Slashdot Mirror

Another occurence of this type of error happened before in the Calipari Report

Any content written by a US government employee in the course of their job is public domain.

Not just false, but extremely, incredibly, amazingly false.

While US government information is not assigned copyright protection per se, that does not make it public domain in terms of rights for distribution. The US government has the rights by law to restrict dissemination of government information based on its classification of the sensitivity of that information. There are extensive and rigorous legal and operational protections for classified information in the United States as well as in most other countries. So in your example above when Amazon talks about Amazon "not control[ling] all the rights" to the content, that's what they mean, not its copyright status.

You had the government issuing regulations that require banks to make bad loans.

Perhaps you speak a different dialect of English to me. From said act, emphasis added: ...encourage such institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions.

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#Relation_to_2008_financial_crisis

See particularly the mention of commercial real estate, which was never within the scope of the act. I guess all those sources that basically conclude that you, Ron Paul and all your ilk are full of shit are all part of some [insert bogeyman here] conspiracy.

"until someone dug it up" refers to the period up to the digging, which includes the antiquity.

No, you're putting words in my mouth: That's how you're pompous.

the simple fact that I stated is that scholars never doubted the existence of Troy.
This is the exact opposite to the Atlantis which scholars know is fictional.

You want scholars? You're ignorant of the writings of Blaise fucking Pascal, you authority-seeking bitch:

Homer composes a romance, which he gives out as such, and which is received as such; for nobody doubted that Troy and Agamemnon no more existed than did the golden apple. Accordingly he did not think of making a history, but solely a book to amuse;

Saying things easily proven false: That's how you're idiotic.

See, I back my shit up.

Behe's argument was that the human immune system could never be explained by evolution. At the time of the publication of his book, scientists did not have any detailed possible explanations based on evolution. However, scientists in the meantime had done research into the matter and produced plausible explanations. Instead of acknowledging that his supposition was possibly outdated, Behe simply refused to acknowledge the research and that no research done was "good enough." See Kitzmiller v Dover pg 78 of 139:

Although in Darwin’s Black Box, Professor Behe wrote that not only were there no natural explanations for the immune system at the time, but that natural explanations were impossible regarding its origin.

"One nation, under God..."

It may be a 'new' addition to the pledge, but it's been accepted and repeated for 50+ years now.

Source

The code linked the American way of life directly with free market capitalism, and prohibited all mention of drug use, even in an negative light, so one of the first cases of a mainstream comic not receiving the code seal was basically that it mentioned "Heroin is bad for you kids, so don't do it, m-kay?" It proved far easier for the code authorities to say "America doesn't have a drug problem, so don't talk about it in comics, at all", than to allow anti-drug messages.

Although you mention some points that are nearly word-for-word accurate, you are inaccurate to the point of disbelief regarding capitalism (with or without the superfluous "free market" qualifier). It is not mentioned in any linked-to version of the code (starting at wikipedia's page on the subject):

1954
1971
1989

I suspected you were full of shit when you used the phrase "free market capitalism". Only a small percentage of people understand those words individually or together. Your further writing on the drug issue and America implies you are not one of them.

What was your basis for this statement: "The code linked the American way of life directly with free market capitalism...". Nowhere in the code is this suggested. Nowhere. Why would you lie like this? What is your motivation?

My guess is that you are amongst those "bent on agrandizing themselves and their political viewpoint".

Most predictions are like a machine gun. If you try 10M times you may have a few hits. If you focus just on those hits it will seem like you predicted correctly.
The people who believe in the Bible tend to focus on the hits. The book of Revelation is 22 chapters thick, with, according to some, multiple predictions per chapter. Most are vague enough to count as buckshot themselves. No wonder some of them seem like true.

Solution: govt prints money to provide a basic income to everyone (an idea that's been around since founding father Tom Paine's 1795 Agrarian Justice). Govt also funds challenges (biz can hold challenges too!) to stimulate the native ingenuity in each of us to innovate. As long as we keep producing things others want, the currency stays strong.

In 2002 Ron gave his position on the Iraq war. Nowhere did Ron express any concept of 'Get out of Iraq or Commit fully'. Ron gave an exceptional speech on the illegality and fallacy of the process, logic and reasoning. Ron noted that Iraq was in no way a threat or an aggressor against the United States.

If you can direct me to Ron's new position on Iraq where we should get out or commit fully through annexation of the areas where we have invested capital then please do.

In 1989 the Panamanian government under Noriega declared war on the United States in violation of the Torrijos–Carter Treaties of 1977. Of course Noriega made his own claims about the United States violating the treaty but I think these were overblown.

The purpose of the 1989 invasion was not to take over Panama nor the dismantle the 1977 treaty. In fact, the invasion was justified by 1) the declaration of war by Panama and 2) the 1977 treaty gives the United States permanent authority to protect the neutrality of the canal.

And Ron's bill has nothing to do with the 1989 invasion of Panama. Ron's bill is simply an attempt to roll back the foreign policy clock about 100 years to a more Imperialistic time.

And the "0) Historical stuff happened" is more than historical, it is pertinent. You intentionally left out the most important parts of the relationship between the United States and Panama so you could make a feeble attempt to justify Ron's Imperialistic annexation of foreign territory whose status was already well established through treaties.

In 1903 the United States signed a treaty and paid $40 million to a FRENCH diplomat to gain rights to the land needed to take over the canal project. The reason the deal was made with a French diplomat was because that same diplomat had financed a revolution to separate the isthmus of Panama from Colombia.

From 1903 to 1977 this Imperialistic land grab was a source on continual contention between the people of Panama and the United States. The 1977 treaty was an amenable solution that retained United States interest in the neutrality of the water way.

This is not ancient history, you can't just put a zero to it and say "uh, stuff, who cares".

First of all, before we were there religious fundamentalists controlled the countries

As opposed to now, where the new Afghan constitution, adopted under US occupation, has "Islamic state" and superiority of Sharia over any other laws written into it? Where the only way to avoid death penalty for converting to Christianity is to be declared insane (if you're lucky enough that your case is noticed in the West and outrage follows)? Or how about the wonders of gender equality brought by the shining knights in US field uniform?

All you did was replace one fundamentalist Muslim faction, which was hostile to you, with another fundamentalist Muslim faction, which is not. Why do you think the locals are any better off because of this?

What's worse is that the latter faction is the one associated with drug production, so now we moved from Taliban-controlled Afghanistan where poppy growers were shot (and export dwindling) to warlord-controlled Afghanistan which is the worldwide powerhouse of poppy production. Congratulations on that wonderful achievement.

Also, I spoke to one Afghan refuge when I was studying in New Zealand. Not a fundie. What he told me was this: Taliban are brutes, but they at least maintained a rule of law in areas they fully controlled. You knew what you're not allowed to do, and so long as you don't do it, you won't get beheaded or shot or your limbs chopped off. On the other hand, you knew that your life and property would be safe from others, since then it would be their time on the chopping block. Meanwhile, when NATO-propped Norther Alliance moved in, they didn't have much regard for law - any law. Instead it was indiscriminate looting and rape. Geez, if I were an Afghan woman, would I prefer the guys who force me to wear burqa under the threat of stoning, or the guys who'd "liberate" me from that burqa to rape me right there and then?

Speaking of Iraq, it was not controlled by "religious fundamentalists". Saddam was one of the more secular leaders in the Arab world, even after Desert Storm. It was that, and his sheer brutality, that kept the country from falling apart along sectional (Sunni vs Shia) lines. Now that he's gone, the place is pretty much only held together by US forces; take them out, and, in a decade at most, you'll get a full-scale religious civil war there.

And right now Iraq is well on their way to entirely civilian police force.

It has been "well on its way" ever since Dubya has proudly proclaimed the war to be over in 2003. Why anyone thinks that said police force will be worth anything is beyond me, though. Now that the insurgents know that US withdrawal is inevitable, it only makes sense to lie down and wait, to come back in full force once the troops are out.

Also, a lot of terrorist attacks are suicide attacks. I would love to know how you know what reasons these men gave, considering there is nothing left of them.

Suicide attacks are typically perpetrated by members of various terrorist organizations. Behind every suicide bomber, there are many more people who trained him, equipped him, and provided support for the operation. After the attack, the leadership of those organizations takes responsibility and provides the reasons.

In the example picture in the article, the space actually occupied by characters is 282x203px. Not QVGA. Its readable though.
I even cheated in my disadvantage by actually cropping of some antialiasing thats part of the characters at the edge. So really, its somewhat larger. That is 57246 pixels.

Vertical average line height: 203 / 43 lines = 5.9705882352941176470588235294118

I assume this is the whole text: (excuse me, my copy paste for some reasons stops working when visiting Slashdot.com in Chrome)
link .. upto "the State remaining in the mean".
This is 3106 characters, including spaces and not including linefeeds. Mind that due to the small width of the image, some spaces got dropped saving a major percentage of space. This is not accounted for. I'm to lazy to actually count the characters and spaces in his image.

Spread over 43 lines, this is 91,352941176470588235294117647059 characters per line average.

Horizontal average character width: 282 / 91,35..etcetera = 3,0867285254346426271732131358661.

I know that the characters A-Z 0..9 a..z and most punctuation fit in at least 5x3 pixels. In this case line height could be 6 pixels, or less if you interpolate on say, thirdh or half pixels.

At 5x3 pixels, the same text would require (minus 43 space characters at end of lines, so 3063 characters) a 3063*3*6 pixels, = 55134.
5 because lines are separated by a whole pixel.

My solution takes less pixels. There are aproximatly 2112 pixels left, good for another 117 characters.

Find me in the Israeli law code anything banning blasphemy.

Number 170 and 173:

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A7_%D7%94%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%9F

Won't work. Read the Outer Space Treaty, specifically Article VI. (full text: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty_of_1967#Article_VI)

In short: if it's launched from Country X, Country X has responsibility for it, whether it was launched by the Country X government or just by some wacky idealists who live there. In practice, this means that spacecraft are no more outside of national laws than seagoing ships are.

What about launches from international waters?

Won't work. Read the Outer Space Treaty, specifically Article VI. (full text: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty_of_1967#Article_VI)

In short: if it's launched from Country X, Country X has responsibility for it, whether it was launched by the Country X government or just by some wacky idealists who live there. In practice, this means that spacecraft are no more outside of national laws than seagoing ships are.

They worshipped, so they said, the Great Old Ones who lived ages before there were any men, and who came to the young world out of the sky.

The piece that you've quoted is pure bullshit. Not only the very phrase "innocent until proven guilty" was formulated by a Frenchman, but France actually has it written into one of their basic document, the Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen, Article 9 (yes, it is still in force in France today - their Constitution explicitly makes it so). Ironically, there is nothing in US Constitution that explicitly makes presumption of innocence a legal right - it has effectively been established by SCOTUS.

If your ideas are demonized by 99% of a population, your only recourse is to be a terrorist or extreme ideologue.

* Ted Kaczynski (advanced mathematics)
* William Pierce (physics degree from Rice U)
* David Myatt (IT guru)
* Joseph Goebbels (PhD in philosophy)

For the last three: well if you're a Nazi/neofascist, people tend to demonize you. As for Kaczynski, his ideas are actually more catastrophic in their implications. His manifesto essentially calls for abandoning specialization of labor or accumulation of knowledge, and views being helped by someone as an evil -- and he's explicitly just fine with the what would result from that (see his discussion of remediation or curing of diabetes, for example).

Having purchased a duly licensed physical copy of the software, you require a further license to actually execute the software, because you'd need to copy the software off the medium and into a computer's memory (and probably onto your hard disk too) in order to actually use it. You don't have that right unless the copyright owner specifically grants it -- or so goes the logic behind the EULA.

This logic has never been true. Judicially, the original lawsuits against MP3 player manufacturers established that format shifting a copyrighted work for personal use qualifies as "fair use". Even if that interpretation of old law was incorrect, it would have been superceded by newer law: US Code Title 17, Chapter 1, 117a, which specifically says that the owner of a copy of a computer program is not infringing when they make additional copies as necessary to utilize and/or archive that program. This section of the law is over 30 years old.

Oh, by the way, the people we displaced from power are Islamic Extremists, who deny basic education to women, recruit children into their armies, and are all around bad guys.

As opposed to the people we've put in power, who wrote a new constitution for Afghanistan which explicitly declares Sunni Islam to be the state religion, Sharia to be the supreme law of the land (overriding the constitution if they conflict), and all relevant constitutional provisions to that effect to be non-amendable?

The "regular" people of Afghanistan are all too happy to be out from the thumb of the Taliban.

The same regular people who approved the aforementioned constitution in a referendum, and who supported execution of a guy who converted from Islam to Christianity for apostasy?

Yeah, you sure are in for the good guys vs the bad guys there!

Oh, by the way, the people we displaced from power are Islamic Extremists, who deny basic education to women, recruit children into their armies, and are all around bad guys.

As opposed to the people we've put in power, who wrote a new constitution for Afghanistan which explicitly declares Sunni Islam to be the state religion, Sharia to be the supreme law of the land (overriding the constitution if they conflict), and all relevant constitutional provisions to that effect to be non-amendable?

The "regular" people of Afghanistan are all too happy to be out from the thumb of the Taliban.

The same regular people who approved the aforementioned constitution in a referendum, and who supported execution of a guy who converted from Islam to Christianity for apostasy?

Yeah, you sure are in for the good guys vs the bad guys there!

Isn't it enough to be proud of buying something carefully designed in America, regardless of who manufactured it?

Pride- sure, but that's not the topic at hand, which is all about jobs. Saying "buy American" about Apple is pointless since the majority of Apple-related jobs lie in manufacturing, and those are neither unavailable to American workers, nor favor using American resources.

Or heck, just to be happy with something well designed at all, regardless of origin. A well designed product counts as a win for the human species, I would say, since it serves as a model and an example anyone can follow.

That's an interesting way of thinking but the fact is we're in a world where international economic competition matters to individuals (in jobs and standard of living), and "an example anyone can follow" translates easily into cheating through cheap knockoffs and what idiots call "piracy". And then there's still the argument that Apple's ability to profit is the only guarantee that humanity will have such "wins", and the reason "Intellectual Property" is so prominent in modern diplomacy.

Buying Apple is a good way to feel good about being rich/fashionable, not American. If you want to feel good, buy an American car, but check the parts list to ensure it wasn't just assembled here.

Wait. Let me put on my burqha and remove 99% of my knowledge and rights

You seem to think that it's any different under the present Western-backed government with respect to human rights. It's not, and has never been. It is obvious because the constitution of the new "democratic" Afghanistan states in no uncertain words that Islam is the state religion, and that "no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam" (which, in practice, means that Sharia applies in full - beheading for apostates, stoning for married adulterers, etc).

I've spoken with an Afghani refuge, and his comments with respect to Taliban match the picture painted by GP. Specifically, he said that Taliban was brutal but maintained law and order - you could be punished by doing innocuous things that were wrong as far as Taliban was concerned, but at least you knew what those things are. And you knew that no-one else would harm you for the fear of punishment.

When Northern Alliance moved in, this reverted back to pre-Taliban anarchy where the guy with the bigger gun is always right, and murder and rape by gangs of armed people nominally in service of some warlord claiming the land for himself became routine.

when the people there didn't organize a functioning nation and a despotic dictatorship moved in, that made it worse, not better.

Taliban didn't "move in". Taliban grew out of the more religious factions of Afghani mujahideen fighting the Soviets. They're funded by Pakistan, yes, but that funding was present even before there even was Taliban to speak of. Muhammad Omar, their leader, is ethic Pashtun from Kandahar.

The warlords weren't a threat to the rest of the world.

The warlords grew opium poppy - 70% of the entire world supply. Shortly Taliban had taken over most the country, they burned the fields and executed the owners and the dealers, because to them it was in violation of Allah's commandment forbidding the use of intoxicating substances - reducing opium export from Afghanistan down by 95% in a single year. They were even paid by US for this. A year later they got kicked out by NATO troops, and - surprise, surprise! - the opium moved back in.

Next time you see a kid on heroine around your neighborhood, think about the role of your military in that.

Don't miss the obvious indicators of morale problems already widespread in-theater and among returning Gulf War II vets. The US military suicide rate is through the roof, and troops (overseas and after returning home) are getting an average of 2-3 opiod prescriptions from military doctors (3.8 million prescriptions in 2009), see http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2010-03-16-military-drugs_N.htm.

Those two facts pretty much say it all.

In Viet Nam, the troops turned to illegal drugs as morale decayed during the failed (and impossible) mission; by 1969-70 or so the US Army had more casualties from drug overdose, addiction, and drug-related illness than from combat. Historical parallels like this must not be ignored.

Get the troops out now, bring them home, shower them with love.

"How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

- testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 23, 1971 by LTJG John Kerry, USN, Bronze Star, Silver Star, three Purple Hearts (and before you start: all decorations reviewed and re-authorized by the Pentagon Inspector General in 2004; Swiftboat liar Commander George Elliott USN was the officer who originally submitted Kerry for the Silver Star in 1969; http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp; decoration citation texts (if you want to know what leadership and bravery truly are) http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bronze_Star_Citation_-_John_Kerry; http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Silver_Star_Citation_-_John_Kerry)

Don't miss the obvious indicators of morale problems already widespread in-theater and among returning Gulf War II vets. The US military suicide rate is through the roof, and troops (overseas and after returning home) are getting an average of 2-3 opiod prescriptions from military doctors (3.8 million prescriptions in 2009), see http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2010-03-16-military-drugs_N.htm.

Those two facts pretty much say it all.

In Viet Nam, the troops turned to illegal drugs as morale decayed during the failed (and impossible) mission; by 1969-70 or so the US Army had more casualties from drug overdose, addiction, and drug-related illness than from combat. Historical parallels like this must not be ignored.

Get the troops out now, bring them home, shower them with love.

"How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

- testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 23, 1971 by LTJG John Kerry, USN, Bronze Star, Silver Star, three Purple Hearts (and before you start: all decorations reviewed and re-authorized by the Pentagon Inspector General in 2004; Swiftboat liar Commander George Elliott USN was the officer who originally submitted Kerry for the Silver Star in 1969; http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp; decoration citation texts (if you want to know what leadership and bravery truly are) http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bronze_Star_Citation_-_John_Kerry; http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Silver_Star_Citation_-_John_Kerry)

No. Here's the latest executive order:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13526

And I'm not sure that was ever true. Even if it is made public, it has to be declassified under proper authority to legally be declassified. And if it still has valid security implications, it can remain classified. Which means certain people can't legally discuss it, much less process it on their non-classified machinery, while others will openly discuss it. The idea being at the least that discussing one secret can lead to exposure of another, and mixing secrets and non-secrets in improper ways can confuse what is and isn't secret.

There are a number of issues of invalid classification that were raised in wikileaks' self-justification for publishing this information that should legally force the authorities to declassify those particular items; but clearly that does not apply to the entirety of what they released, and certainly not to the un-analyzed, un-redacted form in which they were released. Leaving in the names of people who are still in danger is a clear violation of law even when properly declassifying information.

At any rate, none of this information has been declassified by the proper authority, so all of it is still legally considered classified, and anyone accessing it is liable to be charged with a crime.

The only unsettled issue here is the scope of the release. It's not merely a few copies of documents that need to be collected and secured, and a few civilians to brief and warn about further disclosure. It's potentially millions of unauthorized computers infected that legally may be seized, an entire society led to misunderstand the role and importance of secrets, and our security apparatus put in a position of looking like fools for trying to follow the law and maybe save a few lives out of the dozens or hundreds that the insecurity apparatus put in danger.

Which brings up the simple question of moral relativism. This started with a few people being killed in a form of collateral damage, and may end up with hundreds being killed in retribution murders. People talk about who has blood on their hands. Well, we all do, in the end, but for some of us the blood comes with moral authority and a lack of criminal guilt.

The media is waging a war that the government wants it to wage by distracting people with the "Pentagon vs. Wikileaks" where WL is the bad guy, rather than showing the American people who and how many instances of perjury and other forms of deception that have been committed.

Sec. 1.7. Classification Prohibitions and Limitations.
(a) In no case shall information be classified, continue to be maintained as classified, or fail to be declassified in order to:
(1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error;
(2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency;
(3) restrain competition; or
(4) prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of the national security.
-- source http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13526

Examined content within these documents clearly show discrepancies regarding previously released information under testimony. (read: DOD casualty reports submitted to Congress, UNAMA, NATO and U.N.)

You must admit that this is probably not the most straightforward way to teach basic geometry to an 11-year-old... (To a highly-intelligent and highly-motivated adult, maybe -- but then, those would already know it in most cases...)

Like I said to the other guy, if you're going to be bitter, you should at least try to be well informed. Let me remove your veil of ignorance by quoting Bastiat's original conclusion of the parable of the broken window, contained in What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/That_Which_Is_Seen,_and_That_Which_Is_Not_Seen#The_Broken_Window/

it is equally absurd to see a profit in trade restriction, which is, after all, nothing more nor less than partial destruction. So, if you get to the bottom of all the arguments advanced in favor of restrictionist measures, you will find only a paraphrase of that common cliché: "What would become of the glaziers if no one ever broke any windows?"

The full piece also comments on public works. It is fairly obvious to anyone that has actually read it that the subject is artificial stimuli and their unseen consequences. Oh, and deficit spending isn't basically the government taking a loan and investing it, because that definition wouldn't allow for a government choosing to build a surplus and using it for deficit spending at the bottom of an economic cycle.

You might ask yourself: if you're getting all the facts wrong, just how good is your judgement regarding who is and who is not being productive?

What you're talking about is the technical amendment to the 1976 Copyright Act that was passed in the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 - specifically, in Public Law Number 106-113, app. I, sec. 5005 (which can be found here, but you'll have to search for "sound recording" - it's near the bottom). Semi-contemporary coverage of this can be found here. The legal ramifications of that attempt at stealth-legislation are discussed in David Nimmer's Sound Recordings, Works for Hire, and the Termination-of-Transfers Time Bomb.

But, that scandal was fixed - in the Work Made for Hire and Copyright Corrections Act of 2000, Public Law Number 106-379, which can be found here.

The greater scandal is the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act, Pubic Law Number 105-304, which is still codified at 17 U.S.C. ch. 13 (the law can be found here). David Nimmer has speculated in his treatise and elsewhere that the sui generis protection for boat hull designs is a trojan horse to later allow new designs to be protected by this bizarre "copyright" provision. And in fact, such protection has been considered for fashion designs.

Fact of the matter is that stealth amendments happen all the time. Copyright is not an area of that law that congress people pay much attention to.

What you're talking about is the technical amendment to the 1976 Copyright Act that was passed in the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 - specifically, in Public Law Number 106-113, app. I, sec. 5005 (which can be found here, but you'll have to search for "sound recording" - it's near the bottom). Semi-contemporary coverage of this can be found here. The legal ramifications of that attempt at stealth-legislation are discussed in David Nimmer's Sound Recordings, Works for Hire, and the Termination-of-Transfers Time Bomb.

But, that scandal was fixed - in the Work Made for Hire and Copyright Corrections Act of 2000, Public Law Number 106-379, which can be found here.

The greater scandal is the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act, Pubic Law Number 105-304, which is still codified at 17 U.S.C. ch. 13 (the law can be found here). David Nimmer has speculated in his treatise and elsewhere that the sui generis protection for boat hull designs is a trojan horse to later allow new designs to be protected by this bizarre "copyright" provision. And in fact, such protection has been considered for fashion designs.

Fact of the matter is that stealth amendments happen all the time. Copyright is not an area of that law that congress people pay much attention to.

Can Falun Gong be interchangeably substituted?

Not really, since it's your typical (of authoritarian regimes) suppression of dissent, not a racial supremacy thing.

As for the rest of it, here is the original 25-point NSDAP program. If you replace all instances of "German" with "Chinese", remove all time-specific references (e.g. Treaty of Versailles), and skip point #4 (dealing with racial purity and Jews), then this whole thing is by and large what China is implementing.

In the worst case, though, they execute you for offending the State and send a bill to your family for the cost of the bullet.

They use lethal injection these days, and don't send the bill for that, if it helps any.

Anyway, getting executed for offending the State there is pretty much impossible unless you deliberately go out of your way to do so. The funnier part is that you may get executed for financial crimes - large-scale fraud or tax evasion, for example - but, again, you'd have to actually break the law for that. So it's not really a threat to a legal business there, not anymore than, say, being executed in US for murder.

The problem is rather that you may run afoul of some established business, the owner of which has "connections" to the Party and/or local bureaucracy, and will use it to harass your business. They don't need to "go political" on you for that, either - just claim that you e.g. violate safety standards, and bribe the people doing inspections to back that.

Actually, that statement is 100% wrong, as is clearly shown by this piece of sarcastic commentary from James Madison.

Actually, Madison's opinion, and those of the other Founders, are irrelevant, according to Madison himself :

As a guide in expounding and applying the provisions of the Constitution, the debates and incidental decisions of the Convention can have no authoritative character. However desirable it be that they should be preserved as a gratification to the laudable curiosity felt by every people to trace the origin and progress of their political Insitutions, & as a source parhaps of some lights on the Science of Govt. the legitimate meaning of the Instrument must be derived from the text itself; or if a key is to be sought elsewhere, it must be not in the opinions or intentions of the Body which planned & proposed the Constitution, but in the sense attached to it by the people in their respective State Conventions where it recd. all the authority which it possesses.

"Original intent" is an intellectual dead end; the intent of the Founders was that their intent not be used to interpret the document.

The text says that Congress can tax and spend to support the general welfare. If Madison didn't like that fact, he can -- by his own lights -- suck it.

I just downloaded Google Chrome 3.0.192.0 for Mac and it crashed before I could even open a page. There is no excuse for this; my Mac Pro is perfect in every way with eight 2.93 GHz cores, 32 GB RAM, and a fresh install of Mac OS X Leopard v10.5.7. Ergo any crashing Google Chrome does is Google Chrome's own fault!

Why is it that Apple and Mozilla can do this but Google can't? I ran Internet Explorer 8 for months before its final release, Firefox 3.5 since its 3.1 days, and found Safari 4 Developer Preview more stable than Safari 3. In fact, even WebKit is more stable than Chrome.

What really baffles me, however, isn't the instability I've come to expect from Google, but that Google has the audacity to ask for personal user info to improve its browser. Is the search engine maker datamonger really so desperate for my private information that it's stooped to the level of Trojan horses to get it?

They should ask me that when it doesn't crash on launch.

Everything Google does is just another way to sieve personal data away for targeting ads. This kind of Big Brother crap is more repulsive than the fat programmers that make it possible. Google, with its deep pockets and doctoral scholars, thinks that by holding user data hostage it can maneuver around Apple and Microsoft. While this may be true, I'm not willing to be a part of it.

In using Google's search, Gmail, Chrome or whatever else the faceless robot of a company invents, the user is surrendering their personal information to a giant hivemind. No longer are their personal preferences some choice they make; they're a string of data processed by a Google algorithm: Google dehumanizes its users!

So while Google is arrogant enough to paint spyware shiny so it can parse our browsing habits, the least they could do is make sure it doesn't crash. If Apple, Microsoft, and Mozilla can get their preview releases right, why can't Google? And now they're making their own operating systems?

Get real, Google! I'll use your crashing codebloat when my Mac is cold and dead and I'm looking for handouts. Until then, quit mining my personal data!

The United States didn't sign the addtional protocals mainly because

Wrong. "the United States (..) signed it on 12 December 1977". However, the U.S. has not ratified them. Nevertheless, "a number of the articles contained in both protocols are recognized as rules of customary international law valid for all states."

Also note of the 4th Geneva Convention: "In 1993, the United Nations Security Council adopted a report from the Secretary-General and a Commission of Experts which concluded that the Geneva Conventions had passed into the body of customary international law, thus making them binding on non-signatories to the Conventions whenever they engage in armed conflicts." The United States is a member of the U.N. Security Council.

... the Russians wrote this section during the Cold War, so they do not apply to this.

What are you talking about? The Protocols were written by experts in the law of war and were endorsed by Ronald Reagan.

Oh, that is a nice link to a Bush-Cheney War Crime website.

The text itself is a direct copy of the original source. Here's the same text on Wikisource

(I linked that particular site because it is one of the first search results I found for the citation from Google, but this is really irrelevant - the text of the Convention is what is important.)

"I'm pretty sure the Geneva convention allows for the shooting of enemy combatants (which the guys with AK47s and RPGs seemed to be), while civilians who are interspersed with armed combatants aren't able to be distinguished quickly or easily without something saying "Press" or similar, which they didn't have."

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Article_3

Interfering with evacuation of wounded most certainly conflicts with the Geneva convention. As well as shooting non-uniformed people.

US army keeps telling that militants do not receive POW treatment because they are not uniformed. Yet they do not treat non-uniformed people as civilians and shoot first.

Disgusting.

I just downloaded Google Chrome 3.0.192.0 for Mac and it crashed before I could even open a page. There is no excuse for this; my Mac Pro is perfect in every way with eight 2.93 GHz cores, 32 GB RAM, and a fresh install of Mac OS X Leopard v10.5.7. Ergo any crashing Google Chrome does is Google Chrome's own fault!

Why is it that Apple and Mozilla can do this but Google can't? I ran Internet Explorer 8 for months before its final release, Firefox 3.5 since its 3.1 days, and found Safari 4 Developer Preview more stable than Safari 3. In fact, even WebKit is more stable than Chrome.

What really baffles me, however, isn't the instability I've come to expect from Google, but that Google has the audacity to ask for personal user info to improve its browser. Is the search engine maker datamonger really so desperate for my private information that it's stooped to the level of Trojan horses to get it?

They should ask me that when it doesn't crash on launch.

Everything Google does is just another way to sieve personal data away for targeting ads. This kind of Big Brother crap is more repulsive than the fat programmers that make it possible. Google, with its deep pockets and doctoral scholars, thinks that by holding user data hostage it can maneuver around Apple and Microsoft. While this may be true, I'm not willing to be a part of it.

In using Google's search, Gmail, Chrome or whatever else the faceless robot of a company invents, the user is surrendering their personal information to a giant hivemind. No longer are their personal preferences some choice they make; they're a string of data processed by a Google algorithm: Google dehumanizes its users!

So while Google is arrogant enough to paint spyware shiny so it can parse our browsing habits, the least they could do is make sure it doesn't crash. If Apple, Microsoft, and Mozilla can get their preview releases right, why can't Google? And now they're making their own operating systems?

Get real, Google! I'll use your crashing codebloat when my Mac is cold and dead and I'm looking for handouts. Until then, quit mining my personal data!

I just downloaded Google Chrome 3.0.192.0 for Mac and it crashed before I could even open a page. There is no excuse for this; my Mac Pro is perfect in every way with eight 2.93 GHz cores, 32 GB RAM, and a fresh install of Mac OS X Leopard v10.5.7. Ergo any crashing Google Chrome does is Google Chrome's own fault!

Why is it that Apple and Mozilla can do this but Google can't? I ran Internet Explorer 8 for months before its final release, Firefox 3.5 since its 3.1 days, and found Safari 4 Developer Preview more stable than Safari 3. In fact, even WebKit is more stable than Chrome.

What really baffles me, however, isn't the instability I've come to expect from Google, but that Google has the audacity to ask for personal user info to improve its browser. Is the search engine maker datamonger really so desperate for my private information that it's stooped to the level of Trojan horses to get it?

They should ask me that when it doesn't crash on launch.

Everything Google does is just another way to sieve personal data away for targeting ads. This kind of Big Brother crap is more repulsive than the fat programmers that make it possible. Google, with its deep pockets and doctoral scholars, thinks that by holding user data hostage it can maneuver around Apple and Microsoft. While this may be true, I'm not willing to be a part of it.

In using Google's search, Gmail, Chrome or whatever else the faceless robot of a company invents, the user is surrendering their personal information to a giant hivemind. No longer are their personal preferences some choice they make; they're a string of data processed by a Google algorithm: Google dehumanizes its users!

So while Google is arrogant enough to paint spyware shiny so it can parse our browsing habits, the least they could do is make sure it doesn't crash. If Apple, Microsoft, and Mozilla can get their preview releases right, why can't Google? And now they're making their own operating systems?

Get real, Google! I'll use your crashing codebloat when my Mac is cold and dead and I'm looking for handouts. Until then, quit mining my personal data!

So government pre-dates concentrated wealth in the history of mankind?

Absolutely. Concentrated wealth only became possible with civilization and agriculture; when we were nomadic hunter-gatherers, no one owned land, and personal possessions were limited to what you could carry. Back then, "wealth" was that you had a nicer spear and shiner trinkets than the next guy. It was only after it became possible for you to have more land (or better land), or more cattle, than me, that we could have a real difference in wealth.

Industrial civilization has only amplified this trend, giving us the L curve of wealth, where the top 1% make in one year what it takes a mere millionaire a lifetime to accumulate.

Goverment predates all of this. The most primitive form of government -- the alpha of the pack -- predates humanity. Even if we limit discussion to Homo sapiens, nomadic groups had tribal chiefs or councils. And kings and princes pretty much came with cities. (As did priests, but that's another rant.)

As Tom Paine, that radical socialist, noted,

Poverty, therefore, is a thing created by that which is called civilized life. It exists not in the natural state.

...

It is a position not to be controverted that the earth, in its natural, uncultivated state was, and ever would have continued to be, the common property of the human race. In that state every man would have been born to property. He would have been a joint life proprietor with rest in the property of the soil, and in all its natural productions, vegetable and animal.

But the earth in its natural state, as before said, is capable of supporting but a small number of inhabitants compared with what it is capable of doing in a cultivated state. And as it is impossible to separate the improvement made by cultivation from the earth itself, upon which that improvement is made, the idea of landed property arose from that parable connection; but it is nevertheless true, that it is the value of the improvement, only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property.

(Technically, it could be argued that "the history of mankind" only picks up with writing, thus after civilization, but I'm presuming the broader meaning of "humanity's existence including prehistory" here.)

wealth will concentrate in the hands of those with the greatest willingness and ability to use force. The fact that this is currently the government does not escape me.

The group that has the greatest potential to use force, is by that fact the government -- de facto, if occasionally not de jure. If we shrank and shrank our democratically elected government until it could be "drowned in a bathtub", government by plutocrats or by strongmen would fill the power vacuum.

And indeed, this often seems to be the goal of some leaders of the conservative movement; going back to this nation's founding there have always been those who are suspicious of too much democracy, and want to tilt the scales to aristocracy and plutocracy. They appeal to the universal American desire to "get government off our backs!" -- but don't mention that it's because they want to put the leeches of landlords, bankers, and absentee investors on our necks.

Ripping a DVD for your own use is legal. DECRYPTING it with an unauthorized backup tool is not thanks to the DMCA

NO that is FALSE.

As the act itself says:
Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.

Decrypting is legal - possession of said tool is legal, it is the distribution of said tool that is illegal.

Witness Slysoft's corporate move to Antigua, where distribution of such tools is legal, as a means to circumvent the DMCA and european equivalents's restrictions on distribution of copy-prevention circumvention tools.

you respond with a grand conspiracy theory

Well it can be best summed up by this 2004 quote of Dr Michael Fernex formerly of the University of Basel who worked for the WHO;

"Six years ago we tried to have a conference. The proceedings were never published. This is because in this matter the organisations at the UN are subordinate to the IAEA. Since 1986 the WHO did nothing about studying Chernobyl. It's a pity. The interdiction to publish which fell upon the WHO conference came from the IAEA. The IAEA blocked the proceedings; the truth would have been a disaster for the nuclear industry"

So you can see the difference between theory and practice, I've provided you with the actual text of the agreement.

and an allegation about "slow agonising death" for which of course you have no evidence whatsoever.

Oh you don't have to believe me. Even the hamstrung report from the World Health Organisation said;

"The international experts have estimated that radiation could cause up to about 4000 eventual deaths among the higher-exposed Chernobyl populations, i.e., emergency workers from 1986-1987, evacuees and residents of the most contaminated areas. This number contains both the known radiation-induced cancer and leukaemia deaths"

Imagine, based on the actual evidence I've provided you, what the WHO may have been able to uncover had they been allowed to actually reveal the actual truth of the disaster. The Guardian however points out that the IAEA is ignoring the evidence of the volume of deaths occurring as a result of the Chernobyl disaster, so it's unlikely that you will examine them fairly either, of course if no one is actually collecting the data how can it be presented?

The UNICEF report "Human consequences of the Chernobyl nuclear accident" summarised it neatly;

"Life expectancy for men in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine, for example, is some ten years less that Sri Lanka, which is one of the twenty poorest countries in the world and is in the middle of a long drawn out war"

Maybe dying of cancer just isn't what you class as a "slow and agonising death".

Time is on the side of truth.

The truth of the matter is that cancer takes years to incubate, thus premature deaths and birth defects will manifest over time. After this generation, the next generation and long after this disaster has passed into lore it will still be well within the toxic half-life of radioactive isotopes such as cesium 137, strontium 90 and plutonium 239.

The reality is that direct exposure killed less than a hundred

The reality is the genetic abnormalities and diseases caused by this accident are generations away and unlikely to be seen by anyone alive today. direct exposure will occur as long as there is a food chain to absorb these isotopes and people to eat that food.

Nuclear Power just isn't as dangerous as the images of an A-bomb denotation would suggest.

Of course, it's much worse. An A bomb may release more radiation in the form of gamma radiation but much less material in terms of radioactive isotopes than a nuclear reactor - especially in these circumstances.

You "point" doesn't stand because you never made one.

Perhaps you just missed it. Hopefully the information presented here will help you understand it.

...make up scary nonsense...your respo

Looking at the geneva convention I don't find it to match what you say.

At which one of them (there are four, and a bunch of protocols on top of them)?

The one I was referring to specifically was the first one. I had alread quoted the relevant parts in other comments hereabouts, but here are a few once again:

Article 12

Members of the armed forces and other persons mentioned in the following Article, who are wounded or sick, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances.

They shall be treated humanely and cared for by the Party to the conflict in whose power they may be, without any adverse distinction founded on sex, race, nationality, religion, political opinions, or any other similar criteria. Any attempts upon their lives, or violence to their persons, shall be strictly prohibited; in particular, they shall not be murdered or exterminated, subjected to torture or to biological experiments; they shall not willfully be left without medical assistance and care, nor shall conditions exposing them to contagion or infection be created.

Article 15

At all times, and particularly after an engagement, Parties to the conflict shall, without delay, take all possible measures to search for and collect the wounded and sick, to protect them against pillage and ill-treatment, to ensure their adequate care, and to search for the dead and prevent their being despoiled.

Whenever circumstances permit, an armistice or a suspension of fire shall be arranged, or local arrangements made, to permit the removal, exchange and transport of the wounded left on the battlefield.

Article 18

The military authorities shall permit the inhabitants and relief societies, even in invaded or occupied areas, spontaneously to collect and care for wounded or sick of whatever nationality. The civilian population shall respect these wounded and sick, and in particular abstain from offering them violence.

No one may ever be molested or convicted for having nursed the wounded or sick.

Article 19

Fixed establishments and mobile medical units of the Medical Service may in no circumstances be attacked, but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict. Should they fall into the hands of the adverse Party, their personnel shall be free to pursue their duties, as long as the capturing Power has not itself ensured the necessary care of the wounded and sick found in such establishments and units.

Article 22

The following conditions shall not be considered as depriving a medical unit or establishment of the protection guaranteed by Article 19: ... (3) That small arms and ammunition taken from the wounded and sick and not yet handed to the proper service, are found in the unit or establishment.

Article 24

Medical personnel exclusively engaged in the search for, or the collection, transport or treatment of the wounded or sick, or in the prevention of disease, staff exclusively engaged in the administration of medical units and establishments, as well as chaplains attached to the armed forces, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances.

Article 26

The staff of National Red Cross Societies and that of other Voluntary Aid Societies, duly recognized and authorized by their Governments, who may be employed on the same duties as the personnel named in Article 24, are placed on the same footing as the personnel named in the said Article, provided that the staff of such societies are subject to military laws and regulations.

Article 35

Transports of wounded and sick or of medical equipment shall be respected and protected in the same way as mobile medical units.

Now, you're right that it also has a requirement for medics to wear

The media here in the US have done a very good job of keeping Americans uninformed about what the NPT actually says. So here it is: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty. Please read it; it's like four pages

United States is a signatory to the first four Geneva Conventions. It has recently signed & ratified Protocol III, but it had not ratified (but had signed) Protocols I and II so far. In practice, they do claim to follow all provisions therein with a few specific exceptions - if I recall correctly, the main objection was to the prohibition on weapons that "cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering".

What is relevant in this case is that U.S. is a signatory to the First Geneva Convention, which is the one covering treatment of enemy wounded, and medical personnel. Specifically:

Article 12

Members of the armed forces and other persons mentioned in the following Article, who are wounded or sick, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances.

They shall be treated humanely and cared for by the Party to the conflict in whose power they may be, without any adverse distinction founded on sex, race, nationality, religion, political opinions, or any other similar criteria. Any attempts upon their lives, or violence to their persons, shall be strictly prohibited; in particular, they shall not be murdered or exterminated, subjected to torture or to biological experiments; they shall not willfully be left without medical assistance and care, nor shall conditions exposing them to contagion or infection be created.

Article 15

At all times, and particularly after an engagement, Parties to the conflict shall, without delay, take all possible measures to search for and collect the wounded and sick, to protect them against pillage and ill-treatment, to ensure their adequate care, and to search for the dead and prevent their being despoiled.

Whenever circumstances permit, an armistice or a suspension of fire shall be arranged, or local arrangements made, to permit the removal, exchange and transport of the wounded left on the battlefield.

Article 19

Fixed establishments and mobile medical units of the Medical Service may in no circumstances be attacked, but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict. Should they fall into the hands of the adverse Party, their personnel shall be free to pursue their duties, as long as the capturing Power has not itself ensured the necessary care of the wounded and sick found in such establishments and units.

Article 22

The following conditions shall not be considered as depriving a medical unit or establishment of the protection guaranteed by Article 19: (1) That the personnel of the unit or establishment are armed, and that they use the arms in their own defence, or in that of the wounded and sick in their charge. (2) That in the absence of armed orderlies, the unit or establishment is protected by a picket or by sentries or by an escort. (3) That small arms and ammunition taken from the wounded and sick and not yet handed to the proper service, are found in the unit or establishment.

That was foreign entanglements and factionalism we were to avoid. Parties had begun to form DURING the Washington administration, so he was clearly both aware of them and not directly opposed to them, just the power that they often tend to accumulate to themselves. Wiki Article George_Washington's_Farewell_Address and the text itself.

Countries are bound by an international treaty. shorting copyright is not an option.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works/Articles_1_to_21

article 7:

(1) The term of protection granted by this Convention shall be the life of the author and fifty years after his death. ....
(6) The countries of the Union may grant a term of protection in excess of those provided by the preceding paragraph ....
(7) Those countries of the Union bound by the Rome Act of this Convention which grant, in their national legislation in force at the time of signature of the present Act, shorter terms of protection than those provided for in the preceding paragraphs shall have the right to maintain such terms when ratifying or acceding to the present Act.

So by international treaty they can shorten the copyright to the length it was when signing the treaty, or lengthen it arbitrary, but no country can shorten it below the length set in the treaty.

A pirate party is free to discuss this issue, but is almost impossible to make this a law, unless there was a law before the countries signed the Berne convention that limited the length. The only way to do this is a trick: leave Berne convention, set a copyright of 5 years and then join again. I bet this is not a point a minority party can establish.

I wonder how the Founding Father's interpreted that?

Irrelevant. As Madison said, "As a guide in expounding and applying the provisions of the Constitution, the debates and incidental decisions of the Convention can have no authoritative character...the legitimate meaning of the Instrument must be derived from the text itself; or if a key is to be sought elsewhere, it must be not in the opinions or intentions of the Body which planned & proposed the Constitution, but in the sense attached to it by the people in their respective State Conventions where it recd. all the authority which it possesses."

The doctrine that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the "original intent" of the framers is nonsense, since the "original intent" of the framers was that their intent not be used to interpret the Constitution.

I suspect Thomas Jefferson may have had a better idea of what the Constitution meant than the libertarian fanatics who suggest breaking the law

Like the other Founders, Jefferson was a criminal, a terrorist insurgent who fought the lawful rule of the British crown. He was also a slave rapist, but that was legal at the time. Law ain't no guide to the right thing to do.

The feds are authorized to conduct an enumeration, not an interrogation. I will be filling in the number of people who live here, and crossing out all other questions; I'd like to see everyone else do the same. If the feds want other data, they can get it by anonymous surveys that give much more privacy protection than their assurances to "trust us."

When government or big business wants your info, it's always best to ask what's it's being collected for, and give only that which is needed to accomplish the legitimate goal. The checkout clerk at the market doesn't need my zipcode to complete our "I give you cash, you give me stuff" transaction, and so he doesn't get it. The feds don't need my family information or home ownership status to do the headcount to divy up Congresscritters, and so they don't get it.

I notice you skipped the substance (levels of social interaction) to focus on me. Very well. You know that there are many "problem children" in the public school system, do you not? Except for these children their parents lack the money or time or in some cases even the interest to send them to a private school or school them at home. What all this demonstrates is that homeschooling is, at a minimum, a superior approach for some people.

Your opinion of me is predictably negative. I didn't 'adapt'. I see it as entirely positive. If I had been a weaker, less capable, less talented, less imaginative, and less intelligent, I probably would have adapted fine. I also probably would end up making median income in some crappy make-work job. I would probably end up more shallow, less literate, and in every regard less valuable as a person.

I have a feeling you don't have kids. You don't seem to be able to put anything into context. Am I proud that my mother was forced repeatedly to listen in shame to the blather of some public servant? Of course not. Am I proud of my early abilities, even if immaturity lead me to misuse them? You're damn right I am, because while I matured out of my misuse of my abilities, the abilities themselves don't evaporate. If my daughter does something which is damaging/inconvenient/annoying whether maliciously, absent-mindedly or whatever, but that act demonstrates some kind of developing ability, yes, I will chastise her, but I will also be proud to see that she is developing an ability. She's a toddler for chrissake. With children pride can coexist with anger or disappointment.

There are different standards for different stages of life, and have been since time immemorial. If you haven't read it, I must recommend Cicero's In Defense of Marcus Caelius (though this translation is not as good as my hardcopy). It contains an excellently rendered defense of youth with all its flaws.

And on "general welfare", its co-author James Madison explicitly explained that the phrase does not mean what you're reading it to mean. In fact, the idea that it could be misread that way was something he took as a sign of paranoia among Anti-Federalists. See Federalist Paper #41. Short version: "If we'd meant to give the federal government a power to do whatever is good for the country, we wouldn't have worded it in such an obscure way, followed it in the same sentence with a list of specific granted powers, [and then added an amendment spelling out that the federal government lacks unlimited power]." I don't think you can point to a single person in the Founders' generation who, before ratification (Hamilton changed his tune later), claimed there was an open-ended "general welfare" power and didn't oppose the Constitution on that ground.

You need to amend the Constitution if you think it's not well-suited to today's situation.

Yes, the German Grundgesetz guarantees free speech under section 1.5 which states:

Everyone has the right freely to express and to disseminate his opinion by speech, writing and pictures and freely to inform himself from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by radio and motion pictures are guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.

The only exception to this is materials considered "harmful" to youth, although from what I can tell that's largely limited to either things with large amounts of graphic violence, denying/"revising" the Holocaust or using Nazi symbols in inappropriate manners. In the case of Scientology, not only is the religion banned, but some government organizations like the Bavarian State Office for the Protection of the Constitution have gone as far as creating pamphlets warning people about the dangers of Scientology (PDF in German)