign issued a statement by Raines on Thursday night insisting, "I am not an advisor to Barack Obama, nor have I provided his campaign with advice on housing or economic matters." Obama spokesman Bill Burton went a little further, saying in an e-mail that the campaign had "neither sought nor received" advice from Raines "on any matter."

[If Raines offered Obama advice that was not sought, a lying sack of excrement might argue that Obama nevertheless "received" that advice, but unless that advice was the basis of subsequent action, we use the colloquialism that the advice was not "taken," thus anybody describing Raines as an advisor to Obama is a lying sack of excrement.]

Unless you have proof that Raines' statement above is a lie, you committed libel by asserting that he had ever been one of Barack Obama's "economic advisors."

So what evidence does the McCain campaign have for the supposed Obama-Raines connection? It is pretty flimsy, but it is not made up completely out of whole cloth.

99% cloth, but not completely whole cloth. The "supposed Obama-Raines connection" is not quite pure fabrication by the same standard that the statement "you are a violin" has a basis in fact, when addressed to a person calling itself "Stradivarius." The only connection to fact is extremely tenuous, and we all know that the statement "you are a violin" is a falsehood. Your accusation is no more honest, just less humorous.

McCain spokesman Brian Rogers points to three items in the Washington Post in July and August. It turns out that

John McCain is NOT in favor of torture.

Yes, he is. He voted against a measure that would forbid the CIA to waterboard suspects:

Republican presidential front-runner John McCain bluntly called waterboarding "torture and illegal" Wednesday morning, again challenging the Bush administration's defense of a harsh interrogation tactic that makes prisoners think they are drowning.

But later the same day, McCain cast a vote against Democratic-sponsored legislation supported by anti-torture advocates that sought to ban waterboarding and other coercive tactics by the CIA.

That's why he cosponsored a bill to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac far more strictly in 2005. If the Democrats hadn't blocked that bill, the companies wouldn't have melted down.

Garbage. And how did poor minorities drag down Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers and AIG? This problem was caused by deregulation and greed, not FM/FM. FM/FM are symptoms of the disease, not the cause.

Of course, if the Democrats hadn't blocked that bill, they wouldn't have been able to give so much to Democrats in campaign contributions.

If you're referring to the wingnut talking point that Obama received donations from FM/FM, that talking point is a lie. He's received donations from employees of FM/FM, not the companies themselves - big difference.

I'm on sqaforums.com, and 99% of the threads posted there are n00bs from India asking people to do their job for them. It seems a high percentage of people there don't want to learn on their own and figure out things.

Your statement is a numerical fallacy. You cannot make judgments about a percentage of "people there" when your sample consists of a self-selecting Internet "help" message board, and "there" contains more than three times as many (in 2005) engineering grads than the States.

A few days ago the Washington Post had a pretty interesting discussion/interview with Elon Musk, the CEO/CTO/founder/funder of SpaceX. Some juicy tidbits, which are even more exciting in the context of today's launch success:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/09/24/DI2008092402502.html

Washington, D.C.: If and when you manage to get all the Falcons and Dragon up and running, what's next? Further incremental improvements on these or something more revolutionary? Also, where do you stand on the value of the various X-prizes (and equivalents)?

Elon Musk: Still a long way to getting *all* the Falcons and Dragons flying. We need to get F1 to orbit for one thing :) Then F9, F9 with Cargo Dragon, F9 with crew Drago and F9 Heavy. My interest is very much in the direction of Mars, so a Mars lander of some kind might be the next step. ...

Stillwater, Minn.: Mr. Musk, first of all, I've been following SpaceX via your website since before Flight 1, and I hope to join you all someday (I'm an undergrad ChEg at Notre Dame). Talk about the inherent advantages of your rockets over those designed by Lockheed Martin and Boeing (reusability, smaller size = significantly smaller cost, redundancies on the Falcon 9, etc.)

Elon Musk: The full answer for why SpaceX is lower cost is too long for this forum and I don't like to give soundbite answers if they are incorrect. The cost of a single use rocket is:

* Engines
* Structures
* Avionics
* Launch operation
* Overhead

We are better on every one at SpaceX vs competitors -- by a factor of two vs most international and four vs domestic. That is before reuse is considered, which could ultimately be a 10X or more additional reduction. ...

Cocoa Beach, Fla.: Congress mistakenly took the first step towards extending the shuttle program. Anyone in the know is aware that this is impossible given the cost of re-certification. Why then is this being supported at any level. Why isn't Congress saying anything about privatizing our space effort?

Marc Kaufman: Congress has put up some money for privatizing the space effort, and SpaceX has indeed been the main beneficiary. I think that Congress and NASA are waiting for a successful launch before going more deeply into expanding the privatizing.

Those initial steps taken by Congress regarding extending the shuttle program are a reflection of just how strongly people feel about the five-year gap, during which there are no current clear alternatives to paying Russia for Soyuz transport. Extending the shuttle could close some of that gap, and could also allow some very expensive and promising equipment--now absent from the rest of the shuttle manifests- to be delivered to the station. One grounded, $1.5 billion piece of equipment in particular has become very controversial because scores of institutioins and national space agencies helped pay for it. ....

Urbana, Ill.: Right now you have two rockets based on the same first-stage engine (Merlin). To launch Falcon 9 Heavy, you'll need 27 of those engines to fire simultaneously. Do you have any plans to develop a larger engine in the future so that such clustering is not necessary?

Elon Musk: Yeah, I think there is an argument for a really really big Falcon engine or BFE, as we call it :)

That would be equal or greater to the thrust of 27 Merlin 1C engines. Would be exciting to see that fire! ...

Calistoga, Calif.: Elon, Your business plan emphasis low man power as cost savings method, how does NASA documentation requirements impact your man power requirements? In other words, how many of SpaceX staff are on board solely to deal with NASA

from http://www.project10tothe100.com/faq.html

Q: Why is Google doing this?
A: The short answer is that we think helping people is a good thing, and empowering people to help others is an even better thing.

No. You are doing this as PR. Seriously stop with the BS. You have long ago left behind being a search-engine company, you are CLEARLY an advertising company. I cannot go anywhere on the web these days without being bothered by you (google ads, double click ads..., embedded google analytics on vast portion of the web, google apps embedded in others pages through google API or youtube videos..., references/links to content hosted on google maps or earth or orkut or blogger or knol...,) The web and our information does not belong to you. Now you are taking over advertising on cell phones, games, print, radio media; yesterday I read that you now do ads for Bloomberg TV http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/25/AR2008092502313.html. Now you need to directly control the browser (chrome), OS (android starting with my cell phone) and finance all this with my information. I read a previous statement from google (I do not have link currently) that if we do not like your services use something else, problem is I cannot use much of the web without being forced to use you in one fashion or another.

Really, slashdot once cared about personal privacy and calling things as they are. google mission first line from their mission statement is: "Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." http://www.google.com/intl/en/corporate/ As we have seen that includes EVERYTHING and is rapidly expanding. A few years ago no one would have said it would be ok for some advertising company to data mine their email, contact folder...

Slashdot you the community have let me down and I think I will need to find another place to waste time. I once loved this community as geeks, but I guess those days are gone. I truly miss you.

"But he was an eight-year-old child when Ayers and the Weathermen were active, and any attempt to connect Obama with events of almost forty years ago is ridiculous."

Seems like you're saying "safest" in a relative sense, compared to the other loans. That still doesn't seem like a safe investment, considering the types of loans that were made.

Well, they're not safe in the T-Bill or FDIC sense of the word "safe", but the loans are secured by real estate, and the pools were insured against loss. Obviously in hindsight they were not safe at all, but assuming you are looking for higher returns than T-Bills... In the bond market, that's considered to be a pretty safe investment, hence the AAA ratings. If you think you are smarter than Moody's, feel free to start your own rating agency.

Who creates these loan products that someone with no job and no collateral can qualify for?

It's not as crazy as it sounds. For someone who is self-employed, a stated income loan makes a lot of sense. A self-employed person who makes, say, $100k/year is in better shape financially than a W-2 employee who makes more because that self-employed person is making $100k/yr after tons of deductions. So it may not be easy to document it, but the self-employed person could easily make mortgage payments.

High LTV loans aren't as insane as they sound, either. Neither are Option ARMs. But they are sophisticated products and many people got them who did not comprehend them. Personally, before the bubble burst, I purchased 7 properties using high-LTV option ARMs. But I was purchasing properties that needed significant repairs. While the repairs were being made, I paid the ultra-low negative amortizing payment and used the difference to pay my contractor. When repairs were complete, I refinanced to a 30-year fixed with 70-80% LTVs. I still own the properties and rent them out. The monthly passive income is nice, and when I sell I'll have a nice capital gain. Too bad I can't get option ARMs anymore. They were great while they lasted.

The problem isn't the products. The problem is that people abused them. High LTV products, Option ARMs, and stated income loans all have perfectly legitimate uses, and I have used them all. "Qualifying" unqualified borrowers is not a legitimate use, but I guess I don't need to explain that now. ;)

Seems like the banks that were packaging these things should have known how to price them. How do they manage to create what are, by all accounts I've heard, extremely complex securities, without knowing what they're worth?

Well, it's not up to bankers to set prices. Prices are set by markets. It was the market that didn't know how to value these securities. Currently, I believe they are vastly undervalued. I've actually been buying nonperforming mortgages for the last 2-3 years (although not at the rate that Secretary Paulson seems to like buying them!), modifying the terms so the borrowers can actually afford the payments, and then selling improved the notes for a profit since, as you might imagine, a performing note is worth considerably more than a nonperforming note.

I think Congress would be amazed to see McCain show up for a vote at all, given his record.

Both McCain and Obama have been preoccupied with their presidential campaigns. I suppose it's less critical that Obama be back in Washington since he wouldn't add anything to the debate, and there's a 96.0% chance he'll just vote whatever his party tells him to vote, anyway.

While there is that other Cal Poly in Pomona, the "Learn By Doing" school is indeed the correct one. He's the Director of Cal Poly's Environmental Biotechnology Institute and Unocal Professor of Environmental Studies (more accolades here).

Oddly, his inspiration for brewing beer seems to be convincing his slightly inebriated father to provide money for a movie and a hamburger.

Try http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-called-for-reform-of-fannie-mae.html/ for the initial list making the rounds. Much of it was executive-side trying to get congress to do something, but you're partly right about one thing - congress, as a whole, was ignoring it. However, Dodd, Sanders, and several on the left were shielding Fannie and Freddie from proper oversight.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091102841.html/ helps put it directly at some of the dem senators' feet.

One more. http://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-fannie-mae-five-five-key-players-who-broke-the-system/

And please...argue facts before you argue source here. There's plenty of blame to go around on both sides, but there are several Republicans you CAN'T say stood by and did nothing - that was all democrats.

Try http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-called-for-reform-of-fannie-mae.html/ for the initial list making the rounds. Much of it was executive-side trying to get congress to do something, but you're partly right about one thing - congress, as a whole, was ignoring it. However, Dodd, Sanders, and several on the left were shielding Fannie and Freddie from proper oversight.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091102841.html/ helps put it directly at some of the dem senators' feet.

One more. http://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-fannie-mae-five-five-key-players-who-broke-the-system/

And please...argue facts before you argue source here. There's plenty of blame to go around on both sides, but there are several Republicans you CAN'T say stood by and did nothing - that was all democrats.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A5339-2002Mar22 / http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html
(For example...)

I'll leave your illusioned soul now at rest.

another article: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fasterforward/2008/09/t-mobile_unveils_first_google.html
This unveiling also brought some bad news for Android enthusiasts.
* Neither Google nor HTC nor T-Mobile will ship any sort of desktop-synchronization software with the phone, so your only way to get your address book and calendars onto the G1 will be to upload them to Gmail and Google Calendar. I can't believe that these companies are leaving a function this basic as a "third party opportunity."
* The G1, like the iPhone and T-Mobile's Sidekick, will have its SIM card slot locked to prevent the use of other carriers' subscriber-identity module cards. So if you don't like T-Mobile's network here or its roaming rates overseas, you'll either have to suck it up or hope somebody "jailbreaks" this phone in the same way that hackers have defeated the iPhone's SIM locking.
* The G1 will offer limited compatibility with some of the files you use most often. It will only be able to read Microsoft Office files, not edit them. And while its music player will be able to use MP3, Windows Media and AAC files, you'll need to wait for a third-party to provide some sort of add-on to sync your iTunes library to the phone. And iTunes Store downloads restricted with Apple's "digital rights management" locks won't play on the G1 (though the G1 is no different from other non-Apple devices in this respect; that's why you shouldn't buy Apple's DRM-ed downloads at all when you get the same music as an unlocked, open MP3 from Amazon's MP3 store).
* Its Bluetooth is as limited as the iPhone's. The G1 will initially support only hands-free kits, with "A2DP" stereo-sound output coming later on and, it seems, no plans for file transfer or other, more useful Bluetooth options.

A bit over a week ago Brian Krebs, who writes the "Security Fix" blog in the Washington Post, went public with a number of allegations about Atrivo and its activities. As a result, many of Atrivo's own upstream connectivity providers disconnected them.

Have fun with those conspiracy theories and living in fear, man.

Not that this is likely to reach you, but I don't live in fear. And the Bush administration's plot to invade Iraq by at best heavily spinning and at worst outright manufacturing evidence is not a conspiracy theory, it's a matter of public record.

You don't appreciate what I did for you

I appreciate your desire to serve, and your courage in going into danger to do so. Unfortunately, it's your judgment that lacked. In your desire to "help" me, you participated in actions that caused the deaths of over 655,000 people, wasted hundreds of billions of dollars, and left the U.S. less safe and less free.

So, you know, don't do me any more favors...

If, maybe, somehow, a bit of this reaches you, makes you uncomfortable, starts you thinking, gets you to question whether you were misled; then you might want to check out Iraq Veterans Against the War.

"I saw the screenshots before they were scrubbed and saw nothing that was illegal."

I saw the screenshots before they were scrubbed and saw personal email being used for government business. That is not a joke, it is illegal.

"Search for "Obama William ayers" HERE if you are too lazy to do your own research."

First, if I was too lazy to do my own research then I probably wouldn't Google it, would I? Second, I did just Google it and found this story ( http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_weatherman_connection.html ) which rightly points out that the attempt to tie Obama to terrorism is BS. Did YOU do any research or just repeat the crap handed out by the Republican party? He doesn't have any "ties" to any known terrorists unless your definition of "ties" is they both lived on the same planet.

"You have not shown that Palin is a lying cooked politician."

If she used personal email to do government business then she broke the law. She's not stupid, she could have used her government email address but she didn't? Why? I have a business of my own with an email address associated with it and personal email account and I never mix the two. What would be the point? The only reason to do that on her part would be to avoid having some government related emails archived. She did something illegal and for dubious reasons and therefore she's definitely already on the road to corruption if she's not already there.

Obama did nothing illegal but you're condemning him. Palin did something illegal and you're letting her off the hook. How convenient.

I agree that there was no compelling declassified intelligence that justified going to war with Iraq in 2003. This is the main reason why I (and it sounds like you as well) did not support the attack and occupation of Iraq at the time. But if attacking Iraq was such obvious poor judgment at the time, why did Senate Democrats vote 29-21 in favor of the war?

This is why I'm saying that while it's easy for you, or me, or even an Illinois State Senator to question the judgment of those who voted for the war, how do you explain the Democrats' support for the war?

Here's one to make your head spin: Barack Obama voted with is party 96.0% of the time. His party voted for the war. His running mate voted for the war. His opponent in the primaries voted for the war. Had Barack Obama been a member of the 107th Congress, I believe he would have voted for the war as well. That's just my opinion, but I think it's a reasonably well-grounded one.

Yes, Barack Obama, by mentioning arugula, has shown he is the elitist among the major party candidates.

John McCain, on the other hand, is just chock-full of mavericky goodness and simple values, and isn't elitist at all, despite the fact that he and his wife own a private jet and 8-12 homes on 8 properties (McCain says he doesn't know... it must be hard to keep track), spent $273,000 on household employees last year, and THIS JUST IN: own 13 cars. Oh, and despite McCain's claims that he has only bought American cars all his life, those cars include a Honda, a Lexus, and a Volkswagen, and also in the family is the Prius he boasted about his daughter buying just last year when he was pandering to voters with different concerns.

Oh, and Cindy McCain may have worn a $313,100 outfit on the first night of the Republican convention and said you just can't get around Arizona without a private plane, but trust the people who brought you the Iraq war: she's as down-to-Earth and "simple folk" as they come.

Those "uppity" Obamas, with their one house, on which they got a better-than-average mortgage deal (gasp!) based on Obama's senate income and book proceeds, have one car for the family. And both Obamas paid for their education with student loans, with Barack, who was raised by a single mother and his grandparents, ending up as president of the Harvard Law Review. John McCain, the son and grandson of Navy Admirals, was practically the definition of a legacy admission at the U.S. Naval Academy.

Yeah, that arugula comment really tells the whole story of who's an elitist.

I do agree with the rest tho, he's not your typical presidential candidate.

No, but voting party-line 96% of the time does make him a typical Democratic senator. (Sorry if that sounds like Dem-bashing, but 29/30 of the top party-line voters are Dems. The other is an 'Independant'.) For comparison, Hillary's at 97.2% and Biden's at 96.6%. Even McCain, who 5-6 years ago actually looked kind of like a vote-the-issues-not-the-party senator, is standing at 88.3%.

Change my ass - Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

We're looking at the candidate who has spoken for and stood for change and integrity from before his political career started, and the candidate who has resorted to making bald faced, demonstrably false and misleading lies that in a non-political context would be grounds for a successful slander/libel suit.

Alright, I'll take the bait.

Let's start with the "bald faced, demonstrably false and misleading lies". Perhaps you're referring to Obama's whopper of a lie that McCain wants 100 years of war in Iraq? Or maybe his bald-faced lie that under McCain's plan, Florida's seniors would have lost their Social Security in the recent stock market troubles?

When considering technology specifically, your choices are Obama, who at least understands technology well enough to have created a successful social networking style community site, and McCain who admits he barely even knows how to turn his computer on.

Also not true. McCain's war injuries make typing painful for him (though he can do it), so he usually asks someone such as his wife to serve as his typist. This one got started because McCain has a self-deprecating sense of humor, which to Obama seems to be an invitation to falsely claim McCain can't send email. In fact he does email daily.

We're looking at the candidate who has spoken for and stood for change and integrity

To me, actions speak louder than words. McCain has on numerous occasions risked his political prospects and fought with his own party to achieve bipartisan agreements/legislation on controversial issues. He did it on campaign finance reform, immigration, judicial confirmations, tobacco legislation, and education. As Hillary reminded us, Obama just has a nice speech he trots out periodically. He doesn't stand up to the special interests within his party, nor has he worked in a bipartisan way on any controversial issues. If you want real change, given that the President is not a dictator and must work through Congress, you've got a far better chance under a President McCain than you would with a President Obama.

As others previously posted, there is much more at stake here:
1. She has little understanding of the principles of security protocol and best practices by making it so easy to get into the Yahoo account.
2. It appears she is not using the account for official business beyond providing a cc: for emails that are official, so that she may check them remotely.
3. How does anyone really know what she's using the Yahoo account for, if she's been deleting mail that could cause her trouble, knowing that there had already been attention focused on her for this?
4. This has to stop. When government ceases to operate with accountability, it is no longer being run with the consent of the governed.

Among the e-mails released as part of the records request in June were several from Frye asking a state official whether private e-mail accounts and messages sent to BlackBerry devices are immune to subpoena, then reporting the answer to the governor and her husband, Todd, who also uses a Yahoo! mail address.

Asking if Yahoo accounts are subject to subpoena and relaying the answer to the governor suggests to me that the accounts were not simple private email accounts.

"In what respect" means "In what respect," not "What are you talking about" anyway.

You're probably right about trying to convince each other about the levels of experience of Obama vs. Palin, though.

Now I'm not saying your wrong but I've never heard that statistic before. Back up your claim please.

Yes, it's really true, and I've seen these stats repeated many times (where have you been?) Here's George Will's column where he summarizes some of the statistics.

I guess you're really popular: you were modded "Informative" for saying you had never heard it before. Meh

The other side of this is all the wealthy Democrats (George Soros, Al Gore, etc.) that demand legislation to force everyone to pay higher taxes and conserve energy, but neither seem to have enough self-control to provide an example themselves.

This is going to modded down really quick, isn't it?

Newsflash: Everything about Obama's a fraud. Science just proved it.

In what way?

The same way conservatives believe even more strongly in lies they have been told when faced with facts to the contrary?

But the legislatures would have to be called into a special session, they are off this year. TX Legislative Calendar. If they are called into session, there is no guarantee that they won't flee the state, It's happened before

Obama taught constitutional law for 12 years, and is a staunch supporter of civil liberties. Beyond that, he just seems like a pretty reasonable, thoughtful person.

I've heard a lot of outcry, particularly on slashdot, that he voted for telecom immunity. But as the grandparent noted, that bill was a FISA ammendment, and Obama has since voted twice, on 2/12 and 7/09, to revoke telecom immunity. I don't completely agree with his stance on this, but he did say that he supported the ammendment because it put the power back in the hands of legislation, as opposed to the president's.

Also, as others are noting, Obama's plans tend towards ensuring accountability in the government through the use of technologies which make their actions visible. Specifically, he wants to create publicly accessable databases and websites to display this information. I don't have the same kind of confidence in McCain's ability or desire to do something concrete about this.

Personally, I just think Obama is smart enough to pick the battles that he can win. From what I've read, seen and heard, it's pretty clear to me what his goals are, and I have to say this is the first time I've ever found myself trusting, liking, or agreeing with a politician to any significant degree. I think Obama will do a fine job as president.

let's outsource all our medical needs to another country

already started.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49743-2004Oct20.html

If they're bold enough, the telcos may be able to help push this forward (since they're no longer able to be held liable, all this does it make their customers more comfortable by earning back their trust).

Yeah, right. The government is handing out $100 million dollar checks to keep their mouths shut. One company, QWest, had the balls to turn the money down. And the CEO got fired and sued (in part) for doing so.

One can argue how taxes should or should not be used, but I think we can mostly agree taxes should not be used to redistribute wealth to the wealthy.

Why not? They're the ones paying most of the taxes. It certainly seems more fair than redistributing it to the poor.

Not to say that income redistribution is ever a good thing, but if you're going to do it...

Apparently you missed the part where Obama voted to approve the FISA bill which included telco immunity...

Note, I support neither major candidate in this election. I tend to lean libertarian.

That's funny, every government employee I know (around 10) regularly sends personal mail from their work accounts

The Federal government certainly allows use of government email accounts for personal matters, as long as certain limits are adhered to. It's the converse which is a problem. Any official communication by Federal management is a public record, and preservation of these records must follow the standards set by the National Archives and Records Administration. Even instant messages are subject to these requirements if they are used for official purposes.

Presumably the state of Alaska has similar requirements.

Did the whole business of Rove &c using non-.gov email for official business last year pass you by?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/17/palins_yahoo_account_hacked.html

This is from the Washington Post

"Among the e-mails released as part of the records request in June were several from Frye asking a state official whether private e-mail accounts and messages sent to BlackBerry devices are immune to subpoena, then reporting the answer to the governor and her husband, Todd, who also uses a Yahoo! mail address."

She's screwed. She's using her personal address to ask if here blackberry account can't be subponea'd. It looks pretty conclusive to me that she was doing or planning to do bad things with her personal accounts to keep the courts from getting ahold of it easily. So says the Washington Post, and well, that's about as good as it gets.

Just to be fair, Charlie Gibson had the meaning of the "bush doctrine" wrong.

There are actually a number of "doctrines" from the bush administration over the last eight years, so the question of "in what respect?" is actually pretty appropriate.

Whether or not she knew that it was appropriate, who knows, but she did get the question right.

here's a solid link, but there are many more.

Say an American company did the lead thing. Would you blame the people responsible or the entire nation? Or what if your own government was hiding the levels of lead contamination in the drinking water? Would you blame the people responsible or the entire nation?

Allowed? They do it anyway.

"Judging from the summary, I don't see the issue so long as a warrant from a judge is needed to allow searching the system."

Are you serious? Why would they need a warrant to search their own data?

"I really don't see how one's whereabouts in public are a privacy issue."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/library/dc/dcpolice/stories/stowe25.htm