Slashdot Mirror

The product you are referring to is called Accurint. It was developed by Seisint, which was aquired by LexisNexis. It is restricted to US law enforcement. More here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50577-2004Jul14.html

I think this link might explain it - I guess it was a little sensitive to the government: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/02/AR2007100202031.html

Since that link is from late 2007, I don't think it is the relevant case.

I think this link might explain it - I guess it was a little sensitive to the government: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/02/AR2007100202031.html

If that is really the case, and you're not just accidentally ingesting more calories or burning fewer than you think, then you might be one of these lucky bacteria holders.
Of course the article makes it sound like every overweight person could just blame bacteria, but in fact it's rare. But you never know, right?

To me, this smacks of typical left-wing "All corporations are evil, let's get 'em" mantra.

At least you've made your biases clear. But again you've got it all wrong: Traditional conservatives are as upset (if not more) by warantless wiretapping than "typical left-wing" types. The people upset by this are those few who still take civil liberties seriously; and even if you're not concerned by the ramifications on civ-lib, this cover-up reeks of corruption. It should piss you off that telcos can buy their way out of jail so easily.

The VIA requires about 17W of power to chug through MP3 encode, for about 460 seconds. That means the power supply had to deliver 17 * 460 = 7,820 joules.

Now the Atom crawled along 30% slower, about 600 seconds to complete. But it only needed a delivery rate of 4 J/s, so it ate 2,400 joules.

And now for the elephant in the room: Why are you encoding MP3s while you're running on batteries?

The normal workload for an ultra-portable running on batteries is not producing MP3s. Its outputting static screens to a beamer during a presentation, or surfing the "series of tubes" via the local WiFi spot between classes (or waiting for the plane). If you've got numbers or MP3s to crunch, save it for when you've got the thing plugged in, silly!

Assuming the average CPU loading is going to be a paltry 2-3% (essentially idle), you're looking at a very capable system using an average of somewhere around 61W vs. a less capable system using only 56W. The difference in battery time between those two is barely significant, which makes the increased potential performance of the Nano a big win in my book. When plugged in, the Nano is a passable desktop replacement. The Atom, not so much.

That the two major parties serve this function is why you generally never see minor parties win any elections beyond the local level, because if you aren't either a Democrat or a Republican, you don't get the media time and the campaign donations and the political support that it takes to win major elections.

This is blatantly off-topic and I'll happily accept the modding down this is going to get, but if third parties in the US would run candidates who didn't turn themselves Smurf blue from drinking too much colloidal silver or allow racist tripe to be published in newsletters under their own name for almost 10 years, they would do better at the polls and perhaps even win some races.

Funny that. With the exception of rape-fantasy porn, they look like they're having a good enough time on camera. Are you suggesting that despite sticky mountains of evidence to the contrary, porn performers really *ARE* good actors/actresses? So skilled at acting that they can fool anyone into thinking they aren't being raped!?!?

Also. Please cite your references.

Also, The post you quote wasn't about the merits of porn as it relates to performers or adults. Nor is it about completely illegal, and I think all here would agree abhorrent, kiddy porn. It is about the supposed "dangers" associated with children witnessing adults having sex, And the grandparent claims children have died because of other peoples' religious beliefs while none have died from watching porn. As far as I know, this is true.

Below are two examples of children who died this year in the US because of their parents religion. They would have lived if given any medical care. I challenge you to cite one reference of a child losing his/her life as a result of *viewing* legal adult pornography.

Kara Neumann: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/DiabetesResource/story?id=4536593&page=1
Ava Worthington: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/04/AR2008040403314.html

humans have a price, 5.1 million dollars if I remember right, according to the US government.

You are referring to this recent bit of news. The current official figure is, actually, about $7.22 million (you don't remember right).

However, it is not set by the US government — the government simply researches, what "we the people" are willing to do (how much they are willing to spend, rather) to avoid risks to our health/life. For example, an American, wishing to travel from New York to Boston, can take either a train (about $100 one way) or a bus ($15). The highway vehicles are inherently riskier, but much cheaper. The number of people taking them anyway gives an idea, how much "an average Joe" is valuing their own life.

By combining various such examples it is possible to come up, with the cost, that's used to determine, for example, whether a particular public policy is worth the expense. See the linked article for more — it discusses both the concept itself and the (usual) condemnations of the current administration for "cooking the books"...

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/microsoft_openid_five_key_takeaways.php, also: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2007/02/microsoft_to_support_openid.html, and http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/302830_msftopenid08.html

"If the Air Force is in charge, then you've got the beginnings of a military state on your hands."

From what I've read recently the wheels have been falling off the Air Force for a while. That's a reason why Gates fired the Air Force Secretary and the Chief of Staff, the cililian and military chiefs of a service have never both been fired at once in history. They've had major breakdowns in controls on nuclear weapons, including flying a set of armed cruise missiles cross country by mistake and delivering secret warhead parts to Taiwan by accident. There was something about a corrupt $50 million dollar contract for some Thunderbirds shows that was thrown to a retired 4 star general through cronyism, etc. If you can't maintain discipline in controlling nuclear weapons it tends to indicate you can't maintain any discipline at all and this might be indicative of that.

They've also been accused of largely taking a pass on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the "War on Terror" in general at least since Shock and Awe ended. You get the impression the brunt of its fallen on the Army, Navy and Marines. I'm sure their are Air Force personnel serving honorably in those places but I gather they have been extremely resistant in adapting to the low intensity warfare which is most warfare these days. In particular Gates wanted them to put more resources in UAV's and to supporting troops on the ground with intelligence, like spotting people infiltrating borders of Afghanistan and Iraq for example. From Newsweek:

        Getting more UAVs in theater, Gates said recently, has "been like pulling teeth."

Apparently the Air Force will only allow UAV's to be piloted by pilots and pilot availability is slowing deployment of UAV's to the war zones. As I recall the Army gave up in frustration and is developing its own UAV's now. I suspect Air Force pilots want to be in the cockpit of gold plated fighters and bombers(there is a next gen secret bomber under development apparently) and not sitting in a trailer someplace flying a UAV look for guerrillas. They are still arming and training to fight a Soviet Union that doesn't exist any more.

I've often wondered if they extent to which the Air Force Academy has been overrun by born again Christians hasn't had a negative influence on the officers ranks in the Air Force. You have to wonder if the officers are rising through the ranks based more on their willingness to pray the same as their fellow officers instead of on their qualifications and ability to their jobs. I wonder if officers who are spending all their time praying together are reluctant to discipline their fellow church members.

It could also be the corruption that seems to have been the hallmark of the Bush administration has infected the Air Force like every other branch of government under the control of the executive branch. America made a pretty serious mistake electing Bush and it remains to be seen if it proves to be a fatal mistake that it may not recover from.

"If the Air Force is in charge, then you've got the beginnings of a military state on your hands."

From what I've read recently the wheels have been falling off the Air Force for a while. That's a reason why Gates fired the Air Force Secretary and the Chief of Staff, the cililian and military chiefs of a service have never both been fired at once in history. They've had major breakdowns in controls on nuclear weapons, including flying a set of armed cruise missiles cross country by mistake and delivering secret warhead parts to Taiwan by accident. There was something about a corrupt $50 million dollar contract for some Thunderbirds shows that was thrown to a retired 4 star general through cronyism, etc. If you can't maintain discipline in controlling nuclear weapons it tends to indicate you can't maintain any discipline at all and this might be indicative of that.

They've also been accused of largely taking a pass on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the "War on Terror" in general at least since Shock and Awe ended. You get the impression the brunt of its fallen on the Army, Navy and Marines. I'm sure their are Air Force personnel serving honorably in those places but I gather they have been extremely resistant in adapting to the low intensity warfare which is most warfare these days. In particular Gates wanted them to put more resources in UAV's and to supporting troops on the ground with intelligence, like spotting people infiltrating borders of Afghanistan and Iraq for example. From Newsweek:

        Getting more UAVs in theater, Gates said recently, has "been like pulling teeth."

Apparently the Air Force will only allow UAV's to be piloted by pilots and pilot availability is slowing deployment of UAV's to the war zones. As I recall the Army gave up in frustration and is developing its own UAV's now. I suspect Air Force pilots want to be in the cockpit of gold plated fighters and bombers(there is a next gen secret bomber under development apparently) and not sitting in a trailer someplace flying a UAV look for guerrillas. They are still arming and training to fight a Soviet Union that doesn't exist any more.

I've often wondered if they extent to which the Air Force Academy has been overrun by born again Christians hasn't had a negative influence on the officers ranks in the Air Force. You have to wonder if the officers are rising through the ranks based more on their willingness to pray the same as their fellow officers instead of on their qualifications and ability to their jobs. I wonder if officers who are spending all their time praying together are reluctant to discipline their fellow church members.

It could also be the corruption that seems to have been the hallmark of the Bush administration has infected the Air Force like every other branch of government under the control of the executive branch. America made a pretty serious mistake electing Bush and it remains to be seen if it proves to be a fatal mistake that it may not recover from.

There are pictures in the link in the OP

Yes, I'm sure you are kidding but those charges are related:

• List of controversies
• That showed a huge crack of light a year ago.
• And people are connecting the dots between election fraud and manipulation of justice.

For those of us already in our 30s, we'd be over the hill in 10-12 years.

It's much more likely that we'd be end up more like Captain Jackson, Zetaman, Captain Prospect or some other "real life superhero"

Well, the real life superheroes are actually pretty neat. They do good deeds, have fun doing it, and try to inspire others to relax and do the same. Volunteering in a costume sounds like fun!

For those of us already in our 30s, we'd be over the hill in 10-12 years.

It's much more likely that we'd be end up more like Captain Jackson, Zetaman, Captain Prospect or some other "real life superhero"

If the Dems piss me off one more time though, all bets are off.

How many times has it been already, uhm?

In the 1990ies Clinton's campaign wore the patience of some supporters with talking about "Change" too much... "Clinton/Gore. For people, for a change." . He took office promising more change, only to strongly disappoint its most vociferous supporters immediately after.

And today's Democratic candidates? One's very motto is "The change we can believe in"... And the other selling herself as "an agent of change". And you keep falling for it...

And, oh, look — the boy-wonder from Chicago, whose first profession was "community organizer" (whatever the heck that means) — is all but nominated by your party. With "change" — the emptiest promise — being his "inspiring" slogan. Eeww...

Even ancient historians describing earlier events have noticed, that plebs leans to change for the sake of change — however useless or outright dangerous the proposed change may be... "One more time," — you said? Yeah, right...

If the Dems piss me off one more time though, all bets are off.

How many times has it been already, uhm?

In the 1990ies Clinton's campaign wore the patience of some supporters with talking about "Change" too much... "Clinton/Gore. For people, for a change." . He took office promising more change, only to strongly disappoint its most vociferous supporters immediately after.

And today's Democratic candidates? One's very motto is "The change we can believe in"... And the other selling herself as "an agent of change". And you keep falling for it...

And, oh, look — the boy-wonder from Chicago, whose first profession was "community organizer" (whatever the heck that means) — is all but nominated by your party. With "change" — the emptiest promise — being his "inspiring" slogan. Eeww...

Even ancient historians describing earlier events have noticed, that plebs leans to change for the sake of change — however useless or outright dangerous the proposed change may be... "One more time," — you said? Yeah, right...

Unfortunately, the question is: what happened to them.

What's going to happen to you when you say 'No'?

You lose out on lucrative government contracts?

Flip-Flopping is saying that you strongly support public campaign financing during the primaries to get votes and then changing to say you want private financing after you receive those votes

Yeah, I hate the way McCain flip-flopped on public financing - first he was for it and agreed to it, then decided to unilaterally withdraw (a move that the Republican appointed head of the FEC said was against the rules and is probably illegal) from it when it became convenient.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/21/mccain.fec.ap/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022103141.html?hpid=topnews

That was terrible.

Or were you referring to Obama, who said that he'd work to come to an agreement with the McCain campaign on them both taking public financing, and that they subsequently didn't come to an agreement? Oh, wait - that's not a flip flop, that's just something not working out.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91703936

Ooh, here's a good quote from that one:

"It's not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections," Obama said in a video message e-mailed to supporters. "But the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who've become masters at gaming this broken system."

Earlier, Obama had said he would participate in public financing if his Republican rival, Arizona Sen. John McCain, did the same.

Huh. So, he said that he supports for public financing, but that it's broken as is, and that he'd participate in public financing if McCain did the same. Which McCain did at first, till he decided to withdraw, which the FEC chairman says he's not allowed to do.

I'm not going to continue because I trust in your ability to decipher several other flip-flops.

I have no trust in your ability to do so, particularly given your fondness for bold assertions given no evidence.

This guy is an amazing loon. Seriously, he makes Jack Thompson look sane.

From Washington Post (as linked in above summary):

On July 16, for instance, he filed a complaint alleging that the
Mossad, the CIA and "Larry King Live" conspired to "hijack my torso, three toes,
and my constitutional rights and ship them to a secret headquarters in Concord,
NH," as well as inserted microchips and "dashing my hopes." He accuses Larry
King of being "a voodoo witch doctor who stole my identity on February 25th,
2003 and purchased lead paint, Chips Ahoy!, Planter's Peanuts, and Ziploc bags
under my identity. Distributed them to the CIA to microwave test my
DNA."

Can't find words..

How will we know when we hit peak oil? The day we drill ANWR & American coasts we'll have hit peak.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/14/AR2008071401049.html

...but I happen to believe that most, if not all...

Hey, believe whatever you choose to believe.
Your inability to handle reality demonstrates the true worth of your comment.

GONZALES: There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force. I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force.

Using the Wing Nut Daily as a source doesn't help your argument any, but thanks for making your neocon shill credentials so clear.

I will use a similarly biased web site (although it has a slightly better truthiness reputation) to rebut your claim: thinkprogress.org

Here is another article about the Sandy Berger incident, from a slightly more reputable news source. Note how right wing propagandists like to say that Berger "stole" or "removed" classified documents from the Archives, when he actually took home COPIES, which was still a big legal nono, but the difference in argument is typical of how neocons like to misrepresent facts.

Next time you try and put out neocon propaganda, I suggest making sure your statements can't be rebutted by web sites which show up on the first page of a Google search. You'll be able to fool more people that way.

I'm totally done with the Democrats now.

I used to vote for democrats exclusively

No, I have never voted for a Republican -- and I doubt I ever will

So going back to my original statement that there is a chunk of the electorate that automatically votes Democrat (you used to be one of them), there is a chunk that automatically votes Republican, and there is a chunk that bases their votes on the issues (which you now seem to be a member of, though taking both Democrats and Republicans "off the table" suggests otherwise). That last chunk is the only group in play in the general election. Clearly during the primaries, the other two groups demand the most attention. Of course complicating things during the primaries is that middle group again, who can often instigate mischief (that is usually my approach since often there is one candidate in the "other" party that terrifies me more so than there is a candidate in the party that I plan to vote for excites me).

As to figuring out what the "50th percentile positions" would be, that's pretty easy. Just listen to what both the candidates are saying now -- their polling has told them what that position is. Stay in Iraq until the country is stable (Obama is tacking to this position as I write this), ban so-called partial birth (aka late term) abortions (Obama is also tacking "to the middle" on this one http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/07/obama_backs_late_abortions_on.html, do not privatize social security (McCain is moving to the center, coming out against it now), ending the off-shore drilling ban (McCain has boldly jumped to this position after being staunchly opposed http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/16/AR2008061602731.html). I didn't look up what they are saying about the mortgage crisis, the so-called Bush tax cuts or Global Warming, but rest assured, whatever they are saying is what the polls say most people *in the middle group* believe (today). And remember, that distinction (in the middle group) is crucial because, as I've said multiple times, the other two groups are basically "in the bag".

By the way, I stumbled across a really good site when looking for links for this post: http://www.pollingreport.com/index.html

Software Update Prompts Nuclear Plant Shutdown

Software Update Prompts Nuclear Plant Shutdown

A nuclear power plant in Georgia was recently forced into an emergency shutdown for 48 hours after a software update was installed on a single computer.

The incident occurred on March 7 at Unit 2 of the Hatch nuclear power plant near Baxley, Georgia. The trouble started after an engineer from Southern Company, which manages the technology operations for the plant, installed a software update on a computer operating on the plant's business network.

The computer in question was used to monitor chemical and diagnostic data from one of the facility's primary control systems, and the software update was designed to synchronize data on both systems. According to a report filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, when the updated computer rebooted, it reset the data on the control system...

rest at the URL which has a link to full article

Assuming that control systems run 100% isolated is nothing more than an assumption.

Republicans get voted in, usually, on Conservative principles and then betray those principles once they hit DC. Conservatives aren't forgiving of their representatives that do this. In the 2006 election, they let their representatives lose.

Oh, give it a rest. When Bush strode into office and was flying high, he was the second coming of Reagan. When his Norquistian policies bore bitter fruit, suddenly No True Conservative could be so unpopular.

In reality, that mandate to end the war was not the case. Congress could have cut funding to the war, and if the mandate were true, would have suffered little backlash from it.

They could have cut funding. They would have enjoyed popular support for doing so. Reasons why they didn't range from (at the cynical end of things) that Democrats are just as bloodthirsty a party of warmongers seeking global dominion as Republicans, or (at the less cynical end) Democrats are so inexplicably scared out of their wits whenever a Republican threatens to call them unpatriotic that they can't help but give the opposing party everything they asked for and more, or maybe they're just as out of touch with the people of this country as you are. (See following paragraph.)

Most people support the war

"Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war in Iraq?" As of about two weeks ago, the war's approval rating is only slightly north of the President's, and is hovering around the proportion of Americans who think that Saddam Hussein personally plotted the 9/11 attacks.

The war is not popular, and has not been for some time now. I can't imagine how you got the idea that the majority of Americans think the war was a good idea.

(Oh, and the war certainly was the defining issue of the 2006 elections.)

Here are just a few highlights from Barack Obama's career as a US Senator: specific pieces of legislation, what they meant and how they were passed.

The Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act

Introduced by Sen. John McCain in May 2005, and cosponsored by Sen. Edward Kennedy. Barack Obama added three amendments to this bill.

While the bill was never voted on in the Senate, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Acts of 2006 and 2007, respectively, drew heavily upon the wording of this bill.

The Lugar-Obama Cooperative Threat Reduction.

Introduced by Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. Dick Lugar and Sen. Tom Coburn.

First introduced in November 2005 and enacted in 2007, this bill expanded upon the successful Nunn-Lugar threat reduction, which helped secure weapons of mass destruction and related infrastructure in former Soviet Union states.

Lugar-Obama expanded this nonproliferation program to conventional weapons -- including shoulder-fired rockets and land mines. When the bill received $48 million in funding, Obama said, "This funding will further strengthen our ability to detect and intercept illegal shipments of weapons and materials of mass destruction, enhancing efforts to prevent nuclear terrorism."

Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006

This act of Congress, introduced by Senators Obama and Coburn, required the full disclosure of all entities or organizations receiving federal funds in FY2007.

Despite a "secret hold" on this bill by Senators Ted Stevens and Robert Byrd, the act passed into law and was signed by President Bush. The act had 43 cosponsors, including John McCain.

The act created this Web site, which provides citizens with valuable information about government-funded programs.

Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act

This law helped specify US policy toward the Congo, and states that the US should work with other donor nations to increase international contributions to the African nation.

The bill marked the first federal legislation to be enacted with Obama as its primary sponsor. Following this legislation's passage, Obama toured Africa, traveling to South Africa, Kenya, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Chad. He spoke forcefully against ethnic rivalries and political corruption in Kenya.

Honest Leadership and Open Government Act

In the first month of the 110th Congress, Obama worked with Sen. Russ Feingold to pass this law, which amends and strengthens the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995.

Specificially, the changes made by Obama and Feingold requires public disclosure of lobbying activity and funding, places more restrictions on gifts for members of Congress and their staff, and provides for mandatory disclosure of earmarks in expenditure bills.

The House passed the bill, 411-8, on July 31. The Senate approved it, 83-14, on Aug. 2. At the time, Obama called it "the most sweeping ethics reform since Watergate."

Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act

Following the Republican-sponsored voter intimidation tactics seen in mostly black counties in Maryland during the 2006 midterm elections, Obama worked with Sen. Chuck Schumer to introduce this bill.

The bill has been referred to the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Obama said of the bill, "This legislation would ensure that for the first time, these incidents are fully investigated and that those found guilty are punished."

As I went through the thread, thinking high level thoughts about the nature of politics and my reaction to Obama's vote, I got completely thrown off by your comment... She IS friggin' hott! http://blog.washingtonpost.com/achenblog/kucinich%20and%20wife.jpg

Unfortunately, there are many seemingly well informed Christians who believe that Wiccan = Satanism and make it their mission to oppose both. Only last year, the Veteran's Administration finally relented and allowed the Wiccan star to be placed on grave stones of soldiers. Despite recognizing 38 other faiths, they refused for almost a decade to recognize Wiccan.

"McCain, campaigning in Pittsburgh, was absent for the vote. The senator from Arizona has now missed three straight months of votes on the Senate floor, his last vote coming on April 8 on an energy amendment."

And then there's the fact that roughly 50% of the market browsing with Internet Explorer is still using an old version.

News report.
The Study.

Did not happen to USENET back in the day and won't happen now.

USENET certainly did change in architecture over time. Once a full feed was over 10 Mbps, most small ISPs backed off many of the alt.binaries.* groups. I worked for a company that delivered about a DS-3 of USENET feed over satellite, but even that did not survive.

Today you have a much smaller number USENET servers rather than every ISP having its own full feed. Sprint, Verizon and Time Warner have dropped alt.*.

No, the Government is not above the law. Please do not stop in the Bush droppings.

If you are ordered to do something illegal in the military, you are not held responsible. The OIC is held responsible because there is recourse for not following orders. The same goes for the government. If the government says, "Do this or else." You basically do it. Its considered extenuating circumstances.

Get your liberal Bush hating head out of your ass. We get it, you don't like the guy. Not very many people do like him. Now STFU and go read a book.

The Government broke the law by making the telecoms break the law. The government should be held responsible. Leave the telecoms alone - we don't need to give them any more reason for them to raise prices on us.

The problem is, giving the telecomms immunity without a deal that they will sing like canaries when asked is a bold faced attempt by Bush and company to bury whatever evidence the telecomms might have on him.

Or do you still believe, despite evidence to the contrary, that this warrantless wiretapping only started AFTER 9/11?

Actually, Wilson didn't totally debunk it. At least not in his report concerning his trips. He simply stated that it is unlikely to have been true but also claimed that Saddam sought to meet with Niger about expanding economic relations in 1999. That in and of itself is not a debunking but an opinion about a set of events put in a historical context. In fact, Wilson used stronger language in in his editorial efter the president talked about it then his report handed to the CIA.

Other governments have debunked it- not Wilson. Wilson was correct in his sentiment and final disposition but he didn't even use strong language in pointing it out. Look at the report, it has been declassified. I can under understand your misconception though, all sorts of claims about Wilson that have turned out to be lies and half truths have circulated over this.

He's dead and his people are liberated. Helluva a victory! Just like Hitler won WWII...

Hey brainiac, good way to miss the point. He's dead, his people are FAR from 'liberated' - hundreds of thousands more of them have been killed than while he was in power and the violence and curfews are much worse now than they were before.

Furthermore, he caused the US to throw away most of our political capital and trillions of dollars of actual capital. He's dead, but how many Americans are suffering because of the shit economy the war's deficit spending has brought upon us? And what did we gain in return? As far as I can see, nothing of value at all.

Hitler didn't do anywhere near as much damage to the US as Sadam did with his lies.

. Can you name ONE person who thinks that it was Iraq behind 9/11?

Uh yeah I can and furthermore, so did 69% of Americans after the invasion. You are just wrong dude.

Most of your Center for Public Integrity quotes are intelligence failures, not lies.

Deliberately picking and choosing the intelligence you wish to emphasize in order to arrive at a predetermined outcome is not an intelligence failure.

What is your point?

Bush did not make an argument about Yellowcake that Saddam had. He said he was buying more... which ... was...a... LIE.

BULLSHIT.

The lying was done by Joe Wilson, who, you should note, has studiously avoided having all his and his wife's claims actually HEARD in a court of law:

Plame's Input Is Cited on Niger Mission
Report Disputes Wilson's Claims on Trip, Wife's Role

    Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly.

Wilson last year launched a public firestorm with his accusations that the administration had manipulated intelligence to build a case for war. He has said that his trip to Niger should have laid to rest any notion that Iraq sought uranium there and has said his findings were ignored by the White House.

Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.

The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.

Saddam was trying to buy more. You can just ask Joe Wilson, who told the Senate that Iraq tried to purchase yellowcake from Niger in 1998 and 1999.

Wilson said that a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, was unaware of any sales contract with Iraq, but said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq -- which Mayaki interpreted to mean they wanted to discuss yellowcake sales. A report CIA officials drafted after debriefing Wilson said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to UN sanctions on Iraq."

According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998.

more...

Well, then I'm also selling water-free water for places that have water shortages. Just add 1 cup of water to the device and you will have an entire cup of water that you can drink!

I am not making this up: according to a recent Washington Post story, "Desalinated seawater from Hawaii, meanwhile, is being sold as `concentrated water' -- at $33.50 for a two-ounce bottle. Like any concentrated beverage, it is supposed to be diluted before drinking, except that in this case, that means adding water to . . . water."

Actually, yes you can, when the instruments are in the hands of a musician who is capable of bringing out the best in his/her instrument.

Good job on proving his point. Whether you meant the player can tell the difference, or the listener *given* an expert player, the fact is, even when citing an example of someone who can genuinely tell Stradivarius from the others, you can only point to cases that are a few miles from double blind.

It's the EXACT SAME BULLSHIT as all the other stuff audiophiles try to cite as making a difference, or the pretense that certain works count as "art" while others don't, or the claim that certain wines or beers are better than others. It falls apart in any genuinely scientific test, and is purely a function of the BIAS the audience brings in. It pains me to see /.ers recognizing this phenomenon everywhere but here.

About a year ago, Joshua Bell, a "good" violinist brought in his own Strad to play for the busy DC commuters, and got virtually no attention, despite his music + violin being about the apex of artistic achievement. We saw the same rationalizers come out of the woodwork for that too. Somehow most beautiful sound civilization can produce, just doesn't suffice to make people want to be a few minutes late for work, but the motivated searchers here have a ready list of reasons to dismiss the experiment, don't you worry.

You want to know why the mystery of the Strad's awesomeness hasn't been solved in a hundred years? Because science can only attack problems susceptible to objective, quantifiable study and can generate reproducible results.

My thoughts exactly. Luckily, Brian Krebs at the Washington Post wrote about this in his Security Fix blog.

Pants man begs to differ. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2007/06/pants_verdict_judge_stuffs_the.html

Progress is slow when new medicine is constantly under attack and being made...

illegal: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/19/AR2006071900524.html
'sinful': http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7287071.stm
and unteachable: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080627-louisiana-passes-first-antievolution-academic-freedom-law.html

Why do you keep getting modded as flamebait? I don't think you merit a negative moderation.

Expanding on your topic: you don't need to be brutal and ruthless. You just need to be good at finding loopholes (and being able to take advantage of them, AKA, have money). It's a system where the more money you have, you get to keep yet more of your money.

Here's an article from last year:

Warren E. Buffett was his usual folksy self Tuesday night at a fundraiser for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) as he slammed a system that allows the very rich to pay taxes at a lower rate than the middle class.

Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent.

BTW, if you're not familiar with how it works, deductions figure in *before* your tax rate. So, he likely has a much higher gross income, a delta that is likely much greater than his secretary's gross to taxable income.

If we go to a flat tax, there are two problems:
1) We will have to cut most of the budget. While many will jump for joy at this initially, it means that most basic services will be limited or scrapped. It will certainly idle a huge percentage of our military. And people don't stop to think that our Interstate system is *for* the military... Forget that, most of it will be cut too. States can't even maintain their own bridges (do I need links for this?), how would this be done without federal money without closing most bridges too. There won't be subsidies either, but guess what? Every industry gets subsidies, and would immediately tank without them. People don't seem to have any idea that cutting gov't spending on such a monumental scale means that every company is affected.

OR

2) We will have to raise taxes to an obscene level on the poor. Requiring poverty level people to pay 30-40% in taxes will bankrupt them. They don't have the left over funds! Rent, gas, food, and utilities are inelastic. They simply cannot go without. And they can't afford the membership at Costco or the amount of money it takes to buy bulk (or the space to store it properly). Asking them to move is pure comedy. Where will they get the money? And where will YOU get a laborer who will work for minimum wage?

This is high school economics, not even college level.

Here's what it really boils down to: people want a tax cut and damn the consequences.

Funny. When they wanted to put the fence along the Mexican border on the fast-track to completion, they managed to find a way around environmental regulations for that.

Where is the accountability for this kind of thing? Is it a matter of the information not being readily available, or is it just that people don't bother to do the research and find out just who is lining their leaders' pockets?

While the issue of campaign donations is interesting, it would help to listen to what the Democratic leadership has actually said about their motivations.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/19/AR2008061901545.html

The war spending bill, for example, includes $162 billion for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and an additional $95 billion worth of domestic spending on programs such as unemployment insurance and higher-education benefits for veterans. Bush, who had threatened for months to veto the legislation, said he will sign it.

Leading Democrats acknowledged that the surveillance legislation is not their preferred approach, but they said their refusal in February to pass a version supported by the Bush administration paved the way for victories on other legislation, such as the war funding bill.

The Democratic leadership traded de facto telecom immunity for increased veterans benefits & increased unemployement payouts.

They literally allowed their votes to be bought by the Republicans.
AND it was their strategy all along.
/Shame

1997 after Dunblane. Yes, you lot have been seriously restricting guns for decades, which is why the USA had to send you guns to help you fight WWI. But you can google for the effects of your latest insanity.

Seriously, it's like opening the pens and putting bells on your sheep:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/23/AR2007042301794.html

I'm extremely dissapointed in the democratic leadership that they haven't had the guts to stand against the whitehouse on this crap, which would have avoided this position in the first place.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/19/AR2008061901545.html

The war spending bill, for example, includes $162 billion for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and an additional $95 billion worth of domestic spending on programs such as unemployment insurance and higher-education benefits for veterans. Bush, who had threatened for months to veto the legislation, said he will sign it.

Leading Democrats acknowledged that the surveillance legislation is not their preferred approach, but they said their refusal in February to pass a version supported by the Bush administration paved the way for victories on other legislation, such as the war funding bill.

The Democratic leadership feels that increased veterans benefits & increased unemployement is more important than rejecting de facto telecom immunity.

The Democrats are literally allowing their votes to be bought by the Republicans.
/Shame