Slashdot Mirror

...With the likes of Diane Feinstein among their ranks. She and her husband have had close economic ties with China for years, megabucks involved. She never passes up an opportunity to suck up to them. One despicable came in 2001 when China tried to shoot down an unarmed survelience plane (yeah, a spy plane). See the article on World Net Daily.

... of laptops being sold on the black market or sitting on docks, held hostage by warlords.

Or, Saddam Hussein amassing 4,000 of them to further his nuclear program.

(Well, perhaps the next nuclear gaming LAN party will be in North Korea...)

And yet, the Brittish have very low church attendance:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=36388

I see where people might be mad about this. I think the issue of it being illegal is debatable, underhanded, without a doubt, but maybe not totally illegal. I'm not positive why they did this in the way that they did. My only conclusion would be that there are far too many phone taps to realistically get warrants for all of them. I don't believe that the Executive branch wouldn't simply break the law for no real reason. Putting themselves at risk like that just doesn't make sense unless there is a benefit. Regardless, I would rather have them listen to every phone call I make and feel safer than have to live worrying where the next bomb will go off at. The end of this article shows a very good reason why this is important. http://www.desertsunonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic le?AID=/20051227/OPINION01/512270304/1004&vm=r This is another very good article on why they were tapping. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=48446&vm=r I think we need to weigh which is more important to us, the possibility of being listened to, or our lives?

If only it were true. He seems to be able to lie us into a war, shred the constitution, hand out important government jobs like stocking stuffers to incompetent nitwits, give aid and comfort to our enemies in time of war, suppress political descent, and run up enormous debt in our name to enrich his backers, and there doesn't seem to be anything the hand wringing "opposition" party can do to stop him.

If only he sucked , he's be out of there so fast his head would spin.

--MarkusQ

Read these:
http://harrybrowne.org/articles/EducationForEveryo ne.htm
http://harrybrowne.org/articles/FreeTheSchools.htm
http://harrybrowne.org/Journal0409.htm#GovernmentS chools
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=240 68
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=26270

How do you figure? Take Two didn't receive any money by him buying one share of stock; the effect such a transaction would have on a share price is pretty minimal.

If Michael Moore can own stock in Halliburton, why can't Jack Thompson own shares of Take Two?

The Group of the Martyr Ebenezer Scrooge will soon have its revenge on this infidel.

Evolution is wishful thinking on steroids. Pat Buchanan (despite what you think of him) has summarized the current state of evolution quite well here: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=47973 Again, I would urge you SlashDot readers to stop being so close-minded (nay, dogmatic?) about evolution and creationism/ID. If you haven't read "Darwin's Black Box" or "Darwin On Trial", you're just as close-minded as the "Bible-thumpers" you deride. WARNING: Another author's book is mentioned in the article.

all executive agencies operate PRECISELY by decree. EPA? They make the rules with no review. The FAA? FCC? DoEd? DoEn? The executive branch is allowed to issue mandates that have the full weight of law, ergo they are law.

Rule making follows an established process, is subject to law and Congressional oversight, and review by the Courts. You can even participate by commenting on proposed rules. There is also Presidential guidance and oversight of the rule making process. The world is far too complex and rapidly changing for Congress to have to pass a law about everything.

After TWA 800 went down President Clinton issued executive order 13039, eliminating whistleblower protection from the members of the primary recovery team: the president wanted to change the law so he changed the law by decree.

Sorry, but no.

GPS-jammer contractor plays both sides of war

IIRC, US special forces were sent in to disable them. (Thank you)

If the Iraqis had the capability to knock out a GPS satellite, and degrade the system upon which their enemy's most effective weapons relied, don't you think they would have done that too? It might not take a lot; just a high powered laser and an accurate tracking device. The Soviet/Russian anti-satelite systems were little more than a missle filled with ball bearings. Messy, but effective.

Guess my 15 blade razor needs upgrading :/

This case has been bolstered by the conclusion that the seas of liquid methane on Titan are not of biological origin:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=18410

"We have determined that Titan's methane is not of biological origin, so it must be replenished by geologic processes on Titan, perhaps venting from a supply in the interior that could have been trapped there as the moon formed," said Dr. Hasso Niemann of Goddard, principal investigator for the GCMS and lead author of a paper on this research to appear in Nature on Dec. 8.

Other publications on this topic include:

Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil
Authors: Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. and Craig R. Smith

The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels
Author: Thomas Gold - Copernicus Books, 1998

Some more details of the theory to peruse at:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=47650

It will be interesting to see how the peer review process works on December 8th or whether the notion that petroleum and natural gas are "fossil fuels" will just be accepted as a matter of scientific "faith".

http://reading.uoregon.edu/scope/trial_scope_index .php http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=23709 http://www.educationnext.org/20061/23.html

Except at the Department of Public Works.

There's a bar in spain that (optionally) uses subdermal RFIDs to pay for food and drinks. When someone arrives they link their credit card data to a particular tag and get it injected into their body, then it's just scanned whenever they paid for anything. The idea was to prevent against loss/theft from drunk students on holiday, I guess.

"In October, press reports revealed that White House staff had been on a regimen of the powerful antibiotic Cipro since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Judicial Watch wants to know why White House workers, including President Bush, began taking the drug nearly a month before anthrax was detected on Capitol Hill. "

I call bullshit.

The U.N. may not be a world government YET but many are pushing it that way.

the relevant part : "without explicit authorization for U.N. taxes on currency exchange, fossil fuels and a host of other tax targets. "

And this

or this

or this

While I detest bush, I detest the "one world" mentality just as much. The U.N. was founded solely as a place where nations could talk about their disagreements, NOT as a world governing body, which they are trying to become.

I have enough problems with the bloated and bureaucratic U.S. government.
I do not want an even larger and more insulated layer deciding what I can and can't do.

Just go visit Democrat Underground or Daily Kos. You will find many articles that discuss violence against authority and the death of our President and Vice President. Heck Air America Radio between fundraising breaks and stealing money from poor children has had several commentators advocate the assassination of our President.

I am always amazed at the shouts from the left that they are being "oppressed" in this country. I am going practically deaf from their oppression. Its like a Monty Python sketch. If you want to see truly speech oppressive societies, just look at Europe and their numerous speech codes/laws.

"Let's make sure no one even thinks anything bad against the government."

I think that's the aim of Bush's plan to require psychiatric examination of anybody and everybody who might be the least bit "other" than him (excluding Karl Rove, of course, who IS him.)

Ah, here it is: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=39078/

A quote for those too lazy to click on the link:

The president's commission found that "despite their prevalence, mental disorders often go undiagnosed" and recommended comprehensive mental health screening for "consumers of all ages," including preschool children.

The commission also recommended "Linkage [of screening] with treatment and supports" including "state-of-the-art treatments" using "specific medications for specific conditions." The commission commended the Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP) as a "model" medication treatment plan that "illustrates an evidence-based practice that results in better consumer outcomes..."

But the Texas project, which promotes the use of newer, more expensive antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs, sparked off controversy when Allen Jones, an employee of the Pennsylvania Office of the Inspector General, revealed that key officials with influence over the medication plan in his state received money and perks from drug companies with a stake in the medication algorithm (15 May, p1153). He was sacked this week for speaking to the BMJ and the New York Times.

After an investigation, the Judicial Affairs office decided to take action against Miner and, in an Oct. 13 hearing, found him guilty of violating university policy prohibiting discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation." As "punishment" - a term university officials say they don't like to use - Miner must write a 10-page essay in which he is required to research and explain the Roman Catholic church's position on gays and lesbians.

Now that's going to backfire, big-time. Because official Vatican doctrinal documents are much closer to the student's position than what Duquesne University is putting out.

The Catholic Church is having a doctrinal crackdown on this. No more "diversity". The Apostolic Visitation (what used to called the Grand Inquisition) of US seminaries by Vatican personnel is underway right now. Some faculty members have already been canned for deviations from church doctrine.

(ps: that dress was dried out and now appears in an art gallery in Paris.)

Until some janitor mistakes it for some leftover jerky.

Women have gained a tremendous amount of rights and freedoms? Oh really? How about the right to EXIST? China's One Child Policy results in more female babies being aborted or drowned than in most of the rest of the world combined (except India, perhaps).

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=39475

Wanna know what the murder of girl babies in China has resulted in?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/omicinski/069 .htm
http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20040308-0926 32-4101r.htm

Free trade with China makes ALL of us responsible for this tragedy. But hey, as long as your DVD players cost $50 or less, you can argue that that's not true, I suppose.

Funny you should mention iraq`s WMD "programs", they may have actually been partly created by the Department Of Energy. That is, one guy at the DOE. After stunts like that I can imagene them have trouble getting qualified engineers to give their opinion.
 
In fact, I am pretty sure they will suggest a specific place for putting that nuclear waste, though I don`t see how an engineer could ever see all that waste fit in there...

I'm not surprised that the circulation of most newspapers is going down. What is happening is that there are too many liberal reporters and editors chasing after too few liberal readers. It isn't that anyone is intentionally "punishing" these papers, rather this is simply supply and demand. The invisible hand strikes again. There is less demand for liberal news and more demand for conservative news. Case in point, the circulation boom currently being enjoyed by the Washington Times:

http://www.washtimes.com/business/20050518-120247- 7729r.htm

Another example is Fox news, which currently pulls more viewers than CNN and MSNBC put together. If this were a technology issue created by the internet, you wouldn't be seeing a shift from liberal television outlets to a conservative one, instead you'd see an overall shift AWAY from television as a news source.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/20 04-07-25-media-mix_x.htm
http://www.jsonline.com/enter/tvradio/apr03/133295 .asp
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=43120

The premiere liberal radio network, Air America, is also doing badly. In Washington DC its listener share is actually so low that it can't even be detected according to the Arbitron rating service:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=46954

The issue here is not one of technology, but ideology. This country is, day by day, moving further and further away from the left and closer to the right. A conservative person is not going to choose news presented with a liberal bent to it when the same information is available with a conservative bent. The liberal media is basically selling the ideological equivalent of buggy whips. Each year there are fewer and fewer customers to sell their wares to. As a consequence the entire liberal media industry is suffering as a whole. The plight of the liberal newspaper business is just one aspect of this.

Lee

I'm not surprised that the circulation of most newspapers is going down. What is happening is that there are too many liberal reporters and editors chasing after too few liberal readers. It isn't that anyone is intentionally "punishing" these papers, rather this is simply supply and demand. The invisible hand strikes again. There is less demand for liberal news and more demand for conservative news. Case in point, the circulation boom currently being enjoyed by the Washington Times:

http://www.washtimes.com/business/20050518-120247- 7729r.htm

Another example is Fox news, which currently pulls more viewers than CNN and MSNBC put together. If this were a technology issue created by the internet, you wouldn't be seeing a shift from liberal television outlets to a conservative one, instead you'd see an overall shift AWAY from television as a news source.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/20 04-07-25-media-mix_x.htm
http://www.jsonline.com/enter/tvradio/apr03/133295 .asp
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=43120

The premiere liberal radio network, Air America, is also doing badly. In Washington DC its listener share is actually so low that it can't even be detected according to the Arbitron rating service:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=46954

The issue here is not one of technology, but ideology. This country is, day by day, moving further and further away from the left and closer to the right. A conservative person is not going to choose news presented with a liberal bent to it when the same information is available with a conservative bent. The liberal media is basically selling the ideological equivalent of buggy whips. Each year there are fewer and fewer customers to sell their wares to. As a consequence the entire liberal media industry is suffering as a whole. The plight of the liberal newspaper business is just one aspect of this.

Lee

.....Everything done so far is consistent with the hypothesis that decay rate is constant......

Yes, and on a cosmological or even human historical time scale, how long have we measuring or even known about such things?

There IS evidence that indicates that some so called constants are anything but constant over LONG periods of time, even only hundreds of years or thousands. You can use this article as a layman's starting point:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ ID=39733

It leads to links of more detailed and mathematically dense scientific articles you can wade through if you are so inclined. Googling the names of the scientists mentioned is a good way to begin to pursue this.

......Any chance yo0u would provide a reference for your astonishing claim on the changes in decay rates and other constants?......

When I first came across the idea that certain "fundamental" constants of the Universe might be variable, I discounted that. There are many articles concerning mounting evidence that the speed of light and related "constants" have changed, in some cases greatly over long periods of time. One of the best layman's summaries of this I have found is here:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ ID=39733

You can use this article as a starting point of your own googling to whatever depth you wish to pursue this.

It leads to numerous other links and here is another one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_lig ht

Of all the observations (also mentioned in the Worldnet article) piling up of this change being so, none is more clear and more devastating to current scientific dogma of immense ages of time than Williams Tift's discovery that the red shift is quantized. Below is an excerpt for one of the articles:

It would seem that one person can convince the scientific community if their arguments are good enough. It would be nice if this were the case, but I don't think human nature allows. Francis Bacon was unable to convince the scientistists of his time that the speed of light is finite. John Snow had mediocre success trying to convince the scientists of his time that germs caused disease rather than "miasma." Semmelweiss had practically no success trying to get doctors to wash their hands before delivering babies for pregnant mothers. Or, for a particularly telling example, consider Einstein's theory of relativity. Even TEN YEARS after he had proposed it, including what I think you will agree are rather good reasons, the scientific community refused to accept it. In 1921 when Einstein received the Nobel prize, relativity was not menationed at all! A more modern example is William Tift's work on quantization of red shift. Proposed and supported with evidence in 1977, it has been verified at least 4 times by separate scientists at Oxford, University of Arizona, Canadian National Research Center, and the Royal Observatory at Edinburgh. The last verification was in 2003, yet scientists still refuse to accept it.

In another 50 years, or hopefully sooner the theory of evolution, as presently taught as scientific "truth" will join the long list of discarded notions in the graveyard of dead scientific theories.

way to plagiarize!
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=39733

Anyway, the Setterfield study you mention only used a portion of the points to obtain the decay trend for speed of light, while a best fit of the entire data set shows a slight increase in speed, with constant speed being well within the margin of error. Basically Setterfield picked the data points that would give him the results he wanted, which wouldn't be too hard if you consider that early measurements were less accurate than modern measurements, thus it is obvious that if you only select data points for the larger measurements over time, the speed of light will appear to be slowing down because the margin of error is decreasing. Of course you could do the same thing with the lower measurements and have it appear that the speed of light is increasing.

There are some more responses to the slowing speed of light myth here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE411.html

And here is an article about a recent NASA study that shows the speed of light is constant:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3741682/

Because they were designed to do so.

Well that and I don't trust any news organization that thinks Saddam Hussein is in league with Satan.

How can we possibly be safe without the UN controlling the Internet?

turning off sonar at predictable times sounds like a great idea. Its a good thing that groups like drug cartels can't get their hands on advanced military equipment like russian submarines Its not like terrorists groups learn from drug runners on how to get past american security.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=46546

....to use atmospheric pressure variations....

I know that such variations can and have been used to power a clock, but whether a mechanism can be built that utilizes this and also lasts for 10K or so years is another thing entirely. I don't believe than *anything* man-made can last that long, even if only subjected to "natural" deterioration through the laws of entropy.

(....Laboratory limits on the variation of alpha....)

Just because we can measure somthing in the lab NOW doesn't mean that it was not greatly different in the past. Most processes in nature are non-linear. In the past, many cherished notions of scientific "truth" finally collapsed under the weight of accumulating evidence in spite of dogmatic opposition from the then existing scientific esablishment. The mounting evidence that some of the so called fundamental "constants" are far from constant is still being hotly denied because it has some very unsettling implications to the established world view concerning the assumptions and methods used to determine the age of things.

If you are interested to find out more, you can begin here:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=39733

Clocks based on the atom are great and incredibly accurate for short term stuff, like the GPS and our even normal appointment calendars, but on really long time scales appear to be subject to drift against the clocks based on gravity.

This shouldn't be that much of a surprise considering an Alabama state senator has said the hurricanes this year are the result of God judging people in that area for sinful behavior AND that 32% of poll respondents agreed with him.

OK, wait, let me see if I got this right -- free speech (I assume we're excepting yelling "Fire" in a crewded theatre and such) is not necessarily a good thing? OK, I guess you can have that "different" view, but when you try to impose it on everyone else's internet, then that's when we have a problem

I haven't said that - I have said there are a whole scale between a contitutional mandate free speech right and a dictatorial information control. Many important European countries (UK, France, Germany, for instance) don't have this absolute right and they are, in some aspects, more democratic the the USA.

The internet wasn't designed to be, nor should anyone try to mold it into, something that is "good for developing and under-developed nations." Oh, and how in the hell is the internet "just another tool to transfer resources from the poor countries to the rich?" That's so out there you've just got to back it up with something. Please.

Now that is just cute - under what logical falacy you change "global unregulated commerce" (what I said) to "the internet" (what you said) and pretend to make any valid conclusions about anything? I was clearly answering to the top poster, I quoted the text I was answering to, and yet you choose to leave the reference out and just make up something that wasn't there. Cute, indeed.

Well, to these left-wing liberal Bush-hating ears it sounds right about spot on. And it doesn't discount any of the (few, but notable) good things that group of crackpots and assholes has done. Right. Without the UN who would http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=42088>rape the children and steal oil-for-food money?

Exactly what and how I was saying - you concentrate on your government (very small, very petty) marketing hotspots and forget the UNESCO, the UNICEF, the Peace Corps and a miriad of other actions that do not interest you. Because they are geared toward giving a better life and a better chance to very poor people in coutries you don't even know exist. But, hey, the agenda says "The UN is bad" so all of it must be bad.

Enjoy your web censored by China and Syria. We'll be here having fun here on the web as it was meant to be. Free.

Is your web free? Interesting, mine is too. But I don't think I have to thank the USA for it. I also happen to live in a democracy, with regularly elected leaders and its own approved laws. That was one of my points: if all you can say is "Syria will control the Internet!!" you are largely off-base. Syria won't control the Internet. Neither will China. But the USA won't either.

At those prices, why bother printing at home?

Besides, the HiTi printers are dither-free continuous-tone dye-sublimation (plus clear overcoat) for just 40 cents per print in consumables.

At those prices, why bother printing at home?

Besides, the HiTi printers are dither-free continuous-tone dye-sublimation (plus clear overcoat) for just 40 cents per print in consumables.

At those prices, why bother printing at home?

Besides, the HiTi printers are dither-free continuous-tone dye-sublimation (plus clear overcoat) for just 40 cents per print in consumables.

I think you're forgetting the most outrageous error of FEMA. What happened is, thousands of firefighters and other emergency responders arrived, ready and able to do important stuff, like, you know, save lives, that kind of thing. So what did they do? Did they put em to work? No, they first made them endure days of sensitivity training. SENSITIVITY TRAINING!!!!!! People are dying, and they're worried about the prospect that a rescue worker who came on his own dime to serve his fellow man might think negative thoughts about members of other races?

Want proof? We got proof.

Search for the word "harassment" in these articles:

http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_3004197
http://www.gazetteextra.com/katrina_rundle092905.a sp
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ ID=46179

Just google Katrina "sexual harassment" in their news section.

And note: this wasn't some errant agency violating its mandate. This is the liberal, socialist mindset at work, which values "diversity" over, you know, what real people actually want. Want a good doctor? Fuck that. You get a diverse doctor. Want good teachers, police, firefighters, lifeguards, etc.? Fuck no. You get the shitty ones, 'cause we got quotas to meet.

Anyone who has ever asked for sensitivity training can easily find the person responsible for this murderous loss of common sense. It's called a mirror.

Whoops -- they did not use adult stem cells, but the point is the stem cells did not come from an aborted fetus.

Because "Umbilical cord cells are considered "adult stem cells" they did use "adult stem cells". Don't ask how they can call stem cells from the umbilical cord adults but they do.

WND is not a credible source. They're little more than a hard right-wing propoganda site. To see this, one need do no more than search WND for 'evolution.' Here are the some of the first few results:

BRAINWASHING 101: Indoctrination and sexual corruption on America's college campuses"

Do you believe in accidentalism?

Dogmatic Darwinists

What are the Darwinists afraid of?

Now, this is not to say that WND is lying as usual in this case, just that you don't want to trust them without looking at something better. Hell, even Fox News or moveon.org are more believable.

WND is not a credible source. They're little more than a hard right-wing propoganda site. To see this, one need do no more than search WND for 'evolution.' Here are the some of the first few results:

BRAINWASHING 101: Indoctrination and sexual corruption on America's college campuses"

Do you believe in accidentalism?

Dogmatic Darwinists

What are the Darwinists afraid of?

Now, this is not to say that WND is lying as usual in this case, just that you don't want to trust them without looking at something better. Hell, even Fox News or moveon.org are more believable.

WND is not a credible source. They're little more than a hard right-wing propoganda site. To see this, one need do no more than search WND for 'evolution.' Here are the some of the first few results:

BRAINWASHING 101: Indoctrination and sexual corruption on America's college campuses"

Do you believe in accidentalism?

Dogmatic Darwinists

What are the Darwinists afraid of?

Now, this is not to say that WND is lying as usual in this case, just that you don't want to trust them without looking at something better. Hell, even Fox News or moveon.org are more believable.

WND is not a credible source. They're little more than a hard right-wing propoganda site. To see this, one need do no more than search WND for 'evolution.' Here are the some of the first few results:

BRAINWASHING 101: Indoctrination and sexual corruption on America's college campuses"

Do you believe in accidentalism?

Dogmatic Darwinists

What are the Darwinists afraid of?

Now, this is not to say that WND is lying as usual in this case, just that you don't want to trust them without looking at something better. Hell, even Fox News or moveon.org are more believable.

I did see them find one of these live on the news (they caught the truck trying to drive away, and I believe they killed the driver to make it stop...that part was not on the news) and they got a quick tour of it.

You need to be a bit clearer about your terms here. There are scientific standards for naming various things (taxonomy, astronomy, etc.), and the article referrs to a standard proposed by the International Astronomical Union, which according to the article isn't coping with the large numbers of things now being named.

But I'm not aware of any "standards" for naming kids. What's a standard name? Is "Rush" a standard name?

Some dippy Congresswoman is calling for more "African-American names", when there's no such thing. But you're apparently arguing that we stick with "standard" names, when there's likewise no such thing.

I would like to see a hurricane Shafreeka, but I understand that naming the hurricanes standard names helps to get people mobilized to evacuate. So for practical reasons, I say we stick with the most common, lilly-white names that we've got.

The article you just linked to gives this list of tropical cyclone names.
Are you saying that "Igor" and "Paloma" are "common, lilly-white" names?
How does "Igor" help people get mobilized better than "Jamal"?

I specifically used the expression "non-standard names", because I didn't mean to imply that all of them are just made up based on how cool they sound.

A black parent naming their kid "Nat Turner" is choosing a non-standard name (but one with great "kill whitey" implications). A parent who picks that name just doesn't value conformity for conformity's sake. The same parent who chooses to name their kid "Kenyatta" probably wouldn't mind if some rocks get named "hello Kitty", as long as a fair share of other other rocks get Afrocentric names.

If you think I'm making this all up, just check this out -- this Congresswoman wanted hurricane to get named things like Keisha, Jamal and Deshawn.

I would like to see a hurricane Shafreeka, but I understand that naming the hurricanes standard names helps to get people mobilized to evacuate. So for practical reasons, I say we stick with the most common, lilly-white names that we've got.

Oops... accidentally posted that as HTML, my mistake. Here's a version with paragraph breaks:

The article specifically mentioned "deviant" pornography, so that's what I looked for to narrow the search. As you can tell from your search, there are a lot of child porn articles that I wasn't in the mood to search through, so I looked up "deviant", the term that made this unique in the Slashdot article. I'll accept the fact that it's occurred, no problem.

From your search:

Of course, it is pure malarkey for FBI agents to complain that policing porn takes valuable resources from the war on terrorism. In the FBI context, every agent who polices public corruption or civil-rights violation is an agent not working on terrorism. In a broader governmental context, the same could be said of welfare, health care and federal aid to the Katrina victims, to take some random examples. Every dollar spent by the federal government on causes other than terrorism takes a dollar away from fighting terrorism. Before we discuss cutting police power with regard to pornography, perhaps we should re-evaluate dedicating millions of federal dollars to building new bridges named after Robert Byrd.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ ID=46455

I'd tend to agree. Agree or disagree with the actions of the FBI, to treat it all as some zero sum game where absolutely all other actions the FBI takes somehow prevent us from fighting terrorism is ridiculous.

It would also appear that I was wrong in my statement that the total number of personnel involved would be eight including support and supervisory staff. It's actually eight PLUS supervisory and support staff. My mistake.