Slashdot Mirror

Or maybe they just decided that enough money has already been wasted on this junk science, and see it for what it really is.....

You mean the same guys who banned AP History classes because they, "make America look bad"?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

And how would Republicans know junk science, anyway? As they are fond of saying when asked about climate change or evolution or vaccinations or whether the Earth revolves around the Sun, "Well, I'm not a scientist". I mean, they're not generals either, but they all sure got an opinion on whether or not we should bomb Iran, ain't they? They're not God, but they sure as shit think they know what "God wants".

http://www.politicususa.com/20...

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/0...

http://www.politicususa.com/20...

http://nymag.com/daily/intelli...

Those are the fucking people you trust to know good science from bad science? Jeez louise, I wouldn't trust them to know a graduated cylinder from their fuzzy pink asses.

HBO does have an online only subscription now from what I understand. However, it's $15 a month, which I consider to be quite expensive.

Last I heard, it also required you to have a cable package with HBO on it, or certain other 'gateways'. Checking the HBO go site, it's free, but you have to have HBO cable...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

But then, it looks like that's changing. Interesting...

NSA: Send more "Chicks with dicks!"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

the greatest authoritarian government, run by the most fascist, megalomaniacal, sadistic person who has ever lived, would find no better tool of absolute control than mandatory hard drug use like meth,

Why not? He took them himself: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

"they clearly have not actually reviewed the use of the dogs themselves..."

False; this was ruled on by SCOTUS in a 2013 case. They unanimously voted that drug-sniffing dog alerts are inherently trustworthy. A terrible decision, IMO.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-drug-sniffing-dog/2013/02/19/1d9f7414-7aac-11e2-82e8-61a46c2cde3d_story.html

Yes, poor Karmashock, always having to defend himself/herself from the ruthless "ideologues".

The amusing thing about your persecution complex is that your perspective on this matter is driven entirely by ideology. As has already been pointed out, there is no robust evidence that capital punishment deters crime to any meaningful extent, and it is a much more expensive proposition than the alternative of imprisonment. In other words, in the United States, we know that capital punishment does not make us any safer than does imprisonment, and that it costs a lot more. So based on this objective reality, there is no rational reason to persist with executions, at least in the United States.

The only reasons left to support executions are ideological. E.g., "they deserve to die", or some notion of justice as revenge. Whatever your reason for supporting state-sanctioned executions, make no mistake that you are motivated by ideology. Those who oppose the death penalty for ideological reasons also happen to have convincing, objective evidence on their side -- you do not.

Desalination is a plausible solution for water for consumer use--that is, urban and suburban locations.

It is not a very plausible solution for agricultural use-- too expensive. Do you realize that those people take the water and just dump it on the ground?

*(well, some of the suburban people just spray it on the ground, too. But they spray millions and millions of gallons on lawns. Sounds like a lot... but agriculture uses trillions of gallons.)

Water rights are complicated. Since the rule is, whoever grabbed it first owns the rights to the water, the people who own it aren't necessarily the ones who use it most responsibly. http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Agriculture is 80% of California's water use (although only 1.5% of California's economy) The big problem is almonds. Who would have thought that such a niche foodstuff would drive agricultural water? https://www.bostonglobe.com/bu...

Trillions? Yep: http://science.nasa.gov/scienc...

Killing people diminishes us - even if they were evil scumbags who deserved worse. I don't need to look to other cultures for examples and counter-examples of executing people. I don't need a popularity contest about how many other people don't like the death penalty (or the converse). Let's just go with "no killing" because it is right and be done with it.

I agree completely. I just thought I'd start the thread with the pragmatic reasons, because they tend to make proponents less defensive. And that reminds me of another one: the lack of evidence that it is an effective deterrent compared to incarceration:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.or...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-...

For all the complaints leveled at the NSA there has been no proof that they have ever used that information against it's own citizens.

Does stalking count?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Google. Use it.

"Microsoft Corp. has teamed with public relations and marketing agency Burson-Marsteller on a campaign to garner industry support for asking regulators to scrutinize and potentially block the proposed merger of Google Inc. and DoubleClick. .. So far, Microsoft and Burson-Marsteller seem to be the only companies behind the initiative"

Notice the desperate attempt to seem relevent by putting an 'i' in front of the title. In case you haven't noticed already, despite Microsofts best efforts and with a virtual monopoly on the Desktop, they still can't get people to use BING, having to rely on litigation instead.

Or be polite as I am and: simply explain stuff to the not knowing.

I'm simply explaining to the people that you don't know what you are talking about. I did so politely. You took offense because I was explaining how you are an idiot. I have a pilot license. I know how these things work. I've seen the news report it using the word "ultralight" http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Have you seen any stating it isn't? No? Then you are guessing in direct opposition to the facts reported, in order to make yourself feel smarter by finding something to argue about that isn't actually a point of interest. Good for you. I hope you feel better, and that this makes up for all the times you were piked on in school. Now sit down, be quiet, and let the adults discuss the actual facts of the matter.

Best Regards

It does not work — despite decades of efforts, Blacks and womyn still earn less than others — for whatever reasons.

It causes ugly discrimination of other kinds — with government contracts officially favoring womyn-run businesses and colleges openly penalizing certain races.

It costs businesses billions to avoid such lawsuits, and millions more in damages and fees when the avoidance-efforts fail. And not just businesses — government agencies too pay (with our monies) to avoid being sued. Even worse, the prosecutions by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission are of the "guilty until proven innocent" variety, with most targets agreeing to settle because the Executive can run them out of business before Judiciary gets to even hear the accusations.

And finally, even if it weren't for the failures and abuses, the whole idea is immoral, because it seeks to punish thoughtcrimes — one is guilty, because one had (or is suspected of having had) certain illegal thoughts.

Can we just stop this nonsense? If Tata — or anyone — want to discriminate, let them...

Some a-hole hopped up on PCP won't even notice pepper spray.

It had better be a pretty big handgun, maybe something like this, otherwise they likely would just shake it off if they are on PCP.

It it's a typical government agency, the "punishment" will be a paid suspension (aka "paid vacation") to reward him - it worked that was with Lois Lerner who captained the IRS suppression of the TEA Party, as well as for the administrators of the VA who let veterans die waiting for care.

-Okay, Cupertino, we've had a problem here.
-This is Cupertino. Say again please.
-Cupertino, we've had a problem. With the LGBTs being about the 3% of the total population in USA and the pre-orders only 1 million...

The California Department of Food and Agriculture http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statist... estimated the produce total for CA was 14.7% in real terms to US consumption. Given the estimates that show the US wastes 40% of it's food production, http://www.washingtonpost.com/... California can dry up and blow away and it will have no real impact on the rest of the US.

Cool. So we agree she DID do it. You have your proof. Straight from her own mouth.

Oh, and what she did was against State Department regulations. I particularly like the 2011 regulation that Clinton herself signed where employees are warned to "Avoid conducting official Department business from your personal e-mail accounts." I guess HRC didn't send a single e-mail after that date, did she?

She broke regulations, she covered it up, she's destroyed any possible evidence of wrongdoing. If that's the person you want in charge of the Government, well...

yes... as a PRIVATE citizen. as a GOVERNMENT official, it screams shady

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

http://theadvocate.com/news/12...

Jeb Bush, Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker, Rand Paul, Rick Perry, Chris Christie all used private email as GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.

Please step away from the 50's and 60's, the "military-industrial" complex is way to small to effect the economy. DoD spend about $600 billion a year (of which about $300 Billion is spent on salaries, benefits, etc.) and that pales in comparison to the rest of the nearly $4 Trillion federal budget and won't budget the $17 Trillion U.S. economy. In fact, even large companies are doing all they can to get away from reliance on DoD because of uncertain funding and small ball funding.

According to Joe Stiglitz, who must know something about economics because he won a Nobel prize for it, the cost of the Iraq war was at least $3 trillion. That's $10,000 per capita. One of the big costs of the war turns out to be paying pensions and lifetime health care for military. http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

$3 trillion is about 2 years of all health care payments for everybody in the country. Medicare alone is about $500 billion a year, so the Iraq war cost 6 years of Medicare.

At one time I used to hear people say, "If we didn't spend so much money on the military we would have more money for things like health care," and I used to correct them because military spending was small in comparison to health care. Now I can't correct them any more. Since the war on terrorism, military spending is a blank check.

criminal masterminds will always get guns. and use them wisely

we're not talking about criminal masterminds. we're talking about casual hotheads. not trying very jhard in life. denied easy guns, what do they do? they simply don't use them. proof:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

now tell me again why you want to make it easy for people who shouldn't have guns to get them? why that is good for society?

I have long stated that Affirmative Action is broken. I applaud its desire to fix a real problem, but the net effect is reverse discrimination. Best qualified is best qualified whether male, female, black, blue, brown, yellow, white, or orange.

There is no such thing as "reverse racism":

The term reverse racism may not be in common usage, but it does exist. In this case, in order to undo racism from 50+ years ago against Blacks, Affirmative Action institutionalizes racism against Whites. It does not abolish racism, just changes which race is discriminated against.

I guess "best qualified" is why Whites dominate in the CEO suite: http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/diversity_among_ceos.html

Correlation does not equal causation. More men are CEOs because more men have more time in the workforce and generally have higher education. Women traditionally take time off from their studies and careers to help raise the kids. My own mother earned her Associate's when she was 40, after raising seven kids.

It also must be the reason that the US Congress does not look like the US racially: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/01/05/the-new-congress-is-80-percent-white-80-percent-male-and-92-percent-christian/

You must run before you can get elected. The student body at my university was also overwhelmingly male (though extremely racially diverse). After studying the situation, it was determined that a female who was running was three times as likely to get elected as a male also in the running. Alas, the general population votes, so there is not single thing that everyone agrees on for what is "best qualified". I was called a sexist for not supporting Hillary Clinton and a racist for not supporting Barak Obama. When I vote, I vote for who's best (IMO) for the country, and not out of fear being called a bigot. I voted for a Black female for a different position, but it's because I agreed with her message. It was only years after the election that I learned of her religious background.

It also must be why there has not been a noticeable rise in minorities in the Forbes 400 Richest Americans list: http://gawker.com/5645917/the-forbes-400-a-demographic-breakdown

This is more about economic classes than races. Most lower and middle class individuals are not in a financial position to take the kind of gambles which can pay out the biggest dividends. It takes a million dollars to start a business. Those of us in the middle and lower classes look like too big a risk for banks to lend that money. Also note that 31% of those 400 come from old money.

Unlike Israelis, you don't hear about Moroccans spying on the US and selling US intelligence secrets.

Only shows they're better at not getting caught. In the middle east we have no 'allies', only clients, and by the numbers Saudi Arabia is one of our best. We sell to Iran and ISIS (the politicians called them 'moderate rebels' when they point their weapons away from us) also, but that is done a bit more 'discreetly', where everything simply vanishes in to thin air

You're both right, but you managed to shift the goalposts with an incredibly misleading statement.

What is true is that the population of women, on average, makes 80% of what the population of men makes. The reason this is INCREDIBLY misleading is it does not look at "pay for equal work"; it utterly disregards what industries men and women respectively tend to be in and just assumes that all women are in the same industries as all men and thus that 80% figure is indicating sexism.

This 80% number is so notorious that it has been widely slammed, by such publications as Politifact, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and Slate. That is, its SUCH a misleading statement that it is derided by publications ranging from neutral to liberal to conservative.

Indeed, The Washington Post notes,

June O’Neill, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office who has been a critic of the 77-cent statistic, has noted that the wage gap is affected by a number of factors, including that the average woman has less work experience than the average man and that more of the weeks worked by women are part-time rather than full-time. Women also tend to leave the work force for periods in order to raise children, seek jobs that may have more flexible hours but lower pay and choose careers that tend to have lower pay.

Indeed, BLS data show that women who do not get married have virtually no wage gap; they earn 96 cents for every dollar a man makes.

They [economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ] noted that women may prefer to accept jobs with lower wages but greater benefits (more flexible parental leave) so excluding such fringe benefits from the calculations will exaggerate the wage disparity.

So yes: Technically, 77 cents on the dollar. That is, if you're attempting to push a political agenda by boiling down a really complex comparison to an inflated and highly controversial figure.

This revelation explains why the NSA was pushing on Qwest to be their spy bitches 6 months before 9/11.

Fucking illiterate cretin

Please, don't hate.

So if soldiers drink water, so a waterworks is a legitimate target?

Very possibly yes, as a matter of fact. As are or may be: bridges, tunnels, railroads, airports, radio- and TV-antennas, and powerlines. The standard is vague: "no object may be attacked if damage to civilians and civilian objects would be excessive when compared to that advantage". So, one soldier taking a drink may not be enough, but a bigger unit taking advantage of availability of fresh water may be sufficient justification for destroying the supply.

If soldiers fall ill is a hospital a legitimate target?

An armed soldier walking into a hospital makes it a legitimate target, yes, absolutely. This is why US military are trained to leave their weapons at the door, when entering a hospital — even in the field. Likewise, simply storing weapons or military materiel in a hospital, school, or house of worship makes the structure a fair game too.

True, the primary purpose of the raid was not to kill civilians, it was to terrorise them.

My recollection is, the raid was meant to show the enemy's government, that humans can reach them — with impunity. Any terror among civilians was a byproduct.

No, it was not written in 1977. It was adopted in 1977.

Distinction without difference. It does not matter, when the idea was thought up — only when it became a law. The law, which you claim violated.

wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity

But there was military necessity! Without this raid, the attacked planet's government would've stayed in the fight on the side of Bugs.

Lastly, you've dodged this question twice already, but I'll try for the third time. Was Captain Steven Hiller — Will Smith's character in "Independence Day" — a war-criminal (thus automatically making the whole movie "bleak") in your opinion? He is shown kicking the captured prisoner and otherwise abusing him...

In the United States, your assertion that "working stiffs" are burdened with most of the taxes is not supported by the facts. If you look at total taxes paid (local, state, and Federal) as a percentage of income, the bottom 40% are taxed at about 20% and the top 20% are taxed at about 30% (Washington Post). So the rich are paying taxes at a higher rate then the "working stiffs."

If you look at it from the "income to the Federal government" perspective, as of tax year 2011, the top 5% paid 57% of the collected income tax and the bottom 50% paid 12% of the collected income tax.

Based on those two facts, I assert that the "working stiffs" are not taxed at a higher rate then the rich. Also, at the Federal level, the rich pay far more in taxes. Where the "working stiffs" lose out (and the Washington Post article shows this) is at the local and state level.

In the United States, your assertion that "working stiffs" are burdened with most of the taxes is not supported by the facts. If you look at total taxes paid (local, state, and Federal) as a percentage of income, the bottom 40% are taxed at about 20% and the top 20% are taxed at about 30% (Washington Post). So the rich are paying taxes at a higher rate then the "working stiffs."

If you look at it from the "income to the Federal government" perspective, as of tax year 2011, the top 5% paid 57% of the collected income tax and the bottom 50% paid 12% of the collected income tax.

Based on those two facts, I assert that the "working stiffs" are not taxed at a higher rate then the rich. Also, at the Federal level, the rich pay far more in taxes. Where the "working stiffs" lose out (and the Washington Post article shows this) is at the local and state level.

The woman with the Mercedes was actually broke.
The safety net was working.

I have long stated that Affirmative Action is broken. I applaud its desire to fix a real problem, but the net effect is reverse discrimination. Best qualified is best qualified whether male, female, black, blue, brown, yellow, white, or orange.

There is no such thing as "reverse racism":

http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/10/history-of-black-white-relations/

I guess "best qualified" is why Whites dominate in the CEO suite:

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/diversity_among_ceos.html

It also must be the reason that the US Congress does not look like the US racially:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/01/05/the-new-congress-is-80-percent-white-80-percent-male-and-92-percent-christian/

It also must be why there has not been a noticeable rise in minorities in the Forbes 400 Richest Americans list:

http://gawker.com/5645917/the-forbes-400-a-demographic-breakdown

All I can say is I really want to get some of whatever you are smoking!

This is exactly right. This what the Bart police did to protesters in 2011.

Obviously, the problem was not that the Bart police shot a protester in the back while he was handcuffed and lying face down (see video at 1:25). It was that too many people filmed the incident with their cell phone cameras and that not all the cell phones could be confiscated in time before the content could be uploaded to the internet.

By shutting down cell networks, you no longer have to worry about people streaming your actions on to the internet and you can just confiscate their device claiming that they contain evidence, and that they're just obstructing justice if they refuse to give their device to you.

It's also worth noting that he did not merely express his own objection. He did so on the behalf of Apple.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Our message, to people around the country and around the world, is this: Apple is open. Open to everyone, regardless of where they come from, what they look like, how they worship or who they love. Regardless of what the law might allow in Indiana or Arkansas, we will never tolerate discrimination.

What "tolerate" means is debatable, but it seems reasonable to link that to doing business since it's a business entity to begin with. How else does a business "not tolerate" something? If they just say "Okay, have whatever laws you want, but we don't like it" then that is pretty much exactly what "toleration" means -- you don't necessarily like something, but you put up with it anyway.

Just today I saw this story Vegas woman gets $200 distracted driving ticket for applying lip balm at a red light. Apparently in Vegas the law is pretty vague, but strictly enforced.

“[The ordinance] states that when a person is operating a vehicle they must provide full attention to the driving so that it won’t render that action to be unsafe

So the big question is how would that law treat a car which drives itself? And how will cops make a decision whether behavior of the person in the drivers seat counts as distracted driving or is simply the person taking advantage of an autonomous mode? I can see a lot of people being pulled over and booked when they were not actually driving the car. And even if cops can recognize an autonomous car, how do they know what mode it was driving in?

There is not a blanket refusal of services to "Christians," "Atheists" or what ever other classification we can come up with. What is being discusses is a very narrow good/service to something that some people find distasteful, so they would prefer not to take part in one.

That's what's being discussed, as if this were a narrow law for protecting religious cake-bakers. Maybe that's what they have in mind when they write this stuff. But it also will protect doctors who refuse to see adopted children of gay couples (this has already happened in Michigan thanks to the federal RFRA). The law they passed in Indiana goes further than the RFRA and other religious freedom laws across the country, which prohibit intrusions on religious freedom by the government. This one extends that policy to include not only to protection from government, but similar "intrusions on religious freedom" by private parties., which necessitates the removal of the "anti-discrimination" window dressing that the prior religious freedom laws have. Before Indiana passed the law, it was sent a letter by 30 law professors, pointing out the likely consequences:

The proposed law seeks to override this reasoned balance among rights by bluntly and categorically granting religious liberty rights a special status. In so doing, the proposed law jeopardizes parallel compelling state interests such as public health and safety, equality, and other fundamental liberties. What is more, without language that prohibits the shifting of the costs of religious liberty rights secured under the state RFRA to third party rights-holders that do not share the religious beliefs of the claimants, the proposed RFRA risks exposing the state to valid claims that it has violated Article 1, Section 4 of the Indiana Constitution, a provision that prohibits the law from preferring religious over non-religious policies and practices. Further, adopting a measure such as the proposed RFRAs, one that creates a legal mechanism by which the costs of religious liberty may be shifted to third parties, raises serious Establishment Clause concerns under the federal Constitution insofar as it risks governmental endorsement or support of religion, and can be reasonably read as the state advancing religious interests. The use of state power in the services of religion or religious interests clearly runs afoul of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment and of Article 1 of the Indiana Constitution.

In our expert opinion, the clear evidence suggests otherwise and unmistakably demonstrates that the broad language of the proposed state RFRA will more likely create confusion, conflict, and a wave of litigation that will threaten the clarity of religious liberty rights in Indiana while undermining the stateâ(TM)s ability to enforce other compelling interests. This confusion and conflict will increasingly take the form of private actors, such as employers, landlords, small business owners, or corporations, taking the law into their own hands and acting in ways that violate generally applicable laws on the grounds that they have a religious justification for doing so. Members of the public will then be asked to bear the cost of their employer's, their landlord's, their local shopkeeper's, or a police officer's private religious beliefs. As we have learned on the federal level, RFRAs do not "open a door" to conversation, but rather invite new conflict that takes the form of litigation. This collision of public rights and individual religious beliefs will produce a flood of litigation, whereby Indiana courts will be asked to rebalance what has been a workable and respectful harmony of rights and responsibilities in a pluralistic society.

I cannot believe anyone can make a law (in the US) that denies the ability of people to donate to the cause of their choice. ....

Supreme Court upholds ban on 'material support' to foreign terrorist groups

The First Amendment does not protect humanitarian groups or others who advise foreign terrorist organizations, even if the support is aimed at legal activities or peaceful settlement of disputes, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.

---------------

... a defense fund.

I'm not sure that Snowden needs a defense fund at the moment since he is a fugitive from justice. He doesn't seem to be involved in any US logal proceedings at present. Seems like this could be just a slush fund.

snowden, you tweaked those in the highest levels of power in the world. for that, I say THANK YOU. I wish I could do more to help you - we all owe you so much.

The funny thing is that al Qaida, China, Russia, and Iran could say the same thing.

one thing amuses me and I enjoy it quite a lot: the fact that our executive is so pissed off and annoyed, along with all the other agencies - I rather LIKE THAT!

In short you like to stick it to "The Man" even if it's "The Man" that keeps the suicide bombers out of your gay pride parade or naked protest (a San Francisco thing). I'm not sure that will work out well in the long run.

Suggestion: talk to some trafficking victims.

Locating someone who legitimately fits the definition would be nearly impossible. However, counter suggestion: Dig yourself out of the propaganda you've been fed. Example -- don't simply read that, although it is quite accurate -- actually follow the links in it and confirm for yourself.

More and more girls who are younger and younger. The average age has gone down over the years--you used to every once in a while see a girl who was underage. Now it's all the time. Girls who are underage cannot consent.

The underlying assumption you are working from is incorrect. You assume those girls were coerced, and therefore had to consent. While the (ridiculous, but that's a different subject) legal "age line in the sand" that permits young sex workers to consent and to make choices for themselves has not been crossed in either instance, it still requires coercion by another person, not personal choice without interpersonal coercion -- informed or not -- in order to meet even the vaguest concept of "trafficked."

Reasons to enter into the sex worker trade are myriad. The money can be good, and of course our society offers advantage in direct proportion to the amount of money one has. As long as that is the case, income, even the perception of income, will be a prime motivator. Sex work can be fun. It offers both self-management and self-reliance, and this in turn can allow setting one's own schedule as opposed to the typical wage-slave. It can be rewarding, particularly in service to those who are unable to otherwise obtain sex with others due to the intense social stigma associated with looks and/or physical handicaps. Presently there's an element of legal risk, as well as one of push-back, and either or both may serve as titillation.

Any combination of the foregoing (and other similar issues -- post is long enough as-is) can serve to provide sufficient motivation for someone legally underage to decide to go this way. These are not in any sense "trafficked" individuals. They are, at most, people whose decisions you disagree with, who are breaking (arbitrary, ridiculous) rules based on their own decision making.

Which, if you want to concern yourself with it, is something completely different. But at least it is real, unlike the entire trafficking narrative. Arguments can be made and countered for both views on it. Trafficking is, in any significant sense, illusory. Arguments against an imaginary problem are inherently unproductive at the very least. All they do is paint a highly inaccurate picture of the world, which can (and has, in this case) lead to all manner of negative outcomes.

Now go out to one of the cops who is actually properly trained in dealing with human trafficking

You mean like this?

But it is very real.

In the sense that it hasn't happened zero times, yes, it's real. In the sense that it's in any sense a significant social problem affecting numerous individuals, no, it isn't real at all. It is in fact one of the most overblown and pernicious hoaxes pulled on the public in recent years. You've been hoodwinked.

a lot of them aren't even going to understand that some young women they think are their voluntarily have been effectively brainwashed by someone who collects all of their profits and buys them an ice cream cone and says that they care.

Again, the facts do not support your assertion. You are regurgitating propaganda. Not facts. Learn the facts. Only when in possess

> Mount the plate with quick-release bolts. When you park somewhere take it with you, or store it inside the vehicle.

Much easier to do an electrochromic cover - they go opaque when the power is removed.

What I'd like to see is a multi-segment electrochromic cover that flickers such that to the human eye with persistence of vision it appears to be clear, but to a camera with a very short exposure time, all images will only capture part of the plate number, the other part being obscured.

In the GDR, one of every 50 people was working for the Stasi. 2% of the population. Imagine that! To give you an idea what that means, if the NSA employed 2% of the US population, 6.5 MILLION people would work for them.

5.1 million people hold active security clearances.

That's not the same thing as NSA employees. But still it is a really bad sign that we are at levels equivalent to the peak of the cold war when the enemy actually had hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on espionage.

As to examples, your ignorance of common knowledge is not my problem. Look at his wikipedia page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

http://nymag.com/daily/intelli...

http://www.esquire.com/news-po...

http://www.poynter.org/news/me...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...

There you go. Links. Suck it long. Suck it hard.

Most people who are in college, shouldn't be attending.

Because their parents were middle class, not upper class. That might not be your intent, but it's the result.

And finally, the quality of those liberal arts degrees has declined in a lot of colleges. Humanities degrees are nothing more than Marxist indoctrination diploma mills.

What a finely pressed brown shirt you have, my dear.

Maybe promote American industry instead of allowing Wall Street to gut it?

That would require putting away the shirt and taxing the rich at socialistiky levels and undoing the damage of capitalism with socialistiky programs.

Fareed Zakaria is a smart guy. Here's a link to his original article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

There will always be stooges in any movement

Well, the opposition to the Korean war — as I outlined from the get-go — never rose to anywhere the same pitch. Not while the war was running, not later. Soldiers returning from Vietnam war were "baby-killers", but those who came back from Korea were not. The "peace-movement" being infested by stooges is a confirmed theory that explains all of the known facts. It may be difficult for you to accept, probably, because you and/or your parents participated — without knowing, who got the ball rolling, of course, being sincere useful idiots — but that's what it is.

Yeah, I'm Canadian and I'm quite certain neither of my parents really participated in the peace movement. I would point to this fact as evidence to the fact that you're over-extrapolating from limited data and reaching erroneous conclusions.

The currently-existing "disaster" was not at all inevitable

All I can say is I consider Marc Theissen to be a terrible analyst, though going into that would be a needless diversion.

and it did not become a disaster for any of the reasons known at the time.of those coordinated protests.

I'm confused, why did you link to quotes of people supporting the war as evidence that the opponents were wrong?

Well, you may not like Michael Savage, but he certainly is not "a fringe"... And the already mentioned Justin Raimondo has his loyal following.

I don't know, I think I'd still call Savage as being on the fringe. Sure he's got a following but he's so far out that he can't even enter the UK.

There you go! NATO was meant to check USSR's advancement further into Europe — without it more countries would've shared the fate of Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and others. Because while NATO membership was voluntary, membership of the Warsaw Pact was not. And the Pact invaded those, who tried to get out. What's "unclean" about NATO, I'll never know.

Remember the Cuban missile crisis? The US isn't particularly amendable to countries in its sphere of influence allying with Russia either.

And as you just said NATO was meant to counter the USSR (ie Russia), of course they're going to react with hostility when neighbouring countries start joining a military alliance literally designed to oppose them.

Huh? If they weren't NATO-members, Baltic states would've been taken over by the same "polite" troops long ago. Moldova and Georgia were invaded before Ukraine.

Though Georgia was invaded while trying to join NATO. And the initial situations with South Ossetia and Transitivia happened in the fairly messy aftermath of the collapse of the USSR. My understanding is that the NATO expansion was interpreted by Russians as an aggressive act, and that's been responsible for the subsequent rejection of Western liberalism and the return to an adversarial mindset.

But, it is interesting... So, in your peace-loving opinion, NATO should've rejected Eastern Europe's attempts to join it to please Russia... Just how do you justify this? What sort of ethical standards do you have? What books did momma read to you? Should the wisest of the Three Pigs have rejected his brothers' attempts to hide in his masonry house — so as not to aggravate the Wolf? Wow!

There will always be stooges in any movement

Well, the opposition to the Korean war — as I outlined from the get-go — never rose to anywhere the same pitch. Not while the war was running, not later. Soldiers returning from Vietnam war were "baby-killers", but those who came back from Korea were not. The "peace-movement" being infested by stooges is a confirmed theory that explains all of the known facts. It may be difficult for you to accept, probably, because you and/or your parents participated — without knowing, who got the ball rolling, of course, being sincere useful idiots — but that's what it is.

Meanwhile, I noticed, that every post I make here gets marked as "Troll" within minutes and I'm getting tired of it. So I'm not posting again — you aren't going to admit it and the anonymous collective with too many mod-points are too cowardly to speak-up.

As it turns out it was actually a very well informed protest movement as the invasion of Iraq was by any metric a disaster.

The currently-existing "disaster" was not at all inevitable, and it did not become a disaster for any of the reasons known at the time.of those coordinated protests.

but I doubt many [Russians] are actually backing the invasion

Yes, unfortunately, many are. Though Putin's support is nowhere near he enjoys in Russia (86%), plenty in the diaspora approve of him or outright like him.

Fringe opinion-makers whom I'd never heard of. I don't think they're really affecting anything.

Well, you may not like Michael Savage, but he certainly is not "a fringe"... And the already mentioned Justin Raimondo has his loyal following.

It should be noted that the West's hands aren't completely clean in this. NATO was started as an anti-Russia alliance

There you go! NATO was meant to check USSR's advancement further into Europe — without it more countries would've shared the fate of Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and others. Because while NATO membership was voluntary, membership of the Warsaw Pact was not. And the Pact invaded those, who tried to get out. What's "unclean" about NATO, I'll never know.

expanding into former Warsaw pact countries after the end of the Cold War was absolutely moronic. Without that expansion there's a decent chance that everyone is still on relatively good terms.

Huh? If they weren't NATO-members, Baltic states would've been taken over by the same "polite" troops long ago. Moldova and Georgia were invaded before Ukraine.

But, it is interesting... So, in your peace-loving opinion, NATO should've rejected Eastern Europe's attempts to join it to please Russia... Just how do you justify this? What sort of ethical standards do you have? What books did momma read to you? Should the wisest of the Three Pigs have rejected his brothers' attempts to hide in his masonry house — so as not to aggravate the Wolf? Wow!

Again remember many grew up in the USSR, people are going to naturally defend their side.

I grew up in the USSR too, you insensitive clod.

But in a fight between Russia and Ukraine many will be drawn to defend the entity they identify more with from their youth.

Point is, their propaganda works

Nobody is lining up to give poor people professional baseball teams, or choice executive positions at energy companies. Nor does a poor working stiff who just finished a hard day of running pipes or installing drywall open his motel door in the middle of the night to see women looking to have sex with him.

So is opportunity just getting what you want?? Or is it having a specific income level??

It's not being willfully obtuse as to how this country, and capitalism in general, actually works.

Since you haven't actually read the first amendment to the constitution, let me break it down for you:

.. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So there is "freedom of speech" right in the Amendment. Right next to the prohibition on congress to pass a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, Which is right next to the prohibition of Congress to create a Federal Government's officially established religion(i.e. a state religion). No where does it separate the state from being effected by religion. In fact the way the courts have ruled that recognition of any religion by any governmental agent, is a defacto establishment of atheism as a state religion.

As for things grownups understand; they understand the difference between violence which is not protected and being an asshole, which is protected by the aforementioned freedom of speech. So your law preventing someone from being an asshole to people they don't like is oppressing not only their religious rights but their speech rights as well. Here is a law professor agreeing that racist speech is protected speech, i.e. being an asshole to people.

You mean like the 19 other states that already have similar laws? http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Or maybe you're referring to the lead theocratic, Bill Clinton, who signed a federal RFRA law back in 1993?

Ya know; it's time this particular rubric is laid to rest.

The Indiana RFRA (IRIFRA) is NOT, as Gov. Pence would have you believe, simply a Copypasta of the Federal RFRA; and as usual, the Devil's in the Details. Here's a couple of differences:

1. The Federal RFRA Restricts its application to suits involving the Government or its employees and agents. The IRFRA specifically states that the Government does NOT have to be a Party to the Action; and furthermore, that the Government may INTERVENE in any action on the RFRA issues.

2. The Federal RFRA does NOT preclude lawsuits regarding RFRA issues; the IRFRA specifically states that the RFRA can be used as an "Affirmative Defense" in lawsuits. An "Affirmative Defense" is just one step from immunitization. For example, a Statute of Limitations is an Affirmative Defense. It does NOT hinge on the Merits of the case; but rather what amounts to a Jurisdictional issue.

Those two things alone make the IRFRA nothing like the Federal RFRA.

And as proof of the fact that this is nothing more, and nothing less, than an end-run against the LGBT community, you need look no farther than the picture of Gov. Pence at the PRIVATE (that is, by INVITATION-ONLY) signing of the IRFRA Bill into Law. The people who are standing CLOSEST to Pence (again, no accident) for the Photo-Op, just HAPPEN to be the same 3 or 4 people who have been the MOST vocal opponents to Gay Marriage in the State. By the way, the Press (let alone the Public) wasn't invited.

BTW, I live in Indiana, where a LOT more information regarding this has been presented than leaks out into the National/International news.

You are so wrong. Now granted they compared nuclear to coal, but on your stated grounds, you should abolish coal first. You are falling into the flying vs. driving fallacy. Just because the deaths incurred though the mining and pollution of coal (not to mention possible CO2 related issues) are so unspectacular does not make them not happen.

I'm not sure if this is good or not, but it does represent a valid usage of OFAC (Office of Foreign Asset Control) regulations.

I've designed international life insurance admin systems that involved OFAC checks. Resolution requires manual verification.

OFAC provides a list of people that you cannot do business with if you are a US company (possibly if you have a US presence, I'm not sure though, I worked for a US company). It is basically a list of terrorists or otherwise sanctioned individuals that the US blocks financial transaction with.(Osama is still there as far as I know, he was our test case).

I've always considered OFAC to be a Federally mandated job program. Same for Sarbanes-Oxley (worked with that a lot as well). Just extra regulation requiring more bodies at every financial company.

I coined the never heard phrase "OFAC is to preventing terrorism as Sarbanes-Oxley is to preventing fraud" (I have an actuarial and IT background, so it's funny to me).

But in this case, initial appearances would suggest that the fine is justified. If the person on the OFAC list is justifiably on the list.

And that justification is my problem with the system. The rules are pretty secret, anyone could end up on the list and not be able to fight it. It's like the no-fly list which even impacted a Kennedy:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Interesting for sure.

This is the third world, after all; if you fail to start climbing the ladder, you fail big time, minimal safety net. Morality and ethics are a luxury most people can't afford, so the social attitudes towards "cheats" are looser than we are used to, and as the center of the curve shifts over to worse, the outliers also move in that direction. for instance, just from a few dsys ago: http://www.washingtonpost.com/... Although you could argue this guy is no worse than Enron or your average mortgage fraudster. Let alone Mr. Cheney's clever way to get business for Halliburton
See also: doing business in China without poisoning your children or pets.

Fixing it by harmonizing VAT rates would require treaty changes and be politically hard to hand one of the big financial levers to the european central bank, especially given not all countries are in the eurozone - imagine the US forcing all state sales taxes to the same rate, set by the fed, and you get the idea.

The U.S. is even worse off. There are nearly 10,000 sales tax jurisdictions in the U.S.

The solution is to reverse who is responsible for updating the tax rates. There are a lot more retailers than there are tax jurisdictions. It's stupid to force every retailer do duplicate each others' efforts and update tax rate data from every tax jurisdiction every day. Instead, make it the responsibility of each tax jurisdiction to update their tax rate on a central database every day. Every retailer can then simply download an updated tax table from the central database at the beginning of every business day. That completely eliminates the duplicated effort and produces the most efficient economic system (for distributing sales tax rates at least).