Slashdot Mirror

• Hillary Clinton doesn't just stand idly by...she actively works to offshore American High-Tech!
• George Bush doesn't just stand idly by...he actively works to offshore American High-Tech!

• Hillary Clinton doesn't just stand idly by...she actively works to offshore American High-Tech!
• George Bush doesn't just stand idly by...he actively works to offshore American High-Tech!

the only way to actually be an "American" for the first 300-400 years in this country

Wow, did I enter a time warp or something? the US is over 400 years old now? I thought it was 227 years old.

made into slaves for being non white

Actually, just because you were non white didn't make you automatically a slave. There were non-white slave owners.

we never had a President who wasnt married

Besides James Buchanan, the 15th president. Many consider him the worst president ever.

Read a history book, how much do you see on the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement, the womens rights movement? You barely see any of it.

Well, most history textbooks around now in schools don't have the gay rights movement because the books are old and that movement is new.

please point out some history from the right which was great, what the fall of the soviet union? is that all?

The ending of slavery, the creation of the National Park System, National Wildlife Refuge System, lots of others I'm not thinking of off the top of my head.

Bill Oreilly can say you are a terrorist on national TV, and suddenly you are a terrorist, no trial, no hiring a lawyer, you are just captured and put somewhere on guantonimo bay and never heard from again.

Name one person who has been sent to Guantonimo because O'Reilly said they were a terrorist. Oh, and I've heard all sorts of people on the left go on about right-winged terrorists.

Just a few of your points. Think before you type, then we'll all be better off.

• Hillary Clinton doesn't just stand idly by...she actively works to offshore American High-Tech!
• George Bush doesn't just stand idly by...he actively works to offshore American High-Tech!

• Hillary Clinton doesn't just stand idly by...she actively works to offshore American High-Tech!
• George Bush doesn't just stand idly by...he actively works to offshore American High-Tech!

• Hillary Clinton doesn't just stand idly by...she actively works to offshore American High-Tech!
• George Bush doesn't just stand idly by...he actively works to offshore American High-Tech!

The New York Times has an article about a way to anonymously transfer cash online (NYT registration required)

Why to I find this sentence funny ?

So, finally banking can be anonymous (yeah right, in your wildest dreams, but we still need to register with NYT?
No wait, you can't do do banking with a hotmail account ...

Utterly, utterly fascinating.

You supply a link, but it's not to the source material. It's just to another piece with the same quote, but again, no context.

The actual source is the first thing that came up when I Googled for the phrase. But's it's easy to see why you didn't provide that link: It completely discredits what you want us to believe.

For those too lazy to click through, here is the actual quote, in context. It's from Bush's address to a joint session of congress after the Sept. 11 attacks:

And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

In context, he is clearly addressing this to nations (read: Afghanistan) that provide aid or safe haven to terrorists. (Remember, the U.S. only invaded Afghanistan after the Taliban refused to arrest and extradite Bin Laden and his cronies.)

All this is, needless to say, a long way from your "correction" ("If you're not with Bush, you are a terrorist"), and it's something with which the vast majority of reasonable Americans would agree.

There sure is a lot of nonsensical stuff getting modded up today.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/mail-developers. html go tell the web development team what you think. Probably more worthwile than Bush's "web mail"

Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime. ...
This is not, however, just America's fight. And what is at stake is not just America's freedom. This is the world's fight. This is civilization's fight. This is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom.

The public cotact numbers and addresses for the White House are readily available here.

The public cotact numbers and addresses for the White House are readily available here.

Here's food for thought: the White House was fenced in the 40's. Not long befor that, you could walk-up to the front door, but typically not be admitted. Sales folk and appointment seekers would show up at all hours and annoy the butler and the residents. One Garfield was shot by a disgruntled appointment-seeker who felt slighted because the President would not meet with him.

I think Eisenhower directed the near gutting and restoration of the building, installing bullet-proof glass and other modern security features. Before WW I/II, the US was a fairly isolated country with a small federal government. If you had a gripe with the goverment, it was probably at the state level.

....send a message to the Whitehouse Web dev team, and let them know what you think.

"The Web Team does not answer or forward e-mail, but all messages pertaining to the technical operation and usability of the White House web site are read."

Why don't we email the Vice President or First Lady? His email is still up on a direct link vice.president@whitehouse.gov, and her email is first.lady@whitehouse.gov.

Why don't we email the Vice President or First Lady? His email is still up on a direct link vice.president@whitehouse.gov, and her email is first.lady@whitehouse.gov.

Slashdot editor "michael" is arrested by federal agents for initiating a DOS attack against the White House servers.



...has anyone checked out the other White House website?

By the way, John F. Kennedy was a real person...

Gah! Don't the editors check stories anymore? :)

You need to look at the correct table on page 117 of the OMB. Look at "Total" under "As Percentages of GDP". The directions for reading the budget correctly are on page 5 under "Deficits and Debt".

It's not 68%... it will peak 36.9% in 2004, 2005, and 2006.

The Document in question is here.

Don't forget the first Adams! He did quite a bit of the drudge work necessary to get the country started and spent years overseas lining-up funding and for the new country.

When Thomas Jefferson put the idea of intellectual property into the Constitution of the United States

Hmmm...unless TJ had access to email, he would have had a difficult time participating in the Constitutional Convention. He was in Europe at the time, not Phil(th)adelphia. See here for TJ's bio. The CC was convened in May of 1787 and the list of delegates shows that TJ was not one of them.

once people learn something, they can reuse that knowledge

I suggest that you reuse the knowledge that I have imparted to you.

Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.

and

Congress shall have the power [...] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

The former you attribute, correctly, to TJ (from a letter dated 8/13/1813 to one Isaac McPherson). The second attribution, from the United States Constitution, which, as pointed out above, Jefferson had nothing to do with writing, seems, shall we say, a little contradictory. (sorry about all the commas -- surely none were necessary) Have you even read what you posted?

We need to remind people that copyright, like most laws in the US, is a balance between two forces, and the scale should not be tipped too far to one side.

Your coup de grace suggests that the two passages you quote are capable of reconciliation. That is somewhat akin to saying "Fish need bicycles" and "Fish don't need bicycles" are capable of reconciliation. While the point is perhaps reasonable, the way you attempted to make it was a giant mogolian clusterfuck.

In short, user956, despite the attribution of "Insightful" comments to you by Slashtard moderators, you qualify for the "Fucktard Asshat Award" for July 8, 2003. Congratulations.

Mark this as "Flamebait" if you will. I have karma to burn.

GF.

whitehouse.gov

Laura Bush earned a Master of Library Science degree from the University of Texas in 1973, and after that she worked as a librarian at the Houston public library (Source).

Most of the librarians that you know (which, lets be honest, is probably just one or two) are wrong.

This is a shrine to crap.

George Walker Bush's information, as stated on his information page, comes from: one of any unitedstatian government administration's major spin factories. If you want the real scoop on the iq-deficient president you're better off hiring a private investigator.

JESUS CHRIST!

Would you please consider news that
seriously affects residents of the
United States of America as the current fascists
continue to restrict our freedoms.

Thank you and have an Ashcroft-free day,
W00t


Get Your War On 23

Civilizations tend not to write about their failures.

Oh, I don't know...

Is this case the biggest turn-off or what?

You've got more chance of finding some action at www.whitehouse.com. Err, I mean www.whitehouse.gov.

sending troops off to war for ficticious reasons

The reasons were not ficticious. Our justifications for going to war were actually quite independant of whether or not we find WMDs in Iraq.

which will increase terrorism

There is absolutely no way you can make that claim. In fact, from where I am sitting, the President has done a pretty good job at reducing terrorism- there has not been a substantial attack against us since 9/11.

driving the economy into a train-wreck

The economy was already a train wreck when President Bush took office. Not only that, but we have since found out that a lot of the economic success of the late 1990's was not even real (the Enron and Worldcom accounting scandals all date back into the 1990's).

and increasing spending to Reaganite levels

Total government spending in 2002 was 19.5% of the GDP, and that is substantially lower than many of the Clinton years (Clinton spent more than that through 1997- Source). The increase from 2001 to 2002 can mainly be attributed to the War on Terrorism.

the goal is destroy all social programs while benefitting the rich.

You might notice from the Budget document linked above that spending on Human Resources (Education, social services, health, medicare, social security) has increased under President Bush.

And don't you get tired of the same old class warfare arguments?

Please try to think of the long term. If america gets richer, all those poor people can get better jobs, better education, etc etc. One of the ways to make america richer is to find new markets for american products. If other countries were better off, they could buy more american products, which would mean more american jobs etc. We just spend 90 billion beating up on iraq. It is doubtful we will spend that much reparing it, but if we did, there are 23 million iraquis who would be willing to buy american products (if we do it right) Thats tens to hundreds of thousands of jobs in the US that help to give poor people money and health care.

Compare [renewables] to the health and environmental effects of coal, oil, and natural gas....

Excellent point. The problem is, unsubsidized coal could cost less than unsubsidized wind for the next several years unless the environmental externalities are properly amortized (and we all know what happens to U.S. Treasury Secretaries who those kinds of "fuzzy math" commonly accepted practices!)

We have a 400-year supply of coal. It needs to last us for the next 400,000 years. The OMB can't even see far enough ahead to factor in the baby boomers.

The percentage versus the GDP is smaller.

You haven't seen the FY 2004 budget yet have you?

If you care to take a look, you might be interested in the 6% tax increase planned for 2005. On Table S-1, row 11, reciepts as a percent of GDP it jumps from 17.0 to 18.0 percent right after the election.

We, the people, know far better how to appropriately spend our money than the damnable politicians who only spend to keep their own jobs.

Sweden has about twice our tax rate as a percentage of GDP, but voters there are happy with their progressive tax structure which removes great burdens from the working class, grows their middle class, gives them plenty of money for education, keeps their unemployment low (4% in 2002), keeps their inflation in check (2.2% in '02), and gives them a high enough standard of living to be judged the best place to be a mother (the U.S. was the 11th.) Businesses in Sweden (e.g. Ericson, Ikea, Volvo) aren't significantly harmed by their top-bracket tax rates, if robust international sales are any measure. Sweden also has robust small businesses.

They don't give a shit if we have one.

A year from November, Bush is going to wish the three million who lost their jobs had somewhere other than the polling place to go. That is why it is so important to make sure the Democrats pick a good candidate in the primaries.

• 1992: -4.7% 1993: -3.9%
• 1994: -2.9%
• 1995: -2.2%
• 1996: -1.4%
• 1997: -0.3% see end of post for more info)
• 1998: +0.8%
• 1999: +1.4%
• 2000: +2.4% 2001: +1.3% 2002: -1.5% 2003: -2.8% (estimated) 2004: -2.7% (estimated)

• Clinton: -1.20625%
• Bush: -0.7875%

• 1996: -2.7
• 1997: -2.7
• 1998: -2.4
• 1999: -2.3
• 2000: -2.1

Since Pres. Carter was a Democrat he was painted as a southern hayseed for it instead of an idiot as Pres. Bush get's libeled.

Carter: recevied BS from US Naval Academy in 1946. Did graduate work in Nuclear Physics. Worked up to Lieutanant under Rickover and helped with the development of the US Navy nuclear submarine force. Retired from the Navy in '53, ran family farm. Camp David Accord, Panama Canal Treaty, reestablishment of relations with PRC, SALT II. Deregulated energy, transportation, communications, and finance sectors. Author of 16 books. Nobel Peace Price winner, 2002. More info here.

Bush, G.W.: BS, Yale University 1968. Served in Texas Air National Guard as pilot. MBA, Harvard University 1975. Started own energy company, was part-owner of Texas Rangers baseball franchise. Sucessful miltary engagements in Afganistan and Iraq; cut federal tax rate - twice. More info here.

I'll slip into troll-territory here but Bush is well-known for getting poor grades at Yale and getting into Harvard Business School via family connections. To me the comparison between Carter and Bush transcends this simple argument though; one is a tireless nobel peace prize winner, the other a former baseball team owner. 'Nuff said.

Maybe you should reconsider your loony conspiracy theory. This policy change originated with the Bush administration.

or here.

Alright, I'll take a swing. ...the Wolfowitz doctrine...

Only time will tell if Wolfowitz has send America to the same end as Rome, Spain, France, and Britain. However, it rests firmly on the assumptions that our allies will either fall in line with the hegemony or at least forgive our actions out of political necessity.

The stance of the majority of the world's powers before, during and after the last conflict suggests that both of these presuppositions are wrong.

First, even among the countries listed as members of the coalition, the vast majority wished to be silent partners and only one offered significant millitary support; and almost all rely on heavy US support for stability (eg.Afghanistan, Colombia), or financial support (eg. Japan). Also significant to me is that some of these countries actually hindered the US effort in some way (eg. Turkey). If this is the resistance to ousting a dictator that enjoyed no support in the region (before the conflist), what sort of support can we expect when the action is against a long time ally (eg. France, Saudi Arabia)?

Secondly, the path of hegemony hasn't worked for any empire in history; so why should it work now? Rome's focus on domination cause instability in its political system (allegence of the armies to the general instead of the state broke the political mechanism among other things). Britain's position caused other governments to support internal actions against the government in thier colonies (eg. France's help to the American colonies offering training, money, and engaging the British in europe to keep the full strength of thier army from reaching the American shores). The Byzantine empire's fractured culture allowed Islam invaders to find ready allies in the marches of that empire (also due to protracted wors wth the empire to the east in modern day Iran).

Thirdly, the US taking this stance seems to foster in the international opinion the view that the only defense against the US intrusion into your local interest is to become a viable military and economic threat.

So, I don't see how the American hegemony will protect any of the things you claim it will.

Good thing for commercialization of space, or bad thing for world peace?

I appreciate that this question is intended to provoke a debate, but it seems to me to narrow that debate through its phrasing. The implication seems to be that the US are the Guardians of World Peace (TM), and that we pesky Europeans have no business sticking our noses in when it makes the Yanks feel a little less in control.

Given the assumption that any removal of absolute control of some useful technology from the US is potentially "a bad thing for world peace", can anybody possibly point us to the evidence for Iraq's possession of WsMD, given that the Guardians of World Peace (TM) used them as their sole justification for starting a war?

Or could it be that the US should have listened to what the European states (with the sorry exception of my own nation) were trying to tell them about making unjustified assumptions? Might it not be a good thing if more than one kid in the playground has control of the baseball bat?

A quick search on Netcraft reveals that for example:

• The Whitehouse
• The FBI

As this is an incredibly complicated issue, from innumerable standpoints, on infinite fronts, so let me try to make a single snippet that will solve all the worlds' problems.

Have you ever read DOJ/DOS/ODCI/NSA/DHS/DOD/MI6 inquiries into the nature and prevention of terrorism? These compendia are perfect to paraphrase in a zinging one-liner.

How do you defeat a violent political movement?

Political movements are fought with politics. Compromising politics in a bid for appeasement is losing. So is compromising the values that create your politics. Objecting to TIA, infringments of civil liberties, an administration saying "Americans...need to watch what they say, watch what they do." is not only our right, it is our duty to ensure that the American values of freedom dictate American politics.

Its not about partisanship, its not about being bitchy. Its about ensuring "freedom" endures.
-Voting Republican, currently serving in support of Operation Enduring Freedom

Ari's been truthful...

If Ari's been truthful, then he has been fed nothing but lies by those above him

Did you know that the "q" in qmail stands for "queer"??? That's SO cool!!!

Top results for one-letter google searches as of Sat May 17
a : Apple
b : B'Tselem, The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the ...
c : CNET.com
d : D-Link Systems, Inc.
e : Welcome to E! Online
f : Welcome to F-Secure, Securing the Mobile Enterprise
g : G*Loomis
h : H-Net, Humanities & Social Sciences Online
i : Yahoo!
j : J-???
k : KDE Homepage - Conquer your Desktop!
l : LEXPRESS.fr : l'info au quotidien. L'actualité économique, ...
m : 3M Worldwide
n : SBC Pacific Bell Knowledge Network Explorer : Online Learning : ...
o : www.oreilly.com -- Welcome to O'Reilly & Associates -- computer ...
p : Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
q : Q4music.com - The World's Greatest Music Magazine Online
s : GNU's Not Unix! - the GNU Project and the Free Software ...
t : AT&T
u : The whatUseek Network
v : Welcome to Bobby WorldWide
w : Welcome to the White House
x : Netscape.com
y : Yahoo!
z : HealthAtoZ - Your Family Health Site

Money_Taken_In - Money_Spent = Budget_Surplus_Or_Deficit

Negative values of Budget_Surplus_Or_Deficit are deficits.

Why don't they try SPENDING LESS rather than TAKING IN MORE?

Oh, I forgot, the California is on the LEFT coast.

Exactly--mod parent up!

If only those idjit libbruls understood that it's simply not enough to merely spend more--you need to take in less at the same time!

Massive tax cuts are the only way to combat massive deficits!

Trickle-down econom--err, the "wealth effect" is the only thing that can save us now!

Down the rabbit hole!

DoD Budget

It's a problem of priority. There are some of us that feel that advancing human knowledge is worth more than producing more machines of warfare. What a senseless waste. Perhaps Darwin was on to something.

Hey, you were suspiciously absent from this year's Loyalty Day. Surely you knew about this, or else we'd have to send you to the "Our Documents" re-education class. See ya next year!

Hey, you were suspiciously absent from this year's Loyalty Day. Surely you knew about this, or else we'd have to send you to the "Our Documents" re-education class. See ya next year!

My concerns aren't privacy, I'm more worried about letting the average person run basically run this system. This smacks of 1930s/40s Germany, where you were asked to basically spy on your neighbor.

Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States.

Does anyone see the double-standard here?

Yes, and it makes me sad. This same double-standard permeates the National Security Strategy of the United States of America, the doctrine adopted by GW Bush.

The NSS talks in length about "freedom", but it's freedom as defined in the doctrine, which includes "free enterprise", "open trade" and the "right to own property".

The undertone of this, in my opinion, is that we will not accept any culture who CHOOSES something different. Suppose, for example, every single person in a country decided to be communist, or decided not to support the WTO.

This doctrine suggests that they would be our enemy because they are not promoting our brand of "freedom." And this, I think, is why other countries think of us as "arrogant", because this doctrine suggests that we alone are capable of defining "freedom" and what is right for the rest of the world.

Arg. This stuff makes my blood boil. :(

"In March 1867, the Radicals effected their own plan of Reconstruction, again placing southern states under military rule. They passed laws placing restrictions upon the President. When Johnson allegedly violated one of these, the Tenure of Office Act, by dismissing Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, the House voted eleven articles of impeachment against him. He was tried by the Senate in the spring of 1868 and acquitted by one vote."

Also, you shouldn't forget that had Richard Nixon not resigned, he was facing impeachment. Don't they teach you kids anything in school these days?

-J

That would help more if people would stop writing articles that read like:

"There's an article on CNN about a new sequel to the popular PC game Half-Life by Valve Software (and published by Sierra Entertainment. I'm sure all of Slashdot will be glad to hear this news. GamePro also has an article. The White House had no comment.