Slashdot Mirror

Not if they're not allowed to fly they don't.

To the TSA's credit, this is actually closer to a success then a failure, since they're at least stopping guns from getting on to planes. Normally the TSA doesn't worry about guns getting through security too much.

There is a fine line between voluntarily entering into a contract with a 3rd party on equal negotiation footing and agreeing to ridiculous contractual options because everyone who offers this service requires it. For example, air travel is theoretically optional, but a basic necessity of modern living. You can then either opt out of modern living, or you can wear the contractually-obliged shock collar in order to fly.

Certain bits of modern contracts are quite frankly immortal, and should not be enforced by the government. As a further example, non-competes can be a way of ensuring that your employees don't simply run to another company with your hard-earned knowledge. But they're also a way of ensuring that certain employees can never work in their field again, and cannot realistically get another job afterwards. This can be held over the employee to prevent them from leaving due to underpay, abuse, or failure to live up to bonus or other compensatory promises. And they're always entered into while the employee is hungry.

Citation? I don't have an issue with Muslim-based schools (how many Catholic-based schools exist in this country?) but I would take issue with public funds going to them.

Ask the google, it will tell all: http://www.tizacademy.com/Our_School.html http://washingtontimes.com/news/2007/jul/24/war-of-ideas-homefront-92353311/ I used to live in NYC, and yes there were hebrew schools, but they were privately funded. So were all the catholic schools.

How is that any different from an employer that gives Jewish employees a day off for Yum Kippur or arranges for alternative meals for Hindu staff when the cafeteria is serving beef?

I've never worked anywhere where Yom Kippur was a holiday, but most companies give out "diversity days" for this. Aside from that, my jewish coworkers have always had to take vacation time for jewish holidays. And yes, there's a VERY large difference between giving a holiday, and providing state funding for foot baths, or to provide Muslim only housing (here's the link http://www.georgetownvoice.com/2006-04-20/feature/two-identities-two-challenges) for 2% of the school population.

If next time you enter China the border officers did decide they are going to take your laptop away, what could you do about it?

What could you do if your laptop gets taken at the US border? File a complaint? Woot.

Chiming in with the GP here, I feel much safer and much better treated going into China than going into the US. There I am treated as though I am an actual person, here I am treated as though I am an annoyance.

If DHS gets their way, we'll be treated worse than that. DHS wants to require all airline passengers to wear a taser bracelet

Yeah. Someone else made that point. I thanked him. However, I had this in mind when I wrote that:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/feb/20/court-turns-away-fisa-challenge/

Is it a troll now to post facts on Slashdot? To those who modded me Troll:
1. Prove that Islam is a Religion of Peace. Show me an Islamic or a muslim country that is peaceful and respectful towards non-Muslim citizens and those who renounce Islam.

2. Prove that Islamoterrorists are not inspired by religious rhetorics and promises of pleasure in Paradise. 72 virgins are the standard prize for "shahids".

3. Prove that governments do not supply Islamic materials to prisoners. In the UK, one of the most active places to do dawah is the prisons. The UK government even spend money to renovate toilets so that they won't face Mecca. The UK even let sex offenders opt out of treatment and is afraid of the inmates.

4. Prove that governments do not appease Islamic groups trying to teach propagandas to students. Here is the latest news on the Islamic Saudi Academy debacles that taught children it's alright to kill and rob.

Other passages in the school's textbooks state that "the Jews conspired against Islam and its people" and that Muslims are permitted to take the lives and property of those deemed "polytheists." (Source: AP)

It's pretty sad that now facts are modded Troll here.

The Maoists are not going to take over and set up a Maoist regime, India and China wouldn't allow it.

Right, because China stopped Burma from setting up a repressive state, or Sudan, or Pol Pot's Kampuchea, or North Korea....

Actually they want to turn all of them into client states as a buffer against the West. The fact that life in all of them is pretty miserable is not really a concern to the Chinese government. In fact since they don't believe in democracy at home, complaining about a lack of it in their allies would be a bit unwise domestically.

India backed the Nepali Congress Party, like the US and UK. They have just announced that the Nepali king will go into exile in India. In fact politically if not geographically you could say India is part of 'the West' now. Hmm, maybe since 'the West' is now defined by having a democratic government rather than geography, maybe we should think of a new name for it, like 'The Free World'

Since Congress seems to have been decimated in the election, 'The Free World' does't have much say on what the Maoists do next. They planned to marginalize the Maoists and promote the other parties, but they seem to have lost. This is not good for Nepalis.

I read that post election the Maoists have held talks with China and said that 'Tibet is an integral part of China and they won't allow Nepali territory to be used as a base for Tibetan separatism', by which they presmably mean they will kill, imprison or deport the Tibetan exiles. Doesn't sound too democratic by the way, does it? But somehow I don't see the Chinese government complaining.

Even before the election, the Nepal Maoists were cited along with North Korea by China
http://washingtontimes.com/article/20080328/COMMENTARY/282837929/1012

To counter growing international criticism, on March 20, China's official Xinhua news agency trumpeted a statement of support from the North Korean dictatorship that "denounces the unsavory elements of their moves to seek 'independence of Tibet' and scuttle the upcoming Beijing Olympics, and supports the Chinese government in its efforts to ensure social stability and the rule of law in Tibet and defend the fundamental interests of the Tibetan people." Xinhua also cited the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) which "strongly condemns the incident that put at risk the freedom and sovereignty of the Chinese people."

I'd say Nepal is well on the way to client state status.

But the GP's point, is that their frequent terrorism was justified, in that it freed the country from dictatorial monarchy.

He said it was slander to call them terrorists. I pointed out that it wasn't. They have deliberately targetted civillians and used terror to influence politics, which is terrorism.

I found another comment on this

http://www.upiasiaonline.com/Politics/2008/04/15/nepalese_vote_to_give_peace_a_chance/2819/

Finally, and very importantly, the fear factor played a major role in the unprecedented landslide that destroyed the CPN-UML party, which has now resigned from the government, and crippled the mighty Nepali Congress.

Arun Paudel, who was campaigning from his hometown in Gorkha district, said, "People were genuinely afraid of the Maoists." More than 10 years of armed conflict that left over 13,000 people dead and two years of "peaceful" intimidation and extortion, left its mark on the minds of the Nepalese people.

In the West they may call this appeasement, but here is it called "give peace a chance." The thinking goes like this, "If the Maoists want power, give it to them. Then, at least, we can dream again of peace."

Making people vote for you so you stop killing them certainly sounds like terrorism to me.

And my point is that there isn't any sign s

The Terrorist Surveillance Program has not existed for over a year, since 17 January 2007. All foreign intelligence collection in the meantime has occurred under the guise of FISA and the temporary and recently-sunset FISA modifications provided by the Protect America Act. With the expiry of the Protect America Act, ALL foreign SIGINT collection reverts to the 30-year old FISA rules.

If someone could point out the warrantless surveillance program that is known to exist today, I'd appreciate it. And yes, the burden of proof is on you, as simply asserting that one must exist doesn't quite cut it. Remember how TSP came to light: leaks to the New York Times. The government simply cannot keep such controversial programs secret. There is no evidence of any current, ongoing "warrantless" surveillance.

The other important thing to remember is that foreign intelligence collection never requires a warrant or court oversight of any kind; the FISA modifications were designed to enable easy foreign intelligence collection via assets on US soil or traffic that may travel physically through the United States. It does not matter in the least if the other end of the conversation is a US person on US soil, as long as they are not the target of such collection.

Such collection is always legal and allowable without a warrant if the collection occurs outside of the United States and the US person is not the target of such surveillance. Special and very extensive measures are undertaken to conceal the identity of US persons in such collection.

The main difference with what became known as TSP, and refined in the Protect America Act, was the provision to enable such collection via means to which we have easy and routine access; namely, the massive amounts of communication traffic flowing through equipment under US control. Whether or not you may agree with that is a different issue entirely. The purpose was never to target US citizens without a warrant. The purpose was to collect foreign intelligence via US assets. Currently (after PAA expiration), if traffic travels through the United States, even if BOTH ends are non-US persons physically outside of the United States, the Intelligence Community is prohibited from collection without a warrant. That's the "Intel Gap" we wanted to close.

The only problem with the submission?

TSP no longer exists, and hasn't since 17 January 2007.

ALL surveillance was happening under the guise of the Protect America Act, which was designed exclusively to allow foreign intelligence collection without a warrant when the traffic travelled through the United States, whether incidentally or by design. Foreign intelligence collection is always allowed without court oversight; the changes explicitly allowed such collection on US soil as long as the target was reasonably believed to be a non-US person physically outside of the United States, regardless of the other end of the conversation. The change was absolutely done to make such surveillance easy.

Now the Protect America Act has expired with its automatic sunset, and ALL surveillance must again happen only via FISA.

There is no TSP or any warrantless surveillance program. What a horrible summary.

Of course, I'm sure a bunch of people will respond, "Oh, sure, there is no warrantless surveillance...THAT WE KNOW OF." Oh, how convenient: arguing about something that we can't prove one way or another? Please, let's keep the discussion in the realm of known facts, namely, that TSP no longer exists. The article even says as much. Did the submitter not even RTFA?

You're clearly not very bright, and have little knowledge of this subject.

Yes it failed to deploy, that does not mean the technology does not work. Every technological break through has failures. If everything was considered useless that failed the first time we'd be a hell of a lot further behind.

That's funny... it seems like they are stealing our technology.

Finally to complete the icing on the cake. If you think this, top-secret, military spy-satellite was made in China you are completely ignorant of how the military in the US works.

Furthermore, people often don't consider the difference in degree between what is "perceived to be blasphemous" to the two groups. There's both a difference in the reaction, and the provocation.

Videos, articles, books, etc that question or even ridicule Christianity (and its important figures) are tolerated. Christians get offended by things like Piss Christ, but even then there's no (widespread/organized) violence.

Muslims, on the other hand, get offended by very minor stuff like *throwing or slamming the Koran*. Or... naming a teddy bear after Muhammad. Even in America... you can be charged with a hate crime for desecrating the Koran (flushing it down a toilet). Is that scary or what?

They get highly offended by any image of Muhammad, even if it's not derogatory. Derogatory images of Muhammad, on the other hand, inspire actual violence -- including bombings. That's fricking insane.

The link in the summary points to page two of the article, here is the whole article

I think you need to read more budday: http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071126/NATION/111260034/1001

Actually this might benefit Kasparov's cause. He's a respected person both in Russia and abroad, and a move like this could provoke a stronger protest against Putin. I trust Kasparov has calculated this 6 moves ahead

I seriously doubt there is any positive outcome now, considering what happened to the last person seized: Larisa Arap I think they now know they could have gone much, much further with her without any kind of retribution from the outside world (we all like their oil and gas) or domestically. The Russians would rather have the known Putin, who they seem to like, than Kasparov, who many dislike and distrust as he is not really "Russian" at all. Ethnically or nationally it seems (or so I've been repeatedly admonished).

Beisides, why not? Who would challenge Putin (meaningfully, I mean)? No one. The U.S. has no traction anymore, and the U.N. is starting to wonder if they can accomplish anything at all together...

An excerpt from her wikipedia entry:

On 2007-07-05, Arap went to a clinic in the closed city of Severomorsk for the results of a medical examination, which she had passed a month earlier to renew her driver's license. Doctor Olga Reshet asked her whether she was the author of the "Madhouse" article. After receiving a confirmation from Arap that she was indeed the author, Dr. Reshet told her to wait outside and called militsiya (Russian police), who detained Arap until the arrival of a psychiatric ambulance. Arap was injected with drugs that caused her tongue to swell, weakened her, and affected her vision and balance, according to her relatives. The detention was illegal, since a decision of a judge authorizing her detention and treatment was issued subsequently, thirteen days later.

[...]

Arap claimed that she was severely beaten by the medical personnel and had bruises all over her body. She was tied to her bed and treated with unidentified 'sedatives'. To protest, Arap went on a five-day hunger strike, but she was eventually fed by force.

I'll be surprised if he can even figure out how to tie his own shoes by the time they are done with him.

Yeah, aircraft carriers were a big innovation in WW2, but now they're steel death-traps for the sailors inside.

from 2004, Paul Van Riper trashes US fleet using zergrush tactics (lots of small crappy boats)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28161-2002Aug16

more recently china sub surfaces undetected behind a US carrier within torpedo range.
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20061113-121539-3317r.htm

and this latest demonstration? the Chinese are showing their first wasn't a fluke!

How many small boats and planes do you think China would have along its coasts? Combined with a sub attack, they could easilly decimate the US fleet if it tried to defend Taiwan, for example.

Regulating prices may seem like a good idea at first glance - but forcing the telcos to let competitors share access reduces investment in upgrading facilities that need modernization.

This op-ed in the Washington Times today does a great job explaining why regulating special access would be a bad idea. http://washingtontimes.com/article/20071011/COMMENTARY/110110009/1012

The Progress & Freedom Foundation recently published an empirical examination finding a positive correlation between flexible pricing and incumbent investment. The report reaffirms what economics tells us: lower profit potential in a market segment means less investment. Somebody has to be willing to throw down some serious cash to increase the bandwidth of central office. But incumbents tend to divert resources to more lucrative ventures if CLECs can reap the benefits without taking any of the risk. Sure, CLECs have to pay wholesale prices plus rate of return, but there's no risk in that proposition-except for the incumbent. Phone companies allocate the most resources to areas where the FCC does not regulate prices.

There is real competition in the market for high-speed internet access. Business cable, DSL, satellite internet, 3G, fixed wireless, and now 4G/Wi-Max all compete with T1 lines for workplace connectivity. These aren't perfect substitutes yet, but they keep getting better as DOCSIS 3.0 starts to be implemented and wireless broadband gets faster and cheaper. The upcoming 700mhz auction will mean even more growth in this area.

The FCC is making the same mistake the FTC made with the XM-Sirius merger, or the Staples-Office Depot merger. Just because the market for a specific product may have 1 supplier doesn't mean its a monopoly-as long as substitutes exist, there will be price competition.

Phone service isn't a natural monopoly anymore. The duplicative cost of having multiple carriers is tiny nowadays compared to the massive welfare gains from competition. And if phone service really is a natural monopoly, why does the FCC need to insulate telcos from competition? Shouldn't the market gravitate towards 1 supplier without government intervention? In 1934, under political pressure from AT&T, the FCC began its disastrous policy of enforcing monopolies on telephone service. Ma Bell successfully lobbied Congress to entrench its monopoly status because upstarts were doing such a good job competing, so profit margins weren't as large as AT&T had become used to. Imagine a world where people had real choice for TV, phone, and internet. Franchising and universal service would have to be eliminated; but in this day and age if people want to live in rural areas, why should the rest of us have to suffer?

I beg to differ on your cost analysis, at least to a point.

The US has some of the lowest cost-per-minute in the world. http://washingtontimes.com/article/20070902/COMMEN TARY/109020022 . According to the article, only Hong Kong is cheaper, and that jives with my personal knowledge (almost 10 years in the wireless telecom industry). What you're comparing is one particular carrier's US prepaid service to China's pre-paid. The apples-to-oranges here is that in China, pre-paid is the norm; here in the US, post-paid is. If you take the US's lowest cost per minute (which is less than the average of $.07 quoted in the article) and compare it to China's, you'd find them much closer. Likewise, if you compare the highest to the highest... well, you get my point. If you want to paint an accurate comparison, you should point out that the US' cost for prepaid is much greater than most other countries' cost for prepaid (which is certainly very true).

Yes, part of the reason costs are lower for post-paid here is because of contracts, but that doesn't mean it's not cheaper. Oh, and that mobile phone you purchase here for less than a hundred bucks costs two or three times as much for comparable elsewhere. Just visit your favorite manufacturer and compare prices on the same/similar models as to what the carriers offer here with a contract. The contract agreement allows the carrier to buy-down the cost of the hardware to below the cost (e.g. the carrier subsidises the cost for you)

That being said, the contract thing does suck, but if you're going to make the argument that the total cost of ownership for a mobile in the US is always completely higher than elsewhere, well, you're simply incorrect. Prices here are not "sky-high" compared to the rest of the world. As always, one can cherry-pick examples in either direction, but when one looks at typical/average, the US actually comes in pretty good.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070814/NA TION02/108140063

Couple countless vote rigging and voter suppression stories in the past with this story and
the fact that Republicans are still trying to 'game the system'shows that they are out to win regardless of principle or honesty.

California electoral vote split proposed
http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?A ID=/20070731/NATION/107310062/1001

They got their asses kicked in 2006, polls show more is coming in 2008 yet they still act
like thugs. I guess these cretins are gluttons for punishment and deserve to be in
the political Siberia they are due for.

Add this to:

- McCain-Feingold censoring of political speech that criticizes incumbent politicians before elections.
- Reinstitution of the fairness doctrine to censor all "controversial" broadcasts
- Opening the door for terrorists to sue ordinary citizens who say "I saw something suspicious" to security personnel
- PBS censors film for not being sensitive to radical "insurgents" who threaten folks who argue for moderation
- Don Imus shut up by Al Sharpton's forces
- Numerous incidents on college campuses

Free speech is too important. It needs to be protected and the Supreme Court isn't doing an adequate job (see the McCain-Feingold decision).

http://washingtontimes.com/technology/20070518-100 822-2536r.htm

Here is the link

" The man to whom the license was granted, professor Gedis Grudzinskas, was asked whether he would screen babies for hair color. He replied that hair color "can be a cause of bullying, which can lead to suicide. With the agreement of the HFEA, I would do it.""

So, you're saying you know better than the FISA judges?

For another example, look at the Seawolf class submarines. They cost nearly a billion dollars each and were also designed to meet a threat that no longer exists.

Sorry, I can't stand bubble-heads any more than the next guy, but subs play a critical role as a deterrant. First of all, China is currently playing games, feeling out our military capabilities and responsiveness, and they're only increasing their submarine production. Granted, the motivation of the source (the Pentagon) for disclosing this information is undoubtedly to procure more funding, but that doesn't negate the fact that these vessels give us the capability to meet the potential threat of naval warfare, in the unlikely event that China decides to engage in open hostilities.

Aside from that, the missiles launched against Afghanistan in 1998 (in response to the embassy bombings) were launched from -- you guessed it -- a sub. Submarines provide a US military presence throughout the world, without everyone knowing where we are, or when we're there. Additionally, subs play a large role in Mutually Assured Destruction -- meaning that even if all of our land and surface facilities were wiped out, there are enough missiles in the water that whomever was responsible would be eliminated as well. While the practicality or sanity of such a response is questionable (why bother killing more people if you've already lost?), I'm sure that knowledge doesn't make Kim Jong-il sleep any better at night. Naturally some people are uncomfortable with the idea that there's probably a US sub lurking somewhere off their coastline, but from a national defense standpoint there's no question that submarines are an essential part of the strategy.

Some may argue that the threat of the future is not conventional warfare, but terrorism. I would argue that the only reason terrorism is a viable attack vector is because conventional warfare has been so heavily dominated by the US. If we were to, in essence, demilitarize (and getting rid of subs would seriously weaken our naval position, akin to demilitarization), it would only compromise our ability to deal with future threats. Similiarly, advocating that we abandon, say, strong passwords, because most attacks use completely different vectors, would make little sense. Granted, it is difficult to measure the deterrant effect of something when its effectiveness, by definition, provides a lack of data points, but as long as other countries posess the capability for naval warfare, it behooves us to maintain an equal or superior capability (preferrably the latter).

I'm fairly liberal, but I'm a big fan of the big stick policy, though not quite the way Roosevelt practiced it. There's little point in making laws, for example, without the capability to enforce those laws, which is the function of the police. Likewise, we need a capable military to enforce our position in the global playing field. But with power comes responsibility. It is encumbant upon us to use our power judiciously, not to abuse and squander it in frivilous conflicts (and I use the term frivilous with respect to its importance in global strategy, not the lives of those directly affected) with dubious merit.

For another example, look at the Seawolf class submarines. They cost nearly a billion dollars each and were also designed to meet a threat that no longer exists.

Sorry, I can't stand bubble-heads any more than the next guy, but subs play a critical role as a deterrant. First of all, China is currently playing games, feeling out our military capabilities and responsiveness, and they're only increasing their submarine production. Granted, the motivation of the source (the Pentagon) for disclosing this information is undoubtedly to procure more funding, but that doesn't negate the fact that these vessels give us the capability to meet the potential threat of naval warfare, in the unlikely event that China decides to engage in open hostilities.

Aside from that, the missiles launched against Afghanistan in 1998 (in response to the embassy bombings) were launched from -- you guessed it -- a sub. Submarines provide a US military presence throughout the world, without everyone knowing where we are, or when we're there. Additionally, subs play a large role in Mutually Assured Destruction -- meaning that even if all of our land and surface facilities were wiped out, there are enough missiles in the water that whomever was responsible would be eliminated as well. While the practicality or sanity of such a response is questionable (why bother killing more people if you've already lost?), I'm sure that knowledge doesn't make Kim Jong-il sleep any better at night. Naturally some people are uncomfortable with the idea that there's probably a US sub lurking somewhere off their coastline, but from a national defense standpoint there's no question that submarines are an essential part of the strategy.

Some may argue that the threat of the future is not conventional warfare, but terrorism. I would argue that the only reason terrorism is a viable attack vector is because conventional warfare has been so heavily dominated by the US. If we were to, in essence, demilitarize (and getting rid of subs would seriously weaken our naval position, akin to demilitarization), it would only compromise our ability to deal with future threats. Similiarly, advocating that we abandon, say, strong passwords, because most attacks use completely different vectors, would make little sense. Granted, it is difficult to measure the deterrant effect of something when its effectiveness, by definition, provides a lack of data points, but as long as other countries posess the capability for naval warfare, it behooves us to maintain an equal or superior capability (preferrably the latter).

I'm fairly liberal, but I'm a big fan of the big stick policy, though not quite the way Roosevelt practiced it. There's little point in making laws, for example, without the capability to enforce those laws, which is the function of the police. Likewise, we need a capable military to enforce our position in the global playing field. But with power comes responsibility. It is encumbant upon us to use our power judiciously, not to abuse and squander it in frivilous conflicts (and I use the term frivilous with respect to its importance in global strategy, not the lives of those directly affected) with dubious merit.

The link you provided starts with "Al-Qaeda's second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri said a US congressional bill calling for a troop withdrawal from Iraq was proof of Washington's defeat, according to a web video posted on Saturday." that is hardly support for bush's policies. I doubt al-qeda would oppose their own victory. I also do not think al-qeda is an iraqi nationalist group since they consist mostly of foreign whabbist fighters and that has been a source of tension with actual nationalists. al-zawarhi that is in the article you linked to is Egyptian. Al-qeda is a sunni arab group. iraq is a majority shia arab and sunni kurd country.

I oppose islamic radicals and i see there is a disturbing link between democrats and them.

First islamic congressman was elected a democrat in 06. This guy is a former nation of islam member (they think non-blacks and non-muslims are "potential humans" that is a malcom X quote google it )
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6127234.stm

Islamic theocratic rulers celebrated in iran "this defeat is actually an obvious victory for the Iranian nation." ..."
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/khameni-calls-d emocrat-victory-a-victory-for-iran

Al-qeda welcomes democratic victory
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20061121-083639-1 601r.htm

everyone else
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1738183/p osts

Shite radicals chant death to america while supporting the democratic bill
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/10/africa/web- 0410iraq.php

If this were WWII and the nazis and japanese were praising one parties policies over anothers like this, people would have reacted differently. These days it seems people cant see the obvious.

Can you show me anything where terrorists groups oppose democratic policy on the war? in the link you provided they are basically saying you have admitted defeat and now we want to kill more of you. Im sure if they cant kill more infidels in iraq they will move to another country and resume there.

I mean, it's not like we can expect him to know his birthday and the date when the event which he was there to talk about took place, and be able to perform basic mathematical operations on the two.

Yeah. Because being five when something happens gives you a really good memory of it, doesn't it? The 1960s were full of incidents of racial tension. So he mixed up when one happened, when giving a speech designed for one location only. Whoop-de-doo. At least he's not a candidate who thought that Roe V. Wade was in the 80s and didn't know how his favorite Supreme Court justice stood on it, a lifelong hunter, outright insane, etc.

No. I'm probably stretching my analogy skills here, but I'll give it a try. There's an open source project which adds a feature or a file format to MS Office. It's called "Feature X for MS Office". The developer spent a lot of his time during the last 2 years to developer and maintain it. Now MS wants to release a new version of Office, and they want this app. The dev doesn't want to give up the pet project. MS asks him to name a price, and he does.

That'd be a great analogy, except for the fact that it's not at all what happened. Making it match the facts of the case...

"There's an open source project which adds a feature or a file format to MS Office. It's called "Official Feature X for MS Office". The developer spends a few months of their time over the course of a couple years making it, and Microsoft helps them do it; it's infringing on their trademark, but they think they're getting a service, so they help with the project. Right as a new version of Office is about to be released, the developer suddenly blocks all Microsoft access to the code. When Microsoft emails them asking what happened, the developer sends back a line-by-line bill and demands a job on top of that."

Should the developer be surprised when Microsoft takes down their site for trademark infringement?
At least Obama's campaign didn't lock out Joe's access. You know, kind of like Joe did to them.

It changes the situation because if one side allows the other to win a small victory then it tips the balanced scales ever so slightly in their favor...

So, Soviets take Afghanistan, then they take over the world and destroy American cilivation. I believe they call that a slippery slope.

I agree with you that the world court is meaningless.

I didn't say the World Court is meaningless. I said that "When sovereignty of nations is held up as an excuse for war criminals to hide behind," then the World Court is meaningless. So, I might also say that if you are going to argue from the position of the sovereignty of nations, then that means you respect the sovereignty of other nations - like Nicaragua.

The real position that is often behind the sovereignty of nations argument is typically only applied to U.S. sovereignty - never about the U.S. respecting the sovereignty of other nations. This is the problem - one that you are trying to brush aside.

Not to mention the "straw man" of misrepresenting what I have said. I mention this only because you complain about my "straw man" - without specifics I'll point out - while this is the second time I have pointed out specific instances where you have misrepresented what I have said because it's easier than actually addressing what I said.

What the South Africans do is entirely their own affair it really doesn't bother me in the least.

The significance of South African and Chilean mercenaries is that they have been involved in documented human right abuses. I think you simply aren't aware of this issue, but now that you do, I don't think you can maintain the position. Take a look at documents related to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. People involved now work as mercenaries worldwide.

The article that you link has no corroborating sources cited for their figures. In the news world that is the equivalent of hearsay and no respectable news outlet would print hearsay without corroboration or citing sources.

Ok, I'll do the work for you. I'll even pick out the relevant quotes so you don't even have to bother clicking on the links if you don't wish to do so.

Private corporations have penetrated western warfare so deeply that they are now the second biggest contributor to coalition forces in Iraq after the Pentagon, a Guardian investigation has established. While the official coalition figures list the British as the second largest contingent with around 9,900 troops, they are narrowly outnumbered by the 10,000 private military contractors now on the ground. The investigation has also discovered that the proportion of contracted security personnel in the firing line is 10 times greater than during the first Gulf war. In 1991, for every private contractor, there were about 100 servicemen and women; now there are 10.

There are serious doubts even within the occupying power about the US's choice to send Chilean mercenaries, many trained during General Augusto Pinochet's vicious dictatorship, to guard Baghdad airport.

And it's not just the foreigners - South Africans, who know they are breaking their country's laws on mercenary activity; skilled Gurkhas and Fijians who can't resist the dollars; or the Chileans who trained under General Pinochet - who are involved.

"What are the rules of engagement [for the PMCs]?" asked one coalition military official in Baghdad. "Are they civilians or are they military? I don't know who they are, and I don't

After all Paul Bremer was awarded one after having only lost $12 Billion

There was a program on channel 4 in the UK called "The Great Global Warming Scandal" a few days again which questioned the prevalent theory of CO2 emissions in regard to global warming, I thought it was quite good, as to whether it is correct I have no idea, I think I am as confused as many other people regarding this issue. This issue of global warming seems to me to have become a 'if you are not with us, you are against us', here are two links to articles regarding the program, one for, one against. take your pick. against seems to be a little less anti

Mr. Edwards gained quite a reputation both in NC and nation wide as an extremely aggressive attorney. Living in NC for most of my life, I got to see many effects of his record setting medical settlements and jury awards on both the patients and doctors. If he can do the same things for Second Life, then it probably won't last much longer... :~}

So, let's just build a space elevator instead.

I mean...as long as we're making a massive investment in (re)building a nuclear generation infrastructure, and the facilities to scrub out all the CO2 we've made over the last while, why not invest a bit more over with NASA to build a safe/cheap method to get all the nasty by-products off planet.

Seriously, once you stop thinking of nuclear reactor as the stupid kind the russians built (I mean, really, the control rods had to have power to be *inserted* and stop the reaction, vs our similar reactors where the electricity is used to *prevent* the insertion of the reaction stopping control rods) and instead think methods like pebble bed reactors. Combine that with a bit of waste recycling so that you can reuse your fuel a few more times and eventually get it down to a smaller amount of waste product per unit of energy generated. Then, send NASA and a few other scientists off to figure out how to build a tether that can safely deliver all kinds of things (including nuclear waste) into orbit and beyond. All the sudden storing the waste at a place like Yukka mountain looks like a much more reasonable short term staging area until we get the tether built.

Really people, even the founder of Greenpeace eventually came around to the realization that nuclear energy is the best large scale energy source we've got and today advocates its use.

Though I agree with much of what you say, you do propagate the lie that 96% of Americans believe in God. The percentage is lower than this according to exactly how the question is phrased; see http://www.religioustolerance.org/godpoll.htm for a survey of some surveys. Also, a fairly recent Harris survey http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index .asp?PID=408 indicates why people might, in fact, say they believe in God when they have doubts. A more recent Harris survey supports the encouraging notion that un-belief may be on the rise: http://www.dentalplans.com/articles/5938/.

These, ahem, "discrepancies" about belief in God may in fact be for the same reasons that more people say they attend church once a month (about 45%, when asked) than actually do (about 30%, based on church attendance).

Though, if you look at the survey by Baylor, the largest Baptist University in the US, this supports your number: http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060911-10333 8-8995r.htm. Wonder why that could be? I don't suppose religious people would lie, would they?

As a non-believer, I also take a little comfort in the statistic that, among the US prison population, un-belief is much lower than in the general population (though I can't find a reference for this one at the moment.)

• No rentable content: in Canada (currently) both Blockbuster and Rogers Video have no plans to begin renting out HD movies (in any format) in the near future; the answer I have been able to get from them is that they "will start carying small quantities of certain titles in both formats sometime in 2007."
• Expensive broadcast content: locally I have to spend $600 on a HD-Digital Cable box in order to be able to receive HD-TV and that only includes 6 basic channels; they sell HD-Channel packages so your cable bill will go up by $10-$20 per month for HD-TV.
• Expensive equipment: $1000 to $2000 for a TV and $500 to $1000 for a HD-Player may not sound like a lot of money, but it is more than I can justify when I know I have a $1150 rent payment at the end of the month.
• No Content: Currently there are almost 100 HD-DVD or Blu-Ray movies, there are thousands of DVD movies, even if I could rent every HD-Movie there is not enough content at the moment to make any purchase reasonable.

Hah...my opinion is that the political system is corrupted by money and association. Here's a little something about your new Speaker of the House.

Of course, it's hard to believe that the Republicans have the nerve to bitch about it (put me in mind of something about logs and specks or maybe pots and kettle), but they do.

Maybe it's true about the "banality of evil."

However, this film seems to be classified as a documentary by most people who aren't rabid Republicans.

Yeah right... you're projecting your bias onto others. Read this article and you'd learn...

In December, the National Science Teachers Association declined Mrs. David's [co-producer of An Inconvenient Truth] offer to distribute the film for free to 50,000 classrooms;

Admit it... that was just a lazy unfounded insult.

So, why is it that a man who is obviously not very well versed in the realms of science trying to have so much say in what takes place in a science class?

You know... a more interesting question I think is why is it that everyone here has bought into this story as if this guy is the best case that was put before the school board?

Also... why was this particular article used when there are other articles available? I surveyed a couple other articles and the one cited in this /. thread seems to me to be one of the most biased and certainly uses subtle ad hominem to undermine the argument that An Inconvenient Truth is not the unbiased truth it claims to be... having a discussion about "end times" and Revelation isn't really the right solution either... but there are certainly better materials available that are not so polarizing and that present the facts and opposing facts (scientific facts).

I don't think the guy was tortured. As I said in the original post:
Besides, I don't see any evidence of torture, except for Abdullah al-Muhajir's claims. However, it's hard to take that seriously when claiming torture is literally taken directly from the Al Qaeda handbook. Does it not bother you that you are playing into the hands of the enemies of the US just because you hate Bush so much?

I pointed out Abdullah al-Muhajir's guilt to dispute the original point that the US Gov't is arresting "innocent" citizens. The post I was responded to made it sound like the Gestapo was out arresting citizens at random on their way to work. Abdullah al-Muhajir does not qualify as innocent. However, I agree that he deserves a trial, and he will receive one. However, I understand the need not to have the trial made public. The gov't has good reason to hold this guy. He was arrested on his way back from Pakistan where he a senior Al Qaeda operations officer. As I mentioned in another post, this Al Qaeda officer turned him in.

I agree with you that torture is wrong, but we may have disagreements about what constitutes torture. Still, I don't think this guy was tortured by any definition. I think the guy is claiming to be tortured, as he was (allegedly) instructed to do. If this guy were tortured as he has claimed, wouldn't he have given up all the information he has already (true or not). Wouldn't the gov't be done with him at this point?

Finally, if the gov't was as evil as the original post claimed, wouldn't this guy have simply disappeared without a trace? It's not like every milk carton has a picture of a Bush political enemy on it. The fact that we know enough to even debate it proves that there is some level of openness and completely disproves the Gestapo theory that was originally forwarded.

I don't purport to have any inside knowledge of the situation, but I've found this man's opinions interesting in the past. http://washingtontimes.com/technology/20061110-103 654-9230r.htm/

Muslim religious leaders removed from a Minneapolis flight last week exhibited behavior associated with a security probe by terrorists and were not merely engaged in prayers, according to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials. ....

Passengers and flight attendants told law-enforcement officials the imams switched from their assigned seats to a pattern associated with the September 11 terrorist attacks and also found in probes of U.S. security since the attacks -- two in the front row first-class, two in the middle of the plane on the exit aisle and two in the rear of the cabin.

        "That would alarm me," said a federal air marshal who asked to remain anonymous. "They now control all of the entry and exit routes to the plane." .....

According to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials, the imams displayed other suspicious behavior.
        Three of the men asked for seat-belt extenders, although two flight attendants told police the men were not oversized. One flight attendant told police she "found this unsettling, as crew knew about the six [passengers] on board and where they were sitting." Rather than attach the extensions, the men placed the straps and buckles on the cabin floor, the flight attendant said.
        The imams said they were not discussing politics and only spoke in English, but witnesses told law enforcement that the men spoke in Arabic and English, criticizing the war in Iraq and President Bush, and talking about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.
        The imams who claimed two first-class seats said their tickets were upgraded. The gate agent told police that when the imams asked to be upgraded, they were told no such seats were available. Nevertheless, the two men were seated in first class when removed.
        A flight attendant said one of the men made two trips to the rear of the plane to talk to the imam during boarding, and again when the flight was delayed because of their behavior. Aviation officials, including air marshals and pilots, said these actions alone would not warrant a second look, but the combination is suspicious.
        "That's like shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater. You just can't do that anymore," said Robert MacLean, a former air marshal.
        "They should have been denied boarding and been investigated," Mr. MacLean said. "It looks like they are trying to create public sympathy or maybe setting someone up for a lawsuit."
        The pilot with another airline who talked to The Washington Times on condition of anonymity, said he would have made the same call as the US Airways pilot.
        "If any group of passengers is commingling in the terminal and didn't sit in their assigned seats or with each other, I would stop everything and investigate until they could provide me with a reason they did not sit in their assigned seats."

   

The Antarctic? Nope. Canada's eastern Arctic Archipelago? Nope. The Western Arctic? Nope. (See previous link) Greenland? Nope.

According the Canadian Ice Service, the amount of ice in Canada's eastern Arctic Archipelago decreased by 15% between 1969 and 2004.

Here's a pretty picture for your convenience.

"But it's not exactly TGIF for the 21 million Americans who fear the day. Some may not travel or even get out of bed, said Donald Dossey, a North Carolina psychologist who coined the term "paraskevidekatriaphobia" 20 years ago. He estimates that the nation is out $900 million in lost productivity because of Friday the 13th sick-outs."

How do they come up lost productivity statistics anyway?

Not striking at Bin Laden was the result of lack of appropriote opportunity, rather than ignorance.

I guess that depends on what you call "appropriate". This CIA guy doesn't agree:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060704-1100 04-4280r.htm

"Michael F. Scheuer, a 22-year veteran with the CIA, created and served as the chief of the agency's Osama bin Laden unit at the Counterterrorist Center."

In the wake of 9/11, the President asked for and got Congress to expand the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The President said, as he signed the new legislation, that it gave him the powers he needed: "This new law I sign today will allow surveillance of all communication used by terrorists".

The FISA still required that a judge be in the loop, if only after the fact. It required at least a ghost of oversight and accountability. That is the provision the Administration immediately began to violate. No law authorized what's been going on. That's why archconservative Bruce Fein, Ronald Reagan's deputy Attorney General, said "Congress should insist the president cease the spying unless or until a proper statute is enacted or face possible impeachment ". The linked article also explains why the "inherent war powers" excuse is vaporous and flat wrong.

We were in a war when a White House team bugged Democratic Party headquarters for the 1972 election. Even Nixon never pretended that was legal: he instead obstructed the investigation.

I think this is great. Long-term electronic voting that is open and can be inspected by anyone seems to make sense, but we're not there yet. Besides, I'm less concerned with how the vote is taken than who is voting these days. Frankly I believe there is enough safeguards available in the process to generally get the count right. What concerns me is when the dead and non-citizens start to vote.

Just yesterday in the house one party (if you don't know which one, RTA) unanimously voted against requiring voter ID. WTF? For you non-Americans, do you think it is okay for me to stop in to your voting booth while I'm vacationing in your country? Because apparently you can stop in to many of our polls and vote without being asked for any ID or proof of citizenship.

Oh, the recommendation for voter ID came from a bipartisan study headed by former President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, and former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, a Republican. Neither of these guys is a friend to the other party.

While I agree that Clinton was a centrist, a simple google search shows you're wrong about Kerry, and that he is and was one of the most liberal democrats in the senate.

Google search(john kerry liberal conservative rating):
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=john+kerry+li beral+conservative+rating&btnG=Google+Search

Kerry rated most liberal member of Senate (2/27/04):
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0204/022704nj1.htm

List says Kerry top Senate liberal:
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040227-11124 1-3716r.htm

You grossly oversimplify; actually, the situation was a lot more complex than that. Saddam was selling oil way too cheap, in euros, to the French. So we didn't like him.

Right.... and the reason that Enron's executives are liable for repaying $183 million, and probably jail time, is that their stock "under-performed" the market.

Saddam used the wholly corrupt "Oil for Food" program to bribe all manner of foreign officials, buy influence in the Security Council, undermine UN sanctions, buy weapons, and fund terrorists, all the while skimming billions of dollars off the top. Even UN Secretary General Koffi Annan's son took bribes, and the Deputy Secretary General was eye deep as well. So, it was that, his refusal to fully and voluntarily comply with the weapons inspections, his record of genocide, aggression against pretty much every country around him, the abysmal human rights record, his military regularly fired on US aircraft (act of war), his support for international terrorists, well.... you get the picture, .... that is why we "didn't like him".

Personally, I think you want to let President Saddam "I grind my opponents alive, and my sons are worse" Hussein off the hook a little too easily.

The Continental Congress regularly received quantities of intercepted British and Tory mail. On November 20, 1775, it received some intercepted letters from Cork, Ireland, and appointed a committee made up of John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Johnson, Robert Livingston, Edward Rutledge, James Wilson and George Wythe "to select such parts of them as may be proper to publish." The Congress later ordered a thousand copies of the portions selected by the Committee to be printed and distributed. A month later, when another batch of intercepted mail was received, a second committee was appointed to examine it. Based on its report, the Congress resolved that "the contents of the intercepted letters this day read, and the steps which Congress may take in consequence of said intelligence thereby given, be kept secret until further orders."

If you want to be abrasive, that's no problem for me.

My problem is that you would exert your will upon me, and for doing so, you are in the wrong.

You're attempting to exert your will upon the rest of society. For that you are as wrong as you accuse me of being. Polygamists, who can claim a long history of existance, have more of a claim of legitimacy than crybaby shitpackers.

What's worse, you haven't even given any sort of reason as to WHY you think we shouldn't have this mystical tax "benefit" or be on our partners health insurance.

Homosexual men are more likely to be sick than the rest of society. Why should we have to subsidize your medical treatment?

Not one person has come up with a good reason to either point (let alone any others that have come up), and I doubt anyone will.

Something tells me that nothing that anyone comes up with will ever be good enough for you. In a free society, you have every right to be a sexual deviant but you don't have the right to be accepted.

LK