Slashdot Mirror

For U.S. workers, the prospect of a smaller Big Three and a bigger Toyota means continuing pressure on high-wage jobs with health and retirement benefits, according to Lichtenstein and Chaison. GM, Ford and Chrysler are unionized, but the United Auto Workers has been unable to organize workers at Toyota, Honda and other so-called transplants, which operate mostly in Southern states where there is little union tradition.

The foreign companies pay comparable if slightly lower wages than the U.S. companies, but they do not have the expensive retiree health and pension benefits that General Motors says add $1,500 to the cost of each U.S.-made car. As the unionized sector of the industry shrinks, labor specialists said, the transplants will be under less pressure to pay wages comparable to those earned by union members.

Well, at Circuit City, they can't keep up with the demand because they've decided that employees are an indefensible drain on the bottom line.

Somebody should turn a page. Hey, it worked against Clinton.

And how did Giuliani repay Bratton for his hard work? By asking for his resignation and hiring Bernard Kerik, a personal friend with ties to the mafia, to replace him.

You're going to be hearing about this a lot more if Giuliani presses ahead with his presidential campaign.

But I fail to see how giving out a draft report offers protection

Moreover, it seems that he helped anyone who appealed to her for help (this is what regulatory agencies should do), not just certain people.

MacDonald acknowledged to Devaney that the policy document would not have been released under a Freedom of Information Act request but "said that did not mean she could not release it to a personal friend, the PLF attorney, as long as the attorney would not post the document on the PLF's Web site.

I wouldn't put too much stock in any "science" from anyone at the Dept. of the Interior. Interior is a haven for folks who all share the same opinions and work towards the same agenda.

> I don't understand why they are not trying to market this for the educational market in developed countries.
Because in "developed" countries we have "developed marketing departments" who's job it is to make sure that the local ed tech buys "only the best" for the kids, even if "the best" is way more capacity than most kids writing papers and watching flash-powered chemistry sims online need.

This situation is not unique to schools:
There's a $200M study to track the effects of pre-school on children - does it *really* take that kind of money to track a bunch of pre-school kids?
We have pretty good roads, but a large segment of the population still thinks you won't be safe on the road unless you drive a $70,000 mil-spec automobile.
If you don't have insurance, you can spend $12,000 just for cracked ribs.

We'll spend $100M/mile on a ROAD.

We have so much $$ in the US ($3 TRILLON FY2007 Fed Budget) we seem to believe that there are no cheap problems.

Computer science employment is growing by nearly 100,000 jobs annually. But at the same time studies show that there is a dramatic decline in the number of students graduating with computer science degrees.

Today, the Washington Post is featuring a article from President Lula addressing this issue. Here is the link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2007/03/29/AR2007032902019.html?hpid=opinionsbo x1

Sugar is a good way to go. Sugar is very fast growing which is why ethanol in Brazil is pretty cheap: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2005/06/17/AR2005061701440.html. There flexi-fuel cars can run on gas (which is at least 25% ethanol) or E100 (100% ethanol).

A massive usage for corn is in fattening cattle. This is a hugely wasteful way to feed people compared to a more direct approach such as eating the corn or soy or whatever, Processing into beef is very wasteful. This would also drive up beef prices which would make McDonalds unhappy with DoE

There is no reason why there should not be a multi-input strategy. Corn can grow where sugar cannot. Algae can grow where corn and sugar can't. It is silly to really argue for one over the other. Rather make a multi-input ethanol industry.

I thought we (The US) doesn't use breeder reactors because they can be used to create weapons grade uranium/plutonium(?), and as a result were permenantly banned by president Regan. Since loosening nuclear power laws is political suicide, nobody's tried reversing that decision in 20 years.

It wasn't actually a law, and it wasn't Reagan... I think it was actually Carter, but I'm not sure. Here's a relevant article about some consideration by the current administration to change said rules, allowing the reprocessing.

The article is hilarious and will be widely mocked. The offensive comments are from tards who amuse themselves by posting racist, sexist, homophobic and generally illegal content for the lulz. This doesn't mean they are racist etc - they generally aren't - just that it's very funny to troll against politically-correct idiots who don't "get it". And wow have they succeeded in this case!

They are my personal clowns, so I'll not break rule one. The complainants should lurk more and not feed the trolls.

I guess Bush was actually informed on an issue for once. It still made me laugh when I heard it the first five times though...

Actually, it was the citizens, not the taxpayers, that funded this. Money is collected by the government as representatives of the citizenry. Your right to control the government comes not from the money you pay into it; it comes from being a citizen.

I pay a solid middle class share of my taxes - it shouldn't give me any more say than the guy who makes nothing, or any less than the guy who pays ten times what I do.

Of course, as a DC resident, I am a second class citizen.

DNC caged the protestors in Boston due to extraordinary security concerncs. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A956 4-2004Jul23.html I guess they were afraid of the swift boat veterans for truth track record of car-bombings.

Major political milestone today: a Republican senator said that impeaching Bush "might be an option".

This is starting to look like the last months of the Nixon presidency. Gonzales is on the way out, with more disclosures coming every few days. Even the Republicans want him out. Bush is trying frantically to keep Karl Rove from testifying under oath. Cheney's old chief of staff was convicted of perjury last week. Bush's approval rating is down to 30-34%, depending on the poll. Cheney is somewhere around 18%.

It's like 1973 all over again.

5-4 Supreme Court Abolishes Juvenile Executions, Roper v. Simmons

For what it's worth, I'm also in the telecom industry.

A true production level environment has fully controlled endpoints. Even the VOIP cable companies provide don't use IP. Most use ATM and/or frame relay.
ATM and frame relay are legacy technologies. They're being phased out in favor of IP just as quickly as carriers can.

Everything's not so free when it's YOUR equipment or network others want to leech, is it.
Yeah, except that it was built with OUR tax dollars, and the current "owners" are doing little to invest their windfall profits back into the system.
As a result, the United States is now falling behind the rest of the world in broadband internet.

I can vouch for this, having worked at a major router manufacturer. We made lots of sales around the world, to BT, France Telecom, some Russians, KT, India. There's a lot of growth around the world, but hardly any in the U.S. market. Of course, part of this is because the U.S. population has not been growing.

But the bigger issue is that the U.S. telecoms invest the absolute bare minimum to keep people from screaming.
And if you live in a rural area, you might as well forget about it-- you'll be stuck paying 1940s era prices for 1940s era phone technology. (Here's a hint-- in 2007, that's not a good deal.)

Companies also try to maintain the farce that long distance calls cost them more, which today makes about as much sense as the droit de signor. And the related farces that caller ID and three-way calls should be hugely expensive. I could go on, but... what's the point? I could hardly think of an organization I hate more than Verizon, except maybe the Internal Revenue Service.

My great grandfather fought for this country, my grandfather fought for this country, my father fought for this country, and my friends have fought for this country. So you can play the Veteran card and act like that has any real bearing on the situation, and I'll just go on stating the facts of the matter. Don't get me wrong; I respect your service to the greatest nation on the face of the Earth, but just as you have spared me no harsh words, I shall act accordingly.

You may not think that we found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but I'll tell you right now, you are WRONG. In Iraq alone they found 1.77 metric TONS of enriched uranium. They found 1,500 GALLONS of chemical weapons. They found 17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin. Do you know what cyclosarin is? It's a deadly nerve agent with five times the effectiveness of sarin gas. But more importantly, they found 1,000 radioactive materials that are used in dirty bombs. Don't believe me? Well, CNN sure as hell won't cover that. MoveOn.org won't have that on their front page. And you damn well better believe that the Democrats did their best to cover that up.

I'll even post my sources. I'll be fully transparent in this, and I'll be ACCOUNTABLE for what I say... which is more than I can say for you, Anonymous Coward. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=38213 http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=10101&of fer=&hidebodyad=true http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/m-n/mariani/2 004/mariani052804.htm http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/06/21/AR2006062101837.html

> People don't starve to death in the long term.

Not in the Welfare States of America, anyway.

...and get in a lather over how a handful of US attorneys (ALL of whom work entirely at the whim of every president and are political appointees, and ALL of whom the previous administration fired without so much as a minor hissy fit out of congress) were dismissed.

Can you show me where the Clinton administration pressured US attorneys to selective prosecute cases that served Democratic political ends? Or how when the US attorneys failed to comply they were fired? That would be news - which is why it is news now and wasn't then.

But, the opposing party's majority supported the PATRIOT act...

Perhaps the first time around - a month after 9/11. Perhaps you missed the memo for the Senate and the House the second time around. I'll tease out the key details for you.

For the House, only 44 Democrats supported the legislation and only 18 Republicans did not - which means 207 Republicans did.

The Senate vote was trying to address some of the most problematic aspects of the PATRIOT Act - specifically:

Original action on the bill was blocked in the Senate 2005 by four Republicans and a majority of Democrats who demanded that safeguards be put in place to protect against abuses of the law. Those safeguards included ending the use of "National Security Letters," which did not require a judge's approval, in order to obtain some forms of electronic information. Senators also added a provision that would allow the recipients of a "215 subpoenas," which are issued by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, to challenge "gag" orders that prevented them from disclosing the fact that they had received a subpoena.

I guess my point here is that if you are going to correct someone - you should actually be acquianted with the facts. I'd also argue that who is in charge of the Executive does matter because the Executive is the one that is abusing the power in the first place.

Which gets back to your ridiculous framing. I'd love for you to talk about all the terrorist activity the PATRIOT Act has enabled the U.S. government to prosecute. Where are all the terrorist convictions? Where is the accountability after the fact - information on what provisions were used, how it was effective, etc. Where's the empirical proof that the PATRIOT actually does "fix the problem" and information about how this Act has actually been used?

I think when you look at the facts you will find that the Patriot Act is being used in ways it was never intended on cases that have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism and that is a gross misuse of state power. All we have now is people - like yourself - stating it is very important. I'd like to see some facts that support that assertion. In the meantime, I'll continue to call bullshit.

...and get in a lather over how a handful of US attorneys (ALL of whom work entirely at the whim of every president and are political appointees, and ALL of whom the previous administration fired without so much as a minor hissy fit out of congress) were dismissed.

Can you show me where the Clinton administration pressured US attorneys to selective prosecute cases that served Democratic political ends? Or how when the US attorneys failed to comply they were fired? That would be news - which is why it is news now and wasn't then.

But, the opposing party's majority supported the PATRIOT act...

Perhaps the first time around - a month after 9/11. Perhaps you missed the memo for the Senate and the House the second time around. I'll tease out the key details for you.

For the House, only 44 Democrats supported the legislation and only 18 Republicans did not - which means 207 Republicans did.

The Senate vote was trying to address some of the most problematic aspects of the PATRIOT Act - specifically:

Original action on the bill was blocked in the Senate 2005 by four Republicans and a majority of Democrats who demanded that safeguards be put in place to protect against abuses of the law. Those safeguards included ending the use of "National Security Letters," which did not require a judge's approval, in order to obtain some forms of electronic information. Senators also added a provision that would allow the recipients of a "215 subpoenas," which are issued by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, to challenge "gag" orders that prevented them from disclosing the fact that they had received a subpoena.

I guess my point here is that if you are going to correct someone - you should actually be acquianted with the facts. I'd also argue that who is in charge of the Executive does matter because the Executive is the one that is abusing the power in the first place.

Which gets back to your ridiculous framing. I'd love for you to talk about all the terrorist activity the PATRIOT Act has enabled the U.S. government to prosecute. Where are all the terrorist convictions? Where is the accountability after the fact - information on what provisions were used, how it was effective, etc. Where's the empirical proof that the PATRIOT actually does "fix the problem" and information about how this Act has actually been used?

I think when you look at the facts you will find that the Patriot Act is being used in ways it was never intended on cases that have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism and that is a gross misuse of state power. All we have now is people - like yourself - stating it is very important. I'd like to see some facts that support that assertion. In the meantime, I'll continue to call bullshit.

Washington Post writers were looking for Tony Snow while Bush was in South America.

Is it possible this new discovery in Uganda is he?

Memory, prophecy, and fantasy
the past, the future, and the dreaming moment between
are all one country,
living one immortal day.
To know that is Wisdom.
To use it is the Art.

The H1 was taken out of production last year http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/05/12/AR2006051201782.html

Ditto. Spun's point of view is one that is appealing to hear, but false.

Here is the founder saying he was wrong to oppose nuclear energy: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html
Here is Greenpeace's site saying that nuclear energy is evil: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/ nuclear

Here is John McCarthy (a famous computer scientist) touting the benefits of nuclear energy, and why most of the concerns against nuclear power are not as valid as one would think: http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclea r-faq.html

While the RIAA controls a lot of music, I would contend that they don't control the best or even the most, only the best known. Many formerly popular groups have retrieved their music, which the RIAA has been neglecting in favor of the more profitable new groups. Classic music scores are, generally, public domain and can be performed by any competent orchestra. Do you honestly believe that RIAA artists are inherently "better" than the huge number of non-RIAA artists? The only real problem is one of filtration. As covered previously the question is, how do you filter out the huge number of wannabees from the genuine talent? IMHO, a rec system could be put in place which would allow the listeners willing to rate tracks to winnow out the pretenders and provide a list of talent better than anything the RIAA offers.

Remember, the RIAA makes more profit when there are fewer artists selling more copies of the same songs to more buyers. Therefore, it is in their best interest to reduce the amount of music available. In turn, this means that the bulk of those with real talent out there do not have a contract with a major label. The RIAA is opposed not only to the rights of artists and fans, but to music itself.

To someone who contends that the RIAA controls the best, I would ask, "How much non-RIAA music have you listened to?"

Yes, cancer is not a get out of jail free card for everyone.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2007/03/14/AR2007031401364.html

But "which are most likely" seems a bit stilted. For a /. write-up, that approaches the "and then there's Albania" style of writing.

Interesting how AOL is at the bottom of the list of ISPs likeliest to be hit. Who would have thought.

Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall said the company had not broken the law because all of the work in the South Pars gas field would be done by non-Americans employed by a subsidiary registered in the Cayman Islands.

No, the LOGCAP contract that Halliburton/KBR is operating under was won under the standard, competitive bid process through the Federal Procurement system. The only thing that was "no-bid" was the extension of these contracts to include the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq because those wars didn't exist when the contract was awarded. As Steven Kelman, a senior procurement policymaker in the Clinton administration, said: "One would be hard-pressed to discover anyone with a working knowledge of how federal contracts are awarded -- whether a career civil servant working on procurement or an independent academic expert -- who doesn't regard these allegations as being somewhere between highly improbable and utterly absurd."

the problems originated in the fact that we negotiated such crappy contracts with them

Yes, but why did Bush's government negotiate crappy contracts?

Might just be typical Bush Administration heckuva job incompetence, might be a typical giveaway to Republican-supporting companies.

Or, it could be corruption of procurement officials, as in the Boeing scandal.

"'I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to contracts awarded to KBR [Halliburton] represents the most blatant and improper abuse I have witnessed' in 20 years working on government contracts" -- Bunnatine Greenhouse, top Army procurement officer

This is from a company who's been dealing with Iran on a pipeline with a very thinly veiled subsidiary in the caribbean. Really, truth is more complicated and stranger than fiction.

Bad Scientist dude: Huh? I know nothing of what just took place. I'm just trying to work on this stuff so that we have clean energy.

It is said that in the 10th century, the 12th and last Imam of the Shiite branch of Islam disappeared. He is said to be hidden by God and will reappear at the end of history to lead an era of Islamic justice. But lately, actions by -- and rumors about -- Iran's president have renewed interest in the 12th Imam.

Centuries ago, this holy person is said to have disappeared, hidden by God, but kept alive since then, to reappear at the end of history to lead an era of Islamic justice. The belief, which helped to inspire Iran's Islamic Revolution 27 years ago, diminished in importance over the years.

Now it has found renewed inspiration in Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

George Bush's widespread plundering of the middle east...

If the government is truly accountable to you, then you have no need to fear a corporation. Corporations only exist with the blessing and protection of government (witness the recent events in Venezuela, or what happened in the Third Reich, or any communist country).

It is important to get the government to pass and enforce meaningful privacy laws. But those laws applied to companies amount to little, if they do not also apply to government itself.

Government is the elephant in the room in the privacy debate. How happy are they to encourage companies to collect all sorts of information about individuals by having little restrictions on what they can do with it. Then, when they are in the midst of an investigation (witch hunt?), they can demand access (probably without a subpoena), brand someone a security risk, and lock him up, indefinitely, without charge.

Look at the recent revelations: Gonzales, Mueller Admit FBI Broke Law

Whatever laws constrain business, need to constrain government all the more vigorously.

I don't think corporations are the "worse possible enemy of privacy", that title properly belongs to the entity who by legal threat and use of force can already sweep privacy aside (say in the course of a murder investigation): the government.

Most constitutional rights aren't supposed to come with criminal penalties for their violation.

The constitution doesn't apply to "the people." That's a common misconception. The constitution lays out the hard boundaries that the federal, and in some cases the states, governments must obey in order to remain legitimate. Actions by these government entities that violate the constituting authority - the constitution itself - are illegitimate, not illegal. In other words, there is no justification for those actions, and they are outside the bounds of what the government was established to do.

The government isn't a punishable entity. Only people within it are. So only laws (hopefully based upon the constitution, but that isn't happening lately) written to force individuals within the government to comply with those ideals can affect individuals. A good - no, perfect - example is Bush's oath to defend the constitution. He swore he would; he not only didn't, he has outright damaged it directly by signing the Military Commissions act and authorizing wiretaps without warrants, among other things. But there is no penalty for violating that oath; no law that calls him to account for such acts. The oath, of course, is therefore a completely empty act, like most claims and statement in American politics, I might add. To quote President George W. Bush regarding the constitution: "it's just a goddamned piece of paper."

As far as citizens go, we didn't write the constitution, we didn't sign it, we had, and have, no input into it, and it really only affects us as far as the government obeys it. Lately, that isn't very much. If they aren't outright violating one portion, they're wantonly misinterpreting another. There have been a couple of signs of change in the right direction in the last week or so; 2nd Amendment and habeas corpus but overall, things are pretty bleak.

There was an interesting article in March's Harpers written by a reporter who checked himself into an "Internet Addiction Treatment Center." Unfortunately, the acticle's not online, but it's worth checking out at a library or newstand.

The Post article is a little less behind the scenes, but it does detail how China is pretty much treating Internet Addiction along the same lines as heroin and alcohol addictions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2007/02/21/AR2007022102094.html

In scores of messages, the users disparage individuals by name or other personally identifying information. Some of the messages included false claims about sexual activity and diseases.

I hate to upset you, but books seem to be going that route too. It's only a few years before they start implanting advertichips into our brains at birth.

It's NOT chemically identical to sucrose.

Fructose != Sucrose, they're chemically different with different absorbtion pathways in your body.
Fructose is only processed directly by your liver. Sucrose is processed in the gut.
Fructose causes massive insulin spikes and crashes, worse than sucrose does (which is one part fructose
and one part glucose- HFCS is pretty much nothing but Fructose...)

I suggest doing a little reading up on your organic chemistry and biochemistry before making bold
comments like your own. I know I have done my research- and it's not been the organic or health
food industry for this one (The Aspartame one started there, but went to more "reputable" sources...).

And you've not been doing your reading...

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/ 25/1/202
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A294 34-2004Aug24.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10520226&dopt=Abstrac t
http://www.centre4activeliving.ca/publications/res earch_update/2004/June.htm

Fructose makes you fat. Fructose makes you have vicious insulin spikes because your body
doesn't distinguish glucose from fructose- and you end up with fructose in your blood stream
until the liver can process it. Your liver can run off of either sugar- but it stores only
one day's worth of energy reserve in glucogen inside it's structures and then starts converting
the rest of the fructose and other sugars into FAT.

Combine the two and you end up with Type II Diabetes, heart disease, and so forth.

You see, Two years ago this week, I discovered by accident I was a Type II Diabetic, checking
into the Emergency room with a blood sugar of 607. At that point, I started digging into causes
with my doctor and other people.

Fructose was a major contributing factor. In and of itself, it's natural and you're supposed
to be taking it in. But refined like it is in HFCS, it's more of a poison than Sucrose is.
This is because while Fructose is bound up in the disaccaride Sucrose, it's got to be broken
apart, and there's as little as a third as much fructose, all things being considered, if you
stick with just Sucrose where it really IS a good thing in the mix.

Also worth noting is that there's very little need to be placing sugar of any kind in about 2/3
of the food we eat. The food industry currently does this to increase sales because it "tastes
better" and they know you're inclined to be addicted to the sweet taste.

But hey, keep drinking that damn soda with corn syrup in it. Me, I'm trying to find answers that
don't involve even Splenda if I can help it at all.

From the link above:

"Hours after New Orleans officials announced Tuesday that they would deploy a city-owned, wireless Internet network in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, regional phone giant BellSouth Corp. withdrew an offer to donate one of its damaged buildings that would have housed new police headquarters, city officials said yesterday."

From another article: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/services/200 6-03-28-new-orleans-wifi_x.htm "BellSouth has opposed proposed legislation that would allow New Orleans to keep its Wi-Fi network running. The carrier, which provides phone service in Louisiana, stands to lose phone and wireless customers if other cities follow New Orleans' lead."

Seems like at least one carrier doesn't like free Wifi.

Hah! Good one!

In case it went over anyone's head, I think he was punning on this

Can someone tell me whether there will be a sequel or not?

Are you kidding me? The game has been released for about two weeks. Of course there will be a sequel! In fact, it was started soon after the original game was pitched to publishers. It should be coming out in September, as part of Microsoft's one-three punch with Halo 3 and a price drop to annhilate the Wii, PS3, DS, PSP, Dreamcast, Genesis, and all other competition from the historty books and all eternity. Other consoles will only be a comma taught to game designers everywhere thanks to this game's sequel Crackdown 2: When Crystal Meth Attacks!

Sorry, went a little overboard there.

• Genes contribute to religious inclination
• Letters : The God gene
• Is the Capacity for Spirituality Determined by Brain Chemistry?
• The roles of religion, spirituality, and genetics in paranormal beliefs

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2007/01/25/AR2007012501951.html

Bush aides charged with speaking to the public and the media are kept out of the loop on some of the most important issues. And bad news is dumped before the weekend for the sole purpose of burying it.

With a candor that is frowned upon at the White House, Martin explained the use of late-Friday statements. "Fewer people pay attention to it late on Friday," she said. "Fewer people pay attention when it's reported on Saturday."