Slashdot Mirror

it's just about inegalities and environmental catastrophes

Careful, we all know that's terrist talk.

If it's true that he's gone pro-torture

The torture took myriad forms, each designed to cause pain, anguish, depression and, ultimately, the loss of will to live. The base ingredient in Mr. Padilla's torture was stark isolation for a substantial portion of his captivity.

• This sleep deprivation was achieved in a variety of ways. For a substantial period of his captivity, Mr. Padilla's cell contained only a steel bunk with no mattress.
• He would be shackled and manacled, with a belly chain, for hours in his cell
• The temperature of his cell would be manipulated, making his cell extremely cold for long stretches of time
• In an effort to disorient Mr. Padilla, his captors would deceive him about his location and who his interrogators actually were. Mr. Padilla was threatened with being forcibly removed from the United States to another country, including U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he was threatened his fate would be even worse than in the Naval Brig.
• ...was threatened with being cut with a knife and having alcohol poured on the wounds
• ...was also threatened with imminent execution.
• ...hooded and forced to stand in stress positions for long durations of time
• ...was given drugs against his will, believed to be some form of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) or phencyclidine (PCP), to act as a sort of truth serum during his interrogations

MOD PARENT UP! That is certainly not an Offtopic comment. If the jokesters attack a Slashdot story in the beginning, that generally ruins any chance of a real discussion. As the parent poster predicted, the jokesters got control, and the rest of the discussion is confused.

I disagree with the parent poster that what Jobs did is "classy", however.

Those who bought the original iPhone paid $600 for something that after 2 months is completely obsolete. A better iPhone can be bought for $400. People don't like the fact that there is no upgrade for the old phones. Apple customers didn't see that abuse coming.

The new iPhone is much better because it has DTT.*

*Digital Turnip Twaddling (I'm quoting what I think you will agree is an authoritative source. Opus threw his obsolete iPhone in the trash.)

The fundamental problem with the iPhones is not that a phone that is two months old is obsolete. The fundamental problem is that Steve Jobs is version 0.9 Beta, after all these years. Now Apply customers fear that if Mr. Jobs did it once, he may do it again. Maybe there will be 3rd version of the iPhone in time for Christmas.

It's not just the price drop about which people complain. Those who bought the original iPhone paid $600 for something that after 2 months is completely obsolete. A better iPhone can be bought for $400. Apple customers didn't see that abuse coming.

People don't like the fact that there is no upgrade for the old phones. The new iPhone is much better because it has DTT.*

*Digital Turnip Twaddling (I'm quoting what I think you will agree is an authoritative source.)

(The fundamental problem with the old iPhone is not that it was version 1.0. The problem is that Steve Jobs is version 0.9 Beta, after all these years.)

It's not just the price drop about which people complain. They don't like the fact that there is no upgrade for the old phones. The new iPhone is much better because it has DTT.*

*Digital Turnip Twaddling (I'm quoting what I think you will agree is an authoritative source.)

(The problem with the old iPhone is not that it was version 1.0. The problem is that Steve Jobs is version 0.9 Beta, after all these years.)

Hah!! Well, I'm not buying any software without DTT.*

*Digital Turnip Twaddling

(The problem with the iPhone is not that it was version 1.0. The problem is that Steve Jobs is version 0.9 Beta, after all these years.)

The magnitude and rapidity of the iPhone price drop is probably not exactly matched in the cell phone industry, but the pattern of rapid and substantial price drops in new cutting edge cell phones (and other electronic gadgets) is quite common. One well-documented example is the Motorola RAZR, which started out with a very high price and was all but unavailable even at that price for months after its release. There was a scalper market for the things in the early *months* because Motorola couldn't make enough of them. For a while people paid something like eight hundred bucks to get one. When the manufacturing ramp up kicked into gear, the price fell, and fell and fell and now they are only a step or two away from giving the things away with a contract. There was no big internet whine-fest when that happened, and the initial price drops were large and rapid. Oh, the list price maybe didn't fall that fast, but people were getting between a hundred and two hundred and fifty dollars in rebates if they bought from Amazon and signed a year contract with the carrier, by the time all the various rebates were added up. It was a big, rapid drop in price.

There is something strange and different going on here, but it's not the rapid price drop, it's the reaction to it.

I think it has something to do with the trade press. Nobody can make any money writing stories about how pissed off Motorola RAZR customers are because they bought it early and the price fell, because nobody really cares about Motorola because they so seldom do anything interesting. They look like a one-hit wonder with the RAZR. Nobody even knows anything about, let alone carries in their pocket, the newer Motorola phones. The SLVR (shortly after the RAZR) and the KRZR (more recent EDGE entry) for example were basically flops, by the standards of the RAZR. Nobody would write stories like this about Motorola dropping RAZR prices:

Poked in the i (which is still linked on their front page).

Apple Slashes iPhone Prices: slaps 1 million idiots

So the trade press is using the John Dvorak model of Apple coverage to generate advertising revenue, and work early iPhone customr up into a lather with righteous indignation for having... I'm still confused by this... bought the coolest phone ever made in the early days before the inevitable and expected price drop?

The interesting question really is whether Apple structured the drop and timing on purpose to exploit the free publicity engine, or if they were caught by surprise.

"I know, I'll get it out there that fair use is not a right, get lots of press on it, see? And then, before long, every average joe will just sort of internalize it and never question again that they can do what they want with other people's IP. Muwhahahahaha! It's so easy...why didn't I think of this sooner?"

-FL

Not because you claim to have never heard the most basic facts of the discussion you're entering, but because for some reason you feel the need to attack the helpful people trying to educate you.

Half of Net Neutrality is precisely the "strawman" you deride: I pay my ISP for high speed internet access, owners of the computers I access pay their ISPs for very high speed internet access, those ISPs negotiate peering agreements with each other... but some ISPs hope to get away with double-billing everyone by fraudulently advertising "high speed internet access" but only providing their customers with "high speed access to those servers whose owners have also directly paid us money".

No, in other words, he intentionally misled using the same kind of technique described in the article, by saying "I can't say specifically that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, but based on 'credible' intelligence I believe that he was". He is very much implying that he believes Saddam was responsible for 9/11, he just put a little caveat at the beginning so that with hindsight he could plausibly claim not to have lied. How can you actually read what he said and not see that the belief you were supposed to walk away with was that Saddam had possibly been involved in plotting 9/11?

Only to complete weasels is intentionally misleading someone different than lying to them. Adding "maybe" to a lie doesn't make it truthful, unless you only care about CYA levels of truth.

Not that you need to be un-weasely to see Bush or Cheney lying. He repeatedly claimed that there were long-standing ties between Iraq and al Qaeda, a claim that the 9/11 Commission found no support for based on the actual intelligence analysis done by our agencies. Yet Bush still said in his infamous "Mission Accomplished" speech: "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda and cut off a source of terrorist funding."

But Iraq was not an ally of al Qaeda, the intelligence available at the time said as much, and ergo Bush was lying in order to establish a false link between the war in Iraq and 9/11. Cheney went even farther and specifically referred to 9/11 terrorists losing their 'geographic base' due to the invasion of Iraq. Here is a good article that details a lot of the contradictions between what the Pres and Veep said and what the intelligence they claimed as their support said.

I'm trying to find the really great one, which occured shortly after the 9/11 commission issued their report which in part said there were no substantive ties between al Qaeda and Iraq. Cheney got all huffy and repeated his assertion that there were longstanding ties, and suggested that the 9/11 commission didn't have all the intelligence that he had so they didn't know what they were talking about. The hilarious part is when his own press secretary had to come out and say that wasn't true, because of course Cheney had cooperated fully with the 9/11 commission and given them all the intelligence he had.

And if you did really pay that much attention, you must know that the invasion of Iraq was absolutely billed as being in response to 9/11. Bush said as much constantly. He was careful never to say that Iraq caused 9/11, he just chose his words to give that impression.

There's a difference between the American people not knowing something and 'knowing' something false because of what their leaders said. If the American people had no idea why we invaded Iraq or why we didn't like Saddam, that would be the ignorance you are saying. When they listen to Bush's speeches and come away with the impression than Saddam plotted 9/11, that's not a random occurrence, it's because they received the intended message.

And if that wasn't the intended message, why did Cheney harp on the alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda at every opportunity?

I mean it sounds like the best we can say is that Bush/Cheney didn't lie, they just manipulated the people into believing falsehoods to further their aims, and I'm not sure why exactly that's supposed to make them look any better.

The very first sale of the Iraq War was centered around a link to Al-Qaeda. From a link shamelessly ripped from an earlier post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32862-20 03Sep5?language=printer

Iraq was first sold as fighting Al-Qaeda. Then it was sold as fighting bad people with WMDs. Finally, it was sold as a fight against bad people. If you would have paid attention to his speeches, you would have notied that.

And please don't be a sophist and argue that Iraq colluding with Al-Qaeda isn't the same as Iraq being behind 9-11. At that time, it was exactly the same thing. We were ready to pound anybody who just vaguely resembled Al-Qaeda.

Johns Hopkins University Hospital in Baltimore has a similar telepresence robot to help a doctor do rounds in the urology clinic. I saw a presentation about it at a telemedicine conference last May. The doctor can cover two hospitals and still check on his patients at whichever hospital he isn't physically present at that day. Or he can check on patients in the middle of the night immediately instead of having to drive 45 minutes from his home to the hospital. Here's a story from the Washington Post about JHU's "Dr. Robot".

That link is to the second page, for those that like to read from the start here is the first page

It seems that unless you have an account you can't click the links on the page to go back to the first page, but you can click next (from the first) and you can get to either page externally. Don't ask me why.

Well, there has to be some survival advantage afforded by intelligence or we wouldn't have evolved it...

As far as the ignorant masses go, though, it's a well-known fact that 68% of people will unquestioningly accept the authority of invented statistics.

On an almost completely unrelated note, here's a link to the first page of the article for anyone who missed it.

Actually, having since done some research, I cannot substantiate the latter part. In fact, I can almost refute that part. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A388 16-2005Apr8.html for details.

Of course, I also can't completely deny that happened either. And, from the same article, it shows that at least one attempt was caught (by US officials)....but no idea of how many have not been.

"The sensitivity, they say, is heightened by fear that terrorists could infiltrate the United States from Canada. There is at least one known example of an attempt. In December 1999, border agents arrested an Algerian man, Ahmed Ressam, as he was trying to enter at Port Angeles, Wash., with homemade explosives in his rental car. He was later convicted of plotting to bomb the Los Angeles International Airport or some other airport in Southern California"

It's an anti-piracy feature. It prevents a business from firewalling the WGA server to get "genuine" status.

Guilty until proven innocent in other words. For millions. Again and again. Just the thing for the modern democracy. :-(

Remember there was an un-authorised software update site? If it works without the real MS saying it's OK, the anti-piracy feature does not work.

No, code signing is all that's needed to verify that updates are valid and approved by M$. The site that distributes the updates and Windows Disingenuous Disadvantage are both irrelevant.

M$ shutdown that third party update site because they wanted more control over the update process and their customers. In particular they probably wanted to be able to install spyware on individual PC's when needed. Third party update sites make that process more difficult.

Unfortunately for MS is this feature does not prevent users from migrating to the alternatives. It's hard to run a monopoly when Ubuntu is legal and free for the taking. If they had a choice, the first would be that I run Windows fully paid for. Second choice is that I run a pirated copy, but they are using WGA to prevent that to encourage me into the first choice, but the result is I have gone to their worst option.. I've gone legal to the competition. MS is helping themselves break their monopoly by reducing piracy.

Partially true. Format lockin, unethical business practices and huge economic network effects hinder people from moving to alternatives and that makes M$'s monopoly a lot easier to maintain than it might otherwise be. Particularly when you consider they are profiting tens of billions of dollars a year from the monopoly. Only a fraction of that is needed to manipulate and cross subsidize. Witness the current ISO OOXML manipulation. Those who have the gold often make the rules.

---

Windows and closed source software. The US intelligence agencies back door to every network connected country and business on earth.

There was a Washington Post article about that here.

Weeds have already been given pesticide resistance through regular polenation and natural selection. This is bad enough because it defeats the purpose and there are plenty of studies that GM crops are harmful to wildlife, including mysteriously disappearing honey bees.

Newer concerns are better written and documented here by a Monsanto whistle blower. We already know that the industry was sloppy because unapproved GM crops have contaminated the US rice supply. It may be that the people who worried about GM crops were right and evidence of genes crossing species is just one of the many things they feared. Genetic sequencing is new and bound to bring big surprises.

It's good practice to keep an open mind but be careful until you know things are safe. A couple of historical examples show how caution works and what industry does when it's not careful. People who hear about the use of lead and arsenic in paint and wallpaper often wonder how people could be so stupid as to have that kind of thing in their homes. The answer is that printers and painters overstepped their knowledge and embraced new toys that made them money. At the opposite end of the of caution is Rontgen, the discover of Xrays. He was very careful to shield all of his sources with lead bricks because he did not know what his newly created rays would do to him. Unlike many of his contemporaries, he did not die of cancer. People continued to expose themselves needlessly for half a century before sane practices were finally codified.

Can't have that! Everyone knows that's for U.S. Senators only!

Can't have the riff-raff acting like the quality folks, no sir!

Exactly. Some figures:
$460 billion in the fiscal 2008 defense budget
$147 billion in a pending supplemental bill to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
up to $50 billion in additional funding for the war in Iraq

Not counting the money already spent on the perpetual "War on Terrorism".

Down in the CBD, which is only about 5 sq miles, you can get the country's first free municipal wifi network. It started up shortly after the hurricane. It's done wonders for stimulating opportunities for lower income residents. Well, at least the business folks making five times the average population can get free wifi.

You know, I usually can't stand the idea of Congressional hearings on anything (they end up being more campaign speech-y, than enlightened probes), but this might be an instance where I'm inclined to change my opinion. If there was any type of collusion between the government and big business to break the law of the land, quite a few corporate heads need to roll.

Note that I'm not advocating that these be public hearings - I'm willing to let the government keep a few of its secrets - but all testimony should be under oath. What I cannot abide is watching anybody lie to Congress, and get away scot free. Especially corporations that have received substantial benefits (subsidies, market consolidation, etc.) from the very same people they are lying to.

BILL MOYERS: Critics point to September eight, 2002 and to your show in particular, as the classic case of how the press and the government became inseparable.

Someone in the administration plants a dramatic story in the NEW YORK TIMES And then the Vice President comes on your show and points to the NEW YORK TIMES. It's a circular, self-confirming leak.

TIM RUSSERT: I don't know how Judith Miller and Michael Gordon reported that story, who their sources were. It was a front-page story of the NEW YORK TIMES. When Secretary Rice and Vice President Cheney and others came up that Sunday morning on all the Sunday shows, they did exactly that.

TIM RUSSERT: What my concern was, is that there were concerns expressed by other government officials. And to this day, I wish my phone had rung, or I had access to them.

BILL MOYERS: Bob Simon didn't wait for the phone to ring.

Of course! Because I state facts that goes against what you THINK

You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own set of facts.

That stated, if you count the votes that were properly cast using the rules set by each precinct before the first vote was cast, Bush won, every time, every recount. That is no lie! To say otherwise, is.

Or, more properly stated: you are completely full of shit. More people voted for Gore than for Bush not just nationally, but also in Florida. You are a tool and a fool, Archer.

And that one happened before ubiquitous air travel between continents. We now have vastly more dense population centers, and arguably a much more fragile "just-in-time" style economy. Pretending this isn't a risk is foolish. Pretending that it's only hype from your political opponents is childish.

The only source for this is MSNBC (I've been unable to find another reference to this event that doesn't link them) and they've made no attempt to report this objectively. Obviously done by somebody on the "news of the weird" beat.

I find it unlikely that the Chinese government (for whom dialectical materialism is still official dogma) really believes in reincarnation, never mind their own ability to regulate it. What's probably happened is that the government has claimed the right to appoint the hierarchy of Tibetan Buddhism, something they've already done for other sects. Since each important Tibetan Buddhist leader is considered the reincarnation of his predecessor, they are, in effect, asserting control over the Buddhist hierarchy's right to reincarnate.

What this means is that when the current Dalai Lama dies, Tibetans outside of China will "discover" his successor outside China, and Tibetans inside will "discover" his successor inside China. So you'll have two Dalai Lamas, one approved by the Chinese government, one not. If you look at it seriously and stop looking to make a joke out of it, it's a case of a government that pretends to honor freedom of religion, but is actually less than tolerant. Nothing to laugh about.

The program was secret until 1971, when an FBI field office in Media, PA was burglarized by a group of left-wing radicals calling themselves the Citizens' Commission to Investigate the FBI. Several dossiers of files were taken and the information passed to news agencies, many of which initially refused to publish the information. Within the year, Director Hoover declared that the centralized COINTELPRO was over, and that all future counterintelligence operations would be handled on a case-by-case basis.[3]

Further documents were revealed in the course of separate lawsuits filed against the FBI by NBC correspondent Carl Stern, the SWP, and a number of other groups. A major investigation was launched in 1976 by the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities of the United States Senate, commonly referred to as the "Church Committee" for its chairman, Senator Frank Church of Idaho. However, millions of pages of documents remain unreleased, and many released documents are entirely censored. ...
The Church Committee documented a history of the FBI being used for purposes of political repression as far back as World War I, through the 1920s, when they were charged with rounding up "anarchists and revolutionaries" for deportation, and then building from 1936 through 1976.

Now-a-days political speech at conventions is squealched

Really? Is that why Michael Moore was attending the Republican National Convention in 2004? Was he "squelched" by holding a "rolling press-conference" there?

and the government lackies can spy on the people with no need to get a warrant or create any other paper trail that could help a wrongfully-targeted citizen defend themself.

Generally, figure it out — among yourself — whether you think, a 100%-effective law-enforcement is a good goal at all... In this particular case, without a "paper trail", the wrongfully-targeted citizen would have no need to defend themself.

Have you all forgotten how AT&T is actively helping the USG wiretap, illegally I might add, 1000s of phone conversations? Including those of American citizens, without a court-authorized warrant? They deserve immunity for their help, says the Man. Now how many of the victims of this wiretapping ended up in Gitmo?

Please read the "subpoena" given to Yahoo China by the authorities. All it says is (basically) we're investigating a theft of "state secrets", and would like your cooperation in this investigation. How many US companies would refuse such a request from a US LEO? Not even one, I can assure you.

Its funny how everyone's getting all bent out of shape about this 1 case, when the FBI issues over 30000 National Security Letters a year, trolling through US citizens' records.

Oh yeah, the good old "left" Washington Post? Is that the same Washington Post that backed the Iraq War and hosts der Kabbagemallet?

Appointing on the basis of competence only makes sense if you believe that government has a meaningful role to play. The current administration is fully committed to the Reaganite philosophy that "government is not the solution, it's the problem." As such, nobody should be surprised that Bush appointees (here and in Iraq) have consistently proved themselves incompetent.

With that in mind, making government effective is the last thing such an Administration would want. Much better to reward those who are politically loyal by giving them sinecures and by directing them to shape government policies to benefit your political friends. And you can see that happening throughout the government since 2001, whether it's FEMA ("heck of a job, Brownie"), FDA, the Forest Service or a host of other agencies and boards.

The only thing that surprises me at this point is that anyone would have higher expectations of the current Administration. (What's that old line about insanity being when you keep doing the same thing but expecting a different result?)

Appointing on the basis of competence only makes sense if you believe that government has a meaningful role to play. The current administration is fully committed to the Reaganite philosophy that "government is not the solution, it's the problem." As such, nobody should be surprised that Bush appointees (here and in Iraq) have consistently proved themselves incompetent.

With that in mind, making government effective is the last thing such an Administration would want. Much better to reward those who are politically loyal by giving them sinecures and by directing them to shape government policies to benefit your political friends. And you can see that happening throughout the government since 2001, whether it's FEMA ("heck of a job, Brownie"), FDA, the Forest Service or a host of other agencies and boards.

The only thing that surprises me at this point is that anyone would have higher expectations of the current Administration. (What's that old line about insanity being when you keep doing the same thing but expecting a different result?)

And so does the left, more than one in fact, along with newspapers and national radio networks. As for Fox, how do you measure left-right bias, and where do they fall on a scale that includes a large sampling of news outlets?

You incorrectly stated that the Attorney General argues the Administration's cases before the Supreme Court; as a general matter, as I pointed out, that's not the job of the AG, but the Solicitor General.

As for integrity vs. political, it is certainly political and probably illegal when the Attorney General and his staff, in consultation with the President's political chief, direct U.S. Attorneys to bring cases of alleged corruption only against Democrats just before an election, and fire those who don't toe the party line. That doesn't even address the Administration's promotion of torture while Gonzales was White House counsel, and his own calling the Geneva Convention's protections "obsolete" and "quaint".

As an attorney, a law professor and a citizen, I was appalled at the selection of Gonzales as Attorney General, and appalled at how he has served in that role. I can only hope that, for the integrity of our justice system, his successor will be both more qualified and take his oath more seriously. {Prof. Jonathan}

It's not just the newspapers. South Park had an two-part episode about people trying to stop Family Guy from showing Muhammad. Eventually in the cartoon, Family Guy showed Muhammad (all he was doing was borrowing a football helmet or something.) However Comedy Central actually refused to allow Muhammad to be shown on TV and censored that portion of the episode .

I doubt that this was put into place specifically to poke the Democrats - they just wanted to be first in the South. Besides, everybody wants in on the act. The South Carolina Republican party wants to move theirs to Jan 19th as a result of Florida's vote. California moved its primary from June 6th to Feb 5th earlier this year.

Perhaps for some reason I'm unique in being able to read it on the Washington Post?

http://wpcomics.washingtonpost.com/client/wpc/wpop u/

I will point out I first looked at it quite early Sunday morning, so it could be that my browser cached it and won't let it go. But it seems to be there to me.

I just checked with a different browser, and indeed it is there. Can someone who can't see it at the Washington Post tell me what shows up instead? I'm a little puzzled by why the finger is being pointed at them.

all the cars coming out of Japan can do it so much cheaper.

They can do it so much cheaper because the first $1500 of each car goes to cover medical insurance costs, not so in Japan. 69% of that health care cost is going to cover retired employees.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2005/04/29/AR2005042901385.html Labor Unions are largely responsible for health insurance and retirement benefits for full time employees being the standard. Walmart skirts this by having the majority of their employees work part time. They can enroll for health insurance only if they enroll their dependents as well, which is a problem because on their part time salary they can't afford the enrollment premiums. As for people lining up for the jobs and products, they lined up for Standard Oil as well. Walmart employees aren't usually in a position to be picky about their jobs, but just because they have to settle for "better than nothing" work doesn't mean that society should advocate their marginalization.

I see all this angst about how the Post didn't publish the comic, but it's right here on their website (you might have to register with the Post to see this, which would probably involve cookies, in case you care).

The "few Muslims with no money..." image of Islamist violence is fallacious. The ideas have infected everyday Muslims. The last major successful plot was carried out by a pair of British physicians.
 
The problem is not that Muslims have nothing to lose...it's that all three of the major religions are based on a violent book that was written during a time of tribal struggle. Those whose faith is strongest will be the most violent. Children in these religions are taught from a young age that faith in God and the book is the highest ideal. If "moderate" devout people simply believed their chosen book in its entirety (or even slightly more) there would be no hope for peace. Peace in the world is depending on the existence of Christmas Catholics, Muslims who pray once at home instead of five times during the day, and ham-loving Jews.

You're adorable.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2005/12/21/AR2005122101994.html

The truth gets lost when you try to reword officials in this adminstration. I can't find links to what was actually said, but here is what The Washington Post and other sources have reported. My emphasis added:

"Law enforcement officials are targeting fewer than 100 people in the United States for secret court-approved wiretaps aimed at disrupting terrorist networks, the top U.S. intelligence official said in an interview published yesterday."

Given the clever wordplay of the Bush administration, should we assume that there have been 100 wiretaps, or should we believe they're being clever with their words (again) and there are 100 wiretaps aimed at disrupting terrorist networks, but an unknown number of warrantless wiretaps for other purposes?

Secret Buildings...

No photographs please. We own the light.

Richard Bruce "Dick" Cheney can shoot a man down.
Richard Bruce "Dick" Cheney can unilaterally issue orders to take down aircrafts.

Videogames can have a negative influence on our young ones, really !
In what kind of alternate reality do these guys live ?

References:

The Man Who Dick Cheney Shot
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,115 9016,00.html

On February 11, 2006, U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney shot Harry Whittington, a 78-year-old Texas attorney, while participating in a quail hunt on a ranch in Kenedy County, Texas. Whittington was shot in the face, neck, and upper torso with birdshot pellets from a 28-gauge Perazzi shotgun. ...

Washington Post: "Cheney Authorized Shooting Down Planes "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A507 45-2004Jun17.html

At 10:39 on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, Vice President Cheney, in a bunker beneath the White House, told Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld in a videoconference that he had been informed earlier that morning that hijacked planes were approaching Washington. ...
Cheney, who told the commission he was operating on instructions from Bush given in a phone call, issued authority for aircraft threatening Washington to be shot down. But the commission noted that "among the sources that reflect other important events that morning there is no documentary evidence for this call, although the relevant sources are incomplete." Those sources include people nearby taking notes, such as Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and Cheney's wife, Lynne.

Absolutely unfounded... There are entirely too many checks and balances in place for the VP (or any politician for that matter) to create his own classification scheme.

• A reference from rawstory.com, with the daily show clip.
• The Washington Post article
• Story in the New York Times