Slashdot Mirror

Available at this link (PDF)

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/24/kucinich.ch eney.ap/index.html

Look again. Admittedly, I had to search for the right terms to find it. HR 333 doesn't yield anything useful.

What has been interesting to read about are some of the stories surrounding this introduction.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2007/04/24/AR2007042402341_2.html?hpid=sec-poli tics

The article above paints a very weak and dingy picture of the man pushing the resolution. It indicates that he's essentially standing alone on this initiative while others are calling this a weak attempt at boosting his name in his presidential bid for 2008. While I don't see the connection between the two, I think it would say a lot more if he dropped his bid for president in order to pursue this action.

This news isn't being discussed on the public airways. I don't expect it to be until it actually takes hold. We know who owns the media and they don't care to have the public voicing its opinion in favor of impeachment. Ultimately, with the current approval ratings of the current executive office, it wouldn't be difficult to imagine the public rallying behind the initiative. By not publishing information about the story, it has a chance to die of unpopularity before it goes anywhere.

Remember Webb Hubbell? He was something like the #2 man in the DoJ under Clinton.

Well, he made a deal with Ken Starr that he was going to cooperate with Starr. But then he got a bunch of "consulting" jobs that paid him something like $1 million. Guess who got old Webb those jobs? Vernon Jordan. Guess where one of those jobs was? Revlon.

Guess who got Monica Lewinski a job at Revlon when she was asked to testify? Vernon Jordan.

Hmm, no pattern of obstruction of justice, now is there?

No, of course not... :-P

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/04/06/time/not ebook.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/spec ial/clinton/stories/hubbell050198.htm

Sorry to toss facts into the way of your apology.

All you dolts who think Bush is bad seem to have forgotten all the crap Clinton pulled. Hundreds of private FBI files on prominent Republicans, payoffs to senior DoJ officials like Hubbell.

Can you imaging how loud the moonbats would be barking if the second-in-charge in Bush's DoJ were to get almost $1 million from Republican supporters and suddenly shut up in the current flap over firing a few political appointees?

Well, Webb Hubbell didn't shut up over the firing of a few political appointees, he shut up in a when he got paid a million bucks in a probe where the Clintons raked in millions in what looks like a crooked land deal.

But noooo, Bush is worse.

Someone else asked why Kucinich targeted Cheney but not Cheney's boss. "There's a practical reason," the congressman explained. "If we were to start with the president and pursue articles of impeachment, Mr. Cheney would then become president. . . . You would then have to go through the constitutional agony of impeaching two presidents consecutively."

Kucinich is such a marginal figure that even his democratic colleagues are distancing themselves from his antics:

Might not be a bad idea to update the summary with a link to the full story mentioned in the blurb.

which is here

There's more. Definitely read the blog section at Webmaster World linked above, which is being updated rapidly. Apparently it really is a virus. "It spreads by installing the activex on the computer that clicks the ad and looking to see if the infected host uses adwords, then does the same to their account." The pay per click people are panicking, because they're billed by Google for the ads. "The daily budget was increased to a number that would have produced a 7 figure Monthly payout." The details of exactly how this all works are still sketchy, though. Here's an early technical analysis.

It just hit the mainstream press, in the Washington Post

>And to those who think that the hate speech would evolve into squashing all free speech are offering up a red herring.

So very untrue. You bring up Canada as an example. Well then...

You should read up on how Canada's hate speech and obscenity (both of them, since the court cases based on either are very intertwined) laws came to be and the people they have affected. You would be very surprised as to the impetus for the such laws (Feminism) and that the law has effectively banned portions of the bible from public display. But it gets much better than that, Canada's courts so very well exemplify the slippery slope of hate speech laws:

R. v. Keegstra, regarding a teacher in a public school teaching hate to students.
Leads to R. v. Butler, regarding obscene item sales,
Which becomes R. v. Krymowski, a case where a small group of neo-nazis protesting Gypsies are put on trial for it.

Within only two decades we go from only prosecuting truly terrible crimes (Trying to teach students to hate) to prosecuting someone for selling bootlicking videos, to prosecuting protesters.

But wait, it gets even crazier here:

Scott Brockie, a printer, chose to refuse business from a pro-homosexual group as it would violate his religion to print their publication. He was subsequently prosecuted for this.

Wait -- banning the bible, banning the right to refuse service, banning porn toys isn't enough insanity for you?

Did you know that Canada's version of Al-Jazeera (which was banned for YEARS in this country, as by the request of the B'nai Brith due to "hate speech") requires censors sit on a hot button all day to delete anything offensive? Seriously. This was only done to prevent another protest to laws that effectively ban paying viewers from the viewing of foreign for-profit TV stations in Canada that won't register with the CRTC (and, therefore, be liable under hate speech and obscenity laws).

Our hate speech laws ban more than just Ernst Zundel, you know.

Boards of Canada summed it up pretty well:

"Now that the show is over, and we have jointly exercised our constitutional rights, we would like to leave you with one very important thought: Some time in the future, you may have the opportunity to serve as a juror in a so-called obscenity case. It would be wise to remember that the same people who would stop you from viewing an adult film may be back next year to complain about a book, or even a TV programme. If you can be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you can be told what to say or think. Defend your constitutionally-protected rights. No one else will do it for you. Thank you."

Freedom of speech is an essential liberty. Stop trading it for peace of mind!

If the US had hate crime laws, the CBC would be illegal there by now. Sometimes I the US did have the same laws--it would create the equivalent of a Berlin Wall for media trade between us, since that would also require you to refuse to play more than 65% foreign content on your radio stations. (A bit off topic, but any limit on speech is just a nice way of saying "censorship").

Where will Canada be in 20 more years with laws lik

When one closely examines the connections between events and the people involved with them - utilizing link analysis (sixth paragraph down under 'Subtly Softer Trigger') or more rightfully known as Stanley Milgram's "degrees of separation," the "conspiracy theories" quickly materialize into hard and substantive fact.

Thank you for your reply, nonetheless.

Well then, if "multiple" officials have done this, it should be easy for you to find an example...

Unfortunately the Crooks and Liars 'torture' archive only reaches as far back as their last server move, mid 2006, so I can't point to the video clips of the many interviews I watched personally, although I particularly remember the individual ones with Rice, Rumsfeld, Chertoff and Gonzales waeving and dodging desperately about "making sure that the interrogators have all the tools" etc.

It is quite amazing that the net has such short memory, quite an eye opener for me.

I was able to find some printed material, such as this infamous Bybee memo to the White House.

One of the clips now gone from C&L was the CSPAN video of this performance by Infhoe.

Then there is Trent Lott with this.

I could look for more (it seems to be a royal pain in the butt to find proper references to any bloviating official which are older then 2 weeks) but these should give a reasonable approximation of "multiple", although they are Republican elected officials rather then White House ones.

The fact that you think that the criminal abuse that happened at Abu Ghraib (which was identified through internal mechanisms and swiftly prosecuted resulting in several convictions) is even closely related to this tells me that you have already made your mind up on the issue regardless of the facts

You gotta be kidding. "Identified through internal mechanisms"?! Rumsfeld, Miller and Sanchez planned and supervised the whole damn disguisting thing! "Swiftly prosecuted"?! Who?! Oh you mean some hapless idiots who had the bad luck of filming themselves doing the deeds?! What about all the other ones?! The CIA, the "private security contractors" etc and so on. You are surely jesting.

Well then, if "multiple" officials have done this, it should be easy for you to find an example...

Unfortunately the Crooks and Liars 'torture' archive only reaches as far back as their last server move, mid 2006, so I can't point to the video clips of the many interviews I watched personally, although I particularly remember the individual ones with Rice, Rumsfeld, Chertoff and Gonzales waeving and dodging desperately about "making sure that the interrogators have all the tools" etc.

It is quite amazing that the net has such short memory, quite an eye opener for me.

I was able to find some printed material, such as this infamous Bybee memo to the White House.

One of the clips now gone from C&L was the CSPAN video of this performance by Infhoe.

Then there is Trent Lott with this.

I could look for more (it seems to be a royal pain in the butt to find proper references to any bloviating official which are older then 2 weeks) but these should give a reasonable approximation of "multiple", although they are Republican elected officials rather then White House ones.

The fact that you think that the criminal abuse that happened at Abu Ghraib (which was identified through internal mechanisms and swiftly prosecuted resulting in several convictions) is even closely related to this tells me that you have already made your mind up on the issue regardless of the facts

You gotta be kidding. "Identified through internal mechanisms"?! Rumsfeld, Miller and Sanchez planned and supervised the whole damn disguisting thing! "Swiftly prosecuted"?! Who?! Oh you mean some hapless idiots who had the bad luck of filming themselves doing the deeds?! What about all the other ones?! The CIA, the "private security contractors" etc and so on. You are surely jesting.

Well then, if "multiple" officials have done this, it should be easy for you to find an example...

Unfortunately the Crooks and Liars 'torture' archive only reaches as far back as their last server move, mid 2006, so I can't point to the video clips of the many interviews I watched personally, although I particularly remember the individual ones with Rice, Rumsfeld, Chertoff and Gonzales waeving and dodging desperately about "making sure that the interrogators have all the tools" etc.

It is quite amazing that the net has such short memory, quite an eye opener for me.

I was able to find some printed material, such as this infamous Bybee memo to the White House.

One of the clips now gone from C&L was the CSPAN video of this performance by Infhoe.

Then there is Trent Lott with this.

I could look for more (it seems to be a royal pain in the butt to find proper references to any bloviating official which are older then 2 weeks) but these should give a reasonable approximation of "multiple", although they are Republican elected officials rather then White House ones.

The fact that you think that the criminal abuse that happened at Abu Ghraib (which was identified through internal mechanisms and swiftly prosecuted resulting in several convictions) is even closely related to this tells me that you have already made your mind up on the issue regardless of the facts

You gotta be kidding. "Identified through internal mechanisms"?! Rumsfeld, Miller and Sanchez planned and supervised the whole damn disguisting thing! "Swiftly prosecuted"?! Who?! Oh you mean some hapless idiots who had the bad luck of filming themselves doing the deeds?! What about all the other ones?! The CIA, the "private security contractors" etc and so on. You are surely jesting.

Well then, if "multiple" officials have done this, it should be easy for you to find an example...

Unfortunately the Crooks and Liars 'torture' archive only reaches as far back as their last server move, mid 2006, so I can't point to the video clips of the many interviews I watched personally, although I particularly remember the individual ones with Rice, Rumsfeld, Chertoff and Gonzales waeving and dodging desperately about "making sure that the interrogators have all the tools" etc.

It is quite amazing that the net has such short memory, quite an eye opener for me.

I was able to find some printed material, such as this infamous Bybee memo to the White House.

One of the clips now gone from C&L was the CSPAN video of this performance by Infhoe.

Then there is Trent Lott with this.

I could look for more (it seems to be a royal pain in the butt to find proper references to any bloviating official which are older then 2 weeks) but these should give a reasonable approximation of "multiple", although they are Republican elected officials rather then White House ones.

The fact that you think that the criminal abuse that happened at Abu Ghraib (which was identified through internal mechanisms and swiftly prosecuted resulting in several convictions) is even closely related to this tells me that you have already made your mind up on the issue regardless of the facts

You gotta be kidding. "Identified through internal mechanisms"?! Rumsfeld, Miller and Sanchez planned and supervised the whole damn disguisting thing! "Swiftly prosecuted"?! Who?! Oh you mean some hapless idiots who had the bad luck of filming themselves doing the deeds?! What about all the other ones?! The CIA, the "private security contractors" etc and so on. You are surely jesting.

Almost.

That not quite true. The options were converted to restricted Apple stock for the same value as the options were currently worth. If the options had been granted later, presumably he would have been given a lot less restricted stock than he otherwise was. The Washington Post had an article about it on January 11th.

So you're correct that he never exercised the options, but he gained in a big way when they were converted to a restricted stock grant of their approximate value.

Sorry, KBR has a "no hippies or idealists" policy. If you really want a position in Iraq, you have to be in the right club. And that means Republican loyalty and a desire to make a LOT of money, really fast. All other qualifications are meaningless.

Personally, anyone found to be a participant in voter fraud should be barred for life from voting.

... and then there's all the bad shit fructose does http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8003-200 3Mar10?language=printer

It prevents your body from producing a hormone telling you you're not hungry, so the more you eat and drink fructose, the more you want! No wonder soft drinks are fattening.

As explained in this more detailed article about the issue, is that someone could harrass someone else by transmitting illegal material from an open WAP. It certainly has happened before. It's a lot harder to get away with a phony trail of blood leading to someone's door.

>
Predators, like cats, cannot taste sweet because their body receives enough sugars from their food sources that they don't require the need to seek more out.
---
This has nothing to do with predator status, it's only cats, not the rest of them.
Cats both large and small harbor a genetic mutation that renders the sugar detectors on their taste buds inoperative.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2005/07/24/AR2005072401107.html

A vendor issue eh.
I'm making a wild guess at:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2007/04 /microsoft_warns_of_attacks_on_1.html

The private sector is also looking quite interesting in the orbital spaceflight arena. I tried submitting the following story last week:

Bigelow Announces $15 Million For Month in Space

Robert Bigelow has announced a price of $15 million for a four-week trip to one of the private space stations Bigelow Aerospace will deploy, with a price of $3 million for an additional four weeks. This drastically undercuts the Russian Space Agency's $25 million price for a week or two on the ISS. Bigelow also stated that interested countries and companies could lease an entire in-orbit research facility for $88 million/year.

According to Pentagon investigations after the Abu Ghraib scandal, officials cited the fact that interrogation tactics as well as personnel were moved to Abu Ghraib after their success in "breaking" detainees at Guantanamo. More focus was paid to Guantanamo since then, but the military has stonewalled everyone, even the Red Cross.

May I suggest:
The Road to Guantanamo
Tipton Three Complained of Beatings
Washington Post: FBI Agents Allege Abuse of Detainees at Guantanamo Bay and FBI Files Detail Guantanamo torture tactics
Red Cross Finds Detainee Abuse in Guantánamo

All politicians are liars. Bush just seems to be a particularly bad one.

I'm going to be honest- I found this list of alleged lies to be rather petty. I don't know- maybe they are lies, but for the most part, they seem more like examples of President Bush's political incompetence than of willful dishonesty. He is a terrible politician. He's never figured out how to play the Washington game. Considering the constant drumbeat of "Bush Lied" I am a little surprised that this was all you came up with.

I could go on about the Niger Yellow Cake lies, the domestic spying program lies, the Iraq-9/11 connection lies, etc, but you get the point

I don't think you could go on about those. Everything he said about Niger yellowcake is 100% true, I don't know what lies about domestic spying you are referring to (the President never denied the existence of the program), and nobody in the administration has claimed that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 (on the contrary, the President has publicly stated multiple times that Iraq was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Example).

1. Iraq posed a direct threat to the United States.

Can you explain please?

Sure. Iraq was one of the most active sponsors of international terrorism in the world. We have known this ever since Iraq was first placed on the State Department's list of State Sponsors of Terrorism way back in 1979. After the first Gulf War, Saddam shifted his primary focus of terrorism to the West (and the United States in particular). During this time, he recruited the work of notorious terrorists like Abu Nidal and Carlos the Jackal to lead attacks against the US, he tried to assassinate President Bush Sr, he tortured and executed any Iraqis that cooperated with the UN weapons inspectors (including his own brother-in-law), and he attempted to bomb the US-run Radio Free Europe facilities in Prague. As if this wasn't enough, our allies started to warn us in 2001-2002 that Saddam was planning more attacks against us (both inside and outside of the United States). It is pretty hard to deny that this constitutes a serious threat against us, and we had just learned a pretty vivid lesson on September 11 about what happens when you ignore these kinds of threats.

When was the US elected world enforcer?

Well, when the US joined the United Nations and agreed to it's charter, it (like all members of the UN) agreed in Chapter VII to enforce the mandates of the Security Council.

The UN refused to give the US authority for the Iraq invasion but we did it anyway.

I disagree- the UN explicitly gave the authorization to use military force to enforce the cease-fire defined in resolution 687, and backed that authorization up over a dozen times in subsequent years. This is the same authorization that was used to justify air strikes against Iraqi anti-aircraft installations in 1993 and for Operation Desert Fox in 1998. It was valid then and it was still valid in 2003.

Don't forget that Israel has been the target of at least twice as many UN resolutions as Iraq and has defied world opinion for over half a century, yet the US rewards them with billions of dollars each year.

The UN Security Council has never passed any resolutions against Israel under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. All of the resolutions with regards to Israel were passed either by the General Assembly, or they were passed by the Security Council under Chapter VI. Neither of these are binding or enforceable in any context. It's apples to oranges.

Resolution 678 did not "cl

Starvation problems aren't due to lack of food, they're do to lack of available food. Turning corn grown here into fuel burned here isn't going to stop the food from making it to Africa (it was never headed that way to begin with.)

Most of the time I'd agree with you, but check out this article:
There is almost universal consensus in Mexico that higher demand for ethanol is at the root of price increases for corn and tortillas.

So we're not talking about Africa here, but in Mexico, it can be more profitable to turn the corn into ethanol than into tortillas, and people are going hungry because of it.

What are you talking about? It only took a few years for mosquitoes to become DDT resistant. They were moving to heavier and heavier organochlorine based pesticides back then before switching to various organophosphorus pesticides that at least broke down. The organophosphorus pesticides are closely related to nerve gas and also have major problems with insects evolving resistance.
I'm sure I got the spelling of the above wrong, its been over 25 years since I had a pesticide ticket.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2005/06/04/AR2005060400130.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT

To me, it sounded like extortion, but since the company is in Germany they can get away with it easier I suppose.

It's much easier in Korea.

Why would DoJ want to get into your personal business? I guess they have other things to worry about, right? If they want to get into your personal business, don't they have a strong reason to do that?

The American government, like all governments have political enemies, that present a threat to their power, revenue, etc. It's easier if they can just track everybody without going through a lot of paperwork. Considering that the DoJ is very weak on crime right now, I believe it's safe to assume that much of their work is political in nature and should be watched closely. Under these circumstances, we give them far too much authority.

One of the founders of Greenpeace spent 30 years preaching the same ignorance you just did. Then in 2006 came to his senses and wrote a nice article in the Washingpost about why nuclear energy may be the only thing that saves us. Read it here: Going Nuclear.
Regards,
Steve

outstandingly supple, but not too many people are getting very excited about it.

It is trivial to break in to a laptop when one has unrestricted physical access.

It is usually non-trivial to break into a server that is in a data-center behind firewalls given zero-knowledge.

Fortunately for the bad-guys, laptops have been proven over and over to contain network information, passwords, and raw protected data:

Chicago Public Schools
FBI
Boeing
Starbucks
Towers Perrin
US Commerce Department
US Department of Transportation and Sovereign Bank, et al.
US Navy
US Department of Veteran Affairs
Federal Trade Commission
Equifax
Ernst & Young (many times)

Unless "Get competent administrators" is software that prevents users from putting data on their laptops, this suggestion is meaningless.

"Get competent administrators" is a finger-waving nebulous non-solution from those that have no idea what competent administration looks like.

Competent adminstrators recognize that security problems are not simple and they are only solved by tangible, disciplined, and rigorous solutions, rather than dismissive statements of "be smarter."

|Damn straight. Now, go find me a black millionaire nationally-syndicated talk-show host who makes racist remarks.

How about Jesse Jackson? (Not a nationally Syndicated talk-show host, but most definitely a millionaire and a Public Figure)

http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/08/ 16/jackson/index.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/spec ial/clinton/frenzy/jackson.htm

Louis Farrakhan (also a wealthy public figure, just google for his remarks on Jews)

Racism is unacceptable, whether it comes from whites, blacks or anyone. Radical black nationalism is just as racist in ideology as radical white nationalism.

Good afternoon. Today I ordered our Armed Forces to strike at terrorist-related facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan because of the imminent threat they presented to our national security.

I want to speak with you about the objective of this action and why it was necessary. Our target was terror. Our mission was clear -- to strike at the network of radical groups affiliated with and funded by Osama bin Laden, perhaps the preeminent organizer and financier of international terrorism in the world today.

You might notice the date there. August 20, 1998. For those of you not following the links, it was Clinton that said this.

Did the media report this? You betcha

U.S. missiles pound targets in Afghanistan, Sudan

Retaliation for bombing of U.S. embassies in eastern Africa

Bin Laden reportedly survives attack

Remember again, this was August 20, 1998. 1,118 days before 9/11 took place.

OK, so we have ABSOLUTE proof that Clinton tried to kill OBL. Not in some made-for-TV movie last year, but archived news reports from the day.

I'll let you catch your breath, because I feel like a frackin' Spartan and I'm going for the legs now.

What was the official response... not from shock jocks, not from hot-heads... but from Republican Senators?

I am so glad you asked.

Sen. Arlen Specter. (R-Pa.) "There's an obvious issue that will be raised internationally as to whether there is any diversionary motivation."

Sen. John D. Ashcroft (R-Mo.) "There is a cloud over this presidency."

Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.), (who called on Clinton to resign after his speech) "The president has been consumed with matters regarding his
personal life. It raises questions about whether or not he had the time to devote to this issue, or give the kind of judgment that needed to be
given to this issue to call for military action."

Whether or not the Commander In Chief could possibly have the time in his busy schedule in trying to kill a man that tried to blow up the WTC in 1993. A man responsible for the attack on the USS Cole. A man that turned US property in Africa to smouldering rubble and gristle.

So yeah, I want to talk about missing emails, and liberties with our Liberty, and why it was that, FOR ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTEEN DAYS, all Republicans wanted to concentrate on was the oral sex they weren't getting.

Now I've got the legs, it's time to go for the throat. Google Groups is the archive of Usenet posts going back to 1981. If ONE PERSON, just ONE CONSERVATIVE, had posted just ONE LINK supporting Clinton in his valid attempt to shut down al Queda, someone somewhere surely would have posted it. The link above has narrowed down the search. Click on it, and you'll see it's for posts between August 20 1998 and September 10 2001. All posts including bin Laden, but not including -monica, -lewinsky, -cigar, -blowjob.

Well, you can see that someone was asking how safe an aircraft carrier was, in German, the night before. Nostradamus groups

"In the run-up to the war with Iraq, I worked in the Counterproliferation Division of the CIA, still as a covert officer whose affiliation with the CIA was classified,"

TOKYO, Dec. 15 -- Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's government on Friday successfully pushed through landmark laws requiring Japanese schools to encourage patriotism in the classroom and elevating the Defense Agency to the status of a full ministry for the first time since World War II.

Both measures are considered cornerstones of Abe's conservative agenda to bolster Japan's military status and rebuild national pride in a country that had long associated patriotism with its imperialist past. The legislation cleared the upper house of parliament on Friday after winning approval in the lower house last month and will come into effect early next year.

-FL

The Washington Post

Looking at what banks can do to improve security:

- Stop putting the "lock" icon on your login form. Users should look for the lock on the toolbar or part of browser frame. (chase.com, others)
- Stop using non secure login pages (not where the login form is being submitted to) (chase.com, usbank.com, wachovia.com)
- Stop using marketing emails from strange marketing addresses. This just gets people used to bank emails from weird places.
- Make a secure bookmarkable banking page. (my bank does not do this, I get an error screen if going to bookmark)
- Simplify navigation and operation and unify systems. (my bank does not do this, if I log out on one part of the site, I'm not logged out from the "very secure" part)

Bank sites driven by marketers

Maybe you were thinking of how the decoy effect means you were actually helping Gore.

Or maybe you were just doing something crazy and voting for values you actually believed in.

Is to start a nuclear program, and the U.S. will back down...oh, wait.

1. $2,400 for your share of the Iraq war (guesstimating 50 million tax payers, 1 in 6 people , 120 billion budget sent to the president at the moment)
2. $1,120 for education (56 billion / 50 million)
3. $8,400 for the department of defense (420 billion excluding war spending / 50 million)

Sean Egan did not jump ship. He is still in charge of the project and has been managing the whole legal process (and everything related to it) since AOL started going after him.

• Google Hires Gaim's Main Developer.
• Google Buys 5% Of AOL for $1 Billion
• AOL threatens "Gaim's Main Developer" with legal dispute. Most of us think this is EVIL.

Doesn't Google own 5% of AOL?

If we don't let Japan and China learn about the technology, who will build it? All joking aside, countermeasures already exist and in many cases are far more advanced. Either way India is not considered an enemy http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/04/19/AR2006041902480.html. If you're concerned about outsourcing, don't be, let the Indians go to school in the US, that way at least our universities don't rot from lack of use.

If these journalists really beleive in what they are doing, why not spend time in jail in the rare case where protecting a source is important?

What makes you think that these journalists don't exist? I have not heard of this person outside of Slashdot and I do read the newspapers.

Here's are couple such people that you are asking about:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2005/06/27/AR2005062700489_pf.html
http://www.americanpressinstitute.org/pages/resour ces/2004/11/journalists_need_a_getoutofjai/

Is it you who decides what types of sources are and are not worth protecting? For example, I really don't like the shenanigans thatt the current White House is doing, but even with the first example, I don't think that a member of the press should be compelled into revealing the source of their information.

According to this article on the http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2007/04/06/AR2007040601088.html Post's website, Verizon seems to think Vonage's customers are "rightly theirs". Funny, I don't recall signing up for Verizon. I can't argue that this is wrong, however. Verizon is a corporate entity. If it can legally kill a competitor, it will do it, in the name of competition no less.

I don't have an issue with them defending a trademark or patent, and Vonage put itself in the position when all it probably had to do was reverse engineer/partner with/absorb another solution in order to head this off. I'm sure though that I'll find a VoIP carrier that will satisfy my needs

Don't get me wrong, Verizon just guaranteed they won't get my money, and my memory is quite long when I commit to not purchasing someone's product.

China just passed the property law. I think this is a big step.