BT's Predictions for the Future

Saluton_Mondo writes "BT describes the future as looking "ever more exciting each year"... you won't be surprised if you read their white paper on a timeline of technological development in various aspects of human culture, running up to about 2100. It's a bit out of date, but still pretty funny. Some are reasonable predictions, like the introduction of ID cards in the UK by 2010, or the rise of an American dictator in 2000. Others are just funny, like an orgasm via e-mail in 2010, or a security Barbie which searches for lost offspring. I'll not even mention the emergence of the Borg in 2040... see what you think."

Comments

*Yawn*

[Genghis9]

Predictions of the future are so passe

Re:*Yawn*

[Decaffeinated Jedi]

For a bit of future-gazing satire, I would highly recommend Scott Adams' The Dilbert Future. I guess it's about five years old now, but it's a great book of what amount to short essays predicting future trends with Dilbert comics interspersed throughout. Predictions include:

• Life in the future will not be like Star Trek.
• On average, Induhviduals (sic) who are alive today will experience 80 years of complaint-free living. Unfortunately, they'll live to 160.
• In the future, Internet capacity will increase indefinitely to keep up with the egos of the people using it. Cost will not be an issue.
• In the future, filty, perverted hobos will refer to themselves as telecommuters, until someone points out that they aren't being paid.
• In the future, kids won't have access to online pornography, because X-rated Internet sites will be clogged by horny adults who have more patience.
• In the future, computer-using men will be the sexiest males.

Okay, so maybe that last one is a bit far-fetched. ;)

Re:*Yawn*

[SB9876]

Yeah, and Adams also predicted that we'd use the EPR effect for instantaneous communication and that evolution would be proven wrong which I'm not holding my breath on.

Re:*Yawn*

[calyphus]

On average, Induhviduals (sic)

Putting sic after Induhviduals distinguishes you as an induhvidual. Welcome to Dogbert's minions.

Re:*Yawn*

[Decaffeinated Jedi]

Putting sic after Induhviduals distinguishes you as an induhvidual. Welcome to Dogbert's minions.

Ah, but my intended strategy by including the "sic" after Induhviduals was to keep said Induhviduals from thinking that I was an Induhvidual because I misspelled "individual." You and I know the truth. ;)

Exagerrated Predictions

[Anonymous Coward]

It always seems these sort of lists are exaggerations. It isn't inevitable that all this technology will be created.

obligatory

[mOoZik]

Looks like they didn't predict it would be a good idea to upgrade their servers.

Re:obligatory

[Dave2 Wickham]

In 2002 (I believe) they sued/considered suing someone, claiming they owned the patent on the hyperlink.... Ah, here it is.
And I recently got ADSL in my area, so keep up hope...

Re:obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, that was 2000, before I started reading, the one I read was from 2002, where they started pushing it...

-Dave

maglevs and flying cars

[rootrider]

I still don't see any flying cars or maglevs all over the world. I don't really expect to see these things in the next 100 years either.

Future never follows a plan.

Re:maglevs and flying cars

[Anonymous Coward]

maglevs are moving people commercially in china, australia, germany, spain and the UK. Feasibility projects are underway in the US and much of europe.

Re:maglevs and flying cars

[BiggerIsBetter]

Maglev trains and Flying Cars.

Ok the Moller thing is a stretch, but 500+ kph trains are a reality.

Re:maglevs and flying cars

[ViolentGreen]

Welcom Maglev, to Maglev. I am Maglev. Here on Maglev, all people, places and things are called Maglev..... ...maybe it was Marglarg instead...

hello?

[_UnderTow_]

"I'll not even mention the emergence of the Borg in 2040."

Isn't that what you just did?

Re:hello?

[Raffaello]

Sorry, typo - should be "think" not "thing" of course.

Re:hello?

[Paradise Pete]

my children cannot exercise their 1st Amendment rights in a public school because they are Christians.

Oh please. If your children had to sit through daily rituals of some other religion you'd be screaming your lungs out.

Re:hello?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about those of us who are GASP! non-religious? Doesn't this nation under stupid deity bullshit make anyone else sick?

Or when I go to a public event and they sing Stupid Deity Bless America. I want to puke. There is nothing more unpatriotic then lifting religious bullshit higher than our great country.

Now, as a responsible American, I accept that I'll have to hear this stupid bullshit at venues like Football games, etc. But, I do not want my children brainwashed by this stupid fucking pledge (slightly offtopic for the thread, but the same). And I don't want them pressured into putting their hands together (or whatever) and saying or thinking witch-doctor incontations (sp?) because their freinds' superstitious parents (and country for that matter) do. There will come a time when they can decide for themselves, but not in school non-religious people (like me) pay for too. I can't tell their kids what to do in school, so it's only logical to pursue the least offensive option, which is

"KEEP YOUR FUCKING SUPERSTITIONS TO YOURSELF".

I think our wacko president needs to heed that too.

Re:hello?

[Red Rocket]

...my children cannot exercise their 1st Amendment rights in a public school because they are Christians.

Bullshit. Your children are free to pray in school at any time as long as they don't interfere with school activity. What you really want is organized religious activity in school. That's using government to force your religion on others which is unconstitutional. Either deal with it or organize to excise the first amendment from the constitution.

Since Atheism is also a Faith lets outlaw the expressions of statements that support your philosophical position.

Using schools to promote atheism is already outlawed by the first amendment. What you're opposed to is actually called secularism which makes you a religious extremist, alligned with groups such as the Taliban and al Quaida who also oppose secular governments.

The Framers knew what they meant and they practiced what they meant...

The framers were primarily Deists, not Christians.

...as did everyone else for nearly 200 years, until the Extreme Left Wing judges started seeing Marxist ideology in the shadows of the penumbra of the Constitution.

You're a total extremist, dude. You have severe hardening of the ideologies and need immediate treatment by your psychiatrist.

Re:hello?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, your kids are going to be the coolest in school! :-)

Re:hello?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, please get help before your G/god(s)(ess)(es) tell you to start bombing shit and killing people who are trying to take away your G/god(s)(ess)(es)-given right to force groups of people to practice arcane superstition wherever you want.

Re:hello?

[Anonymous Coward]

My children's names are Rod and Tod ...

Re:hello?

[Anonymous Coward]

Using schools to promote atheism is already outlawed by the first amendment

Wrong. As the schools are run by local governments, the First Amendment does not apply under written law.

Congress (which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives; Article 1, Section 1. Note: Congress != Government) shall make no law (Congress shall have power... to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof; Article 1, Section 8. In effect, only Congress can make laws on the Federal level, not the Judicial and not the Executive branches.) respecting (to relate or refer to; concern) an establishment of religion, or prohibiting (note; only prohibiting. It's opposite, permiting, is not banned.) the free exercise thereof.

Does the Fourteenth Apply?

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

So no state shall make or enforce any law which shall allow Congress to make a law respecting an establishment of relgion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. As written, the Fourteenth does not apply to the topic of whether public schools can recognize religion. Thus, the First Amendment, as written, does not outlaw it. However, once you introduce the fallacy of judical review, the wording of the Constitution, and all of its garuntees, goes out the window.

Re:hello?

[Red Rocket]

What a bizarre and convoluted argument. I'm a big Monty Python fan so I'm used to parsing absurdities, but that one really takes the cake. Good luck taking it into court. I notice that you posted AC so that means you're not even willing to stand behind it. It looks like it breaks down right here:

respecting (to relate or refer to; concern) an establishment of religion, or prohibiting (note; only prohibiting. It's opposite, permiting, is not banned.) the free exercise thereof.

respect
1. To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem.
2. To avoid violation of or interference with: respect the speed limit.
3. To relate or refer to; concern.

See how you chose the third definition for respect(ing) while completely ignoring the first two? That's an intentional distortion of the facts on your part. Using the first definition, Congress is prohibited from writing a law that shows deference or regard for or holds in esteem a particular religion. So "permiting" is, indeed, banned, contrary to your manipulative interpretation. The fourteenth amendment doesn't apply because it's just puting the states on notice that they can't take away rights that the federal constitution guarantees. So if Congress is prohibited from respecting the establishment of a religion, then county school boards and schools (which are granted no power under the Constitution) are most certainly prohibited from doing the same. By no right could a powerless agency be allowed to do something that an empowered agency is prohibited from doing.

Re:hello?

[Anonymous Coward]

Alright, please feel free to show where in the First Amendment, or anywhere in the Constitution, for that matter, freedom of religion is called a "right". Besides, you forget the Tenth Amendment;

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Please take note of "or to the people." What do you know? School boards CAN do things Congress is forbidden from doing as they are indeed empowered by the Constitution. You are right about the permitting, however, I meant to include the words "by this clause." I stand by the definition I chose, however. By passing laws that single out or make special exemptions for religion you have passed a law respecting its establishment.

The reason I did this as AC was simply because I wanted it to be easy for me to forget this post instead of the constant reminders in my message box. I have previously posted similar things under my handle, so I'm not looking for an all-out rehash of the arguement. I'm replying and checking up because I'm a glutton for punishment, apparently.

Re:hello?

[Anonymous Coward]

How could such incredible hatred be considered insightful?

Oh, wait; this is Slashdot.

WRT the U.K. ID cards

[The One KEA]

You can read about them here, at the Privacy International Web Site.

Re:WRT the U.K. ID cards

[Anonymous Coward]

That was quite funny, for a moment, when I misread that as "Piracy International"

Yeah, yeah, I know, but... well, you never know... :)

What, no Aliens?

[torpor]

If we're going to have totally wired cyborg societies, then come on... when are the aliens landing on the whitehouse lawn?

Freaky. I do *not* want borgs living in my neighborhood.

Guess I'll have to live on a boat...

Re:What, no Aliens?

[neeraj_2040]

Instead i like this to be happened.
I am grown watching those Phantom 2040 animation.
I waana see those intelligent borgs and those cool virtual reality based gadgets in my life.

Re:What, no Aliens?

[Anonymous Coward]

I gather you won't be moving to Redmond then..

Orgasm via email

[mattjb0010]

So anyone wanna build 802.11 into this ??

Re:Orgasm via email

[PowerBert]

Cool, now I can spend all night playing savage and still satisfy the woman I love.

Although 802.11 doesn't sound like a very good idea, she uses the headache excuse way too much already.

Re:Orgasm via email

[drinkypoo]

If I were a woman, I'd be in the car already. I can't believe no one has signed up. The only issue is, I'd want no restriction on the number of times I could press the joy button :P

Googled

[bushboy]

http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:OuHNJeCwdWUJ: www.btexact.com/docimages/42270/42270.pdf+&hl=en&i e=UTF-8

Re:Googled

[CaptainBaz]

and HTMLified.

Re:Googled

[Anonymous Coward]

Some observations:-

2010: 25 % of TV celebrities synthetic

Probably a typo, should have read TV celebrities, 25% synthetic

Creation of The Matrix 2025

Though it was nice to see they accurately predicted the making of the movie, their time predictions were slightly off

Full voice interaction with machine 2005

Does anyone actually want/ need this?

Re:Googled

[Anonymous Coward]

The celebrity one was proper english, just informal and somewhat short-handed. They're predicting the creation of thea actual Matrix, not the movie about it. And lastly all the idiots who swear at their computers and don't understand why it isn't checking their email while they're throwing shoes at it.

Re:Googled

[p3d0]

That "whoosh" sound you just heard is a joke going over your head.

(Hello?)^2

[Slartibartfast]

It's called irony. Have some coffee.

Re:(Hello?)^2

[McWilde]

No, actually it's called paralepsis.

Re:(Hello?)^2

[tomstdenis]

By the far the best "you been told" ever. And I learned a new word. Wow, all in all a good slashdot experience.

Thanks,
Tom

Re:(Hello?)^2

[Slartibartfast]

Wow. And I thought -my- vocabulary was reasonably good; alas, I've been shown up. Thanks much for the pointer!

*mumbles "paralepsis" to self repeatedly*

Re:(Hello?)^2

[angst_ridden_hipster]

I won't mention the fact that there are two perfectly good words for this rhetorical device.

Not only paralepsis, but also apophasis.

Re:(Hello?)^2

[Slurm-V]

Heh - I totally read that as apophallation. Those crazy banana slugs.

Re:(Hello?)^2

[bsd troll]

I have heard rumors that you "can the man ham." Can you shed any light on these accusations?

Again

[gxv]

And the slashdot effect killed the future

This might be the future

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.unbehagen.com/wifism

The obvious prediction

[unfortunateson]

BTExact website Slashdotted in early December, 2003

google has it in html

[lydon]

In case of (already occured) slashdotting look here (try the 'View as HTML' link).

Re:google has it in html

[p3d0]

Uh, does that url really have "42270" in it, or is my browser lying to me? That's my Slashdot user ID.

Re:google has it in html

[p3d0]

Sorry for the off-topic post. I was afraid the parent article had somehow hacked the URL to do something nasty with a person's Slashdot account when they clicked. Turns out it was pure coincidence.

UK ID Cards

[rf0]

They say 2010 and the UK government is going for 2013. To close for comfort for my liking

Rus

Re:UK ID Cards

[will_die]

They also say a global electronic currency in 2005; I would count if lucky if the UK switched to the EU by 2015.

Re:UK ID Cards

[perly-king-69]

I would count if lucky if the UK switched to the EU by 2015.

And hand over control of our monetary policy an d interest rates the unaccountable, undemocratic ECB?

Re:UK ID Cards

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean hand it over from the unaccountable, undemocratic BOE?

Re:UK ID Cards

[azzy]

Some of us would count that as unlucky :)

Re:UK ID Cards

[perly-king-69]

Who are at least accountable to you via the democratically elected UK government who appoint their aims - at the moment to keep inflation to 2.5%.

You presumably think that interest rates of 2% which are what the rest of Europe require, are suitable for the UK, and won't add inflationary pressures on the economy?

Re:UK ID Cards

[lean]

As opposed to the unaccountable, undemocratic Bank of England?

Re:UK ID Cards

[will_die]

Who cares about that??
My only concern is as a tourist and having to deal will all the different currencies.
A single Europian currency is far better. :)

Re:UK ID Cards

[perly-king-69]

Is there an echo in here? See here for reply.

Re:UK ID Cards

[TomV]

Better that than control over our monetary policy and interest rates by the likes of George Soros, who pretty much singlehandedly decided to take the pound out of the ERM some years back.

Don't let people sell you the 'economic sovereignty' myth in a free market environment.

Re:UK ID Cards

[Tony Hoyle]

This government isn't accountable at all.. it's just about got over laughing that we fell for it and re-elected them. They do what they damned well please (yay democracy! Umm....)

The bank of england are appointed and aren't answerable to anyone. They do seem to try to do a good job though.

Re:UK ID Cards

[perly-king-69]

Sorry, did someone point a gun to your head and force you to put a tick beside the name of the Labour candidate?

power? food?

[Bazman]

Do they say how we're going to power all this new technology when the oil and gas runs out in fifty years or so? Or how we're going to feed the billions and billions of people on this planet?

I'm hoping for cheap, clean fusion as a solution to the power problem, and soylent green as a solution to the food problem. Ah no. Not genetic engineering either. Population control? Maybe.

Server slashdotted so no, I haven't read the article..

Re:power? food?

[kinnell]

Or how we're going to feed the billions and billions of people on this planet?

They're won't be billions and billions of people on the planet if there's not enough food to feed them all.

Re:power? food?

[Anonymous Coward]

>Do they say how we're going to power all this new technology when the oil and gas runs out in fifty years or so?

When I was a kid I remember people telling me that oil and coal would run out in 50 years. 20 years on, I still hear this 50 year figure being bandied about. Do you think my grandchildren will be told that oil and coal will only last another 50 years too?

We definitely need some form of population control otherwise it will be done for us.

Re:power? food?

[AllUsernamesAreGone]

"Or how we're going to feed the billions and billions of people on this planet?"

That question is based on out of date predictions of the population - in most countries the birth rate has declined significantly since the overcrowded earth scenarios became popular. The US is just about replacing its population, in Europe the native populations are decining (the worst case being Italy, where the birth rate has dropped well below replacement levels). Africa and the Middle East have expanding populations, but even there the rate has generally slowed. The last predictions I saw estimated that world population would peak around the middle of the century and then decline.

Re:power? food?

[Anonymous Coward]

Population control? Maybe

It's called AIDS. Now I don't buy the "gay plague" theory, nor am I a member of the fundamentalist Christian Right, but you have to admit it will make one hell of a dent in the African and Chinese populations for the next few decades, which is where the real population explosion has been. I'm not saying this is a Good Thing by any means, but it's a Thing nevertheless.

Re:power? food?

[Dave2 Wickham]

It's not always 50 years - A couple of years ago we were doing some work from a text book from the 70s or 80s, and it said words to the effect of "If we keep using fossil fuels at the rate we are now, the supply will be depleted by the year 2000" - see, that one was at maximum 20-30 years!

Re:power? food?

[Allen Varney]

"Or how we're going to feed the billions and billions of people on this planet?"

That question is based on out of date predictions of the population - in most countries the birth rate has declined significantly since the overcrowded earth scenarios became popular.

It's not a "prediction." There are "billions and billions" of people on the planet right now -- six billion -- and there will be through the rest of the century, barring total catastrophe. And asking how we're going to feed them all is a perfectly sensible question, given that a signficant fraction of the population (including a disquietingly large number of American children) are malnourished.

Re:power? food?

[Alomex]

given that a signficant fraction of the population (including a disquietingly large number of American children) are malnourished.

Actually we are making great progress on that regard:

The number of severely malnourished people has dropped from 1970 to today. In 1970, 1.7 billion people were struggling to survive on under 2100 calories a day. Today, that number has been cut to 411 million. The total percentage of the Earth's population that is underfed has dropped to 20 per cent from 35 per cent over the same decades.

Re:power? food?

[Blue Stone]

"They're won't be billions and billions of people on the planet if there's not enough food to feed them all."

Food will not be the limiting factor to human population growth - water will.

Re:power? food?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oil & Gas was predicted to run out in 1987... But due to the fact that oil & gas is NOT produced by decades old dead dinasours, it has not ran out, and likely, will not. Do a search for Thomas Gold. Interesting reads...

The gist of it is that Oil & Gas are part of the cosmic makeup, and hydrocarbons (*ie, oil) has been detected on other bodies outside of earth... Where are the dinosours that died to make it? If no life on other planets, then they must of be introduced via other means, such as collected when the planet solidified from the dust/vapor cloud surrounding a star.

Proof of this concept will be my prediction for the future.

Re:power? food?

[Lumpy]

Or how we're going to feed the billions and billions of people on this planet?

Why we will feed them with Soylent Green silly!

Re:power? food?

[xtal]

The reality will become apparent in the next 10-20 years, not 50. The first world will not feel the effects until the 50 year or more barrier because we have the military power that will guarantee a supply of the limited oil reserves. Enjoy the oil while it lasts.

The future is not optimistic no matter what you think the source of oil is. Some might say that it is the best kept secret in Washington.

Re:power? food?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget the Indian population as well.

Re:power? food?

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't going to help much that U.S. and Europe are declining, if places like Nigeria and Pakistan keeping spiking upward -- and what is the rate these days in Indonesia or Bangladesh ? (I ask because I don't know.)

Re:power? food?

[red floyd]

And most of that is political. The food is there and already exists.

Re:power? food?

[glassesmonkey]

Any one notice that we already DO feed billions and billions.. I think it is around 6.3 billions currently (ok so some percentage of them don't have food but we *could* feed all 6.3 billion of us)

Re:power? food?

[Luyseyal]

The article to which you are referring: [link]

-l

Re:power? food?

[Arleigh2]

And that's good?

Re:power? food?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do they say how we're going to power all this new technology when the oil and gas runs out in fifty years or so?

If we keep using oil for another 50 years, new technology will not be an issue.

Re:power? food?

[LanceTaylor]

The problem is not a shortage of food. There is more than enough food to feed everyone on the planet. The problem is getting the food to the people that need it.

Re:power? food?

[loadquo]

Food will become more expensive as oil and gas become rarer as transpotation of goods and farm machinery and fertilisers will become more expensive. It is possible then that we will be able to feed fewer people than we do now.

Also considering that if global warming does occur we may have a worse climate for growing food.

Re:power? food?

[greg_barton]

Do they say how we're going to power all this new technology...

Nope. But, try this.

Re:power? food?

[wongaboo]

While it is certainly true that most post industrial countries all maintaining a stable birthrate or in fact declining this has long been the case. However you completely ignore Asia (esp. China and India) where this problem is already exceeding the resources to cope with it.

Population growth is proceeding at a geometric rate (the time it takes to double is halved every cycle) and without some pretty liberal assumptions about the future of medicine, fertility and cultural changes in the next 25 years in much of the world the situation is dire. I know where you got your last predictions either from theUN or Princeton but these, very optomistic numbers indicate that we will have twice as many people on the planet in 50 years, a very serious situation.

Population growth is the primary source of environmental damage. -Jacques Cousteau

Re:power? food?

[Anonymous Coward]

>Server slashdotted so no, I haven't read the article..

Really? You obviouisly also hadn't read many other things you should have, such as the post above yours, with a Google cache link to the article.

Re:power? food?

[RickHunter]

This may be true, but the established pattern right now is that industrialized, developed, and stable countries tend to have lower population growth rates, or even shrinking populations. China and India do not fit any of the above criteria, though both are making baby steps towards them. (And are trying to convince the rest of the world that they're there to attract foreign investment) Over the next couple of decades, this investment should hopefully lead to more progress in this area (and not be channelled into making the lives of the upper-class even more opulent, as it is in the United States and other third-world countries) which, in turn, will hopefully reduce their problems with overpopulation.

One of the largest factors in reducing the population growth rate seems to be womens' rights. (Duh, if women aren't forced to stay home and act as baby machines, they have fewer kids) India and China both have horrible records in this department, though again, proper foreign investment and local economic development will hopefully help.

Re:power? food?

[Tony Hoyle]

Doom merchants love to create figures just out of provable reach (20-50 years).

I saw a programme on TV the other week that stated that the UK would be a frozen waste within 20 years (apparently the gulf stream is about to evaporate or something).

Re:power? food?

[evilviper]

Food will not be the limiting factor to human population growth - water will.

Not true. Although it is not a trivial process, the salt can be removed from sea water, which is more than enough for everyone that could fit on the planet.

Also, water doesn't exactly disappear, it's just redistributed until the water cycle completes, and it's back where it started.

Re:power? food?

[stephanruby]

Food will not be the limiting factor to human population growth - water will.

No, not water. Some people will still be watering their lawns when other people are dying of thirst. Water distribution, food distribution, and population distribution -- distribution will be the limiting factor to human population growth.

Re:power? food?

[stephanruby]

Not everyone shares the assumptions you're making. Some of us still remember the hundreds of doomsday scenarios of the past.

Unable to read or write?

[TheSpoom]

Whole generation unable to effectively read, write, think, and work ... 2050

Y do u h8 me?

Re:Unable to read or write?

[The One KEA]

|-|o\/\/ d0 `/u0 +|-|i|\|| |=0L|5 |i|3 /\/\3 |=33L?

Re:Unable to read or write?

[Discopete]

Congrats to the both of you for being part of the problem and not of the solution.

leet and the various "hacker-speak" dialects are doing nothing but pushing our ability to communicate with each other closer and closer to extinction.

Perhaps instead of making a joke of the current state of affairs, you'd be better off mentoring a child that has problems reading and writing, such as a dyslexic.

Re:Unable to read or write?

[Asprin]

It took me about 10 minutes to figure that out because the slashdot HTM filter didn't print the "<"s.

It sez: "How do you think folks like me feel?", and you need the "<"s to make the "K"s.

Re:Unable to read or write?

[ender81b]

One could argue, and I will, that internet speak is just like shorthand. Shorthand was used long ago (well think 1800-1900's) in letters to abbreviate things to make letter writing easier and quicker for people. Nowadays we have what you described which is really no different.

After all, despite you writing it like that any native english speaker would have little trouble understnading what you wrote, even if they had never seen internet shorthand before. People are still able to write effectively, for the most part, otherwise they just use shorthand when on the internet talking socially. Or, outside america, for text messaging. I cannot believe how many people here in europe text each other instead of calling and the dialect if you will that has grown out of this.

Personally I can't stand it but I understand why it is done and don't begrudge a person just because they do it. Well unless they do the whole I p0wnz0r j00 fagg0rtz!111 crap . :)

Re:Unable to read or write?

[TheSpoom]

Congrats to the both of you for being part of the problem and not of the solution.

If you've read any of the other, non-humour remarks I usually post here (and elsewhere), I rarely write in l33tspeak of any type. It's really up to the person posting whether they want to post in complete english sentences or not, and usually I get the feeling that anyone who *seriously* posts something in l33tspeak is probably making up for the fact that what they're posting proably has little substance to it. That said, you'd be hard-pressed to find me using complete sentences on something like IRC, where I usually find it's easier to express myself in shorter, quick comments.

Geez, don't take things so seriously ;^)

Re:Unable to read or write?

[Golias]

Actually, his post would have been very ligible, had the slashcode not removed all the angle-brackets and underscores.

As far as I'm concerned, '1337 is still funny after all these years.

It's functional, too: Instead of expanding ASCII to Unicode, we can reduce the keyboard set to numbers and special characters only.

Sarcasm. Also still funny.

Re:Unable to read or write?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps, instead of bitching about posts on slashdot, you'd be better off killing yourself.

The world would be a better place with a few less self-righteous assholes walking around.

Re:Unable to read or write?

[AyeRoxor!]

"|-|o\/\/ d0 `/u0 +|-|i|\|| |=0L|5 |i|3 /\/\3 |=33L?"

"It took me about 10 minutes to figure that out because the slashdot HTM filter didn't print the "<"s."

I have 4 characters for the original poster...

& l t ;

<<<<<<

Re:Unable to read or write?

[Richard Allen]

I agree with you, but I would add one point. My experience working with kids has shown that this "shorthand" in fact flows over to their standard writing. The problem is not that they use shorthand on the internet and text messaging, the problem is that they can't distinguish appropriate times of when to use it.

Re:Unable to read or write?

[Renegrade]

Long ago? 1800-1900s? Hey, my mom knows shorthand, dammit.. (old style shorthand; not this silly 'intarweb!!111' crap)

Re:Unable to read or write?

[grayrest]

Shorthand is decidedly different from the quick writing (as you've described). Shorthand was not really used to shorten written conversation but as a stopgap measure to accurately take dictation. There are several variants on both, as briefly covered here.

In brief, though, most shorthand systems do not look anything like longhand. They're phonetically based and each stroke generally represents a consonant sound. The consonants are then embellished with vowel digraphs because most words can be constructed with only consonants (same principle used in many spellcheck systems).

The idea is to be able to get all the details quickly and then to transcribe your notes to make a full reproduction of the original. To this end, most systems (gregg, teeline, quickwriting) are not capable of reproducing the full longhand vocabulary and are more or less used for transcribing exclusively. Almost every system was designed to be used by reporters, secretaries, clerks, and others who could be educated in the system. None that I know of were designed to make writing easier (the Korean system is, but that's not really a shorthand system).

Shorthand writing systems were obsoleted in practice by the stenography machines used in courtrooms today. I believe the machines operate under the same principle, but I haven't looked into it. The rise of electronic typewriters and computers, which allowed extremely fast typing has risen to somewhat fill the role shorthand played in secretarial work. Journalism schools rarely teach shorthand any more and they usually teach the Gregg system.

Someone without training would be completely unable to read shorthand. It looks absolutely foreign.

For Tolkien fans, the Tengwar system (flowing script used for decoration in the LOTR books) works similarly to many shorthand systems. It can be used to represent quite a few languages, including English.

Why write this? I am fascinated by writing systems, particularly neat looking ones. I've wanted my own secret writing system since childhood but never was motivated/creative enough to invent my own. I've taken up Pitman Shorthand (which can serve as a full writing systm) as an acceptable substitute. With only a few thousand writers in the world, and most of them over 60 at that, it's secret enough for me.

Re:Unable to read or write?

[davesag]

Th@s cs txt msgs rk.

Re:Unable to read or write?

[ender81b]

Very informative - thanks. I figured it was used for letters since I've often come across nearly indecipharble letters, not just handwriting, written in wwI-wwII (history studies) and been told that they're using "shorthand." It must've just been a way to quickly write rather than a formal system like that geocities link provided.

Re:Unable to read or write?

[Locmar]

Please. Humans cannot NOT communicate. You may well consider "l33tsp34k" to be a degenerate and worthless means of communication, but the fact is that it is essentially just as capable of conveying the meanings of a word as any other form of writing. Is it a stupid fad? Definitely. Is it a danger to literacy and a signal that OMGOMG the sky is falling on our great society? Absolutely not. Think of it this way: even if leetspeak were adopted as the official means of conveying the English language, would it be any harder for children to read the old Latin alphabet than it is for them to read the leetspeak now? Children and adolescents have always developed innovative means of communicating with one another, and adults have always thought that these innovations were going to be the death of their language. This will continue until the end of our species, barring a massive change in the psychological makeup of humanity.

Re:Unable to read or write?

[wthynot]

Hate is an ugly word--don't be too quick to assume it's hate or some kind of insult. Try looking at it as concern for a moment. Things like "Learning superseded by transparent interface to smart computer" in 2025 sound cool, but doesn't it sound scary as well? Don't we have enough evidence in history that free thought is a good thing for society? Would you want to be programmed like a computer? How long before the remote "upgrade" includes some "behavior control" code? The thought is somewhat deeper than adolescents and teens typically want to go as far as worrying about their adult lives (Hey, I'm just saying this from experience--we were all there once). But I wouldn't advise reading into predictions like this as hate right off the bat; I say try to keep an open mind; that's something the young are largely admired for. And not all adults were put on Earth to tell you what to do. Some just want to give you food for thought--you may be the ones to protect us old geezers when things start to get out of hand.

Re:Unable to read or write?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whole generation unable to effectively read, write, think, and work ... 2050

Sweet, I'll still be alive to laugh at them!

Re:Unable to read or write?

[ShadowDrake]

>"Learning superseded by transparent interface to smart computer" in 2025 sound cool, but doesn't it sound scary as well?

Depends on the nature of the interface.

If we decided to trim school down to 5 years and, rather than spending 300 class hours getting students to memorise all the presidents/kings/grand poobahs, just told them "here's a 802.11b card, here's how you Google", it's the same deal

Re:Unable to read or write?

[wongaboo]

You have got to be kidding, "pushing our ability to communicate with each other closer to extinction." Language is not static, and never has been certainly coming up with creative spelling layering on double or triple meaning to words or phrases is indicative of a healthy ability to communicate.

Re:Unable to read or write?

[giblfiz]

mod parent up.

damn man, comunicating diffrently is not the same as being unable to communicate.

Re:Unable to read or write?

[TheSpoom]

Uh... It was sposed to be modded funny. I promise. ;^) But yeah, the thing was entirely in jest. I don't really speak like that.

Re:Unable to read or write?

[smyle]

Congrats to the both of you for being part of the problem and not of the solution.

Well, you know what they say: if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Re:Unable to read or write?

[StewedSquirrel]

Yeah, go and try to mentor a kid and you will go through so much paperwork and red tape, you'll think you just signed up to join the CIA.

After two weeks of repeated background checks and asking me to send in paperwork to the government, they informed me that my application had been lost. I was trying to do the right thing, but by the way I was being treated you'd think I was under criminal investigation.

Bleh. Call me lazy, I never went back.

Stewey

Re:Unable to read or write?

[wthynot]

I kinda figured it might be intended as funny, but since a lot of folks seemed to be reading it as serious, I decided to post a serious response. I figured it was better than laughing it off and making someone feel even more alienated by the old skool. ;)

Re:Unable to read or write?

[AyeRoxor!]

Ok, mod. You're right. With spaces, it's 7.

Re:Unable to read or write?

[Discopete]

Sorry for the flame, but after the Los Angeles Unified School district tried to make Ebonics a valid foreign language, I'm kind of fed up with "New" dialects of any language.

Plus, they now have children in the U.K turning in homework written in leet...

Re:Unable to read or write?

[Anonymous Coward]

My mom used shorthand all the time. I used to see little "notes" around of things she wanted to do, and these were written in shorthand, mixed with English. I thought it was strange at the time, but it was a great time-saver. In her later years, she kept a diary, but it was not done in shorthand at all. She died in 1985, of cancer. She used to complain that at work, all the people smoked like freight trains. I suppose the second-hand smoke caused the cancer.

Re:Unable to read or write?

[shostiru]

Contrary to popular belief, "Ebonics" is not a "degenerate" dialect. Among other interesting characteristics, it has tense forms not present in English. It's also not new, although the term "Ebonics" is. It also predates the term "Ebonics" (African American Vernacular English is the official term according to my dictionary). IANAL (linguist) but I believe the technical term is a creole (named, obviously, from Creole).

Further, the original purpose in promoting the recognition of "Ebonics" in schools was not to teach it as a foreign language (although I've known a few linguistic students who studied it extensively, thankfully science occasionally puts scholarship ahead of politcs). Instead, the original purpose was to be familiar with the dialect so as to facilitate the teaching of standard English. In this sense, it's no different than being familiar with, say, Spanish, if one were teaching English to children who spoke Spanish as a first language.

Whether this purpose was maintained once the politicians got ahold of things is doubtful; it certainly wasn't once the media did.

Predictions?

[JegaPrime]

I wonder is people create these lists to try and guide the future course of technology. By trying to predict what will technologies will be created, those that actually create tend to think along these same lines and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Re:Predictions?

[Derkec]

I don't think these people have a huge impact. Very popular science fiction authors, on the other hand, have a huge impact. Their imagined toys move deeper into the geek conciousness and are more likely to be realized.

Re:Predictions?

[Ronald Dumsfeld]

I wonder is people create these lists to try and guide the future course of technology. By trying to predict what will technologies will be created, those that actually create tend to think along these same lines and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

That's an interesting idea.

However, I think the prediction of "Kitchen rage" by 2013 is working from existing lines of development.

Picture it... A houseperson threatening to reprogram their talking toaster(TM) with a carving knife.

Please specify light or dark brown for your toast.

Toast this you electronic abomination!

Bzzzt!

Hello, Emergency Services? My owner is unconscious following electrocution.

Twelve to life for that toaster!

Re:Predictions?

[will_die]

After scanning through the list I think it went like this:

Manager: We need a list of future predictions. Everyone go to your desk and list 10 of them. I will then combine the lists and categorize them.
Most of them have no though to them, and others look like them came out of sci-fi movie plots.

Re:Predictions?

[meta-monkey]

TOASTER: Howdy doodly do! How's it going? I'm Talkie -- Talkie Toaster, your chirpy breakfast companion. Talkie's the name, toasting's the game. Anyone like any toast?

LISTER: Look, I don't want any toast, and he (indicating KRYTEN) doesn't want any toast. In fact, no one around here wants any toast. Not now, not ever. NO TOAST.

TOASTER: How 'bout a muffin?

LISTER: OR muffins! OR muffins! We don't LIKE muffins 'round here! We want no muffins, no toast, no teacakes, no buns, baps, baguettes or bagels, no croissants, no crumpets, no pancakes, no potato cakes and no hot-cross buns! And DEFINITELY. NO. SMEGGIN'. FLAPJACKS!

TOASTER: Aah, so you're a waffle man!

In other news...

[pesc]

BT describes the future as looking "ever more exciting each year"

In other news, scientists have discovered that the future is nearer now than ever before.

Question

[pubjames]

Question: Why is it that many people in the UK are get so upset about the idea of national ID cards, when nobody seems to mind (or notice) other even more "big brother" things that go on in the UK, such as the national grid of video cameras on every street corner and road?

Re:Question

[blane.bramble]

Because it's not a national grid of video cameras perhaps?

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

> Why is it that many people in the UK are get so upset about the idea of national ID cards,

Because they've not been abroad and seen how you can have peaceful, progressive countries like Denmark, where ID cards isn't an issue. They'd rather rant without thinking about it properly. With ID cards it's trivial to get rid of asylum seekers, for instance.
I think a lot of the complaining comes from the 16-26 year old student/post-student market. They shut up pretty quickly when they have to start paying tax.

Re:Question

[The One KEA]

Disclaimer: I am not a U.K. citizen.

As for their complaining, I think that network you describe has been successfully explained away as a method to protect people from crime. I.D. cards on the other hand can't be explained away so easily, which is way people are complaining about them.

The link I gave talks about it in greater detail.

Re:Question

[perly-king-69]

CCTV is going to be more like 'Little Sister' compared to the proposed ID card system. In 15 years time we'll all be forced to carry ID cards containing biometric information linked to a centralised database. And have to pay 40 (70USD) for the priviledge.

And yet no-one can answer the question: what form of ID will I need in order to get an ID card? eg Will a forged Turkish passport do?

Re:Question

[blane.bramble]

As a UK citizen, there is no network of video cameras. There are a large number of private video cameras (as in cameras operated by individual businesses for their own protection), plus a number of council-operated ones. They are not linked together, and outside of urban areas there are very few. It's a nice paranoid conspiracy theory though.

Re:Question

[perly-king-69]

...and we have reasonably good rights enshrined in law which allow us to inspect (for a nominal fee of about 10) the data any of these companies have on us, including CCTV footage.

Re:Question

[azzy]

Because when we've been filmed all day long, and then we get stopped in the street, the police still can't work out who we are because we have no ID.

Actually I think the entire ID argument is a little more complicated. We /do/ have ID. We have birth certificates, natinal insurance cards/numbers, passports, drivers licenses (without photos til recently), death certificates even. But what we don't have is a law telling us to carry them. It is not a crime to not have ID on your person. It is not a crime to not have any form of ID. Indeed, why shold it be a crime, why shold law abiding citizens be forced to carry proof that they are law abiding and not a terrorist, etc etc :)

We aren't even obliged to carry our driving licenses with us when we drive.

Oh, and according to the magna carta we can't be forced to build bridges over rivers unless we have an ancient obligation to do so.

Re:Question

[OAB]

I think a lot of the complaining comes from the 16-26 year old student/post-student market. They shut up pretty quickly when they have to start paying tax.

Bzzt wrong. As a tax payer I object to the govenment spending my money on a system to spy on me. But then again, I also object to the demonising of asylum seekers as well, so I might not fit you right wing bigot world view.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever tried to do this? It is a "right" which exist in name only

Re:Question

[perly-king-69]

No. My local council even provides a form (google cache of pdf) for you to apply to receive a copy of the footage.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

> right wing bigot world view.

I'm the OP. I'm not a right wing bigot just because I accept that something needs to be done to stop the thousands of people who end up in the UK each month. What was it the UN says...first safe country? So these people have all come the long way and not gone overland through Europe, right? My father was an asylum seeker - he came from Germany. That's persecution, not a bunch of Romanian freeloaders who've come here because the locals don't appreciate a bunch of theiving, lying peasants picking their pockets and burgling from them. (Ask anyone in any London police force if you think that sentence is wrong in some way. Ask them about professional theives in the West End of London, for instantce, and which country the children come from).

For the record I have no problem with the UK offering a safe haven to people genuinely suffering from persecution. (Although I don't extend this to members of the Taliban, claiming they are persecuted by the new leaders there (check this fact out if you think i'm making it up - I could hardly believe it myself)). ID cards will help keep the rejected people out, which ensuring that those allowed to live here can be sent on their way by (often racist) police officers, without suffering harassment from them.

You really need to get out of this `if you have a problem with asylum seekers you are a racist/bigot` etc mindset - it isn't helpful.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

I object because I beleive compulsory ID cards fundamentally alter the relationship between the individual and the state.

The agencies of the state become our masters rather than our servants.

I can't belive how placid and sheeplike most people are.

The same old "If you've got nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" bullshit trotted out by the braindead and terminally naive.

People need to wake up to what the UK government is doing to us in our name - esp. the crypto-fascists like Blunket.

Re:Question

[armb]

You should perhaps make it clear to non-UK readers that there aren't cameras on literally every corner, and nor are they really connected together in a national grid.

Re:Question

[TomV]

As a 36 year old employed taxpayer, my objections are based partly on the self-serving basis that I object to being expected to pay UKP40 for a card I don't approve of in the first place, rather than the government being honest enough to put the bill on Income Tax.

And partly on the basis that even if I trust the current government*, this provides a tool that a later, less trustworthy government could abuse very nastily.

But mainly on the basis that it's being presented as either an anti-terrorist measure, of whose effectiveness I am not convinced, or as an anti-immigrant measure, of whose morality I am not convinced, since I believe it's intended as a sop to the bigot tendency come the next election.

tV

* which I don't, as it happens.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

> an anti-immigrant measure, of whose morality I am not convinced, since I believe it's
>intended as a sop to the bigot tendency come the next election.

I'm not sure what your problem with the morality of anti-immigration is. It can only be used to confirm identity. If the confirmed identity is one who is allowed to live here, then they can go on their way. If it shows up as being someone who has repeatedly attempted to apply for asylum but who has been turned down, then they can be removed from the country very quickly. Who does this present a problem for?
I'm not sure about the `sop` thing either. There is a problem that a perceived lack of action against fraudulent, illegal attempts at claiming asylum were not being investigated or dealt with fully, if at all, and a suggestion that such a problem was leading to people voting for racist idiots such as the BNP. If this move prevents this then so much the better.

As for you having to pay 40 - that's not very much, is it? Less than a pound a week, and it's a one off cost. I believe it's been set at that level so people who "lose" (in quotes) their card will have to pay again for replacements, to dissuade them from "losing" them again. Won't it act as a passport too? I've heard that mentioned.

Like I said originally, other European countries have the ID card, and they're not totalitarian dystopias, are they?

Re:Question

[OAB]

How exactly will an ID card keep people out? It's not like they will be issued to everyone as soon as they turn up at Dover/Heathrow. The people you object to will do what they currently do, turn up and vanish into the grey economy or the criminal underground. At the end of the day, how do you tell the difference between one of your bogeymen, and a tourist?
If your not a right wing bigot, I suggest you use a more specific term than asylum seeker, economic migrant usually covers it. Your original post looked like it was suggesting getting rid of all asylum seekers, hence my comment.

Re:Question

[mikerich]

Because they've not been abroad and seen how you can have peaceful, progressive countries like Denmark, where ID cards isn't an issue. They'd rather rant without thinking about it properly. With ID cards it's trivial to get rid of asylum seekers, for instance.

You answered your own question when you used the word 'progressive'. That doesn't apply to the UK's political system. For all of Tony Blair's repetition of 'New', there is very little new about his desire to control every aspect of society.

I'd imagine Denmark doesn't have draconian legislation on association in public places or the right for the authorities to intern people without trial.

I expect Denmark has less of a problem with racist police officers, an unaccountable intelligence apparatus and inflexible political system. Denmark's citizens probably have a written constitution (do they?), a right to privacy and freedom of information.

And most of all Denmark doesn't have David Blunkett.

As for asylum seekers, the question you should be asking isn't 'how easy is it to get rid of them?' but 'should we get rid of them?' Not everyone grows up in a nice stable, economically sound environment. Hiding a problem doesn't make it go away.

Britain had a whole lot of Danish economic migrants around the 11th century - it doesn't seem to have affected us too much in the long term.

Best wishes,
Mike.

Re:Question

[TomV]

My problem isn't so much with anti-immigration per se, as with the use of it as a selling point for every authoritarian knee-jerk move in the knowledge that a lot of people will accept it, with the feeding of a sense of hysteria, where a Home secretary uses terms like 'flooded with immigrants', and with the way I fear it may be implemented by a police serivce which is still clearly riddled with institutional racism despaite all attempts to root it out - the ID card has the potential to be the 'sus' laws all over again.

And as for the 40 quid, well, I can afford it easily. For other people, it's a whole week's income and I object to the idea that they should pay the same as I will, rather than using general taxation - if it's to benefit everyone, then it should be paid for like other things which benefit everyone such as schools, hospitals, policing: through progressive taxation dependent on income levels rather than a flat fee.

As for the passport element, the card will be issued with new passports, but the existing passportt fee will still be payable, *plus* the 40 quid for the ID card. Same for Drivers' licenses.

Re:Question

[mikerich]

As for you having to pay 40 - that's not very much, is it? Less than a pound a week, and it's a one off cost.

No, it will be renewable every x years (either 7 or 10) just like passports. And that's assuming that the system isn't completely smashed by counterfeit cards. You can bet that when forged Blunkettcards appear it will be the people not the Dear Leader who will pay the surcharge.

Like I said originally, other European countries have the ID card, and they're not totalitarian dystopias, are they?

None of them have biometric cards designed to be plugged into a national database.

And more importantly, none of them have such a ramshackle contract between citizen and state as the UK. The whole ID card fiasco (and I think I can safely predict that) will not grant any of us any additional rights or freedoms - it will just cost us money to have a few of them taken away.

Want your personal information linked between government databases? No problems - this government thinks that's a GREAT idea (despite being illegal under the Data Protection Act). Want any council employee to pull your internet browsing record or read your emails? No worries, New Labour is trying to amend their own Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act to do that. Your electoral register record? Available to marketing companies unless you checked that little tiny box hidden near the bottom of the page. How about your confidentail medical records? Well Alan Milburn has allowed the drugs companies to see those.

This is a government that cannot be trusted with confidential information. It should not be allowed to acquire any more control over your data.

Best wishes,
Mike.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

> economic migrant

No problem with those if they apply for work permits etc. .How exactly will an ID card keep people out? It's not like they will be issued to everyone .as soon as they turn up at Dover/Heathrow. The people you object to will do what they .currently do, turn up and vanish into the grey economy or the criminal underground. At the .end of the day, how do you tell the difference between one of your bogeymen, and a .tourist?

All EU countries will have ID cards eventually. That's what this is about. We'll have Schengen agreements are part of EU membership.

If you're a tourist you'll have a passport. If you're a resident you'll have an ID card. If you're stopped by the police as a result of an investigation into a crime, or just a sweep against (lets call them) illegals, you'll get the choice to show your ID card. If you don't, you get arrested and held until you change your mind and produce a card, show your passport, or get deported.

People don't just `disappear`. Either you get a job, or you claim benefits. It's getting harder to get a legitimate job here without a work permit/proof of UK residency. Simply compel people to produce the ID card to claim benefits or get a job and you'll do a lot to make it impossible to live in the UK without one.

Re:Question

[OAB]

Right, so you are right wing. What you are proposing has a name, it's called a police state, and I for one do not want one.
Lets try rewording one of your statements shall we. Or just a sweep against (lets call them) Jews.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

> Or just a sweep against (lets call them) Jews.

Or replace Jews with Sex Offenders, or Rapists. See how worthless your logic is?

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, given that I'm the OP and I pointed out that my father had to leave Germany. Care to guess which racial/religious group he might have belonged to?

How is asking for a card to show that you are who you say you are - in an age where there is much to be gained by identity fraud - the sign of a police state? Is Denmark a police state? I think not.

I just don't understand how having a unified piece of ID makes a country any worse. I know it's not a cure-all for all sorts of crime, but it manifestly will stop some sorts, and it's hard to think of a less intrusive solution. How do YOU propose a country might stop people from lying and breaking the law to enter the UK? I know YOU might not want to do so, but it's a democracy and more people do than don't.

Re:Question

[OAB]

Look, does Denmark not have some type of crime that the UK doesn't? If not, what does an ID card gain, and frankly, all that stuff about 'Police sweeps' still sounds like a police state to me. Do you trust the labour party, do you trust the torys, and do you trust any party that might be elected in the future, because I sure as hell don't.
And you still hanvn't given anything like proof that an ID card will stop any crime.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

>Look, does Denmark not have some type of crime that the UK doesn't? If not, what does
>an ID card gain

So you concede, then, that the introduction of an ID card does not, per se, imply a police state.

Yes, Denmark has crime. But it's a much less violent place than the UK. How much, if at all, this has to do with an ID card is open to question, but, again, it doesn't make a country more violent or lawless.

I don't buy the `what about future, less democratic governments` argument. If such a government were to arise, it would do what it wanted regardless of the current situation. It wouldn't need ID cards, as most of the data mooted as being stored on the cards is available to them already.

>And you still hanvn't given anything like proof that an ID card will stop any crime.

It won't stop crime, it simply confirms identity. How do you propose we stop people who aren't entitled to work in the UK without some way of determining who they are and whether or not they are allowed to work? How do we make it easy to allow someone to work without such a card?
What about car accidents - currently you can lie to the driver of the other car, so when you go to make an insurance claim they'll just tell you that the other driver lied and the accident isn't covered.
What about stopping people from buying alcohol from shops/pubs unless they are old enough.
What about credit card/cheque fraud, which costs millions of pounds a year - that would be cut down if you had to present an ID card at point of sale. Ditto benefit claims. As a working taxpayer, I have no problem with somone having to confirm their identity before getting a hand-out, or are you blind to the massive fraud in the benefit system, especially as relates to housing where people use multiple ID to make multiple claims?
Basically, whereever identity fraud flourishes there'll be an opportunity for ID cards to reduce the problem.

Highest earning celebrity

[inc01]

Highest earning celebrity is synthetic ... 2010

The way I see it, Michael Jackson, Madonna and Britney Spears are synthetic already.

Re:Highest earning celebrity

[highwebl]

Or at least they should qualify as "enhanced".

Re:Highest earning celebrity

[LeoDV]

Michael Jackson and Britney Spears I can see, but Madonna how so? Sure she changes image every couple albums, but it only means she's smart enough to stay ahead of the game. They say Britney is the new Madonna, but the difference is that the industry uses Britney to make money -- Madonna uses the industry to make money.

Besides, up to American Life she was making pretty good music, but that's a matter of opinion.

Re:Highest earning celebrity

[squaretorus]

Hurrah - I KNEW there were some gay people on /.

Everyone knows a group isn't complete until it has a gay member! Now I dont have to be ashamed of using /. - if its good enough for gay people its good enough for me!

Re:Highest earning celebrity

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd love to synthasize me a couple britney spearses....

Re:Highest earning celebrity

[glassesmonkey]

She kissed Britney as a publicity stunt.. Wake up and smell the corporate shill..

Re:Highest earning celebrity

[LanceTaylor]

Like Shrek or Gollum??

Re:Highest earning celebrity

[uwquazi]

I can see it being Gollum.

I heard his agent is a real shark.

Re:Highest earning celebrity

[Anonymous Coward]

Like he said. She can play the game. She calls the shots though, and makes a killing doing it.

Oh, sure, you say that *now*..

[Channard]

You're just bitter because I won't give you a lift in my flying car after you drunk too much synthi-hol and puked up your food pills all over the back seat.

Re:Oh, sure, you say that *now*..

[Genghis9]

Actually, the reason I'm bitter is because you got modded to 4, and I'm still at 2. :)

Re:Oh, sure, you say that *now*..

[Frequency Domain]

Actually, the reason I'm bitter is because you got modded to 4, and I'm still at 2. :)

What do you expect? This is "News for Nerds," the ones who have studied French (oops, make that Freedom!) haven't studied humor and vice-versa.

Re:rise of an American dictator in 2000

[bain]

Ohh moderator of little humour.

Google cache (mirror)

[emcron]

Here's the google cache, which is a text format of the pdf:

http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:OuHNJeCwdWUJ: www.btexact.com/docimages/42270/42270.pdf+introduc tion+of+ID+cards+in+the++site:btexact.com&hl=en&ie =UTF-8

Re:rise of an American dictator in 2000

[bain]

It's ironic that the tagline at the bottom of ./ was
"An American's a person who isn't afraid to criticize the president but is always polite to traffic cops."

And the subsequent..

[Channard]

.. crash of the Borg's OS after applying the latest MS patch, crippling the collective. The borg themselves are quickly 'rescued' by the Weyland-McDonalds corporation and put to worth behind fast food counters across the solar system. Meanwhile, the Borg Queen, deprived of her power base, becomes a cam-whore, running her own pay-per-view website.. slogan.. 'Come and watch me assimilate barely legal teens.'

Re:And the subsequent..

[Luigi30]

What, after all these doomsday ideas, nobody wants to just let the Borg die?

Orgasm mails?

[marvin2k]

like an orgasm via e-mail in 2010

Right, and when the spammers get this the productivity of the internet-connected world will drop to zero.

Boss: Any important emails today?
Employee: (checks) AHH! MMH! OOHH! YESSS! ... nope, just spam.

Re:Orgasm mails?

[apachetoolbox]

SPAM ME! SPAM ME! SPAM ME!

Missed one...

[g_attrill]

2004: Slashdot posts 100,000th dupe

Re:Missed one...

[Anonymous Coward]

And:-

2005: Slashdot posts 150,000th Linux ready for desktop article

hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

AI chatbots indistinguishable from people by 95 % of population by 2005.....

Is that a statement on the development of AI or a statement about 95% of the population?

Re:hmmm

[vidarh]

I'm pretty sure it's a statement about 95% of the population. A few years ago I was discussing writing a dating chatterbot for irc with a guy I knew. We were both heavy irc'ers at the time, and used irc primarily to meet women (the shocking this is it worked very well) and we were struck by how easy and predictable it was - if what you were after were getting girls contact details what worked best was sticking to a few successful patterns, and just moving on if you didn't get anywhere (it's not as if I at the time was looking for a lasting relationship ;) )

So at some point I set up a few _really_ simple bots.

The first one only responded with the same line over and over again whenever it was msg'd. At least on person kept on messaging it regularly over a period of half an hour, getting more and more upset that it kept on saying the same thing, and after a while getting pissed off that it kept answering even when he asked it to shut up :)

The second one just cycled through 4-5 canned responses and started over. People kept talking to it, and pointing out that it had said the same things before, and started giving details about themselves.

The third one looked for a trigger word in the message it got, and chose a sequence of messages based on that, and then cycled through the sequence. If no trigger word was present, it would choose a random sequence. If a trigger word for a different sequence occured while cycling through a sequence, it would switch sequences.

All in all it had a grand total of 20-25 messages.

The record conversation (based on a run of a couple of days) was one and a half hours... At that point I became disillusioned and dropped the whole thing. I still think that a few weeks of work and I'd easily have a chatterbot capable of picking up real women and getting their phone numbers in droves...

Now, imagine how long people will speak to Eliza or a chatterbot that someone actually make an effort on.

The reason bots fail the Turing test is because the judges know there's a chance they are talking to a machine. In chat rooms, most users are clueless that a bot could be capable of actually engaging them in something that seems like a conversation, and most people make so many mistakes, evade questions, give weird answers, have problems with the language etc., that people are VERY forgiving of the answers they get.

From watching one of the girls I met on IRC years ago chatting, I first realized why that is so: The typical "normal" user often follow conversations very superficially. They switch a lot between different conversations, but often seem not to put any effort in keeping track of the overall flow of a specific conversation. So if your bot get into trouble, it can get itself right out of trouble by simply ignoring "difficult" messages and answering something completely unrelated and randomly changing subjects and a large part of the people it talks to won't react at all, because they do the same thing themselves all the time.

Re:hmmm

[kabocox]

Uh, it is a statement on 95% of the population. The only way we will ever get AI to the human level is to completely dumb down the level of human to the state of the average level of AI's. It might take another 50 years or so, but one way or another we will get there!

Re:hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

That's awesome. Now what you need is for the bot to be able to determine whether a girl is ugo or not. Then, it'll weed out the fatties, and produce for you phone numbers of hot girls. Technology at its finest!!

Re:hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

That record conversation was probably with another bot.

Re:hmmm

[The boojum]

Have you seen AOLiza? Same concept except with AIM and very amusing.

Orgasm via email?

[boer]

What's this from an old telecom monopoly! Orgasm via POTS would've made more business sense.

Re:Orgasm via email?

[Coelacanth]

Of course it does. That's why we have it already. And it shows up as "movie hotline" on your phone bill!

They forgot the snow..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup.. they forgot the Ice Age that will be in full swing by 2030... www.iceagenow.com

That should cull the world population a bit.

The submission is flamebait

[Anonymous Coward]

The 'rise of an American dictator in 2000' is a reasonable prediction??? This is the first time I've seen a submission that was in itself flamebait...

Re:The submission is flamebait

[Chalybeous]

See also:
Stupid White Men and Dude, Where's My Country? by Michael Moore

Re:The submission is flamebait

[feldsteins]

Have you had a look at your White House lately?

Yes. And I think you have some very valid points. Please know that some of us patriotic Americans actually see the problem. We're not all jingoistic idiots. We see.

Re:The submission is flamebait

[escallywag]

If you didn't have that nagging feeling in the back of your head that there might be some truth in that prediction you wouldn't consider this flamebait to begin with...

Exagurated usefulness more like.

[Channard]

Or also exagurate the usefulness of the items predicted - not this list specifically, but in general. Take flying cars, for example. The first person - or the first few early adoptors - to get a flying car would have fun for a while, then they'd end up being regulated, traffic lanes would be created, and it'd be like The Fifth Element.

Re:Exagurated usefulness more like.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the start of Futurama. It's more accurate

Re:Exagurated usefulness more like.

[ajnlth]

Yes, but since there would be very little need for making roads with curves it would probably be very easy to develop an AI to drive the car.

The additional dimension would allow for much more traffic withour creating jams. (the lanes at higher alltitude could serve as "highways", so you wouldn't have to drive the distance to the next onramp before you pick up speed.)

I guess that if you consider driving a hobby this is bad news, but if you just like fast transportation it's good. And I suppose it wouldn't be to hard to "build" areas outside the city centers were people could do some leasure driving.

Re:Exagurated usefulness more like.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey this is clearly wrong!!
Flying cars would be way more usefull because they would operate in 3-space unlike cars. So, they'd have an extra diminsion of room so you could pack many (like 1000 times more being conservative) more in the same area of ground.

Rise of an American Dictator...

[mdemeny]

I thought this was a joke by the moderator, but if you look at the Addendum they republish 'Wildcards' based on an original idea by John Petersen, The Arlington Institute. This includes Rise of an American Dictator in 2000 (where 2000 is the earliest possible occurence).

Re:Rise of an American Dictator...

[Zocalo]

Yeah, and when the BBC performs its next periodic update of the timeline they will update this to read either "2004" or "2008" depending on which side of the upcoming US Presidential elections they update.

Assuming they didn't get it right the first time and that there actually is a 2004 Presidential election of course.

Re:Rise of an American Dictator...

[highwebl]

Yeah, try to say that when they are taking you awa... AAAaaaarrrrgggghhhhhH! Wait a minute. Noone stops to write "... AAAaaaarrrrgggghhhhhH!" Perhaps he was dictating.

Re:Rise of an American Dictator...

[k_187]

Actually, Bush didn't assume power until 2001, so technically they're wrong and no dictator arose in 2000.

Re:Rise of an American Dictator...

[ultrasound]

Yeah, and when the BBC performs its next periodic...

Correction: BT, not the BBC, another Great British Institution that is slowly going down the pan.

The guys at Martlesham Heath that are responsible for this report (BT main R&D centre) have produced some pretty funky stuff in their time. Including inventing the hyperlink in 1927 :-)

Re:Rise of an American Dictator...

[argStyopa]

No, it's just the continued beating of a political dead horse. Why don't they just say that he "assumed" power since he "wasn't legally elected anyway".

Personally, this place would better be called \. since it tilts clearly to the left.

Re:Rise of an American Dictator...

[putamare]

Silly rabbit! The real dictator is Halliburton; Bush is simply an Banamesque obfuscation.

Re:Rise of an American Dictator...

[kabocox]

Those secret societies that covertly control both parties already have the settings for an American Dictator. For PR purposes though the word dictator is bad and must be have the political correct term of "democratically elected president." Either party was going to led to a controled offical that would please the party for re-election while honestly thinking that they are improving the country.

I'd love to know who is actually running the country. It certainly isn't elected officals. I am just an American peasant so I really shouldn't wonder though. It might get me disappeared in 10 to 20 years.

Re:Rise of an American Dictator...

[ShortedOut]

The general populous of America couldn't give two shits about the Government. It wouldn't suprise me to see an American Dictator in our lifetime.

Let's see...
Propaganda Machine, Check - US media controls the minds of the US

Apathy towards Govt, Check - People just don't care anymore.

Ignorance, Check - Students can recite facts, but don't know the meaning.

Patriotism(Nationalism), Check - The worst brand a politician can get, the biggest epithet is to be called unpatriotic. Expect to see some "Unpatriotic McArthyism" in our lifetime.

Special Interest Groups have more voice than the populous, Check - RIAA, etc. If you're a politician, you befriend the FCC, RIAA, etc, you get the spin you need.

So yeah, I totally see an American Dictator within our lifetimes, only he won't be called "Dictator", that's unpatriotic.

Re:Rise of an American Dictator...

[CXI]

Some people think if you say it enough times, it might become true. They try it for Bush, and they try it for BSD and they fail with both. Seems like such a waste of time to me...

Re:Rise of an American Dictator...

[b-baggins]

US Medica controls the minds of the US. Yep. That's why 90% of press coverage in Iraq is critical of Bush's handling of the situation and 70% of Americans approve of Bush's handling of same.

Apathy towards Gov't. Yep, that's why California had a recall this year with the highest voter turnout in the state's history. Yep, people don't care.

Ignorance. I'll grant you this one; I read your post.

Patriotism. Yep. Saying that it is the US fault that 3000 of its citizens were killed by murdering thugs is a shining example of pure and noble dissent. See my observation on ignorance.

Special Interest Groups - PACs and other interests groups ARE the voice of the people. Jefferson called them factions and considered them essential to a healthy government. See my reference to ignorance above.

It is not the Republicans or Conservatives who have made the Orwellian phrase: It depends on what is is, their ideological motto, and it won't be from those ranks that an American dictator rises.

Re:Rise of an American Dictator...

[ShortedOut]

The reason for the high turnout in the California election was due to the MEDIA coverage because ARNOLD "the movie star" was elected.

The fact that he was elected shows both apathy AND ignorance.

Your take on Patriotism is complete rubbish. Your view that patriotism killed 3000 people in the WTC attack shows how narrow your thinking has become.

We could still fight the war on terror without a bunch of flag waving nationalism.

Re:Rise of an American Dictator...

[Eamon C]

That's why 90% of press coverage in Iraq is critical of Bush's handling of the situation and 70% of Americans approve of Bush's handling of same.

95% of percentages were made up on the spot, and have little basis in reality.

Re:Rise of an American Dictator...

[Anonymous Coward]

Patriotism. Yep. Saying that it is the US fault that 3000 of its citizens were killed by murdering thugs is a shining example of pure and noble dissent.

If you keep poking an angry dog then you shouldn't be surprised when one day it bites you.

Re:Rise of an American Dictator...

[b-baggins]

A very nicely done Kill the Messenger fallacy.

Re:Rise of an American Dictator...

[b-baggins]

Your logic is circular. Try again.

Re:Rise of an American Dictator...

[Danse]

Maybe you should try something wild and crazy like providing some evidence for your claims, hmm?

How was it for you?

[Channard]

Employee: (checks) AHH! MMH! OOHH! YESSS! ... nope, just spam.

Scene 2: Employee sitting smoking cigarette... 'Well, that certainly put inches on me.. now, what's this email from a Reverend Obogdu of Nigeria all about?'

BT

[isorox]

Unfortunatly BT couldn't predict what time they'd turn up to connect my phone line this morning. Oringinally they said 8AM, then 8AM-10AM, then at 11 noone had come. I Don't hold much hope

Re:BT

[the real darkskye]

You couldn't be more wrong, the BT engineer accuratly predicts the 5 minutes you are unavailable because you need more milk for the coffee or are dropping the kids off at the pool to call round and then state you wern't in all day.

Re:BT

[markxsd]

I (honestly) kept a souvenir business card from a guy at BT Exact called Mike Hunt. The line "give Mike Hunt a call at BT" followed by handing over his business card is one I've inflicted on many fellow drunks over the years. FYI, I believe Mike retired from BT a couple of years ago and is blissfully unaware of how much joy he's unwittingly bestowed upon the world of depressed alcoholics.

Re:BT

[Anonymous Coward]

Having spent a year on placement at Exact last year, I can't begin to tell you how much fun we had searching the internal directory. The new most infamous employee is Bob Sherunkle.

The best dupe yet.

[chrome]

We've seen it all before.

I was thinking to myself, "You know, I think I've seen this before!". Why, yes I have. Last year.

by 2020...

[billimad]

...we'll have unslashdottable servers

Re: medical science

[the real darkskye]

but by implication you do forsee a great advance in medical science by anticipating being around for the next 100 years to not see them
If someone can make sense of that for me, please mail it on the top half of your boss to your local congressman/MP/bin man

Re:rise of an American dictator in 2000

[Anonymous Coward]

that's not funny, that's insightful!

BitTorrent?!?

[mikewren420]

Wow, first distributed serving of Linux ISO's, Paris Hilton pron and music. Now BT can predict the future too? What can't BT do? ;)

Re:BitTorrent?!?

[shadowcabbit]

Funny, I was just going to listen to BT. Now, thanks to Slashdot, I don't need to! ...

Be warned, linger on that page and music will play. Good music, mind you, but music nonetheless.

Or more curiously

[Channard]

Question: Why is it that many people in the UK are get so upset about the idea of national ID cards, when nobody seems to mind (or notice) other even more "big brother" things that go on in the UK, such as the national grid of video cameras on every street corner and road?

Or more curiously, why did none of the national press seize upon the fact that the London Council's webcams were mysteriously out of action wherever a war protest was taking place, either when the president visted recently or when the whole Iraq war thing started? And no, I'm not wearing a foil hat - check out http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/34062.html or http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/29883 .html

Re:Or more curiously

[Ben Hutchings]

That's Transport for London, not the "London Council" (I think you mean Greater London Authority). The mayor of London was involved in the protests, so I don't see any conspiracy here.

Re:Or more curiously

[Channard]

That's Transport for London, not the "London Council" (I think you mean Greater London Authority)

I stand corrected. I'm not implying some grand pan governmental conspirary, just that it seems odd that the cameras were off exactly when the protest were gathering that those locations (I checked out a few myself) and again when the protests were there when Bush was there.

BT have no bandwidth for slashdot

[BeCre8iv]

What chance my broadband connection - worried me.

When hell freezes...

[jotaeleemeese]

... BT's claim that they invented the hyperlink will be backed by a court ruling.

Two years old!

[Anonymous Coward]

And they didn't predict it would take two years to show up on Slashdot for a second (at least) time. This is two years old, come on.

Re:Two years old!

[JeffMagnus]

What was that about people being dumb?

The same way we do now.

[glrotate]

coal

Re:The same way we do now.

[ultrasound]

I don't know about you pal, but I'm not eating coal no matter how cheap it is.

Irony

[ikoleverhate]

This future's past it's sell by date. The white paper is dated 21/11/01...

Re:Irony

[Dave2 Wickham]

From the original poster of this article:

It's a bit out of date, but still pretty funny.

copyright 2002??

[lplatypus]

But why is this article copyrighted in 2002? It certainly sounds older than that. I'm confused.

Orgasm via email

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it isn't so far fetched

Ancient Chinese Curse Say:

[n1ywb]

May you live in interesting times.

Who, why?

[leandrod]

So who's BT and why should I pay attention to them?

Re:Who, why?

[Blue Stone]

They're the people who'll own the internet by 2002... oh, wait...

rise of an American dictator in 2000

[Anonymous Coward]

"Some are reasonable predictions, like the introduction of ID cards in the UK by 2010, or the rise of an American dictator in 2000"

Give me a break. What a bunch of leftist, sour grapes. Bush won legitimately. There is no conspiracy. Get over it.

hehe

[Bobke]

I've always thought that technologies of the future would look like magic to our current minds. Like how a set of fire matches would look like for a caveman or how a television set would look like for someone from the middle ages. So I strongly believe in nanotech. Growing a house would seam like magic to me now.

Where's my damn holodeck?

[Anonymous Coward]

They've got less than a month to get it up and running, according to the prediction.

And if the first set of predictions is to be believed, I for one welcome our new Barbie overlords.

Prediction for 2020

[Anonymous Coward]

"Cyberspace covers 75% of the developed world."
Hello? Google?

Dictator?! WHO TOLD Y- !

[Sgt_Jake]

oh... heh! Yes, those silly predictions again. {Smithers! Find that reporter and release the hounds!)

Rise of an American Dictator in 2000

[kentrel]

Who?

? What dictator? George Bush? The man who was elected fairly through the electoral system that's legal and has been in place for 200 years? Even though he didn't win the popular vote he got to his position fair and square... The guy also has to answer to a voting public next November... as is the legal way... He may be a screw up of a president, depends on your own personal opinion, but he got his position through a public democratic system and he'll either leave office or be reelected next year by a public democratic system.

I'm sorry but someone needs to go to dictionary.com and look up the definition of the word 'dictator'

Forget 2040...

[Chalybeous]

... the Borg might be here a lot sooner than that!
Does the name Kevin Warwick ring any bells?

From the above link:
In 1998 he shocked the international scientific community by having a silicon chip transponder surgically implanted in his left arm. A series of further implant experiments have taken place in which Kevin's nervous system was linked to a computer. This research led to him being featured in February 2000, as the cover story on the US magazine wired. Kevin also presented the Year 2000 Royal Institution Christmas Lectures with great success. Kevin's new implant experiment called 'Project Cyborg' got underway in March 2002 and is providing exciting results.

Fusistance is retail. Your ass will be laminated...

Re:Forget 2040...

[ultrasound]

Your refer of course to Captain Cyborg!, the most advanced cyborg on this planet, half-man, half-machine, half-wit and half-vegetable.

He is a true visionary.

The reg runs regular articles on his media whoring ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H major scientific advances.

The submission IS flamebait. so are you.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Have you had a look at your White House lately? Stifling of your rights and freedoms via the various PATRIOT acts"

I haven't lost a single right due to this, nor have you.

"stifling of any dissent as "unpatriotic", "

You must not live in the U.S. Dissent is bigger than ever, and unstifled.

"The US who rescued the Iraqis from that kind of treament are themselves treating Afghans (and others) the same way"

No, they are only holding members of terrorist groups.

"Bust my ass down to -1 as a troll if you like"

Someone should. Your lies are ignorant and hateful. Dissent is one thing, making up stuff is another.

"of Bush and his merry band of fascists soon "

There is nothing fascist about him.

" ( BTW, before you think I'm calling people names, look up the meaning of the term "facist" and compare their tactics for gaining power with what you have seen since that weird November day in Florida)."

I did. Clinton was much more fascist by definition, with his attempt to have government take over and destroy health care. He also promoted racial division. How did Bush gain power? The same way his predecessors did. He got elected. There are a lot of sore losers who want to ignore actual election results because their guy lost.

Your post is one of the reason the bush-bashers have so little credibility: none of your claims are true, and hysterical hate drives everything.

Re:The submission IS flamebait. so are you.

[vidarh]

No, they are only holding members of terrorist groups.

*cough* Innocent until proven guilty *cough... *cough* fair trial *cough* *cough*...

They could have been holding people responsible for genocide and the treatment would still not be justified.

While Bush may not make use of it, through the laws passed after 9/11 combined with the legal precendent that Guantanamo Bay is not subject to US law, he has effectively created a situation where government agencies can seize anyone they want, prevent them access to lawyers, and move them to a location where they have no rights and no legal protection whatsoever.

Bush might not make full use of them, but having established the situation, a future president, or even lower level government officials can, giving a very strong incentive for people with aspirations to power for seeking out the "right" positions.

If not fascist by itself, it's certainly a gift package to anyone who wish to further limit peoples freedom.

Re:The submission IS flamebait. so are you.

[Pike65]

"You must not live in the U.S. Dissent is bigger than ever, and unstifled."

*cough*

Re:The submission IS flamebait. so are you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Innocent until proven guilty does not apply to prisoner's of war. The Geneva Convention does, however. And that's something that the US always adhere's to, while most others who have ever held US POW's have *not*.

Re:The submission IS flamebait. so are you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whole generation unable to effectively read, write, think, and work ... 2050

Looks like they are off by about 47 years, this is already happening.

Fist of all the prisioners mentioned are not PROTECTED by the US Constitution!

You must be a US CITIZEN to expect to exercise these rights.

Please go back to school and stay away from the pr0n during Government class!

Re:The submission IS flamebait. so are you.

[TomV]

Given that Benito Mussolini knew a thing or two about Fascism, and given that he said

"The first stage of fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and Corporate power",

I'd say that the label doesn't look entirely inappropriate.

Re:The submission IS flamebait. so are you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that the US *isn't* adhering to the Geneva convention here. They say they don't have to, and justify this by inventing the label "illegal combatants" so that they can have the best of both worlds.

Re:The submission IS flamebait. so are you.

[JohnnyCannuk]

"Fist of all the prisioners mentioned are not PROTECTED by the US Constitution!

You must be a US CITIZEN to expect to exercise these rights. "

Or a member of any other counntry in the world, since most, if not all, of these same rights are guarranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a cornerstone of the UN which the United States helped create and signed in 1947.

However you look at it, the US can't on one hand go to war to bestow these "rights and freedoms" on one set of people and arbitrarily ignore them for another set.

If you are for the US contitution, you are for the ideas and fundementals it represents everywhere, not just the words on a paper.

Re:The submission IS flamebait. so are you.

[JohnnyCannuk]

Well, I see I have stirred a controversy and a good discussion thread (although I'm still a troll, apparently).

Consider this: As a Canadian, I have grown up never being out of reach of the American Media. Ever. Even when we only got 5 channels, 4 of them were American. I know quite a bit about the US and her culture (stop laughing Europeans). I have many friends and relatives in the US. I really feel I understand your country, being so close. Now, if, despite all of that, I can form a negative opinion about the conduct of the US government (as a large number of your own citizens have, by the looks of the news and this thread), imagine what kind of opinion a poor kid in a Palestinian refugee camp, or one that lived in a poor part of Africa or Malaysia would form. They don't know your country at all. While I can draw the difference between the American poeple and the American government, those people cannot (since most don't live under democratic regimes where the government can change on a regular basis). Thus, they hate all Americans.

They are very leery when the US speaks. Often because they espouse "freedom" and "democracy" on one hand, but support brutal dicators (remember Saddam in the 80's was our friend. Donald Rumsfeld thought so) or lock up people arbitrarily (as at Gitmo - an if they are all terrorists, shouldn't that be proven in a court of law?). So when you grow up with this and try to get out of your miserable life by joining a radical Islamic organization or the Shining Path or similar. Now, are you going to blame for all your troubles? Who's office buildings are you going to be willing to fly airplanes into?

If the US government REALLY wanted to win the war on terror, spend 1/10 of it's war budget in Iraq on medicine to wipe out polio around the world, or tb or any one of the hundreds of preventable, curable child hood diseases that our children never get anymore but kill millions in the rest of the world every year (yes, Bono's idea and I agree). Balance and consider the interests of everyone, not just your own.

Forgive loans to countries that the IMF ruined in the 80's with their "all-strings-attached" loans.

These people are more likely to admire and respect a country and a government that saves their lives with medicines and jobs rather than destroys their homes and infrastructures with bullets and bombs.

And if you want to go after Al-Queda, go after Al-Queda. Find OBL. Find Saddam. Finish the job. Don't do anyhting else until its done.

But don't pretend the war in Iraq has anything to do with freedom and democracy or weapons of mass destruction or support for terrorists. Nobody beleives it anymore. Come clean and move on.

I tried not to be preachy (I know, didn't work) but I genuinely care. The US has some great people and wonderful qualities that the rest of the world should know about. Right now they just see the only superpower running around acting like a bully, then getting upset when someone strikes back or dares question why.

See my sig:

Re:The submission IS flamebait. so are you.

[beakburke]

Pardon my ignorance, but the terrorists/gorilla fighters the US is fighting are not signatories to the Geneva Convention(ie, they aren't a "real" army belonging to a signatory nation). As such does the US have to honor the convention with respect to forces that have not signed it and are not bound in any way by such convention? What does the Geneva Convention say about this?

Re:The submission IS flamebait. so are you.

[Anonymous Coward]

ha ha ha ha ha.

looks like someone (you) didn't pay attention in government class.

fucking moron.

Re:The submission IS flamebait. so are you.

[smyle]

As what many here would consider a "right-wing kook," I agree with you completely. I don't see why this is a left/right issue at all.

Re:The submission IS flamebait. so are you.

[skywire]

Is it worth responding to such bilge? Maybe not, but here goes:

The individuals under discussion are not even afforded the right to prove that they are citizens. Bush says he is only claiming the right to treat non-citizens this way, but in practise, if his bare assertion that someone is an enemy combatant is non-reviewable by any court, then he can declare you, me, a political enemy or anyone else to be such with utter impunity.

Re:The submission IS flamebait. so are you.

[Anenga]

Aww, what peaceful little protesters they are too. (That's liquid feces, BTW)

Re:The submission IS flamebait. so are you.

[gangien]

They don't know your country at all. While I can draw the difference between the American poeple and the American government, those people cannot (since most don't live under democratic regimes where the government can change on a regular basis). Thus, they hate all Americans.

And hopefully in ten years or so, after the war in Iraq is over, Saddam is dead ect ect. They will get to see what the Americans did for them. Atleast, that's my hope.

And if you want to go after Al-Queda, go after Al-Queda. Find OBL. Find Saddam. Finish the job. Don't do anyhting else until its done

So what have we been doing? It takes time. It was March( I think) that we attacked Iraq, it's not even a year later. Look how long Osma has eben around after 9/11.

If the US government REALLY wanted to win the war on terror, spend 1/10 of it's war budget in Iraq on medicine to wipe out polio around the world, or tb or any one of the hundreds of preventable, curable child hood diseases that our children never get anymore but kill millions in the rest of the world every year (yes, Bono's idea and I agree). Balance and consider the interests of everyone, not just your own.

THis is treating the symptons and not fixing the problem. Iraq will have these things, when it is rebuilt and their system is put into operation for awhile.

Right now they just see the only superpower running around acting like a bully, then getting upset when someone strikes back or dares question why.

This really depends on who you ask. A CNN gallup poll, a while back, said that 62% of Iraqies(sp?) thought that what they have endured in the war, will be worth it 5 years down the line. I had it bookmarked but CNN has taken down the link. Funny how that works, something that doesn't seem to hint at trouble and/or conspiracy stuff, doesn't get as much attention.

They are very leery when the US speaks. Often because they espouse "freedom" and "democracy" on one hand, but support brutal dicators (remember Saddam in the 80's was our friend. Donald Rumsfeld thought so) or lock up people arbitrarily (as at Gitmo - an if they are all terrorists, shouldn't that be proven in a court of law?). So when you grow up with this and try to get out of your miserable life by joining a radical Islamic organization or the Shining Path or similar. Now, are you going to blame for all your troubles? Who's office buildings are you going to be willing to fly airplanes into?

I don't believe that this caused them to crash into buildings. I think that is what you call brainwashing, and being poor. And besides.. Terrorism is NOT limited to the US, to Europeans to first world countries, they seem to attack every damned where.

BT?

[joshua404]

Listen, I love the guy's music. Movement in Still Life was great. But honestly, what does he know about the future?

Re:BT?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly what I thought. Then again:

Remember, he has the MadSkillz even if he's Never Gonna Come Back Down he's still Content to be Embracing The Future. If he's been Dreaming and can see the Blue Skies from his Satellite then Godspeed.

Wrong.

[VendettaMF]

I've made use of this provision of the data protection act on three occasions. Once to determine the existence of, and demand correction of, a maliciously planted piece of false information relating to my work history and twice to ensure that the imcompetents in the irish tax office (revenue to you) had actually got it right.

More exciting each year!? No thanks

[KeithH]

I'd rather get my excitement from non-technological pursuits such as rock-climbing and motorcycling. High-tech merely substitutes stress for stimulation.

Whatever happened to technology as a tool rather than an end-until-itself? Do you notice how most of the items in BT's list offer little or no "added-value" - they are merely demonstrations of our technological prowess.

[No, I'm not a luddite. I love my toys and have been programming professionally for a quarter of a century now.]

Assumed? No, elected.

[Anonymous Coward]

"No, it's just the continued beating of a political dead horse. Why don't they just say that he "assumed" power since he "wasn't legally elected anyway"."

Except, he was elected the same way all other Presidents were.

The sore losers just can't let go, so they make things up. Sore right-wing losers impeached Clinton. Sore left-wing losers decide to ignore the Constitutional election process of the United States if their guy loses.

Re:Assumed? No, elected.

[argStyopa]

I agree with you, the "'s were ironic in nature. :)

Re:Assumed? No, elected.

[Valdrax]

Yeah but sore right-wingers attacked Clinton's lifestyle and the allegation that he lied about sleeping around with his intern and instructed her to lie. Sore left-wingers make the allegation that many traditionally Democratic Party-voting constituents were deliberately denied their right to vote via a deliberately unverified list of supposed felons.

One's a sad commentary on the President's sex life and our nation's attention to it. The other's a sad commentary on the state of democracy in this nation and our nation's attention to it. Guess which one of these two made headlines for months on end.

Re:Assumed? No, elected.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh god... do we really have to get into this again?

The elections in every state every year are a mess.

It is only because it was so close in this one state this one time that anyone noticed or cared.

People of all parties get bumped from the voter lists everywhere all the time.

People also illegally vote multiple times in every state at every election. Are you upset that B1 Bob illegally lost his office to Sanchez based on thousands of illegal aliens voting? No, you're not because Bob was a right winger and it's ok when it happens to the other party.

Take off your tin foil hat and move on. You're biased, you're boring, you're beating a dead horse.

Re:Rise of an American Dictator in 2000

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to remember, this is Slashdot, where the editors are very open about their liberal bias. They don't make any attempts to be fair...they flat out have no problem modding down huge threads to -1 and even refusing mod points to those who mod up such -1 threads. But all is to be expected from a staff that openly hired a corrupt and unethical person who censored censorware.org

Well, since Bush was elected....

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, since Bush was elected since he got enough votes in enough states to win the electoral vote.

"and is beginning to institute martial law, "

Hasn't happened yet. Thanks to Bush's efforts at curtailing the terrorists whose attacks on our soil could result in martial law, it is less likely to happen.

"and is using the country's military to invade and topple smaller governments..."

Only after these countries attack the U.S. and refuse after a long patient period to knock it off. Retaliation as a last resort to stop their aggression.

Re:Well, since Bush was elected....

[Anonymous Coward]

We need a moderation category "Fox News Viewer".

How dare anyone watch that biased crap. In fact, professional journalists are all biased because they are part of the kkkapitalist system, controlled by corporations. Even NPR. Who needs sources anyway? Everyone on Slashdot knows that the real news is in the conspiracy theories on indymedia.

Re:Well, since Bush was elected....

[Cplus]

What country attacked the US? Really, I'd like to know. I remember an attack by a multi-national terrorist organization, but not by any country since Japan and Pearl Harbour. Think before you recycle lies.

Uh, hello?

[Brown]

If you read the article, this is under the section 'Addendum: Wild cards (that could happen almost anytime)'. Along with 'Global nuclear war', 'Return of the Messiah' and 'End of the Nation State'.

The date of 2000 AD is just a theoretical minimum; These are specifically things *not* predicted to happen at a set time. RTFA.

-Chris

future as looking "ever more exciting each year

[Anonymous Coward]

of cource it looks more exciteing each year, with every year the future keeps getting closer, and someday we will be in the furure, someday...

i cant wait...

BT?

[AyeRoxor!]

I wasn't even aware that British Telecom had a humor department. It must be next to Silly Walks.

Oil fields

[nilenico]

Well (yeah, yeah), with oil: they are getting more out of the oil fields because of improvements in technology.

Don't know the exact numbers here, but in the North Sea they were originally able to get something like 30% of the oil in a field up from the ocean. Now, with the improvements, they get something like 50% of the stuff up.

Which, on a complete offtopic sidebar, is great for my pension, since Norway's oil income is going to pay for my parents' pensions, and if I'm lucky, mine.
But I'm not exactly counting on that and have decided to use the Calvin method: my dad works hard and gets rich (I hope!) and I inherit...

Silly lefty nerds ....

[cascadingstylesheet]

Some are reasonable predictions, like the introduction of ID cards in the UK by 2010, or the rise of an American dictator in 2000.

Sigh ... repeating something often enough still does not make it true.

You lost. Just deal with it. It was close, but you lost.

My Prediction

[IamGarageGuy 2]

In the future a concept labeled the /. effect will become a major problem that will plague sysadmins everywhere. This effect will also be a major pain in the ass for people that will be known as the /. minions. By the year 2004, the /. minions will rise up and start attacking random servers in all parts of the planet with shovels. This will be known as the slashback effect.

Re:Well, since Bush wasn't elected...

[Richard Allen]

I can't wait to see what people like you are going to say when he is clearly elected President next time with no margin for error ... the economy is rocking ... and Iraq has been turned back over to a democratic form of government led by their own people. I'm sure you'll come up with some other BS to bash Bush on, but at least it will be known that the last 4 years of your spewing was a waste. Watch me get modded down while the others get modded up. It's an interesting phenomena here on /.

The future is now

[novakane007]

"an orgasm via e-mail in 2010"
Wouldn't porn in your inbox be close enough to count? The results are same.

You have no examples of supression

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no examples of suppression of dissent. In fact, there are none in the U.S. Try again.

What you linked to was some lying spin on reasonable efforts to prevent rioting thugs from disrupting the trade negotiations.

In fact, the link you list is not even news. Klein is an opinion columnist. Try an actual objective news site.

Re:You have no examples of supression

[Pike65]

"Try an actual objective news site."

Yeah, very funny.

Why don't I just ask Bigfoot about it too . . .

But while we're doing this 'properly' - try Googling for "miama riot FTAA" (which I think you'll agree is a fairly neutral search string) and then do a quick check to see how many pages come down on each side.

Re:You have no examples of supression

[Anonymous Coward]

You want examples of suppression? Hell, the aftermath of 9/11 was arife with them. Over 2500 publicized (and who know how many may have been kept quiet) instances of FBI, CIA, Secret Service, local/state police, even ATF and in, raiding private homes without a warrant, usually without presenting identification os federal agents, seizing property ranging from mechanical typewriters, copy machines, computers, servers, and entire buildings (in one case tossing twenty-some-odd tenants out into the street in January) because the owners, "Produce or distribute material critical of the US efforts against domestic terrorism or the US Federal Government." Dozens of people tried and "convicted" (without juries) for such critiism. Hell, my university got a Cease and Desist order because a professor passed around a paper done by a student titled "War on Democracy", (The order, which was also passed around classrooms pretty widely, stated that, "Dissent or criticism of the US government cannot be tolerated during times of national stress." And that paper had been written WEEKS before 9/11 citing over thirty instances of US citizens being arrested and taken outside US borders.

Go take a look at the EFF site. They had page after page of links, with hundreds of such cases shown. It's probably all still there.

Re:You have no examples of supression

[Anonymous Coward]

The EFF is a socialist propaganda site... don't believe anything found there.

Re:You have no examples of supression

[Valdrax]

What are you, the Iraqi Information Minister?

Poster 1: Here's an article describing police suppression of political protesting and of media which isn't gleefully acting as puppets of the administration.
Poster 2 (IIM): There are no examples of suppression of dissent. There are none in the U.S. Try again. He is biased!

Re:You have no examples of supression

[Anonymous Coward]

After all, we all know that whatever side scores best on a neutral google search must mbe correct.

Re:You have no examples of supression

[hetairoi]

Looks like a good, old fashion Hippie Ass Whooping to me. Not everyone seems to agree about it though.

Maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle ... nah, it's gotta be one or the other, no way that both sides could have valid points.

To get this on topic, I predict that in the future there will be a police reality tv show called "Big Brother Beats your Ass" and protesters will make money from a line of video's called "When Cops Attack"

"The rise of an American dictator in 2000"?

[__aagmrb7289]

Flamebait, anyone?

Smelly telly..

[The Jon]

...using chips with small reservoirs of chemicals. 2010. also known as a friday night in with a video, some doritos and dips.

Retaliation for attacks

[Anonymous Coward]

"Oh of course, so now Afghanistan and Iraq attacked us?!? "

Afghanistan: Ever hear of 9/11? Probably not.

Iraq: Saddam attacked US (and other) peacekeepers in the no fly zones dozens of times. He was told to knock it off many times. He refused to do the reasonable thing.

"We need a moderation category "Fox News Viewer"."

Just call the category "informed". Fox News is a balanced and centrist news source, and the left-wing media can't stand it since they think all media should only be left wing.

Re:Retaliation for attacks

[f0rtytw0]

Afghanistan as a nation never attacked us. Granted there were reports of training camps in Afghanistan. I am glad that we removed the Taliban rulers in Afghanistan, they were bad but never aggressive towards us.
Iraq did fire upon the "peace keepers" in the no fly zones. Usually these "peace keepers" were bombing Iraq so I use the quotes. Iraq as a nation never attacked us. Another bad government that should have been removed years ago that we removed. Glad Saddam is gone but that leaves the entire region unstable. Iraq was a major stablizing forde in the mid-east becuase of their strength. With a stable region it makes it easier to get oil which is most likely why we supported Saddam in the 80's.
Now what about all the crap about "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq? Even I without any of the CIA intelligence could figure out that they didn't have much and were getting desperate to show they didn't. Everyone was all worried about Iraq while North Korea who admitted to having nukes was threatening us.
I hope you don't rely on Fox News as your only news source. Any one who relies on only one news source is not informed. And Fox News deffinately leans to the right. CNN looks centrist compared to Fox News.

AI Priests?

[unfortunateson]

Of all the wacky things in that list, the one that I think is least likely to come to pass is AI priests receiving confession. Well... maybe the predictions of 3D broadcast standards in the next 20 years is just as far out -- certainly the networks and electronics manufacturers are just as, well, catholic as the catholics.

But Priest-bots? C'mon. Even as an atheist with Jewish upbringing, I can recognize that the Pope would never allow something not human to represent the intermediary between the flock and god. At least, not without establishing divine souls being present within them. Maybe another 20 years? ;^)

The State is the master

[Anonymous Coward]

"The agencies of the state become our masters rather than our servants."

Perhaps you have lost site of the fact that the state has always been the master. That is the nature of governments. This kind of expansion and abuse of power results from the error people make by saying "the government represents us, so it is OK to let it take over".

Be ever vigilent. Remember that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Don't fall for the idea "the government is the people": it never ever is.

Re:The State is the master

[Anonymous Coward]

>>Perhaps you have lost site of the fact that the state has always been the master.

In the UK, the seat of power was (until quite recently) the landed gentry and a bunch of mega-wealthy industrialists. They basically told the state (i.e. government of the day) what to do.

Since WW2 however, the influence of the upper classes has dimimished to almost nothing and has been replaced in the main with a bunch of ambitious, unscrupulous politican/lawyers with media-baron friends who know nothing about anything, yet have an insatiable desire to control and intefere in every part of our lives.

Re:The State is the master

[mikerich]

Perhaps you have lost site of the fact that the state has always been the master. That is the nature of governments. This kind of expansion and abuse of power results from the error people make by saying "the government represents us, so it is OK to let it take over".

But... but... but... that nice Mr. Blair said:

"The people are the masters. We are the servants of the people. "We will never forget that and, if we ever do, the people will very soon show that what the electorate gives, the electorate can take away."
Tony Blair, 18th May 1997

Next you'll be saying he lied about weapons of mass destruction!

Best wishes,
Mike.

Re:The State is the master

[Anonymous Coward]

"But... but... but... that nice Mr. Blair said:"

Maybe he is well-intentioned. However, the government always wants you to think it is acting in your best interest.

"Next you'll be saying he lied about weapons of mass destruction"

He didn't. On the Iraq issue, he showed himself as a true leader.

Re:The State is the master

[Yer Mum]

Okay, whoever moderated the parent insightful obviously hadn't heard about the Hutton Inquiry.

Re:The State is the master

[stephanruby]

Yes, whoever modded it up is watching American news and little else.

Editorial/Flamebait in Description?

[slykens]

You know I've been reading slashdot for a few years now. Very infrequently does an article description as inane as this pass through. Are the editors so dumb as to let this crap through or do they not pay attention?

Come on, an American Dictator in 2000 is reasonable? Give me a break. Not even the furthest left liberal can say that with a straight face. You might not agree with the President, and you might believe that the Florida recount would have given it to Gore, but the fact remains that Bush sleeps in the White House and you have a new opportunity next fall to replace him.

In other words, quit crying over the fact Bush is President. If you don't like it make an effort to change it next November but please give this crap a rest.

Re:Editorial/Flamebait in Description?

[blincoln]

If you don't like it make an effort to change it next November but please give this crap a rest.

Yeah, as if the right wing set a noble example to follow while Clinton was president.

Wasn't this posted years ago?

[JeffMagnus]

Way to predict the past!

Decline of socialism

[Anonymous Coward]

"1.7 billion people were struggling to survive on under 2100 calories a day. Today, that number has been cut to 411 million"

Perhaps the reason for this is the decline of socialism, over all the world.

Mainland China has been moving from socialism toward a system where the people control the economy. During Mao's heyday, millions died each year in government-engineered famines. This is a thing of the past in China.

The most famous famine in recent history, in Ethiopia, was engineered when it was a colony of the USSR. The USSR is gone, and so is socialism in Ethiopia. The famine there is long over as well.

And now that the USSR itself is gone, I doubt the decentralized economy of Russia will allow a situation like Stalin's execution of 7 million Ukrainians through starvation.

When you get government off people's backs, they can feed themselves.

Re:Decline of socialism

[Allen Varney]

The most famous famine in recent history, in Ethiopia, was engineered when it was a colony of the USSR. The USSR is gone, and so is socialism in Ethiopia. The famine there is long over as well.

Wow, the number of errors in these short sentences is astounding. Ethiopia has never been colonized. It is currently suffering another terrible famine that began in 2000. This calamity has less to do with government than with drought, like the famines currently gripping Zambia and Malawi.

Ethiopia did flirt with Marxist-Leninist ideas in the 1980s under the "Workers' Party of Ethiopia," but as I understand it, it was still just the same kind of top-down authoritarian big-man system as it was under Haile Selassie, as it still is today.

There are many better explanations for any African famine than politics: bad land use, bad weather, tribal rivalries, extortionate taxation, short-sighted local planning, and devouring corruption independent of political affiliation. To attribute any African country's troubles to socialism is to miss a really large forest by concentrating on one outlying tree.

Re:Decline of socialism

[Anonymous Coward]

No error on my part. Ethiopia was a Soviet colony for a while, ruled by a Stalinist dictatorship. The famine was engineered by the government.

Moore is a racist pig

[Anonymous Coward]

Moore writes anti-white propaganda.

Silly kook!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Silly rabbit! The real dictator is Halliburton; Bush is simply an Banamesque obfuscation"

Another nut who looks at a leader they do not like, and makes up "he is controlled by _____". It has been done also for Clinton and the ones before him. Just another example of trying to make up stuff since you don't like reality.

And speaking of Halliburton, the reason the public rejects the theories about them is that they just happen to be the best oil equipment company out there. No matter who the President would be, they would be the best choice to hire for repairing equipment.

Too much attention...

[Joanne Va Beach]

Guess we pooped out their servers.

ObHomer

[sharkey]

...puked up your food pills all over the back seat.

Mmmmm, Soylent Green.

This is why we need state control

[Anonymous Coward]

"Propaganda Machine, Check - US media controls the minds of the US"

This is why we need state control of the media, to ensure that it acts in the public interest. If a democratic government controlled the media, there would be no censorship and no propaganda.

(Credited to Noam Chomsky)

Re:This is why we need state control

[ShortedOut]

Yikes! But what's more frightening, a beaucracy controlled Media, or Ted Turner?

Damned if you do...

Unfortunately, I don't see it ever changing. Thank GOD for reality TV. ;)

Re:This is why we need state control

[Anonymous Coward]

No, then it would be France. The country where insulting the head of state is against the law.

Sounds like a recipe for free speech to me!

Re:This is why we need state control

[Anonymous Coward]

If a democratic government controlled the media, there would be no censorship and no propaganda.

So I take it Mr. Chomsky reads the Stars and Stripes for censorship- and propaganda-free views of the war in Iraq?

Prediction: When will BT provide Decent Service?

[mr_lithic]

I would love to sort out their business services before they start predicting the future.

BT are a nightmare to deal with. Their lines go down and they won't admit to it. They get your details wrong and send engineers to the wrong place.

My current tale of BT misery is trying to get SNMP installed on our VPN routers which are part of their Business Managed Service. They have told us that they do not SNMP to manage our routers (which I find tough to believe). When we asked for it so we could monitor our own lines, they agreed to install it for a 1000 pounds per router, roughly a 100,000 pounds, (or 100 pounds per Cisco IOS Command).

So before they start to predict when we will fly to work in jetcars, could they first check and see when we will get a reasonable service from them?

"Simone"

[shakuni]

Simone, the Al Pacino movie, was a synthetic celebrity.

AIDS

[cybercuzco]

AIDS deaths peak at 1.7 million -2006

Um no. Aids deaths this year were 3 million people. Why is this not front page news every day in every country? When SARS killed like 200 people it was front page news for months. 3 frickin million people died last year from AIDS. There is no excuse that this should not be the single most important item on anyones agenda. If terrorists killed 3 million people last year what would the media do? Theyd be apoplectic. Tom Brokaw would have a seizure on screen. People need to get their priorities straight.

Re:AIDS

[HeghmoH]

Mostly because you can get SARS, and then die from it, simply from having been in the same room as someone who's infected. (Or at least can be transmitted through nothing more than casual contact; the popular image is that it takes practically nothing to hop from one person to another.) With AIDS, on the other hand, you have to actually share certain bodily fluids with someone who's infected. In other words, you can remain celibate and lead an otherwise normal life, and modulo infected blood or needles, you have no chance of contracting AIDS. And, of course, since the most AIDS cases happen because of consensual sex or drugs, lots of people have the attitude that it's their own damned fault.

SARS spread quickly and easily and killed a large proportion of its victims within weeks, which is a formula for rapid disaster. AIDS spreads slowly and difficultly and its victims continue living for years, which results in a much slower, calmer disaster. People don't worry about bad things if they take that long to happen.

Re:AIDS

[b-baggins]

AIDS is always in the news. It's constantly in your face in the news.

The fact is, 3 million people died of AIDS because they don't want to take the cure, or have been lied to about what the actual cure is.

1. Stop having gay sex.
2. No sex before marriage
3. Sex only with your wife after marriage
4. No drugs.

What was that African nation whose AIDS rate dropped to almost nothing, because their people were willing to take the cure, and their leaders were willing to push it and promote it?

Re:AIDS

[addaon]

Fantasia.

Re:AIDS

[JahToasted]

Yeah but most of those people are in Africa. Africans are just supposed to die... its not considered news. Millions of people have been killed in the last couple of years by the war in the congo, but do you hear of that?

Not enough oil there for people to care.

Re:AIDS

[Anonymous Coward]

(IHBT)...

WTF? ...all that bible thumping must be against your forehead.

"1. Stop having gay sex."

"Gay" sex does not cause AIDS. Unprotected sex with an infected person causes AIDS. What about the millions of people who have protected oral and anal sex in a heterosexual context? Are they running the risk of AIDS because it looks like "gay" sex?

"2. No sex before marriage"
"3. Sex only with your wife after marriage"

So, once you're wed before the eyes of God, he inhabits your immune system and his holy powers make you immune?

"4. No drugs."

I have to assume you mean IV drugs, since I doubt you're so ill-informed that you think Mariajuana or MDMH transmit HIV. Even so, IV drugs don't transmit AIDS if they're sterilized and you're not sharing the needle with an infected person.

"What was that African nation whose AIDS rate dropped to almost nothing, because their people were willing to take the cure, and their leaders were willing to push it and promote it?"

Um, maybe you're thinking of those North and East African communities that have adopted the Sharia over their democratically-instituted legislation? The ones that cheer on Osama bin-Laden? Are those the ones?

Are you a Christian, Islamic, or Jewish fundamentalist? I honestly can't tell from your comments.

Re:AIDS

[Anonymous Coward]

Your politics are showing. Gay sex does not "create" the aids virus, there being no reason for the cure not to be:

1. No Sex before marriage/partnership
2. Sex only with your wife/husband after marriage/partnership
3. No intravenous drug use

Re:AIDS

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot 1a: your partner *must* be a virgin.

(or at least celibate and no at-risk behavior for a decade, just to be safe)

That's just how unrealistic braindead B-Baggins is being. Don't feed the trolls, man.

Oh, and kudos to whoever said "oh, you mean the ones that adopted SHARIA...". I was wondering WTF this guy was talking about when you clarified. That took his trollness to a LITERALLY funny level for me, since I really suspect BBaggins is some banjo-pluckin, inbred, deep-south homophobic redneck born-again throwback to the 50's. Oh, and a cheap-labor republican, while I'm namecalling. The thought of the bigotry implied in bbaggins' message coming from someone that then suggests arch-conservative Islam as a solution... ROTF, LMAO.

Re:AIDS

[kcbrown]

With AIDS, on the other hand, you have to actually share certain bodily fluids with someone who's infected. In other words, you can remain celibate and lead an otherwise normal life, and modulo infected blood or needles, you have no chance of contracting AIDS.

Yeah. For now. Until the thing mutates into a form that is airborne. And then the problem will get much, much worse.

And guess what? The overall probability of that mutation occurring depends greatly on how many spores of AIDS exist in the world, which is strongly related to how many people have it.

Which means it is in our best interests to get a handle on the AIDS problem, and fast.

Of course, it's possible for something like the common cold to mutate into a form much nastier, so it's really all about the odds. But we know that AIDS is already nasty, and that all that needs to change is its ability to survive airborne. That may (or may not -- someone much more in the know should be able to answer this) be a much smaller evolutionary step to take than turning the common cold into something nasty.

Re:AIDS

[b-baggins]

Wrong.

The nation is Uganda. Look it up.

Re:AIDS

[b-baggins]

The nation is Uganda.

You are one of the reasons that 3 million people still die of this disease because you lie to them about how it is transmitted and how to stop that transmission, and you engage in Kill the Messenger fallacies against those who do tell the truth.

Re:AIDS

[evilviper]

Aids deaths this year were 3 million people. Why is this not front page news every day in every country?

Hmm, well let's see:

It's still not the #1 cause of death.

For the number of people it kills every year, research is MASSIVELY over-funded already.

It is easilly detected.

It is trivially easy to prevent catching it.

If an infected person is treated, they have a good likelyhood of surviving indefinately.

See Above. It's really more like 2.9 million poor people, and 100,000 people (worldwide) that the news media care about. (Not to be crass, just honest)

If terrorists killed 3 million people last year what would the media do?

Like car accidents... When something becomes to common, they don't cover it. If terrorist attacks were so common, people would be bored of hearing about it, and the news media would make it a tiny caption that scrolls-by as they go into commercial.

People need to get their priorities straight.

Yourself included. AIDS may be the in-vogue disease, but it doesn't warrant any more media coverage than it already gets, more money, etc.

Re:AIDS

[HeghmoH]

This seems extremely farfetched. I'm not aware of any disease that ever went from only being transmissible via direct blood sharing to being airborne. Do you have any examples of this ever having happened in the past?

The air is an extremely hostile environment compared to blood. A virus needs to be well-protected to survive it, and AIDS doesn't have the protection. Evolving enough protection isn't just a matter of waiting for a cosmic ray to hit the wrong spot.

Re:AIDS

[fyeles]

AIDS cure will be found by 2006. Most probably by South Africa. Tests are in advanced stages (conducted by the University of Natal and the University of Cape Town) already.

Re:AIDS

[cybercuzco]

SARS fatality rate:14-15%
AIDS fatality rate:90% when untreated Regardless of how its transmitted, it should be a bigger deal. Its not like people go through life without having sex, you can go longer than without breathing, but there are only 6 degrees of seperation between you and anyone else on the planet, so if you have sex with six diferent partners, and they all had sex with six different partners, etc. P{retty soon everybody has it. "Its not important because its transmitted sexually" is a load of crap. Its important because it kills alot of people.

Re:AIDS

[gh0$tmag1c]

i.e. smoking

Re:they got it right...

[Anonymous Coward]

You know Most of these /.ers that are saying shit about the dictator stuff, Most likely don't live in the US. They are probably all french people

2010: 25 % of TV celebrities synthetic

[dwalsh]

What do they think will bring about this decline?

The State is the master

[Anonymous Coward]

"In the UK, the seat of power was (until quite recently) the landed gentry and a bunch of mega-wealthy industrialists. They basically told the state (i.e. government of the day) what to do."

No, the seat of power was (and still is) Parliament. The industrialists told them what to do, and they were usually ignored. If Parliament were truly answerable to them, there would be no taxes and no government interference in industry.

" know nothing about anything, yet have an insatiable desire to control and intefere in every part of our lives."

That is a pretty good description of rulers in any place at any time.

Re:CmdrTaco - Communist leader

[SKS_realm]

So the current site is a communist propaganda newspaper?

Re:CmdrTaco - Communist leader

[Anonymous Coward]

It does seems to be leaning to the left more and more these days.

Re:CmdrTaco - Communist leader

[SKS_realm]

I would prefer Linus to be our communist leader.

Somebody should tell them...

[Bohnanza]

A number of these items already exist; i.e. Artificial Heart and especially "Electronic Paintings".

Come on, when was Adobe Illustrator released? And BT's never heard of it?

One other thing somebody will have to explain to me - why are they predicting things that will happen 3 years ago? The copyright date reads 2002.

Re:CmdrTaco - Communist leader

[SKS_realm]

2003: CmdrTaco turns /. into the city of trolls by allowing a post with "the rise of an American dictator in 2000"

2004: /. is now \. - clearly leaning far to the left

2006: \. is now known as the People's Republic of Trolls

2007: CmdrTaco chosen to lead the new nation of the People's Republic of Trolls

Can I get in on the leadership?

Re:rise of an American dictator in 2000

[SlamMan]

Just because you disagree doesn't make it a troll, troll.

Orgasm by email

[Cajun Hell]

If your computer has a "sex synthesizer" (either something as crude as a FU-FME or direct neural interface ala Larry Niven's "wireheads") that it uses to render the x-neural/orgasm MIME type, who the hell is going to wait around for a kind email? Just write up a little script to play it in a loop, and drop out of society.

And assuming you eventually get all you want from the aforementioned script and stop it, then you're probably not going to be in the mood to execute x-neural/orgasm email attachments at arbitrary times.

What's the point?

[Dan East]

Some predictions are slightly humorous because of their absurdity, so I guess there is some "value" in that. However the list is so massive that they will at least get a small percentage of their predictions right. What's the point in that?

Dan East

Re:CmdrTaco - Communist leader

[Anonymous Coward]

HERE HERE!

Attack from Afghanistan

[Anonymous Coward]

"Afghanistan as a nation never attacked us"

No, but its government did. That is why the U.S. retaliated against the government in Kabul.

" I am glad that we removed the Taliban rulers in Afghanistan, they were bad but never aggressive towards us."

Yes they were. They were united with al queada at the time. After the fact it was found out that "AQ" was actually starting to control the Taliban entirely (rather than it being a partnership).

"Iraq did fire upon the "peace keepers" in the no fly zones. Usually these "peace keepers" were bombing Iraq so I use the quotes"

The bombings by the peace keepers only occured after Saddam's installations targetted and/or fired upon them.

"Iraq as a nation never attacked us"

Technically correct. As with Afghanistan, its government did. Which is why the U.S. had a beef with these governments, but not the countries themselves.

"Iraq was a major stablizing forde in the mid-east becuase of their strength"

No, it was a major destabilizing force. The "strength" was used to attack other countries including Kuwait, Israeli, Iran* and others.

"With a stable region it makes it easier to get oil which is most likely why we supported Saddam in the 80's."

Oil had nothing to do with any of this. The real reasons were opposition to imperialism. The US did not want Iran or Iraq taking each other over, so it helped when one of the sides was losing.

"Now what about all the crap about "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq?"

Ask the French about it. As the Democratic leaders in the U.S. Ask Russia. They rightly believed that they exist.

"they didn't have much and were getting desperate to show they didn't."

No, they were desparate to hide everything. This is why the inspectors' requests to check out places were always met with "wait a few days while we clean it up, then you can inspect".

"I hope you don't rely on Fox News as your only news source"

I rely also on CNN, alternative news web sites, ABC Radio News, and NPR.

"And Fox News deffinately leans to the right"

No, it does not. It is balanced, and compared to something like CNN it looks right wing. But it does sit in the center. What else can you expect from Rupert Murdoch, who actually gave Michael Moore his own TV show to do whatever he wanted on for a few years.

How does rubbish like this get modded insightful?

[WIAKywbfatw]

Question: Why is it that many people in the UK are get so upset about the idea of national ID cards, when nobody seems to mind (or notice) other even more "big brother" things that go on in the UK, such as the national grid of video cameras on every street corner and road?

The above sentence is a work of pure fiction. That people still buy this crap is beyond belief. There is no national grid of video cameras at all - you just have to walk out your door to disprove this crackpot claim.

Yes, there are CCTV cameras in places like shopping centres, train stations, major road junctions and outside sensitive buildings but they are there to monitor customer flow, for passenger safety, to spot accidents and traffic jams, and to act as a deterrent against terrorists rather than monitor the population. And that's no different from any other country in the world, where shopping centres, train stations, major road junctions and sensitive buildings have CCTV cameras installed.

So, please, stop spreading such stupid FUD and stop moderating it as "insightful", when it's about as inaccurate as saying the Statue of Liberty is in Vietnam or that the White House is a department store.

Wouldn't time travel mess everything up?

[kalirion]

Time travel invented 2075 (earliest)
Faster than light travel 2100 (earliest)

Once time travel is invented, couldn't you just go far enough into the future to get all technologies that would ever be invented, and bring them back to the past?

Did you say flying car?

[Bombula]

Look ma, up in the sky!

Since when does BT predict the future?

[Eusebo]

And here I thought he was just an electronic music whiz

Oh wait...


(Laugh because it's funny, laugh because its dumb, either way I couldn't resist.)

The whole white paper is just made for /.

[glassesmonkey]

It's a whole white paper of cliches..
Introducing -- Welcome Our New [BLANK] Overlords BINGO v.01.11.21

Human genetic engineering creates hostile super-race (2070)
Humans assimilated into net (2075)
Immortality chip - people move into cyberspace (2100)
Self-aware machine intelligence (2015)
Robotic exercise companion (2020)
Cybernetic gladiators (2025)
Emotion control devices (2025)
Emotion control chips used to control criminals (2030)
AI technology imitating thinking processes of the brain (2018)
AI Entity awarded Nobel Prize (and has a PhD which took two years to get) (2018)
Learning superseded by transparent interface to smart computers (2025)
Creation of The Matrix (2025)
Full direct brain link (2030)
'Real' toy soldiers using nanotechnology (2035)
Insect-like robots used for crop pollination (2012)
Electronic life form given basic rights (2020)
Smelly telly using chips with small reservoirs of chemicals (2010)
Living genetically engineered Furby (2040)

Side note: wasn't this *last* year?! ==> "MP3 Net downloads dominate over CD distribution (2010)"

Poster 1

[Anonymous Coward]

"Poster 1: Here's an article describing police suppression of political protesting and of media which isn't gleefully acting as puppets of the administration."

Poster 1 presented lie-laden anecdotes put in print by an opinion columnist who has a long reputation of making up stuff to fit her spin.

"Poster 2 (IIM): "

I've not seen IIM, so I cannot comment about his post.

"What are you, the Iraqi Information Minister?"

No, nothing but facts here.

Re:Poster 1

[Valdrax]

Fine. I'll spend all of 5 mintues with Google News since you're incapable of doing so yourself:

Reuters AlertNet
United Press International
The Chicago Maroon.
The Cornell Daily Sun
The Diamondback
The Massachusettes Daily Collegian

The last 4 are university newspapers who had people there.
"Oh, no! That must mean they're biased since they're filthy protesters!"

Face it. People like you have blinders on. If someone says something that disagrees with your worldview, you'll loudly trump about how they're a liar and biased. In that way, you're exactly like the Iraqi Information Minister, going on and on about how there are no infidels in Baghdad's airport and how they're being killed in streets even as coallition forces roll over the countryside. Think, research, and stop making kneejerk, assinine posts accusing someone else of lying when you can't be bothered to verify the information yourself.

Re:Poster 1

[Homburg]

Could you give some actual examples of how Klein's account is 'lie-laden'? And I love the way you dismiss her as 'an opinion columnist'. OMG, she is capable of drawing conclusions from the facts she presents. She must be biased! (This bizarre idea in the US that there is some hard and fast distinction between reporting, which is entirely objective, and comment, which is entirely subjective, is probably the single most damaging feature of the US media.)

Re:Poster 1

[Valdrax]

The Diamondbank link was peppered with falsehoods about NAFTA.

Prove one thing that they said was false. Only one of us so far has actually provided some supporting evidence for their claims instead of just making blind assertions.

The Reuters account was as you would expect neutral. However, it lacked a description of how it started.

How the police action started is well documented on other sites. According to the Reuters account, there were roughly 250 arrests and the use of tear gas and rubber bullets on crowds when only about a few dozen of 15,000 protesters actually acted violently.

The UPI account, however, does imply intrusions by the protesters.

The UPI account is horridly one-sided and takes most of its content from police PR, but it was included for contrast. However it does at the end (in its small space reserved for an opposing opinion) explicitly state that numerous constitutional rights were violated. This is, as the original poster stated, an example of police oppression.

The Maroon account clearly describes the violence as being initiated by the protesters.

The Maroon account also shows that police took no effort to try to distinguish the violent protesters from the peaceful ones and that excessive force was used against numerous peaceful protesters.

The Cornell link clearly describes the protesters trying to trespass into the actual place where the negotiotors were to harass them. So much for free speech: it is OK for the protesters to speak, but it is not OK for the negotiators to assemble and speak in peace.

The protest was attempting to take place immediately outside of the negotiations. Protest means nothing if the leaders responsible for making decisions are kept completely shielded from it. It has no impact and becomes impotent. This is exactly the motivation behind the Bush administration's so-called "free speech zones." The protesters weren't trying to break into the meeting, just get their voices actually heard outside.

Also, the article mentions several examples of police brutality, which you conveniently ignore.

Thanks for these accounts. They show that the problem was initiated by violent thugs trying to harass the negotiators. (except for the accounts that do not bother to explain how it started). If the protesters had limited their protest to free speech (instead of violence), there would have been no problem, and no police reaction of any kind.

Must be nice viewing the world through such filters. All of these accounts clearly show that violent protesters were a tiny minority while police actions violently suppressed a large number of innocent people attempting to exercise their first amendment rights. Of course, some of these incidents wouldn't have been a problem in the first place if protesters were actually allowed to make their voices heard somewhere near the actual site of deliberation in the first place. However, this was a scripted event in which the negotiators weren't allowed to hear dissenting voices from the people.

I do know however that they are ignorant and evil-minded. They have a right to speak based on their hatred, but they don't have a right to harass and assault based on it.

The ones who did by far the most harrassment and assault are the police. What's ignorant and evil-minded are the neo-fascists in America who like to see the police crack the skulls of people who think differently from them. We are watching America slowly turn into a police state, and you're cheering from the sidelines. How about your hatred? Should you be allowed to continue voicing it here on this forum?

No, my world view does not matter in this. It only matters if they actually are lying about the matter in question.

Sure. After all, that's why you read the above reports and concluded

Reasonable predictions?

[joshamania]

Reasonable predictions? Like the rise of an American dictator in 2000? What the fuck planet are you on?!?! How the hell is that reasonable?

What about people who actually DO live under a dictatorship...fearing from death squads, not being able to speak their own mind, not being able to see their children grow up in a safe environment?

I know you lefties like to poke at Bush every chance you get, but this is bullshit. An American dictator is NOT a reasonable prediction.

Just because you have an election...

[Anonymous Coward]

...doesn't mean you don't have a dictator.

Adolph Hitler was elected. Hell, so was Stalin ;P

The Republicans and the Democrats are the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks of the Capitalist Party -- don't kid yourself, there's only one Party and it is Father and Mother.

First synthetic (but organic) life form in 2003

[Rikardon]

Well, it seems they're right about that one. Found on jwz's LiveJournal is this company, manufacturers of the LoveLump.

I haven't followed the link myself, because judging from the lj commentary it is definitely NSFW and I'm at the office, but most people seem highly disturbed.

Africa will decline also

[phorm]

Africa and the Middle East have expanding populations, but even there the rate has generally slowed From what I last remember reading, a rather large portion of the African population is infected with the HIV or AIDS virus. The result of this will likely be a sudden and rapid decline in the African population, subsequent to the disease taking out much of a generation (unless a cure is found, and more importantly made affordable/available).

No mention of the asiatic countries, how do they fare as far as population expansion? I'd imagine that in many areas that area still booming?

Re:Africa will decline also

[brunes69]

Actually no. China used to be the huge source for population growth in Asia, until the GOvernment started offering finacial incentives to familties who stop at one child. Since replacement population rate is around 2.2 per couple, it only takes a copule of generations of low birth rates to bring the population down dramatically.

Partially synthetic?

[phorm]

Don't some of the popular (or formerly popular) boy-bands use pitchalizers etc to stabilize their voice output. I think others do as well. You could qualify that as as least partially synthetic...

"they're the margarine of music... 1/2 the calories, not quite real enough"

Non-citizens ARE protected

[forii]

You must be a US CITIZEN to expect to exercise these rights.

Actually, within the borders of the United States (not including territories such as Puerto Rico), non-citizens have pretty much the same rights as citizens do. Once you go overseas the picture becomes a lot murkier, with different supreme court decisions pointing in different directions.

Essentially the US Government is using the fact that Guantanamo is technically Cuban territory as reason to deny the Gitmo prisoners any rights at all.

There's an interesting article at CNN that discusses some of the constitutional aspects of the war on terror.

Personally, I'm not comfortable with the fact that a number of people are being held prisoner, potentially forever and without trial, solely on the basis of a loophole. While the US Government may be technically in the right, I see it as going against the principles that the US is supposed to stand for.

Re:More fictions for the 2004 election.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just think like McAuliffe!

Okay here goes...

"2002 elections.... Republican landslide... shows voters are upset with Bush!.... California.... Republican governor overwhelmingly chosen in recall against unpopular Democrat... means incumbents are in trouble... especially Republican incumbents like Bush! Bush reelected in landslide... shows... um... well I guess it would mean we aren't getting our message out. Certainly can't be the message that's the problem..."

Time travel invented: 2075

[SamSim]

Time travel invented: 2075

Am I the only one who sees the massive glaring error here? Shouldn't this date read "BC" instead?

Re:How does rubbish like this get modded insightfu

[glassesmonkey]

Maybe you should watch some of the shows they run on TLC or DSC showing some footage of UK police monitored cameras. Yes, they do monitor just about all the roadways and I believe most pedestrian streets in cities are covered with steerable, zoomable, recording cameras with a human operator.

Usually they are going after some skateboarder or something stupid, and it is *not* quite big brother, but it is far from nothing to be worried about. Way to dismiss legitimate privacy concerns with this gem:

when it's about as inaccurate as saying the Statue of Liberty is in Vietnam or that the White House is a department store <== (I suppose this is "insightful")

Re:How does rubbish like this get modded insightfu

[WIAKywbfatw]

Maybe you should watch some of the shows they run on TLC or DSC showing some footage of UK police monitored cameras. Yes, they do monitor just about all the roadways and I believe most pedestrian streets in cities are covered with steerable, zoomable, recording cameras with a human operator.

Usually they are going after some skateboarder or something stupid, and it is *not* quite big brother, but it is far from nothing to be worried about. Way to dismiss legitimate privacy concerns with this gem...

Rather than just blindly believing what I see on TV, I prefer the evidence of my own two eyes. I live in London. Currently, I live in a suburb, but I've also lived in the heart of town. There aren't cameras on every street corner. There aren't cameras linked by some all-seeing network run by some all-seeing network. So that blows your "I believe most pedestrian streets in cities are covered with steerable, zoomable, recording cameras with a human operator" opinion right out of the water doesn't it?

And if that's true for London, and for every other British city that I've been to, what does that say about the accuracy of a widesweeping claim that every street corner in Britain is covered by a CCTV camera watching us all?

Legitimate privacy concerns? Huh, well perhaps if there actually were CCTV cameras on every street corner, and if there actually were being constantly monitored and if there actually were some way someone could be tracked by them then perhaps you might have a point. But I fail to see what you have to worry about when all this is in the realm of fiction.

Clearly, they are still 32 bit robots

[ahem]

Robots physically and mentally superior to humans 2030
Living genetically engineered Furby (TM, Tiger Electronics) 2040

Apparently, all of these robots crashed in 2038 when their clocks wrapped and were replaced with a 64 bit Furby, instead.

Just call me "Chip"

[ericspinder]

I'm still waiting for the "h-chip" (for human-chip; but perhaps it will just be known as "The Chip") to be implanted at birth. It would prove idendity and log scans into a database (Oracle, of course).

Re:Just call me "Chip"

[Luigi30]

Everyone knows it will be MySQL and a hacker will crack it and steal about 15 million identities in 5 minutes...

Re:How does rubbish like this get modded insightfu

[glassesmonkey]

There aren't cameras on every street corner. There aren't cameras linked by some all-seeing network run by some all-seeing network.

Well if you don't see them, they must not be there.

I've seen tons of cameras in every city I've been to in England. Many times the cameras have zoom lenses and are not obtrusive. Maybe you've gotten used to seeing them and don't notice anymore. I agree they don't have facial recognition etc. etc. but if you've seen what Las Vegas casinos have done, the technology is easily applied.

People

[hetairoi]

Specifically, all of us fat lazy Americans. See, all the fat people in the US are actually preparing to (selflessly) save the rest of the world through our own sloth and gluttony. Once there are enough of us ready we will all enter a matrix like hive to have our energy (read fat) extracted to power the rest of the world. Sally Stouthers will be sacrificed to feed the hungry.

So the next time you snoddy foreigners start mouthing off about fat, lazy Americans, remember, were doing it all for you.

moderation question

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny moderations don't increase karma, but overrated moderations do decrease it. So... Does getting, say, 5 'Funny' and 5 'Overrated' moderations on the same post, somewhat like the parent, result in lots of bad karma for the poster? If so, this seems unfair.

Or does 'funny' offset 'overrated' negative karma, but just not add positive karma on top? The FAQ doesn't mention it if this is the case.

The real problem with flying cars

[jacem]

Is that after you have an accident, stalls or run out of gas the vehicle still has to land on something. It will bring a whole new meaning to the phrase multi car pile up. Air travel is very restrictive about where one can and cannot fly for a reason.
The early adopters would fall under the FAA immediately because safety concerns are so great that flying cars would simply be regulated as private planes.


JACEM

cameras on street corners

[glassesmonkey]

To all the responses that claim there is no camera network, etc. etc..

Wired says "British authorities have placed great faith in CCTV as a crime control device, installing an estimated 1.5 million police cameras along the country's streets, buildings and mass transport systems. Still shots taken from video feed are used to identify protesters and hooligans."

That may not be every street corner, but that sure is a lot of cameras. (Oh and why identify protesters?)

Artificial Intelligence

[MarkRebuck]

This paper makes quite a few predictions related to artificial intelligence. Do people not remember that all of these predictions were made in the mid 1980's? Any time I see a paper that predicts AI will do [anything] within a few years, I have to laugh. For all the hype, computers are still horrible at anything we would call "intelligence". They can compute quickly and accurately, which sometimes gives the illusion of "intelligence". But until we can find a way to go beyond mere number crunching, these predictions about AI will continue to fall flat.

Lots of people? No food? Easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

They're won't be billions and billions of people on the planet if there's not enough food to feed them all.

Mmmm.... Soylent Green...

Poster 1

[Anonymous Coward]

"stop making kneejerk, assinine posts accusing someone else of lying "

Naomi Klein has a track record of lying about just about everything. Thanks for provinding some actual eyewitness account links.

Some, anyway. The Diamondbank link was peppered with falsehoods about NAFTA.

The Reuters account was as you would expect neutral. However, it lacked a description of how it started. I wonder if it was like Seattle, where the thugs were trying to actually shut down a meeting they did not like (as opposed to just speaking against it).

The UPI account, however, does imply intrusions by the protesters.

The Maroon account clearly describes the violence as being initiated by the protesters.

The Cornell link clearly describes the protesters trying to trespass into the actual place where the negotiotors were to harass them. So much for free speech: it is OK for the protesters to speak, but it is not OK for the negotiators to assemble and speak in peace.

Thanks for these accounts. They show that the problem was initiated by violent thugs trying to harass the negotiators. (except for the accounts that do not bother to explain how it started). If the protesters had limited their protest to free speech (instead of violence), there would have been no problem, and no police reaction of any kind.

Filthy protesters? I have no idea. I do know however that they are ignorant and evil-minded. They have a right to speak based on their hatred, but they don't have a right to harass and assault based on it.

"In that way, you're exactly like the Iraqi Information Minister, going on and on about how there are no infidels in Baghdad's airport "

No, he's on your side. If you had your way, he'd still be speaking for Saddam.

" If someone says something that disagrees with your worldview, you'll loudly trump about how they're a liar and biased"

No, my world view does not matter in this. It only matters if they actually are lying about the matter in question.

Re:rise of an American dictator in 2000

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, he won an election.

But so did Hitler.

No right to a fair trial, no right to free speech, no right to avoid being tortured! Are you happy with all this as long as it happens to someone else?

You're still a troll :)

[Anonymous Coward]

"If the US government REALLY wanted to win the war on terror, spend 1/10 of it's war budget in Iraq on medicine to wipe out polio around the world, or tb or any one of the hundreds of preventable, curable child hood diseases that our children never get anymore "

That would not do one thing to stop the terrorists. Osama and his henchman have been rather rich and could afford this on their own.

"Forgive loans to countries that the IMF ruined in the 80's with their "all-strings-attached" loans"

This would also do nothing, as the terrorists are rich (aside from the fact that the IMF had nothing to do with ruining economies).

"But don't pretend the war in Iraq has anything to do with freedom and democracy or weapons of mass destruction or support for terrorists. Nobody beleives it anymore. Come clean and move on."

No, it has everything to do with that. Those who know the facts about it believe it, since it is true. After all, there is no other reason. The US leaders came clean long ago.

"Right now they just see the only superpower running around acting like a bully, then getting upset when someone strikes back or dares question why."

Only the stupid and ignorant. Sit back and think about what you are saying. Stopping bullies is not being a bully. Upset when someone strikes back? 9-11 was unprovoked aggression. Question why? Do so, but do so in an informed fashion.

Re:You're still a troll :)

[cens0r]

That would not do one thing to stop the terrorists. Osama and his henchman have been rather rich and could afford this on their own.

But can he afford to do both? If Osama is spending his money killing people and we spend our money helping people the world wide opinion of the US is going to get better.

This would also do nothing, as the terrorists are rich (aside from the fact that the IMF had nothing to do with ruining economies).

The terrorist leaders are rich, but the ones doing the grunt work are poor. They join the terrorist organizations because they are poor and they don't have a lot of oppertunities in their own country. If you started to eliminate poverty in the terrorist countries they would loose a large percentage of the recruiting base.

Re:You're still a troll :)

[Anonymous Coward]

"If Osama is spending his money killing people and we spend our money helping people the world wide opinion of the US is going to get better."

Then we have nothing to worry about, as the U.S. is currently pouring out billions and billions in non-military aid to other countries.

"If you started to eliminate poverty in the terrorist countries they would loose a large percentage of the recruiting base."

Hmm.... Consider the 9-11 hijackers. Almost all Saudis. Saudi Arabia overall is relatively rich with a low rate of abject poverty.

Abu-Nidal, a front line terrorist, was born to a wealthy family.

Also, poverty in many countries is a result of intentional government policy, not an inherent poverty in the country. Do you want invasions of places like North Korea and the Sudan to displace the main causes of the poverty there?

Re:You're still a troll :)

[JohnnyCannuk]

That would not do one thing to stop the terrorists. Osama and his henchman have been rather rich and could afford this on their own.

Osama and his henchmen number in the 10s perhaps hundreds. Osama didn't fly the plane into the twin towers. Osama didn't personally blow up the embassies in Africa. Osama and his ilk get their foot soldiers and cannon fodder from the poor and ignorant and exploit hatred they have for the US to get them to commit these acts. Remove the hatred for the US, and Osama and his henchment will have a MUCH harder time recruiting people to carry out terrorist attacks. And you know none of these foot soldiers ever see any of that money. Osam himself is a coward. he would NEVER commit one of these acts himself. Without his soldiers he is a powerless kook, albeit a rich one.

It's the difference between:

"My house was bombed by the Americans. They say they want freedom but the support the dictator that killed my faminly, even shake hands with him on TV. I hate them. they are the reason I'm in poverty. Osama says if I do what he wants, my family will be taken care of, I will enjoy paradise (which is better than the hell I live in now) AND I will be able to strike ther very people responsible for my plight. Let's GO!"

and:

"The Americans send in doctors and nurses to help my kids when they are sick. They saved my little one when she had TB. And they give my dicator a hard time, never giving him a break. Life is hard, but the US is trying to help. I heard the sent in peace keepers to the country next door when the people rose up. Osama says we should hate them. He want's to do terrible things to them. That guy is nuts. Why would I wanna hurt my friends? Screw him, the harvest is coming in. I wonder what's on TV tonight?"

Admittedly a little simplistic, but I think you get the idea. Certainly can't hurt to try, since the current way of doing things has probably created more Osamas than it ever destroyed.

This would also do nothing, as the terrorists are rich (aside from the fact that the IMF had nothing to do with ruining economies).

Well again, see above about recruiting the poor slobs who actually do the killing or blow thmeselves up. As for the IMF, most of the residents of places like Equador or Peru might disagree. Servicing an outrageous debt versus providing basic services to your populace is not condusive to democracies, freedom or good economies.

No, it has everything to do with that. Those who know the facts about it believe it, since it is true. After all, there is no other reason. The US leaders came clean long ago.

Hmmm. Haven't been watching CNN or Fox news or 60 minutes lately, eh? Too bad. Your missing some interesting stuff.

Only the stupid and ignorant. Sit back and think about what you are saying. Stopping bullies is not being a bully. Upset when someone strikes back? 9-11 was unprovoked aggression. Question why? Do so, but do so in an informed fashion.

While I wasn't specifically referring to 9/11, I'll bite. You are right 9/11 was "unprovoked". "Unprovoked" in an an immediate sense, like that the US had not just bombed or invaded some foreign country, or assasinated some leader, or shot down a commercial passenger jet over the Persian Gulf...

Most certainly it was completely "unprovoked" for the people involved.

But instead of thinking of provocation, think of reaction, think of cause and effect. For 30 years or more, because of the "Cold War" or for economic reasons or some other justification that seemed right at the time, the US government (not the people of course) has done some pretty nasty things. Sold arms and weapons of mass destruction (mustard gas and nerve agents) to a brutal dicator (Saddam) because he was our buddy against Islamic fundementalist and the Commies. Turned a blind eye when this guy gassed his own people for the same reason. About the same time they thought is was a good idea to sell arms to those same Islamic fundeme

Re:You're still a troll :)

[Anonymous Coward]

"Osama and his henchmen number in the 10s perhaps hundreds. Osama didn't fly the plane into the twin towers. "

Were the hijackers impoverished? I am pretty sure this is NOT the case!

"like that the US had not just bombed or invaded some foreign country, or assasinated some leader, or shot down a commercial passenger jet over the Persian Gulf..."

1) Only when attacked by that country, or to help that country fend off invaders

2) Not for many decades.

3) Iran flew this airliner right into an active war zone. D'uh.

"Sold arms and weapons of mass destruction (mustard gas and nerve agents) to a brutal dicator (Saddam) because he was our buddy against Islamic fundementalist and the Commies"

He maintained close ties with the USSR throughout. A minor correction.

"While your at it, support corrupt, dictatorial even murderous regimes in places like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Philipines, Argentina, most of Africa, Chile, Guatemala, El Salvador, Iran pre-79, South Vietnam, South Korea...."

One by one:

1) Egypt? Their government is holding the tide against islamists there, who have promised to be much more brutal.

2) Saudi Arabia? Good point there.

3) Phillipines? We helped pull the rug out from under Marcos.

4) Argentina? I do not know much about that place.

5) Africa? The US opposed the colonialist wars against it during the past 30 years.

6) Chile? The US provided assistance to help overthrow the Soviet colonial dictator. Since we are not imperialist, we left alone the government the Chileans ended up with.

7) Guatamela and El Salvador? The places were being invaded by the USSR. We helped those places fend off invaders, but since, again, we are not imperialist, we left their government to them. Maybe we shouldn't have.

8) South Vietnam? The US was truly noble here, fending off a Soviet invasion. But it failed.

"All that, and you still can honestly wonder why the US is so hated outside North America? All that and you can still act surprised that some thing like a 9/11 took place?"

Yes, when you look at events as they actually have happened. The 9/11 terrorists have nothing to do with the reasons for "hate" that you describe: they dislike the US for its freedom, and dislike the Saudi government because it is not brutal enough.

The well-off Saudi's in 9-11 were not flying for all the oppressed people of El Salvador and Vietnam. They were flying because they want to see a world much more oppressive, in which Jews are wiped out and everyone bows before the Muslim god.

Re:You're still a troll :)

[Anonymous Coward]

ha ha ha ha ha.

18-year-old ignorant rich white young republican.

you are a sad, sad, little man.

Re:You're still a troll :)

[Anonymous Coward]

nope. all wrong.

fucking idiot.

get a little older, learn a little more, stay in school.

maybe education will smarten you up.

I doubt it, but it's possible.

Re:You're still a troll :)

[Kelz]

Strange how selective the modders are on this subject, hmmm?

Re:How does rubbish like this get modded insightfu

[WIAKywbfatw]

1. If they were there, I would see them. (Where do you think they're hidden? Inside street lights behind frosted glass coverings?)

2. If they were there, someone would be being hired to monitor them. (Where are all these people that are supposedly watching us? Are they invisible, too?)

3. If they were there, we'd be able to see them in some budget breakdown somewhere. (Maintaining such a huge network costs money, as East Germany found out.)

4. If they were there, crime would be practically non-existant. (You'd just track criminals back to their homes.)

5. If they were there, then it would be a major talking point. (They're not, so it isn't.)

QED.

Seeing "tons of cameras" in shopping centres, train stations, at major road junctions and outside sensitive buildings, most of which will be owned by the private organisations they serve and totally isolated from any external network, isn't the same thing as a camera on every street corner, which is where this thread started.

And as I pointed out, I'd see a similar number of cameras elsewhere in the world, regardless of whether I was in New York, Paris or Tokyo. Or don't you think that CCTVs are deployed outside the UK?

Silly neo-con

[Hittite Creosote]

You lost. Just deal with it. It was close, but you lost.

No, it's not the election they're complaining about, it's the removal of the right to a fair trial and the declarations of war on trumped up charges (the only thing left against Saddam was that he was an evil bastard. Well, he was an evil bastard when the US sold him WMDs. Are those responsible for that act going to face trial?). It's the two dead soldiers a day and unknown numbers of civilians for no apparent improvement in safety (and, if you ask the Brits or the Turks right now, it appears to have made things worse).

That's what they're complaining about. Winning an election doesn't justify every act afterwards.

Is there a Godwin's Law for Gandhi ??

[Anonymous Coward]

"Yeah, he won an election.
But so did Hitler."

Gandhi also won an election. So what is your point?

Don't hyperventilate

[twd]

Sit-down, breathe into this paper bag, you'll be OK in a minute or so. Straight-line extrapolations into the future, whether about l33t or technology, tend to be wildly out of touch with reality.

Not so far-fetched ;P

[FortissimoWily]

"Others are just funny, like an orgasm via e-mail in 2010, or a security Barbie which searches for lost offspring."
Though the thought of a Barbie as a tracking device is amusing, it isn't really all that far-fetched - Tiger Electronics is introducing a device in the next year or so called 'GameTrac', which (amongst other things) will let parents keep track of their offspring. Ok, so it's not a Barbie, it's closer to a GBA, but still... Maybe there'll yet be a Barbie-type equivalent for girls someday? ;)

WMD's

[Anonymous Coward]

"Well, he was an evil bastard when the US sold him WMDs. Are those responsible for that act going to face trial?). "

No, since it was done for good: the weapons were to be used against invading Iranian soldiers to prevent them from taking over Iraq.

"the declarations of war on trumped up charges"

There were none. The people were told the facts, and the decision to retaliate was based on that.

Re:WMD's

[Guuge]

No, since it was done for good: the weapons were to be used against invading Iranian soldiers to prevent them from taking over Iraq.

Then I have some bad news for you. Iraq has been taken over!

Re:WMD's

[Hittite Creosote]

You gave them weapons to stop Islamic fundamentalists taking over, and by invading you've filled Iraq with Islamic fundamentalists. Which any intelligence officer worth his salt would have told you, so if that is Bush and Blair's only reason left, they're incompetent. Any Iraqi official backed by the US is clearly a big target for the fundamentalists, so you have to stay, and prop up your puppet regime, no matter how bad a state it looks to be in.

Face it, your exit strategy is going to be by helicopter from the embassy roof.

Re:WMD's

[Anonymous Coward]

"You gave them weapons to stop Islamic fundamentalists taking over, and by invading you've filled Iraq with Islamic fundamentalists"

It was already chock full of them anyway, and the mad-dogs who have come into Iraq at least aren't attacking US soil or Israel: they have just joined an existing battle.

"Any Iraqi official backed by the US is clearly a big target for the fundamentalists, so you have to stay, and prop up your puppet regime," ....except that is not a puppet regime.

"Face it, your exit strategy is going to be by helicopter from the embassy roof."

Not in this one. Well, maybe if we elect Kucinich, the best friend the mad-dogs have in the race.

Protection for gorillas in Gitmo

[AtariAmarok]

`Pardon my ignorance, but the terrorists/gorilla fighters the US is fighting are not signatories to the Geneva Convention`

I don't know about the terrorists, but the gorillas are protected by the Endangered Species Act.

`What does the Geneva Convention say about this?`

General Urko and Dr. Zaius refused to be signators to this part of the convention.

Re:Protection for gorillas in Gitmo

[beakburke]

"I don't know about the terrorists, but the gorillas are protected by the Endangered Species Act."

But are they protected by the Endangered Species Act if they are not native to the US? *grin*

Re:How does rubbish like this get modded insightfu

[Homburg]

Most city centres in the UK are covered by CCTV. As you live in London, you certainly can't have failed to notice them, particularly in the City. These cameras are capable of panning and zooming (watch them when a group of young people, particularly young black people, are walking past), are constantly monitored and recorded (and the recordings kept for a month, or longer if the police request it).

Sure, in residential areas, there's little CCTV (although still a certain amount, particularly mounted on private property, but observing public areas). However, the rising observation of public space is extremely problematic. Check out Privacy International's FAQ on the subject.

The real reason he won

[Anonymous Coward]

"The fact that he was elected shows both apathy AND ignorance."

No, the fact that he was elected was due to the fact that he was better than the clowns who ran against him on the ballot, and also Bustamante, who represented the failed and rejected Davis administration.

Re:Well, since Bush wasn't elected...

[viware]

Yeah, 'the economy is rocking'. What mind-fuck feeding propaganda media have you been watching? Is that just like how Iraq was involved in 9/11 and Desert Storm was a clean precise operation with little colateral damage?

Honestly, if you're going to try and defend Bush, you're going to have to at least back up your statements.

Think before you recycle lies.

[Anonymous Coward]

Afghanistan. the Taliban and AQ were united at the time of the attack; the actions of AQ were the actions of the Afghan government.

"Really, I'd like to know"

You need to learn more about current/recent events.

"but not by any country since Japan and Pearl Harbour"

It is spelled Pearl Harbor. There is no U anywhere in its name.

Re:Think before you recycle lies.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that would explain why all of the hijackers were Afghani...

Whoah! Just a second! I just realized that they weren't! In fact, now that I think about it, I don't remember any of them being Afghani.

On a more serious note, yes, the gov't of Afghanistan was heavily influenced by AQ. Yes, removing them from power definitely reduced AQ's influence. I would not say that that gov't actually had anything to do with the attacks directly though.

And don't even get me started about Iraq. Yes, it was a dictatorship that was truly horrible to its people, but it also was one of the more secular Islamic nations out there. It had absolutely nothing to do with terrorist attacks on US soil or any other soil for that matter.

I disagree with how Iraq was run. I find it completely deplorable, but you have to realize that if the US had been having flyovers and restricted air space, it would be US citizens who would be up in arms about it.

Since the US had taken over Iraq, there are regular news stories about attacks on US troops. Many of these are called terrorist attacks. I wonder what the British gov't said about what its colonies were doing over the pond during the US revolution?

There is a fine line between a terrorist and a freedom fighter and in Iraq, I wonder which is which?

easier?

[johnty]

I don't know that much about L33t or whatever its called, but writing '|\|' instead of a 'N' is hardly a form of abbreviation...

Re:Well, since Bush wasn't elected...

[Abcd1234]

*snicker* This is a troll, right? Seriously... it's gotta be. I mean, the economy is far from rocking (the US dollar is *seriously* tanking, and the federal deficit is skyrocketing), and Iraq is no where near a free, democratic state, and doesn't look like it'll be one any time soon. Moreover, the US will likely have an occupation force there for years (lest a civil war spark in the subsequent power vacuum).

In fact, I think Bush *knows* he's in deep shit. There's a reason he passed his massive prescription drug plan (boosting the deficit even higher, BTW)... to effective buy off his key voting block (older conservatives), while at the same time appeasing pharmaceutical firms (a gov't-run drug plan could stem the tide of cheaper drugs crossing the US-Canada border, effectively assisting an industry which gouges consumers while foisting the burden on the populace... clever, eh?).

I have to admit, though... you demonstracted an interesting effect, here on Slashdot: complain about being modded down, and you'll get modded up. It's like an odd form of Karma-whoring... I gotta try that some time.

Joke?

[__aagmrb7289]

I hope the people who wrote this rather unfunny joke of a document are aware of how incredibly silly it is.

Otherwise, I might find myself feeling sad for them...

Re:How does rubbish like this get modded insightfu

[op00to]

Alright Ann Coulter. Way to set up the straw man at the end to defend your ridiculous argument.

First, in the city in London, they ARE on every street corner. How else do you think the congestion charge system works? Honesty? Just because your 20/20 vision can't see them, doesn't mean they're not there.

Second, there ARE people hired to monitor the cameras. Haven't you been on the Tube lately? Seen any of the ads advertising security and police jobs?


Third, Home Office Minister John Denham Announces 78million CCTV spending spree.

Fourth, no one admitted that CCTV stops 100% of crime.

Fifth, Slashdot begs to differ.

Whats funny about...

[demachina]

...the rise of an American dictator in 2000.

Seems to me they were amazingly accurate. George W. Bush was elected in 2000. If he gets reelected in 2004 and the Republican's figure out some way to break the Democratic filibuster in the senate either by changing Senate rules or getting 60 Republican seats I think you will be hard pressed to differentiate little George from a dictator.

Fox news is, for all intents and purposes, already the propaganda ministry. A brilliant example from U.S.A today in September concerning statements from Christian Amanpour of CNN, one of the few journalists left with the guts to tell it like it is. Especially note the venomous response from Fox at the bottom:

On last week's Topic A With Tina Brown on CNBC, Brown, the former Talk magazine editor, asked comedian Al Franken, former Pentagon spokeswoman Torie Clarke and Amanpour if "we in the media, as much as in the administration, drank the Kool-Aid when it came to the war."

Said Amanpour: "I think the press was muzzled, and I think the press self-muzzled. I'm sorry to say, but certainly television and, perhaps, to a certain extent, my station was intimidated by the administration and its foot soldiers at Fox News. And it did, in fact, put a climate of fear and self-censorship, in my view, in terms of the kind of broadcast work we did."

Brown then asked Amanpour if there was any story during the war that she couldn't report.

"It's not a question of couldn't do it, it's a question of tone," Amanpour said. "It's a question of being rigorous. It's really a question of really asking the questions. All of the entire body politic in my view, whether it's the administration, the intelligence, the journalists, whoever, did not ask enough questions, for instance, about weapons of mass destruction. I mean, it looks like this was disinformation at the highest levels."

Clarke called the disinformation charge "categorically untrue" and added, "In my experience, a little over two years at the Pentagon, I never saw them (the media) holding back. I saw them reporting the good, the bad and the in between."

Fox News spokeswoman Irena Briganti said of Amanpour's comments: "Given the choice, it's better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than a spokeswoman for al-Qaeda."

Re:Whats funny about...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Fox news is, for all intents and purposes, already the propaganda ministry"

No, it is just another news source. It is not a ministry (there is nothing very religious about it). "Propaganda" is a meaningless pejorative used to attack information someone wants censored or hushed up: might as well factor this word out.

"Fox News spokeswoman Irena Briganti said of Amanpour's comments: "Given the choice, it's better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than a spokeswoman for al-Qaeda.""

If forced to make this choice, who would NOT chose this way? Just about everyone, except for those few who view Bush as being worse than Hitler.

"A brilliant example from U.S.A today in September concerning statements from Christian Amanpour of CNN, one of the few journalists left with the guts to tell it like it is"

If you like accurate journalists and commentators, try Fox News. More than CNN, they tend to provide facts and be balanced. However, Amanpour is not one. In your quote, she told a lie about Fox News. Lies are "telling it like it isn't". She usually is gutsy, but lying like this is just plain stupid. The left-wing media just does not know how to handle non-left wing successful news agencies, even if they are centrist like Fox.

"Republican's figure out some way to break the Democratic filibuster in the senate either by changing Senate rules or getting 60 Republican seats I think you will be hard pressed to differentiate little George from a dictator."

Yet, when the Democratic presidents have had such control, it has been "OK". So much for consistency.

Re:Whats funny about...

[demachina]

"No, it is just another news source. It is not a ministry (there is nothing very religious about it). "Propaganda" is a meaningless pejorative used to attack information someone wants censored or hushed up: might as well factor this word out."

Its not currently viable for the government to create its own network in the U.S. so Fox news is the next best thing. If the Bush administration wants to put out a message they can just give it to Fox and they will run with it without questioning its truthfullness. A case in point, just before invading Iraq, when Fox ran stories claiming Saddam had RPV's that could be snuck into America and used to spread biological or chemical weapons on American cities to whip up that last bit of support before invading Iraq. Fox is routinely given preferential access to news and the president as a reward for their favorable reporting, witness the fact Fox went to Baghdad on Thanksgiving while CNN was sent home. A while ago Fox journalist was fired for refusing to report a story she knew was false and her editor knew was false. She sued and lost. The judge indicated it was not necessary for a network to be truthful. Fox's "Fair and Balanced" is known as a big lie. They keep repeating it over and over and people eventually believe it as you apparently do. There isn't ANYTHING balanced about Fox at its heart.

The right wing has largely decimated fair and balanced journalism by constantly accusing the press of a liberal bias and starting Fox which makes every network look liberal by comparison. All the networks have been manuevered into become more conservative and less likely to subject the Bush administration to critical review.

"If forced to make this choice, who would NOT chose this way? Just about everyone, except for those few who view Bush as being worse than Hitler."

The point is Amanpour is most definitely not a spokesperson for Al Quida while Fox is eager to do the Bush adminstration's bidding. All she was saying was the Bush administration largely fabricated the case for war in Iraq and no one questioned the rationale. Subsequent facts tend to suggest she was right as no WMD have been found and there are no proven links to Al Quaida.

The standard response from the right wing today is "if you aren't with us your against us" and "its our way or the highway". Either you support us 100% or we accuse you of being terrorists. The Republican ad being run now is doing exactly the same thing. It is a way to intimidate everyone into either agreeing with the administration, keeping their mouths shuts or pay a price in retribution. Those are not healthy approaches if your still pretending to have a democracy,.

"Yet, when the Democratic presidents have had such control, it has been "OK". So much for consistency."

You are putting words in my mouth. Its not OK for the Democrats to have control of the executive branch and both houses of congress either. Our government works best when its gridlocked and both parties are hamstrung in trying to implement their off center agendas. Less government is, most of the time, the best government.

I was saying that Republican control of the presidency, both houses in congress, if they gain a clear majority in the supreme court, the press is intimidated into no longer challenging the truthfullness of the government and the war on terrorism continues indefinitely we are headed for an extremely dangerous era and its not likely to be a good time for what is left of democracy in the U.S.

Re:Whats funny about...

[Guuge]

The left-wing media just does not know how to handle non-left wing successful news agencies, even if they are centrist like Fox.

One on the most interesting political rants today is the conspiracy of "left-wing media" and the "liberal press". CNN is a perfect example. For all of the fawning over Bush, refraining from asking tough questions to the administration, and tolerance of publicity stunts, CNN is still being called liberal by the right wing. Believe me, if CNN were liberal then they'd have long since been denouncing an ultra-conservative like Bush. Fox News, on the other hand, is rarely (if ever) critical of Bush. It's difficult to call it centrist, in my opinon.

Re:Whats funny about...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Its not currently viable for the government to create its own network in the U.S. so Fox news is the next best thing. "

The government has created its own networks: NPR, PBS, and VOA.

It did not create Fox, which is an independent voice.

"Fox is routinely given preferential access to news and the president as a reward for their favorable reporting"

No, they are not. The press corps is treated as always. Yes, Fox was on the plane to Thanksgiving, but this was due to the press rotation that had been in place for a very long time (it was their day). You are obviously not aware of how the press corps rotation in Air Force One has worked for YEARS. That day was Fox's day. This had been agreed by everyone long before, and long before the plan.

"The right wing has largely decimated fair and balanced journalism by constantly accusing the press of a liberal bias and starting Fox which makes every network look liberal by comparison"

As poll after poll shows, the average American realizes the left-wing bias on the press. The right wing did not start Fox. The other networks were liberal before Fox, and are liberal after Fox.

"A while ago Fox journalist was fired for refusing to report a story she knew was false and her editor knew was false. She sued and lost. The judge indicated it was not necessary for a network to be truthful."

Which case is this?

"All the networks have been manuevered into become more conservative and less likely to subject the Bush administration to critical review."

All of the networks subject Bush to strong critical review. They all remain just as liberal, with the exception of the tiny loser MSNBC, which is trying anything to see if it can survive.

"Fox's "Fair and Balanced" is known as a big lie"

No, it is a valid claim. The only ones who object are the far left, guys like FAIR who think that something is fair if it is left-wing only. Ironically, since Fox News is fair and balanced, they give voice to the FAIR group very frequently.

"They keep repeating it over and over and people eventually believe it as you apparently do. "

Even if they never said it, everyone would know it by their content and behavior.

"The point is Amanpour is most definitely not a spokesperson for Al Quida while Fox is eager to do the Bush adminstration's bidding"

You are ignoring what the Fox person actually said. Instead, you are making something up and judging on that. The Fox person said if she had to make a choice between the two, it would be Bush instead of Al Quada. This is it. It says nothing about eagerness, or doing the administration's bidding.

"All she was saying was the Bush administration largely fabricated the case for war in Iraq and no one questioned the rationale"

Her statement is a lie, as nothing was fabricated, and Bush was questioned all the way.

"Subsequent facts tend to suggest she was right as no WMD have been found"

Saddam hasn't been found, either. I guess he did not exist at all!

"You are putting words in my mouth"

No, I posted as AC, not demachina.

"Its not OK for the Democrats to have control of the executive branch and both houses of congress either. "

I disagree strongly. There is nothing unconstitutional or dictatorial about this. The Constitution makes no recognition of political parties. If the people elect congress and the president all of the same party, so be it (even if we are in the other party). Vote the other way, work to get it changed through the vote, but otherwise shut up about it.

"I was saying that Republican control of the presidency, both houses in congress, if they gain a clear majority in the supreme court, the press is intimidated into no longer challenging the truthfullness of the government"

They can't intimidate the press. The press is more open and diverse wit

Weird, I had a lecture on this today

[Von Helmet]

We had a guy from BT come in and do a business type lecture instead of our regular software engineering ones.

It was some pretty crazy stuff. He kept going on about all these weird things that were straight out of sci fi movies, as though the R&D dept. had just been watching films and playing futuristic games for the past 10 years.

He went on about nanites (Deus Ex) and robots (Terminator series) and virtual reality (Matrix) and artificial intelligence (Matrix again) and robotic modifications to your body (Deus Ex again)... It was pretty weird stuff, and kinda scary too.

But your religion is OK

[Anonymous Coward]

Except, of course, your own religion. That one is OK, yep?

Oil has nothing to do with anything

[Anonymous Coward]

"Not enough oil there for people to care"

Oil has nothing to do with anything. Look at the US war against Serbia.

As for the war in the Congo, do you have any idea what kind of resistance would be met all over from "Whites going to Africa to kill blacks because they think they can run it better"?

There's a big stigma against that, where there is much less of one against "whites going to stop white genocidal monsters in the heart of europe"

Re:More fictions for the 2004 election.

[gobbo]

The 2004 landslide winner George W Bush is not REALLY elected because [/sarcasm]

OK I know that's a trollish post but it's a common /. sentiment. The key point is that he wasn't actually elected in the last election. Yes, there were numerous 'plausible deniability' reports in the US media about ballots that were confusingly designed, misdirections to the voting place, malfunctioning voting machines, meddled hand-counts, and other kinds of minor confusion all over Florida, but the really big buried story is the database of supposed felons that put around 22,000 (or more) legitimate citizens on a 'no vote' list. Most of those people were africanamerican, and a sure bet of a Gore victory. The database wasn't subject to quality control, came from sources associated with the former Texas governor, and subsequently turned out to be over 90% wrong.

These problems were never rectified or properly acknowledged, and many people were wrongly denied their right to vote. GW took power with less than 600 votes, according to the official count. Please, google this topic, then come back and complain about fictions. Or does the Bush Admin's ideological position justify their means of obtaining power? [Look, I don't think Gore would have been superior, OK? I just think the "we're so democratic" scales need to fall from american eyes.]

Re:rise of an American dictator in 2000

[Anonymous Coward]

U'r lj sux !!

Sexual harassment of an employee

[Anonymous Coward]

"One's a sad commentary on the President's sex life and our nation's attention to it"

The fact is that that President engaged in sexual harassment of an employee (he admitted it with his out of court settlement), and tried to get someone to lie about it in court. In fact, him himself committed the purjury of felony in this case. Time to move on.

"Sore left-wingers make the allegation that many traditionally Democratic Party-voting constituents were deliberately denied their right to vote via a deliberately unverified list of supposed felons."

The vote cleaning list was put in place by Democrats and worked regardless of race, regardless of party. Move on.

Re:Sexual harassment of an employee

[Anonymous Coward]

um, it's only harassment if the advances and behavior are unwanted.

from the looks of things it really wasn't unwanted.

you can get him for unethical behavior, but you really can't define it as harassment.

I'd support it

[Anonymous Coward]

"I find it completely deplorable, but you have to realize that if the US had been having flyovers and restricted air space, it would be US citizens who would be up in arms about it"

If the flyovers were to prevent the dictator from doing further massacres, I'd be cheering.

" It had absolutely nothing to do with terrorist attacks on US soil or any other soil for that matter."

Yes, it was. It was funding terrorism inside Israel. The invasion of Kuwait was a big bit of aggression there. Other examples as well.

"Many of these are called terrorist attacks"

They all are terrorists, not just some.

"I wonder what the British gov't said about what its colonies were doing over the pond during the US revolution?"

The difference is whether or not it is true. The terrorists attacking now are the same ones who maintained the reign of terror under Saddam.

"There is a fine line between a terrorist and a freedom fighter "

No, there is not. The different is pretty big, usually.

Re:I'd support it

[Anonymous Coward]

you obviously never studied politics or history outside of the history channel or picture books.

you're also obviously a fucking moron.

freedom fighters and terrorists are typically, and historically, the same damn thing. "freedom fighter" and "terrorist" are just different names that are applied to the same thing...and we choose which one to apply depending on whether or not we like them.

"If the flyovers were to prevent the dictator from doing further massacres, I'd be cheering."

and you give yourself away right here. the main thing any invading/occupying/policing country/force absolutely must remember is that it doesn't matter how bad the previous guy was if the people don't like you or perceive you as repressive or mean; the invader is always judged a million times more harshly.

"he may be a bastard, but he's our bastard" is the rule. never forget that.

Re:I'd support it

[Anonymous Coward]

"you obviously never studied politics or history outside of the history channel or picture books"

Your knowledge apparently comes from "Doom" games.

"freedom fighters and terrorists are typically, and historically, the same damn thing. "

No, they are not. Sometimes, they overlap, however.

"and we choose which one to apply depending on whether or not we like them."

You mean you apply them that way. I apply the terms based on accuracy, not whether or not I like them.

Terrorist refers to whether or not the fighters use terrorizing civilians as the main tool. "Freedom Fighter" refers to whether or not they are fighting to make a place more free or not.

For example, Hamas is terrorist, but not freedom fighter. They bomb civilians, but are fighting to create a totalitarian Muslim-only state.

Re:I'd support it

[Guuge]

"Freedom Fighter" refers to whether or not they are fighting to make a place more free or not.

I believe this is incorrect. The term "freedom fighter" commonly refers to someone fighting (violently) for freedom from someone else. It doesn't have anything to do with the amount of overall freedom they want.

In your example, Hamas members are called freedom fighters (believe it or not) because they want to free the Middle East from western domination. They would, no doubt, love to create a totalitarian state but only because they believe it to be a desirable form of government.

Terrorists are defined by their intentional use of terror, which is typically a valuable asset of freedom fighters.

So they are different, technically. But let's be honest now. Would it be politically advantageous for Bush to call the Iraqi insurgents freedom fighters? Even attacks on the US military are being called terrorist attacks. The two terms have come to mean effectively the same thing.

Re:How does rubbish like this get modded insightfu

[WIAKywbfatw]

1. The congestion charging cameras are at the boundaries of the congestion charging zone, not all over it. Most importantly, the cameras are focused on the roads, and are looking for license plate numbers, not at the pavement looking for individuals.

2. Of course some of the cameras installed in some locations have people monitoring them in real time - traffic monitoring cameras would be pretty useless if you didn't actually inform people that there's a three mile tailback ahead right away, and the same goes for security cameras in a shopping centre or those on a Tube platform.

But to suggest that there's a camera on every street corner and that they are all being monitored in real time by someone is ridiculous, which is what people have suggested here. Such an endeavour would take a disproportionately large number of resources, as it did in East Germany, which eventually collapsed partially because it could no longer maintain that level of surveillance.

3. 78 million pounds today is peanuts, as it was when that scheme was announced in 2001. Just how much do you think it costs to buy a camera, install and use it? A fair amount I'd guess. So a total budget of 78 million isn't going to buy you 78 million's worth of cameras. I'd be surprised if the amount of that budget that was actually spent on the cameras itself exceeded 25 percent.

4. Your Slashdot links are barely relevant. The first relates to Borders, the bookshop, and what a private company does with its in-store security cameras is hardly relevant in this discussion. The second links to a story that's no longer there and is just as full of people discussing the BBC license fee as much as they are discussing CCTV.

And the third is about how congestion charging cameras ultimately controlled by the Mayor of London weren't in use while a protest march took place so that maintenance could be performed on them (which seems to be sensible). So cameras used to spot car license plate numbers, controlled by a man who was against the war, were being repaired rather than used when an anti-war march took place. Gee, and that's a conspiracy nowadays? That those cameras weren't turned on? Wow.

Re:Well, since Bush wasn't elected...

[Richard Allen]

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&edition=us&q=eco nomy+u.s.'

Forbes: GLOBAL ECONOMY-US factories lead global manufacturing recovery
MLive.Com: Incentives, economy boost US vehicle sales
Detroit Free Press: Bush touts surge of US economy
Sydney Morning Herald, Australia: US economy out of the woods: report
CNN/Money: US jobless benefits to expire
Xinhua: US factory growth fastest in 20 years
Channel News Asia: US manufacturers hit 20-year record pace
Forbes: US Treasuries drop as factories get busier
Hammond Daily Star, LA: Tangipahoa economy brightens

I hope these aren't too conservative of sources for you {sarcasm}

Re:Well, since Bush wasn't elected...

[Richard Allen]

I had to run out for a minute, but just to explain, I googled U.S. Economy and picked the first several news posts that pertained to our discussion. Even ABC News boasted about it last night, and they are notorious for bashing anything Bush.
Secondly, I notice you said "Honestly, if you're going to try and defend Bush, you're going to have to at least back up your statements.", but failed to defend your point about the non-rocking economy. Practice what you preach.
Finally, you've got to be kidding about the DS colateral damage comment. No other war in history has come close, especially when overtaking an evil dictator. I suppose you'd deny the evil dictator comment as well ... Give me a break dude.

Re:Well, since Bush wasn't elected...

[Richard Allen]

Here's another interesting effect ... as time goes on and the U.S. economy improves, the libs reach for anything that they can to show the economy is tanking. For example, (and I ran the numbers) - In the same period (from the beginning of Presidency onward) the "Bush" federal deficit has increased at a slightly slower rate than under Clinton - even if you don't factor the higher population than since 1992! Of course, I bet you weren't blaming it on Clinton then - or am I wrong? I didn't think so.

Interesting effect ...

The Point

[Guuge]

Gandhi also won an election. So what is your point?

The Point, ladies and gentlemen, is that you can win an election and still be a dictator. Thus calling Bush a dictator does not depend on how he was elected. Look to his policies instead.

Still, I think we can all agree that the process by which Bush took office was far from the usual electoral procedure. Given the margins for error, and all of the suspected foul play surrounding presidential elections, it could easily have gone to Gore, and it almost did. Whether or not 9/11 would have been prevented is speculation that I will not indulge in!

Re:Well, since Bush wasn't elected...

[Abcd1234]

Funny, since, as I recall, there was NO DEFICIT when Clinton left (there was *debt*, but there was no deficit... remember those record surpluses during the latter Clinton years?). That's right, the budget was in the *black*. And then Bush went spending crazy while, at the same time, cutting taxes, and voila, *massive* deficit again.

So, either you're confusing "deficit" with "debt", or you don't know what the fsck you're talking about.

Wait, HIBT again? Eh, probably...

Re:Well, since Bush wasn't elected...

[Richard Allen]

You're right about the definition, but a deficit just means you spent more than you planned. The point is the debt increased at a slower rate under Bush. If Bush would have taxed more, the deficit would have been less, but to help the economy, he chose to tax less and have a higher deficit. It worked. The economy is the best it's been in 20 years which is what this was thread was originally about before you ignored the 10 major economic factors to make your "the economy is far from rocking" point.
You'll never (http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/30/news/economy/gdp/ ) be convinced so I'm done trying. I bet CNN is too conservative for you. *snicker*

Its Drek.

[SWestrup]

Disclaimer: I haven't read the latest version of this report, but based on the last one, I wouldn't recommend wasting the bandwidth.

When the last BT report came out I was working as a Technology Analyst, in charge of keeping up with current trends in IT, so I downloaded and "Analysed" their latest report. I put that in quotes, because most of the time I was either busting a gut laughing, or staring in disbelief at the stupidity of the items on the timeline.

Problems with the report included, but were not limited to:

• Inappropriate use of Computer Science terms, making it impossible to know what they were predicting.
• Predictions using vague and/or undefined terms.
• "Predictions" for things that are already commercially available
• Far term predictions for things that are already in prototype
• Near term predictions for technologies that have several intermediate steps that we haven't achieved. In other words, wildly implausible preditions.
• Near term predictions for technologies that rely on the development of technologies for which they've given far term predictions.
• The same technology showing up under different names at radically different points in the timeline.
• No indication that they have any idea of which technologies rely upon or enable other technologies.

My final impression was that the results were the unsorted compilation of a brainstorming session amongst some rather bright high schoolers. As a random list of technology ideas, the document has has some merit. As a technological timeline, its crap.

My fav:

[Kelz]

(storage section)
2002: 200GB hard drives
2003: 11 Terabyte credit card sized storage for $50.
Quite a jump there.

Re:Well, since Bush wasn't elected...

[Abcd1234]

Noooo... a deficit is when you spend more than you take in. Budget deficits are the prime contributor to the national debt. Basically, Bush has decided to mortgage the future of the next couple generations of Americans for what he hopes is short-term economic gain. If you think that's a good idea... well, let's just say I hope you never run a business.

Incidentally, if you'd read the article, you'd note that even the President said that the spike in GDP growth is unlikely to be sustained, nor has the growth in the GDP been followed up by growth in the number of jobs in the US, which is a far more important factor in long-term economic growth. After all, people without jobs can't spend money, and hence can't drive the economy.

Basically, to claim that the US economy is "the best it's been in 20 years" is a HUGE overstatement, not to mention a misrepresentation of the facts, as growth in the GDP is NOT the only indicator regarding economic health (which is why the feds haven't moved the prime interest rate at all).

Good eye!

[op00to]

YHBT!

mirrors of white paper

[skywire]

PDF
HTML

So now...

[GrodinTierce]

BitTorrent is making predictions about culture?

BT eh?

[_Sexy_Pants_]

The same guy who writes thumpin' tracks for the likes of N'Sync? I've gotta admit his CD might be called genius, but now he's prophecizing technological advancement? I'm astounded!

Same Old, Same Old.

[evilviper]

It's the same old prediction situation...
"Duh"

Things so obvious, everyone with half a brain saw it comming many years in advance.

For instance, anyone will tell you that 3D TV will be comming along. It's just so simple. Anyone will tell you that network bandwidth is increasing. Anyone will tell you that, sooner or later, there will be an all-woman space-crew.

Just about every prediction made falls into this category. Everything is so dammed obvious. The only reason it seems interesting, is that we look back on what has come true, and just forget about the fact that, back then, we all knew it was comming, too.

What the heck?

[gangien]

This guy gets a troll mod on a post, an unmodded post, and an insightful post by replying to himself? wow.

Re:What the heck?

[bain]

I know ...

funny thing is the original comment was a joke, but it was obviosly a little close to home, then I made a joke about the troll status, and the irony of the slashdot tagline related to the article and my joke and the moderators responce.

All in all this shows how silly this whole post was including all previos ones and it's moderation.

this comment will probebly get moderated offtopic now ;P

Re:How does rubbish like this get modded insightfu

[glassesmonkey]

I am only responding because you are *SO* clueless about CCTV cameras that you somehow fail to notice. Your statements that "I don't see them so they aren't there" and "78 million isn't very much money" are sad.

Please research this for yourself. The facts are - at least tens of thousands of monitored cameras - at least tens millions of pounds spent on using the cameras each year.

CCTV in Cambridge - note: estimated that each Londoner is watched by 300 cameras each day. Cambridge alone has 127 camera and spends 1/3 million per year. Nationally, 20 million+ per year for the last decade.

Wired article "British authorities have placed great faith in CCTV as a crime control device, installing an estimated 1.5 million police cameras along the country's streets, buildings and mass transport systems. Still shots taken from video feed are used to identify protesters and hooligans."

78 million pounds for 250 new CCTV monitored systems
40 million per year is currently spent on CCTV
In Jan 2000 a further 40 million was allocated to 218 public CCTV schemes.
At present, there are well over 750 local public closed circuit tv surveillance systems in operation in the UK.
Search Parliament for CCTV spending yourself

(Oh, BTW your officials are now selling footage of your cameras to the highest bidder)

That's good news

[Anonymous Coward]

"Then I have some bad news for you. Iraq has been taken over!"

In this case, it is good news, since it was taken over by good forces instead of evil ones, who have removed the imperialist dictator and are making it a civil society for the first time in a long time.

Do you cry because Nazi Germany was taken over by other countries in WW2? Or do you say "that is as bad as Germany taking over Poland in 1939" ?

Re:That's good news

[Hittite Creosote]

The US, British Empire and France defeat Germany and install regime change. Sit back and 15 years later, you have a Germany that is modernising, building up its factories, preparing to... invade Poland.

We really screwed Germany up the first time...

CNN is a perfect example of left-wing media

[Anonymous Coward]

"One on the most interesting political rants today is the conspiracy of "left-wing media" and the "liberal press". CNN is a perfect example"

CNN is a perfect example of left-wing media.

If you look at it objectively, from the center, most TV news is left-wing. Most AM talk radio is right-wing. The press is mixed (sure you have a few big local papers like LA-, and NY-Times that are left-wing, but there are hundreds of papers out there).

"For all of the fawning over Bush, refraining from asking tough questions to the administration, and tolerance of publicity stunts."

All of the TV news organizations are asking the tough questions. "Publicity stunts" is just a left-wing spin trying to denigrate the President for doing his job.

"Believe me, if CNN were liberal then they'd have long since been denouncing an ultra-conservative like Bush"

Bush is center-right, not ultraconservative. You should reword your statement since it was based on a false premise. And yes, they do denounce him.

"Fox News, on the other hand, is rarely (if ever) critical of Bush. It's difficult to call it centrist, in my opinon."

They do very often as well. It is easy to call them centrist because they are neither right-wing or left-wing.

Your point is as sharp as a bowling ball

[Anonymous Coward]

"Still, I think we can all agree that the process by which Bush took office was far from the usual electoral procedure"

No, few of us agree with this, as Bush won the exact same way his predecessors did: he got the majority popular vote in enough states to get enough electoral votes.

"Thus calling Bush a dictator does not depend on how he was elected. Look to his policies instead."

There your case becomes even weaker. Like his predecessors, he works within the Executive Branch haggling with the Leglislative Branch.

"Whether or not 9/11 would have been prevented is speculation that I will not indulge in!"

The answer to that is "doubtful". The problems that led to "not catching" 9-11 were systemic and quite present during the Clinton Administration as well as the early Bush Administration. There is no reason to believe that Gore would have changed things resulting in ferreting this out before it happened.

Trillions of Clinton debt

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Few on the left remember that Clinton added trillions to the national debt. He even refused a balanced budget amendment (so much for claims of "fiscal responsibility"). It was only after 1994 (The Year of the Informed Voter) when the GOP took congress that there was some sort of budget deadlock, and Clinton's greed-based economics was balked...then the defecit started to go down.

Now, we have Tom Daschle hell bent to use his large minority to block all economic growth and improvement, because a good economy hurts Democrats in November.

Who's to blame?

[Anonymous Coward]

While I can draw the difference between the American people and the American government, those people cannot (since most don't live under democratic regimes where the government can change on a regular basis). Thus, they hate all Americans.

I read several party platforms and candidate histories. I know who the American people -- those that bothered to -- voted for. I live under a proportional representative regime.

I don't hate Americans -- I hate stupid, greedy people.

Re:Who's to blame?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, there is not much difference between the American government and the American people. What Bush does is supported, what Clinton does is supported etc etc etc.

Nothing unusual about the 2000 election?

[Guuge]

No, few of us agree with this, as Bush won the exact same way his predecessors did

Shame on you! Anyone in the US not living in a cave should know the peculiarities of the 2000 election. For another interesting election that you should know about, search for Hayes and Tilden.

There your case becomes even weaker.

Remember, it's not my case. An in-depth comparison of Bush to, say, Hitler is not a task for me.

And I said that I wouldn't indulge in speculation with regard to 9/11. There is material available arguing both sides; I encourage you to find it.

Re:Nothing unusual about the 2000 election?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Shame on you! Anyone in the US not living in a cave should know the peculiarities of the 2000 election. For another interesting election that you should know about, search for Hayes and Tilden"

Yes. The peculiarites are known. The most important fact: it was damn close.

Other things include the fact that there was a spoiler of negligible appeal (Nader) whose presence in a thin-margin election did nothing but deny Gore a sure win.

Re:Nothing unusual about the 2000 election?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Remember, it's not my case. An in-depth comparison of Bush to, say, Hitler is not a task for me"

The contrast is quite interesting.

Bush tries to undo the racist policies of his predecessor (affirmative action), while Hitler was really into the "different rights based on race" thing.

Bush is about the most pro-semitic President we've ever had. Hitler, well, you know.

Bush effectively opposes the tyrant dictators. Hitler forms an Axis with them.

--------

The contrasts are great. If you want some equivalency, compare Bush to FDR or Churchill.

Re:Nothing unusual about the 2000 election?

[Guuge]

The most important fact: it was damn close.

It was damn close, but not the closest presidential election we've ever had. To me, the most striking feature is that the contest was ultimately put to rest by the supreme court, overturning a lower court.

That didn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

"It was damn close, but not the closest presidential election we've ever had. To me, the most striking feature is that the contest was ultimately put to rest by the supreme court, overturning a lower court"

The lower court tried to undo the actual results by counting ballots without votes as being votes for Gore. The United States Supreme Court stepped in and returned it to what it is everywhere else: count actual votes. It should never have made it to any court. However, there were lawyers who were willing to be paid to lie.

Re:That didn't matter

[Guuge]

The lower court tried to undo the actual results by counting ballots without votes as being votes for Gore.

What the lower court decided was that the Florida recount needed to be completed before the final decision was made. It had little to do with "actual results" and empty ballots. The supreme court overturned it. Although there is no evidence, there is reason to believe that both courts acted in a partisan manner. If the supreme court were more liberal, there is an excellent chance that Gore would be president.

Re:That didn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

"What the lower court decided was that the Florida recount needed to be completed "

Yet, the Florida recount had been done a few times already. And it was legally past time to have recounts done. The Gore camp was playing the "let's have a recount again and again until we get one that goes our way. Then we will say stop."

"If the supreme court were more liberal, there is an excellent chance that Gore would be president."

Not based on this case. Gore lost the exact count that he asked the courts for, the one he was denied. He would have had to take it to the courts again, and again, and again. With a razor thin margin, and slight tweaks in the rules, it was like playing dice: a craps game of "do-over" rolls until you win.

All in all, Gore said he invented the Internet. He never took credit for the Electoral College.

Re:That didn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Not based on this case.

That's far from a certainty, now isn't it? You're grasping, and regurgitating Republican rhetoric. It goes to show that the election was definitely not as cut and dry as the majority of presidential elections.

By the way, if you need some Democratic rhetoric to argue with, there are numerous liberal websites that might interest you.

Informed neo-con

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy you are referring to actually thinks about issues, and is thus a neo-con.

"the declarations of war on trumped up charges"

The declaration was based on the facts.

"That's what they're complaining about. Winning an election doesn't justify every act afterwards."

No. Making sure the acts are a good idea, domestically and internationally, is what has justified his actions.

Re:How does rubbish like this get modded insightfu

[WIAKywbfatw]

OK, I did have a nice, long rebuttal of your post but it disappeared into the ether just as I was about to hit the "submit" button. So here's a light version.

1. 127 cameras, covering a city with a population of over 100,000 and to which many more commute to for work is not a camera on every street corner. It's perhaps a camera on every major road junction, a few dozen cameras in the main shopping precinct and around major public buildings.

2. Being spotted by 300 cameras a day in London is some feat. Care to point out who makes that claim and how that 300 is reached? Perhaps if you went into London by public transport, visited Oxford Street (which has a higher turnover than the Mall of America), went into every department store there and visited every floor within, and then went on sightseeing tour of major public buildings, you might get caught on camera (a few seconds at a time) a couple of hundred times.

Most of those would be in the stores though and i) the stores don't share their footage in real-time with anyone; and ii) they are only interested in shoplifters stealing from them, within the confines of their property. If you don't want to be filmed shopping, don't go into any store that has a CCTV camera. Duh.

3. I am not "*SO* clueless" as you suggest. I freely admit there are CCTV cameras around, and that if you use public transport, go into a department store, visit a public building or square then you're bound to be caught on camera. But what I strongly refute is the claim as if it were fact that there are CCTVs on every street corner and that they are somehow linked to form a national monitoring network. This isn't just ridiculous, it's a bare-faced lie.

(Oh, and when I said "If they were there, I would see them.", it was in reply to the claim that there were CCTVs on every street corner. Which there clearly aren't. Thanks for taking that quote completely out of context.)

4. The amount of money spent on CCTVs in the UK, and the amount of coverage acheived by them is laughably small, especially when compared to elsewhere. Perhaps you should check your own links? This is what the penultimate link you supplied had to say about CCTV usage in the US:

Closed Circuit TV - United States

The United States is also experiencing massive growth in the implementation and use of CCTV equipment. Military sources refer to closed circuit television as the' force multiplier'. An apt name when we consider the sheer impossibility of any jurisdiction affording the number of staff it would require to have a 'cop on every corner'.

CCTV a huge success in the U.S...

The success of CCTV in reducing crime in the US is apparent. According to an article in the New York Times - New York City Police Commissioner Howard Safir directly attributes a 44% drop in crime statistics in one regional housing installation project to the closed circuit tv cameras. Huge reductions have also been reported in traffic violations (running red lights for example) and in the areas of vandalism, theft, assault and public mischief.

Commercial and and industrial clients spending big bucks on the CCTV industry...

The demand for closed circuit television equipment is reflected in the statistics available from the industry's suppliers. Businesses in the US spend approximately $100 billion dollars a year on the purchase of high-tech security equipment - over 50% of the total sales of closed circuit tv products are to industrial or commercial clients.

20% of all U.S homeowners have some kind of closed circuit tv equipment...

Worthy of note, however, is the estimated growth in the residential security market. Approximately 20% of all homes in the US have some type of closed circuit television monitoring and alarm equipment installed. An estimated 95% of home owners report that these CCTV security systems are an effective deterrent to intruders and make them feel safer. Statistics reflect that a home without a security

Re:rise of an American dictator in 2000

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Ivin's again:
Twenty-four percent of American workers now make less that $8.70 an hour, and they have effectively lost their right to unionize.

As Harold Meyerson reported in The Washington Post, "When European employers look to the United States, they see roughly the same thing that U.S. employers see when they look to China: millions of low-wage workers who have all but lost the right to organize and a government intent on keeping things the way they are."

Predictions

[Xophmeister]

...like an orgasm via e-mail in 2010

I don't know about that, but how about adding *inches* using our special herbal patch and anti-gravity moon boots (pat. pending). Yours for only $99.95!

Re:Well, since Bush wasn't elected...

[viware]

Sorry I lagged in responding so long, I didn't notice there was a reply.

You know, you should go back and do that search on google news again (economy u.s.), and take a look and the search results more closely.

But lets look at some hard facts:
http://www.zealllc.com/2003/usdbear.htm
G reat article, take a read. He certainly tries to defend the US economy.

As of right now:
1 EUR = 1.21510 USD
1 CAD = 0.766454 USD
(by the way the CAD is the strongest against the US its been in a decade)

The US is failing in the world economy. Many americans are oblivious to this, partially because they think they can stand alone.
Read: http://www.logicfever.com/weblog/000058.php
The EURO is beginning to threaten the USD, and is currently stronger than the USD.
Read: http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/1 9.html

Also, regarding Iraq:
"Air power clearly achieved many of the objectives of Operation Desert Storm, but fell short of fully achieving others. GAO's declassified review of available data indicate that many postwar claims by manufacturers and the Defense Department (DOD) about the performance of sophisticated weapon systems--particularly the F-117, the Tomahawk land attack missile, and laser-guided bombs-- were overstated, misleading, inconsistent with the data, or unverifiable. Airpower damage to several major targets was less than that suggested in a Defense Department (DOD) report to Congress. The lessons learned from Desert Storm are limited because of the unique conditions, the strike tactics used by the coalition, the limited Iraq response, and the limited data on weapon system effectiveness. The climate and terrain were generally conducive to air strikes, and the coalition had nearly six months to plan the operation. The strong likelihood of success allowed U.S. commanders to favor strike tactics that emphasized pilot and aircraft survivability rather than weapon system effectiveness. In addition, the Iraqis employed few, if any, electronic countermeasures and presented almost no air-to-air opposition. As a result, Desert Storm did not rigorously test aircraft and weapon systems used in the air campaign."
(From http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/comments/c164.htm)

Heres some death numbers:
- 40,000 Iraqi soldiers
- 86,194 men
- 39,612 women
- 32,195 children
(From http://www.beholdtheempire.com/gulf/articles/artic le5.html)

That doesnt look too precise to me...

Re:Well, since Bush wasn't elected...

[Richard Allen]

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/031211/nyth120_1.html

2004 Will Be the U.S.'S Best Year Economically in Last 20 Years, The Conference Board Reports in a Revised Forecast

Oops ... there it is ...