Slashdot Mirror

One death from Magnetix. I probably shouldn't have said that they keep dying. A lot of kids wound up in the ER and had surgery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetix#Product_recalls_by_US_Consumer_Product_Safety_Commission

The 21-month-old died even though his parents followed the label and tried to keep the toy out of reach.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/31/AR2006033101897.html

Really? That would explain why all of the "benefit" from the stimulus stopped as soon as the federal money stopped.

Many economists disagree with you on that.

This is article deriding free on-line math education written by a person who develops paid on-line math education.

That sounds like an ad hominem. Motives aside, is the argument valid? One part of the article stood out to me:

As a result, experienced educators have begun to push back against what they see as fundamental problems with Khan’s approach to teaching. In June, two professors from Grand Valley State University created their own video in which they pointed out errors in Khan’s lesson on negative numbers: not things they disagreed with, but things he got plain wrong. To his credit, Khan did replace the video. However, instead of using this as an opportunity to engage educators and improve his teaching, he dismissed the criticism.

“It’s kind of weird,” Khan explained, “when people are nitpicking about multiplying negative numbers.”

When asked why so many teachers have such adverse reactions to Khan Academy, Khan suggests it’s because they’re jealous. “It’d piss me off, too, if I had been teaching for 30 years and suddenly this ex-hedge-fund guy is hailed as the world’s teacher.”

Why isn't Khan embracing criticism and review/removal/replacement of his videos by knowledgeable folks? I would be rewarding people proofing my many videos and trying to get more people doing that instead of dismissing it as "nitpicking."

You do know, of course, that your reply files in the face of the GOP Platform for education. Sorry, no critical thinking allowed. ;) (No points to give today but your posts are right on- +100)

There are simply too many examples of people going from nothing to something and becoming rich to make your view remotely valid. Some people's capacity isn't much more then working for someone else and some people's desire doesn't extend past that. There is where you are making your first mistake.

The raw truth of the matter is that people mess their lives up well before they can get a job. This is especially true in poorer areas where parents tend to lack parenting skills or even parents and the child gets trapped into gangs, drugs, violence, crimes, and so on. This also happens in more affluent communities too, but not to the same degree.

The republicans, as well as the democrats have no way of controlling that and your disdain for one is only a symptom of ignorance. The republicans have always been pro education, they just do not think the way the democrats seem to want to do things work. Take the NCLBA for instance. It said we are going to end the days of skipping over children's education and that teachers and schools, the very same people who claim to be able to get kids to learn and take jobs doing so, will have to find ways to teach kids or find new jobs. It was met with fierce opposition "how dare you expect teachers to teach every student under their charge". They specifically despised the alternative school provisions "how dare you give students of failing schools the ability to go to better performing schools so they can receive a quality education".

Yet Obama came to power and repackaged the same old shit and called it a gem while speaking kindly of it.

To blame any of you just said you thought was wrong on one party is only asking for more. Of course then again, ignorance is sometimes comforting. I guess you can always get satisfaction by getting more mad at republicans when democrat policies do the same.

My bad it was second amendment remedies.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/06/sharron_angle_floated_possibil.html

As long as they don't teach critical thinking. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/texas-gop-rejects-critical-thinking-skills-really/2012/07/08/gJQAHNpFXW_blog.html

I'm guessing you're safe for a teaching position.

I guess you haven't read the actual Texas 2012 GOP platform, have you?

As long as they don't teach critical thinking.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/texas-gop-rejects-critical-thinking-skills-really/2012/07/08/gJQAHNpFXW_blog.html

I'm guessing you're safe for a teaching position.

As long as they don't teach critical thinking.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/texas-gop-rejects-critical-thinking-skills-really/2012/07/08/gJQAHNpFXW_blog.html

1) Health insurance =/= costs =/= access to care. I don't know why, but people outside healthcare policy ALWAYS make this mistake.

However, it's the reason why those of us who actually work in the field tend to be against Obama's plan, even when we're as progressive as Jon Stewart. (I'm in health policy, but I'm not the author of the piece. JSIA.)

So can we have fewer talking points and more attention to detail please?

2) Costs have increased dramatically (i.e., 19-30%) where Obama's exchanges have been implemented.

3) Insurers are still free to kick individuals with pre-existing conditions off their plans. They can just do so by increasing premiums to a point where they know the individuals can no longer afford it and have to take the tax increase. It's why it's still best to create a shell corporation and purchase insurance through a group.

4) Massachusettes has had no demonstrable impact on the number of bankruptcies due to medical bills (i.e., most bankruptcies). Because MA's law is structurally identical to the ACA, that tends to suggest that the ACA won't really help patients' budgets.

5) Premiums can still increase dramatically each year. Although dramatic increases (IIRC, more than 5%) have to undergo a regulatory review, all the review has to show is that the costs are driven my medical costs instead of profits.

I could go on and on all day. Bascially, the plan is good for hospitals, doctors, and insurers because they get paid a lot more consistently thanks to the government, which has basically forced everyone to become a customer. But that doesn't make it a good deal for people. When insurance premiums and OOP expenditures can go up by double-digits while individuals' wages remain the same, it just drives what little remains of the middle class into the poor house.

Which is why this former Obama voter and health policy researcher is sitting out this election.

From wikipedia:

Effects on insurance premiums

For the effect on health insurance premiums, the CBO referred[182]:15 to its November 2009 analysis[183] and stated that the effects would "probably be quite similar" to that earlier analysis. That analysis forecast that by 2016, for the non-group market comprising 17% of the market, premiums per person would increase by 10 to 13% but that over half of these insureds would receive subsidies that would decrease the premium paid to "well below" premiums charged under current law. For the small group market, 13% of the market, premiums would be impacted 1 to 3% and 8 to 11% for those receiving subsidies; for the large group market comprising 70% of the market, premiums would be impacted 0 to 3%, with insureds under high premium plans subject to excise taxes being charged 9 to 12%. The analysis was affected by various factors including increased benefits particularly for the nongroup markets, more healthy insureds due to the mandate, administrative efficiencies related to the health exchanges, and insureds under high premium plans reducing benefits in response to the tax.[183]

Citations:
(182) a b c "Correction Regarding the Longer-Term Effects of the Manager's Amendment to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (PDF). Congressional Budget Office. December 19, 2009. Retrieved March 22, 2010.
(183) a b "An Analysis of Health Insurance Premiums Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act". Cbo.gov. 2009-11-30. Retrieved 2012-06-29.

From the Washington Post:

The law, however, severely limits the ability of the IRS to collect the penalties. There are no civil or criminal penalties for refusing to pay it and the IRS cannot seize bank accounts or dock wages to collect it. No interest accumulates for unpaid penalties.

Muller has never been a "skeptic" or proponent of AGW. He's a real scientist and properly excorated Mann for the fakeness of the hockey stick.

I didn't call Muller a skeptic. What I did say was that the data analysis done by the team he led very closely confirms the data analysis that CRU did, as seen e.g., in this comparison.

Well, except it's pretty clear that, despite the accusations, the scientists involved did not "falsify data." Again quoting the BBC article:
"Some of the e-mails released appeared to show scientists at CRU and their collaborators in other institutes deviating from accepted academic standards in an attempt to paint an alarmist picture of climate change. However, examination of the broader context by three separate investigations resulted in the scientists being cleared of malpractice."

Most notably, take a look at the graph in the article. The light blue is the Hadley Climate Research Unit data on temperature. The two other graphs show NASA data and NOAA data for the same period, independently generated from different data sets. The dark blue is the Berkeley data-- this was a project funded by some of the climate skeptics specifically to do an unbiased re-examination. They all show pretty much the same temperature trend

In science, ability to replicate results is important. The climate results has it.

So, when you are claiming that they "blatantly falsified data," here is the conspiracy theory that you're supporting:
1. The Hadley CRU is falsifying data to make a point which (if you're right) know will be shown to be false.
2. Three separate investigations in the UK independently conspired to hide the falsification. Yet another investigation, this one in the US, also conspires to hide the falsification.
3. Two US agencies-- on a different continent-- come up with pretty much the same temperature graphs, working on different data sets.
4. An independent analysis put together specifically to avoid the putative bias the other measurements also comes up with the same result, and
5. By an amazing coincidence, the result happens to pretty well fit the predictions of sixteen different climate models made by universities and research institutes on four different continents, many of which are open source (meaning that anybody can search through the code and look for the putative fudge factors), dating back to Manabe and Wetherald's 1967 model, which, as it turns out, agrees quite well with the results.

Or, alternatively: maybe the science is actually right, the scientist actually are not stupid, fraudulent, or deluded (or all of the above), and the climate is warming at pretty much the rate predicted, for the reasons that are well explained by well-known, not-at-all-controversial physics.

Well, except it's pretty clear that, despite the accusations, the scientists involved did not "falsify data." Again quoting the BBC article:
"Some of the e-mails released appeared to show scientists at CRU and their collaborators in other institutes deviating from accepted academic standards in an attempt to paint an alarmist picture of climate change. However, examination of the broader context by three separate investigations resulted in the scientists being cleared of malpractice."

Most notably, take a look at the graph in the article. The light blue is the Hadley Climate Research Unit data on temperature. The two other graphs show NASA data and NOAA data for the same period, independently generated from different data sets. The dark blue is the Berkeley data-- this was a project funded by some of the climate skeptics specifically to do an unbiased re-examination. They all show pretty much the same temperature trend

In science, ability to replicate results is important. The climate results has it.

So, when you are claiming that they "blatantly falsified data," here is the conspiracy theory that you're supporting:
1. The Hadley CRU is falsifying data to make a point which (if you're right) know will be shown to be false.
2. Three separate investigations in the UK independently conspired to hide the falsification. Yet another investigation, this one in the US, also conspires to hide the falsification.
3. Two US agencies-- on a different continent-- come up with pretty much the same temperature graphs, working on different data sets.
4. An independent analysis put together specifically to avoid the putative bias the other measurements also comes up with the same result, and
5. By an amazing coincidence, the result happens to pretty well fit the predictions of sixteen different climate models made by universities and research institutes on four different continents, many of which are open source (meaning that anybody can search through the code and look for the putative fudge factors), dating back to Manabe and Wetherald's 1967 model, which, as it turns out, agrees quite well with the results.

Or, alternatively: maybe the science is actually right, the scientist actually are not stupid, fraudulent, or deluded (or all of the above), and the climate is warming at pretty much the rate predicted, for the reasons that are well explained by well-known, not-at-all-controversial physics.

You've made a lot of statements that need a little clarification, and I think it would help if I added some comments from my American perspective:

what a twisted world you must imagine to live in for you to consider G4S debacle "fortunate" in any way.

In the US, when an incumbent or majority in a legislature is the opposition party, doing everything possible to make sure that government policies and programs fail miserably is standard operating procedure, regardless of how devastating to the average citizen. For example, voting out Obama in 2012 is the Republican Party's unifying objective. Republicans would not agree to any health care reform bill without the individual mandate to buy insurance, as the alternatives such as universal coverage or a public option as they would be too "socialist". But now they are targeting the individual mandate specifically in their campaigns. To be fair, the Dems did this to George Bush senior - they wanted to increase taxes after Bush made his famous "read my lips..." quote. After Bush compromised with the Dems to sign their tax increase into law the Dems hammered Bush for turning back on his word (and it worked). Given that there haven't been any major incidents like a terrorist attack in light of the G4S follies, their failure could actually be a good thing, not just for UK, but as a lesson to all countries that privatization of essential government service is dangerous.

"...shouldn't be provided by anybody whose managers I cannot vote out of office" - and you can't as those managers would be civil servants, not politicians

In a political office the "manager" is the politician. He then appoints civil servants. Some posts, such as judges, are insulated from politically motivated removal, and for good reason. In the US it used to be commonplace to sack all officials in bureaucratic posts and replace with cronies who contributed to the presidential campaign. This still happens somewhat, like when Bush put his cronies in charge of FEMA, despite being totally unqualified for the job. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/08/AR2005090802165.html. But for the most part a top performing official will keep his post if he is doing his job well and doesn't have a rabid hatred for the new administration. This system works. Privatization doesn't have anything to offer to make this any better.

private companies have to compete for contracts

You mean like when Halliburton was handed the primary contract to support US operations in Iraq - by their ex-CEO Dick Cheney- without even an opportunity for other companies to bid?

their managers can be sacked by shareholders

Most of the world's publicly listed companies are owned primarily by institutional investors, such as banks and mutual funds. Most Americans invest in these companies through their 401k plans yet they usually don't have any voting rights over the management of the companies the funds, trusts, and plans invest in. Also, shareholders don't have "equal" votes. Shareholders get one vote for each share they own. In a world where a disproportionate few wealthy people own or control most of of the world's wealth, even if citizens held individual stocks and cared enough to understand the implications of their votes, and even if these citizens organized to vote for changes in corporate governance (regarding issues such as pollution, corporate lobbying of government, treatment of workers, unfair business practices, etc.) they could very well not have enough voting power to implement change. Keep in mind that the poor and the struggling working class are not likely to have many shares, if any, of any company.

Futhermore, shareholders are generally motivated by the potential return on investment (which is how it is supposed to work). Some w

Is there someone/something out there that is working to involve our young adults in foreign and domestic politics... as opposed to telling them what to do/not to do? I cannot put it as eloquently as Jon Stewart did, but our problems are only going to expand if we let people who refer to our type as "nerds" run the country.

"Sorry, this video is not available in your region" -- Jon Stewart.

Eloquent and insightful.

I think this may be irony but I'm not sure if it fits the definition.

Wow does this sort of behavior by my government get me riled up.

The whole system we have set up here where the Govt passes legislature helping out lobbyists (in this case is so broken it's not even funny. I wouldn't go so far to say we are the sole enemy, but we definitely are not helping the situation.

I am 25, and the majority of my friends are way too busy trying to wiggle out from debt or job hunting in a stagnant environment to make their voices be heard (unless wikipedia shuts down). Seeing as it costs time and money to make sure you actually get a seat at the table, it seems to me that a huge number of our generation is grossly misrepresented.

Is there someone/something out there that is working to involve our young adults in foreign and domestic politics... as opposed to telling them what to do/not to do? I cannot put it as eloquently as Jon Stewart did, but our problems are only going to expand if we let people who refer to our type as "nerds" run the country.

We need to either a. Set up a strong lobby group to oppose heavy handed corporate driven legislature or b. change the system in it's entirety.

"NBC aims to be objective"

You're talking about the same NBC that edited the Zimmerman tape? The same NBC that edited the Romney video to change the context? Right?

If you call someone 'grotesquely wrong" then you should have some support for your position. You don't. Try these, they only took 30 seconds to find. Let me know if you need more. http://democrats.financialservices.house.gov/FinancialSvcsDemMedia/file/key_issues/Predatory_Subprime_Mortgage_Lending/GSE_Subprime_timelineSHORT_091510.pdf http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/09/AR2008060902626.html http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/30/real_estate/congress_subprime.fortune/ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212948811465427.html

Just Google it. kaatochacha links one example. There's another here. It's based on per-household information, something I presume is gathered from the utilities themselves. Based on the experiences of those I know who have lived both hot and cold places, the difference is pretty significant. I live in a 60-year-old house that's about 1800 sf. My highest ever power bill was $240 (the month that the temperature never fell below 74 degrees outside, so the A/C was running almost continuously). That's also about the highest natural gas bill I've ever paid to keep the interior of the house at 72 degrees while we were having the coldest weather I've ever experienced here - and I've lived here almost my entire life. (We had 72 continuous hours below freezing!). I'm in the central South. Does that square with your experience re: utility prices? If Californian, never mind.

I do remember friends in college who talked about what sounded like monumentally expensive utility bills, especially the delivery of burner oils, etc. Obviously part of that is cost-of-living related, but it's not like there's no cheap land in the Northeast. If a carbon tax passes, the BTU's will kill you. You'll have to reforest some massive tracts of the Midwest to atone for your carbonic sin.

Spending at local and state levels is extremely variable and requires a little research, but federal spending is pretty easily accessible. Here is a nice interactive chart!

Keep in mind that public finance and macro-economics are a bit more complicated than this, but it's good information in any case.

The source quoted by the OP is actually incorrect. The aircraft, a regional jet with only 35 passengers, was parked when the incident happened. It sunk several inches while not moving. The tug was unable to pull it out of where it had sunk. A larget tug was brought in, it was pulled out, started its engines and continued with the flight.
Here is a better source article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/plane-gets-stuck-at-reagan-national/2012/07/08/gJQAZgG9UW_story.html

While global warming is expected to aggravate a number of weather conditions both in degree and frequency, these weather conditions, such as extreme heat waves would still be expected to happen even in the absence of global warming.

That's not quite true. One of the major issues with global warming is that it is affecting the probability of these events occurring and making new events, which were effectively impossible, possible.

It's important to remember the climate change affects the probability of extreme events and changes the distribution of what events occur. For example, as the world warms, heat waves become ever warmer. Compared to a baseline of 1951-1980 weather we are already seeing seasons that are 4 sigmas above the baseline, and will soon be seeing seasons that are 5 sigmas above the baseline. Normally, 5 sigma events are be so rare (1 in 2,000,000) that they are the standard used for evidence in particle physics.

DC metro green line derailed due to heat issue.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/08/AR2005110801211.html

I was being sarcastic, sure. But my point was that we need to use examples like the story to make sure our own house is clean.

This was the prevailing ideology leading up to the financial crisis, where drastic deregulation to get government "out of the way" paved the way to disaster.

Funny, and here I thought that the amended Community Reinvestment Act (as amended in 1991 and 1994, and heavily enforced by regulators beginning in 1994) forced banks to relax lending standards to such an extent that they had to find new and exciting (read: untested and dangerous) ways to get said loans off their books. I was under the impression that this began the rapidly snowballing practice of handing out loans to people who weren't the least bit qualified (from a strictly financial perspective) and that it was heavily encouraged by both President Clinton and (far moreso) by President George W. Bush via Housing and Urban Development.

Further, I kinda figured that several years of practically free money flowing from the quasi-government entity known as the Federal Reserve fueled all kinds of terrible investments (like a housing bubble?). And you know, I didn't think it was helpful that a pair of government-sponsored entities (who were under the direction of the US Congress, had the implicit backing of the Full Faith and Credit of the United States, and who've been taken into conservatorship by the US Federal government) kept prices and rates artificially low at great cost to the US taxpayer and who - together - account for about 60% of the US mortgage market. Doesn't that sort of thing usually spawn... a bubble?

Not really sure what led me to believe all of that stuff. Does the narrative even make sense? Congress changes an existing law and the President changes enforcement to pressure those who give mortgages to hand out more loans to the "economically disadvantaged" in their communities in the mid-1990s which causes lenders to put a ton of loans on their books that don't look very good? I mean, I guess the banks and such would already be lending to people who were qualified for loans; there's no reason not to, right? If you're qualified, the bank makes money through the life of the loan, you get a house, and everybody wins, yeah? So I suppose if Congress had to force banks to make a bunch of loans, it'd probably mean that those loans weren't so great. Now from what I know of banks, they've got to answer to the bean counters and stock holders and all sorts of other people who get fussy when the books start looking scary. I guess if that started to happen, "the government made me do it" probably wouldn't cut it for very long. So on the one side, you've got the government pressuring the lenders to create loans they wouldn't normally create, and on the other hand, you've got people who are like "hey, if you go out of business, I lose a lot of money, so don't do that!" After a little while of that and not seeing things get any better, I know I'd be looking for another way out. Which is interesting, because the US government invented a neat way to get loans off your books back in 1970 with what are called "Mortgage-backed securities" (courtesy of Ginnie Mae). More than half the mortgages in the US have been turned into those, (including $3 Trillion worth in 2003 alone in a $12 Trillion total market) so that's pretty neat.

Ok, so the lenders have a good way move the bad loans off their books, and by all accounts, they start doing just that. By 2002, President Bush was

khipu put plenty of facts forward, and 2 minutes on google would confirm everything he says.

Here you go, some facts with references:

Cut a secret deal to kill the public option, while campaigning on its behalf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html

Granted waivers for 30 companies, including McDonald's, exempting them from health care reform
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2010-10-07-healthlaw07_ST_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

Continued renditions of alleged terrorists to countries where they could be tortured
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/us/politics/25rendition.html

Blocked the release of photos documenting the torture and abuse of detainees by the US military
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/05/president-oba-5.html

Continued the practice of indefinite detentions for alleged terrorists
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/21/AR2009052104045.html

Extended the Patriot Act without making any reforms
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0301/Obama-signs-Patriot-Act-extension-without-reforms

Pushed for mandatory DNA testing of those arrested for crimes, regardless of whether they have been convicted
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34097.html

Dramatically increased government secrecy, blocking more FOIA requests in 2009 than Bush did in 2008
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/16/obamas-broken-promise-fed_n_500526.html

Cut a deal to exempt abortion services from health care reform
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/21/deal-struck-on-abortion-clears-path-for-health-care-passage/

Announced a $60 billion sale of arms to the Saudi Arabian dictatorship, the largest arms deal in history
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20016181-503543.html

About 6 minute's worth

Don't forget that Sen. Paul, the supposed libertarian, also wants the federal government to dictate to residents of the District of Columbia how their locally-collected tax dollars should be spent.

One Paul amendment would require the District to allow residents to obtain concealed weapon permits for handguns, and would require the city to honor permits issued to residents of other states.

Paul submitted an amendment to ban city-funded abortions.

Paul proposed another amendment saying 'membership in a labor organization may not be applied as a precondition for employment' in the District.

Most of the commenters here will twist this story into how the US is somehow evil, and drone on (pun intended) about how the US and West governments and/or corporations and/or political systems are what's wrong with the world, when in reality, people are suffering and dying under actual tyranny and oppression.

Like in Syria.

It's about time Wikileaks lived up to its initial stated mission of "exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East," instead of becoming an anti-US pulpit for a self-righteous egomaniac who has openly said if he was asked to choose between "advocate"/"activist" and "journalist", he would choose "advocate", and who answered "I'm too busy ending two wars," in response to a reporter asking for clarity on an issue.

(And no, this doesn't mean the US and West are all-perfect or all-wise — what it means is that people need to get out of their bizarro world and get some perspective on things. A clue wouldn't hurt, either.)

It's pretty obvious Assange collaborated with Manning to steal secret documents.

That's a crime for sure.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/prosecutors-say-manning-and-assange-collaborated-in-stealing-secret-documents/2011/12/22/gIQARwAXCP_story.html

Why are Americans so obsessed with air conditioning?

Because we're environmentally conscious -- it takes less energy to cool a home in the summer than it takes to warm a home in the winter.

George Washington signed into law the first mandate for health insurance in America. I personally don't think he'd have a problem with it, nor would the other 20 framers that passed the law. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/06/26/george-washingtons-individual-mandates/

Later, John Adams signed the first individual health insurance mandate into law because sailors were a drain on society due to unpaid hospital stays, which you might note, is a very relevant point in regards to the current discussion.

Liberty doesn't mean freedom from responsibility. Quite the opposite, actually. Our founding fathers knew that better than most care to admit.

I'm amazed the Iranians have been so restrained.

I'm amazed that anyone would say that they believe that.

Malaysia court orders extradition of Iranian over bomb plot
Israel says Thai bombs similar to those in India, Georgia

Good 'ole peace loving Iran.
Iran sends troops to Syria

Tehran, May 30 — Iran has sent its troops to help the regime of embattled Syrian President Bashar al-Assad fight opposition forces, a senior commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards has said.

Iran boosts Qods shock troops in Venezuela

Iran is increasing its paramilitary Qods force operatives in Venezuela while covertly continuing supplies of weapons and explosives to Taliban and other insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq, according to the Pentagon’s first report to Congress on Tehran’s military.

Iran's Quds Force: Supporting Terrorism Worldwide
Experts: Iran's Quds Force Deeply Enmeshed in Iraq

State Sponsors: Iran

Tehran Attempts to Deceive U.S. President Obama, Sec'y of State Clinton With Nonexistent Anti-Nuclear Weapons Fatwa
Chairman of the Gulf Forum for Peace and Security Fahed Al-Shelaimi Accuses Iran of State-Sponsored Terrorism

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/23/AR2010042305508.html

My conclusion based on this limited data point is that illegal immigrants were shooting your non-illegal immigrant rapists. It's just as valid as your 9 murders to 4 murders conclusion.

P.S. don't you love how Obama panders by pronouncing "Latinos" differently than any other word? Imagine how the liberal hypo would piss themselves if Romney had a shout out to the "Afro Americans" sounding like Ludacris. If I was "Latino" I'd be pretty pissed at being pandered to, but apparently the promise of welfare checks and scare tactics that big mean Republicans are out to get you is enough to keep the sheeple dependent and in line.

I don't pay a lot of attention to the trivialities of partisan, campaign rhetoric. I'm more interested in facts, such as the Obama administration's record deportation of undocumented immigrants.

Okay, we have the most recent rulings that DC can't completely ban firearms(Heller, 2008), and this includes states(McDonald, 2010).

The most relevant case I found from 1997 is 'Printz/Mack v United states' - Which struck down federal law mandating law enforcement to do background checks on handgun buyers and 'other tasks'. Which I'd also consider a loss for gun control proponents. Win for state sovereignty.

Can't really find anything in 1939, do you mean 1933's United States v. Miller? In which Miller had passed away by the time it reached the SC, and therefore no competent defense was mounted?

Modern proponents have constructed arguments that would have easily disputed the case presented before the SC of the time. For example - the WHOLE REASON short barreled shotguns were allowed to be banned was that nobody presented a military use for them. There's plenty of evidence of 'trench guns' - short barreled shotguns, being used during war at the time, which would have been brought up by a competent defense. Regardless, this is a dangerous case to bring up, because it would logically lead to MORE protection for 'militarily useful' weapons like the AR-15, SCAR, and other military pattern rifles over things like hunting rifles, semi-automatic 9mm like the Beretta(issued by the military) over revolvers(no longer used), etc...

With the chemicals in the water, air pollution, and the diminishing quality of foods? Good luck with that.

Look at this chart. Next few decades are going to be cancer central.

First, we've established that there is a cabal, and we know its name.

So is the the local tree house gang. The real question is: what can they do? But I guess we agree on that.

I don't know what data you're referring to, but it would be damned hard to imagine any data proving that point.

Uh, yes. It's in the price of oil, and the price of oil that OPEC has repeatedly tried to set. The fact that you don't even know what the data would look like that could falsify your position tells me you have actually never looked at the data.

When you have a single unified entity controlling half the world's production

And this is how I know you have no idea what you're talking about: http://www.princeton.edu/~pcglobal/conferences/environment/papers/colgan.pdf, as well as this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/opec-fails-to-ratify-proposal-to-boost-the-oil-cartels-output/2011/06/08/AGrHSzLH_story.html These are just a few, small instances of the general failure of OPEC to do much coordination.

a handful of about 5 companies controlling all the refining

And again, you show your total ignorance. Here's a quick link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_refineries#United_States. And that's just the US.

unless we are to pretend that 1974 didn't actually happen

Number 1: that's a single data point. There's no trend to be made of it. Number 2: that was almost 40 years ago, and the oil landscape, as the world, has changed significantly.

Larger point is, if you think oil is a completely untainted free market

Last point is, if you want to argue, you might want to make sure you actually have your facts straight, or you come across as the living embodiment of truthiness, and just as much of a joke.

Many commuter train systems are controlled by computers today. They usually work better than a human operator, although when they fail it makes the headlines and scares people away from wanting AI controlled transportation.

Perhaps you should open your eyes a bit before going off on rants?

The problem is that the US does want him, and given the way they have treated people they considered "terrorists" in the past ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition ) I am not surprised that Assange is unwilling to bet his life on the good will of the Swedish prosecutor's office.
The CIA rendered a few people from Sweden in the past, apparently in complete contradiction of Swedish law ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/20/AR2005052001605.html ), why couldn't they do it again?
Inside the USA under the watchful eyes of its citizens, the US Government does generally try to follow the rules of your constitution - although that is being chipped away at on a steady basis these days, but outside the USA, the US Government acts more like an Empire and often does whatever the fuck it wants to, to whomever it wants to, if it can get away with it. Most of the big issues faced by the US with regards to the rest of the world seem to find their roots in the heavy handed nature of most US foreign policy decisions it seems to me at least.
I will be highly surprised if Assange gets to Sweden and is not immediately whisked away under US Govt control after the specious "questioning" in Sweden is dropped upon his arrival. Hell hath no fury like a government scorned...

Well, from what we know of this guy, it seems he really is the internet version of an ambulance chaser. He got a lucky break in the sex.com brouhaha, and now like a gambler that won a lottery jackpot he's scratching every card he can buy, desperate for the next big win. After all, look at this line from the Comic Riffs blog report:

Carreon tells Comic Riffs one of his goals is to become the go-to attorney for people who feel they have been cyber-vandalized or similarly wronged on the Internet.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/comic-riffs/post/funnyjunk-lawyer-suing-the-oatmeal-cartoonist-inman-over-indiegogo-charity-drive/2012/06/18/gJQAbZhDlV_blog.html

We can only hope that his hubris will soon make him the disgraced pariah that he needs to be.

Jokes aside, Islam (Ethiopia has 3 times more Muslims than in 100% Muslim Somalia) prohibits prying and spying on civilians, so any snooping, any PATRIOT act, any FISA laws would be impossible under Islamic government.

Just because Ethiopia is a neighbour of Somalia doesn't make it (or its goverment) islamic.

While there are a lot of issues in "the west", comparing a single-ISP, policing government to a greedy ISP is unfair to all the millions under the first's rule. Do you know that the goverment has blocked blogspot (somehow the most popular blogging platform for ethiopians)? Now that it has posted this, /. could be next, you never know.

Leaving that as it is, what is the west's role in building/strengthening of all these police states? As long as they are promised a fight against extremism/terrorism, the americans didn't mind when the government killed hundreds of peaceful demonstrators, let alone blocking skype. I don't suppose skype and co. would care either since there is not that big a market for them, but how would they deal (or pretend to deal) with this?

Chiken used to be slaughtered in a way that left the feet usable only as ground animal feed. When http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/us-china-embroiled-in-trade-spat-over-chicken-feet/2011/12/13/gIQASphjxO_story.html they're worth $275 million per year the slaughterhouses changed they're practices.

Wave more money like that at slaughterhouses and they will JUMP to change.

Huge accusations, but no cites.

Illinois abolished its death penalty when the Innocence Project proved that half the men on death row were innocent of the murders they were convicted of, and massive police and District Attorney corruption (including torture and planted evidence) were the reason most of the innocents were convicted.

He didn't need to make a citation about the cop shooting at unarmed teenagers; I'm surprised that nothing similar has happened where you live. Just last year there was a similar incident in Chatham (just outside Springfield). Sorry I can't make a citation either, but the SJ-R only archives its stories for a few weeks.

Then there are the murders (OK, negligent homicides) at the Sangamon County Jail. I knew one of the victims personally, his name was Maurice "Moe" Burris. He died in agony when the jail doctor refused to send him to the hospital, even though he was puking blood. His family recently successfully sued the county for Moe's death. The quack doctor that killed my acquaintence is still working for the county instead of sitting in prison for negligent homicide as he should be. Luckily the IT isn't as retarded as the SJ-R when it comes to data retention (among other things), you can find more about the Innocence Project and the police misconduct that led to the end of the death penalty there as well. I'd link to the SJ-R's take on the quack practicing medicine but they'll probably pull the story before you could see it.

This was a big deal a couple years ago; detectives lied to a judge about a "trash rip" to get a search warrant, then planted cocaine during the "search". The suspect was freed by the judge, no criminal action was taken against the detectives (but if you lie to a judge you'll go to jail). The detectives were fired, then later rehired after suing the city!

Those are instances just here in Illinois and mostly local! Multiply that by fifty and you'll begin to see how bad the situation really is. These kinds stories are incredibly easy to find in reputable newspapers.

You MUST remember Ruby Ridge and Waco, don't you?

The situation is bad. It's no wonder that poor people ALL fear and loathe the police. I assume the fellow you responded to has probably been personally victimized by thuggish cops.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-green-tech-program-that-backed-solyndra-struggles-to-create-jobs/2011/09/07/gIQA9Zs3SK_story.html

http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2009/12/07/cost-benefit-analysis-of-jobs-stimulus/

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/jeffreeves/2011/09/03/cbo_cost_per_job_between_$196,750_and_$562,000

http://investinginkids.net/2011/08/24/cost-effective-short-term-job-creation-policies/

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/why-government-cant-create-jobs/

In other words, there is plenty of information out there that clearly shows how inefficient government is at creating jobs. Governments can't help people get jobs, it only gets in the way of people getting jobs. Want to create jobs, let businesses hire people without regulatory red tape and high costs (taxes).

what were they thinking when they dared to include web browser in their OS...

I believe it was something about cutting off Netscape's air supply

The guy (Steve Jobs) parked in handicapped spots, and even went so far as to only keep his cars long enough to skirt under the registration requirement so he couldn't be ticketed for it.

I know there are a lot of Apple haters out there, but everything I've ever read about Steve Jobs as a person is totally negative and points to him being an asshole of epic proportions. This makes it hard for me to believe he was a philanthropist in secret.

This quote in particular cracks me up:

“He’s gotten a lot of criticism for not giving away tons of money, but I think it’s a bum rap. There’s only so many hours in a week, and he created so many incredible products. He really contributed to culture and society.”

Only in today's twisted world can creating Chinese-made, throw-away consumer goods sold for premium prices be considered "giving back to the world". It fits well with this whole mythology we're building up around the wealthy these days, how it's just such a burden being rich and all that...

Data doesn't support this statement. At least according to the Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-wisconsin-recall-vote-outside-spending-may-have-influenced-very-few-voters--trail-mix-june-6/2012/06/06/gJQA5I6PIV_video.html

Cybersecurity has got to be a great job! Why just the other day I submitted a story about how a fellow from the State Department said the cybersecurity "would most assure 30 years of steady, well-paying employment".

  What do you say cyber dudes (and dudettes) out there? Are recruiters calling you? Are you getting retention or sign-on bonuses? Is the grass really that green over there?