Slashdot Mirror

Now, not to say that the bill is useless, but major funded programs like Iraq or Social Security don't justify (relatively) smaller programs, especially when the existing system isn't broken

I haven't heard anything about a lack of care for our solders, I don't see what the big issue is.

Passing legislation to create a website for the people to track Federal spending isn't something to brag about?

Passing legislation to keep weapons out of the hands of terrorists is not something to brag about?

Getting lobbying and ethics reform passed is nothing to brag about?

What about his accomplishments in the IL legislature? Do those not count either?

I honestly don't care if you vote for him or not but don't go spreading this crap that he has no track record and no experience. That's just a cop-out and a way to dodge a real debate about the issues and challenges we face.

Passing legislation to create a website for the people to track Federal spending isn't something to brag about?

Passing legislation to keep weapons out of the hands of terrorists is not something to brag about?

Getting lobbying and ethics reform passed is nothing to brag about?

What about his accomplishments in the IL legislature? Do those not count either?

I honestly don't care if you vote for him or not but don't go spreading this crap that he has no track record and no experience. That's just a cop-out and a way to dodge a real debate about the issues and challenges we face.

I think Romney would be a good choice, and is quite likely. I'm totally with you on grid-lock. That's why McCain was my second pick over Hillary originally, up until he said he wants to appoint more judges like Roberts and Alito.

Both Roberts and Alito basically lied to Congress to get appointed. That McCain specifically points to them as his examples of good judges really turns me off. I recently put McCain in 3rd place after Hillary over this issue.

"lets not forget, this is the same country that charges prisoners who have been falsely accused for bed and boarding costs." Not to mention that it's the same country with summary executions on what are basically hunches http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/23/london.tube/index.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/23/AR2005072300987.html

How about a few?

1) The Lugar-Obama Cooperative Threat Reduction
2) Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (check out this site)
3) Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (here's a story about it)

He's had the spine to stand up for himself quite well against the HRC and Republican attack machines. He's also one of the few politicians I've ever seen that can retain some semblance of class while going on the offensive. I rather enjoyed "I honor John McCain for his achievements, even if he chooses to deny mine"

I see weaknesses in every candidate, including Obama. Anyone who doesn't see some weakness in their candidate of choice is a partisan hack.

On balance though I think he has the right combination of intelligence and strength to lead this country. On balance I think that most of his ideas are good ones and he realizes that we can't keep arguing with each other while ignoring the rise of China and India if we wish to remain a global power. His plan to end the war on science and make education a long term priority should appeal to anyone that wants to see the United States remain competitive on the global stage.

Do you think he's stupid? Do you think he's weak? If so I think you are in for a rude surprise.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/2/votes/300/

Man this whole clinton thing is so overdone but here goes

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13173-2005Mar7.html

There wouldn't be a legal problem with any of this if, as you claim, the Boy Scouts of America were purely a private organization. But that's not the case. They seek out and accept public funding for many of their activities, and chapters have even gone so far as to sue the government when it decides to take the moral and legal high ground and stop subsidizing their exclusionary activities.

Now if the BSA were to stop accepting any public money for their activities, the legal problems would go away. Granted, a private organization that excludes homosexuals is still no less despicable than one which denies Jews or Blacks; I and others would continue to criticize them, in the same way that most people criticize, e.g., the KKK, while fully recognizing their right to express their own views. But the gross injustices to tax-paying atheists and gays are what must be addressed, and they can easily be addressed without interfering with the organization's "moral values".

This was put together during the Clinton impeachment proceedings: it's a long and fascinating account of what the authors of the Constitution had in mind as grounds for impeachment.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/watergatedoc_3.htm

>all that is needed is approval from the Attorney General

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority, requires approval from a judge for eavesdropping.

Even if the Attorney General could repeal laws, in this case the Justice Department had decided the program was illegal and Ashcroft refused to sign off on it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051500864.html

Why is GM shutting down 4 truck and SUV factories then?

Brain damaged caused by lead, mercury, fluoride and other chemicals do far more to increase crime rates than music and video games.

And unlike the theory behind music and video games causing crime, the theory that lead poisoning causes crime is hard science.

The evidence is clear, lead in the environment causes brain damage, and damaged brains are criminal brains.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/07/AR2007070701073.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-10-28-lead-crime_N.htm

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/ban-on-leaded-petrol-has-cut-crime-rates-around-the-world-398151.html

Speaking for myself, I don't doubt that there are liberal idiots that misinterpret the establishment clause and the first amendment in general, just as there are conservative idiots that do the same. This, however, has absolutely nothing to do with what you said :

For example a public school student cannot read a bible at recess, but they can read a Koran or a book on Secular Humanism. They cannot wear a cross or a chastity ring, but they can wear a star of David or a crescent or pentagram, or even a scarf or burka or anything they want as long as it isn't from a certain religion that is outlawed.

This is the standard whine about how despite the fact conservative christians held the presidency, both houses of congress, and had a majority of justices on the supreme court as recently as 2006 they're horribly horribly oppressed by the liberal PC Squad. And that somehow this is accepted as part of the constitution. And your evidence is two actions by local school boards. How did local actions by school boards indicate current judicial thought on the first amendment? And how did those two cases turn out?

A bit of searching on the second case shows:
First the Vice Principal was identified as the person that told her off. The same Vice Principal that, um, wasn't at the school. Plus, the suit was apparently the first time the school heard about this, at which point they promptly investigated. Truly, our constitution has been rewritten.

I can't find anything about the first case beyond the initial filing.

As I said, there are undoubtedly school officials who act in violation of the Constitution like that, and if your two citations are accurate I strongly disagree with the (illegal and unconstitutional) actions of the school board officials involved. This, however, is a far cry from the idea that political correctness is law. For the latter, court decision citations are a minimum requirement, preferably US Supreme Court decisions, what with you complaining about the first amendment and all.

Your understanding of geologic time is healthy, but weather is now changing so abruptly that a natural cause seems less and less likely to explain the weirdness.

For example, NOAA scientists point out that the icecap is melting *way* faster than expected:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/06/AR2007090602499_pf.html

Of course, you don't care about that - for the moment - but I think it is alarming even before we know what all of the consequences will be.

"You breathe your air how you want and I'll breathe my air how I want."

Would be because demand is high, due to inefficient SUV's we drive, AND our insistence to not use the oil we have, to instead buy oil from people who hate us ?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/04/AR2008060403052.html

We get what we deserve. With oil prices anyway.

"Part of the challenge is we have all of this infrastructure in the control systems that was put in place in the 1980s and '90s that was not designed with security in mind, and all of sudden these systems are being connected to [Internet-facing] business networks" said Brian Ahern, president and chief executive of Industrial Defender Inc., a Foxborough, Mass.-based SCADA security company

No, the problem is putting 'computers' on the Internet that were most certainly designed with security in mind, something the 'computers' most certainly fail at. To put in bluntly, running your SCADA units on Windows over the Internet is the dumbest thing I ever heard of. And that they are still running such designs five years after the great blackout of 2003, demonstrates incompetence and neglience boarding on the criminal

WTF jackass. Were you in a coma when Bush became president and canceled every reasonable alternative energy program in existence, and then blew smoke about Hydrogen, a technology that wouldn't be commercially viable for at least another 20 years and until gasoline hit $10 a gallon?

What reasonable alternative energy program did Bush cancel? None. Why? Because currently, there is no REASONABLE alternative energy available. We have ethanol, which didn't get canceled, although it probably would have been better if were.

Bush stopped alternative energy research.

Again, source? What got canceled? If you were interested in facts, you'd know that what you say simply isn't true. Here is something from MSNBC, which is no fan of the president, btw:

Energy conservation groups and environmentalists say they're pleased that the president, a former oil man in Texas, is stressing alternative sources of energy...

Also, from HERE:

$10 billion of loan guarantees will go towards renewable and/or energy efficient systems and manufacturing, and distributed energy generation, transmission, and distribution.

Does $10 BILLION dollars equal stopping alternative energy research?

And in the area of nuclear power, Bush did absolutely nothing to lead the US into clean electricity generation of any kind. He can't even pronounce the word nuclear correctly.

Yucca mountain ring a bell? Every one of Bush's attempts to generate energy of any kind has been blocked by Democrats in congress.
Here is a little quote from Democrats.com:

President Bush is promoting the use of nuclear power plants to generate electricity. It seems a political choice. Investing in nuclear power plants can be attempted only by very large corporations, of the kind that are in his support base. They belong to a very exclusive big-money club, and there are many billions of dollars at stake. But to belong, one also has to be willing to forget Three Mile Island, to forget market economics, nuclear proliferation, radioactive waste and, in particular, to forget nuclear terrorism.

Here is how former gov of NY Elliot Spencer (D) sees it:

New York Governor Eliot Spitzer has come out against the re-licensing of the two reactors at Indian Point, a nuclear plant about 30 miles north of Manhattan.

Tell me again. WHO is stopping us from producing nuclear power? (Also, Jimmy Carter couldn't pronounce nuclear either and he was a nuclear engineer!)

Please elaborate on what brilliant Bush Energy Policies were stopped by the Democratic congress.

Uh, all of them. From HERE:

Bush, whose energy plan has been stalled in Congress for four years, is facing increased pressure from Democrats...

So, for four years...FOUR YEARS, the US had no energy policy.

And before you congratulate yourself further for "understanding supply and demand," how about reading up on what a cartel is and what it does to competition? Ever hear of OPEC? The US could strip mine Alaska and OPEC could make the whole operation a bust simply by turning its valve.

So you suggest that we do nothing? Viable alternative energy is at least 20 years away. You're OK with us being beholden to said "cartel" until then?

You were identified as a troll above, I should have taken note.

Yeah, slashdot mods think that anyone with a different view than their own is a troll. They downmod you when they can't come up with a valid response. I was also modded insightful four times to two trolls. One of the trol

WTF jackass. Were you in a coma when Bush became president and canceled every reasonable alternative energy program in existence, and then blew smoke about Hydrogen, a technology that wouldn't be commercially viable for at least another 20 years and until gasoline hit $10 a gallon?

What reasonable alternative energy program did Bush cancel? None. Why? Because currently, there is no REASONABLE alternative energy available. We have ethanol, which didn't get canceled, although it probably would have been better if were.

Bush stopped alternative energy research.

Again, source? What got canceled? If you were interested in facts, you'd know that what you say simply isn't true. Here is something from MSNBC, which is no fan of the president, btw:

Energy conservation groups and environmentalists say they're pleased that the president, a former oil man in Texas, is stressing alternative sources of energy...

Also, from HERE:

$10 billion of loan guarantees will go towards renewable and/or energy efficient systems and manufacturing, and distributed energy generation, transmission, and distribution.

Does $10 BILLION dollars equal stopping alternative energy research?

And in the area of nuclear power, Bush did absolutely nothing to lead the US into clean electricity generation of any kind. He can't even pronounce the word nuclear correctly.

Yucca mountain ring a bell? Every one of Bush's attempts to generate energy of any kind has been blocked by Democrats in congress.
Here is a little quote from Democrats.com:

President Bush is promoting the use of nuclear power plants to generate electricity. It seems a political choice. Investing in nuclear power plants can be attempted only by very large corporations, of the kind that are in his support base. They belong to a very exclusive big-money club, and there are many billions of dollars at stake. But to belong, one also has to be willing to forget Three Mile Island, to forget market economics, nuclear proliferation, radioactive waste and, in particular, to forget nuclear terrorism.

Here is how former gov of NY Elliot Spencer (D) sees it:

New York Governor Eliot Spitzer has come out against the re-licensing of the two reactors at Indian Point, a nuclear plant about 30 miles north of Manhattan.

Tell me again. WHO is stopping us from producing nuclear power? (Also, Jimmy Carter couldn't pronounce nuclear either and he was a nuclear engineer!)

Please elaborate on what brilliant Bush Energy Policies were stopped by the Democratic congress.

Uh, all of them. From HERE:

Bush, whose energy plan has been stalled in Congress for four years, is facing increased pressure from Democrats...

So, for four years...FOUR YEARS, the US had no energy policy.

And before you congratulate yourself further for "understanding supply and demand," how about reading up on what a cartel is and what it does to competition? Ever hear of OPEC? The US could strip mine Alaska and OPEC could make the whole operation a bust simply by turning its valve.

So you suggest that we do nothing? Viable alternative energy is at least 20 years away. You're OK with us being beholden to said "cartel" until then?

You were identified as a troll above, I should have taken note.

Yeah, slashdot mods think that anyone with a different view than their own is a troll. They downmod you when they can't come up with a valid response. I was also modded insightful four times to two trolls. One of the trol

I found this interesting:

"While 47 percent of what Obama raised last year came from donors who gave less than $200, those small contributors made up just 15 percent of Clinton's donor base. In January, when Obama swamped Clinton by raising $32 million, compared to her $13 million, the vast majority of his total -- $28 million -- came over the Internet."

The quote is from a Washington Post Article. I am not an Obama supporter, but on Tech issues, he is vastly superior to the other two. His answers in TFA reflect an understanding of the issues. His campaign's skilled use of internet fund raising reflects real savy. His campaign is historic in this regard.

On the plus side, no one could be worse than President Bush has been on Tech issues, so either candidate is bound to be an improvement.

Maybe Obama will go back to using surveillance for more important things like helping create jobs: ECHELONG.

It is amazing to me that people go with their guts on the domestic wiretap stuff. First of all, from what I've been able to figure, there has been no domestic wiretaps without FISA. Any NSA wiretaps that lead to a domestic connection can be follow up with a FISA warrant. FISA was just worried about where the requests were coming from. Previously the FBI could not get a warrant from a NSA lead. After 9/11 this was allowed. See:
Secret Court's Judges Were Warned About NSA Spy Data: [...] "the government's failure to share information about its spying program had rendered useless a federal screening system that the judges had insisted upon to shield the court from tainted information."

That was deemed stupid and changed after 9/11. There are some hold outs though.

Remember that you can I can call a tapped number and law enforcement can listen to our call. The tap request only covers the tap target, but they can certainly listen in to anyone that calls that number. So when NSA is listening in to communications in the battlefield, that routes to a domestic number, that does not constitute "domestic wire tapping" since the tap is on the foreign source.

The other aspect of the "domestic" part is Call Detail Records. You do no own your call history, the phone company does. They can do whatever the heck they want with that information. Some states are making CDR's private, but traditionally, it is owned by the phone company. The FBI could use CDR's to see who has been talking to you and get a FISA warrant based on that information.

So, do I think things will change under Obama? Nope, not at all. Even under Clinton's "wall" of separation between the NSA and the FBI, there were still warrantless wiretaps.

The democratic primaries apportion delegates from each state. Obama won the democratic nomination, but if it was done winner-take-all, as the real election is, he would have lost to Hillary, who did much better in key states like Ohio. Polling numbers also show she did better than Obama in Florida and Michigan, which weren't allowed to seat any/all (didn't follow up on how that turned out) of their delegates.

Right you may be, but the reality of the nominating contest was apportioned delegates. If it was a different reality, you can be sure that Obama's campaign strategy would have been completely different, which regardless might have meant his victory.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/03/AR2008060304268_pf.html

Since reality was what it was, we won't know if he would have lost.

I really wish people would quit saying that we have an economy that needs fixing. Really, we've just been through a major mortgage crisis, and the most anyone can say the economy is going sideways. I'd say that bodes pretty damn good for our economy, just wait a few more months until the banks get their crap together and the economy will be humming along again. Also here's a few links just to prove a point:

U.S. manufacturing activity rose unexpectedly in May...
http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2008/06/02/afx5070060.html

Gross domestic product expanded at an annual pace of 0.9 percent from January through March, up from the 0.6 percent projected last month...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aERpSgHrPI_Y&refer=home

What do you call a recession where the economy keeps going up and up, even if a bit sluggishly? Well, my friends, you call that an expansion.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/5/29/the-strangest-recession-in-economic-history.html

Fewer Americans than forecast applied for unemployment benefits last week...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aDeTc4KzXjhs&refer=home

Recession? Where? Looking back months from now, we may find that the economy grew 0.6 percent in the fourth quarter of 2007, 1.2 percent in the first quarter of this year, and 2.5 percent (according to a model from Macroeconomic Advisers) in the second quarter....
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/5/9/the-recession-that-wasnt.html#

The unemployment rate edged down in April and employers cut far fewer jobs than expected...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/02/AR2008050200489.html?nav=rss_email/components

I think you're blowing a lot of hot air there. Cool down.

How rude! I shall protest this allegation. :)

*nix might have an edge in market share, but IIS has not had a remote hole in many years compared to Apache.

An edge? 73% Apache vs. 19% IIS is more than an edge. :)

Is that why we see a ton of *nix web servers exploited by php vulnerabilities and misconfiguration?

Well yes, it's worth noting the same goes for IIS.

Lazy admins cause 90% of the real world exploits out there, not the choice of OS or software. I would say Linux and Windows are more secure than Apple code at this point. Windows used to be far more shittier before Win2k.

Well, that 90% is plucking figures out of your arse, but the sentiment rings true (although I would have plucked 45% lazy admins, and 45% lazy programmers personally). Really, though all this is not the point.

Overall you've cherry-picked what was basically an aside to my main point, and attempted to invalidate the entire post based upon that. Note that it says: contestable (or would have, if my spelling was better!) followed by some examples of ways in which the claim may be incorrect. Invalidating these does not detract from the main point, which is this: vulnerabilities in any alternative-to-Microsoft software reflect badly upon all alternative-to-Microsoft software because of the argument: "Microsoft software isn't any less secure, it's just targeted more because of its market share." Stories like these can, and will, be trotted out as examples of failures of alternative-to-Microsoft products.

Really, I'm not trying to bash Microsoft (that's just an unintended side effect :) ), but point out how important it is for the alternatives to have a good security record. This is due to that line, many people percieving parts of the software industry as "Microsoft" and "other stuff" (test this out on your friendly, local PHB).

As an example: if Safari has a bad security record, it has an effect on Firefox as people will not believe the marketing that it's "more secure" than IE. I'm not really arguing whether it is more secure or not, just that all these alternatives tout security, but one of them isn't following through on that, damaging the perception of all of them.

>>If you think Obama or Hillary are real liberals and/or socialists, you REALLY need to meet some real liberals and socialists.

You mean like Obama and Hillary's mentors?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032401152.html

They shared an interest in Saul Alinsky, and Obama considered Bill Ayers a role model:
http://www.aim.org/aim-report/its-the-communism-stupid/

Jeremiah Wright goes without saying.

Nothing more than supposition? It's the Washington post.

Blogging about politics at work falls into the don't-do category, but blogging from home may also get a federal employee in trouble.

Don't agree with what they say? Take it up with them.

I don't know... If I use the work file server to serve up my blog or work email account to spam for campaign funding, my employer might still have a thing or two to say about how I use those resources, even if I'm doing it from home. You sound pretty confident though, so you feel free to give it a shot, 'k sport?

Didn't see anybody mention this yet, however, Scott Bloch, the Special Prosecutor, is a big-time political hack,:

Watchdog: Doc Shows Bloch Ginned Up White House Investigation to Protect Himself

Since 2005, Special Counsel Scott Bloch, whose office is charged in part with protecting federal whistleblowers, has been under investigation for retaliating against whistleblowers in his own office and generally politicizing the OSC.

Also of interest here is the fact that Bloch used Geeks On Call to delete information off his govt-issued laptop:

Recently, investigators learned that Mr. Bloch erased all the files on his office personal computer late last year. They are now trying to determine whether the deletions were improper or part of a cover-up, lawyers close to the case said.

Bypassing his agency's computer technicians, Mr. Bloch phoned 1-800-905-GEEKS for Geeks on Call, the mobile PC-help service. It dispatched a technician in one of its signature PT Cruiser wagons. In an interview, [Bloch] confirmed that he contacted Geeks on Call but said he was trying to eradicate a virus that had seized control of his computer....

Bloch must be trying to take the heat off himself, after the recent FBI raid on his house and office.

Besides covering up for the White House, Karl Rove, and himself, he also indulged in some old-fashioned perks, picking up some $400 hand towels on the OSP tab.

So? How is growing the population through immigration a problem?

I don't see immigration as a problem, actually I believe in open borders. No, I really believe in getting rid of man made lines. My point was that without immigration most European nations would be experiencing a reduction in populations. Oh, and immigration as currently practiced is causing problems. Look at what some, mind you I don't want to paint with a broad brush, Muslims in Northern Europe have done. The murder of Theo van Gogh for instance. Or take the riots by Muslim youth in France a few years back.

Great, so religious wackos are breeding rapidly in the US and not so much in Europe

I don't know how fast they are breeding but religious fundies typically have more children than others. That may, or may not, be a potential problem in Europe too.

and you think that is a sign that the US society is healthier?

Now where in the world did you get the idea I think the US is healthier? If anything in some respects I think it's worse.

Theoretically a corporation serves the common good [alternet.org] or public good.

That hasn't even been theoretically true since the US was founded.

Ergo Thomas Jefferson's warning.

Many of those in the US who do not have medical coverage do not want it.

I don't believe this is a significant portion of the uninsured. Please provide a citation.

I don't have a citation, or the numbers, all I know is that some people don't want health insurance.

Whether you consider it good or evil, socialized healthcare in most places taxes the rich more and gives back to everyone equally, thus resulting in wealth being redistributed from the top to the bottom. This helps to stabilize a runaway, extreme capitalist economy by partially mitigating wealth condensation.

It's also bad for research. Though by no means all research is done in the US a lot is done here. And the US basically subsidizes the rest of the world. Whereas a drug may cost hundreds or thousands of dollars in the US, elsewhere the cost may be a lot lower. Bulk purchases can lower costs, like Walmart is doing. They're using their leverage to purchase drugs in hugh bulk volumes and selling them cheap, Walmart has pledged to sell a lot of drugs at or lower than $10. And many people complain about Walmart, including me.

Ahh, so you're arguing that socialized healthcare will increase your costs?

Yes, socialized medicine will increase my cost. I don't have medical insurance but if I'm forced to have some I will be forced to pay. Look at Massachusetts, the state passed a law requiring all residents to have medical insurance, and some can't afford it. The state helps some pay for it, however it doesn't help everyone who needs the help, and those who don't have coverage will be fined by the state. People will either have to pay for something they can't afford or they will pay a fine.

If you want everyone in the US, er those who want it, to be able to afford to have medical insurance then you have to change tax codes. During World War II the US passed Wage and Price Control Laws. Without the ability to pay employees more employers had trouble getting and keeping workers. After breaking free trade, to "correct" employers' problems, the government allowed them to offer employees fringe benefits such as health insurance, and neither employers nor employees had to then pay more in tax. However by allowing employers to pay employees more without raising tax for either, say letting an employer pay an employee $3600 a year more but not raising either one's taxes the employee could then take that $3600 and buy health insurance on their own. With so many more people able to get their own insurance insurance issuers will lower insurance premiums so more could afford it, it's called competition.

Hold on, I'm not finished. Change zoning laws to allow mixed use and let neighborhood clinics open up in them, without heavy and expensive regulations, as well as allowing people to start businesses in their homes. Allow alternative and complimentary medicine to be practiced. And encourage more home births. Most babies can be delivered safely at home, and such deliveries cost less. Delivery in a hospital can cost thousands of dollars whereas home births with a midwife may cost only a few hundred, if that. Also in hospitals many unnecessary Caesarean sections are done rai

Wake up.

Technically? Depends on how much of the intellectual property is recognized by American courts. WIPO is supposed to be the global venue for patents.

Practically? No chance in hell. Even if they aren't laughed out of court, a little retroactive immunity legislation will fix that.

FYI, the American banking industry kneecaps patent holders that make it through the courts with retroactive immunity clauses with startling frequency. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021303731_pf.html

If only americans took an interest in their government. Most of it is too good/bad to be true.

I agree, and it's got to be better than some of the things the US Army has invested millions of dollars in, like the "gay bomb".

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/1/votes/261/

Some didn't vote as well, how does that count?

Yeah, because this sort of thing never happens on land lines.

Your provider can screw up your address no matter who it is. Don't think that just because you're with a provider who gives you physical service at a location that they can't possibly screw it up.

"Line forms spontaneously at NYC Apple Store" It sounds like a headline on The Onion!

Or simply another Improv Everywhere stunt like the 80 blue shirts that showed up at a local Best Buy.

http://improveverywhere.com/2006/04/23/best-buy/
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2006/05/best_prank_of_the_year_so_far.html

Replace "countries" and "markets" with "rules of law" or "cultures" and you'll get closer to the truth of the matter. In the United States, we hate child porn. Just today, the Supreme Court upheld that it can be a crime to offer to post or ask for the posting of child porn even if there was no such porn ever posted. Last year, Florida prosecuted and convicted two teenagers for disseminating child porn after they took racy photos of themselves and sent it only to each other. If Google supplied IP addresses to allow these convictions, would we be chatting about how evil Google is? Pretend that Indians thought these convictions were stupid. Should Indian Google refuse to supply IP addresses to allow these convictions? What would we be saying if they did?

And growing 20% annually with some companies hitting 50%http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/04/AR2007050402466.html

You can imagine govememnts using it matrix style "What good is a phone call if you can't speak, mr anderson?"

It pretty much already happens. You get a National Security Letter gag order, and you are threatened with five years of prison for even trying to communicate the fact that you are under a gag order, let alone trying to address what the gag order is about. The FBI now issues 30,000 National Security Letters a year.

Lol, you. I'm not getting into this again. Microsoft offered $31, Yahoo wanted at least $37. see article

TFA does not say when any negotiations happened. And though TFA is on Yahoo!'s website it's a news article from Reuters. And no, I don't consider a single counter offer as negotiations just as I wouldn't if someone offered me $50 and I impulsively said $100.

They didn't do just that, they took actions that potentially could destroy the company's value, breaching their duty to the shareholders.

As a shareholder, if Yahoo! hadn't taken any steps to drive up the bid price I would have considered it a breach of fiducial duty, as in typical negotiations the buyer first offers a low price.

They enacted huge employee termination compensation plans, including golden parachutes for management.

That's standard practice in business, and has been for a long tyme [sic] businesswise [sic].

Yes, but it is not "standard business practice" to enact them in an attempt to thwart a takeover.

First, Googling "businesswise" returns about 265,000 results. Next, "Golden Parachutes":

"Golden parachutes are compensation agreements that provide for severance payments to top executives who are terminated or demoted pursuant to a takeover or other change in control. Companies argue that such provisions are necessary to keep executives from "jumping ship" during potential takeover attempts. While Calvert recognizes the merits of this argument, golden parachutes often impede takeover attempts that we believe shareowners have the right and the responsibility to consider."

They tried to make a deal to acquire a portion of AOL

Citation please.

My pleasure.

Thanks for the link, however it does not say there were talks of acquiring AOL or parts of it. What it does say is "And then there was that AOL (NYSE: TWX) deal with word of some share buybacks at above-market prices". Buybacks aren't buyouts or acquiring others.

And though Yahoo-AOL talks continue, according to the report

Talks on what, a share buyback?

Like I said before, Yahoo's board was not reviewing this potential merger in good faith. They clearly violated their fiduciary duty to shareholders, and will be ousted, probably by Carl Icahn

And as I said a number of tymes, if I were a Yahoo! stockholder and the board had accepted MS's first offer I, and others, very well have filed a lawsuit for not fulfilling fiduciary duty. And Carl Icahn? In the first sentence of TFA it says he is reportedly buying Yahoo! shares now and not when the offer was made. If he did not own any stocks in Yahoo! he has no standing to file any lawsuit, though now that he may own some he does have standing to nominate new board members. You think Balmer is a hardball negotiator? I hazard to say Icahn is harder. And if Balmer still wants to acquire Yahoo! Icahn may demand even more than the last offer.

> are in jail

Hardly. China has 1.5 million people in jail, only 0.1% of the population. The United States, by comparison, has 2.3 million people in jail, or 0.8% of the population. That's about eight times more, so let's not have the pot calling the kettle black.

I do not (and never have believed) that Jerry Yang and the rest of the Yahoo board was ever were serious about selling the company.

First there were no negotiations, Microsoft simply extended an offer which the Yahoo! board turned down.

For example, look at the actions the board and management took right after the offer was announced.

The board didn't want to be eaten so they took steps they thought would slow down an acquirer.

They enacted huge employee termination compensation plans, including golden parachutes for management.

That's standard practice in business, and has been for a long tyme [sic] businesswise [sic] .

They tried to make a deal to acquire a portion of AOL

Citation please.

Indeed, they've even admitted to "consulting" the nsa while designing it, have a look here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/08/AR2007010801352_pf.html

Keep in mind a couple of things:

* The kids in the program were on the verge of being sent to the Texas Youth Commission, aka Juvenile Detention.

* Once you're in the TYC, you're likely to be beaten, raped, and held indefinitely.

When the choice is between being treated *like* a criminal, versus learning to *be* a criminal in Texas highly successful Criminal Conversion System, I think it's pretty obvious why any judge would choose to give the kid an ankle shackle instead of condemning him to (eventual) death.

Of course, the "choice" is mind-numbingly stupid. Now that the story of the TYC abuses has finally broken, maybe the next legislature will do something about the broken system that turns minor offenders into hardened criminals. Not likely, of course, because nobody ever got voted out of office for putting *too many* men, women, or children in jail.