Slashdot Mirror


What's Your Terrorism Quotient?

unassimilatible writes "From the Department of Pre-Crime, the AP reports: before helping to launch the criminal information project known as Matrix (Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange), a database contractor gave U.S. and Florida authorities the names of 120,000 people who showed a statistical likelihood of being terrorists - sparking some investigations and arrests. The 'high terrorism factor' scoring system also became a key selling point for the involvement of the database company, Seisint Inc., in the Matrix project. According to Seisint's presentation, dated January 2003 and marked confidential, the 120,000 names with the highest scores were given to the INS, FBI, Secret Service and Florida state police. Seisint and the law enforcement officials who oversee Matrix insist that the terrorism scoring system ultimately was kept out of the project, largely because of privacy concerns."

1,076 comments

  1. Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm 24 years old. I don't want to go through the next 50 years of my life living in an international air of worry and uncertainty. I don't want to live in a permanent state of fear, generated by a megalomaniacal American government taking advantage of the majority low IQ populous' capacity for being brainwashed.

    I don't want to live like Israel, fighting militant Muslims round every corner. The problem of Muslim extremists exists and needs to be dealt with, not encouraged by invading innocent countries and waging war on people who have done nothing to deserve it. I want my children to grow up in a world free from military oppression and I want a government that understands that the wars of the future are guerrilla ones which can never be won, even if they are waged for noble purposes (which theirs never are).

    The world is fu*cked up enough as it is. The food chain has been poisoned so badly the average human is full of chemicals normally found in plastics and toxic waste. I'm sick of global warning and environmental damage to the planet and the fact the all this time the greenies were right. I'm sick of America being the biggest wilful contributor to the pollution of the planet.

    I'm sick of an American school system that produces children who are brought up to believe that America IS the world and anything that goes on outside is irrelevant. Children so stupid they think America invented the Internet, computer, motor car, light bulb, telephone etc ad infinitum....

    The Internet or it's successor is the future of entertainment and I'm sick of stupid low IQ, ignorant Americans infecting every corner of it with their insular, jingoistic mindsets, their whiny voices and manifestations of their low self esteem driven by the fact that despite it being their turn as the world's super power, no one actually takes them seriously or gives them the respect that the British or the Ancient Greeks got because a superpower best known for producing mass produced crap is never going to get the respect that one who gave the world Shakespeare, culture, philosophy or mathematics will get.

    I'm sick of hypocrisy and two facedness. I'm sick of Gangsta Rap and hamburgers, Political Correctness and TV programmes that begin with 'When' and end in 'go bad and attack people'. I'm sick of reality TV and I'm sick of news programmes that are more censored than accurate. I'm sick of tokens, token minorities, token universities, token degrees, token attempts at the truth, tokens. I'm sick of fat people, ugly people, stupid people, gay people, coloured people, female people, whiny people all complaining they don't have the opportunities in life they would like and it must be someone else's fault. I'm sick of women that act like men and femininity being a crime, unless you're a man in which case you're a new man which nobody ever wanted because there was nothing wrong with the old one. I'm sick of people falling over and suing the ground and people watching nipples and suing the TV and I'm sick of coffee cups with 'don't pour over yourself, you may get burnt' on the side to try and counter this.

    I'm sick of stupid Americans who don't know the difference between patriotism and jingoism and who think flag waving should be an Olympic event. I'm sick of Americans who cry that people hate them or are jealous of them or who are anti them because someone dares to point out that the America they've been programmed to believe in from birth bears no relation to the one that exists in real life.

    1. Re:Fuck you America by ragecgi · · Score: 0

      Insensitive Clod...
      jk...
      May your rant reek with a cluster of 1000 yr old grits from Natalie Portmans pants..

    2. Re:Fuck you America by nfgaida · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You'll probably be modded down, but I agree.

      I want an America that isn't full of easily amused idiots watching crap on TV.

      --
      *elevator music plays*
    3. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Well, someone has to say it: If you don't like it in the United States, go somewhere else. Nobody is stopping you. I mean, really, if it's that bad here, leave. What are you waiting for? Get out! Go on! Move!

    4. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I want an America that isn't full of easily amused idiots watching crap on TV.

      Yeah? Well, I want an America full of nymphomaniac supermodels who own breweries. Deal.

    5. Re:Fuck you America by mrn121 · · Score: 0

      Anyone else notice that they spelled "colour" like that? Is this a non-American bashing America? Seems like all of a sudden his "chances of being a terrorist" in the Matrix have gone up a few points...

    6. Re:Fuck you America by Hatta · · Score: 4, Funny

      Man, there are gonna be a lot of mod points wasted on this one. Already 4, and it's only at +1. hehe

      BTW, there's nothing wrong with gangsta rap. It's R&B that's really bad.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    7. Re:Fuck you America by MoonBuggy · · Score: 0

      Shame you posted as AC, you'd have just made my friends list otherwise.

      I think I may just make a 'motivational poster' out of that :-)

    8. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your main point is well taken.
      However, didn't Americans invent the internet, light bulb, and telephone?

    9. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I agree, but it looked familiar so I googled for it.. There is a copy at least here, which looks like a copy/repost itself.

    10. Re:Fuck you America by gspr · · Score: 0, Redundant

      RIGHT ON! If only I had mod points!

    11. Re:Fuck you America by raider_red · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think your only valid option may be suicide. If you don't want to worry about anything, it might be best just to end it now. As an alternative, try focusing on what's importan to you, and making your part of the world better. Am I afraid of terrorists? No. Do I keep my eyes open to make sure no one's parking moving trucks in strange locations or wearing heavy winter coats in the middle of Texas in summertime. Sure I do.

      --
      It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
    12. Re:Fuck you America by brennz · · Score: 1

      America didn't invent the Internet, Al Gore did that.

    13. Re:Fuck you America by meringuoid · · Score: 2, Informative
      Children so stupid they think America invented the Internet, computer, motor car, light bulb, telephone

      I'm not sure how to take this... are you trolling here? Most people would say Americans invented most of these - even foreigners.

      However:

      the Internet: American in origin, though the Web is Anglo-Swiss and the software running it is increasingly Finnish
      computer: British in origin, but developed to its current form mostly by Americans
      motor car: German, I think. Benz, IIRC. Mass-production of cars, however, we owe to Ford.
      light bulb: British. Joseph Swan, to be precise; I heard he even won a lawsuit against Edison proving that to be the case.
      telephone: Bell was American, wasn't he? I think that on this one they have a quite undisputed claim.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    14. Re:Fuck you America by Mukaikubo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh dear, oh dear. Let me see.

      Firstly, as you say, yes; the problem of Muslim extremists does exist, and does have to be dealt with. However, you earlier claimed that the atmosphere of fear (I won't say terror) is being created by the US government. I would make the case to you that the atmosphere of fear was created on September 11th, that it sent very large and very real ripples through the very social fabric of the country, and even with no government prompting and no further attacks, will take decades to get back to 2000 normal.

      Then you claim that the greenies were right all along. Well, not precisely. They've been right on some things, wrong on others, just like every other group out there. Global cooling, anyone?

      As for the rest of it, I was going to go point by point, but I realized you were indulging yourself in a masturbatory elitist rant against the stoopid masses. Which are, quite frankly, a dime a dozen on this site, on Fark, on just about any forum you care to name. It IS being said, unlike the earlier replies, and it is being said ad nauseum. If you don't have anything new to contribute, this post is basically a 7-paragraph "Me Too!"

      My suggestion? Learn that popular doesn't mean stupid.

    15. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is a great troll,
      watch all the americans flame away while the rest of the world pats him on the back in agreement, didnt get many bites in the previous thread but this one worked

    16. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      And I was hoping for Ashley Judd. Deal.

      Brian Dowling.

    17. Re:Fuck you America by loyalsonofrutgers · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is a troll and/or flamebait. Regardless of whether you agree with its contents or not. Someone, or multiple someones, are just reposting it wherever they damn well feel like it.

      For instance, it was also posted in the story about Intel's patent problems (here).

      It's probably ripped off from somewhere else by someone looking to stir up trouble or artificially inflate their own ego by watching some post of theirs to slashdot get modded up. I'd suggest modding it down just for the fact that its most likely ripped off from somewhere and blanket posted wherever the AC thinks he can score up a few mod points. He just got lucky with this story, don't give him the satisfaction.

    18. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah? Well, if you get the former, maybe the later wouldn't be so hard.....

    19. Re:Fuck you America by Aneurysm9 · · Score: 1
      Children so stupid they think America invented the Internet, computer, motor car, light bulb, telephone etc ad infinitum....

      Aren't those all American inventions? (Okay, there may have been mechanical computers that weren't invented by Americans, but I take you to have meant the digital computer.) I agree with you 100% about the majority of Americans being stupid fucks though. And the scary part is that their votes count just as much as mine. Perhaps we need to license people to vote.

      --
      There was Cowboy Neal at the wheel of a bus to never-ever land.
    20. Re:Fuck you America by TheZax · · Score: 1


      I think you missed people full of hate, and people that make overly broad generalisations to support their hate.
      ;-)

      --

      JWall: GUI client for IPTables
    21. Re:Fuck you America by gowen · · Score: 1

      Bell was a Scot, resident in Canada. The invention of the telephone is disputed between him and some American called Gray, who may have been earlier than Bell, but was slower in filing his patent.

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    22. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah? Well, if you get the former, maybe the later wouldn't be so hard.....

      Why? So I could have a bunch of hyper-intelligent brewery owning nymphomaniac supermodels who watch PBS? Throw in a pony while you're at it.

    23. Re:Fuck you America by JoeBar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This one is gettin old...

    24. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chances are you're fat :)

    25. Re:Fuck you America by Zilquis · · Score: 1

      Your not a london cabbie by any chance

    26. Re:Fuck you America by PhoenixFlare · · Score: 1

      How this is insightful, I don't know.

      It's simply a list of some legitimate problems mixed in with probably the most anti-American cliches and misconceptions i've ever seen gathered in one post.

      If you haven't already left the country (or aren't American in the first place), Mr. AC, maybe you should. I suspect you'd be much happier, and we'd be better off with less people like you, who, instead of working to try and fix what's wrong with the country, choose to sit back and whine about everything that's gone wrong.

      At any rate, you have given America a hearty "Fuck you". Now what are you going to do?

    27. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No offense, but that's a horrific attitude. Better than leaving the country (if the poster is, indeed, American) would be to stay and make an attempt at implementing change in the matters with which he's concerned.

      It's one thing to notice problems and voice an opinion regarding them, but once you've voiced said opinion do something to rectify things so that the country once again becomes the one you've been brought up to know and love.

    28. Re:Fuck you America by XiX36 · · Score: 1, Redundant

      its all about the gain of American Hegemony (TM) over the world, so that a few of the aristocracy can enjoy 90 percent of the worlds wealth .. and what scraps they miss the rest of us get to keep...
      they prefer a nation divided .. despite what they say about 'United We Stand' ... look to the entertainment they create, political correctness is another method of creating OTHER... that which is not us is OTHER .. and therefore LESSER ..
      the lure of aristocratic lifestyle is very ancient... only until fairly recently (in the lifespan of humanity) has there emerged a significant middle class, but that middle class is now not only shrinking but it is subjected to propaganda that those at the bottom who are falling into the realm of poverty do not see what is happening, and those at the upper reaches of the middle class belive they are members of the elite few at the top.. but the majority never rise above lackeys to the counts and dukes and barons of this new era of royalty...
      the american dream of rags to riches, is naught but a myth, with but a handful of examples...

      as to the war in iraq... if you belive that this invasion of a country was to help develope democracy in a nation we had absolutely no trouble at all in giving their dictator money, arms, and WMD's until the 1990's ... then i wish you well in your blinded ignorance ....

      by the way, drafting may commence in the latter part of 2005 ... and its going to be alot harder to run to canada this time around . . .

      well sorry for the rambling, half awake babbling but we must wake up from our dream state, and confront the powers that be that we will no longer tolerate being used as cannon fodder in their wars of profit...

      "Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."

      --Goering at the Nuremberg Trials

      --
      Insert witty sig here.
    29. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well written prose? You've got to be joking. This is a bunch of incoherent babbling! Prose indeed. The ravings of a spoiled child who has gorged himself on the propaganda of a mindless ideology, who, despite his self proclaimed superior intellect, can not seem to muster the mental faculty necessary to develop a cohesive point.

    30. Re:Fuck you America by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a Canadian waiting to happen.

      While I agree with a lot of your comments, I don't think your comment on American Cultre not being respected holds.

      Even when America was in Vietnam inciting a civil war, American music was popular there. I recently spent several months in China, where pirated American movies and American music is never more than a 10 minute walk away.

      American culture may be low brow, but it is watched worldwide.

      While Global Warming is a problem, it's noteworthy that even the most conservative models for global warming predicted effects ten times as severe as what we're observing.

      As long as there's the internet, no one is too confined to their own culture.

      Regarding reality TV; Survivor was originally European, incidentally.

      But hey, I'm sick of fat people and ugly people too. Oh, and anonymous cowards too.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    31. Re:Fuck you America by NotZed · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Funny, I thought the comments would be so completely opposite to this.

      Good on ya mate. Whether I agree or not (and to be honest, generally I do), you're welcome to your own opinion. And anyones own opinion seems to have become too much of a byword for terrorism lately. Hah! So much for "free bloody speech" eh? Bloody hypochrites.

      Terrorists are pricks, but you don't fight them by strenghtening their popular base of support by terrorising innocent people instead. Instead you undermine their base - fight poverty and social injustice - NOT strenghen it. And why do the yanks do such a good job at it - its a pity. American's aren't stupid, on the whole, but by fuck they do a good job of making out they are, by their skewed environment and upbringing it seems. Its a real pity that recent events didn't bring them more into the real world - I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same. As they say. They're not the only ones.

      Whats the other one? You can't fool all of the people all of the time? ...

      I guess time will tell. The mighty always fall eh? We'll see.

      --
      _ // `Thinking is an exercise to which all too few brains
      \\/ are accustomed' - First Lensman
    32. Re:Fuck you America by visgoth · · Score: 1

      Actually he was born in Scotland and later lived in Canada for a while.

      --
      My patience is infinite, my time is not.
    33. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wish in one hand,
      Crap in the other.

      Which will you get first?

      So stop your whining and bitching and moaning. DO SOMETHING.

      Here are some suggestions:
      1. Educate yourself about the meaning and goals of Islam. (You will be quite suprised).

      2. Join the military - your young enough, and then your children may not have to.

      3. Get involved politically - the ATTACKS on America and MURDERS of Americans have scared the politicians. They don't want to get voted out of office because they "didn't do something" about it. So they are taking away our freedoms and abusing out Constitutional Rights (have you even read the Constitution). Write your Senator and Represenative and tell them to stop it.

      4. Educate yourself about the state of the lives of people in countries that have not been saved from tyranny by American intervention. And those that have been saved. Look at Germany, France, Italy, Japan and compare the standard of living to any dictatorship. Compare North Korea to South Korea. WE AREN'T JUST MERELY ARROGANT, WE ARE BETTER. And yes, we are arrogant about it too.

      No we aren't perfect, but I'll take America, warts and all, to ANY OTHER COUNTRY NOW OR THAT EVER HAS EXISTED.

      But don't you dare sit there on your lazy ass and complain, even if it is your Right.

      Nothing will change, nothing will get worse or better because you rant. (Or because I rant.)

      DO SOMETHING! Or get crap in your hand.

    34. Re:Fuck you America by Tukla · · Score: 2, Funny

      He also wrote "programmes", so he's definitely a foreign terrorist. I hope he enjoys Guantanamo Bay.

    35. Re:Fuck you America by Coltman · · Score: 1

      Internet - Oh man as a geek I cannot answer that but it was a collabaration in the States... between universities with professors from around the world.

      Light bulb - Yep that was the americans Thomas Edison

      Telephone - That I know was a Canadian. Alexander Graham Bell.

      --
      - my $.02? - you can't have it...it's all I have!!
    36. Re:Fuck you America by Slick_Snake · · Score: 1

      The Moderators have been duped again check out the article on Intel being sued and you'll see the same post only the age is different. Its just some numnut who feels he needs attention.

    37. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firstly, as you say, yes; the problem of Muslim extremists does exist, and does have to be dealt with. However, you earlier claimed that the atmosphere of fear (I won't say terror) is being created by the US government. I would make the case to you that the atmosphere of fear was created on September 11th, that it sent very large and very real ripples through the very social fabric of the country, and even with no government prompting and no further attacks, will take decades to get back to 2000 normal.

      Personally, I would have mostly forgotten about 9/11 at this point if they didn't keep reminding me. (I'm west coast and don't know anyone in NY, haven't ever been to NY.) It was a good wakeup call that something needs to be done, but invading 2 countries, imprisoning hundreds, spending billions, and "temporarily" putting parts of the Bill of Rights on hold seems a bit much for a single act of terrorism.

      Especially since most of it won't do a single thing to prevent terrorism. (National Guardsman at the airport? Since when have terrorists tried to take an airport by force?) Some of it even fuels the terrorists, because the Bush administration sucks so bad at PR that people have to make up their own reasons for our actions. Far less money spent in a far more subtle military campaign and a better run PR/relations campaign could do a lot more to prevent terrorism.

      I, like most Americans, make a terrible target for terrorists. They won't waste their time on me or my city. I'm not afraid, stop bothering me about them.

      Now, a terrorist is someone who uses terror for political gain, right? Isn't Bush's campaign slogan, "You should be afraid for your life, and therefore you should give me what I want. Vote Bush!"? That's been all he's said since 9/11. Doesn't that count as using terror for political gain? Doesn't that make Bush a textbook terrorist? Lock his ass up in Gitmo, I say. Lets see what he thinks of his policies if he was on the other side of them.

      "You don't have to worry about the laws being unfair, dear, they don't apply to us."

    38. Re:Fuck you America by Raven42rac · · Score: 1

      Actually, it was because Bell kept better records than Gray. Gray filed his patent first, IIRC.

      --
      I hate sigs.
    39. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh, pluueeeeease... "...Americans invented most of these..."...parent was correct (and this is a demonstration) that most Americans are ignorant...let's just look at "...the telephone..." Just because Bell took American citzenship late in life, every American loves to claim that an "American" invented the phone...sheesh... Bell was born in Scotland, spent most of his life in Canada (Brantford, Ontario and died in Nova Scotia...even then the Bells were smart enough to realize that living in Canada was better than living in the US, a fact that most Canadians are aware of :-)). The idea of the telephone came to Bell while in Brantford (Canada) and he demonstrated his ideas in the US several times... Here's a sample link to help the Americans clear up a tiny portion of their ignorance and arrogance...Telephone

    40. Re:Fuck you America by JDevers · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree with your sentiment, HOWEVER, the US DID invent or atleast significantly develop a decent number of the products you describe.

      Internet: grew out of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency->ARPANET. The two most significant dates are 1969 when it was started and 1983 when the system was switched from NCP to TCP/IP. Other important work to our modern Internet was conducted by the NSF, NSFnet, based around connecting university campuses.

      Computer: The computer is an evolved version of something which has existed for some time and is based on numerous contributions. Modern digital computing though can be said to be based on a handful of significant inventions and ideas. The most important of these ideas are von Neumann architecture, based on work done by John von Neumann a Hungarian-American who did the majority of his most important work at Princeton. The most important inventions where transistors (invented by Bell Labs in 1947), integrated circuits (conceived of by Britain's Geoffrey W.A. Dummer in 1952 but not successfully constructed until 1958 by Jack Kilby of TI and made into a useful device in 1962 by Robert Noyce of Fairchild Semiconductor), and the microprocessor (first developed by Marcian Hoff while working at Intel).

      Motor Cars: The US definitely doesn't deserve recognition for inventing much of the early technology used in cars, however Oldsmobile was the first factory to use modern assembly line techniques which were later greatly improved by Henry Ford. So while we didn't invent, we played a moderately important role...plus I don't know if I've ever met anyone who thought we DID invent the car. As an aside, most people I've known credit Mercedes-Benz for this invention, and even though that isn't quite correct it is a lot closer to the truth since Daimler and Benz separately (at first) played a huge role in the development of the modern gasoline internal combustion engine.

      Modern light bulb: I'll give you this one. I believe that most American's credit Thomas Edison for this, but Heinrich Goebel or Joseph Swan (depending on what you define as the invention...) definitely deserve it. Edison actually did very little in this field, he invented a longer lasting filament but within a year or two Lewis Latimer improved significantly on Edison's filament.

      telephone: Antonia Meucci is probably the father of this invention, although what we think of as a telephone should probably be credited to Philipp Reis since he was actually able to transmit voice instead of just "make or break" type signals. Again though, I think a lot of American's credit Alexander Graham Bell for this invention.

      So in summary, American's basically invented the Internet, played a huge role in the evolution of the modern computer, and had smaller roles in the last three inventions. I'll agree that too many people credit this country with inventing these items, but to say that children are stupid for believing it when about half of it is CORRECT is a bit infantile. Actually you believe that the Internet and computers were invented somewhere else is just as faulty and you aren't a child.

    41. Re:Fuck you America by kraut · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, Flag Waving SHOULD be an olympic event, and restricted to the olympics!

      --
      no taxation without representation!
    42. Re:Fuck you America by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      No, it's a bit too well reasoned for that.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    43. Re:Fuck you America by Dirk+Pitt · · Score: 5, Insightful
      This actually raises an interesting point that most Americans don't even understand, let alone the rest of the world.

      Programming in America is determined by the *statistical* success of the programming, as described by the dominent Nielsen Media Research.

      Nielsen chooses a number of households that report their television viewing habits. From this sample, they extrapolate viewing habits. If the news says that 40 million watched the superbowl in the US, it's really saying that Nielsen judged that 40 million watched the superbowl based on a sample of less than 1% of the US population.

      What makes this extremely inaccurate is the process that's used to choose a 'Nielsen Family'. They do choose the households at random to attempt to make things statistically accurate, but no one is obligated to become a Nielsen reporter. It's a cumbersome duty with no reward. At the very least the family must keep a complete diary of their viewing habits, at worst they must have their house wired with equipment that electronically scope what they're watching.

      Who would do such a thing, you ask? Complete and utter losers. People that feel they have no voice; the uneducated; the elderly; etc, etc. I'm sure some /. readers are Nielsen Family members, and I'll say now that there exceptions to the rules, normal people that do this. The ratings do show that 'high brow' TV does get watched But you can bet that the technically-oriented, educated, well-read television viewer has little proportional impact on the Nielsen ratings.

      I'll give one good recent example. Futurama and The Family Guy had terrible ratings on Fox. After the shows were cancelled, they were released on DVD. They're post-cancellation sales have been through the roof; very disproportionate to the ratings. So they're bringing at least one of those shows back -- but how will they sell advertising when the Nielsen's will still reflect low-brow ratings?

      One more thing -- the oh-so-annoying 'watermarked' station ID now so popular? It's for Nielsen idiots that never write the correct station down. Basically, if a Nielsen viewer writes down that they watched Friends on Fox, that datum is invalidated. So stations have to accomodate the drooling fools that don't even know what they're tuned in to.

      So don't for a second believe that the programming being offered in the US reflects 'typical' American viewing habits. Unfortunately, it's typically the mouth-breathers that dictate our long-running programmming. (aside -- I would dearly love to see how different Tivo's national statistics are from the Nielsens; I'd wager that they look like they judge two entirely different populations, which they probably do)

    44. Re:Fuck you America by Toadpipe · · Score: 1

      Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Sorry. All three were inovated and implemented by Americans, but the technologies they are build on were invented by non-Americans one and all.

      Oh, and Henry Ford didn't invent the automobile either, That was Karl Benz. A German.

      --
      Nostalgia ain't what it used to be.
    45. Re:Fuck you America by gowen · · Score: 2, Informative

      Gray never filed a patent, he attempted to file a caveat -- a warning that a patent was coming, on February 14, 1876. However, Bell had been in the same patent office earlier in the day -- Bell was the fifth applicant to be processed that day, Gray was 39th.

      Source : Library Of Congress

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    46. Re:Fuck you America by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Well since then it's been up to 5, down to -1 and back up to 0. That's at least 15 mod points wasted. Nice troll.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    47. Re:Fuck you America by Le+Marteau · · Score: 2, Funny

      computer: British in origin, but developed to its current form mostly by Americans

      The British gave up on making computers because they could not figure out how to get them to leak oil.

      --
      Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
    48. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've read this on yahoo. It's propoganda. Though some of it may be true, I think this person is stereotyping Americans. The idea behind America is that you're free to ignore and do what you please. Someone who is sick of so much has the right to be mad or angry, but they also have the right to ignore these things. They don't have to buy into it. I believe America is within a cycle. We've lost some of our freedom, but I believe we'll gain it with a new Administration, be it this year or 2008.

    49. Re:Fuck you America by hummassa · · Score: 1

      motor car is French.

      --
      It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
    50. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      American is the lone super power left in the world. If we are stupid, what does that make everyone else? :P

    51. Re:Fuck you America by orcus · · Score: 1

      Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

      --
      First they burn books, then they burn people.
    52. Re:Fuck you America by symbolic · · Score: 1

      One more thing -- the oh-so-annoying 'watermarked' station ID now so popular?

      I can't tell you how much this annoys me. This ID, along with the stupid little animated messages at the bottom of the screen add a little bit of extra pain to an already painful experience. For the time being anyway, I've found other things to occupy my time. The TV is on sometimes, but rarely "watched". I wonder which part of the Nielsen ratings includes this segment of the population.

    53. Re:Fuck you America by clickster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not going to comment either way on the whole "America sucks!"/"America rocks!" thread, but I would like to point out the ignorance of the "if you don't like it, go elsewhere" statement. In this country, if you don't like something, you should work to change it. Critcicism can be constructive. Criticism is not in and of itself unpatriotic, though you can take it there if you really want to. Another problem is that going somewhere else doesn't necessarily make a difference. The US tends to exert influence all over the world. So even though you moved to a different country, your new gov. may be making decisions based off of US policy (i.e. Afghanistan, Iraq, UK, etc.) So the "go elsewhere" part of your argument won't necessarily work. Unless you want to move to some place like central/southern Africa, which the US typically ignores. Yes, we may be giving $15 billion in AIDS relief, etc. but ask yourself how much we would be giving Europe if they had several countries where 20-30% of the population had AIDS. It's a matter of comparitive interest. Anyway, that last part went off topic. To sum up the point that I'm trying to get across, if you don't like how things are going in the US, don't go somewhere else. Work to change it. It's your country as much as it is any other citizen's.

      --
      If you mod me down, I shall become less powerful than you could possibly imagine.
    54. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      gotta watch out for those illegal parkers. And the shoplifters.

    55. Re:Fuck you America by Cranx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As an American, it hurts to hear this sort of commentary. But what hurts more is that it's true. I'm so sick of corporate hip-hop garbage blasting in my face everywhere I go, redneck christian morons cheering Bush on with every Iraqi killed or maimed. America has become DUMB DUMB DUMB and the jobs are slipping away. I can only guess what it will be like here in 20-40 years. Many of them seem proud of it too.

    56. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>Unfortunately, it's typically the mouth-breathers that dictate our long-running programmming

      And choose our government...

    57. Re:Fuck you America by dmitriy · · Score: 1

      > Who would do such a thing, you ask? Complete and utter losers.

      Hello, my name is dmitriy, and I am complete and utter loser.

      I received one-week Nielsen radio package and used it to promote my political views.

    58. Re:Fuck you America by Craig+Maloney · · Score: 1

      Nice way to work in the punchline from today's Doonesbury. :)

    59. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's a Brit, I'll bet 10 pounds on that :) Their culture is quite US influenced so they do have more to say about the US than all other countries.

    60. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All well and good, but I'm not sure if they'd want you! :)

    61. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was my guess, since it was posted 2 minutes after the story was up on Slashdot. I doubt someone could type all that off the top of their head in such little time.

    62. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      to say that "americans" invented a lot of things is really meaningless. *OF COURSE* they did, because America is a country of *IMMIGRANTS*. Baring native americans a.k.a. indians, we're all from other places. and the reason 'we' (is there really a collective 'we' for all Americans to identify with?)
      invented so many things is smart people from other parts of the world came here and did incredible things. Things they could have done in their own country but for various cultural/governmental/finanical or other types of barriers. It's not like one instantly becomes smarter by stepping on American soil. :)
      the only reason we consider Edison 'american' is cause he came here from Ireland at a very young age. The Irish could (and possibly do?) consider him 'theirs'. Same with, for example, Einstein and Germany and almost every other example.
      And people bragging these days about 'innovations' from American universities annoy me to no end. Most americans don't do post-grad work at these universities.. Most of the work is by immigrants who came here from outside the country for the
      education offered. most americans are shitting on a farm fucking their sister.

      </rant>

      --vat

    63. Re:Fuck you America by efflux · · Score: 1

      ditto.

      --
      Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes. -- Walt Whitman
    64. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may be getting old, but if a poster says it in the right FUNNY context it fits right! Note that the grandparent did NOT apply this here...

    65. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      My girlfriend and I were asked to take part in the Nielsen TV survey. They give you $5 or $10 to participate (no big deal, but it it is at least somewhat of a "reward"). The other interesting thing is that you can tell them how many TVs you have in your house. They give you one diary for each of these. I said 5 so they sent us diarys. She watches The Daily Show, South Park, Chapelle Show, BBC News and I watch Adult Swim (I work until 12:30 AM).

      Saying that only complete losers take part is pretty short sighted. I never feel like a loser when I take part in a survey. It's not like the people go out and seek to be a part of the survey because they feel like they need to be heard. We are just the sort of people that will listen to a person conducting a survey and to help in the study. Insightfull my ass. If you think that most of the people are uneducated and eldery you must not understand how random samples work.

    66. Re:Fuck you America by antani · · Score: 0

      you're wrong, man

      http://www.telephonetribute.com/telephone_invent or s.html

      telephone was invented by Antonio Meucci, an Italian

      Italians do it better (pizza, spaghetti, mandolino, mafia, telefono)

    67. Re:Fuck you America by write_with_numbers · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "The ratings do show that 'high brow' TV does get watched But you can bet that the technically-oriented, educated, well-read television viewer has little proportional impact on the Nielsen ratings."

      I think that the technically-oriented, educated, well-read citizens of the World watch very little television to begin with.

      --
      You teach a child to read and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test. - George W. Bush
    68. Re:Fuck you America by Dizzle · · Score: 1

      There's nothing wrong with any sort of music.

      --
      -Dizzle
      "I most likely AM so interested in myself."
    69. Re:Fuck you America by mirko · · Score: 1

      Angry, because we don't want to be ruled by morons.

      --
      Trolling using another account since 2005.
    70. Re:Fuck you America by rubberband · · Score: 1

      Woo! I hope I'm not the only one who sees this as a coupling refrerence. British TV is better!

    71. Re:Fuck you America by slim-t · · Score: 1
      Do I keep my eyes open to make sure no one's parking moving trucks in strange locations or wearing heavy winter coats in the middle of Texas in summertime. Sure I do.

      How many terrorists have you caught with this method?

    72. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Aren't those all American inventions? (Okay, there may have been mechanical computers that weren't invented by Americans, but I take you to have meant the digital computer.)

      The first true digital computer was invented by a British Post Office engineer named Dr. Tommy Flowers for use at the Bletchley Park intelligence facility, in England during the WWII.

      It was called Colossus and was used to crack the German Enigma machine cyphers.

      See: Colossus

    73. Re:Fuck you America by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Firstly, what's going on is an unholy American-Israeli Axis of evil. They are out to conquer the world, pure and simple. If you think otherwise, you haven't read enough books, and you clearly avoid understanding current news events.

      Secondly, America is busily killing itself off. The question for you is: how much of a fight will this vicious animal put up before it finally slumps into a mess of decaying debris?

      I say this as a native American citizen, writing now in Toledo, Ohio. I'm in the veritable belly of the beast.

      Contrary to what the people in the Middle East think, who have had to pick out the bodies of their relatives out of the rubble of their homes after the action of American and Israeli bombs, the real war is being fought in America. And the good guys are losing.

      Behind the mercenary killers of the world's leading terrorist group -- the US Military -- there are millions of American taxpayers who are willingly paying into the system that buys all those bombs, bullets, guns and planes. It's gone too far to stop with just negotiation and diplomacy. Hence Bin Laden's use of airliners as missiles. Bin Laden obviously believed that America and Israel could no longer be negotiated with ... and he's right, even before 911.

      I'd like to say to the free peoples of the world, "hey, America is busy eating it's own belly, don't worry, just wait until Joe Sixpack finally can't even afford to drive to his workplace anymore", but I can't do that without acknowledging that the American military (rapacious as it is now) has yet to go truly beserk and wildly attack the free peoples of the world from the prompting of the millions of cowards living in (relative) safety inside America's enormously wide borders.

      My advice to you is to actively marginalize the American-Israeli Axis as much as you can. Refuse to buy American or Israeli goods and refuse to use their services. Don't buy their bonds. And take further steps that demonstrate your power as an individual citizen of your own nation: When American or Israeli "leaders" show up in your country, urge your officals to deny entry; stay away from their parades; and overall demonstrate that you don't want such butchers setting foot in your peaceful area.

      America's military forces need financial backing, like any mercenary force. If you marginalize their finances, then you can deny that pack of killers their ability to cross the world and drop bombs on you.

      --
      [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
    74. Re:Fuck you America by rthille · · Score: 1

      The food chain has been poisoned so badly the average human is full of chemicals normally found in plastics and toxic waste.

      You've got some decent points in your rant, but I'm not sure that this is one of them. You see, even with the food supply as fucked as you think it is, people still live much longer, healthier lives than they did 200 years ago when all the food they ate was 'natural' and 'wholesome'.

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    75. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alexander Graham Bell was Scottish.. moved in Canada then USA..

      source :..
      http://www.lucidcafe.com/lucidcafe/library/96 mar/b ell.html
      http://sln.fi.edu/franklin/inventor/bell .html

    76. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sick of stupid Americans who don't know the difference between patriotism and jingoism...

      Of coarse I know the diffrinse! I went to skool in america!

      patriotism: to have an inexplicable loyalty to one's country
      jingoism: to have a knack for creating jingos, those catchy tunes in commercials

      :-) :-) -- for the humor impaired

    77. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If you don't like it in the United States, go somewhere else"

      What ever happened to: If you don't like it in the United States, Go And Try To Make Some Changes?
      Afterall, the US *claims* to be a democracy...

    78. Re:Fuck you America by Mo+B.+Dick · · Score: 0

      "Children so stupid they think America invented the Internet, computer, motor car, light bulb, telephone"

      Uh weren't all of those invented inside the US? Maybe you're the stupid one.

    79. Re:Fuck you America by gnu-generation-one · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "I would make the case to you that the atmosphere of fear was created on September 11th"

      Ok, but by who, and why?

      We know there was a government waiting for an opportunity to wage war, waiting for a spark which they could use to justify it.

      We know that most people received news of this event through the TV stations. We know that the TV coverage was extremely biased, and often inaccurate. (this for news after the event, not on the day)

      Also, much of the information available to people after that came from the US government. Most of what people hear or remember came from their president. Indeed, many of the people interviewed on TV were either soldiers or government, and often this wasn't pointed-out by the shows doing the interviewing. See fair.org for some more analysis of that.

      So while the event itself might have been distressing, the "climate of fear" is more likely to have been caused by the constant television coverage in the last 3 years detailing exactly what people should be terrified of, and how afraid they should feel.

      What other actual events (as opposed to news stories) have induced a climate of terror? Stories have either been (a) about the government "you must be terrified because we're going to make a law to keep you safe", or (b) referring to Sept11th itself "post-9/11...". Neither of these refers to an actual event, they cause a climate of fear which would not otherwise exist, and arguably doesn't need to exist.

      And what's happened since then? Routine arrests of troublemakers have been shown as "potential terrorist attacks", anything loosely related to terrorism has been reported at length, and of course, there's news of the two wars. And we don't confuse casualties in war with acts of terrorism. The most real fear we've seen was caused by one guy shooting people in washington, and nothing to do with 9/11. How come gun-owners aren't creating a "climate of fear"? Maybe because the television isn't telling the population to panic about that.

      In the UK recently, a bag of flour was thrown at the prime minster at work. It was reported in the newspapers as a "bomb hoax that could have killed everyone in the building". With reporting like that, who needs terrorists?

    80. Re:Fuck you America by xangsta · · Score: 1

      that people that call you to do that poll are stupid...

      i dont have cable, i dont watch TV, i told the lady this and she still went through all the questions...i knew i should have hung up on her

    81. Re:Fuck you America by mbj · · Score: 1

      Yeah well *I* want an America where I don't have to listen to whiny brats like you, and where none of this has to affect me if I don't want it to.

      Amazingly, in America, we both get what we claim to want.

    82. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I don't want to live like Israel, fighting militant Muslims round every corner. The problem of Muslim extremists exists and needs to be dealt with, not encouraged by invading innocent countries and waging war on people who have done nothing to deserve it. I want my children to grow up in a world free from military oppression and I want a government that understands that the wars of the future are guerrilla ones which can never be won, even if they are waged for noble purposes (which theirs never are).

      The problem of blackmail exists and needs to be dealt with. Nobody can allow attackers to have safe harbor, ignore them once they are recognized, and let them build their strength. Terrorists are murderers, blackmailers, or seekers of power.

      A terrorist who claims they will stop if a society takes certain action is practicing social blackmail. Neither monetary nor social blackmailers can succeed, as their success merely encourages further activity -- perhaps even by terrorists who want the opposite of the previous action.

      Look up Barbary Coast Pirates Marines Tripoli to learn what happened in the past. The Barbary Coast, along southwest of Mediterranean, hosted pirates who took property and demanded ransom from home countries of crew and passengers. Many countries paid, but that didn't stop attacks. The governments of host countries, however, would accept annual bribes from a country to have the pirates leave alone the ships of their flag. The U.S. government wouldn't play the game. Guess what happened. Or read about it. You already know the song.

    83. Re:Fuck you America by jmichaelb · · Score: 1
      The problem with this is that one cannot simply move. I won't get further into the whole "if you don't like it move" argument. If you are really that simple, it is unlikely that anyone will get through to you and it is a waste of time. If not, then you are just trolling and it isn't worth a response either.

      But, even assuming it is that easy, it is unlikely that one would escape the long arm of the American "anti-terrorism" effort by moving.

    84. Re:Fuck you America by pyros · · Score: 1
      Regarding reality TV; Survivor was originally European, incidentally

      and American Idol, and Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, and probably quite a few others.

    85. Re:Fuck you America by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > but the technologies they are build on were invented by non-Americans one and all.

      And the technologies before that were based on technologies before that. Scientists build off of each other's work. Sure, some dude in India might have come up with transporting information as packets, but did he make the Internet? No, it led to a thing that led to a thing that... etc. If the first item that is recognizable as a fully working telephone was made by an American, then it is an "American invention." Otherwise, you can just take each step backwards & claim that Benjamin Franklin invented computers after "discovering" properties of electricity. After all, had that not taken place... someone else would have, but that's not the point. The point is that without all previous steps, current steps are not going to happen.

      No great theories just came like a wind out of nowhere, they were built up on previous knowledge.

    86. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The United States of America is a Democratic Republic not a Democracy, and yes, there is a difference.

    87. Re:Fuck you America by Gary+Destruction · · Score: 1

      DARPA invented the Internet. History of the light buib can be found here Karl Benz of Germany invented the first motor car. Antonio Meucci invented the telephone.

    88. Re:Fuck you America by Toadpipe · · Score: 1

      Sadly, there is a fatal flaw in your logic. It is the fact that the internet is a bunch of computers communicating via the TCP/IP protocol. A non-american invented this protocol. A bunch of Americans decided to use this invention. They did not change or add to the protocol, to this day said protocol still works the way it did when first invented. Therefore, all the Americans did was put someone else's invention to work. They used an invention exactly as it was intended to be used.

      So where in this did Americans invent something?

      Using an invention does not mean you invented it, it just means that you used it. Every day I use to inventions, the toothbrush and toothpaste. But I feel that it's my invention because I combine the two. Does that make sense? Nope.

      Nice try, still wrong

      --
      Nostalgia ain't what it used to be.
    89. Re:Fuck you America by dreadnougat · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Who the fuck do you think created the atmosphere of fear? It was the people who crashed the planes, you fucking moron! Should the media have glossed over the single most important event in American history in years?

    90. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see your point, something has to be in place to provide data to law enforcement.

      I agree there totally!

      However, I do see other's points as well... the folks you are putting down who have a right to their opinions/concerns also!

      As far as Sept. 11th & this 1/2 Trillion Dollar war we are paying for... well, why wasn't ALL the effort put into hunting down Osama BL rather than attacking Iraq?

      (More profit for Haliburton/Brown & Root/Raytheon & Cheney + crew probably is why... you know it, I know it!)

      I think 1/2 trillion spent by now would have had Osama BL in chains & the mountains he is hiding in razed to the ground nearly by artillery, bombs, & patrols for him.

      No... you have to question the motives of it all!

      I do think (back on track now) that the point the 'naysayers' to your view point have merit. That merit being that statistical input data is easily bent to anyone's ends (4-5 dentists chew trident, sure, if you paid them too for your statistical data sample set: the easiest thing in the world to bend to your own ends!).

      They also have merit in saying perhaps anyone involved in such a process should have THEIR name on the order, & all the way up thru the chain of the execution of this command!

      (Sure, maybe the REAL puppet/ring master never has his name on it, but it might put the fear of god into those that execute on it that they had better be 110% right before they do execute! There is no "I was just following orders" then, or less chance of it...)

      I, for one, would not want to be the guy that makes the mistake on one of these investigations & ruins an innocent man's life #1, & secondly to cost us all as taxpayers the bill for such a thing!

      Doing the investigation, arresting someone, storing their goods for analysis, doing the analysis, putting together trial data on both defendant & prosecution side, hiring judge & attorneys, getting together jurors & doing trial finally? HUGE COINS/DEADPRESIDENTS!

      I most personally & sincerely hope they don't use this as a 'all-in-one' it does it right everytime tool @ least.

      I've worked in the field of IS/MIS/IT (databasing) long enough to know one thing:

      You can have the BEST programmers, tools, DBA, analysts, Q&A folks & still mistakes happen. Part of why programs needs alteration etc. periodically to adjust for holes in the queries, data being garbage in producing garbage out, & even the systems they run on.

      Let's face it: data does get altered to folks OWN hidden agendas quite often, another danger.

      No, this is just a tool, & should be in place... but it's up to how its used & those that use it, all the way up thru the chain of events? Should be held accountable with all names on record for it on PUBLIC record.

      Like a gun or knife, can be used/misused... in my eyes, the greatest danger in it.

      Ah, ranting, but let's hope the folks running it are honest & all the way up thru the chain of command (fat chance with politicians & heads of powercliques like CIA/NSA/FBI that FAR outlast the terms of politicians & often become corrupt!).

      APK

    91. Re:Fuck you America by Santos+L.+Halper · · Score: 1

      You got that much? Man, I got ripped off. When my wife signed me up to do the radio ratings, I got a dollar. Woo. And then I didn't listen to the radio all week so I wouldn't have to write anything down.

      --

      "Ask not for whom the bone bones. It bones for thee." --Bender
    92. Re:Fuck you America by gnu-generation-one · · Score: 1

      "Who the fuck do you think created the atmosphere of fear? It was the people who crashed the planes, you fucking moron! Should the media have glossed over the single most important event in American history in years?"

      Reporting it is one thing. Talking about it every minute of the last 3 years in a breathless "PANIC!!! TERROR!!!" tone is something else entirely.

    93. Re:Fuck you America by Frizzle+Fry · · Score: 1
      One more thing -- the oh-so-annoying 'watermarked' station ID now so popular? It's for Nielsen idiots that never write the correct station down.

      Would you care to cite any evidence for this? It seems much more likely that the networks want to advertise themselves to all their viewers.
      --
      I'd rather be lucky than good.
    94. Re:Fuck you America by JDevers · · Score: 1

      I agree, most American's don't do post grad work at universities...however some DO (such as myself) and as far as that goes most people in ANY country don't do post grad work in a university.

      Actually, baring Kenyans we are are all from a different place (that place being Kenya).

      Also, I assure you that Germany didn't really appreciate Einstein around the time he came to live here...pre-WW2 Germany wasn't the greatest of places for people of Jewish decent if you remember , or did your various history courses leave that out as well...

    95. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You said mouth-breathers and drooling fools. I laughed out loud. Good point.

    96. Re:Fuck you America by -O.ster_66 · · Score: 1
      great commentary - i hope you are actually doing something to try and change this country, and not just an armchair coward...i mean warrior.

      --
      "You get all the fun of sitting still, being quiet, writing down numbers, paying attention...science has it all."
    97. Re:Fuck you America by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      Nielsen chooses a number of households that report their television viewing habits. From this sample, they extrapolate viewing habits. If the news says that 40 million watched the superbowl in the US, it's really saying that Nielsen judged that 40 million watched the superbowl based on a sample of less than 1% of the US population.

      I don't know the details of what Nielsen does but IF it is a SCIENTIFIC POLL then the results are pretty valid. It can be scentifically (statistically to be precise) shown that you can achieve a high confidence interval without interviewing a large number of people. If Nielsen samples 1% of USA, that would be around 3 million (not sure if they count babies and little kids) and that's a VERY HIGH sample. Even highly scientific studies don't have sample of a million!

      Who would do such a thing, you ask? Complete and utter losers. People that feel they have no voice; the uneducated; the elderly; etc, etc.

      But if they sample without any discrimination then what they get IS refelective of the population. What's to say that a, what you call, "loser" will not also watch "good" programs. I don't see why people who watch "good" programs will automatically shun being polled. Sure, it might be a hassle and some might not want to be part of it due to privacy concerns but similar proportion of the "loser" population will have the same views.

      I'll give one good recent example. Futurama and The Family Guy had terrible ratings on Fox. After the shows were cancelled, they were released on DVD. They're post-cancellation sales have been through the roof; very disproportionate to the ratings.

      That may or may not mean anything. For instance, these shows could be cult hits AFTER they go into syndication. I don't watch a lot of tv so I can't come up with good examples off the top of my head, but I can describe a similar phenomenon in movies. There are many movies that don't do so well in the box office but have very good DVD sales. There are many reasons for this but one main reason is that the movie could become a cult hit after being pulled from theaters. Examples include Fight Club, Seven, Unbreakable, Boogie Nights, (and if you are a classical movie fan, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Conversation), etc. The same thing could happen in tv shows.

      One more thing -- the oh-so-annoying 'watermarked' station ID now so popular? It's for Nielsen idiots that never write the correct station down.

      lol hehe no comment :)

      aside -- I would dearly love to see how different Tivo's national statistics are from the Nielsens; I'd wager that they look like they judge two entirely different populations, which they probably do)

      TiVO would be an even worse indicator. Many people don't have TiVo or the ones that do are middle class or higher. Furthermore, DVRs are a cutting-edge technology (well, ok not exactly cutting edge but they are not widely accepted yet either) so the people who use it may be tech-oriented.

      So to sum up... I don't really see any problem with Nielsen ratings ASSUMING that they are carrying out scientific sampling. The only thing I would be worried is their sampling. It may discriminate. For instance, does Nielsen contact people without cable but who do watch over-the-air tv? Does Nielsen contact students who are always moving around? And so on. Those are my worries...

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    98. Re:Fuck you America by TyrranzzX · · Score: 1

      Replace "America" with "stupid people in general" and that entire thing is completly true. Americans aren't the entirety of the worlds problems, everyone just likes to blame us because we're here and our goverment has done some stupid and evil shit.

      Yes, the american style brainwashing isn't as pandemical as elsewhere, but you can't yell inanely at some dumbfuck and have them understand. I'm sick of my country as well, hopefully we can use the information age to fix that.

    99. Re:Fuck you America by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > So where in this did Americans invent something?

      So when did TCP/IP become the Internet? It didn't, it isn't. Sure, someone wrote a protocol. Good for them. However, you can't just take that protocol, hook a bunch of computers up to it and say it's an Internet. Regardless where the parts of it were made, "The Internet" was spawned initially from a network of computers inside the United States. It doesn't matter if the protocol, the assembly language, the operating systems, and the PCs themselves were made in Hooziwassizistan, they were put together inside the U.S. It built upon preexisting ideas & hardware to create something new. The inventor of the automobile may be German, or French (depending on who you ask), but a car is just a logical extension of a boat, or at the very least, an engine. I'll bet the Combustion engine was not invented by the same person who invented the car, so if a protocol makes the Internet, an engine makes the car. They are not the same thing.

    100. Re:Fuck you America by jesup · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I was a nielsen "family" a couple of years post-college (~1988) for sweeps. Probably skewed the ratings by working at home and coding all night long while watching Discovery and CNN.

      A friend was a Nielsen family (wired) for a year, also a SW engineer. Realize that Nielsen probably also misses out on a fair number of the working poor - but I agree their samples can be pretty issue, especially for "niche" shows. They probably try to match nationwide demographics with their sample, but in things they don't ask about or level on it's probably significantly off.

      The whole diary thing was a problem from the start, but with the first remote controls, then the explosion of channels (and other video sources) it got far worse. And, as you say, people have trouble remembering what they were watching something on, or write in things they wanted to watch or shows they want to "reward", or leave off things they "shouldn't" have watched. For example, I imagine far fewer admit to watch Friday-night Skinemax movies than actually watch them - especially the teenagers.

      I wonder when Nielsen will start feeding data to the Matrix.... :-) :-( "You watched the same news shows as a known terrorist! Come out for preventive deprogramming before we have to drag you out!" 1/2 :-)

    101. Re:Fuck you America by Pxtl · · Score: 1

      Yeah, except he also posted it in a bunch've other threads. Its a troll. A rarity - a leftist troll, but a troll. Kind of embarrassing actually, as I agree with many of its sentiments. But its still a troll.

    102. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would make the case to you that the atmosphere of fear was created on September 11th

      Nothing was created or started on September 11th. It only seemed like that to people who never pay attention to what the US government is doing outside the USA.

    103. Re:Fuck you America by Raven42rac · · Score: 1

      Thanks for correcting me. I know the final decisive factor was Bell's meticulous record keeping. I hope I am not wrong again.

      --
      I hate sigs.
    104. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) argument by assertion,
      2) begging the question, and
      3) posted by an AC just like me.

      Not to mention it's posted by someone who appears to be an elitist, oh, well. There are several Pacific island groups where all of the "sick of" can be avoided; a one-way ticket would cost a lot less than either a shrink or a continued dose of the potion-of-acceptance.

    105. Re:Fuck you America by imemyself · · Score: 1

      Well, last time I checked the internet more or less formed from a Defense Dept project. The car was basically first mass-produced by Henry Ford. The telephone was invented by Alexander Graham Bell, and the light bulb by Edison. Maybe Americans aren't the ones who are "stupid"....

      --
      Every time you post an article on Slashdot, I kill a server. Think of the servers!
    106. Re:Fuck you America by JInterest · · Score: 1

      I'm 24 years old. I don't want to go through the next 50 years of my life living in an international air of worry and uncertainty. I don't want to live in a permanent state of fear, generated by a megalomaniacal American government taking advantage of the majority low IQ populous' capacity for being brainwashed.

      Then please feel free to kill yourself, and spare of the rest of us your maudlin ranting.

    107. Re:Fuck you America by duckworth · · Score: 1

      So when are they going to start taking their statistics from my ReplayTV or all the Tivos out there. Maybe that will allow the technically inclined and early adopters to sway the system a bit. If they are going to be recording my viewing habits at least they can make them mean something. I would love to think that by recoding the Discovery channel I am somehow casting my vote.

    108. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with you 100% about the majority of Americans being stupid fucks though. And the scary part is that their votes count just as much as mine. Perhaps we need to license people to vote.

      Consider this, do you know how to do anything and everything? No. Just because you may be better at one thing doesnt mean that the countless other people in the world arent better than you at something else. Now think about them calling you stupid for not knowing how to change the oil in your car. Doesnt make sense does it? Yet you still believe you are smarter because you you have this piece of paper says so, right? Not right

      Also, isnt one of the points of democracy for everyone to have an equal vote reguardless of how high their IQ may be?

    109. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you mean "mouth breeder" not "mouth breather"?

    110. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, you're just about as sick of us as we are of whiny Europeans whose governments have cost the world untold harm through centuries of failed colonialism and empire. It's the Europeans who left the mideast in the shambles it's in, just to remind you. We should have stayed isolationist and let all you twits kill each other off in the multiple world wars you've caused. And, hamburgers can be pretty good when they're not made with mutton.

    111. Re:Fuck you America by NEOtaku17 · · Score: 1

      "I'm sick of America being the biggest wilful contributor to the pollution of the planet."

      Obviously this person is not very well traveled:Anyone who has ever even traveled to China knows this is simply untrue. Yes America should not use other countries and people as scapegoats for their own problems but using America as a scapegoat for the rest of the world is also a foolish way to go about things.

    112. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have got to be joking on the computer. Charles Babbage, Alan Turing or Tommy Flowers, depending on your definition of "invented" and "computer". Babbage made a programmable mechanical device, turing did all the theory behind modern computing and Tommy Flowers, well he built the damned thing (the lovely enigma cracking machines).

    113. Re:Fuck you America by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Back up to +5, at least 20 points wasted on this cut & paste job. My, my...

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    114. Re:Fuck you America by sacmog · · Score: 1

      And your point would be?

      --
      --- last minute desparate solutions to impossible problems created by other fucking people.
    115. Re:Fuck you America by Eccles · · Score: 1

      I think that the technically-oriented, educated, well-read citizens of the World watch very little television to begin with.

      Not to mention many of us use TiVo/ReplayTV/HTPCs, and skip the commercials anyway...

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    116. Re:Fuck you America by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Do I keep my eyes open to make sure no one's parking moving trucks in strange locations or wearing heavy winter coats in the middle of Texas in summertime. Sure I do.


      Do you keep an eye on your government to make sure it isn't screwing up its foreign policy so badly that years of more terrorism will be the inevitable result?

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    117. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be careful, I think your terrorist quotient just jumped up several points.

    118. Re:Fuck you America by Funksaw · · Score: 1

      That only holds true if you believe that the government didn't have anything to do with 9/11.

    119. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's not forget Konrad Zuse.

    120. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to get laid. Face it: the world has never been and is not going to be perfect for quiet a while.

    121. Re:Fuck you America by silentbozo · · Score: 1

      So when are they going to start taking their statistics from my ReplayTV or all the Tivos out there.

      As other posters have noted, Tivo already has a deal with Nilsen, and I think that ReplayTV will soon join them. ReplayTV has been running a "pause promotion" sweepstakes, where you write down a code that appears when you pause programming, and enter it in (along with your address, thereby establishing exactly where your unit is) for a chance at a prize. Pretty slick - they not only figure out where your unit is, then can measure who's actually paying attention after a pause action, and perhaps put in advertising during the pause (sort of how multiplex movie theatres run those stupid slide show ads before the commercials and previews start.)

    122. Re:Fuck you America by trentblase · · Score: 1

      And sometimes, they add SOUND. Like, a little overlaid video of a small explosion at the bottom with a full volume explosion audio clip played on top of "your regularly scheduled program". I think USA does this the most... scares the bejeesus out of me sometimes.

    123. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then America gets hold of it and fucks it up completely. Coupling and The Office: I rest my case.

    124. Re:Fuck you America by zoloto · · Score: 1

      You know it's interesting. This comment has been posted AC on so many topics and all modded differently and it's getting annoying, wether or not it's on or off topic.

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=108403&cid=9 21 4095
      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=108341&c id=921 3645

      Those are two OTHER articles this was posted to. Mod's please make sure repeat offenders dont' get mod points or draw attention to their stuff. It's like the trolls that frequent /. that hardly anyone else sees (you have to browse at -1 to see them they get modded so quickly)

      This is another one.
      Think of the children!

    125. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nielsen and other market research companies attempt to determine a random sample of the populace in general. What they actually do is find a random sample of the populace that is willing to participate in their research. Because of this it is possible that their sample is not truly representative. In order to correct for this, they analyze the sample against known demographic data and ensure that it is in fact representative in terms of education level, race, income, etc. Nielsen's sample is in fact representative of the American population as far as education level, income, race, age, and several other factors. I will concede that their sample is not analyzed for accurate representation of mouth-breathers.

    126. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up!! Of course, the amazing people at Bletchley Park didn't get the credit as their work on Engima wasn't declassified until the 1980's. But they were first*, even if no-one knew.

      *Depending on your definition.

    127. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are all Texans as retarded and mean spirited as you and George W.

      The U.S. would be a way better place if Texas had lost its war to steal all that land from Mexico. Texans seem to be the role model for everything wrong in the American psyche, dumb, arrogant, self centered, aggressive, "my way or the highway" attitude.

    128. Re:Fuck you America by Salgak1 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You need to cut back on the caffiene, but you DO raise some valid points. On the other hand, you also blow a lot of points. On the other hand, most of the problems you note can be fixed by the Shakespeare Solution: Kill ***ALL*** the lawyers. . . .

    129. Re:Fuck you America by ozric99 · · Score: 1

      Apart from the foundations of the current internet, no, they're not. They're all european.

    130. Re:Fuck you America by iammaxus · · Score: 1

      If you think that most of the people are uneducated and eldery you must not understand how random samples work.

      Interesting my ass. That is ridiculous, the original poster did not say anything at all like that. He said because most of the people who accept are elderly or uneducated, the sample is disproportionate to the population. I think you only proved his point about a larger proportion of uneducated people. At least be smart enough to know when you aren't smart enough. "The other interesting thing is that you can tell them how many TVs you have in your house." Interesting thing? What the hell are you talking about?

    131. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Who would do such a thing, you ask? Complete and utter losers.


      My household is a "Nielsen Family". They have a little box wired to my tv, vcr and dvd player.

      When I was first asked if I wanted to participate, I had some concerns over "privacy" etc....But I wans't sure what I was concerned about, since I do not watch much televesion anyways. I don't really care what's on except for the stuff that I do watch, and participating would help the shows I like and watch get more ratings.

      ...Oh and the $200 bonus for signing up and other periodic cash bonuses really helped convince me.

      Whenever I watch TV I have to push my number and the OK button on the Nielson remote. Every so often the Neilson box will flash and ask me to re-verify that I am still watching tv (just push the ok button on the remote). It is annoying having to use the neilson remote and am considering cancelling just due to this fact.

      Note: posting as AC because of the contractual obligations; I can not disclose to anyone other than family and close friends that I am participating in the Nielson ratings program.
    132. Re:Fuck you America by Jason1729 · · Score: 1

      I hated that so much I cancelled my satellite TV service. With the money, I signed up with netflix.

      So far it's great. Most of what I borrow are TV series DVDs, but I spend a lot less time watching TV and yet I enjoy it a lot more since I'm watching exactly what I want instead of just staring at the TV with "nothing" on.

    133. Re:Fuck you America by Dumbush · · Score: 1

      side note: American invented them with the help of foreign talents

    134. Re:Fuck you America by t1m0r4n · · Score: 1

      I agree with you 100% about the majority of Americans being stupid fucks though. And the scary part is that their votes count just as much as mine.

      This line of thought annoys me as much as the "everyone needs to vote" promotion. Last time you voted, how many choices were there for any office? Usually two, sometimes only one. Toss a coin 1000 times, and it probably won't be a perfect 50/50. That's really all we got with elections, regardless of how many people vote.

      In regards to smart people being more important, I say bull. There are well thought out reasons for both parties, and an equal split amoungst those who follow politics as to which candidate is better. Granted, there are rare execptions, but that hardly requires a return to a monarchy.

      I really feel like babbling about this for a good long time, so I'd better shut up right about

      now

    135. Re:Fuck you America by plover · · Score: 1
      I don't see why people who watch "good" programs will automatically shun being polled.

      Because some of us are / were absolutely fed up with unsolicited phone calls.

      After too damn many "wanna buy duct cleaning?" "wanna buy long distance?" calls, I was ready to strangle the telemarketers via proxy. I stopped discriminating my screening spiel. I didn't care if it was a siding company or a survey company was calling regarding what question. As soon as I determined that a caller wasn't friend nor family, I told them "Please add this number to your do-not-call list and never call this number again." Most telemarketers politely said "OK" before hanging up. Some asked me to repeat it. Some just hung up. And a few tried to fucking ARGUE with me. It's a good thing for both of us that they were a long-distance phone call away and not at baseball bat length, or I'd be writing this IN PRISON.

      --
      John
    136. Re:Fuck you America by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      heh... I guess you must be a desired target market :) My family never got that many calls... In any case, there aren't too many people with feelings as you. If it were, no one would use direct marketing (this is just like saying how if no one responded, clicked, etc the spam that you get in your e-mail, the spammers would be out of business)...

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    137. Re:Fuck you America by Dirk+Pitt · · Score: 1

      I can't cite any evidence, unfortunately, other than to take my sister's word who is the marketing director at a large-market TV station. ;-)

    138. Re:Fuck you America by Dirk+Pitt · · Score: 1

      No offense meant, dmitriy -- as I said in my most, there are notable and numerous exceptions to the 'utter loser' generalization. Just the fact that you can log on to the internet shows you to be in the upper echelons of nielsen families. ;-)

    139. Re:Fuck you America by Dirk+Pitt · · Score: 1
      As I've said to a couple of other posters, I meant no offense to those that've done it. There certainly exists intelligent and good nielsen families. I apologize if I offended.

      BUT -- having a degree in mathematics, I do know a couple of things about statistics. I know that random statistical samples are dependent, if you'll allow the tautology, on being truly random. As soon as you add an inconvenience to the polling process (and this is indeed a poll, not a pure statistical sample based on observation alone) you've perverted any chance of the sample being 'random'. You only achieve an accurate sample of a single demographic -- 'those that are willing to be inconvenienced'. This certainly provides skewed data. Why do you think exit polls in political elections somtimes end up being tripe? And those things are designed to be brief and streamlined, not like the bulky nielsen process.

      As for thinking most are uneducated, ignorant, or elderly? I'll offer up the success of both 'American Idol' and 'The Bachelor' as examples; would you care to defend?

    140. Re:Fuck you America by Dirk+Pitt · · Score: 1

      Certainly -- very good point. Cost/benefit ratios always have a place in business.

    141. Re:Fuck you America by Dirk+Pitt · · Score: 2, Informative
      Hey Sivaram -- some great points made here. Just one thing to add:

      don't see why people who watch "good" programs will automatically shun being polled

      This is *always* a contentious issue in polling, and it's why good pollsters get paid lots of money. They write efficient, streamlined questionnaires that don't inconvenience the pollee to any great extent. As the commitment required to complete the poll increase, the error increases greatly. Or, often in the case of then nielsens, I suspect, people just don't fill out the diaries accurately.

    142. Re:Fuck you America by JDevers · · Score: 1

      I didn't want to turn it into a freaking thesis... I just highlighted some of the RECENT inventions, you'll note I said "modern digital computers." I also qualified it at the end and said that Americans had made significant contributions and not that it was "invented" here.

    143. Re:Fuck you America by Frogbert · · Score: 1

      Hold on just one second there sparky.

      The British DID invent the first computer in world war 2 to crack the enigma code. Granted the US made them practical but don't go around claiming that they were invented by Americans!

    144. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...try focusing on what's importan to you..."

      Like spelling...

    145. Re:Fuck you America by horza · · Score: 1

      Computer: The computer is an evolved version of something which has existed for some time and is based on numerous contributions. Modern digital computing though can be said to be based on a handful of significant inventions and ideas. The most important of these ideas are von Neumann architecture, based on work done by John von Neumann a Hungarian-American who did the majority of his most important work at Princeton. The most important inventions where transistors (invented by Bell Labs in 1947), integrated circuits (conceived of by Britain's Geoffrey W.A. Dummer in 1952 but not successfully constructed until 1958 by Jack Kilby of TI and made into a useful device in 1962 by Robert Noyce of Fairchild Semiconductor), and the microprocessor (first developed by Marcian Hoff while working at Intel).

      You missed probably the biggest credit: Alan Turing.

      Phillip.

    146. Re:Fuck you America by dnoyeb · · Score: 1

      Cable TV has the technology, if they wanted a real sample they have but to ask, and I am sure people would jump at the chance to support their viewed programming. But for some reason, they are scared to simply 'ask' to monitor our viewing habits.

      Its not invasion of privacy we don't like, its uncontrolled unstoppable invasion of privacy.

      I participated once about 2 years ago, and yes it is tough. A few mistakes and the form is tossed, so that immediately skews the results. My wife and I had to sit down together to figure out how to do it.

      And their is ONE form for ONE television. My wife and I rarely watch the same programs.

      It was not until I mailed the form off that I realized that I could have simply written support for all my favorite shows...

    147. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "I would make the case to you that the atmosphere of fear was created on September 11th"

      Ok, but by who, and why?

      We know there was a government waiting for an opportunity to wage war, waiting for a spark which they could use to justify it.

      You are right that this was a good opportunity for the government not only for war, but also other things like patriot act.

      The patriot act consists of more that 1000 pages. It was passed within few weeks, congress didn't have the time to read it through.

      Who could have writte it in such a short time, or was it written befor and waiting for an opportunity?

      On the other hand, why wait for an opportunity?

      There are many strage things. See also google cache of unansweredquestions.org

      • None of the "black boxes" of the planes was "found".
      • The Secret Service had bureaus in the WTC but moved out some months before.
      • The WTC was designed to withstand a plane crash. It would be interesting to find out, why it did not, but that was not examined. Instead, a company named Controlled Demolition removed the remains as fast as possible. And guess, what they normally do? Did you notice, that both WTC towers collapsed mostly in themselves, not to the side?
      • The plane that hit the pentagon took the time to fly a half circle around the pentagon, just to hit that part that has been empty for some time.
      • Actually there were no remains from a plan at the pentagon.
      • Whenever a plan gets off its course for whatever reason, military planes start to invesigate. In the air bases, they have planes and pilots ready to start within five minutes, and more planes an pilots within the next five minutes.
      • The pentagon said, they were completly unprepared for the attack. You would think that with four planes missing and after two hits at the WTC, the sky over Washington and New York would be full of air force planes, but there was not a single one.
      It it possible that the government was not waiting for an opportunity, but created one.
    148. Re:Fuck you America by JDevers · · Score: 1

      I didn't...I claimed "[American's] played a huge role in the evolution of the modern computer" not that they invented it. Like I said in other posts, I was more highlighting American contributions to the field than stating every single invention or concept leading up to them.

    149. Re:Fuck you America by Toxe · · Score: 1
      Amen, Brother. Complete ACK.

      BTW, this is from a European point of view.

    150. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      --conversation my friend and i had about this--

      ROYALSEGO: basically a rant
      ROYALSEGO: everything thats wrong with the world(US)
      ROYALSEGO: this person is a white male american
      ROYALSEGO: who is looked down on
      ROYALSEGO: and has chosen an internet gateway to let out his anger
      ROYALSEGO: oh
      ROYALSEGO: 1 more thing
      ROYALSEGO: these kind of people think they're the only ones who realize these problems in the US...
      ROYALSEGO: but they're wrong
      ROYALSEGO: everyone knows these problems exist.. but the choice of acting upon it and the result being irrelavent... is the supreme answer
      ROYALSEGO: the world acts this way
      ROYALSEGO: because everyone have a fear of change
      ROYALSEGO: everyone is afraid that if they point out these problems... the nonacceptance will fuel their thoughts
      ROYALSEGO: BIG BROTHER IS WATCH
      ROYALSEGO: ING
      ROYALSEGO: anyway
      ROYALSEGO: read this book if u want to
      ROYALSEGO: 1984 George Orwell
      SCO rpI On10 16: I doubt most people know these problems are happening
      ROYALSEGO: do you know?
      SCO rpI On10 16: Did you know that people watch reality TV?
      ROYALSEGO: yes
      ROYALSEGO: do i know ? yes
      SCO rpI On10 16: I was out in society yesterday.. I seen like babies and shit, wearing nike/roca wear.. etc.
      ROYALSEGO: but do we care? no
      SCO rpI On10 16: It's bad
      SCO rpI On10 16: What's the book about?
      ROYALSEGO: a fictional story on a fictionalk goverenment that control everything
      ROYALSEGO: everything
      ROYALSEGO: butlook
      ROYALSEGO: you know how the world is... so do i
      ROYALSEGO: there are countless more people that are as wise if not smarter than we are
      ROYALSEGO: why don't they point these problems out?
      ROYALSEGO: to point out a problem is not the solution... to have an answer to the problem is the solution.
      ROYALSEGO: as of now
      ROYALSEGO: we have no answer
      ROYALSEGO: answer for what we like? reality TV? people like that
      ROYALSEGO: if a select few does not
      ROYALSEGO: nobody really cares
      ROYALSEGO: people like to cry and moan and bitch
      ROYALSEGO: about their rights not being as equal as the 'white men'
      ROYALSEGO: its all human nature
      ROYALSEGO: we cannot change human nature
      ROYALSEGO: as much as we hate who we are
      SCO rpI On10 16: I just thought you didn't know such problems existed
      ROYALSEGO: we're still thoughtful human beings who express ourselves like this person did
      ROYALSEGO: and if we keep expresing ourselves
      SCO rpI On10 16: there is a reply to that comment, has to do about ratings/TV, read it, it's interesting
      ROYALSEGO: and at least knowing the problem
      ROYALSEGO: then wer're better off than the people who dont

    151. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A point should be made, however, that some criticism is in and of itself unpatriotic. Patriotism is a real concept with a real meaning. It implies some loyalty to the bigger picture. If you out and out say you hate America because of some problem *in* America, that is not constructive criticism (constructive criticism, as you've well pointed out, is a better kind of criticism).

      There are a lot of mealy mouthed people running around thinking they're superior to their fellow citizens and the only way they can describe their contentions is to be defamatory, destructive, and completely lacking in good plans (by good plans I don't mean intellectual masturbation, I mean plans that they are willing to invest themselves in to assure success or failure in solving a problem).

      Such people are looking for attention or to make up for their own deficit of self-esteem. They don't make good leaders. Just watch them as they play the role of "loyal opposition" without any positive suggestion or inclination toward true leadership.

      If you (not you but the general you) really want to solve a problem then apply yourself toward creating a positive solution that other people can buy into and participate in. If you're completely cynical and just want to berate people who you think are less than you in some way, then good luck buddy but you won't change anybody's mind, except you might turn them even further against you.

      This is what most people who are mealy mouthed about politics and just about everything else don't understand. They think they're gaining by being abusive and derogatory toward others who disagree with them, or frankly they just can't grasp the concept of reasonable differentiation as opposed to some sort of sick ideological prison where if you don't agree with them you must be an enemy.

      If you think that the person this describes is "the other guy" and you continue to berate people then you've missed the point.

      Apologies to the poster whom I'm replying to, the "you" I refer to in my comments above is not that person (I think the poster is well intentioned), but this message is intended for the people he offered the apologist speech for. :)

    152. Re:Fuck you America by raider_red · · Score: 1

      Are all anonymous cowards as stupid as you? You're sitting there doing to Texans exactly what you accuse us of doing. You're making generalized statements about some group of people you aren't a part of.

      As for land theft, who did the Mexican's steal the land from? Who did we steal the rest of US from? Which tribe did your national group steal their land from? If we go all the way back in history, we're going to be paying reparations to the Hittites, the Akadians, and the Neanderthals. I'll work on making my home a better place, and you can mind your own business.

      --
      It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
    153. Re:Fuck you America by Ticklemonster · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but it is hard to take you seriously when you keep saying you are country when you mean your country. I'm glad my country invaded the wrong country and now the world has seen less instances of terrorism than it has seen in like 19 years. I'm glad my country invaded a country so we could rape their natural resources and have a plentiful supply of cheap gas at over 2 dollars a gallon. I'm .... tired of making fun of you morons. Grow up and look out of your little boxes for a while and see the real world around you.

      --
      Karma: Bad is the liberal way of saying this guy won't drink the kool aid here on slash dot. I wear my Karma with pride
    154. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree;
      Nielson Ratings are only commercial-ratings.
      They're not stats of viewer opinions, nor quality of programming or the amount of truth in the news.

      The Nielson Ratings is another good example of
      Statistics' fudamental flaw as its vulnerability of being used for proving lies, by ignoring data blatently.

      That's why tv programs are so bad, while the actors congradulate each other, and the channels get rich off of commericals.

      Why is CNN allowed to give one story, and the associated press a completely different one?

      But the lies go into every country's news casts.
      And the bad acting appears on any given channel.
      And Politians grab power in any state, while the populous either fights for their freedom, or side with the Conservative thinkers and land-grabbers.

      Socialism, Democracies, Communism, Monarchies, Anarchies, and Tyrannts all face the same problem of those who grab land, those who wish to topple their regime, and those who want their religious views set as law. The best system is the one of checks and balances, because invariably, you end up that way either through legitimate negotiation, or graf and corruption. This is fixed easily with the Nielson Ratings.

      Is there a positive relationship to violence and bad acting?

      Why is it that everytime the US news mentions Al Quaida, that the CIA is mention later as having some involvement with the situation? EG: 9-11 and Iragi Prisons.

      Why do I like "Jackass" but can't stand "Survivor"? Maybe because one was also a horrible 80's band?

      Why do the Americans with the shortest view of life have the biggest mouth's? EG: Freedom is only an American Idea sounds alot like the Microsoft strategy of Embrace and Extinguish.

      Why is it, that if I say something nice about other races, I risk getting my head kicked-in at any given bar in the US? --Does it matter what color I am?

      Why would anyone believe an Oil Man, that he's invading an oil country for its own good?

      Why is Bush still in office if he lied about his unholy threesome with Cheney and Wolfscheisse?

      Why can't we force everyone to vote?

      Why can't I see pornography at 7-11, but I get it freely in email without asking?

      Why is it at 18 years old, I'm an adult, allowed to smoke, forced to sign-up for military draft, but can't drink a lousy beer?

      Why can't other countries have more actors for politians?

      Why would anyone blame American Education for anything, when it can't teach algerbra to high-school students, and inspires only those who were inspired to begin with?

      Lastly, if Arnold can be governor of California, maybe the Dead can buy an island, and have a reality program featuring legalized partying?

    155. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why Should I?

      The Nielson Ratings will fix this.

    156. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, YOU certainly seem to be one of the spoiled masses! A 24yr old that doesn't want and wants more, more, more AND yet MORE. I'm a 49yr old that lived through the threat of having an entire city vanish before one's eyes. You remember "Duck and Cover" ... Right! You haven't experienced much in your 24 years as a spoiled snot. The major theme in your tirade was "I want!!!!!!". What politics have YOU voted into office, "Well they didn't win!". What political candidates have YOU supported by helping their caqmpaigns? Right ... What parties have YOU Actually contributed money? Yeh ... Right! You are not an AMERICAN but who wants, wants, wants, wants!
      Please ... enjoy your disease of sickness, You've helped create it.

    157. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would certainly help if you were an American! You are not of this country, (most likely an illegal alien or perhaps one who doesn't understand the U.S. and OUR Freedoms). Get you facts straight before you're thrown into slavery by the wonderful Ancient Greeks or British tyranny WE escaped (remember, Subjects are not free men.

    158. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you seem well versed on hatred for Americans.
      Let's see if I could suggest raising the bar a bit higher in Canada and suggest a boycott of Canadian produced goods.

    159. Re:Fuck you America by mindstormpt · · Score: 1

      Probably the smartest thing I've read on Slashdot in a lot of time...

      Thank you

    160. Re:Fuck you America by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,96 47241%255E15306,00.html

      I always thought it was to prevent redistribution (internet, bootlegs, etc...)

    161. Re:Fuck you America by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Argh... clipboard malfunction. =\ That was supposed to be a quote from grandparent. Mea Culpa.

    162. Re:Fuck you America by bendymind · · Score: 1

      Hm. I, on the other hand, am sick of being female, acting like myself, and being told that's too much 'like a man' so I should change into some barefoot in the kitchen, mindless, looking after the kids and overdosing on valium so I don't go insane while you bring home the bacon - to suit some antiquated patriarchal blick who pines the day he got to rule the roost while pretending he's some kind of goddamn Hijab coveting wannabe Saudi Prince- Oh - wait a minute - what's your terrorism factor?

    163. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'm glad my country invaded the wrong country and now the world has seen less instances of terrorism than it has seen in like 19 years."

      LESS?! Surely you can't be serious.

    164. Re:Fuck you America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you, you arrogant piece of eurotrash shit.

    165. Re:Fuck you America by MoFoQ · · Score: 1

      don't forget to give him a soap-on-a-rope with a faulty rope.

    166. Re:Fuck you America by mirko · · Score: 1

      What does that make you ?

      --
      Trolling using another account since 2005.
  2. Pizza by AtariAmarok · · Score: 4, Funny

    If your name is "Ben Louden", I'd be cautious about ordering a pizza! If you do, ask for LOTS of ham and other pork items on the pizza. That might help.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    1. Re:Pizza by DrEldarion · · Score: 2, Funny

      Good to know I'm safe, my name is Al Kayda.

    2. Re:Pizza by proudlyindian · · Score: 1
      Terrorism Maths:
      Terrorism Quotient(TQ) = 5/(Scale)

      Scale:
      Red <-- -->Green
      0 1 2 3
      |-|-|-|

      Results:
      0: Bush
      1: Saddam
      2: Osama Bin Laden
      3: Cow Bin Neal
      Striving to be common ...
  3. I for one... by bcmm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I for one welcome our new Matrix overlords.

    Wait a moment...
    I'm sorry, that's so scary it's not even funny.

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
    Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    1. Re:I for one... by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You do not need privacy citizen 768152. Perhaps you would need another Citizen Re-education Session.

      The Ministry of Public Safety and Happyness.

    2. Re:I for one... by linzeal · · Score: 1

      Yeah re-education! Free peanut butter crackers and storytelling under the bright light! Woo hoo!

  4. Preference by martingunnarsson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I wonder what they prefer when they make a system like this, false positives or false negatives. It's like a spam filter, only it tries to separate the bad guys from the good ones.
    I prefer false negatives (spam messages that end up in my inbox) over false positives (real mail that end up in the bin) from my spam filter, but when you're dealing with humans it's a lot more serious.

    --
    Martin
    1. Re:Preference by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Better safe than sorry? Or better private than safe? Of course, such a statement would assume that this actually makes you "safer" - which continues to be debated.

      Personally, I would lean toward having false positives. You can always run the results against other databases and find better/best matches. With some additional fact-checking implementation, I think they could rule out some false positives. It may be horribly inconvenient to be hassled with an investigation, but if people do their jobs (with gov't folks, sometimes that's all you can hope for!) then clearing your name shouldn't be too bad.

      My biggest concern with this is that a false positive might be turned into a true positive if they consider certain things to be "terrorist activities" - like innocently providing information to someone who turns out to be a terrorist.

    2. Re:Preference by gleepskip · · Score: 0

      Their system is probably just as preferential as the random searches going on at airports and other secure locations. You are just as likely to be a terrorist if you are a grandma, child, or any other non-muslim creed.

    3. Re:Preference by bigberk · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Better safe than sorry? Or better private than safe?
      You would absolutely think, that in a country that values freedom and individuality so much that the government would give people a large margin of benefit of the doubt. Or is the whole "freedom" thing just a fiction? My textbooks still stay that Americans value freedom and free speech more than Canadians, for example... but you wonder.
    4. Re:Preference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      False positives are definitely the way to go now that the terrorists in Iraq have attacked with an Iraqi army artillery round containing sarin nerve gas. How long can it be before one of them pops up somewhere else?

    5. Re:Preference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One would hope, and has little confidence with Asskroft, that positives would simply result in more investigation. Therefore most positives would end up being false and honest, well trained FBI investigators would see if there was anything to it or not. While keeping the rules of evidence in mind and not infringing anyone's civil liberties.

      What are the chances of that?

    6. Re:Preference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, no one can really know. (insert diatribe about political responsibility of open source here)

      However, TFA said something about their "reverse-engineering" something called "The Terrorist's Handbook" (is this a Paladin/Loompanics item? or is it truly underground?), which is purportedly a manual of how to live 'properly' while building up arms or some such.

      So, really, what this measures (if it works at all), is how much you hit the guidelines in TTH. This is the first problem - since many of these guidelines are probably designed to avoid deep social contact and, thus, compromising situations, you can imagine that, say, the /. crowd might already be up on the scale.

      Which brings us to the second problem. Since the sample set of positives for the training set is (happily) awfully small/ill-defined, the statistics aren't there for the machine to learn, the way spamBayes can from 1000's of spams. I get a gruesome picture in my head of this sleazeball narcotraffickante running this project, assigning weights to the various topics based on his own ideas of what is suspicious.

      Bleagh. "Garbage In, Garbage Out". I have nothing inherently against statistical monitoring of public behavior (it's just a formalisation of what we've been doing intuitively as human beings for years), but 1) rights have to be respected, 2) preferably through strong discourse and debate over the definition of the system.

    7. Re:Preference by sqlrob · · Score: 5, Insightful


      Personally, I would lean toward having false positives. You can always run the results against other databases and find better/best matches. With some additional fact-checking implementation, I think they could rule out some false positives. It may be horribly inconvenient to be hassled with an investigation, but if people do their jobs (with gov't folks, sometimes that's all you can hope for!) then clearing your name shouldn't be too bad.


      So much for Innocent until Proven Guilty.

      You're making a huge assumption about "people doing their jobs". Just plain laziness, quotas, as well as simply trying to ruin someone for political reasons will all enter into this.

    8. Re:Preference by bear_phillips · · Score: 4, Insightful
      It may be horribly inconvenient to be hassled with an investigation, but if people do their jobs (with gov't folks, sometimes that's all you can hope for!) then clearing your name shouldn't be too bad.

      Yep, they will only stick a few flouresent light tubes up your ass, make get naked in a pyramid, masturbate in front of people, attack you with dogs, put a sack over your head and threaten to electrocute you. Yep, clearing your name shouldn't be too bad./P

      --
      http://www.windmeadow.com/
    9. Re:Preference by corbettw · · Score: 1

      My textbooks still stay that Americans value freedom and free speech more than Canadians, for example... but you wonder.

      A lot of textbooks still label that large country that sits between Europe and China as the USSR.

      That said, Canada isn't exactly a bastion of freedom these days, either. Not when reading excerpts from the Bible (or Koran) can get you thrown in prison.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    10. Re:Preference by rev_sanchez · · Score: 1

      Safe from whom? An organized group of terrorists can kill thousands. An organized government can commit genocide.

      --
      If you didn't come to party don't bother knocking on my door. Prince '1999'
    11. Re:Preference by laigle · · Score: 1

      A large pool of false positives doesn't imply safety. Quite the opposite in fact, it means that the data you do return is of limited value and you wind up swamping investigators with more suspects than they can possibly investigate, or having them ignore the information entirely.

      It would be much more useful if it returned only suspects with an EXTREMELY high likelihood of being terrorists, because that would give you good grounds to mount a real investigation. And when you find one real terrorist, the investigation will probably ferret out several others.

      The reason they're using this godawful mess is that it's not that difficult to find the people with very high likelihoods. To justify a multi-billion dollar fee to Congress, they need to talk about how the system will ID suspects based on what they buy at McDonald's, and hope this comes across as a good thing. They need to show that they're combing through vast amounts of data, and by extension being very intrusive in the process. But that doesn't mke their system inherently more effective, because most of the data they're combing through can't actually give you a useful basis for identifying suspects.

    12. Re:Preference by ratamacue · · Score: 2, Interesting
      My textbooks still stay that Americans value freedom and free speech more than Canadians

      You may be interested in this book. Not everything your textbooks say can be trusted, especially if those textbooks are meant for or approved by government schools ("public education" is the politically-correct term).

    13. Re:Preference by goon+america · · Score: 2, Insightful
      So much for Innocent until Proven Guilty.

      They're not running out and arresting these people for showing up in the database, just potentially investigating them. While I agree with the privacy goal, it would be logically impossible to investigate only people that were proven guilty. You're simply gonna hafta investigate some false leads before you can press charges against someone (and then, the evidence against that person will become public).

    14. Re:Preference by corbettw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So much for Innocent until Proven Guilty.

      The gp was talking about false positives leading to investigations, not false positives leading to arrest and conviction. The former happens all the time, everytime someone is cleared of wrongdoing before the case gets to trial it's because, originally, there was a false positive pointing them out as the culprit to a crime.

      Though I do agree with you about the danger of politicizing investigations. Just look at Richard Jewel for an excellent example. The poor guy was just trying to do his job by reporting details of the Atlanta Olympics bombing, but because he fit the profile of a possible terrorist the FBI harrangued him, costing him his job and reputation. He was eventually cleared, and I wouldn't be surprised if he got some kind of settlement with the Feds. But still, it was just because the FBI was desperate to find someone to blame for the attack, and he was the only one in their cross-hairs.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    15. Re:Preference by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Insightful
      So much for Innocent until Proven Guilty.

      Actually that only applies to the judicial system. Investigators have never pretended assume that people are innocent while looking for evidence of criminal activity. In fact, they tend to view EVERYONE as "potentially guilty".

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    16. Re:Preference by strongcypher · · Score: 1

      freedom != privacy We DO NOT live in a democracy. We live in a republic, federalist society where the majority elects legislators that pass laws conforming to their wishes. If the majority wants this brand of security instead of privacy then that's we'll get. Believe it or not, Slashdot-readers do not make up the majority of the population, and there is no such thing as a 'right to privacy' anywhere in the Constitution. As a side not, seperation of church and state is nowhere in the Constitution, either. Funny how those textbooks and the media distort the truth...

    17. Re:Preference by ozric99 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      My textbooks still stay that Americans value freedom and free speech more than Canadians, for example... but you wonder.

      This will probably be modded -1 Troll but at the risk of offending the USian mods, and as a Brit, I'd be interested in seeing some kind of checklist or score so that I can easily work out just how less free I am as a citizen of the UK compared to a citizen of the US.

      Why isn't it good enough to know you live in a free society? Why do we always hear how the US is "the most free". It's not a competition.
      Regardless.. mods do your worst ;)

    18. Re:Preference by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 1

      I would have completely agreed with you befor the PATRIOT act. Now once you're arrested you're instantly guilty, and your conviction is fully supported by the law. You will not ge to see a lawyer, call your family, pass go, collect $200, nothing.

      So personally, I'd rather just stay off that damn list in the first place.

    19. Re:Preference by BlowChunx · · Score: 3, Funny

      My textbooks still stay that Americans value freedom and free speech more than Canadians...

      You sir, are correct. We Americans are prepared to pay a higher price for freedom than we are for Canandians. They smell like bacon.

    20. Re:Preference by jasonisgodzilla · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. " This to me says seperation of church and state. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The right to privacy. While the constitution may not be explicit in it's definition of either of these two topics, the tradition of common law, going back to England, gives judges the power to define the law and constitution by creating precedence through judicial decisions.

    21. Re:Preference by john82 · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, the US Congress has been grilling folks lately for not finding a couple of needles in a global haystack.

      "What do you mean you're not all knowing? Whack!"

      "What do you mean, you're profiling? Whack whack!"

      So which is it going to be? Shall we pillory law enforcement and the intelligence community for not anticipating which flights on which days would be turned into guided missiles? OR, shall we now instead beat them more for doing the kind of pro-active investigation that faulted them for not doing before? How politically correct to have them be at fault no matter how we sway in the wind.

      Notice how in all the finger pointing at everyone else, Congress has never pointed the finger at themselves?

    22. Re:Preference by ChuyMatt · · Score: 1
      As someone who has been cornered by police by biking in a city that has few bikers, taken a wounded drunk to the hospital and had a damned funny movie on, I would have to say that the whole system seems to make people who are supposed to be serving and protecting US think that everyone is a criminal. As someone who hasn't broken a law in over 10 years (comon, you didn't as a teen?!) it was really insulting to be treated like someone who was going to attack in my Reefer Madness!

      Why should a tax paying citizen be presumed to be breaking the law without even questioning what is going on?

    23. Re:Preference by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I think a case could be made that greater privacy ALSO means greater safety over the long haul, and for more individuals. Someone who's already had their morning caffeine is welcome to run with the concept.

      As an extreme example: a society with ZERO privacy rights also means that any jackbooted thug who feels the urge can barge into your home at any hour of the day or night. This might not be limited to just government thugs, but to anyone who could scrounge up the props, because you'd never really know if they were the real thing or not -- I vaguely recall hearing about this being taken advantage of by East German gangs during the Iron Curtain era.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    24. Re:Preference by nomadic · · Score: 1

      So which is it going to be? Shall we pillory law enforcement and the intelligence community for not anticipating which flights on which days would be turned into guided missiles? OR, shall we now instead beat them more for doing the kind of pro-active investigation that faulted them for not doing before?

      How about we look at the information they did have, then come up with the questions? Or do you think they should just get a pass for everything they do or fail to do? Let's be honest, responding to criticism with "the terrorists didn't tell us when, where, and how they were going to attack, otherwise we would have stopped them" puts the speakers intelligence at issue.

    25. Re:Preference by Not_Wiggins · · Score: 1

      "Yeah! How do I get on the white list?"

      Oooo..... that sounds bad on so many levels...

      --
      Diplomacy is the art of saying, "Nice doggie!" until you can find a rock.
    26. Re:Preference by admiralh · · Score: 1

      Reports are that this was a binary type artillery shell which would mix the chemicals upon the acceleration of launch to create sarin, which whould then be dispersed in a cloud upon impact.

      However, it was used as just an roadside bomb, which was an extremely ineffective way to use a binary shell, since not a lot of chemical mixing occurred. It's likely that the insurgents did not know it was a chemical weapon.

      It's also likely that it was a prototype weapon from the 1980's that was never mass-produced. Remember the administration claimed there were hunderds of tons of chemical weapons and we knew where they were, not a few 15-year-old prototypes that found their way into the hands of ignorant insurgents.

      --
      Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
    27. Re:Preference by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      So much for Innocent until Proven Guilty.

      So much for being smart enough to understand the difference between investigation and imprisonment...

    28. Re:Preference by bezuwork's+friend · · Score: 1
      I hope you were being sarcastic, but I fear you were not.

      I am so sick of this war on terrorism. We're wasting 100s of billions of taxpayer money and for what? Reduced civil rights (I just can't believe that in America, a citizen can now be held without being charged and without contact with the outside world - is this a nightmare?), toppling two legitimate goverments of other countries (Ok, the Taliban didn't hand over Osama on a silver platter so they became a sacrifical pig with the blessing of the world), 1000s of innocents dying (in said aforementioned two countries) ...

      We've made our point, gotten our revenge, and wiped out a significant part of the major terrorism networks in the process. Isn't it enough already? But, if we're going to continue to spend this money to protect lives, why not make it more productive?

      (I know, I'm arguing that the war on terrorism has not saved all that many lives. While 'what if' alternate historial outcomes are unknowable, we can look to the past for some indication. So how often has the US been subject to externally-originated acts of terrorism? And how many have died in them total? Not all that many, compared to other forms of premature death. Sure, the deaths in 911 were tragic and unforgiveable, but so are any other premature deaths, IMHO (traffic deaths, murder victims, etc.). Look at the 911 hijackers - they're attempts to get pilot training were almost comical - it's really amazing they succeeded at their goal. And look how long they prepared. My point here is that I don't think the terrorists are capable of sustained mass production terrorism. [I'm talking international terrorism against the US as opposed to the Palestinians, who are quite good at mass production terrorism])

      As for alternatives to spending our taxmoney, just one example:

      Every year over 42K people lose their lives in traffic accidents in the US. That's what, 16 times the number of deaths in 911? And it happens every year. Imagine how many lives would be saved if 100 billion per year was plowed into traffic safety (such as pedestrian walks over or under dangerous intersections, air bags that don't kill toddlers, etc.).

      Just my 0.02.

    29. Re:Preference by 4of12 · · Score: 1

      I'd be interested in seeing some kind of checklist or score so that I can easily work out just how less free I am as a citizen of the UK compared to a citizen of the US.

      No offense taken. Likewise, I don't mean to start a flamewar or trollfest in reply.

      But here are a few items for a potential checklist based on anecdotes I've heard over the years.

      • Video surveillance of city streets. [I've heard they're much more common in the UK.]
      • Time and paperwork required to buy a handgun. [A lot more in the UK. I'm not saying the US policy is better, just different and, in a sense, giving more freedom to an individual. This cuts both ways, depending on how much you trust your fellow citizens to be responsible.]
      • Tax load. [The more of your earned income that gets deducted from your pay means more goes to group-elected spending decisions instead of individual spending decisions. Some find the latter to be an important freedom, but it's a matter of personal opinion, depends what the government's spending money on, etc.]

      Freedom to act, think, do and say things is always in a larger context. We're all free to starve if we choose.

      For example, some would say that freedom in the US means very little if your choice is between working at a minimum wage job and not being able to afford medical care or health insurance, or not working and getting Medicaid. In the UK, the public choice of universal coverage eliminates that source of anxiety that people in the US must contend with. Perhaps in the UK people have elected to use their freedom to make a collective commitment to universal coverage. They have less freedom, but they gain something of value.

      Freedom's a good thing overall, though, whether it's expressed in individual choice or in collective choice, even though the latter potentially endangers individual choice (say, makign it illegal to be of a different religion than some standard).

      But, because we get to see some people using freedom responsibly and in new ways there's hope that, in the long run, fewer of us will live in ill-fitting, preconceived jails of our own choices. Always, though, no matter the hardships we suffer from our ill-informed, poor choices, people will often feel more comfortable in a jail of their own choosing, than they would in a set of conditions where the choice has been taken away from them.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    30. Re:Preference by sqlrob · · Score: 1

      I guess you don't mind if I investigate you for say, Child Molestation then, asking all your neighbors if they've seen any children entering your house because you were thought to be a child molester by the computer?

    31. Re:Preference by Tin+Foil+Hat · · Score: 1

      No, it's not a competition, but I might point out that journalists here can criticize the government without fear of reprisals, unlike in some recent events in the UK.

      Free speech is an enumerated right in the U.S. and may not be abridged (in theory, McCarthyism not-with-standing). There is no such fundamental right in the U.K as far as I'm aware. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

      There are other rights guaranteed in our Constitution that do not appear in similar legal documents in the U.K. Although rights are guaranteed and not granted, since they are considered inherent to all people, there still must be official recognition of them if they are to be protected.

      --
      No matter how many of my rights are taken away, somehow I still don't feel safe. -Frigid Monkey
    32. Re:Preference by MrHyd3 · · Score: 0

      I agree, I don't think it's a contest. I don't recall ever hearing this from anyone I know, so let me leave it to the "media" that portrays this. Yes, I am a proud American.

      --
      -------- Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most. --Ozzy
    33. Re:Preference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, i think there are an awful lot of cameras surveiling places in the UK...

    34. Re:Preference by martingunnarsson · · Score: 1


      Mmmm...bacon...*drool*
      </HOMER>

      --
      Martin
    35. Re:Preference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Partial freedom is partial imprisonment. I would hate to live somewhere where I could not choose to be a Nazi or live my whole life without being conscripted.

      It is a competition. Not against other countries, against the slippery slope of Orwellian society.

    36. Re:Preference by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1
      Free speech is an enumerated right in the U.S. and may not be abridged (in theory, McCarthyism not-with-standing).

      But it is abridged, and it has always been. There are libel and slander laws (which predate the US constitution anyways) as well as obscenity laws, trade mark and copyright laws. Describing a right as a general right without specifying the restrictions because they are "obvious" is not without danger - someone might decide other restrictions could be "obvious" too. I think it's better to be upfront about it and state exactly which rights you actually have.

    37. Re:Preference by rainer_d · · Score: 1
      Time and paperwork required to buy a handgun.

      I'm not from GB, but IIRC you cannot actually be in possession of a weapon. After a killing-spree of some maniac some years ago, legislation was inacted that required practically all citizens to give up any weapon they had.
      It's it bit more lax in Germany (where I come from). You've basically got to join a shooting-club and then you can have a gun (provided you have no previous convictions etc.).
      All this didn't stop lot's of people to buy illegal weapons here...but in GB, horrendous penalties are impending.

      --
      Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
    38. Re:Preference by leastsquares · · Score: 1

      This brings up several points. Since I have a home in the UK and a home in the US, I think I'm qualified to state my opinions (although that is all they are).

      Video surveillance of city streets. [I've heard they're much more common in the UK.]

      True, and in certain places I wish they were much more common here in the states. I'd happily walk around the streets at 4am anywhere in London. I definitely wouldn't do that in most of LA.

      Time and paperwork required to buy a handgun. [A lot more in the UK. I'm not saying the US policy is better, just different and, in a sense, giving more freedom to an individual. This cuts both ways, depending on how much you trust your fellow citizens to be responsible.]

      And that's why it is so easy to get a gun here in the states just because some people believe that they need to defend themselves from the king of England, or whatever. ~600 killings with guns in the UK every year. ~16000 in the US. Hmmm. I wonder whether carrying a gun actually makes people feel that they have more freedom?

      Tax load. [The more of your earned income that gets deducted from your pay means more goes to group-elected spending decisions instead of individual spending decisions. Some find the latter to be an important freedom, but it's a matter of personal opinion, depends what the government's spending money on, etc.]

      In the US, middle-earners and below get taxed heavily, while high earners are comparatively taxed less. Why to the rich deserve more "freedom"?

      One thing that concerns me is that the typical American citizen believes that they have more freedom than those in almost any other country in the developed world. Here, "Constitutional rights" rule over common sense. True, the UK doesn't have a written constitution or the legal concept of freedom of speech. In reality, UK citizens don't endure any lack of freedoms. In fact, there are many things that I am free to do in the privacy of my own home in the UK that I can 't (legally) do in my home in the US.

    39. Re:Preference by strongcypher · · Score: 1

      respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

      Perhaps you should take another look at this. This simply prevents the government from establishing a religion and from prohibiting the free exercise of religion. In no way does this imply that the church and the state must be seperate, as many interpret this to mean today. In fact, if you go back and read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers you will see very clearly that the two issues were not seperate. Politics is simply a manifestation of what an individual believes, and what individuals believe is very much derived from either their religion or their lack thereof. To say that these two institutions must remain seperate is impossible. If my beliefs about the world directly correlate to my religious beliefs, as is the case for most people, how can we possible hope to seperate those from our belief about the role of government in our lives? This idea has been abused in many cases to even violate the amendment it is supposed be upholding. For example, the posting of the ten commandments in Alabama. Clearly, Judge Moyer was exercising religion, and the state prohibited that. The posting of the commandments is no different than me putting a Buddha on my desk at work. His "office" is just a lot bigger. And yes, I do work for the government, and there are many in my office building with various religious paraphanelia in the cubicles or offices. I'm not trying to open up a can of worms here, and this really wasn't the point of my original post. But "seperation of church and state" is an extremely abused statement, and the original meaning of our founders has been completely lost.

    40. Re:Preference by CPlusPlusOwnsYou · · Score: 1

      I don't think George Bush Jr. has ever heard about very wise man that was named Ben Franklin. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

      --
      "Software is like sex: it's better when it's free."
    41. Re:Preference by Blastrogath · · Score: 1

      >So much for Innocent until Proven Guilty.

      It's inocent until proven guilty in a court of law, not don't investigate til proven guilty in a court of law.

      Would you prefer they investigated the facts after they convicted you?

      --
      "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." -Plato
    42. Re:Preference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This probably wasn't a prototype weapon. According to the Federation of American Scientists, Iraq actually weaponized binary agents.

      Production of the nerve gases tabun (GA) and sarin (GB) started in 1984 and the method of production changed over time in order to resolve stabilization problems. ... ... The sarin produced was also of poor quality (maximum purity of 60 per cent when solvent is taken into account) and so too could only be stored for short periods. In order to overcome this problem, Iraq resorted to a binary approach to weaponization: ...


      Although this one was used as a roadside bomb, the next one may not be. Even if they do use it as a roadside bomb I will point out that a chemical munition could be devestating under the right circumstances.

      Assuming that they didn't know what they had to begin with, they almost certainly do now, and will go back for more from where that one came from. There are a variety of techniques they could try to make their next attack more effective. Lets hope we both get them and their stockpile before they are successful.

    43. Re:Preference by Ra5pu7in · · Score: 1

      They are definitely more interested in false positives, because those can be weeded out. False negatives are those omitted who should have been listed - which in this case could be the rest of us in the U.S. (over 300 million). Those false negatives can be found through other investigative means. As long as there is a full understanding that false negatives and false positives exist, they don't get in much trouble. This list merely gave them one starting point. They looked at what got people on the list - not just the fact that they were on the list - in determining who to investigate further. They also didn't limit their investigations to that group of 120,000. The problem with a database is that many people want absolute answers - i.e. if you are on this list then you are a terrorist and if you aren't on the list you are not a terrorist. Then you simply get a witch hunt.

      --
      I was taking one day at a time, but then several days got together and ambushed me. (from a Rhymes with Orange comic)
    44. Re:Preference by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 1

      Investigation != Arrests/detainment.

      A lot of the objections to my original comment seem to miss the point - with a simple investigation you could probably clear a lot of false positives.

      If they find enough evidence to arrest you, then you're not one of the false positives that we're concerned about.

    45. Re:Preference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, they will only stick a few flouresent light tubes up your ass, make get naked in a pyramid, masturbate in front of people, attack you with dogs, put a sack over your head and threaten to electrocute you.

      Now why on earth would they do that? The majority of soldiers, police officers and FBI agents are decent people.

      The reprobates who did that in Iraq are being convicted and going to jail.

    46. Re:Preference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yep, they will only stick a few flouresent light tubes up your ass, make get naked in a pyramid, masturbate in front of people, attack you with dogs, put a sack over your head and threaten to electrocute you. Yep, clearing your name shouldn't be too bad

      You forgot to add " and upload pictures of it all to the internet."

    47. Re:Preference by BladeRider · · Score: 1

      How about the simple lack of freedom to defend yourself (from robbers/muggers/attackers) in your own home? The rights of your attackers apparently trump your right to be free from attack.

      This isn't a troll. You've lost some freedoms that still exist in the US.

      --
      j.
    48. Re:Preference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      A great quote from Bruce Schneier on this -


      Unfortunately, the debate often gets mischaracterized as a question about how much privacy we need to give up in order to be secure. People ask: "Should we use this new surveillance technology to catch terrorists and criminals, or should we favor privacy and ban its use?"

      This is the wrong question. We know that new technology gives law enforcement new search techniques, and makes existing techniques cheaper and easier. We know that we are all safer when the police can use them. And the Fourth Amendment already allows even the most intrusive searches: The police can search your home and person.

      What we need are corresponding mechanisms to prevent abuse. This is the proper question: "Should we allow law enforcement to use new technology without any judicial oversight, or should we demand that they be overseen and accountable?" And the Fourth Amendment already provides for this in its requirement of a warrant.
    49. Re:Preference by milo_Gwalthny · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the answer is right in front of us... if they sent a list of 120,000 possible terrorist suspects, they prefer false positives.

      --
      Milo
    50. Re:Preference by spun · · Score: 1

      Freedom is an abstract concept. No one has any inherent freedoms. The freedom we have is the freedom that society and circumstance grants us. If you were alone in the world, would you have less freedom, or more? I posit that you would have less, because you would have far fewer choices open to you. Societies exist to raise the level of choice and freedom that individuals have, by giving them more options and more security than they have alone. Security allows individuals to make choices based on desire, not necessity. There is an old African saying: "A strong tribe makes free individuals, and free individuals make a strong tribe." ...people will often feel more comfortable in a jail of their own choosing, than they would in a set of conditions where the choice has been taken away from them.
      Are you honestly saying that most people would prefer the 'freedom' to choose what type of squalor they live in over being forced to live in luxery and comfort?

      What this comes down to is your definition of choice and freedom. You can't choose something you don't know about. Also, simply choosing something does NOTHING. Deciding to be a millionaire won't get you a million dollars, you also need the opportunity. Without the opportunity, the choice is illusionary. In fact, most people need to believe the opportunity exists before they wil choose to persue it. So freedom and choice depend on knowledge and opportunity.

      Societies that promote the individual over the collective ignore the true nature of choice and freedom. We aren't free because we are individuals, we are free because we are members of a collective that promotes freedom. We are free because we choose to respect the freedoms and choices of others, and they do the same for us.

      Unfortunately, American society has enshrined the individual above the collective, ignoring the fact that individuality itself is dependent on the collective. We have created a society that reduces choice and freedom for the majority while granting ridiculous levels of choice and freedom to a minority. We maintain this unstable system by brainwashing everyone to believe that they are in, or could be in, the minority that has true freedom and choice.

      We maintain the illusion that anyone can make it, that those who do make it made it through their own individual excellence and good choices, and that those who don't are lazy, bad, or dumb. We ignore the interconnected nature of society. Simple math will show that not everyone can be a CEO, that there will always be poor people in our system, people who have drastically reduced freedom and choice, through no fault of their own. The rich man's choices are dependent on the lack of choice and freedom of the majority.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    51. Re:Preference by Catiline · · Score: 1
      Politics is simply a manifestation of what an individual believes
      Religion is the art of arranging your life for maximum return in the hereafter.
      Politics is the art of arraging others' lives for maximum return in the here and now. -- Me
    52. Re:Preference by zoombat · · Score: 1
      If they find enough evidence to arrest you, then you're not one of the false positives that we're concerned about.

      You mean if they find enough evidence to CONVICT you, then you're not one of the false positives...

      that's the problem; it doesn't take a whole heck of a lot of "evidence" to arrest someone. But an arrest for a federal crime like terrorism has a MAJOR impact on someone's life, whether or not they are found guilty.

    53. Re:Preference by geoffspear · · Score: 1

      Putting the Ten Commandments in the public entry of a courthouse is showing official recognition of a particular religion. Putting the Ten Commandments, a Buddha, or whatever the fuck else you want in your own private office is not the same thing, no matter who you work for.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    54. Re:Preference by geoffspear · · Score: 1

      Do you believe that "probable cause" should be extended to include being listed in some database that a private corporation generated through some arcane means (which they probably claim as a trade secret so you can't really be sure if they're profiling your behavior or just grabbing voter registration records and claiming anyone who's not a Republican must be a terrorist, because you're either for the President or against America)?

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    55. Re:Preference by Pxtl · · Score: 1

      Well, from a strictly legal standpoint, the US foundations are much more solidly built around freedom than Canada. Canada does not guarantee many of the rights the US.

      It is a testament to the incompetence of the American voter and electoral system that they've managed to cock it up so bad.

    56. Re:Preference by comedian23 · · Score: 1

      It's still not making a "law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", no matter where you put it. Is it?

    57. Re:Preference by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 1

      Having enough evidence to believe they can convict me and actually convicting me are two different things. If you're not a terrorist, but there's enough evidence to convince the government that you are and try to make a case against you, perhaps they should be looking at you. Technically, you might be a false positive...but there will be enough reason to check you out.

      If they don't find such evidence, and you're innocent anyway, what's the problem? You get removed from the list and marked as a false positive. Future changes to the algorithm will hopefully remove you from the results.

    58. Re:Preference by jasonisgodzilla · · Score: 1

      Like I said, the constitution itself doesn't explicitly say that their is a seperation of church and state, but the body of constitutional doctrine includes the judicial interpretations of the law related to the constitution. The Constitution is like the skeleton, the framework, and judicial interpretation is the meat. If someone doesn't want the statue there, and the government fights to keep there and uses law enforcement to make sure it stays, then it is in essence making the law respect an establishment of religion. The true argument to attack though is that the constitution only prevents congress from doing this. At the county level, there may or may not be a local law or policy that deals with this, but once again judicial interpretation has made it pretty clear that there is to be a seperation of church and state, at least in the opinions of our SCJs.

    59. Re:Preference by comedian23 · · Score: 1

      >or just grabbing voter registration records and claiming anyone who's not a Republican

      I was wondering how you were going to turn this into an anti-Bush rant, and I wasn't disappointed. You do realize that registered Democrats far outnumber registered Republicans, don't you?

    60. Re:Preference by jasonisgodzilla · · Score: 1

      Look at this from another perspective, if you were a muslim, would you want to go to trial in the Alabama judge's court? What if the local Buddhist wanted to put up a large statue of Buddha in the courthouse? Is that their right as well? How about if the Muslims wanted to put up a statue of a Muslim beheading and infidel and a scripture from the koran talking about smiting the infidels? Is this their right too? What if I have a church that promotes eating dead bodies, and I want to put up a statue of that as well? When you allow the recognition of one religion in a public institution, you have to allow the recognition of all. This creates more problems than you can imagine so the rational thing to do is say, worship how you want, just don't do it in your official capacity. I realize that people's beliefs come into play in the way they do their jobs and see the world, and I don't think anyone believes that there can be 100% seperation, but that you have to at least make an effort. Another tangent to consider about the Alabama judge, anyone who is tried in his court that isn't Christian now has a right to appeal. "You're honor, as a muslim/hindu/pagan/etc there was no way I could have gotten a fair trial under the TEN COMMANDMENTS JUDGE and there was obvious bias shown. Request for a retrial." This type of thing is the reason why we should strive to seperate our own, often irrational religious beliefs, from the public call of duty.

    61. Re:Preference by Sdrawcab · · Score: 1

      Uhm, after that wacko killed all those little kids its pretty much impossible to buy a handgun in Britian. I think they even confiscated a lot of them. I know the NRA used it as a scare tactic in one of their adds, and I was disturbed by it. Lets respond to an insane and irrational act by an insane and irrational response!

    62. Re:Preference by comedian23 · · Score: 1

      > If someone doesn't want the statue there, and the government fights to keep there and uses law enforcement to make sure it stays, then it is in essence making the law respect an establishment of religion.

      I see what you are saying. But what if the majority of people(in that area, whose taxes paid for it) want it there, which is what happened in the Alabama case? Certainly the govt. has the right to protect public property, right? I'm assuming the Judge didn't buy this statue himself, BTW. If he did, then he certainly shouldn't display it on public property.

    63. Re:Preference by strongcypher · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the statue had LOTS of things on it, not just the Ten Commandments. The statue was celebrating the documents that were responsible for the forming our Constitution. Regardless of what your religious beliefs are, there is no denying that the Ten Commandments played an integral part in the writing of that document. Again, simply read the other writings of our founding fathers.

      To be honest, I can't recall specifically what was on the statue, but I do know that there was much more there, and from other religions, than is represented in the media. It wasn't like it was just a huge statue of the Ten Commandments.

    64. Re:Preference by geoffspear · · Score: 1

      Yes, and I also realize that Democrats are not likely to be the ones in favor of outsourcing responsibility for determining who is and isn't a terrorist to private corporations, and that the private corporations who are hired to do this categorization are therefore likely to be ones who support Republicans. It has nothing to do with being anti-Bush. If the article was about how the United Autoworkers were building a database of terrorists to give to a Democratic president, I'd assume they'd be more likely to target Republicans. Both sides are bought and paid for by special interests, and both are willing to do whatever sneaky underhanded stuff they can to screw the opposition.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    65. Re:Preference by geoffspear · · Score: 1
      Ok, obviously you're talking out of your ass on a topic you know nothing at all about.

      The Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court did buy the statue himself. He installed in in the middle of the night when no one was around to stop it, and refused to remove it when the other 8 justices (7 of whom are Republicans) ordered him to, before the federal government even got involved.

      And if tax money was involved, it would have had to have been appropriated by the Legislature, who are pretty clearly not allowed to establish religion.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    66. Re:Preference by comedian23 · · Score: 1

      I never knew who paid for it. Since it was him then clearly it should be taken down. Even if it had nothing to do with religion it should be taken down, since the courthouse isn't a place for his personal things.

    67. Re:Preference by ratamacue · · Score: 1

      It does not matter that rights are "guaranteed", because the guarantee will be ignored if government makes it so. What matters is the reality of government power vs. individual soverignty.

    68. Re:Preference by Blastrogath · · Score: 1

      How can one get probible cause without investigating? I'm not proposing they should get search warrants or something because of the database results. The whole political issue is a red herring.

      --
      "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." -Plato
    69. Re:Preference by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1

      You are allowed to use "reasonable" force. That generally doesn't involve shooting them in the back as they run away, if you are referring to the Tony Martin case.

    70. Re:Preference by geoffspear · · Score: 1

      The point is that some asshats with some data mining software at a private corporation shouldn't be telling the police who to investigate. That's no more legitimate than if I sent them a list of 120,000 people I thought should be targeted for investigation.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    71. Re:Preference by BrainStain · · Score: 1

      Because you can be a little bit free, but not a little bit pregnant. Freedom has its limits, and we like to feel we control them. In the UK, you like to think you control them. In France they like to think they exist, and in some sense that is freedom, for if you are dead or don't exist, then you are only free from the bounds of freedom. Really, freedom doesn't exist in the absolute sense, truth is absolute, therefore it must exist in the false sense. So you see, if we think we are free, we are wrong, but if we feel we are free, we don't care.

    72. Re:Preference by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 1

      Just so you know, whenever I see a post preemptively whining about getting moderated down, I skip it. Even when I have mod points to give. Noone wants to hear whining. Just make your point.

    73. Re:Preference by Blastrogath · · Score: 1

      The "asshats with some data mining software at a private corporation" where contractors hired by the government to make that software. They where not some random bozo's off the street. The 120,000 names where flagged by the software the government paid them to make.

      Should the government be barred from getting contractors to make them software? Or do you just object to them using the results of the software they paid to have made?

      --
      "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." -Plato
    74. Re:Preference by ozric99 · · Score: 1

      Do you reply to it before or after you've skipped it?
      As for the whining - I think it's more a case of playing to the idiots that frequent these parts - "look, what i'm going to say might sound like I'm taking the piss but just stop and think for a second before you continue to knee-jerk your way through life".

    75. Re:Preference by Cyberdyne · · Score: 1
      True, and in certain places I wish they were much more common here in the states. I'd happily walk around the streets at 4am anywhere in London. I definitely wouldn't do that in most of LA.

      I certainly wouldn't feel safe walking around parts of London at 4am - or 4pm for that matter - and I was born there. With or without those cameras. (For that matter, I've seen the police in London beating a suspect in public - although since he'd knifed one of their colleagues ealier, I wasn't feeling particularly sympathetic.)

      And that's why it is so easy to get a gun here in the states just because some people believe that they need to defend themselves from the king of England, or whatever. ~600 killings with guns in the UK every year. ~16000 in the US. Hmmm. I wonder whether carrying a gun actually makes people feel that they have more freedom?

      Adjust for population, you're looking at more like five times as many shootings in the US as the UK - personally, that's a price I'm more than willing to pay for the freedom to defend myself, family and property effectively.

      In the US, middle-earners and below get taxed heavily, while high earners are comparatively taxed less. Why to the rich deserve more "freedom"?

      That has to be a very strange definition of 'comparatively' you're using. High earners pay more money in absolute terms, and a greater percentage of their total income, so how can this ever be 'comparatively less'? The lowest earners pay no income tax whatsoever (or a negative amount, thanks to 'tax credits'), the lower 50% pay virtually none. Looks to me like they are the ones paying less, comparatively or otherwise.

      In fact, there are many things that I am free to do in the privacy of my own home in the UK that I can 't (legally) do in my home in the US.

      I'd be interested to hear what those are - I've lived for a short time in the US, and the rest of my life in the UK, and can't think of any.

    76. Re:Preference by leastsquares · · Score: 1

      Adjust for population...

      Okay. In that case, there are 13 000 more gun-related killings in the US than there really ought to be. That's an extra 13 000 people with absolutely no freedoms because they are *dead*. That's not a price that I'm willing to make other people pay on my behalf.

      High earners pay more money in absolute terms, and a greater percentage of their total income

      But that's the point! Here, high earners *don't* pay a greater percentage of their total income. The tax rate increases with increasing gross income, but the allowances and deductions more than counteract this increase. In some extreme cases it might not even be true that high earners pay more in absolute terms. (NB/ I specifically wasn't mentioning low-earners -- I compared middle-earners to high-earners.) At least UK income taxes are, my humble opinion, fair.

      There are numerous additional concerns regarding low-earners like, for example, lack of medical insurance or affordable healthcare.

      I'd be interested to hear what those are...

      The two things that come immediately to mind (irrespective of whether I might be doing them) are oral sex and giving my 19 year old son (or 14 year old for that matter) a glass of wine with their Sunday dinner.

    77. Re:Preference by Cyberdyne · · Score: 1
      Okay. In that case, there are 13 000 more gun-related killings in the US than there really ought to be. That's an extra 13 000 people with absolutely no freedoms because they are *dead*. That's not a price that I'm willing to make other people pay on my behalf.

      Fortunately, the 16,000 total figure from which the 13,000 figure comes isn't real: 2000's total murder count was just 15,517; I somehow doubt that more than all of them were committed using guns. A lot of those counted as "gun deaths" are in fact suicides - a price the 'victim' is choosing to pay. (Meanwhile, US murder rates have fallen to levels last seen when they included a well-known shooting in Dallas in 1963...) Getting rid of the real gun murders - roughly 10,000 more than the adjusted UK figure - would be nice (and is slowly happening already), but not worth sacrificing fundamental rights for.

      Here, high earners *don't* pay a greater percentage of their total income. The tax rate increases with increasing gross income, but the allowances and deductions more than counteract this increase. In some extreme cases it might not even be true that high earners pay more in absolute terms.

      I find that literally unbelievable, as well as at variance with the actual IRS figures, particularly with AMT which eliminates virtually all deductions and shifts to a slightly higher percentage above a certain income threshold. High earners also bear a far greater share of the overall tax burden - IMHO, far too large a share. A few months ago I actually went into great detail examining the tax burden on each segment of the population by gross earnings - the figures were very different from your assertions. It's just one of those pieces of political propoganda that always seems to hit home with some people, despite having no basis in reality - hence the creation of AMT in the first place...

      There are numerous additional concerns regarding low-earners like, for example, lack of medical insurance or affordable healthcare.

      Having had the misfortune to be on the business end of the NHS several times, I'd have to count the UK as lacking affordable healthcare too - it has something 'affordable', at 'only' 13% of your gross income, but it can't honestly be called healthcare. Yes, those on low incomes have problems, but paying the negative amount of "tax" the US system imposes can't be one of them!

      The two things that come immediately to mind (irrespective of whether I might be doing them) are oral sex and giving my 19 year old son (or 14 year old for that matter) a glass of wine with their Sunday dinner.

      Technically illegal in both countries in the 14 year old's case - though of course you're unlikely to get caught. I do tend to agree 21 for drinking is too high, but oral sex (in private, between consenting adults) shouldn't be illegal anywhere in the US, at least since Lawrence v Texas. Meanwhile, I'll point out that merely defending yourself and harming an intruder in your home can land you in court in the UK - IMHO, a far greater infringement of rights. For that matter, you don't need to take any action against an intruder to be sued in the UK for injuries sustained breaking into your home - insane!

  5. hmmm by ziggyboy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Minority Report meets the Matrix.

    1. Re:hmmm by WinterpegCanuck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who would of thought not knowing the history questions on your SAT's would be such a big deal. It's the 1977 California Personality Index all over again. You would think society may have matured just a bit over the years.

    2. Re:hmmm by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1

      Reality looks more and more like a parody on hollywood movies.

    3. Re:hmmm by tntguy · · Score: 0

      We haven't in 6,000 years, why start now?

  6. Relevant quote by Enlarge+Your+Penis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >>Seisint Inc., is a Boca Raton, Fla., company founded by a millionaire, Hank Asher, who stepped down from its board of directors last year after revelations of past ties to drug smugglers.

    Anyone care to guess one of the main sources of terrorist income?

    1. Re:Relevant quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This story should have been from the It-takes-one-to-know-one department...

    2. Re:Relevant quote by garcia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The US Government training and paying them to usurp "unfavorable" ruling parties.

    3. Re:Relevant quote by proj_2501 · · Score: 4, Informative

      where do terrorists get their money?

      if you buy gasoline, it may come from YOU

    4. Re:Relevant quote by XryanX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Interesting point, but it does say past ties. One could argue that he's turned his life around, and is trying to make something worthwhile, although he's failed miserably from what I can tell of this system.

      If he used to be a drug smuggler, then perhaps he has some sort of inside knowledge, much the same way that law enforcement hires ex-criminals like Kevin Mitnick to catch others.

    5. Re:Relevant quote by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > >Seisint Inc., is a Boca Raton, Fla., company founded by a millionaire, Hank Asher, who stepped down from its board of directors last year after revelations of past ties to drug smugglers.
      >
      > Anyone care to guess one of the main sources of terrorist income?

      Spam? :)

    6. Re:Relevant quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Fucking Norgegian terrorists. Nuke their ass and take the gas!

    7. Re:Relevant quote by meringuoid · · Score: 5, Funny
      Anyone care to guess one of the main sources of terrorist income?

      Donations from sympathetic Americans who think they're Irish?

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    8. Re:Relevant quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Well, last time /. ran a diamond story it was said that more money gets to terrorists from the diamond trade than from oil, at least as a percentage of the respective industries. I don't believe any evidence was given to back this up however.

    9. Re:Relevant quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if you live in the united states, and pay taxes.. it may come from YOU.

    10. Re:Relevant quote by sckeener · · Score: 1

      ah that explains this: (i.e. no need of more since we know where the money is coming from)

      And in April, the Treasury Department's agency that investigates allegedly illegal financing across U.S. borders was revealed to have only four agents working on money traceable to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, but 21 agents working full-time on violations of the U.S. embargo of Cuba. [Southland Times (Invercargill, New Zealand), 3-18-04] [Toledo Blade-AP, 4-29-04]

      The clip came from news of the weird.

      --
      "Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
    11. Re:Relevant quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >One could argue that he's turned his life around, and is trying to make something worthwhile

      That's the Whole Point of this Debate. The Matrix detects a person is a "terrorist" because of their past, not their future

    12. Re:Relevant quote by demachina · · Score: 1
      "where do terrorists get their money?"

      If you've been following the Riggs Banking scandal lately they appear to be getting a lot of it from the Saudi embassy and royal family.

      This article doesn't mention it but millions, if not tens of millions of suspicious transactions through this bank from the Sauid Embassy are though to have gone to funding terrorism.

      Its kind of odd the U.S. was so keen to take down Saddam for backing terrorism while the U.S. consistently looks the other way or actively suppresses information about the Saudi's actively supporting it. I guess it helps to be both close friends of the Bush family and have control the worlds largest pool of oil.

      You might recall the Bush administration had to black out a huge section of the congressional report on 9/11 which exposed Saudi Arabia's involvement, beyond the fact that it was perpetrated almost entirely by Saudi nationals.

      --
      @de_machina
    13. Re:Relevant quote by Creepy · · Score: 1

      I disagree - I don't think gasoline (oil) had that much to do with it, aside from making some extremists wealthy enough to start elaborate networks (e.g. Osama Bin Laden). I seriously doubt most oil families would support terrorism, because the US (for one) is a cash cow for them. If I were handing you a million dollars or more every day for as long as I lived, would you kill me? It doesn't make logical sense, so only if you feel the money was immoral or immorally obtained would you turn it down and/or off the provider. Saudi Arabia has a good mix of oil and extremism which is probably why many terrorists come from there, but I'm guessing most are disowned by the ones that want to keep getting payed.

      Also, the majority of OPEC nations do not practice the extreme form of the muslim religion that justifies suicide bombings. Suicide bombings are not martyr-dom to the majority of muslims, only extremists that distort the words in the Koran to justify it. The martyrs in the Koran were defending their town from attackers, not trying to erradicate the attacker's race.

      And how do you explain Afghanistan? Osama bin Laden was basically disowned by his family and their oil fortune. Prior to the World Trade Center bombing, Osama was funding his group through US based relief agencies that funneled money into his terrorist network instead of aiding in relief for the poor. Afghanistan was/is also the largest supplier of Opium in the world but not certainly not oil. Their only oil profits are from pipelines through the country from oil rich neighbors.

    14. Re:Relevant quote by FooGoo · · Score: 1

      T A X E S

      --
      People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
    15. Re:Relevant quote by XryanX · · Score: 1

      I skimmed the article, and I didn't see much on what aspects of the person's history are stored in the MATRIX.

      I would assume that it has such things as travel records and credit statements to show the person has been buying fertilizer or other items that could be used for terrorist acts.

      In fact, the article states the following:
      " Because the system includes information on people with no criminal record as well as known criminals, Matrix has drawn objections from liberal and conservative privacy groups."

      That would seem to debunk the idea that it's saying "This person used to fly a plane for the Columbian cartel, we'll keep an eye on them."

    16. Re:Relevant quote by Ian+Bicking · · Score: 2, Informative

      Anyone want to guess one of the CIA's main sources of income? This site has ongoing related coverage, a documentary on the subject, and of course Google will tell you more, since the one attempt to cover this in the mainstream media resulted in the journalist being slandered and the paper denouncing its own article (more on that).

    17. Re:Relevant quote by Belgand · · Score: 1

      Hank Asher or Hank Scorpio!

    18. Re:Relevant quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oil?

    19. Re:Relevant quote by br0d · · Score: 1

      Yeah while we're at it, let's add some guilt trips to the consumption of oxygen. Life isn't hard enough as it is without feeling vaguely interrogated by both the left and the right.

    20. Re:Relevant quote by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Also if you buy drugs. Because of prohibition, all that money is off the books. Pretty easy to hide that money. Remember, drug use doesn't support terrorism, prohibition does. Now that the Taliban no longer control Afganistan, opium production is back up to "normal", producing 75% of the world's supply. Makes me suspicious of what our real intentions are there.

      --
      What?
    21. Re:Relevant quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I'm open to suggestions, however, I don't see any listed in your post.

    22. Re:Relevant quote by geoffspear · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You might recall the Bush administration had to black out a huge section of the congressional report on 9/11 which exposed Saudi Arabia's involvement, beyond the fact that it was perpetrated almost entirely by Saudi nationals.

      No, no, no. The US is a democracy, so the fact that a majority of Americans believe that most of the hijackers were Iraqi makes it true. It would be downright un-American not to suppress evidence of Saudi involvement.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    23. Re:Relevant quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      where do terrorists get their money?

      if you buy gasoline, it may come from YOU


      Well I tried stealing the gasoline, but that never works out so well. Maybe I should try paying with fluffy bunnies and lollipops, I think terrorists would be a lot happier if they had those, and maybe not so intent on causing terror.

  7. Would be interesting to find out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Judging by the title, I thought the article was going to tell us how to find out our score.

    "There is a 20% likelyhood of you blowing up a building this year. Have a nice day."

    1. Re:Would be interesting to find out by Enlarge+Your+Penis · · Score: 5, Funny

      Going by the current success of counter insurgency measures in Iraq, I think you just roll some dice and add them together

    2. Re:Would be interesting to find out by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 3, Funny

      I can already picture the outcome of such a test:
      Monday afternoon: Hey, a Am-I-a-terrorist-or-not-quiz!
      Monday afternoon + 5 minutes: Ah, appearently I'm not a terrorist at all.
      Monday Evening: Hey, the neighbours across the street bought a new black van!
      Monday Night: Excuse me mister Totaly-dressed-in-black-carrying-a-big-gun-and-poi nting- it-at-me why are you in my bedroom?
      Tuesday morning: Damn hot here in Guatumala Bay.

    3. Re:Would be interesting to find out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Going by the current success of counter insurgency measures in Iraq, I think you just roll some dice and add them together

      ...and then take off all their clothes and stack them in a pyramid...

    4. Re:Would be interesting to find out by HyperCash · · Score: 1

      Dude, your sig....Never HIDE the evidence. You do that and they can find it. You have to DESTROY it.

      Happy Denying,

      --HC

      --
      So I'm jump'n up and down screaming show me the money.
    5. Re:Would be interesting to find out by parksie · · Score: 1

      Your sig matches that so well :)

    6. Re:Would be interesting to find out by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      I look to the E! channel to find my Q.

      --
      What?
    7. Re:Would be interesting to find out by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1

      Destroy it? Ofcourse not. You hide it in the secret cave underneath your house.
      What kind of supervillian would destroy evidence? If you would destroy it, you would look like a wannabe supervillian on next years supervillian congress.

  8. The future of society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    You have been fined one credit for a violation of the verbal decency act.

    He doesn't know how to use the three shells.

    1. Re:The future of society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need the three shells. Continue the verbal violations and use the sheets.

  9. Re:Gotta love the ACLU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you even know who the ACLU are?

  10. ACLU not worth supporting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    The ACLU is note worth supporting, as they have an entire division devoted to supporting and promoting racial discrimination against individuals, and there are many instances of them fighting against free speech rights (if the speech of the individual is "religious").

    1. Re:ACLU not worth supporting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Care to provide evidence instead of spewing propaganda?

    2. Re:ACLU not worth supporting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Did you ever hear of the California Civil Rights Iniative? The ACLU fought this on the grounds that it was good for the government to punish people for having the wrong skin color in college admissions. The argued in terms of group rights, against individual rights.

      As for censorship, there was the recent Texas football speech case, in which the ACLU sided with those who wanted to censor a student's speech because the speech contained "prayer". The ACLU is in some instances both racist and intolerant.

    3. Re:ACLU not worth supporting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has nothing to do with skin color. Its about correcting past injustices and promoting diversity, something that is dearly needed in today's acadmeic environments.

      The prayer was school sponsored. Government can't endorse religion. Simple as that.

    4. Re:ACLU not worth supporting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is that ACLU defends the rights of the individual no matter what side of the fence they are on. They also defended American Nazis some years ago when their assembly rights were infringed.

      The Texas case you cite involves promotion (establishment) of religion by a public institution. If someone could make a case that their free exercise of religion (the other half of the 1st ammendments relgious protections) was being infringed, it is not unreasonable that ACLU would come to their defense.

    5. Re:ACLU not worth supporting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "The point is that ACLU defends the rights of the individual no matter what side of the fence they are on"

      Not in the California civil rights example. As revealed by the ACLU, and a parallel response to this item by an ACLU defender, the ACLU is against your rights if you are the wrong skin color to contribute to someone's "diversity" quota, or if there is "past injustice" to be righted by punishing you for crimes that you as an individual did not commit.

    6. Re:ACLU not worth supporting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What part of the Constitution / Bill of Rights ensures any individual access to any particular educational institution?

    7. Re:ACLU not worth supporting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It is a matter of due process. The government (public university) should not be able to deny you admissions because of something like skin color.

      It is interesting that defenders of the ACLU are so strongly in favor of this kind of racism, which is so similar to "racial profiling" by police.

  11. 120,000 out of how many? by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'd be more interested to know how many people were entered into the system... isn't that pertinent here? I mean, if they only put in 120,000 and they all came back as terrorists, something's probably wrong. Is Osama in that list? Did it pick up anyone we already knew was a terrorist? Just hearing a number as high as 120,000 isn't surprising without more information about the number. Yes, I could RTFA, but with a summary that long, I would have expected at least the number polled to be in there.

    --
    stuff |
    1. Re:120,000 out of how many? by XryanX · · Score: 4, Informative

      From TFA:
      " He said Matrix, which has 4 billion records, merely speeds access to material that police have always been able to get from disparate sources, and does not automatically or proactively finger suspects."

    2. Re:120,000 out of how many? by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, actually some of the terrorists who were involved with 9/11 ended up being flagged as terrorists by the system.

      Now, I know they were working on this system befor 9/11 but I've got to wonder if they didn't do a little marketbenching and alter it so the names of the terrorists would end up on the list so they could goto the government and say "See, see, the system works!"

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    3. Re:120,000 out of how many? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a bit of code has been leaked... it appears they are running off of a MySQL database.

      select *
      from theList
      where lastName'ashcrof'
      order by rand()
      limit 120000

    4. Re:120,000 out of how many? by jesup · · Score: 1

      We here (techies) understand how easy it is in hindsight to set up a scoring system so that the already-known bad guys end up on top. How well such an after-the-fact-designed (after 9/11) system is at picking out _other_ terrorists is unknown, and iffy at best (unless one of the inputs is "known to have trained in Afganistan with Al Queda"). They say that investigations were launched and "several arrests were made". It doesn't say that those arrests had anything to do with terrorism, or that they weren't later released or just deported for immigration violations. If they _were_ terrorist-related arrests, you can bet Siesint would be crowing about it and it would be part of Matrix now (even if it were pure chance or blind luck).

      They even say it was dropped because it was 9/11-specific.

    5. Re:120,000 out of how many? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder what the chances of finding a terrorist in a random sample of 120 000 people are. You would have to know what % of people are terrorists.

    6. Re:120,000 out of how many? by Idarubicin · · Score: 1
      He said Matrix, which has 4 billion records...

      Yeah, but that doesn't tell us how many unique individuals there are in the database. I mean, there's only six billion or so people on Earth--the U.S. government doesn't actually have a file on fully two-thirds of those. (Probably.)

      I probably would have several records in the database--credit history, driver's license, Social Security info, maybe university registration...and do you count my credit history as one record, or a collection of several?

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    7. Re:120,000 out of how many? by dasmegabyte · · Score: 1

      Well, yeah. If the system didn't pick up known terrorists, than obviously, it should be retooled until it works. That's elementary stuff, man. If I wrote an applescript to find every AAC file on my hard drive by led zepplin, and it didn't find one, I'd have to rewrite it, wouldn't I?

      You make it seem like basic unit testing is some kind of marketting gimmick.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
  12. Is there anyone left... by Alranor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    who can refer to the USA as "The Land of the Free" while keeping a straight face.

    1. Re:Is there anyone left... by happyfrogcow · · Score: 1

      I can.

      Why? because this fall I can go vote for someone new. because today I can say that George W. Bush is a sneeky, secretive, religious, antagonistic "Good Ol Boy" bastard whose type should have died out with McCarthyism.

    2. Re:Is there anyone left... by pubjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes. Lots of Americans still do. That's because - rather than comparing themselves with other first world countries - they compare themselves with places with oppressive regimes.

      The logic goes something like this: "Of course the USA is still the most free country in the world! Look at China and Syria!"

    3. Re:Is there anyone left... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ha! 9/11 was a Republican wet dream if there ever was one. All those juicy defence contracts ... yummy! The fact that it was centered around the middle with Isreal and more importantly oil involved ... oh yeah baby! It involved terrorists based inside the country soooo ... ohhhhhh yeah mama ... defence contacts against our own populace (think unsexy thoughts, think unsexy thoughts) ... can't hold it any longer ... anybody have spare underpants?

    4. Re:Is there anyone left... by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And what difference will that make? You don't honestly think that Kerry will roll back the US police state, do you?

      The amusing thing is that Americans are seeing their freedom rapidly destroyed yet still believe they're free because they can vote for one of two almost identical candidates. If only the USSR had offered people two voting choices rather than one, they'd still be around today.

    5. Re:Is there anyone left... by rigau · · Score: 1

      No. Not even GWB. The other day he said his usual line about how: "they hate freedom. we love freedom. blah blah blah..." HE started laughing. At this point he can't even say his lines and keep a straight face.

    6. Re:Is there anyone left... by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      We could compare ourselves to the UK. How many cameras in the UK watch people on a daily basis?

      Why do people act like these things only happen in the US?

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    7. Re:Is there anyone left... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your score just went up. Please report to the local redumacation camp. Thank you and have a nice day.

    8. Re:Is there anyone left... by meringuoid · · Score: 4, Interesting
      The logic goes something like this: "Of course the USA is still the most free country in the world! Look at China and Syria!"

      It gets worse. Apparently America's claim to the moral high ground in Iraq is now 'Yes, but Saddam did even worse things in that prison!'

      I'm just hearing Squealer say 'Surely you do not want Jones to come back?'

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    9. Re:Is there anyone left... by pubjames · · Score: 1

      Why do people act like these things only happen in the US?

      We don't. I think the issue is that many Americans bang on about the USA being the land of freedom all the time, when in actual fact it is no better than the rest of the first world. And recently, a lot worse.

    10. Re:Is there anyone left... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many of those cameras are "state-owned"? Most CCTV in the UK is for when you visit commercial sites etc and out of government hands.

    11. Re:Is there anyone left... by meringuoid · · Score: 3, Interesting
      We could compare ourselves to the UK. How many cameras in the UK watch people on a daily basis?

      You know, I don't so much mind the cameras per se. What pisses me off no end is what the police do with the film.

      No, it's not Big Brother. Or rather, it is - not in the Orwell sense, but the fucking Channel 4 sense. The police sell the film to TV companies to put together trash TV about drunks making fools of themselves.

      If I come out of a pub pissed and throw up into the gutter, I don't mind some copper watching on the security camera. He's a copper - he sees loads of people throw up in gutters. But if the cops decide to sell the footage of me throwing up into a gutter, and it gets on TV, and people who know me, for instance maybe my boss or my dear old grandmother...

      Embarrassing at the very least. The fuck are they playing at, selling the footage for entertainment?

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    12. Re:Is there anyone left... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double edged sword. It both emboldens the blood and narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind is closed, the leader will have need in seizing the rights of citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know this? Because I have done this, and I am Caesar."

    13. Re:Is there anyone left... by RoundSparrow · · Score: 1

      Ah, but the sad truth is that it may indeed be the american people who are responsible.

      We have let laws be solutions to all our problems, we support our troops no matter what stupid things they have been ordered to do, etc.

      We could have elected Ross Perot or some other person to shake up our government, but we didn't. It is about popularity / telling people what they want to hear.

      Mob Democracy or apathy. Maybe the USA is just trapped in a cycle that it can not break. Invading Iraq seems like a do something because of 9/11 instead of any real logic being applied. Knee-jerk reaction, that is the modern American way.

      What can we really do about it? Most people around you (the voting majority) just doesn't understand history, doesn't know how to debate with their neighbors or politicians, don't want to rock the boat. America is so vast, the voting majority doesn't get a chance to step outside and see what we really look like.

      Only a small majority of people travel overseas and/or use tools like the internet to touch real people outside the USA. Most just use it as another form of Disney(TM) entertainment. Look at how news is nothing more than Edutainment(TM). It is sad to see fellow americans so ignorant of the constitution, bragging about how great America is right now and don't knock it.

    14. Re:Is there anyone left... by deranged+unix+nut · · Score: 1

      I can go vote for someone new and it doesn't have to be Kerry, and the person I choose doesn't even need to win to make a difference. There are more choices than just Bush and Kerry! Take a look at this list of the political parties! We have the American Reform Party, the American Nazi Party, the Peace and Freedom Party, the U.S Pacifist Party, and many more. On top of all of that, you can write-in "Micky Mouse" as thousands of Americans do each year to send the message the even Micky would be better than the major party choices.

      No matter who is elected, if the Green Party gets 20% of the vote and the Libertarian Party gets 20% of the vote, then the group in office have a very large incentive to focus on the environment and shrink the size of government. Even if the Pacifist Party grows by 10,000 votes, that sends a message! On top of the initial message, once a "fringe" party gets enough of a percentage of the votes, they start to qualify for federal matching funds and can spread their message further. You don't need to change the person to send a message.

      Speaking to US Citizens: If you don't like the choices, VOTE and PARTICIPATE, the critical component of our political system is the ownership of the individual citizens. This government works on our behalf, if it isn't doing your will, vote and talk to other citizens about your concerns and ask them to vote too!

    15. Re:Is there anyone left... by RoundSparrow · · Score: 1

      pubjames wrote: We don't. I think the issue is that many Americans bang on about the USA being the land of freedom all the time, when in actual fact it is no better than the rest of the first world. And recently, a lot worse

      Entire agreement from me. People don't seem to grasp that government in general, the centralization of power, can get out of control. It is the very people who give this government the powe by constantly askign the government to solve all their problems.

      These things are happening in places outside the USA. But the USA was founded on principals of limiting power and never crossing certain ideal lines.

      And your real point: Americans keep bragging about our freedom at the time we are trading it.

      Hopefully the trend will reverse.

    16. Re:Is there anyone left... by outcast36 · · Score: 1

      Don't blame me.

      I voted for Kang.

    17. Re:Is there anyone left... by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      Ross Perot, with all his money and even political support, spent a huge amount of effort trying to get on the ballot in all 50 states.

      While it's possible for a 3rd party to win, they have to put a lot of effort into getting things (like their name on the ballot, funding, etc) that the two offical parties get for free.

      When Ventura won in Minnesota, a lot of states uppped their standards for what it took to get on the ballot and related accomplishments for 3rd parties. Under many of the new rules, Ventura would never have been allowed to have participated in the debates that were given a lot of credit for his success.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    18. Re:Is there anyone left... by BillyBlaze · · Score: 1

      Honest question: Would Mickey Mouse shorten copyright terms in order to free himself from Disney's bondage, or does he like it?

    19. Re:Is there anyone left... by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see Nader or some other candidate focus his resources on two or three states and win the electoral votes there. That'd be enough votes to sway the election one way or another, and thus it'd be powerful negotiating power.

      With the possibility of victory, 3rd parties could overcome the stigma that a vote for them is 'wasted.'

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    20. Re:Is there anyone left... by rjelks · · Score: 1

      We're talking a class war this November....

      ...Yale, Class of '68 vs. Class of '66

    21. Re:Is there anyone left... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have an idea. Why don't we throw in as many major candidates as possible. That way, we could have a president represent the entire nation, despite having only 13% of the vote. That sounds like the most fair solution.

    22. Re:Is there anyone left... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      "Democracy is the worst form of government on earth - except for all the others!"
      -- Winston Churchill

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    23. Re:Is there anyone left... by m.h.2 · · Score: 1

      " And what difference will that make? You don't honestly think that Kerry will roll back the US police state, do you?"

      Police State?

      Are you even *living* in this country? (BTW, if you aren't, then simply STFU and don't even bother reading the rest of this.)

      Would you like to give some concrete examples of the "Freedom[s]" that are so rapidly being destroyed? I'd especially like you to explain how a system designed to identify and track terrorists is a destruction of freedom. FYI, these systems have existed for years on paper. Bringing technology into just makes them more useful. If you're so vehemently against this system, then tell me, what would you suggest as an alternative? Do think that bombing and invading a country, and overthrowing their government because some terrorists live there is a better idea?

      And "YES" voting is _the_ most important freedom any citizen can have. The fact that we have two candidates who you (IMO, erroneously) think are identical says something about the people who respect that freedom and actually go out to the polls rather than sitting on their BigMac-stuffed asses watching Jerry Springer. Your opinion shows that you either a) Aren't American (in which case, I already told you to STFU and stop reading) or b) sat on your BigMac-stuffed ass watching Jerry Springer instead of voting for *your* candidate.

      Our ancestors fought and died for the freedoms we have. So much has gone wrong (in the world, and in this country) since that time and our government is pretty f@#$'d up, but it's far from a police state and I'm so sick of non-voting jackasses whining about the voting choices and even more sick of non-Americans telling us about *our* government and its flaws.

      Your comment: " If only the USSR had offered people two voting choices rather than one, they'd still be around today." tells me that you know nothing about Civics or Politics. Maybe you should have payed attention in class, instead of smoking crack like the mods who gave you a score of +5, Insightful.

    24. Re:Is there anyone left... by comedian23 · · Score: 1

      Since when do you only have two people to vote for?

      If you think the government is screwed up and taking your rights away or whatever then vote someone who represents you into office. And if 90% of America disagrees with you and votes for Bush or Kerry, then maybe, just maybe, it's not some vast conspiracy. Maybe it's just that most people don't agree with you.

      Unless your theory is that 90% of the world is so much stupider than you that they can't make intelligent decisions. In which case why do we allow "stupid" people to vote anyway? Let's make it so that only people of say, 130IQ or higher can vote.

      You can't have your cake and eat it to. If you want representative government you have to allow people who don't agree with you to vote. And if they vote differently from you, you have to suck it up and deal with it.

    25. Re:Is there anyone left... by deacon · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Well, you OBVIOUSLY have no idea what a POLICE STATE is really like.

      I will educate you.

      In a police state (and I speak from my personal experiences in Eastern Europe when it was under Soviet occupation) the police actually follow you around constantly. (you can recognize them by their shoes, normal citizens are not allowed into the special shops where these very shiny shoes can be purchased.) They tap your phone. They film you from video cameras installed on buildings. They regularly harass you trying to provoke a reaction. If you piss them off, they haul you away to a basement somewhere and attach a power cord to your genetalia.

      The people who do all this are not prosecuted in court for torture. They are awarded a medal of the Order of Lenin, with skull and bones cluster, and given a promotion.

      In a police state, there is no Slashdot, and people who speak out end up working in Uranium mines in Siberia.

      Your inane hysteria does nothing to preseve the freedom we have in the USA. Instead, by your knee jerk reaction, you are exhibiting "Usefull Idiots" syndrome, and you are helping, not hindering, the people who wish to see the US and freedom destroyed.

    26. Re:Is there anyone left... by dmitriy · · Score: 1

      Caesar Didn't Say It; Shakespeare Didn't Write It

    27. Re:Is there anyone left... by smccomas69 · · Score: 1

      Worked in Dresden Germany for close to a year the interpreter told us stories of what it was like before the wall came down. Secret police showing up in the middle of the night to take her father away for a few days. Thats a police state. Mod Parent up.

    28. Re:Is there anyone left... by comedian23 · · Score: 1

      My kingdom for some mod points. Unfortunately I have none and I already posted to this thread too. Someone please mod parent UP!!!

    29. Re:Is there anyone left... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It gets worse. Apparently America's claim to the moral high ground in Iraq is now 'Yes, but Saddam did even worse things in that prison!'

      Saddam's government committed brutal torture and mass murder as policy, either rewarding those who did it, or regarding it with indifference. In contrast to Saddam's government, the United States is investigating and punishing the few rogue soldiers in its armed forces who violated the laws of war in committing those depraved acts. One of them has already been found guilty and sentenced. You are morally blind if you can't see the difference.

      I will also add that if you think that simply living in a democracy makes you an angel, you are a fool.

    30. Re:Is there anyone left... by the.WZA · · Score: 1

      "If only the USSR had offered people two voting choices rather than one, they'd still be around today."

      When you're planning on being re-elected, having more than one canditate isn't half the fun...

    31. Re:Is there anyone left... by The_Whole_Fn_Show · · Score: 1

      What do you do when your candidate (in my case, Wesley Clark) is eliminated b/c he didn't have the backing of Iowans and New Hampshirites? I live in Ohio, and thus couldn't care less who is popular in those states. And don't bring up 3rd party politicians, b/c even The Simpsons touched on how futile their efforts are:

      Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away!!!

      Now that we're down to Dumb and Dumber in November, it looks like this election is going to be like 2000, no matter who wins, we all lose (and, I didn't vote in that election for that exact reason). Mickey Mouse is looking like a better candidate every day.....

    32. Re:Is there anyone left... by Rayonic · · Score: 1

      Also compared to such third-world countries as France and Great Britain.

    33. Re:Is there anyone left... by Celvin · · Score: 1
      The police sell the film to TV companies to put together trash TV about drunks making fools of themselves.
      Is this true? Do you have any sources? I got seriously scared right now... Can it be legal?
      --
      -- If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people?
    34. Re:Is there anyone left... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      the United States is investigating and punishing the few rogue soldiers in its armed forces who violated the laws of war in committing those depraved acts.

      It remains to be seen if the torture committed by Americans in Iraq was truly the sole responsibility of "a few rogue soldiers." It certainly hasn't been proved to be the case, and I for one don't believe it for a second. It's not just the lunatic left asking this question, see for example the Seymour Hersh New Yorker article about Rumsfeld. At an absolute minimum, the Bush adminstration's rush to suspend the Constitution, Geneva Conventions and Laws of War for so-called "unlawful combatants" sent a clear signal down the chain of command that the law does not matter.

      One of them has already been found guilty and sentenced.

      ...to a slap on the wrist, considering his crime. (Not to mention the cost to the entire nation of his crime.)

      You are morally blind if you can't see the difference.

      And you are morally blind if you think that making excuses for our people's behavior in Iraq is anything other than despicable.

      The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Right now, the U.S. has to do a lot more walking the walk and a lot less talking the talk before we will have any credibility on this front. Facing up to the fact that our guys failed in a major element of their mission, big time, very likely with the support of higher-ups, would be a good start. Refusing to face facts ain't gonna help much.

    35. Re:Is there anyone left... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not so bad. Due to budget problems at the state & local level, police forces are being down-sized all over. Once the "sniper" guy got caught, highway patrols appear to be non-existant. I see one police or state trooper a week.

      Or maybe they're all just driving unmarked cars. Or manning the central room linked to all the cameras.

      But the irony of reducing the safety of highways (high risk) to decrease the threat of foreign attack (low risk) would be funnier if it didn't directly endanger me.

      It's all about perception, though. Not results.

      Typically, I find that US citizens are poorly educated in statistics & economics, the two subject areas that would allow us to evaluate things for ourselves.

    36. Re:Is there anyone left... by LetterJ · · Score: 1

      Those debates were hilarious. The other two were giving the typical political "answers" to questions, which basically boil down to spinning the question until they can respond with one of their campaign platform points. Ventura was there giving them the same look that everyone watching was: rolling his eyes and just plain answering the questions. Even if you didn't agree with his answers, it was just refreshing to not find yourself screaming "Answer the stupid question!" at a candidate during a debate.

    37. Re:Is there anyone left... by m.h.2 · · Score: 1

      The point is, you still have that freedom. If you want Mickey Mouse, vote for Mickey Mouse. Just because Wesley Clark was eliminated as his chosen party's frontrunner doesn't mean you can't still vote for him. BTW, voting for him now isn't necessarily a waste of your vote. It sends a clear message to him and the Democrats who eliminated him. If Clark still receives a fair percentage of the vote even after his elimination, he may be encouraged to run again in 4 years, and his party may decide to support him more at that time. BTW, your beef should be with the Democratic party, not necessarily with voters in NH and IA. The candidate who survives the primary elections is the one who garners the most support from his party (lower case "p" and capital "P"). The party acts in *its own* best interest by supporting the candidate who has the best chance of defeating the other party's candidate. The idea is self-promotion of the "ruling" party's agenda.

      So I encourage, no, I implore you not to throw your vote away by not using it at all. Put it to good use by sending a message. Believe it or not, they're listening.

    38. Re:Is there anyone left... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's illegal, without your permission, which Channel 4 would have to get first (TV people are generally very diligent and uptight about this, in fact).

      As Mark Thomas very ably demonstrated (by getting people to perform stunts/sketches/plays in front of CCTV cameras, and submitting statutory applications for copies of the personal information i.e., CCTV recordings held on them), CCTV footage of your person (even in public areas) is considered to be your personal information, and is covered by the Data Protection Act - not to mention copyright, it's your image and if you haven't signed a contract, they are in very dodgy grounds broadcasting it.

    39. Re:Is there anyone left... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what about the 10,000+ innocent civilians murdered by the US military in Iraq so far? With no investigations. With no accountability. With no apologies.

      The official US position is 'Don't keep count'.

      And people wonder why the Iraqis kill any American they can get their hands on...

    40. Re:Is there anyone left... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kerry has a less hawkish voter base--he'll be much more likely than Bush to listen to concerns about expanding governmental powers because these voters just might *stop* supporting him in a re-election bid.

      Bush knows that those voters wouldn't vote for him in any case, so he's less likely to listen to them as constitutents

    41. Re:Is there anyone left... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      the police actually follow you around constantly
      Steven Hatfill, Martin Luther King
      They tap your phone
      Martin Luther King, anyone covered by Echelon
      They film you from video cameras installed on buildings
      Any urban area of the UK
      They regularly harass you trying to provoke a reaction
      Any person of color in the USA
      they haul you away to a basement somewhere and attach a power cord to your genetalia
      Abu Ghraib.
      I speak from my personal experiences in Eastern Europe when it was under Soviet occupation
      Hungarian Charles Simonyi: it's happening here
    42. Re:Is there anyone left... by Catbeller · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's the problem I've always had with people who believe government is the source of evil.

      Government can be controlled. In one manner or another.

      But the "free market" doesn't hold itself to any limits. I am far more afraid of a production company (or even a pseudo-religious cult) having access to what used to be our private lives. There are untold numbers of ways that they can bully us, and there is really nothing that can stop them, especially pro-free market goverments.

      For instance, it became widely known yesterday that the cell phone companies are putting together a national phone book of all customers. That may sound innocuous to some, but guess what: if you, Mr. Customer, want to exempt yourself from the Book, you're going to have to ante up some cash on a regular basis to bribe them into NOT letting your number out to other businesses.

      IF we had some decent laws protecting our privacy as a default, this would never even have been a business model.

      I wouldn't be surprised if someday you in the UK have to pay a monthly fee to keep your image off of the TV!

      Government/business partnerships are the ultimate in tyranny.

    43. Re:Is there anyone left... by BgJonson79 · · Score: 1

      And yet with no proof those were the soldiers who "murdered 10,000+ innocent civilians." How is that any different than the widow of a 9/11 victim killing random Saudis on the street?

      --

      There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.

    44. Re:Is there anyone left... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is a way to avoid that.

      When you go out in PUBLIC (I can't stress that enough) be aware that you give up a considerable amount of PRIVACY.

      PUBLIC/PRIVATE - Hey, aren't those antonyms?

      Seriously why does everybody here think their privacy remains perfectly in tact when they go out in PUBLIC. Why do you think we have words like private an PUBLIC?

    45. Re:Is there anyone left... by BgJonson79 · · Score: 1

      It's interesting that you say don't mention 3rd party politicians and NH, since the Free State Project chose NH as the place to have all the participants move to... and help keep the Massholes in their state.

      --

      There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.

    46. Re:Is there anyone left... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If I come out of a pub pissed and throw up into the gutter, I don't mind some copper watching on the security camera. He's a copper - he sees loads of people throw up in gutters. But if the cops decide to sell the footage of me throwing up into a gutter, and it gets on TV..."

      That's not the worst bit. The worst bit is actually sitting down in front of the TV to discover that you're watching CCTV footage of someone throwing-up in a gutter.

      Of course, the programs its competing with will be 2 of watching builders at work, one watching property-developers at work, one watching somebody gardening, and a load of other people at work

    47. Re:Is there anyone left... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a pile of bull. Are Saudis occupying the US?

    48. Re:Is there anyone left... by BgJonson79 · · Score: 1

      Good point. I never looked at it like that. Thanks for pointing it out.

      Though one could argue that with something like $1-2 trillion in investments here, blackmail is often an occurance.

      --

      There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.

    49. Re:Is there anyone left... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the same logic allowed for the allies to firebomb major axis civilian centers (like drezden and tokyo).

      the acceptance usually was: "they did it first, and besides, they were worse!"

      but the allies won, and history favors victors.. and given enough time, and generally acceptable economic conditions (i.e. everyone can eat, be properly housed, and has some sort of gainful employment) most people tend to forget or overlook the past because the present is so much better.

      humans are silly creatures.

    50. Re:Is there anyone left... by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      During college my friend got a new roommate. This person was from Indonesia. Not the nicest place in the world, but still not necessarily considered totalitarian central. Anyway, his first night here in the US, we decide to take him out to dinner.

      We're walking along the street when suddenly he gets a wild look in his eyes and he leaps over a juniper hedge. We didn't know what was going on. We finally pull him out and demand to know what the problem was. We were suspecting that my friend's new roommate had a serious narcotics problem.

      It turns out that a police car was driving up the street, and he did the "normal" thing and hid from it. We couldn't believe it. He was literally afraid of the police. This was outside of our US experience.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    51. Re:Is there anyone left... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For one thing she would probably be arrested, face an investigation and possibly even punishment.

      The US military in Iraq face NONE of those things when they waste people in the street.

      Imagine you are an Iraqi guy who comes home at the end of a day trying to get enough work to buy food for your family, only to find pieces of your family splattered all over the street.

      Apparently your wife reached into a bag while out walking with the kids. Some idiot redneck US soldier saw her and decided 'maybe there could be a gun in the bag' so 'just in case' he blew her and your three young kids to pieces. Then he and his buddies just drove away.

      Said Iraqi, his friends, family and other locals are going to get really pissed off with all of this 'freedom'. As far as they are able to tell 'freedom' and 'justice' mean innocent men, women and children getting blown away for no reason. Day after day. 10,000+ so far.

      So what can they do about it? The US military doesn't care. Its their policy. They don't even keep count. The new Iraqi governing council doesn't care, they have even been told by the US to not keep count.

      If a reporter happens to be around they might write it up. It may even make it into the news reports. But the American people who see it don't care anyway. Just dead Iraqis. Who cares about dead Iraqis? Even 10,000 dead Iraqis. No big deal. There's sports news on the next page.

      So after putting up with this killing in the streets daily for over a year, one day a lone Humvee happens by. No tanks. No attack choppers. No squads of support troops.

      Can you guess what happens next? Its called payback. And it is well deserved.

      And no, I don't have anything against the US military. They are doing the job they were trained to do. They shoot people and break things.

      The State Department had copious plans for how to keep Iraq running after the invasion. They knew that for the occupation to be successful Iraq had to be kept running. That local Iraqis had to be able to continue living their lives or the US would be seen simply as attackers. But the plans were never implemented.

      Rumsfeld wanted to keep this as his own little war. He had the world's fanciest military to play with and he didn't want to share any of the power with anyone else. He just ignored the State Department plans. He tossed out all of the Iraqi beaurocracy and existing infrastructure turning the life of the average Iraqi into a daily struggle to find work and food.

      Iraq and the US are paying for Rumsfeld's arrogance on a daily basis...

    52. Re:Is there anyone left... by casuist99 · · Score: 1

      To add to the sibling post, here is a link to the snopes article which shows the quote to be falsified.

    53. Re:Is there anyone left... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make no mistake: USSR still around with only one candidate

    54. Re:Is there anyone left... by cyberformer · · Score: 1

      One problem is that the copper might decide to arrest you, because technically it's a crime to be drunk in a public place. Yes, everyone does it, but that won't hold up in court. If the copper's bored and he doesn't like your race, your face or your T-shirt, you will be the one who gets punished.

    55. Re:Is there anyone left... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      United States is investigating and punishing the few rogue soldiers in its armed forces who violated the laws of war in committing those depraved acts

      You say few rogues, but every other day we hear how these "depraved acts" are standard procedure in Guantanamo Bay. But since they're not soldiers of an army they don't have basic human rights - besides, Bush Jr says they are ALL guilty* so I guess it's ok.

      * - though they haven't actually been charged of anything.

    56. Re:Is there anyone left... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And you are morally blind if you think that making excuses for our people's behavior in Iraq is anything other than despicable.

      Maybe you didn't read the post you think that you are responding to. There isn't any excuse for bad behavior in the post. It is the opposite, in fact. The post points out that US soldiers who misbehaved are being punished, which is entirely appropriate.

      The rest of your rhetoric is just as spot on as well. The US Constitution hasn't been suspended even if you are unfamiliar with the wartime powers of the government. The Geneva Conventions have not been suspended just because you are ignorant of the fact that they exclude protection for spies, mercenaries, and in article 4A2 for unlawful combatants.

      ...to a slap on the wrist, considering his crime.

      He turned state's evidence so he will be aiding the prosecution of other soldiers. His crime was participating in the humiliation of prisoners, and standing by while they suffered greater abuse. He wasn't guilty of feeding them into shredding machines. Or do you join the call of some Iraqis that they be killed? If you think he should be killed, would that be before or after he helps provide evidence against the other soldiers who committed worse offenses?

      Refusing to face facts ain't gonna help much.

      Funny... I was just thinking the same about you and your statement:

      It remains to be seen if the torture committed by Americans in Iraq was truly the sole responsibility of "a few rogue soldiers." It certainly hasn't been proved to be the case, and I for one don't believe it for a second.


      Given your specious comments about suspending the Constitution, suspending the Geneva Convention, condemning a nonexistent defense of war crimes, etc., etc., I doubt that what you say has much connection to the facts. I wouldn't be surprised if you are able to find a reason to blame the US regardless of what happens.

      One last thing -- the US military responds to orders, not "signals."
    57. Re:Is there anyone left... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The US Constitution hasn't been suspended

      Mea culpa to the use of hyperbole. I do believe that there's a preponderance of evidence that the administration has been awfully eager to bend it as much as they like when they like though. Of course the Administrative branch is not alone -- it was Congress gave us the PATRIOT act.

      the wartime powers of the government.

      One of the big problems with the mess we're in now is the self-serving assertion that the "war" on terrorism is legally a war, with the implications that has for Administrative powers, etc. The notion of a "war" which lasts as long as the administration says it does is antithetical to an accountable, constitutional government.

      His crime was participating in the humiliation of prisoners, and standing by while they suffered greater abuse.

      Can we call this what it is instead of using euphemisms? Torture. Minimizing the issue is not a service to our country.

      Or do you join the call of some Iraqis that they be killed?

      Who's using hyperbole now? There's a world of difference between execution and one year with time off for good behavior.
      Funny... I was just thinking the same about you and your statement:
      It remains to be seen if the torture committed by Americans in Iraq was truly the sole responsibility of "a few rogue soldiers." It certainly hasn't been proved to be the case, and I for one don't believe it for a second.

      Given your specious comments about suspending the Constitution, suspending the Geneva Convention, condemning a nonexistent defense of war crimes, etc., etc., I doubt that what you say has much connection to the facts. I wouldn't be surprised if you are able to find a reason to blame the US regardless of what happens.


      Hey, nice use of "specious." Leaving the ad hominem stuff where it belongs, may I ask if you think there is any reason for I should believe that the responsibility belongs only to "a few rogue soldiers"? I would feel more comfortable if your answer didn't require me to rely on the claims of those in the chain of command and who might be considered culpable themselves.

      One last thing -- the US military responds to orders, not "signals."

      That's just naive.
    58. Re:Is there anyone left... by dasmegabyte · · Score: 1

      I heard from somebody the other day, "yes, but our torture was only psychological. They're doing much worse to our guys." Fuck is that? We're aiming to be the lesser evil now? Here's a radical idea: why don't we aim to be not evil at all?

      My wife's late granddad was a soldier posted at a POW camp in WWII. They were so kind to their prisoners! He looked after his german wards as if they were his own men, fed them well, exercised with them. They made him a brass sculpture at craft time in appreciation of his hard work. They taught him German.

      Of course, these were men from Auschwitz. Men who had killed millions of jews. Her grandfather knew this, and thought it was deplorable...he wrote at lengths about it in his journal, which he claimed he had lost but we found hidden in his closet after he died.

      These were murderers, genociders -- and he treated them as if they were his brothers. Which, being of German dissent, they probably were.

      And that's the key, isn't it. It's easy to be kind to somebody who looks like you. It's not so easy when they're of a completely alien culture, speaking a strange language with no resemblence to your own, with a culture that is vastly different. You start to realize, hey, look, they're ashamed of being held by our women. Hey, let's put Cpl. Jones underwear on them. Hey, let's make them jack off, I think that's against their religion, right?

      And so it goes. Torture becomes okay, because they're so wacky. I'm sad that t's grandad passed away, but very glad he never had to see this. It's a mockery of the pride he took in his job fifty years ago...a mockery of the American spirit of tolerance and strength.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    59. Re:Is there anyone left... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll apologize in advance. I am too tired to be as concise, clear, or detailed in my answers as I would like to be.

      Mea culpa to the use of hyperbole.

      Darn it, I had you pegged for a pure moonbat and now you start acting reasonable. ;)

      I do believe that there's a preponderance of evidence that the administration has been awfully eager to bend it as much as they like when they like though. Of course the Administrative branch is not alone -- it was Congress gave us the PATRIOT act.

      I think that they have been seeking every legitimate advantage. The one thing that bothered me was the thinking of one administration counsel was that the Geneva Conventions were "quaint." I think that they have backed off from that position and the actual policy is legal even if it is aggressive and there are still some areas of concern.

      One of the big problems with the mess we're in now is the self-serving assertion that the "war" on terrorism is legally a war, with the implications that has for Administrative powers, etc. The notion of a "war" which lasts as long as the administration says it does is antithetical to an accountable, constitutional government.

      The fact that we are at was is not of our choosing, we were attacked. You can quibble about abut our attack on Iraq, but the problem of state sponsorship of terrorists and Islamist extremists is world wide. I personally think it was a good thing to end Saddam's regime as it is almost certain to save many Iraqi lives over time, very likely to greatly improve their lives, and save us from having to keep an unending watch over Iraq to protect Kuwait. It has also served as a abject lesson to Libya, who have been much more reasonable, and to Syria, Iran, and North Korea. I think they are much more likely to take the US government more seriously.

      I agree that there are certain problems with accountability due to the nature of the war. The Congress will have to fill some of the voids that would normally come to the attention of the voters. The Congress has the power to demand answers of the Executive branch and remove anyone who is out of control.

      I will point out that although this war is unique in many respects, it is not totally without precedent. The war against the Barbary Pirates had certain similarities. That war came to an end after a time. This one is less likely to end as decisively as that one, but is more likely to fizzle out over time. I would expect it to last at least another 4-5 years as is. If things go really bad it could easily go on for 100. A chilling thought. A lot will depend on the governments of the Arab nations who generally seem to be coming around.

      Can we call this what it is instead of using euphemisms? Torture. Minimizing the issue is not a service to our country.

      I agree that minimizing the issue does not do a service to our country. Exaggerating it does no service to our country either. What happened at Abu Ghraib was a combination of abuse, physical torture, and psychological torture. The involvement of the soldier in question seems to have been limited to simple abuse. Not good, but not torture either. (Torture having some specific definitions and implications under law.)

      Who's using hyperbole now? There's a world of difference between execution and one year with time off for good behavior.

      He is going to prison for a year since, to the best of my recollection, there is no parole in the Federal system. He is also receiving a Bad Conduct Discharge which will mark him for life and, IIRC, make him ineligible for various government benefits. His family is likely to be impoverished. He will loose the opportunity to be a soldier which was one of his goals in life. He will also be notorious, which will be likely to make it difficult to find a good job once he leaves prison. This is what the lenient sentence of the soldier who turned states evidence will be. The others are likely to be c

  13. In related news... by k4_pacific · · Score: 5, Funny

    OSDN announced today that the Slashdot Karma system will be integrated with the Terrorist Quotient database.

    --
    Unknown host pong.
    1. Re:In related news... by ENOENT · · Score: 5, Funny

      As a result, the FBI has placed "Anonymous Coward" on their Most Wanted List.

      --
      That's "Mr. Soulless Automaton" to you, Bub.
    2. Re:In related news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a result, the FBI has placed "Anonymous Coward" on their Most Wanted List.

      Sucks to be me...

    3. Re:In related news... by gosand · · Score: 1
      As a result, the FBI has placed "Anonymous Coward" on their Most Wanted List.

      As well as some guy named Goatse, for, uhhhh, smuggling.

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    4. Re:In related news... by subStance · · Score: 1

      Anyone who seeks excessive karma will be classified as a religious extremist / enemy combatant and consigned to SlashGuantanamo (also managed by OSDN, under contract with the government).

      --
      Servlet v2.4 container in a single 161KB jar file ? Try Winstone
    5. Re:In related news... by Raven42rac · · Score: 1

      Anan Emus Keward Reminds me of that SNL sketch. "We are hot on the trail of this man :"Hus Bin Pharteen" and his brother "I Bin Pharteen"

      --
      I hate sigs.
    6. Re:In related news... by NineteenSixtyNine · · Score: 0

      I'm fucked then.

      --

      --
      What would Bill Clinton do?
    7. Re:In related news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crap! They're onto me!

  14. Re:Gotta love the ACLU by WinterpegCanuck · · Score: 1

    Arresting terrorists is not the gripe, it's the potential terrorists and the process of lableing thereof.

  15. hilarious by happyfrogcow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    sweet f'ing christ. do people not see similarities to the Red Scare or McCarthyism? Are people really so dense?

    save me jeebus.

    1. Re:hilarious by Cameroon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, people really are that dense.

      (and: but i don't even believe in jeebus)

    2. Re:hilarious by anthonyclark · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Most people care about the latest reality tv show. A great many of my Wife's co-workers didn't know about the Abu Ghraib photos, think we found WMDs and that 'about 100 or so' soldiers have died in Iraq.

      Yes, a large majority of people are either that dense or simply don't care.

      --
      ----- Documentation is worth it just to be able to answer all your mail with 'RTFM' - Alan Cox.
    3. Re:hilarious by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the similarities to the attack on Pearl Harbor are distracting them? Are people really so complacent?

    4. Re:hilarious by Kohath · · Score: 1, Informative

      Chemical weapons found.

      Who's dense?

    5. Re:hilarious by Ateryx · · Score: 1
      In an effort to get to work on time and not start too big of flame war, I'll keep it short.


      Its been mentioned several times on all different types of stories here that if everyones favorite advocate of free rights gets reelected, shits going to hit the fan. Everything on Junior Bush's agenda that he hasn't been able to accomplish because its not as easy to hide (like the suppression of scientific data which has even made it to all major news outlets...although I can't seem to find the slashdot/cnn/assospress links) will come out full force once he becomes a lame duck president.


      Now granted, Bushie has continued to put money into education although maybe slightly misguided in the "No child..", he has non the less increased education spending which is *always* a good thing. (see: I'm trying to be as unbiased as possible... but who gives a fuck cause this is slashdot, which redefines bias)

      --
      "The truth suffers from too much analysis"
    6. Re:hilarious by Smidge204 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "80% of misinformed Americans get thier information from FOX news"

      It's not that people don't care as much as the media doesn't do it's job properly.
      =Smidge=

    7. Re:hilarious by duffbeer703 · · Score: 1

      There is a big difference between tracking down Muslim extremists and the REds... been to New York City lately?

      And while McCarthy was a nutcase, the US and Britain had alot of problems with Soviet spies, particularly in the 40's.

      Several high-level White House and State Department staffers were feeding the Soviets valuable diplomatic intelligence. At the Yalta and Potsdam conferences, for example, Stalin was completely aware of US & UK positions and plans.

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    8. Re:hilarious by NMerriam · · Score: 1

      Unlike tha Axis powers, terrorists can't take over the United States. They have neither the manpower nor the resources.

      But we can certainly destroy the US ourselves, out of fear and paranoia.

      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    9. Re:hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yawn. Planted by US forces. Or smuggled in from another country. One shell does not excuse the entire invasion.

      The US should have stayed the hell out of Iraq, and instead focused on Afghanistan. Afghanistan needed and still needs our help, and we should be focusing a lot more attention on that place.

      And another thing, pulling troops off the DMZ with North Korea is just irresponsible.

      Now who's being desnse? You and people like you are ignoring the real enemies and ignoring the real problems.

      We should always be ready to NUKE North Korea, but pansies like you will just ignore that problem until it's too late. You're a fucking disgrace. Have fun voting for your stupid president who thinks god talks to him.

    10. Re:hilarious by Kohath · · Score: 1

      No, they can't take over. Would you be willing to accept the level of influence that terrorism has on daily life in Isreal? I wouldn't -- not for the United States.

    11. Re:hilarious by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

      I see a bit more similarity with the Burning of the Reichstag...

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire

    12. Re:hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You, apparently.

    13. Re:hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have fun voting for your stupid president who thinks god talks to him.

      To be fair he thinks that God talks through him.

    14. Re:hilarious by Animaether · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I hope you read that article...

      First - disregard the picture. It's an archival picture which has nothing to do with the 'find'.

      Second - the bomb was rigged up make-shift to be a bomb, rather than the original artillery shell.

      Third - even the B.G. interviewed stressed that whoever put it there most likely didn't even know it had sarin.

      Fourth - they state it was likely looted from arsenals. though they claim this is post-regime, it could've been during it as well. Under the assumption that it was post-regime, however, it still fails to prove a methodical deployment or existance of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.

      Fifth - it was rigged up along the side of a road, soldiers drove there, spotted something suspicious, but it was already too late. That's hardly 'finding' WMDs. That's getting hit by one.

      Unless that single make-shift bomb was the WMD that posed an immediate and grave threat to the United States homeland, I would personally have to say 'keep trying'. Even though technically it was a WMD, and without downplaying its existence in the first place, it hardly qualifies on the level of that which Rumsfeld and Bush spoke of.

    15. Re:hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words "the facts don't fit my position, so the facts are wrong".

      "And by the way, I'm also bigoted against religous people".

    16. Re:hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't been to New York before but I'm sure that if I went there my "patriotism" quotient would just skyrocket.

    17. Re:hilarious by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      Are people losing their careers or being publicly ostracized because of this list? Or are they simply being unobtrusively investigated, then removed from the list if they check out as OK?

      That is the important part, not that there is a 'list'.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    18. Re:hilarious by Paulrothrock · · Score: 1

      Attention Dumbass: One very tiny amount of sarin does not mean there were chemical weapons in Iraq. What happened to the trailers that Powell showed us? What happened to the WMD we gave Saddam in the 80s, that Rumsfeld hand delivered? This is like me seeing one Mac in a room and saying they have 100% market share. Not categorically untrue (the market share in that room is 100%), but there's no way for us to prove it outside of our own frame of reference.

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    19. Re:hilarious by Kohath · · Score: 1

      ...technically it was a WMD...

      Thanks.

    20. Re:hilarious by happyfrogcow · · Score: 1

      There is a big difference between tracking down Muslim extremists and the REds... been to New York City lately?

      Yes, actually I live in brooklyn and work in manhattan. what's you're point about that?

    21. Re:hilarious by Cameroon · · Score: 1

      Pearl Harbor was planned to occur after Japan had declared war. It wasn't intended to be a sneak attack.

      Given your other posts, however, I see that you feel that as long as no one comes after you, it's ok if they go after other innocent people. None of this protects anything.

      Take a hint from our pal Benjamin Franklin: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    22. Re:hilarious by daniil · · Score: 1
      Hmm, yes, it is indeed a weapon of mass destruction. So you're right and he is wrong.

      However, Hans Blix, the man who should be the expert in this field, says it's probably "a stray weapon scavenged from a dump." Given that i'm yet to hear a "told ya!" from those who justified the war by saying that the Iraqi WMD's were "a clear and present danger" (it wasn't really a secret that Iraq had once had chemical and biological weapons), i'm guessing he may be right on this.

      --
      Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
    23. Re:hilarious by dpilot · · Score: 1

      Bingo.

      Somewhere, someone confused the mission of news reporting with revenue generation. This is nothing new, and goes back at least as far as the Spanish-American War, no doubt much further.

      As long as making money conflicts with honest, objective new reporting, we'll have these problems. I just wish we as a society would recognize this, and do something about it.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    24. Re:hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Translation:

      I, Anthony Clark, am a elitist bastard who thinks I am smarter than everybody else.

    25. Re:hilarious by Kohath · · Score: 1
      it's ok if they go after other innocent people.

      It's OK to investigate people to determine whether they're innocent. It's OK to "go after" the ones who aren't innocent.

      Your position is apparently that we should just wait until some more terrorist incidents occur and then convene a grand jury for an investigation -- possibly leading someday to an indictment.

    26. Re:hilarious by Kohath · · Score: 1
      you're right and he is wrong

      Yes. And he, and people on his side, have been wrong all along -- going on a year now.

      I'm still wondering who is dense though.

    27. Re:hilarious by workindev · · Score: 1

      I guess you don't remember Saddam Hussein telling us over and over for 13 years that he didn't have any of that stuff any more. What do you know? He did still have some.

      It really doesn't matter, though. We could find the worlds largest stockpile of WMD in Iraq and people like you would still refuse to admit that this war was justified and necessary.

    28. Re:hilarious by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      I like Howard Stern's slogan. "Redefeat Bush in 2004"

      We didn't vote for the bastard the first time. Not that he seems to care.

      Why the hell were multiple ballots sent to thousands of millitary folks from Florida anyways?

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    29. Re:hilarious by swb · · Score: 1

      Technically it was a weapon (singular) of some destruction. Sarin and most other chemical agents, in a single small munition, in many cases will kill less people (if any) than a standard high explosive munition targeted correctly. Gas and nerve agents disperse uncontrollably. It takes a significant number of them and the right weather to actually be a weapon of mass destruction.

      It's a real stretch of the imagination to conclude that billions of dollars needed to be spent and thousands and thousands of people needed to be killed to neutralize the "threat" of a couple of sarin-loaded shells, likely left over from the 1980s.

      I was a hesitant supporter of the war's most noble aim eliminating the Hussein clan and building a democracy, and I do think that if sanctions had been lifted on Huessein, he would have been willing to bankroll Islamic terrorists operating outside his borders. I thought the WMD idea was kind of dicey and forced.

      Now it appears all to be a hoax, and we're finding out that the Iraqis are by and large like any other Muslim country, held secular by force of arms or turned into frothing Islamists, eagarly and willingly to be led back to the social norms of the 12th century. It's impossible to build a democracy that doesn't become a theocracy there, and in many ways we should have left Saddam in his sanctions box.

    30. Re:hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, you little American pussies were scared of ONE little Sarin shell?!

      BWahahahhaha, oh no, sooo scary, quick kill all the scary arabs!!!!

      Oh boy you Americans are SOOOO brave!!

    31. Re:hilarious by yuud · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918 scary stuff.

    32. Re:hilarious by Jagasian · · Score: 1

      If that is a weapon which is supposed to threaten the USA... I am sorry, I just can't swallow that much BS.

    33. Re:hilarious by jasonisgodzilla · · Score: 1

      if it was a wmd then wmd's sure aren't very scary. I think this killed like three people. If I blew up a bottle of charcoal lighter it would probably be about as deadly. Oh shit, now my backyard is going to get invaded for having wmd!

    34. Re:hilarious by workindev · · Score: 1

      It's a real stretch of the imagination to conclude that billions of dollars needed to be spent and thousands and thousands of people needed to be killed to neutralize the "threat" of a couple of sarin-loaded shells, likely left over from the 1980s.

      You are missing the point that Hussein told us for 13 years that he didn't have any of more WMD. He told us that he destroyed his entire stockpile of Sarin, Anthrax, and Vx. The collective intelligence from the rest of the world said he was lying, and this proves that he was.

    35. Re:hilarious by jasonisgodzilla · · Score: 1

      If mexican citizens were suicide bombing us, this would be a valid criticism, but they're not. If arabs start suicide bombing us daily, expect to see them all deported to the other side of the globe shortly, and then the suicide attacks will end.

    36. Re:hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Isn't that the fifth time they've "found WMD". They still haven't told us the truth about the trailers. The other ones were retracted in a week or two. It hasn't been a week or two since the shell was found, so we still don't know if it's another scam.

      Of course the media covers the finds front page, over and over. Then when they turn up as frauds, it's only mentioned in passing deep in some back section. That's the "liberal media" you ditto heads are always talking about.

    37. Re:hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      With Patriot I & II, haven't we already created exactly that police state? Only it's worse: we have the oppression without the actually body count to justify such actions in the first place! We laid down and died. We bent over and took it. Not under duress; all with a "Thank you sir may I have another please!"

      We've been doing the terrorist's dirty work for them. We've destroyed our country and the very things it stands for, which are the very things they hated and wanted to destroy! They threw a Judo throw on us and our own weight of bigotry and bias did their bidding for them.

    38. Re:hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, people are that dense.

      Jeebus

    39. Re:hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What bothers me is these lists target muslims and arabs. After 9/11 innocent muslim arabs all over the country were rounded up, detained, totured (by normal definitions), and questioned.

      A doctor here in San Antonio was flown to New York in handcuffs and kept for weeks in a very nasty cell. His family was never told anything. He was never charged. He wan't in violation of any law. When he we released, no explaination was given. He thinks it was because of one phone call years earlier where someone connected to terrorists asked for money, he refused and forgot about it. It's only a guess, but they questioned him about the phone call repeatedly.

      After McVay hit the Federal Building, there was no round up of white extremist. Most of the terrorism in the US has been by local white people, but these lists never target them. Sure these programs are careful not to use race, but they end up with the same effects because they use things the correlate with race.

      You probably don't care. So much of this country is, "Kill them before they kill us." So much for Jesus as a favorite political philosopher.

    40. Re:hilarious by Paulrothrock · · Score: 1

      We know he had them, because we gave them to him. The war wasn't necessary. If we had stayed out of their business in the 80's (and 70's and 60's and 50's and 40's), we wouldn't have the problem. But noooo, we have to play nanny to the world.

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    41. Re:hilarious by duffbeer703 · · Score: 1

      Maybe you noticed the missing buildings?

      Who took down those buildings? Who cheered their collapse?

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    42. Re:hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Rumsfeld hand delivered

      Quick! Check if Rumsfeld hand-delivered this chemical shell during his recent visit to Iraq!

    43. Re:hilarious by gUmbi · · Score: 1

      Yes, a large majority of people are either that dense or simply don't care.

      Lucky for us, these are the same people that don't vote.

      Jason.

    44. Re:hilarious by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 3, Interesting
      ...technically it was a WMD...
      Thanks.

      Please explain to me how the handful of rusty or unlabelled shells (many of which had leaked their contents 10+ years earlier) we've found in Iraq represents the "Vast stockpile" of banned weapons we were led to believe existed in Iraq? A stockpile, we were told, that was so vast as to allow field commanders to deploy them on "40-minutes notice." If this was true, please explain why none of the ammo caches and dumps we found during the war contained any WMD?

      Please also explain to me how the handful of rusty and/or unlabelled (mostly useless) shells we've found represents an immediate threat to the security of the United States?

      Please also explain how before the war, Bushie was warning us about nuclear armageddon caused by Saddam Hussein, yet we've found no evidence of an advanced nuclear weapons program. They did possess a stolen, 50-year old Chinese design for a bomb, but they weren't anywhere near the point of being able to fabricate a weapon.

      Also, our (just as oppressive) ally Pervez Musharraf actually has several nuclear devices at his disposal. When will we be invading Pakistan? Or is continuity no longer part of the "Bush plan"?
      --
      Who did what now?
    45. Re:hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might want to count those bodies again.

    46. Re:hilarious by Kohath · · Score: 1

      I heard that there weren't any WMDs in Iraq and that only "dense" people thought there were.

    47. Re:hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that 'about 100 or so' soldiers have died in Iraq

      This is just the way the government would like it. We could be at war with just about anyone as long as only about a 100 folks a year on our side die, no one at home would care. Come on that amount of soliders would have likely died in car accidents and what not at home. At least now, they are off solidering. Doing what ever it is that soliders do.

    48. Re:hilarious by Celvin · · Score: 1
      Hmmm...
      ...exposing two soldiers to the deadly nerve agent.
      It says "exposing". Not even "injured". How has this anything to do with "Mass Destruction"? And last in the article:
      Antidotes to nerve gases similar to sarin are so effective that top poison gas researchers predict they eventually will cease to be a war threat.
      Oohhh... Scary!
      --
      -- If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people?
    49. Re:hilarious by Bj�rn · · Score: 1

      There was never any dispute over whether Sadam once had WMDs. The motivation for the Iraq War was that Sadam still was a viable nuclear, chemical and biological threat possibly supplying terrorist. Whether the sarin shell found represents a large hidden cache or just some residual weapons missed by a destruction program is currently unknown. One interesting fact is that the chemical weapons Iraq was known to once have possessed have a shelf life of about 5 year (a bit more for VX). Also note that the chemical weapons found during the first Gulf War were, according to the pentagon, already badly deteriorating.

      --
      Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think. --Niels Bohr
    50. Re:hilarious by happyfrogcow · · Score: 1

      people who made broad, sweeping, overreaching generalizations based on fear, anger, and lack of understanding. much like this country (the U.S.) is doing.

      besides, i thought you were going to tell me something i didn't know. somethign recent, in terms of current events. although events from 3 years ago are wholey relevant, your three questions asking the obvious is less than insightfull.

      the interesting thing will be to see the situation in NYC when the republican convention comes to town. not to mention the "die-in" that was supposed to take place today.

    51. Re:hilarious by guet · · Score: 1

      You are officially dense, obtuse, and pedantic.

      A Weapon of Mass Destruction would require more than one shell (much more), as many many people have pointed out. So you shouldn't be using that term. Also, a shell wouldn't really go very far, now would it; hardly the dangerous missiles stuffed full of nerve gas we were promised before the war... But please keep trying to justify your position in the face of a reality which starkly contradicts it, it's really quite funny.

    52. Re:hilarious by Kohath · · Score: 1

      So when you're wrong, you just redefine your terms.

      It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. I guess.

    53. Re:hilarious by drooling-dog · · Score: 1
      Are people really so dense?

      Absolutely they are. People don't even stop to think what the word "terrorism" really means, let alone how the word is used to manipulate them politically. In our brains there is just a direct link between that word and our concept of "evil", to be used by politicians for their own purposes. How, for example, can any intelligent person listen to the word "terrorist" being applied to insurgents in Iraq without wincing a little? For better or worse, they're fighting a foreign occupation force in their own country!

      What makes this whole thing farcical is that being a "terrorist" is treated as some kind of latent disease that can be rooted out before it expresses itself. Much of it is, in fact, a tactical response to repression where no legitimate alternative is tolerated. The fallacy of our current hysterical thinking is that the solution to terrorism is simply more oppression. After all, look how well that's worked with the Palestinians...

    54. Re:hilarious by Niddix · · Score: 1

      To make up for all the dead people voting for Buchannon by mistake.

    55. Re:hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. "Most people". "A large majority". How many is "a great many"? And all of these "great many" had the same answer for all three of your points? I mean, you even quote "about 100 or so". How many of "a great many" said those exact words?

      As I said above, your post is complete bullshit.

    56. Re:hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know as well as I do that he wasn't talking about a single shell found on the side of the road. "People think we've found WMDs".

      People were scared of the "stockpiles". After the invasion people were then scared into thinking we'd found "mobile weapons labs". Neither of those have turned out to be a credible threat.

      A weapon was found. A single old shell that didn't even work. On the side of the road. Was this worth well over $87 billion and 700+ lives?

    57. Re:hilarious by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · · Score: 1

      Aright. One sarin filled shell found (applause).

      Now they just need to come up with the other several hundred tons and this administration might start to have some credibility.

      Oh yeah, and those mobile chem weapons factories in trucks and train cars.

    58. Re:hilarious by cheezedawg · · Score: 1

      We know he had them, because we gave them to him

      We obviously helped Saddam some during the 80's, but he was doing just fine without us. The bulk of his army equipment (tanks, aircraft, guns) were made in Russia. France sold him a freaking nuclear reactor. The chemical weapons he has used were from Germany or Japan, and NOT the US.

      But the fact remains that not only was Saddam required to disarm, he was required to prove that he had destroyed the weapons we knew he had. He didn't. He has also helped enough terrorists in the past to earn himself a position on our State Department list of states that sponsor terrorism. He also hates our guts. If you don't consider that a threat to us, then I am glad that you are not in charge of our national security.

      --
      "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
    59. Re:hilarious by daniil · · Score: 1

      Given that the choice seems to be between being called dense or a flip-flop, i'd say their behaviour (ie. claiming that by "no WMDs" they've actually meant "no imminent threat" all the time) is rather rational.

      --
      Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
    60. Re:hilarious by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      Speaking of WMDs, that was NOT the reason the US invaded Iraq. That reasoning was an invention of the US media. The administration thought that there might still be WMDs in Iraq, espcially since Saddam refused to document to the UN that he had disposed of them, but it was never the reason for going in. I wish people would stop promoting this myth.

      The reason we went into Iraq was simply to depose Saddam Hussein. Nothing more, nothing less. This isn't a better or worse reason to be in Iraq, it's just the way it is.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    61. Re:hilarious by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      It's not the people... rather it's the goverment. The US government is one of the top spenders in propaganda and disinformation. I think the only other country that spends more (in real dollars) is China (but China controls everything in their country and heavily influences their neighbours). The amount of money spent on CIA, think-tanks, lobby groups, media specialists, PR personnel, agents, etc is astounding. I am pretty sure it is a multi-billion dollar industry. You can't find any proof though, since it is all masked.

      The vast majority of humans (in any country) are apolitical or cluless (sometimes known as sheep :( ). So the government initiates propaganda campaigns to brainwash the clueless. I hate to say it but I suspect that this will likely be the case until society is drastically altered (which won't happen for hundreads of years :( ). Since people are apolitical (i.e. not interested on politics) they are easily manipulated. This is just like how a person that is not tech-savvy can be sold a terrible computer for $2000 by a salesperson. People who are not interested in something or knowledgeable in an area can--and will--always be manipulated. It is easier to get someone to jump off a cliff in the name of their country than it is to get them to see the truth...

      If you want to know about propaganda, you can check out Noam Chomsky's famous work on it: Manufacturing Consent (if you don't want to buy it, search the web or your library or something--usually you can find it around). If you want to understand how governments manipulate people, you can also read up on how Nazi Germany influenced the populace, or how USSR influenced others, or how the CIA manipulates people, and so forth. Just for the record, Nazi Germany is generally considered to be the expert propagandists. Nearly all govenrment entities and personnel, right from the modern day CIA, to the past KGB, to your infamous-3rd-world-dictator are influenced by them. You can also check out some recent stuff like how the Clinton Administration whitewashed the Waco incident (an amazing use of propaganda to mask the mass murder of civilians by the US government). And so on. Believe me, it's easier to notice propaganda at work than anything else the government does--but you have to keep a close eye...

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    62. Re:hilarious by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      It really doesn't matter, though. We could find the worlds largest stockpile of WMD in Iraq and people like you would still refuse to admit that this war was justified and necessary.

      Don't worry... you and your buddies are still looking for WMD in Iraq. I think USA is still spending around $1 billion per year in Iraq searching for WMD. This is down from when David Kay was around (around $1billion per month) but you just might find WMDs in 150 years... you know, maybe you'll find some naturally occurring uranium somewhere ;)

      If you don't what a WMD is, it is not worth debating. If you still haven't got this through your head, even after David Kay (the pro-invasion inspector) says there may not be, you probably never will understand reality...

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    63. Re:hilarious by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      Fox News is in a tough situation now though. A lot of the conservatives, particularly the Christian Right, are supposedly becoming disillusioned with the war. Since conservatives are their main audience, I wonder what Fox is going to do? Are they going to stick with the Bush administration or not? It would be funny if Fox starts flip-flopping on all their positions they held over the last 2 years...

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    64. Re:hilarious by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      Not really... these are the so-called swing voters. In fact, political parties care more about these guys* than anyone else.

      (* NOTE: parties will claim to care about everyone. However, swing voters, who are mostly unaware of anything in the world, are who they prize).

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    65. Re:hilarious by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      The reason we went into Iraq was simply to depose Saddam Hussein. Nothing more, nothing less. This isn't a better or worse reason to be in Iraq, it's just the way it is.

      I think it's you who is wrong... or maybe you are starting to come up with excuses now than every other past reason (WMDs, democracy, terrorists, etc) are falling apart. Bush never went to war in order to take out Saddam Hussein. Taking out heads of states just because you want to is against international norms and it might be against the US Constitution too. What did Congress vote on? Certainly not on taking out Saddam. Rather they voted because of an imminent threat from WMDs and violation of UN resolutions (those are my words--they clearly used similar although non-identical words). If you don't believe me, go and do more research or check out the media reports around the time that Congress debated.

      The US President just cannot invade another country to kill a person because he/she feels like it. They have to have a reason, however bogus. If the US president actually invaded without reason, I'm sure the US military would refuse.

      Every single war, by any country, has to have a reason. The reasons may be bogus but it must be there. At a minimum, this is required to keep the military from refusing to fight and hence overthrowing the government. It hasn't happened in USA but it must be there. The soldiers are not cannon fodder (although some think so) and they certainly wouldn't be fighting just because the leader has some personal issues with another.

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    66. Re:hilarious by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      "Patriot Act II" hasn't been passed. So it isn't THAT bad yet.

      USA will officially switch to totalitarianism when Patriot Act II is passed (right now, I don't consider it totalitarian). The reason, and it is an important one, is that Patriot Act II basically strips a lot of liberties for US CITIZENS! Right now, most of the violated are non-citizens (illegal immigrants, tourists, student visas, etc). Once citizens are under the same laws, then the government has total control. Right now, most Americans can still get away with little govt control.

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    67. Re:hilarious by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      It's OK to investigate people to determine whether they're innocent.

      No one is complaining about investigations. What people, like me, have a problem with are detentions, arrests, jailings, etc without any trial and without due course.

      Your position is apparently that we should just wait until some more terrorist incidents occur and then convene a grand jury for an investigation -- possibly leading someday to an indictment.

      hmm... I guess you don't care about the legal system at all. You just threw away the legal system with your stance. I guess "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't mean anything to you anymore huh? I have a feeling that you will fail, since you are basically calling for a re-write of the US Constitution. Even hardcore conservatives and superhawks won't do that...

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    68. Re:hilarious by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      This isn't really a Bush thing, although Bush is definitely the dumbest president I know of (since WWII). Rather, it is more about authoratarians vs libertarians. Most of the politicians and the elites are authoratarians--this includes the Democrats. Even if Bush leaves, the struggle will still happen. After all, didn't Kerry vote for the Patriot Act and the Iraqi war...

      The fact that Bush is dumb might actually be a good thing in a weird convoluted way. Since he is dumb, he can't do as much damage as he could have. A smarter, more sinister person (say someone like Nixon) would have abused the system far more...

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    69. Re:hilarious by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      I just love these modern McCarthyites. So let me get this straight. You think McCarthyism wasn't so bad because there were Soviet spies? Hello? Did it not occur to you that there have been spies in all countries throughout all time? I mean, there are probably a ton of Chinese spies in USA right now so what are you saying? Let's start attacking the Chinese because there are spies? How about all these Isreali spies? Shall we start attacking the Jews?

      In addition, most of the people McCarthy attacked were NOT working in sensitive posts. He was primarily attacking teachers and Hollywood and stuff like that.

      Furthermore, I'm surprised a McCarthyite like you would even bring up the first reason. After all, McCarthy went down because he accused the US military of having communists. With your reasoning, McCarthy attacking the military should have been his greatest triumph. After all, if there are tons of spies running around as you suggest, what better place to catch them than in a sensitive military institution? Instead, it led to his downfall because the spy problem was no worse than at any time, and McCarthy wasn't even after spies. Your history looks weak because you need some understanding. McCarthy wasn't attacking spies; he was attacking communists! Obviously you don't know the difference...

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    70. Re:hilarious by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      That depends. Does FOX want to be a news service or a propaganda machine? (Not that these are mutually exclusive...)

      As a major media outlet, I'd like to think they have a moral obligation to report information that is as factual as possible, such that it insures the public has the facts. Blasting headlines that we found WMDs in Iraq when it was first announced and then having the official retration to that statement barely make it on the air is hideously irresponsible at best.
      =Smidge=

    71. Re:hilarious by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      Do you seriously think this is similar to Pearl Harbour?

      Did USA declare war? Did USA mobilize for war? etc...

      I suggest that you lay off the historical examples or study them more closely...

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    72. Re:hilarious by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      Most media organizations are tools of the government. It's worse in USA than in many other "free" countries IMO...

      I don't think you will ever get a media outlet that presents the truth unless it were independently controlled and universal. That is to say, I think what we need is a media organization that has no home base. It just works thorughout the world with no loyalty or profits from any particular area. What we need is a World News Network... an open-source news network sounds good to me :)

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    73. Re:hilarious by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      A) By "depose", I did not mean nor imply "assassinate". I meant "remove from power".

      B) While WMDs were certainly discussed, they were only incidental to the decision to go to war. The stated purpose was because Saddam was not adhering to UN resolutions. Congress may have talked about imminent threat, but the administration never actually said there was one (of course they never explicitly denied it either).

      C) The stated reason isn't the actual reason. The actual reason is manyfold, but removing Saddam from power and setting the stage for an eventual democratic government were very high on the list. Lesser reasons were oil, terrorist sponsorship, etc.

      D) The media never understood it (or refused to understand it), and from months before the war drummed up emotion ferver with "OMG WMD!", then lapsed back into neverending ridicule with "No WMD found".

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    74. Re:hilarious by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      It's called "National Public Radio"

      =Smidge=

    75. Re:hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The weapon went off. No mass destruction occurred.

    76. Re:hilarious by intnsred · · Score: 1
      Yawn. Planted by US forces.

      The Tehran Times has within the past month or two carried several articles in which they've claimed that the US has "imported" old chemical weapons and equipment to be "found" at the appropriate time.

      While one could argue that an Iranian source is hardly reliable, at this point -- thanks to Bush & company's repeated lies -- an Iranian source is just about as credible as anything coming out of the US gov't.

      IMHO, this is just another "announce with fanfare and then retract it a week later when no one is paying attention" tactic.

      Remember the mobile biological trailers that were found? Bush himself announced that as solid proof that WMD were found and the war was justified after all. When it was disproven a month or so after the initial "find", of course no one paid any attention. The Bush regime has honed such deception to a science so fine that the Nazis would be embarrassed with their own "crude" propaganda techniques.

    77. Re:hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your exchange here is another excellent example about why nobody takes slashdot seriously. Slashdot represents the most extreme lunatic left-wing fringe of the world, but they think they are not the lunatic left-wing fringe because they all come to the same place and say the same things to each other.

    78. Re:hilarious by n5vb · · Score: 1

      sweet f'ing christ. do people not see similarities to the Red Scare or McCarthyism? Are people really so dense?

      That would be asking the average person to remember or think about stuff that happened 54 years ago.

      A disturbingly large majority of "average people" have trouble worrying about stuff that happened last week,

      "McCarthy? Wasn't he a first round draft pick this year?"

    79. Re:hilarious by intnsred · · Score: 1
      I've already commented on the propaganda aspects of this story.

      However, it is interesting to read the thoughts of a real expert (as opposed to us armchair idiots:) on the topic.

      Scott Ritter, the former US Marine officer and UN Weapons Inspector whose controversial (to the Bush regime at least) views on Iraqi WMD were proven correct by the war, has this to say about the recent sarin artillery shell which was found.

    80. Re:hilarious by intnsred · · Score: 1

      The chemical weapons he has used were from Germany or Japan, and NOT the US.

      If that is true, explain this: Before the latest US war against Iraq, Iraq turned over thousands of pages of documents detailing its WMD activities -- the infamous CD-ROMs. Those CDs were turned over to the UN but the US demanded first access. The US removed -- only to be found out after the war started -- thousands of pages which implicated US corporations in selling dual-use chemicals and related military support gear to the Iraqis during their US-supported war against Iran.

      And the US has admitted that it sold -- ostensibly under the guise of medical use -- anthrax to the Iraqis which the Iraqis then used to weaponize.

      I'd love to say that our hands are clean. But unfortunately, US hands are just as dirty as France or Russia's when it comes to selling Iraq weapons.

      As for conventional weapons, the main reason Iraq had so many Russian (USSR) and French guns, armored vehicles and jets is simple: they were cheaper than US equipment.

    81. Re:hilarious by cheezedawg · · Score: 1
      I don't deny that we helped Iraq with some WMD capability in the 1980's (thats what I meant by us "helping" them). That fact that we did is well documented. And I don't think it was an entirely unreasonable decision of ours to do this based on the situation we were in and the information that we had at the time. It is easy to second guess that now because we do have more information.

      But there is no evidence that Saddam used any of the illegal weapons that he got from us. I am not making this claim- the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute is. From the link above:
      The absence in the sample analysed in Sweden and Switzerland of polysulphides and of more than a trace of sulphur indicates that it is not of past US-government manufacture, for all US mustard was made by the Levinstein process from ethylene and mixed sulphur chlorides.
      --
      "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
    82. Re:hilarious by gatzke · · Score: 1

      "A Weapon of Mass Destruction would require more than one shell (much more), as many many people have pointed out..."


      So, a single suitcase nuke in NYC would not be considered a Weapon of Mass Destruction?

      A single shell with enough chemical agent to kill thousands (tens of thousands) of people is not a weapon of mass destruction?

      I smell an illogical bush hating liberal...
    83. Re:hilarious by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      No, I think you are wrong... the WMD WAS the main reason. As I said, you cannot just say "I want to remove Saddam". Perhaps you are getting confused because the Bush administration kept switching the reasons. At one time it was democracy, then freedom, then kurds, then terrorists, then ...

      I'm not 100% sure but I don't think Congress would have voted for war based on the UN resolution. The US govt generally ignores the UN. I can't think of the last time USA did anything major, let alone war, based on a UN resolution. Rather, what typically happens is that they use it to support their views--but it is never the reason for declaring war...

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    84. Re:hilarious by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      Then why are you here? Shouldn't you be hanging with your conservative buddies over at National Review, or American Conservative, or maybe Fox News?

      Oh wait... could it just be that science is a field of the liberals, like arts is? my bad... you must feel lonely...

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    85. Re:hilarious by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      I'm talking about a world wide network. NPR is a radio station (no video, live internet feeds, etc). If I'm not mistaken, it is not 24hrs either (I don't listen to NPR BTW--I'm in Canada). Also, it doesn't really have many journalists, or stuff like that. In addition, it is US-centric whereas I'm talking about world-oriented...

      I'm talking about something massive... on par with CNN, BBC World, etc... 24hrs a day... reporting from all corners of the earth... live... real-time... uncensored...

      I actually have some ideas in my head. If I ever become rich :) I'm going to try some of these ideas. The internet provides a nice framework to accomplish my desires...

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    86. Re:hilarious by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · · Score: 1

      I'm still wondering who is dense though.


      The people who think that this war was justified by one shell worth of sarin, I would think.

    87. Re:hilarious by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 1
      I heard that there weren't any WMDs in Iraq and that only "dense" people thought there were.

      I don't know (or care) what the original poster said. This smug "see, we told you so!" reaction that Bush supporters have every time some flake of iron tests positive for previous exposure to mustard gas was what I was responding to. If he used "dense" to describe people who equate one rusty, malfunctioning shell with the imminent and gigantic threat we were told was justification for immediate, pre-emptive invasion, then he was quite correct. Because anybody who thinks that one or two shells immediately validate the war is just that: dense. Bush told us we had a ticking time-bomb on our hands, and we wouldn't know when the clock was up until we saw a "mushroom cloud." Colin Powell said "we" knew "exactly" where the WMD were. "Team Bush" implied that they knew exactly where the weapons were, how many there were, and how they had gotten there. In fact, it turns out now that our "intelligence assets" turned out to be telling us what we wanted to hear to enlist our help in achieving their political goals. That George W. Bush just now figured out that Achmed Chalabi isn't neccessarily the best leader for a "free" Iraq is further evidence he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.

      Again, please tell me what it would take for you to acknowledge Bush deceived the public, much like clinton with his "What "is" is" statement. Why doesn't Bush's deceit call for impeachment? His deceit was part of a campaign to justify the slaughter of thousands of civillians in Iraq (as well as all the conscripted Iraqi soldiers)? Bush's lies place him in direct derelicttion of duty as president. Conrast this with Clinton's lies which, while illegal and certainly deserving of the censure he received, pale in comparison when you look at the results. Clintons lies killed nobody, really only harming himself and his immediate family. Bush's lies represent a dereliction of duty on an grand and un-precedented scale.

      Why do republicans find that acceptable? Where are the calls for "moral" leadership now?
      --
      Who did what now?
  16. BINGO!!! by ChiChiCuervo · · Score: 1

    Let the mass hand-wringing begin!!

    Ooo Rah!

  17. Might as well seed the system a bit..... by southpolesammy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Bomb, gas, crash, Afghanistan, airplane, fire, biowarfare, sarin, nuclear, Muqtada Al-Sadr, barbarism, CIA, Al-Qaida, terrorist, seize, drugs, fertilizer, kill, plot, chemical, RPG, bin Laden, canister, Iraq, plague, sniper, sleeper cell, C4, guerilla, Barbara Streisand

    --
    Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
    1. Re:Might as well seed the system a bit..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...Iraq, plague, sniper, sleeper cell, C4, guerilla, Barbara Streisand

      roflmao :)))))

    2. Re:Might as well seed the system a bit..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The ironic thing is that easily three-quarters of the words you've posted there as "seed words" can be found in the latest issue of Game Informer magazine, or any website with first person shooter games...

      You also forgot a seed word - teacher. Remember, according to the Education Secretary, they belong to a terrorist organization now, too.

    3. Re:Might as well seed the system a bit..... by Friedrich+Psitalon · · Score: 1

      Meh. I hate when I forget to log in before making a post. ::glances up at his last post and grumbles:: Oh well. Not like I'll get any karma for it anyhow. ;)

      --
      Technological competence assures no more intelligence than any other form, just more elitism.
    4. Re:Might as well seed the system a bit..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot jihad, jane fonda, ruby ridge, area 51, nuclear, gummit, RMS ...

    5. Re:Might as well seed the system a bit..... by amightywind · · Score: 1

      You would do just has well using spook-mode in GNU/Emacs. It a lot of fun! Like this...

      Chobetsu MIT-LL Treasury Saddam Hussein BRLO KGB dictionary red noise mindwar quarter STARLAN offensive information warfare warfare SSL INS

      --
      an ill wind that blows no good
    6. Re:Might as well seed the system a bit..... by Tsali · · Score: 1

      You forgot to add "Linux", comrade...

      ("The Matrix", brought to you by Microsoft, starring Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer)

      T.

      --
      This space for rent.
    7. Re:Might as well seed the system a bit..... by Gleng · · Score: 3, Funny

      ...profit?

      --
      "Proudly Posting Without Reading The Article"
    8. Re:Might as well seed the system a bit..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you just wrote a 2000s verse for "We Didn't Start the Fire". Good job.

    9. Re:Might as well seed the system a bit..... by Cmdr+TECO · · Score: 1
      You also forgot a seed word - teacher. Remember, according to the Education Secretary, they belong to a terrorist organization now, too.

      Maybe he remembers being in school.

      --
      echo 33676832766569823265328479713269.8639857989Pq | dc
    10. Re:Might as well seed the system a bit..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Barbara Streisand


      WHOA! Let's not say things we can't take back.
    11. Re:Might as well seed the system a bit..... by FaerieBoy · · Score: 1

      you forgot Hello Kitty. Keep Solidarity with your ghey brethern!

      (or die).

      --
      All your preview button are belong to hello kitty.
    12. Re:Might as well seed the system a bit..... by mandalayx · · Score: 1

      LOL

      Nice.

  18. Grammar nazi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Corrected: "The ACLU is". The ACLU is one organization.

  19. still not 1984 or enemy of the state xenophobia by Fisher99 · · Score: 0

    yet.

    Just give it a few decades and see how it is then, things like these evolve for the better or worse. It depends on what the next POTUS will do in his reign.

    Rome was not built in a day it took several Caesars to implement a full scale dictatorship, but the mob was contempted. However it only takes certain leaders to implement certain key changes into the law to get things moving along.

  20. What if it is accurate? by wombatmobile · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What if the software is accurate?

    What if 120,000 Americans are latent (or blatent) terrorists?

    What then?

    1. Re:What if it is accurate? by MooseByte · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "What if 120,000 Americans are latent (or blatent) terrorists? What then?"

      Then we'd have been seriously screwed LONG ago.

    2. Re:What if it is accurate? by anandpur · · Score: 1

      Then USA is nation that harbor terrorists.
      Simple

    3. Re:What if it is accurate? by UU7 · · Score: 1

      Better bomb em just to be safe, oh .. wait :)

    4. Re:What if it is accurate? by the_mad_poster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What if that's not the point? What then?

      First of all, if there are 120,000 people in this country that are really terrorists that are that easy to spot, we're already up shit creek and the paddle's still back on the shore. Second, I don't know about you, but when people start getting scored on their "terrorism quotient", I get a little scared about what my tax dollars are paying to do to me. I'm all for identifying REAL terrorists and going out and getting them, but I'd sure like to know that they aren't "real" just because they got a high score one some stupid spook's spreadsheet.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    5. Re:What if it is accurate? by Frit+Mock · · Score: 1

      ... then 0.05 percent of the US citizens are terrorists ... in other words, 1 terrorist per 2000 citizens

      In other words, this system is bullshit!

    6. Re:What if it is accurate? by wombatmobile · · Score: 1

      No but I mean, what if they are terrorists?

      What will the good American people do with the 120,000 bad American people, in order to restore the nation to decency?

    7. Re:What if it is accurate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Implement the final solution?

    8. Re:What if it is accurate? by markan18 · · Score: 1

      Their software may work like spamassassin

      Terrorist detection software, running on the system "matrix.gov", has identified this subject as possible terrorist. His entire file has been attached to this so you can sell it (if it isn't terrorist) or get a search warrant. If you have any questions, see root@matrix.gov for details.

      Content preview:
      URI:http://www.slashdot.org
      URI:http://www.linu xtoday.com
      URI:http://phrack.org

      Content analysis details: (63.0 points, 5.0 required)

      pts rule name description

      4.3 SUBJECT_USE_LINUX Subject uses linux operating system
      1.2 SUBJECT_USE_BSD Subject uses xBSD operating system
      19.8 MEMBER_EFF Subject is a member of the EFF
      14.4 MEMBER_ACLU Subject is a member of the ACLU
      22.2 AGAINST_WAR_IRAQ Subject does not approve US efforts to liberate IRAQ
      1.1 RCVD_IN_TERRORISTBL Subject from a blacklisted street address

      Is spamassassin accurate?

    9. Re:What if it is accurate? by gmuslera · · Score: 1
      Well, at least a good numbers of americans are spreading terror in several part of the world, starting with the president...

      ... that count as terrorism?

    10. Re:What if it is accurate? by MooseByte · · Score: 1

      "What will the good American people do with the 120,000 bad American people, in order to restore the nation to decency?"

      Well in the past the "good" people have hearded the "bad" people into giant camps. Somtimes to be exterminated actively (WWII Germany), semi-actively (Soviet gulags) or passively (US internment camps for Japanese in WWII).

      Sorry, not in MY America.

      Oh wait. Camp X-Ray, PATRIOT Act, indefinite secret detention of American citizens without charge or right to cousel, laws that themselves are secret so that even challenging them makes the case itself... secret

      Fuckers. I want my country back.

    11. Re:What if it is accurate? by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      What if they are still waiting for the signal?

    12. Re:What if it is accurate? by The_Mr_Flibble · · Score: 1

      Well, ever heard of the IRA, a majority of their funds came from american donations. Making the people who support terrorists terrorists. Tada, lot's of results.

    13. Re:What if it is accurate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll eat my hat.

    14. Re:What if it is accurate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      More fundamentally: What if the half the US population decides that the other half are terrorists either independently or by this kind of pseudo-scientific government profiling, and the other half decides that the first half are usurpers of democracy? Can you say 2nd Civil War?

      Right now, I'd estimate that if Kerry is elected that chances are 10-30%. If Bush is re-elected or cancels the elections, I'd put it at 50+%.

    15. Re:What if it is accurate? by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 1

      You could -- I dunno, it's a radical thought -- stop attacking other countries and taking their oil. You might also want to stop concentrating wealth and destroying the middle class.

      --
      [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
    16. Re:What if it is accurate? by J053 · · Score: 1

      Oh, FSCK! that profile matches me eggzactly!

  21. To quote article about company founder: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Seisint Inc., is a Boca Raton, Fla., company founded by a millionaire, Hank Asher, who stepped down from its board of directors last year after revelations of past ties to drug smugglers.

    Right, drug smuggler leading government to find terrorists.. Hmmm, anyone else see problem with that?

  22. Re:I know what mine is... by Hatta · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's just like my karma level... "Excellent"

    You forgot the air guitar.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  23. DDOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am warning everyone to PLEASE DO not DDOS the linked website (by constantly reloading) at 3:00PM Eastern Standard Time. hahahah

  24. Re:Gotta love the ACLU by dijjnn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    yes, because there are 120,000 terrorists. And they've been identified by software. we should arrest them.

    I think that the ACLU is not worried about arresting terrorists... i think that they're generally for it. I think they're more worried about the ratio of actual terrorists to non-terrorists in our investigations being way, way, way to low.

    --
    ~dijjnn
  25. My results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ERROR: DIVIDE BY ZERO

  26. It's tin-foil hat time again!! by justkarl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "But the ACLU is still, predictably, concerned."

    As they should be.
    120,000 people could be arrested this week-simply for being in a database. I think that 9/11 has simply turned our government against anyone who might come within a hundred miles of overthrowing it-even it's own citizens. Listen to Fear Factory's "Obsolete" and look for the not-too far off future.
    Think: this kind of thing, if your "quotient" was too high, could conceiveably prevent you from getting a job, or maybe a loan. I don't think this helps everyone. It's all a product of feelings of racism and vengeance.

    1. Re:It's tin-foil hat time again!! by Cameroon · · Score: 1

      As someone pointed out above, Red Scare & McCarthyism all over again.

    2. Re:It's tin-foil hat time again!! by 0123456 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I hope you realise that being seen wearing a tin-foil hat will immediately add 15,000,000,000 points to your Terrorist Quotient: after all, if you're paranoid, you must be doing something illegal.

    3. Re:It's tin-foil hat time again!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also remember, you are not paranoid if they really are out to get you.

    4. Re:It's tin-foil hat time again!! by u-235-sentinel · · Score: 1

      I think that 9/11 has simply turned our government against anyone who might come within a hundred miles of overthrowing it-even it's own citizens.

      I agree with you. As bad as what I'm about to say might sound, the Founding Fathers had the same thoughts. If the Government gets abusive then we need to take it back. I've been reading the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist papers lately. Very dry reading however it's very insightful into the minds of these people. They were concerned with the Government abusing people. Probably why we have things like the Declaration of Independance. George Washington by today's standards would be considered a terrorist. Sad isn't it.

      Think: this kind of thing, if your "quotient" was too high, could conceiveably prevent you from getting a job, or maybe a loan.

      I'll beat there are people who know how to get that number down. After analyzing the system, there is always a way around anything. No matter how much security or secrecy you incoporate.

      --
      Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
    5. Re:It's tin-foil hat time again!! by MooseByte · · Score: 4, Funny

      "I hope you realise that being seen wearing a tin-foil hat will immediately add 15,000,000,000 points to your Terrorist Quotient"

      Well sure, if you don't wear the INVISIBLE tinfoil hat. Mine's been working great for years now. Just watch out for cosmic dust, it dampens the field.

    6. Re:It's tin-foil hat time again!! by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      How tall are you? I didn't realize they could stack bullshit that high! Seriously, do they circulate this list with employers? Can they actually arrest someone only for being on this list? Or are you just making shit up in a cheap grab for karma?

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    7. Re:It's tin-foil hat time again!! by justkarl · · Score: 1

      Do you honestly think that you could possibly get a gov't job if you were on the list? And if you're so naive to think that the government won't put you away for whatever the hell they want, even if it is a dumb list, then maybe you're next.

    8. Re:It's tin-foil hat time again!! by CarrionBird · · Score: 1

      Sure they can, just bring them in for questioing for classified reasons for a calssified length of time in a classified location. Like they do now.

      --
      Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
    9. Re:It's tin-foil hat time again!! by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      120,000 people could be arrested this week-simply for being in a database.

      Um... on what charges?

    10. Re:It's tin-foil hat time again!! by Tin+Foil+Hat · · Score: 1

      after all, if you're paranoid, you must be doing something illegal.

      Prove it.

      Oh wait, we live in the Unified State of Ashcroft, you don't have to.

      Now, if you'll excuse me while I answer the door...

      --
      No matter how many of my rights are taken away, somehow I still don't feel safe. -Frigid Monkey
    11. Re:It's tin-foil hat time again!! by HungWeiLo · · Score: 1

      You haven't been paying attention to the news - you can be brought in as a "material witness" now, which circumvents the whole inconvenient notion of having to come up with archaic legal notions, such as the "charges" you speak of.

      --
      There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
    12. Re:It's tin-foil hat time again!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The MATRIX is not the only multi-jusidictional database used to track people. MN, WI, MI, CA, and many other states have or are developing MATRIX type systems.

      Many of these systems have had a pattern of abuses, ranging from stalking, blackmail, political smears, selling info, to stuff unknown.

      To think that you must watch out only for Jeb Bush and his MATRIX is to miss the problems in your own cities and states.

    13. Re:It's tin-foil hat time again!! by robsteele · · Score: 1
      I've been looking to upgrade my tin-foil hat for some time now. I've tried double and tripple layers and it's just made my massive brain that much more sensitive to the rays they beem at you. (They pretend to be broadcasting from Jupiter but I know better.) Isn't it time for some technological development in the personal defense against mind control space? Wouldn't it be cool if we had some kind of active counter measures?

      I feel like a walking honeypot.

      --

      Consequences ensue.
    14. Re:It's tin-foil hat time again!! by jafac · · Score: 1

      Arrested?

      ARRESTED?!

      You realize that in this climate, that means:
      Disappeared, stripped, beaten, ridden like a donkey, forced to pose naked for pictures, humiliated, deprived of sleep, sexually abused, and in some cases, killed.

      THEN tried in a secret tribunal.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    15. Re:It's tin-foil hat time again!! by Trepalium · · Score: 1

      Or they could classify you as an 'enemy combatant', strip you of your citizenship, and hold you indefinitely. Of course, that would never happen to anyone who isn't really a terrorist, right?

      --
      I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
    16. Re:It's tin-foil hat time again!! by rhuntley12 · · Score: 1

      The robots! Err thats Edgecrusher... Look for the not-too far off future and listen to a damn good song at the same time.

    17. Re:It's tin-foil hat time again!! by dasmegabyte · · Score: 1

      The day that accurate futurables are predicted in Fear Factory songs is the day I complete my moon rocket.

      Nobody is going to get "arrested" for being in a database. Questioned, maybe. And if you act suspicious, or resist the questioning, detained, possibly. But not arrested: no charges files, no trial to be held. Granted, the P.A. allows the government to hold you indefinitely, but the ACLU and others including the supreme court are trying their damnedest to get that repealed. Or did you believe Bill O'reilly when he said the ACLU was nothing more than an agent of the secularists trying to destroy American spirituality?

      Furthermore, I don't remember where the government had any authority in saying who can get hired and who can get a loan. In fact, if you've never been convicted of a crime, there's nothing the government can do to you in these circumstances. So don't commit any damn crimes! It's not hard.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
  27. There is no other way to say this.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are a moron. The ACLU is your friend.


    Go look up 'Martin Niemoller' and try understanding his famous poem.

  28. Useless system... by perly-king-69 · · Score: 1
    America isn't the world. Unless it links up to identical systems around the world it's next to useless. Nothing to stop someone of, say Arabic descent, coming in from German on a German passport and carrying out an act of terrorism.

    --

    --
    This sig is inoffensive.

    1. Re:Useless system... by not_a_product_id · · Score: 1

      actually, I strongly suspect that 'non-American' will be one factor in your 'terrorist' score.

      --

      ---
      We spoke for about a half an hour. I don't recall a thing we said. - Colorblind James Experience

    2. Re:Useless system... by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      > America isn't the world.

      In case you haven't noticed, the US is testing the theory that it alone rules the world. The question is on the table, and the answer so far is pretty much, "US RULES OK!"

      The only people really fighting the notion amount to a rather pathetic resistance. There's certainly no "First world" opposition to the expansion of the US empire. Dissent, yes, but no nation is so far willing to put their own military in harm's way in an attempt to stop the US. Nobody's even willing to cease trade, or take any other meaningful action for that matter.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    3. Re:Useless system... by perly-king-69 · · Score: 1
      We're just all waiting for the 'SOS' to come in from Baghdad.

      --

      --
      This sig is inoffensive.

  29. Think about it by paranode · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm sure all the tin-foil hats will come out of the woodworks about this. Seriously though, do you not expect the agency reponsible for anti-terrorism efforts to actually do its job well? If this could have stopped those planes from killing thousands of civilians, people would be screaming in outrage about how we didn't use it when we should have. The problem is this country (this world, really) is that everybody wants to be reactive and not proactive. This is especially true in the computer security field, as we all know.

    Everyone bitches and moans about systems like this that can prevent terrorist attacks, but then they make a huge stink about some memo from Richard Clarke that had next to nothing useful in it. Go figure.

    1. Re:Think about it by 0123456 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Seriously though, do you not expect the agency reponsible for anti-terrorism efforts to actually do its job well?"

      How is picking 120,000 people as potential terrorists based on some arbitrary algorithm "doing its job well"? Do you really think there are 120,000 terrorists in America? Do you really think that the government will do better to harass 120,000 people, most of whom are not terrorists, than to, say, infiltrate terrorist groups and find out who really, actually, is a terrorist?

      "If this could have stopped those planes from killing thousands of civilians, people would be screaming in outrage about how we didn't use it when we should have"

      Once the terrorists know how the system works they can easily avoid being spotted: and the government will be too busy chasing those 120,000 non-terrorists to do anything about the real ones. This is the most basic and obvious flaw of any such arbitrary flagging scheme... anyone who knows the algorithm knows how _not_ to get flagged.

    2. Re:Think about it by PSC · · Score: 1

      (Emphasis mine.)

      Everyone bitches and moans about systems like this that can prevent terrorist attacks

      What does "high terrorist level" imply? That the Feds do a thorough background check on you? That you'll be shadowed? For how long? 120000 people being shadowed? Even if you accept that the 119900 non-terrorists are severely harassed, the chances to find one single real terrorist are miniscle.

      Do you genuinely believe such a system could prevent a single act of terrorism?

      Or is it far more likely that such a system, or rather, the subsequent harassment of innocent people, actually increases the chances for acts of terror (think people seriously pissed off by the state, like Tim McVeigh)?

      --
      --- The light at the end of the tunnel is probably a burning truck.
    3. Re:Think about it by not_a_product_id · · Score: 1

      This just seems to be like a lot of other comments you see on stuff like this. "If x prevent's terrorism then it's worth doing." We have enough atomic, bacterial and chemical weapons to kill everyone on the planet and that would stop 100% of terrorism (along with poverty, hate etc). You have to lost at the COST as well as the BENEFIT of doing things.

      --

      ---
      We spoke for about a half an hour. I don't recall a thing we said. - Colorblind James Experience

    4. Re:Think about it by MrScary · · Score: 1

      I suggest you check out this transcript from a frontline program http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew /
      .
      I do not think that this program will help. What needs to be done is to completely revamp the CIA and redo a lot of the FBI. We still look at the world through the eyes of the cold war. AL Queda looks at the world differently. We had warnings six years before this but our cognitive dissonance stopped us from listening.

      --
      I've been searchin for the chord I can't hear Ive been searchin for years Its somewhere inside But its well disguised
    5. Re:Think about it by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      I really doubt these people are selected with "some arbitrary algorithm." I can see how things happen in your mind:

      "Johnson, we need you to select people from this database that are likely to be involved in terrorism."

      "How should I select them, sir?"

      "Just use some arbitrary algorithm."

      "Binary-Search it is.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    6. Re:Think about it by ad0gg · · Score: 1
      "If this could have stopped those planes from killing thousands of civilians, people would be screaming in outrage about how we didn't use it when we should have"

      I do agree the WTC attack was tragic, but lets put it into perspective. We lost 2 people for a population of 250 million. Lets also compare it to the other killers in the US, like alcohol related traffic deaths. We built a system to track potential terrorists that may kill 2 thousand every 3 or 4 years, if we built a system to screen out potential drunken drivers you'll save 15 thousand people every year.

      US is so wrapped up in this terrorism scare. My car gets searched when I goto the airport, yet there's no check points when leaving the bar at 2 am.

      How much money have we spent invading Iraq and this war on terrorism? 100's of billions. Money could have been used to for cancer research. Cancer is real terrorism, I lost cousin who's was only 28. Its a silent killer thats takes people out, it terrorizes people on a daily basis.

      --

      Have you ever been to a turkish prison?

    7. Re:Think about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, so what is your solution? It is pretty weak minded to sit around and complain about things you don't like. If you don't like it, suggest something else.

      Or do you believe in the John Kerry method of fighting terrorism? That is to buy enough body bags to make sure we can handle all the dead US civilians from our next terrorist attack?

    8. Re:Think about it by paranode · · Score: 1

      How is picking 120,000 people as potential terrorists based on some arbitrary algorithm "doing its job well"? Do you really think there are 120,000 terrorists in America? Do you really think that the government will do better to harass 120,000 people, most of whom are not terrorists, than to, say, infiltrate terrorist groups and find out who really, actually, is a terrorist?

      From the article:
      "Seisint and the law enforcement officials who oversee Matrix insist that the terrorism scoring system ultimately was kept out of the project, largely because of privacy concerns."

      "I'll put my 26 years of law enforcement experience on the line. It is not in there," said Mark Zadra, chief investigator for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement."

      Whether or not you believe it is another thing. Anyways, some other interesting things:

      "He said Matrix, which has 4 billion records, merely speeds access to material that police have always been able to get from disparate sources, and does not automatically or proactively finger suspects. Bill Shrewsbury, a Seisint executive and former federal drug agent, said the terrorism scoring algorithm that produced the list of 120,000 names was "put on the shelf" after it was demonstrated immediately following Sept. 11, 2001."

      "Of the people with the 80 highest scores, five were among the Sept. 11 hijackers, Seisint's presentation said. Forty-five were identified as being or possibly being under existing investigations, while 30 others "were unknown to FBI."

      "Investigations were triggered and arrests were made by INS and other agencies," the presentation added. Two bullet points stated: "Several arrests within one week" and "Scores of other arrests." It does not provide details of when and where the investigations and arrests took place. Phil Ramer, who heads Florida state police's intelligence division, said his agency found the list a useful starting point for some investigations, though he said he could not recall how many. He stressed that the list was not used as the sole evidence to make arrests. "What we did with the list is we went back and found out how they got on the list," Ramer said."

      So if that's not clear to you yet, they aren't using the algorithm to randomly harass and shadow 120,000 random people. They use it as a starting point to look at the most suspicious people and investigate them. The ones that they had enough info on, they arrested. I consider that a good thing. If you are honestly worried that this list will produce your name and the FBI will come after you, then I'm glad because they're doing their job to get you off the street. Otherwise, get real.

    9. Re:Think about it by System.out.println() · · Score: 1

      This is the most basic and obvious flaw of any such arbitrary flagging scheme... anyone who knows the algorithm knows how _not_ to get flagged.


      Reminds me of the problem the Slashdot coders face. (How to see to it that trolls and idiots don't show up to the masses while allowing all the good stuff through.

    10. Re:Think about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > John Kerry method of fighting terrorism? That is to buy enough body bags to make sure we can handle all the dead US civilians from our next terrorist attack?

      Compare and contrast with current-dipshit-in-office method: buy enough body bags for everyone not a campaign sponsor.

    11. Re:Think about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you think terrorists are just people who are unpopular, then?

    12. Re:Think about it by demachina · · Score: 1

      Some Bush fanboys must have had some mod points for this to get rated Insightful.

      First off this project is being done by a somewhat out of control private company with historical ties to Admiral Poindexter. There isn't exactly an "agency" involved, other than I think DOJ threw them some cash and I imagine the CIA or DOD is secretly or not so secretly backing this because Congress shot down this program under its previous name Total Information Awareness because it is so objectional. The Bush administration is so contemptuous of Congressional oversight that this smacks of something they would do as an end run around the "representatives of the people" who are occasionally trying to rein in their gross abuses of their power.

      Furthermore you seem to be have jumped to the conclusion that this is going to prevent terrorism. What basis do you have for that? For example I haven't seen them run this system on a database from pre 9/11 to see if it flags any of the real hijackers, especially without them knowing any details about those people in advance so they can tweak their AI engine.

      I really doubt there is a lot of information in these databases that will accurately ID a terrorist unless you are willing to engage in racial/religious profiling and red flag every Arab and Muslim in the database, or everyone who has travelled to an Islamic country though that would red flag a quarter of Halliburton's employees.

      You might change your tune if your name came up with a match in this fishing expedition, and you end up getting arrested as a "material witness" and the DOJ destroys your life, as in you lose your job, and are placed under a cloud of suspicion without any due process.

      For example, in Google News, look up the attorney in Oregon who was falsely implicated in the Madrid bombing. They seem to have fabricated a fingerprint match and more importantly he is on the DOJ's target list because:

      A. He converted to Islam
      B. He had the nerve to defend one of the people in Portland charged with ties to terrorism

      The DOJ has taken consistent measures to punish attorneys who defend people they want to lynch for hazy terrorism suspicions. This case appears to be an example of the extremes your government is willing to go to punish innocent people, especially if they are Muslim.

      Sorry, but everything the U.S. is doing, this included, is a new version of McCarthyism, just substitute Muslim and Arab for Communist. If it just punished people guilty of something you might be able to rationalize it but when it destroys innocent people, which it certainly will, its not worth the price.

      --
      @de_machina
    13. Re:Think about it by Metex · · Score: 1

      actually I think it is just picking up people with a high likelyhood of commiting a Large crime be it terroism or any other highprofile crime.

      also I was kinda shocked that is was only 120,000 people. Remeber we have a theoreticle pool of 197million (age 15-66) people who could be commiting crimes.

      --
      Never could figure out why my girl liked my bitch tits, then I found out she was a lesbian.
    14. Re:Think about it by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1
      If this could have stopped those planes from killing thousands of civilians, people would be screaming in outrage about how we didn't use it when we should have.

      Maybe, but you could use the same argument on any system, regardless whether it would work or not. Presumably you agree that we can't just implement any system which claims that it works?

      At the very least we should establish some criteria to verify that the system is functional, then decide whether the benefits are actually worth the loss in freedom.

      Sure we could hand over all our freedom to the government - but how likely is it that this would actually increase safety? Democratic control is not just important for freedom - it also helps to keep the level of incompetence and corruption low. Not as low as we would like, for sure - but some dictatorships fare much much worse.

      Also consider that even totalitarian systems have been successfully spied upon (e.g. Soviet Russia, Nazi-Germany). So just because the citizens have no freedom does not guarantee safety from terrorist attacks - if you can get a spy in you can get a terrorist in.

    15. Re:Think about it by anakreon · · Score: 1

      I'm glad I don't live in USA. Why don't you think about the reasons which cause terrorism. Is the opression (economical, political and miltary) which USA uses against many countries which cause terrorism(although it is not the only reason). Think countries of Latin America where military governaments had been established with the help of the "Democratic" State of USA, justified by the comunist threat. The problem is that USA not only exports opression, but with the excuse of terrosism opression will come to USA citizens as well.

    16. Re:Think about it by demachina · · Score: 1

      "If this could have stopped those planes from killing thousands of civilians, people would be screaming in outrage about how we didn't use it when we should have."

      Here is the problem with the people that argue that any measure that will stop a terrorist attack is OK.

      So we institute the Patriot Act, Total Information Awareness (which is what this is under a new name), biometric national ID cards, etc.

      As long as there is no new attack you claim that its thanks to all the draconian measures so they must be A-OK.

      The problem comes when there is another attack and there almost certainly will be. There are to many people who hate the U.S. to much now, and as long as they are willing to commit suicide some o them will get through. Israel has been trying to stop them with no success for decades.

      So what do you do then, admit all the draconian measures didn't work and throw them out? Of course not. You will declare them as not good enough and put in a whole new raft of even more repressive measures, RFID tag everyone, put checkpoints on the highways, and in every train and bus station so no one can move without the blessing and scrutin of the government.

      This is the nature of guerilla wars. The guerillas pick the time and place of the attack and they can almost always find a time and a place. The target government responds with ineffective and repressive measures that cause it to:

      A. Cripple its economy both with the cost of the countermeasures themselves, and the drain they put on the economy by restricting trade and travel in particular

      B. Be despised by its own population as the repressive measures intrude further and further in their lives so they reach a point they want to throw the government out themselves.

      I don't suppose its ever occurred to you that the thinking people at Al Qaeda, and whatever you think of them they are smart people, want the U.S. to tie itself up in knots trying to stop their attacks, and they are overjoyed everytime the U.S. does something stupid like invade Iraq or greenlight Sharon no matter how brutally he treats the Palastinians.

      You may think the U.S. is winning with its current approach but its my contention that the people in the Bush Administration are to stupid and devoid of the intellectual subtlety necessary to win this war. You don't have to look much farther than the conman Chalibi to see an Arab who played the Bush administration like a fiddle because they are to dumb to understand all the complexities of this new era.

      --
      @de_machina
    17. Re:Think about it by Minupla · · Score: 1

      Yes, and I'd also expect the Americian soldiers handling prisioners in Iraq not to abuse them. If I can be wrong, so can you.

      --
      On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
    18. Re:Think about it by bladesjester · · Score: 1

      120,000? that's just about the population of Montana, isn't it? ;)

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
  30. In other news ... by spellraiser · · Score: 4, Funny

    Officials in Washington DC revealed plans to start a brand-new 'Precrime' program to arrest perpetrators before they even commit a crime, using sophisticated 'Comatose Psychic' technology.

    Said one official: 'Yeah, we reckon this will beat everything we've seen so far. I mean, why profile people when you can have 'em psychics see the stuff happening, right? Much more reliable all in all.'

    More details here

    --
    I hear there's rumors on the Slashdots
    1. Re:In other news ... by identity0 · · Score: 1

      I knocking out Miss Cleo and putting her in a vat will help solve crime, I'm all for it. Heck, pickle the entire psychic hotline while you're at it!

    2. Re:In other news ... by igny · · Score: 1
      ...the 120,000 names with the highest scores were given to the INS, FBI, Secret Service and Florida state police

      Could it be connected to 2004 elections?

      --
      In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
  31. Dodgy surnames by SmackCrackandPot · · Score: 2

    There was a soccer-mom/admin in our work who had the first name Marsha and the surname started with an 'H'.
    She would get all these weird Middle-Eastern newsletters spammed to her work account. I bet she's probably made to the dodgy persons list.

  32. MOD PARENT UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Interestingly enough Osama and his men were paid and trained by the CIA for just what the parent poster said.

    1. Re:MOD PARENT UP! by Aneurysm9 · · Score: 1

      as was Saddam when we were unhappy with Iran.

      --
      There was Cowboy Neal at the wheel of a bus to never-ever land.
    2. Re:MOD PARENT UP! by garcia · · Score: 1, Insightful

      how quickly we forget.

    3. Re:MOD PARENT UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another thought experiment: Poppy production in Afganastan over, say, the last 20 years.....

    4. Re:MOD PARENT UP! by Threni · · Score: 1

      And bin Laden when we were unhappy with Russia.

  33. You Tell Me by the_mad_poster · · Score: 1
    --
    Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
  34. the money spent by phats+garage · · Score: 0
    on fancified guesswork like this ill informed piece of crap would be better spent safeguarding potential targets and hiring air marshals. Really, if you focus on your classic "terrorist" like characteristics and leave targets unprotected and weapon detection underfunded, any future Timothy McVey is going to have an even easier time of it.

    Right now many segments of the air travel and shipping industry are still woefully vulnerable, and thats just one particular area of interest.

  35. What's Your Terrorism Quotient? by aengblom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Agnostic : ---------------
    Democrat : +
    Male : ++
    Moderate : -------
    Young : ++
    Yuppie : ---------
    White : --------------------

    <i>I'll</i> be fine, but thanks for asking.

    --


    So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
    1. Re:What's Your Terrorism Quotient? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      This is Bush's system - it doesn't have an entry for Agnostic. It's just "Christian" or "Heathen".

    2. Re:What's Your Terrorism Quotient? by hanssprudel · · Score: 1

      So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number

      Actually, the closest perfect number to you ID is 132049. Not that close.

    3. Re:What's Your Terrorism Quotient? by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 1

      Why would being white lower your score the most? Ever heard of the unabomber or the oklahoma city bombers? I think it's even possible that if you only count terrorist acts inside the US, then the majority of the perpetrators were white.

      I think sex would be the most significant factor.

  36. here's another link to same story... by tuxette · · Score: 1
    Just in case you don't reach the first one :)

    Precursor of database project gave feds 120,000 terrorist suspects

    --
    People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
  37. Copy & Paste by Mz6 · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    "Naturalization Service, FBI (news - web sites), Secret Service and Florida"

    Looks like someone is copy and paste happy...

    --
    Hmmm.
  38. Technical question for Seisint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How do they prevent politicians from ending up on the list? There must be some special flags to exclude politicians because they're always doing stuff that would be considered a crime if a civilian was doing exactly the same thing.

  39. FBI: Do not make jokes about the system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pizza (Score:5, Terrorist)
    by AtariAmarok (451306) on Friday May 21, @10:47AM (#9215051)

    If your name is "Ben Louden", I'd be cautious about ordering a pizza! If you do, ask for LOTS of ham and other pork items on the pizza. That might help.
    [ Reply to This ]

  40. This company is EVIL by foolinator · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Google this:
    1) This company was started by a drug running felon with ties to the Bush's
    2) Read the Contract between Seisint and the Florida Goverment with the MATRIX
    3) This company is very, very late with their software project - using terrorism as means to drag it out.
    4) 120,000 terrorists in the US? C'mon! Has ANYONE on /. ever met a "terrorist"?
    5) 3.2 billion dollars a year goes toward "cyber security".

    After reading all this, I get soooo disgusted.. I mean, this is SICK!!! How much money is wasted? How the hell do I get a piece of terrorist pie?! Millions of dollars have been lost and never gone to me.

    How can the open source community get some of this cash cow? How about a sourceforge project Ivory Tower (the irony of the name would be great)?
    -Foo

    1. Re:This company is EVIL by Friedrich+Psitalon · · Score: 1

      Sure, I've met a terrorist. Quite a few in fact - I'm one. Remember "Education" Secretary's comments? The National Association of Teachers is a terrorist organization. So that makes all of us teacher folk terrorists. Excuse me, I have to go build more paper-airplane bombs and continue brainwashing my fatwah legions with the rules of grammar, now.

      --
      Technological competence assures no more intelligence than any other form, just more elitism.
    2. Re:This company is EVIL by pontifier · · Score: 1

      I like your use of the word "Google" there, it seems kind of like a "grok it"/"vidi well" combo..

      Clockwork Orange and Stranger in a Strange Land...
      classics that will probably get you put on that there list if you buy them now.

      --
      -John Fenley
    3. Re:This company is EVIL by the_ed_dawg · · Score: 1
      4) 120,000 terrorists in the US? C'mon! Has ANYONE on /. ever met a "terrorist"?
      A very active member of the Society of Creative Anachronism was telling me that their organization is on an FBI watch list because of a misspelling on an application, where they were listed as the "Society of Creative Anarchism." They have over 30,000 members, so that leaves another 90,000. :) Incidentally, the Society of Creative Anarchism does actually exist... as a quiz bowl team from Minnesota.
      --
      There are two types of people: those prepared for the zombie apocalypse and those who will be eaten.
    4. Re:This company is EVIL by morcheeba · · Score: 1

      My neighbor went to Adnan Khashoggi's birthday party.

    5. Re:This company is EVIL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "5) 3.2 billion dollars a year goes toward "cyber security"."

      Sounds about right... Remember the Department of Homeland Security (AKA Fatherland Security) "standardized" on Windows.

      If you want a piece of that pie, get security clearance, start a small business and enter it into the Gov. DB of small businesses, and a MSCE cert.

      Have a nice day ya'll!

    6. Re:This company is EVIL by Ian+Bicking · · Score: 1
      120,000 terrorists in the US? C'mon! Has ANYONE on /. ever met a "terrorist"?

      Depending on the definition, I've met many:

      the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that appear to be intended to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.
      (quote from PATRIOT, source)
      Any protester could be included in this definition (after all, they only say "appear", not "are"). Authorities always try to color protesters as violent mobs to the media, and frequently to a jury as well. It's only a very small step to add the word "terrorist" to the charges.
  41. Had to be said by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wake up Neo. The MATRIX has you.
    Really, can these guys pick a name with worse symbolism? Skynet, maybe?

    --

    ___
    It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    1. Re:Had to be said by j-b0y · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Skynet is, amongst other things, the name of a major satellite communications network used by the UK MoD, about to reach the fifth generation.

      I think they choose these names deliberately.

      --
      Please remain calm, there is no reason to pani... wait, where are you all going?
    2. Re:Had to be said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I think they choose these names deliberately.

      Of course they do! Because unlike
      [ ] Leftists
      [ ] Slashdot readers
      [ ] Americans generally
      [ ] all of the above
      they have a sense of humour.

    3. Re:Had to be said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is very scary that the users of the system view themselves as the Mr. Smiths of the Matrix. The revelation of that as a self image of our governing body is far more scary than the actual system. Almost as disturbing as if they sent out posters describing Dept. of Homeland Security and your protective big brother.

      we need to wake ourselves up from whatever fantasy we are all locked into and seem to be propogating.

  42. Time to get out of here by TomorrowPlusX · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As someone raised muslim, with a muslim name ( and one that happens to correspond to that of an at-large chechen terrorist ) I'll wager it's time to get out of this country.

    You know, that makes me sad. I'm American, I was born here, so were my parents. My father's been in trouble with the law, long ago, and happens to have the #1 most common Muslim name. Regardless, he, like me, loves this country.

    I'm no longer practicing ( read: vehement Atheist ) but if all it takes is having a troublesome name, well, it seems then the tide has finally turned. Perhaps this will be America's crystal night?

    I'm at a loss for words.

    --

    lorem ipsum, dolor sit amet
    1. Re:Time to get out of here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Change your name. Pick a really obvious one, like "Christian Crusader". And put a bumper sticker on your car that says "I am more American than YOU."

      Over time there's going to be more and more people in this country with sense, people like you.

      The 21st century is going to be a very bad one for religion, and you don't want to miss it.

    2. Re:Time to get out of here by bhima · · Score: 4, Insightful
      There are Many very nice places to live in the world. Sure the US is perhaps the wealthiest place on earth, but using other metrics the US is not so great. I guess it is a matter of priorties. What's most important having a super high standard of living in a crazy place or having a great (and healthy) life style and getting by with a bit less.

      I made the move a little over two years ago, Now I'd be hard pressed to go back.

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    3. Re:Time to get out of here by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      facist theocracies are great. I like Mussolini. I like Catholic control. I like uniform culture, morals, et cetera. That is what makes community, and that is what makes society.

    4. Re:Time to get out of here by bigbird · · Score: 1
      As someone raised muslim, with a muslim name ( and one that happens to correspond to that of an at-large chechen terrorist ) I'll wager it's time to get out of this country.

      With your terrorism quotient I don't think they'll allow you to leave.

    5. Re:Time to get out of here by rmohr02 · · Score: 1

      Certainly not on an airplane anyway.

    6. Re:Time to get out of here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Hey, a lot of us ethic Northern-European types I know (including me) are so sickened with the situation that we're also wondering if moving elsewhere would be the best thing, IF we get another 4 years of extremist Bush/Cheney misrule.

      But there is still time to fix things. IMHO, best things to do is (a) vote your conscience, (b) write to your congress-person and senators telling them you dont approve of the way America is being damaged by Bush's criminal incompetance, and will vote accordingly, (c) participate in getting out the vote.

    7. Re:Time to get out of here by corbettw · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      As someone raised muslim, with a muslim name ( and one that happens to correspond to that of an at-large chechen terrorist ) I'll wager it's time to get out of this country.

      Well, see, here's the thing: if you're no longer a Muslim, once you leave here you'll find yourself in danger from other Muslims, especially if you go to Europe (Europe is about 20 years away from being yet another Islamic state, thanks to all the immigration recently). So you'll have to change your name to a "non-Muslim" one, just to be safe. And since you'll have to do that anyway, you might as well do it in the States and just stay here, saving yourself the effort.

      Pick a simple one, like John Quincy Smith. Or one based on your personal heroes, whoever they may be.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    8. Re:Time to get out of here by TomorrowPlusX · · Score: 1

      Where did you go?

      I'm serious about leaving -- I don't want to raise children in the states; and my personal viewpoints regarding quality of life coincide with yours, I gather. Primarily I care about quality schools and clean/safe city life. I couldn't care less about owning a car or a big suburban house.

      And, what's involved in ex-patriating?

      --

      lorem ipsum, dolor sit amet
    9. Re:Time to get out of here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Say hi to Alec Baldwin.

      Oh, wait...

    10. Re:Time to get out of here by TomorrowPlusX · · Score: 1

      Ironically, I'm named after one of my father's personal heros -- a 19th century Imam who fought the russians and kept islam more or less safe in eastern europe ( since the turks had left them to the wolves ).

      Trouble is, climates change. Mass-opinion changes. Whatever you pick, eventually it'll turn sour.

      But, frankly, I don't want to raise children here. My mother edits a magazine for the school board and the horror stories I hear about the way schools sell the mindshare of youth to big corporations for an extra few bucks is horrifying. Not to mention the average public-educated US kid has no concept of history, geography or mathematics.

      Probably I'd be best picking a chinese name... and... no. They'd never fall for it.

      For what it's worth, I'm white. I look pretty sketchy though ( e.g., not blond/blue-eyed ), and the UNIX programmer beard doesn't help ;)

      --

      lorem ipsum, dolor sit amet
    11. Re:Time to get out of here by fiiz · · Score: 1

      Well, see, here's the thing: if you're no longer a Muslim, once you leave here you'll find yourself in danger from other Muslims, especially if you go to Europe (Europe is about 20 years away from being yet another Islamic state, thanks to all the immigration recently).

      WTF? Does how the hell does this sort of fascist nonsense get modded up?

      Hello, moronic 15-year-old moderators, only extreme-right groups could ever pronounce a sentence like this in europe!

      You do not understand islam, you do not understand european or middle-eastern politics, you haven't looked at the immigration numbers.

      That said, I agree in that I don't think there's a case for moving from the US--not any more than there is one for a black person who perceives racism. Eventually the tide will swing back, and after all you do still arguably have legal safeguards in the USA...

      --

      yours ever, fz.
    12. Re:Time to get out of here by vidarh · · Score: 1
      Which mass wave of immigration of muslims is it you are referring to? Most European countries have among the strictest immigration laws in the world. Can you perhaps point us to some documentation of this apparent danger from other Muslims one would face in Europe?

    13. Re:Time to get out of here by Celvin · · Score: 1

      Try Norway (can't help it, love my country!).

      Very small, very expensive but quite safe. Some terrorism hype here to, but nothing like the US. It shouldn't be to hard to move here either, since you're an American citizen (though I don't really know anything about what it would take).

      If you're interested, check out www.norway.com.

      --
      -- If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people?
    14. Re:Time to get out of here by bhima · · Score: 1
      I live in Graz, Austria. I find it to be a wonderful city, just the right size- large enough for me to have a good job (I'm do R&D stuff) small enough for me to walk across for dinner and a movie. Violent crime is non-existent, other sort of crime is (by US standards) incredibly low. The city infrastructure is, unlike a typical US city, designed for pedestrians and bicycles. I don't see the racial tension that I did in the US (that's not to say it doesn't exist though). Yes the taxes are higher, but I really do see more evidence of my taxes being put to use than I did in America. Graz is also a very green city lots of parks (which my kids really like). Speaking of my kids Graz is a very safe place they walk to school and to play all the time with no fear. On the one occasion they came across drunks still out for their party well into morning, a little old lady noticed my kids were afraid of the drunks and escorted them across the street while giving a stern lecture to the offending party. I bike quite a lot and find Graz traffic to be very manageable. Now as far as the moving process, I have no idea my company hired a relocation specialist to move me.

      The downsides 1:NO MEXICAN FOOD 2: Medicines Americans expect to find in a grocery are not there, they are at the pharmacy (I'm not sure why this annoys me so much as it is a 150 meter walk from my front door to the pharmacy) 3: Closing times; regular stores close at 6:00pm (but to make up for it many bars are open late 3:00 to 7:00 am).

      But seriously as another poster said try Norway or many, many other places! The world is a very cool place (with the exception of those people with weapons) and for the most part a great life can be had all over! So far I have lived in Sydney, Bangkok, Prague, Atlanta, and Graz and I found all of them to be great fun and interesting in their own way.

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    15. Re:Time to get out of here by zulux · · Score: 1


      Please stay here.

      I'd hate to see a good person leave this good country.

      This country is yours, please help make it better.

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    16. Re:Time to get out of here by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Hello, moronic 15-year-old moderators, only extreme-right groups could ever pronounce a sentence like this in europe!

      Wow, what a thoughtful criticism. I'll be sure to take your words to heart.

      You do not understand islam

      It is common practice for Muslims who convert to other religions to be murdered for doing so. If you honestly think otherwise, you need to educate yourself. Notice that the gp himself made similar comments, and didn't contradict mine.

      As for my statement about Europe becoming an Islamic state, I stand by it. Relatively few immigrants get through, true enough, but once there they multiply far more than the native population. The birth rates in Europe are around 1.5 to 1.9 women per child. This means the people are not replacing themselves, and their populations are declining. Since the only net gain in population is coming from immigrants and, eventually, their offspring, it'll only take about one generation for the ethnic and religious populations to shift.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    17. Re:Time to get out of here by corbettw · · Score: 1

      I completely agree with you about the US education system. Short of moving, home schooling and/or private tutors is your best solution, followed by private schools. Both carry additional costs, but neither as great as moving to another country.

      For what it's worth, the love of my life is Muslim, and we're not together because of her fear of being murdered by her own brothers and cousins if she converted and/or married a Christian. (And she's from a large, cosmopolitian city in Turkey.) So I sympathize with you about the danger of being hunted down by nutjobs. At least that's one thing you don't have to worry about in the States.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    18. Re:Time to get out of here by MonkeyCookie · · Score: 1

      Last I heard, Austria had some tough restrictions on allowing non-EU citizens to get a work permit for their county.

      I'm curious to hear your experience in that area, and how you got past all the red tape. I used to live in Germany as a student, and I'd love to go back, but I'm afraid of a bureaucratic nightmare in getting a work permit. I'm hoping my profession as a software engineer might help, but I'm not terribly optimistic.

    19. Re:Time to get out of here by Lord+Omlette · · Score: 1

      Hello, we need your vote in November. If you leave the country now, that's just another victory for them.

      --
      [o]_O
    20. Re:Time to get out of here by bhima · · Score: 1

      Well, my postion/field is somewhat esoteric. Honestly I don't have much to do with getting the work permit as my company has hired out a firm to handle it. From my perspective there is no red tape! I just sign papers and once a year they stick something in my passport.

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    21. Re:Time to get out of here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Sure the US is perhaps the wealthiest place on earth,

      Nah..not on a GDP per capita basis. There is a lot more poverty in the US than in the average western European country. The most wealthy country is actually Luxembourg.

    22. Re:Time to get out of here by fiiz · · Score: 1

      It is common practice for Muslims who convert to other religions to be murdered for doing so. If you honestly think otherwise, you need to educate yourself. Notice that the gp himself made similar comments, and didn't contradict mine.

      False, false and false. This may have happened, as horrible things tend to happen in our world, but it is definitely not "common practice". There are many different islamic countries, with different customs, laws and levels of institutional idiocy. Check your facts somewhere other than in republican propaganda newsletters--your generalising comments betray frightening ignorance.

      Your comment about european growth rates is also wrong, and is typical, I re-iterate, of rethoric employed by far-right groups in europe such as the british national party, the french front national and german neo-nazi bending factions.

      True, muslim families may have more children than european ones on average--although not by much as the social repartition changes (birth rate is more of a function of family income/social strata than of religion, at least within europe). France is a maximal case, with 5% muslims, and it is far from close to becoming a "muslim country"; you quote 20 years--look at the numbers, you'll see it doesn't add up. And don't make any prediction for longer than 25 years, as we don't know what the geopolitical changes might be--of course, if you extrapolate current natality rates over 300 years...

      disclaimer: I am not muslim--and am european, but I know the middle east and other muslim countries very well.

      I'm just appalled at the kinds of arguments that you are using, and that seem to have become commonplace in some countries--you may be trying to be a "realist" but you'll notice that all your points are far-fetched generalisations or extrapolations.

      --

      yours ever, fz.
    23. Re:Time to get out of here by corbettw · · Score: 1

      False, false and false.

      Oh, good, I'll let my ex-fiance know she doesn't have to worry about her brothers and cousins killing her for converting then.

      I've lived in Islamic countries, and visited others. I've had friends who were Muslims only because they were terrified of what would happen if they converted. My knowledge of Islam comes from firsthand experience, something I doubt you can claim. If you could, we wouldn't be having this disagreement.

      You're either ignorant, or lying. I choose to believe the former, in which case you need to educate yourself and stop believing the lies you've been told. Islam is a religion of evil, and the people forced to live under it should be helped in any way possible to escape its clutches.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    24. Re:Time to get out of here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how do you get out? have money? know the right people? i don't know how to get out, but i would if i could. where do you live at now?

    25. Re:Time to get out of here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't the govt. help the Bin Laden family get out of the USA no questions asked, after Sep 11 2001, to avoid recriminations?

    26. Re:Time to get out of here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a thought, how about you take your ex-fiance to another country and don't tell her cousins and brothers where you've moved. If they would honestly kill her for such stupid things I doubt she would miss them very much.

      Or you could grow some balls, buy a gun, and if they threaten to kill her pump them full of lead.

    27. Re:Time to get out of here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My father's been in trouble with the law, long ago, and happens to have the #1 most common Muslim name.

      John Mohammed?

    28. Re:Time to get out of here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I've lived in Islamic countries, and visited others ... My knowledge of Islam comes from firsthand experience, something I doubt you can claim.

      I was born in one and lived for several decades in several Muslim countries, and visited others too. I have friends and family there. I can totally contradict what you are saying. At worst, you are a biased bigot. At best, you are very selective to enforce a predetermined misconception you have.

      I've had friends who were Muslims only because they were terrified of what would happen if they converted.

      Utter nonsense. Not that it does not happen. But you are quoting a rare exception and overgeneralizing it into a common occurance. What about the Muslims who practice in the West? What about the Muslims who fill the mosques here in the West and back in Muslim countries?

      Of course there are those who are under the normal social coercion to conform to the majority, like any society, like any religion. That does not mean they are "terrified to convert".

      Islam is a religion of evil, and the people forced to live under it should be helped in any way possible to escape its clutches.

      There you go: you are the biased bigot then, as I initially thought. You are probably a fundy Christian missionary bent on "civilizing the savages", and "saving them".

      Probably your ex-fiance did not stand your relentless attempts to save her, and bailed out of your "clutch". BIGOT!

    29. Re:Time to get out of here by mandalayx · · Score: 1

      which would you pick to study abroad?

      I only speak English.

    30. Re:Time to get out of here by bhima · · Score: 1
      Go to any place that does not speak English! I did not speak any German when I moved. But I picked it up OK.

      Really pick a place who's culture intrests you or who's school does.

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
  43. Idiot nazi. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ACLU is a collection of various sub-chapters, lawyers, volunteers, and others.

    Are is correct usage.

  44. Likely to commit an act of terrorism? by brxndxn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is ridiculous. They don't have a 'likely to commit a murder' database.. or a 'likely to rape young women' database.. unless those people have already committed crimes. Now, we can be likely to commit a crime yet still be someone that has never commited a crime.

    I'm sick of what the government has done in the spirit of 'fighting terrorism.' Terror is the least of my worries. Ya, 9/11 was horrible.. but it isn't worth giving up our way of life to prevent. I'm more likely to be struck by lighting while being bitten by a shark than to die from an act of terror.

    These 'preventative' databases are stupid. American Citizens should not be subject to a 'likely to commit terror' database without ever having done something wrong. Some of the most patriotic people are also the most criticizing of the US.. Should they be on the database?

    If there are 120,000 people on the list, shouldn't there have been more acts of terrorism in the US?

    IMO, there's bigger problems on which to focus. Why fix the windshield wipers when the brakes aren't working?

    --
    --- We need more Ron Paul!
    1. Re:Likely to commit an act of terrorism? by Hooptie · · Score: 4, Funny
      If there are 120,000 people on the list, shouldn't there have been more acts of terrorism in the US?

      You don't get it. The fact the there are not "more acts of terrorism in the US" is *PROOF* that things like this database, the PATRIOT act etc... are working.

      If you don't believe this, we will be happy to put you name on this list we have here...

      Hooptie

      --
      "Heavens, it appears that my weewee has been stricken with rigor mortis!" -- Stewie Griffin
    2. Re:Likely to commit an act of terrorism? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Murder and rape are crimes against individuals. The government has no business predicting and preventing crimes.

      Terrorism is a national security issue. Protecting national security is the #1 duty of the federal government.

    3. Re:Likely to commit an act of terrorism? by CXI · · Score: 1

      This is ridiculous. They don't have a 'likely to commit a murder' database.. or a 'likely to rape young women' database.. unless those people have already committed crimes.

      Um, yes they do, a Mob family tree is a "likely to commit a murder" list. If you live with a known terrorist, each lunch daily with them at a cafe across from a federal building, take trips to the same cabin in the woods he does, purchase fertilizer at the same farm store he does, and take pilot lessons at the same school don't you think it might make just the littlest bit of sense that you could be a terrorist too? It's hardly ridiculous, it's probably the smartest way to find terrorists. However, the privacy issues make it hard to decide how important it is to track this information.

      Furthermore, the article clearly states that this was just used to point out where further investigation was necessary. People were never arrested on this information alone.

      If there are 120,000 people on the list, shouldn't there have been more acts of terrorism in the US?

      That's moronic and naive. Terrorism doesn't involve a single lone individual commiting a single lone attack. There needs to be funding, safe houses, communications, planning plus multiple people to carry out the acts. Furthermore, the article states nearly all the 9/11 terrorists were on the top of the list, plus further arrests were initially made after more evidence regarding them was found. That means the list worked and prevented the attacks you are looking for.

    4. Re:Likely to commit an act of terrorism? by Cameroon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Funny, they seem far better at terrorising us than at protecting us from it.

    5. Re:Likely to commit an act of terrorism? by p3d0 · · Score: 1

      "The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."

      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
    6. Re:Likely to commit an act of terrorism? by p3d0 · · Score: 1

      You poor deluded sucker. Thomas Jefferson is rolling in his grave.

      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
    7. Re:Likely to commit an act of terrorism? by Azureflare · · Score: 1
      Now, look 'ere sonny, we need to get all those young whippersnappers under 18 and over 12 on that list. They're always terrorizing the neighborhood, zooming around on bikes or those new-fangled mopeds, or even in their big, booming loud cars that hurt my ear drums. They belong on that list, and IN THE CLINK!

      Sincerely,

      Old Senile Granny's Association


      MATRIX: New likely-to-terrorize demographic found. Begin incarceration.

    8. Re:Likely to commit an act of terrorism? by brxndxn · · Score: 1

      I would rather the #1 duty of the Federal Government be to protect individual freedom..

      Without freedom, there's nothing to live for - who cares about national security?

      --
      --- We need more Ron Paul!
    9. Re:Likely to commit an act of terrorism? by dmitriy · · Score: 1

      I would rather Federal Government stay out of individual freedom altogether.

    10. Re:Likely to commit an act of terrorism? by Kohath · · Score: 1
    11. Re:Likely to commit an act of terrorism? by vidarh · · Score: 1
      And what makes it a "national security issue"? That it is a crime that targets a large number of people. And, the government DO have a business "predicting and preventing crimes" - a large amount of police work is exactly for that purpose. That isn't the issue, methods are. Particularly overly broad methods that aren't subject to proper scrutiny.

      Terrorism is a way down the list of crimes and accidents you are likely to be a victim of, so why does the government spend your tax money on it and encroach on your liberties to do so, instead of spending similar amounts to protect you from things that are actually likely to matter?

      The only answer I can come up with is that the current US government WANTS terrorism to be a big issue, because it fits their agenda, and allows them to lead the foreign policy and domestic security policies they want with blatant disregard for whether it is of benefit to most people.

    12. Re:Likely to commit an act of terrorism? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      The 9/11 incident affected the majority of the citizens of the US.

      Some were directly affected when they died in those buildings. Some were indirectly affected when air travel was shut down, or when the stock markets were closed, or by the economic impact, or when their insurance premiums increased, or when their tax money was spent, or when the post office raised the price of stamps to pay for Anthrax prevention, etc, etc.

      That's why it's a national security problem. It's the federal government's #1 duty to protect national security.

      It's not the federal government's duty to keep you from getting mugged outside a gas station. Talk to your local cops about that.

    13. Re:Likely to commit an act of terrorism? by JGski · · Score: 1
      No, it is not proof, ergo:
      1. I've been wearing my tin-foil hat to protect me from space alien abduction for three years
      2. I haven't been abducted by space aliens in the last three years
      3. that must prove by tin-foil hat is working to protect me from space aliens
      Which, of course, is excrement for logical. Just because I posit a cause is not proof of cause-and-effect. Just because I have no measureable effect is not proof of cause-and-effect.

      The effectiveness of Patriot I&II is utterly unproven - and there are plenty of documented negative and unintended (or were they?) side effects.

    14. Re:Likely to commit an act of terrorism? by gruntvald · · Score: 1
      "Ya 9/11 was horrible ... but


      That's all I need to know about your post right there.

    15. Re:Likely to commit an act of terrorism? by hellfire · · Score: 1

      No, it is not proof

      I agree with you, and well, so does Hooptie.

      Notice his post was modded as funny, and there was that cute little line about adding one's name to a list. It was completely meant to be tongue in cheek.

      Sorry to be captain obvious but someone has to do it.

      --

      "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

    16. Re:Likely to commit an act of terrorism? by HyperCash · · Score: 1

      "I'm more likely to be struck by lighting while being bitten by a shark"

      I hope you're not all that much more likely. Because getting struck by lightning while you're being bitten by a shark REALLY, REALLY sucks.

      Happy Surfing,

      -HC

      --
      So I'm jump'n up and down screaming show me the money.
    17. Re:Likely to commit an act of terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This is ridiculous. They don't have a 'likely to commit a murder' database.. or a 'likely to rape young women' database..
      But we do have a 'likely to buy bananas' database and a 'liked Janet Jackson's titties' database. Gotta think of something to do with all that cheap storage.
    18. Re:Likely to commit an act of terrorism? by mandalayx · · Score: 1
      'likely to rape young women' database


      Actually, you should see what sex offenders go through. Having to register in their neighborhood, etc. To me it sounds like someone figured that once sex offenders are guilty, they are always guilty. I'm not sure this is the best way to rehabilitate someone and bring them back into society...
    19. Re:Likely to commit an act of terrorism? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Lisa, I will buy your rock!

  45. You're simply wrong on a several points... by arashiakari · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't want to live like Israel, fighting militant Muslims round every corner. The problem of Muslim extremists exists and needs to be dealt with, not encouraged by invading innocent countries and waging war on people who have done nothing to deserve it. I want my children to grow up in a world free from military oppression and I want a government that understands that the wars of the future are guerrilla ones which can never be won, even if they are waged for noble purposes (which theirs never are). You just completely contradicted yourself in the same paragraph. You don't want the threat, but you don't want to do anything about it, and you want your children to grow up in a militarized world, and you want your government to default to surrender because it can't allow itself to fight guerrilla tactics because somehow they are impossible to employ in the persuit of victory? After such blatant and simple to unravel contradiction, where you are speaking crosswise to yourself without pausing to take a breath, why should we listen to anything else you have to say? The world is fu*cked up enough as it is. The food chain has been poisoned so badly the average human is full of chemicals normally found in plastics and toxic waste. I'm sick of global warning and environmental damage to the planet and the fact the all this time the greenies were right. I'm sick of America being the biggest wilful contributor to the pollution of the planet. America is not the biggest polluter, intentional or otherwise: China and Russia are, followed by many of their previous holdings in Africa and South America. I'm 24 years old. I don't want to go through the next 50 years of my life living in an international air of worry and uncertainty. Whether you worry or not is your choice. Grow up. We all have to be adults here and face the real world. A world where like it or not, be at peace or not, people are just going to come out of the woodwork and try and kill you. This is NOT a "live and let live" world. You think it is? Talk to Neville Chamberlain. The threat is not dumb Americans you pompous arrogant condescending coward, it's terrorists who want to fecking kill us. You know how we fix this problem? We MUST destroy BOTH their ability and desire to wage war with us, and we don't stop until those have been absolutely achieved. The Japanese were a far more brave and zealous enemy than the fascist militant Islamics are, and we won. Our current enemy is far more dangerous because of their tactics and capability. Wishing for the threat of new attacks to go away will not take them away. Myself and hundreds of millions of other American citizens are not going to let snide "armchair quarterback" academics try and reason-away responsibilities. We're not going to let them establish moral equivilance between the U.S. and it's current aggressors, brutal murderous terrorists. Other than those things, you did have some decent rants about the sillyness of modern living. But TRUST ME! Those silly "cultural behavioral patterns" are not at all limited to the U.S.A.

  46. terrorism quotient by pedicabo · · Score: 0

    If you arrest 120000 people at random in any country you would expect to catch a few terrorists, murderers, thieves, you name it.

  47. ACLU promotes racism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "Has nothing to do with skin color"

    Skin color was a very important part of the racist university policy the ACLU supported.

    "Its about correcting past injustices and promoting diversity"

    That's the problem. An organization supposedly protecting individual rights actually supporting punishing people for things they did not do (past injustices) or for having the wrong skin color that does not contribute to someone's arbitrary "diversity" quota.

    Sorry, individual rights do not vanish because someone of your skin color did a past crime, or because someone has a racist "diversity" requirement and you are the wrong color. The ACLU does many great things, but here they are clearly racist, and actually against due process.

  48. You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by arashiakari · · Score: 1, Informative

    I don't want to live like Israel, fighting militant Muslims round every corner. The problem of Muslim extremists exists and needs to be dealt with, not encouraged by invading innocent countries and waging war on people who have done nothing to deserve it. I want my children to grow up in a world free from military oppression and I want a government that understands that the wars of the future are guerrilla ones which can never be won, even if they are waged for noble purposes (which theirs never are).

    You just completely contradicted yourself in the same paragraph. You don't want the threat, but you don't want to do anything about it, and you want your children to grow up in a militarized world, and you want your government to default to surrender because it can't allow itself to fight guerrilla tactics because somehow they are impossible to employ in the persuit of victory? After such blatant and simple to unravel contradiction, where you are speaking crosswise to yourself without pausing to take a breath, why should we listen to anything else you have to say?

    The world is fu*cked up enough as it is. The food chain has been poisoned so badly the average human is full of chemicals normally found in plastics and toxic waste. I'm sick of global warning and environmental damage to the planet and the fact the all this time the greenies were right. I'm sick of America being the biggest wilful contributor to the pollution of the planet.

    America is not the biggest polluter, intentional or otherwise: China and Russia are, followed by many of their previous holdings in Africa and South America. People just go after America though. It's uncanny.

    I'm 24 years old. I don't want to go through the next 50 years of my life living in an international air of worry and uncertainty.

    Whether you worry or not is your choice. Grow up. We all have to be adults here and face the real world. A world where like it or not, be at peace or not, people are just going to come out of the woodwork and try and kill you. This is NOT a "live and let live" world. You think it is? Talk to Neville Chamberlain.

    The threat is not dumb Americans you pompous arrogant condescending coward, it's terrorists who want to fecking kill us. You know how we fix this problem? We MUST destroy BOTH their ability and desire to wage war with us, and we don't stop until those have been absolutely achieved. The Japanese were a far more brave and zealous enemy than the fascist militant Islamics are, and we won. Our current enemy is far more dangerous because of their tactics and capability. Wishing for the threat of new attacks to go away will not take them away. Myself and hundreds of millions of other American citizens are not going to let snide "armchair quarterback" academics try and reason-away responsibilities. We're not going to let them establish moral equivilance between the U.S. and it's current aggressors, brutal murderous terrorists.

    Other than those things, you did have some decent rants about the sillyness of modern living. But TRUST ME! Those silly "cultural behavioral patterns" are not at all limited to the U.S.A.

    1. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's ok, you'll be dead soon.
      bye :)

    2. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      of course they aren't limited to the USA. This idiot isn't from the USA. As evidence of his spelling of "programmes" and "colour".

      He's a stupid troll.

    3. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The world is fu*cked up enough as it is. The food chain has been poisoned so badly the average human is full of chemicals normally found in plastics and toxic waste. I'm sick of global warning and environmental damage to the planet and the fact the all this time the greenies were right. I'm sick of America being the biggest wilful contributor to the pollution of the planet.

      America is not the biggest polluter, intentional or otherwise: China and Russia are, followed by many of their previous holdings in Africa and South America. People just go after America though. It's uncanny.

      Ummm...most of the crap in China and Russia is either due to importing polluting American technology and methods, or just simply importing American garbage, toxic waste, etc. because the US doesn't want it. I'd estimate that the USA IS the largest polluter/energy waster both directly and indirectly...but of course, they like to play/lie with stats that "prove" otherwise.

    4. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by Aceticon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > I don't want to live like Israel, fighting militant Muslims round every corner.
      >The problem of Muslim extremists exists and needs to be dealt with, not encouraged by invading innocent countries and waging war on people
      >who have done nothing to deserve it. I want my children to grow up in a world free from military
      >oppression and I want a government that understands that the wars of the future are
      >guerrilla ones which can never be won, even if they are waged for noble purposes (which theirs
      >never are).

      You just completely contradicted yourself in the same paragraph. You don't want the threat, but you don't want to do anything about it, and you want your children to grow up in a militarized world, and you want your government to default to surrender because it can't allow itself to fight guerrilla tactics because somehow they are impossible to employ in the persuit of victory? After such blatant and simple to unravel contradiction, where you are speaking crosswise to yourself without pausing to take a breath, why should we listen to anything else you have to say?


      I believe his logic can best be explained as:
      a)"When you poked the wasp nest you got stung"
      b)"Poking the bee nest just to get back at the wasps will only make things worse"

    5. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by edheler · · Score: 1, Insightful
      The threat is not dumb Americans you pompous arrogant condescending coward, it's terrorists who want to fecking kill us. You know how we fix this problem? We MUST destroy BOTH their ability and desire to wage war with us, and we don't stop until those have been absolutely achieved.

      We need to find a way to get the moderate muslim majority off of their asses and get them to do the work of cleaning up what is really their problem not ours. Personally, I don't give a f**k if the moderate muslims hate us, so, I would pursure a disproportional response strategy. If you start killing tens of thousands of moderates to get a few bad guys the moderates might get the idea that it is a far, far better thing for them to take care of the bad guys than waiting for us to do it.

    6. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe the invasion of Iraq has already killed tens of thousands of innocents to get at a few bad guys. Certainly seems to be working out for you.

    7. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You know how we fix this problem? We MUST destroy BOTH their ability and desire to wage war with us, and we don't stop until those have been absolutely achieved.


      OK, so you want to destroy both their abilities and desire?

      How about we stop selling weapons to them and then invading their country. Simple. Both the desire AND the ability gone. Or instead why don't we find the reason for their agression and fix that instead?

      The Japanese were a far more brave and zealous enemy than the fascist militant Islamics are, and we won. Our current enemy is far more dangerous because of their tactics and capability.


      Depends on how you define brave. Both have suicide 'fighters'. Both lanuch suprise attacks with maximum damage. You could argue that the VC (I know its been done) were\are braver than "the fascist militant Islamics are" and the USA didn't win there.


      Wishing for the threat of new attacks to go away will not take them away. Myself and hundreds of millions of other American citizens are not going to let snide "armchair quarterback" academics try and reason-away responsibilities.


      Cool, so you're signing up then? Or are you also a "armchair quarterback"?


      We're not going to let them establish moral equivilance between the U.S. and it's current aggressors, brutal murderous terrorists.


      You need to look at WHY they became "brutal murderous terrorists", is their anything that any of the coalition countries have done perhaps? Or did they just wake up one day and decide to start a war with most of the world?

      Would you do the same if it was the good ol' US of A? Bet you would, especially if you were educated that way. Being as we are all spouting what were sick of I'm really sick of blinded USA folks offering patriotism as a way of justifying what others would call terrorism but that's just me.
    8. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by subStance · · Score: 0

      The Japanese were a far more brave and zealous enemy than the fascist militant Islamics are, and we won.

      This is an example of the kind of thinking that inspired the invasion of Iraq in the first place - that this would be a war comparable to other wars. It's the mistake Bush Snr made, and now it's happened again with the idiot son.

      And the interesting part - that America almost didn't "win" against the Japanese. The reason America "won" was not because they fought better - it's because the Japanese decided not to keep going after Pearl Harbour.

      --
      Servlet v2.4 container in a single 161KB jar file ? Try Winstone
    9. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by intnsred · · Score: 1
      Grow up. We all have to be adults here and face the real world. A world where like it or not, be at peace or not, people are just going to come out of the woodwork and try and kill you.

      Perhaps if we stopped invading countries to steal their resources, and if we stopped forcing countries into economic squalor, stopped basing troops in their countries against the popular will of the people that live there, and stopped supporting brutal dictatorships, maybe, just maybe, they would not want to kill us.

      What do you say we give that one a try?

      Or, considering the US invaded the most countries and had by far the most military interventions during the 20th century, maybe our goal is to reset our record during the 21st century? After all, we're already well on our way...

    10. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by dddno · · Score: 1

      America is not the biggest polluter, intentional or otherwise: China and Russia are, followed by many of their previous holdings in Africa and South America. People just go after America though. It's uncanny. Is that per capita or absolute?

    11. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The crux of the debate I think is how best to handle terrorism. If you are for a military solution then I can see only two options:

      1) Wipe all terrorists off the face of the earth.
      Is this really realistic? You can kill every single terrorist that lives now, but more are being born (by non-terrorist moderates) every day.

      2) Strong arm potential/future terrorists with a display of "shock and awe". This is an often stated reason (among WMD, spread of democracy, etc. etc.) for invading Iraq.

      I think this is touching in its naivete. All you have to do is think if the situations were reversed what would you do? If someone killed your brother, would you be docile and take it? We (the US) as a people rebelled against another country because we didnt like TAXES for gossake, what would we do if another country started killing some of our population?

      I personally think terrorism can never be eradicated. We live in a world where individuals have a disporportionate power to wreck havoc. The only thing to do is police everyone, NOT attack them, but be vigilant. Now there is no way to police every single person in the world, so we must rely on our allies, and do everything we can to support them in their policing. This might not lead to flag-waving moments, but ultimately this is the only way I believe to contain terrorism. This requires that we have smarts and finesse, by coaxing/bribing/cajoling other countries to do our dirty work-performing raids, intelligence, surveilance. It requires us not to snub our noses at the UN or any countyr who doesnt have a cowboy mentality that our administration seems to have.

      Strutting around with guns cocked may be psychologically satisfying, but ultimately it just brings out every single person who wants to challenge us, and that line will never end.

    12. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by Hittite+Creosote · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You just completely contradicted yourself in the same paragraph

      It didn't read that way to me. Put it this way, if you get stung by a wasp, do you grab a stick and hit the nearest bee's nest?

      The complaint is not that we should sit back and do nothing, but that we should only attack after first thinking about things. Properly. Otherwise, things go wrong, no matter how powerful you are.

    13. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by sumdumass · · Score: 0

      Unfortunatly killing inocent moderate muslims would probably only result in them becomming extreamist.

      Isreal has the right idea, how many time have you seen values gone wrong when it is past form genoration to genoration. Kind of like the interpretation of the law or constitution. IT means a somethign different more or less 10 genorations down the line. If we take out the leadership, after several generations we will start being able to (define our terms more redily) shape or reorganize thier belief system.

      so instead of taking out inocents i think we shoudl just take out leaders and force a couple of new generationd to the top. It doesn't matter that they hate us, what matter is how they are willing to show it.

    14. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by kraut · · Score: 1

      > Unfortunatly killing inocent moderate muslims would probably only result in them becomming extreamist.
      Actually, killing inncocent moderate muslims redults in them being dead.

      Oh, and extremist is spelled extremist. I wonder if the next terrorists will be fanatical spellers?

      --
      no taxation without representation!
    15. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by kraut · · Score: 1

      Bugger. Yes, I should have used the preview button.

      --
      no taxation without representation!
    16. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you go fight the war yourself, or are you just another hyprocritical fuckwit?

    17. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by Chainsaw+Messiah · · Score: 1
      I believe his logic can best be explained as:
      a)"When you poked the wasp nest you got stung"
      b)"Poking the bee nest just to get back at the wasps will only make things worse"

      Sure ... if you're an idiot. Most sensible people would
      b) "Spray the fuckers with Raid(tm)"

    18. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Whether you worry or not is your choice. Grow up. We all have to be adults here and face the real world. A world where like it or not, be at peace or not, people are just going to come out of the woodwork and try and kill you.

      Oh please. Do some risk assessment. You're more likely to die in a car accident than from people "coming out of the woodwork". You're more likely to die from some non-terrorist with a gun who wants your wallet.

    19. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by MrHyd3 · · Score: 0

      Man, that's the dumbest comment I almost ever heard (leaving room for more from you). They lost because we buried their Navy, they lost because we cut their supply lines, they lost because we Nuked their homeland and couldn't sustain anymore embarrasing losses. Don't make me get technical because I will bury you with facts so deep that it will take you a year to climb out.

      --
      -------- Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most. --Ozzy
    20. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      i think this illistrates my point about future generation not having the same resolve as previous. even though they try, the point will get lost in translation eventually.

      Oh and it is ok:) that happens to the best of us.

    21. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by Canadian_Daemon · · Score: 0

      it's because the Japanese decided not to keep going after Pearl Harbour. Wasn't Pearl Harbour Dec 7, 1941? Didn't Japan surrender September 1945. I thought that the Japanese decided not to keep going after Hiroshima and Nagasaki { Don't know if I spelt them correcly}

      --
      This sig is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.
    22. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by QaDN · · Score: 1
      We need to find a way to get the moderate muslim majority off of their asses and get them to do the work of cleaning up what is really their problem not ours. Personally, I don't give a f**k if the moderate muslims hate us, so, I would pursure a disproportional response strategy. If you start killing tens of thousands of moderates to get a few bad guys the moderates might get the idea that it is a far, far better thing for them to take care of the bad guys than waiting for us to do it.
      Sure killing innocent moderates will make them clean up the extremists .... This is the sort of thing that creates extremists (amongst other reasons obviously). This will then result into more terrorists, something none of us wants. regards, Qadn
    23. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1
      Or instead why don't we find the reason for their agression and fix that instead?

      From what I've seen, that reason seems to be something along the lines of "there are non-muslims in the world", or "the world is not fully compliant with islamic law".

      Sorry, but I would rather fight and die for my freedoms than live in the kind of world that those guys envision.

      You need to look at WHY they became "brutal murderous terrorists", is their anything that any of the coalition countries have done perhaps? Or did they just wake up one day and decide to start a war with most of the world?

      Well, no, it's just (to many muslims) a continuation of the struggle that Muhammad started. Things they are taught from the Koran, like "Allah sent Mohammed with the true religion so that it should rule over all the religions." are interpreted as an absolute duty, to be fulfilled at all costs. The "infidels" must be destroyed, and Islam must rule.

      Sure, there are plenty of sects that do not preach violence. But the one's that do won't be appeased by any "live and let live" philosophy.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    24. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by wwest4 · · Score: 1

      > If you start killing tens of thousands of moderates to get a few bad guys the
      > moderates might get the idea that it is a far, far better thing for them to
      > take care of the bad guys than waiting for us to do it.

      So let me get this straight - if a cop fails to keep murderers under control, then killing the cops will encourage them to do their job better?

      That is the single most repugnant idea I've ever seen modded up here. Tubgirl trolls have nothing on you.

    25. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by comedian23 · · Score: 1

      >We need to find a way to get the moderate muslim majority off of their asses and get them to do the work of cleaning up what is really their problem not ours.

      Agree completely. Unfortunately as the "big kid on the block" a lot of times cleaning up the worlds messes usually falls on the U.S. It should technically be the U.N. but we all know what a crock of shit that whole thing is.

      The moderate Arabs, without our help, don't have the military muscle to take back their lives from the entrenched oppressive regimes. Actually the way we are going about it is probably better. If an all out war broke out over the history of the middle east, moderates vs. radicals, the death toll could be staggering. Hundreds of thousands probably. With a few quick, decisive victories we could be saving a lot of lives.

    26. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by Cranx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You just completely contradicted yourself in the same paragraph

      True. Youthful exuberance in the parent poster. It's true you can't live in a safe world by capitulating to every terrorist organization, but at the same time, spending billions of dollars to invade countries that have zero involvement with terrorism is also a little quixotic. But also, just being the guy who swings the big bat around on a whim, even when directed at the right organizations, can often make you more of a target. It's far better to use diplomacy whenever possible. Bush doesn't believe in diplomacy, he always takes the low road and always creates more trouble than he settles.

      America is not the biggest polluter, intentional or otherwise

      Also true. We're SUPPOSED to be the "good guys" though. America, despite all the hatred you hear, is loved by the world and we're looked up to virtually everywhere. But it's like when you catch your father having sex with your sister. You still think he's a god deep down inside, but now you hate him and think he's off his fargin rocker and needs to be netted, tagged and neutered. You can't hate someone the way you hate someone that you love deeply who has betrayed you, disillusioned you and made you feel alone, without any real guidance for your future.

      The threat is not dumb Americans you pompous arrogant condescending coward

      We are, though. Not directly. The terrorists started us on this current steamroll of death and dismemberment, to be sure. But our reaction is acidic. We made things worse. There will always be terrorists, so we need to learn to react properly and engage them properly. 3000 dead from 9/11 is no reason to kill Iraqis. They had nothing to do with the attack. It's this fact, that we launch into countries who have nothing to do with anything, that makes the whole world see us as overbearing, sick and twisted. We are, too. We have no common sense about things anymore. We just do what we want and justify it as we go along. "It's for safety! It's for God! It's for the children!"

      I see your opinion as the flip side of the opinion of the top poster. You both are hitting the mark, but you aren't dead-on and it's that wild swing left and right that is the real trouble these days. People need to realize there are no more good guys. There are only people doing the right thing or the wrong thing, and America is just as capable of doing the wrong thing as any terrorist is. Iraq is proof of that. Bush is proof that we are NOT blessed by God to be the world's leader for all that is good in the world. We are capable of evil, just like everyone else.

      My point is, few people are absolutely correct these days about either side of the issue. We've done good, we've done bad. We're (the U.S.) not the world's knight in shining armor anymore.

    27. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by comedian23 · · Score: 1

      I was trying to find a way to express my disappointment and frustration with the article you responded to, but you summed it up so well, anything I could say would pale by comparison. Bravo!!

      BTW, my favorite quote was, "The threat is not dumb Americans you pompous arrogant condescending coward, it's terrorists who want to fecking kill us."

    28. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      Let me tell you what I do when stung by a wasp. I use gasoline and fire and destroy ALL the wasp, bee, etc nests I can find. Then I set out poison so that any I missed will be killed as well.

      Most Americans that have ever fought in an actual battle (or a tough neighborhood) know that pacification does not work unless BOTH sides want peace. Destruction works no matter what the other side wants.

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    29. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you start killing tens of thousands of moderates to get a few bad guys the moderates might get the idea that it is a far, far better thing for them to take care of the bad guys than waiting for us to do it.

      Right, lets nuke them. The surviving moderates will than be motivated enough to clean up the remaining extremists. Duh.

    30. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > If someone killed your brother, would you be docile and take it?

      If that was because my brother killed 20 of their people, fucking right I would.

    31. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by Desval · · Score: 1

      You mean they pretty much act and feel like every other major religious group in the world ;)

      Most religious texts say the same thing. 'Smite the infidels, punish the heathens, burn the witches!'

      The west has been screwing with Islam since its conception. Atrocities like the crusades are relatively recent, and besides, cultures have long memories. Maybe they're still pissed.

      Granted, they have been screwing right back at us.

      The thing to remember is there are no good guys and there are no bad guys.

      --
      7061756c4073697267616c616861642e6f7267 687474703a2f2f7777772e73697267616c616861642e6f7267 2f7061756c
    32. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by comedian23 · · Score: 1

      Someone with different views than my own who explains their position logically! Good post. I would mod you up, if I had points and hadn't already posted to this thread.

      The few points I disagree with are these:
      > It requires us not to snub our noses at the UN or any countyr who doesnt have a cowboy mentality that our administration seems to have.

      We did go to the U.N. repeatedly and asked them many times for action against Iraq. Unfortunately Germany, France, and Russia were in the midst of massive illegal deals with Iraq at the time and would not approve action.

      >The only thing to do is police everyone, NOT attack them, but be vigilant.

      I agree that this should be the goal. However the fact that some of the terrorists are state sponsored changes things. It essentially becomes a war at that point. Iran and Iraq both supported terrorism against Israel(as well as S.A., Syria, etc.). The question is why. I believe that they want to maintain power over the moderate and liberal muslims, by destroying democracy and western influence in their region. In other words, the couldn't care less about Palestine and the Palestinians, they are simply using that as a way to hide their real agenda. The whole thing is a big smoke and mirrors trick Iran, et. al. have us playing, keeping us occupied with Palestine/Israel, all the while continuing to oppress their people. It's no coincidence that every time a peace treaty is close a suicide bomber kills someone in Israel, which make Isreal attack Palestine, then the whole treaty is thrown away.

      So I guess the real question that I ask myself is this: If there is a country(or region) run by a small group of radicals, which is oppressing(usually brutally) the majority of people who just want to live their lives in peace, is it our place to step in and help them free themselves? Some people say no, and that it isn't our place and our responsibility, or that we are forcing our views on people. I disagree. IMHO, if a crime is being committed and I am able to stop it and I don't, then I am as guilty of that crime as the person who committed it. So I figure it is American's moral responsibility to help out oppressed people.

      Anyway, just my $.02. As I said, good post. It's nice to have some actual discussion on here rather than just rants and empty rhetoric(from both sides).

    33. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by Jackmon · · Score: 1
      Whether you worry or not is your choice. Grow up. We all have to be adults here and face the real world. A world where like it or not, be at peace or not, people are just going to come out of the woodwork and try and kill you. This is NOT a "live and let live" world. You think it is? Talk to Neville Chamberlain.


      No, it's not a live and let live world. Neither we nor the terrorists are allowing it to be. The Iraqi civilian whose house has been carpet bombed was trying to live and let live, but it doesn't work very well when we kill him. Incidently, you might also talk to Mahatma Ghandi.


      The threat is not dumb Americans you pompous arrogant condescending coward, it's terrorists who want to fecking kill us. You know how we fix this problem? We MUST destroy BOTH their ability and desire to wage war with us, and we don't stop until those have been absolutely achieved. The Japanese were a far more brave and zealous enemy than the fascist militant Islamics are, and we won.


      Hitler wanted to destroy all the terrorist threats to the Third Reich too. His justification for invading Poland was to root out the Polish threat. Your thinking seems very much in-line with his. Also, do you actually know what 'fascist' means?

      Our current enemy is far more dangerous because of their tactics and capability. Wishing for the threat of new attacks to go away will not take them away. Myself and hundreds of millions of other American citizens are not going to let snide "armchair quarterback" academics try and reason-away responsibilities.


      Snide "armchair quarterback" academics are the ones running the show in the Bush administration.


      We're not going to let them establish moral equivilance between the U.S. and it's current aggressors, brutal murderous terrorists.


      Killing is killing. Terrorists killing innocent Americans is wrong. Americans killing innocent Iraqis is wrong. There's no justification for it on either side.
    34. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      If that was because my brother killed 20 of their people, fucking right I would.

      That's a simplistic answer that ignores the parent posts point.

      Let it put it for you like this: If your country is rebelling against an outside authority because of something that most people don't approve of (in Iraq it's a foreign occupation -- in colonial United States it was taxes and no representation) and your brother (and his family) is killed by that outside authority is this going to make you more or less likely to take up arms against that authority?

      Use your damn head and don't come out with one-line answers. Contrary to what George W. Bush thinks the World is not black and white.

      (P.S.: This is Slashdot post number 1,000 for me)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    35. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      From what I've seen, that reason seems to be something along the lines of "there are non-muslims in the world", or "the world is not fully compliant with islamic law".

      Is that something new? People have held that views over many centuries. I mean, I can find hindus saying that, buddists saying that, etc.

      In any case, if all these guys hated everyone that doesn't follow their ideology, how come I haven't seen them attack China? Or Brazil? Or Sweden? etc? The reason USA is targetted is that USA actually practices imperialism. Is it a coincidence that there are US troops all over the middle east whereas practically no other country has troops there? Or how about the fact that USA backs all these tyrants in the Middle Eastern countries whereas practically the rest of the world (including Europe) doesn't support these guys?

      Sorry, but I would rather fight and die for my freedoms than live in the kind of world that those guys envision.

      Maybe if that were true then it might mean something... but as long as USA is supporting the tyrants in the Middle East, and as long as USA is invading countries for bogus reasons, you are not protecting anyone's freedom... In the end, you'll just end up a slave to the state, which might happen sooner than later with the conscription I expect to be initiated by USA within a few years...

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    36. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      We did go to the U.N. repeatedly and asked them many times for action against Iraq.

      USA wanted a war with Iraq--nothing more, nothing less! No one else did. Why would the UN go with a pre-emptive war without any proof of anything? Of course the fact that there wasn't any proof of WMD essentially meant that UN wouldn't have given approval anyway (unless US bribes the countries--which it tried but failed).

      Stop bringing up the UN excuse. UN, as ineffective as it is, does not usually authorize pre-emptive wars.

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    37. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by protohiro1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I love this analogy. My version:

      Isreali Counter-terrorism strategy: If you get stung by a bee, give their nest a couple of hard whacks. This will teach them not to sting you.

      American Strategy: If you get stung by a bee go give a wasp's nest a couple of hard whacks. This will demonstrate to the bees that you mean business and they will stop stinging you.

      --
      Sig removed because it was obnoxious
    38. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > the World is not black and white.

      Sure it is. An assertion is either true or untrue. The problem is that (almost?) noone has enough information to see the world completely and decide which it is.

      But, of course, that doesn't address the issue at hand. The parent post made an extremely broad statement, and I made an extremely broad reply. He said "what would you do," without giving any details. To think that anyone could come up with a life/death answer without any facts is ludicrous. In that sense, I answered it perfectly. If the American Military came here & shot my brother for no reason, sure I'd be pissed off & might kill a thousand of them, if possible.

      The poster, however, was trying to appeal to your sense of distress by making it personal. Puttinng yourself in their shoes. You can't put yourself in their shoes, you haven't lived their life, you cannot know all that they have gone through. And he cannot put himself in his brother's shoes. His brother may have been a spy for Canada, ready to give the go-ahead for an invasion into Greenland, but the Americans found out & cut it short. You say he would know his brother is a spy?

      Most spies don't even tell their spouses that they are spies, you think he's gonna tell his brother (unless they are already working togethr)?

      As much as you want to believe it, the American Military doesn't go around shooting civilians willy-nilly. If they shot your brother, they had a reason for it. Now, it may not be a good reason, but they had a reason nonetheless.

      I didn't realize /. kept track of total posts. This is 3402 -- I had no idea I'd wasted that much time here. Thanks, now I'll have to leave for a few days :)

    39. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > As much as you want to believe it

      Err, just so it doesn't look like I'm calling you anything you aren't, I want to correct that to say "As much as you may want to believe it." I don't claim to know what you believe.

    40. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We did go to the U.N. repeatedly and asked them many times for action against Iraq

      The reason you gave was that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and were building new. Most countries knew that wasn't probable, and said no.

      When you invade a country, you need a damn good reason. If you lie, and other countries know it, how can you blame them for saying no?

      US didn't ask for a war because Saddam was just a "had guy", they said they needed to remove him fast because of the biological/chemical weapons Iraq was manufacturing. It was on that basis that the UN rejected the US "proof".

    41. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by Specter · · Score: 1

      > what would we do if another country started killing some of our population?

      I'd say we get together an army and go invade them...oh wait we already did that.

    42. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by Hentai · · Score: 1

      I don't know if it was a troll - it sounded to me like a precise description of the US's current "you're either with us or with the terrorists" strategy.

      --
      -Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
    43. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We MUST destroy BOTH their ability and desire to wage war with us, and we don't stop until those have been absolutely achieved. The Japanese were a far more brave and zealous enemy than the fascist militant Islamics are, and we won.

      blah blah blah

      you have enough things to think about, leave the rest of the world and nobody will do you anything. mi logic is this: stop seeking problems outside your beautyful country and look after your interests IN YOUR COUNTRY and everything will be ok. stop sniffing around the world and messing up everything. if you play with fire it's normal to get burnt. anyone knows switzerland by the way? an example of neutrality. thats the best you can do. if you destroy an entrie country (iraq) it's normal somone will fight back. with places like guantanamo it's normal everybody gets angry with you. if you play with the people it's normal they will we against you.

      only one thing.. LEAVE THE REST OF THE WORLD and look after your problems and everything will be fine. you are seeking for problems like we did in spain with the support of iraq's war. it not out businnes. we don't need to steal anything (oil) and went to an ilegal war where americans can do what they feel like and iraquis are abused. and you want a "thank you" from them? forget it. people have been killed. i wonder if any of the abusing militars are going to be sent to a electrical chair like other murderers or if they "only have done what was correct in this situation". if you mess around the world you wont find anything good.

      another point: a lot of people have been killed some days ago, they were celebrating a marry. will anyone pay for this murdering? and it's not the first time. i hope the person who killed them get's gased. it's the same as any other murdering, isn't it? the last thing: you get what you deserve

    44. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by comedian23 · · Score: 1

      You at least explained yourself better than the previous poster. Thanks for that.

      I understand your point completely, however I think you take what politicians say at face value too much. In politics especially you need to read between the lines, then read between those lines to get at anything resembling the complete reason for something. We have to be polite to our allies, but we also can't let them make billions in illegal deals without doing anything. In other words, all of the "selling points" to the war were just surface reasons(good reasons but not the whole picture). And just saying, "oh, well if it wasn't for WMD then it must have been for oil" isn't much better than buying the surface reasons. In fact it's worse, because you understand there is more than one layer of meaning to something, and then just assuming there is only two layers.

      Politicians do this stuff with their eyes closed, thinking about how best to fake people out, or how best to make it look to people that they were faked out by the opposing party.

      As a side note, they clearly did still have WMD, since we just found Sarin in small quantities. It may be old and somewhat less lethal than original, but I still wouldn't want to have it anywhere near a large city.

    45. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by comedian23 · · Score: 1

      > pre-emptive war without any proof of anything

      It wasn't pre-emptive. They attacked U.S. airplanes. No more justification is needed. The broke the cease-fire agreement.

      >USA wanted a war with Iraq--nothing more, nothing less! No one else did

      Of course not, they were getting rich off of illegal oil-for-weapons scams.

    46. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to think that there is only a choice of a head-in-the-sand or militaristic approach, which is kind of a limiting paradigm. Any look at the motivations of terrorist organizations will show that they were once hopeful of a diplomatic solution that was subsequently denied them (properly or not, the perception of aggrievance is in the eye of the aggrieved). There have been many significant slaps in the face for those who have the luck (or lack of)of being insignificant to American economic interests. It's actually curious that more entities don't revert to terrorist actions.

    47. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was spot-on :) Thanks for the laugh!

    48. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by subStance · · Score: 1

      OK. Sorry - let me rephrase that. I probably overstated it, due to reaction to the previous poster.

      The point I was trying to make was just that the Pearl Harbour attack was such a close call for the US (ie they were stretched so thinly at that point in time) that if the Japanese had known how much damage they really did and kept going, the result might have turned out quite differently. It was more of a what if, than anything else.

      And I know that you probably have facts that say otherwise, but it's fair to note that in every war the "facts" favour the winner after the event, because the winner gets control over the story of what happened. You should hear the Japanese version of what happened during the war. It's quite different to the version I was taught in school - especially what happened afterward.

      And please lose the American bravado (especially the "we" bit - were you there ?). If you haven't worked out that winning a war is cause for relief rather than pride, then you probably know a lot, but understand little.

      --
      Servlet v2.4 container in a single 161KB jar file ? Try Winstone
    49. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by spun · · Score: 1

      The absolute truth of most statements can't be determined. Either a statement is a simple fact, such as 'the sky is blue' or it is opinion, hypothesis, theory or conjecture. Theories can't ever be proven true, they can only be proven false. Godel's incompleteness theorem shows us that any sufficiently complex system will necessarily have statements which are true but can't be proven so using the system.

      If you have any sort of empathy, you can try to put yourself in another's shoes. Of course you haven't lived their life, you don't know, but is that really an excuse not to try? Sounds cold hearted to me.

      As much as you want to believe it, the American Military not only shoots civilians willy-nilly, they shoot themselves and our allies as well. An accident is not a reason, it's the opposite of a reason. For that matter, "no good reason" is not a reason, either, and trying to state that it is directly contradicts your statement that things are always black and white.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    50. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      I don't think think a single plane was even shot down. So you think that is a good enough justification to start a war? What's the next country you are going to invade? North Korea? They have been shooting at you (or your allies) for decades...

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    51. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by comedian23 · · Score: 1

      Ahhh, so you do admit that they did break an agreement. So legally we had the justification. You aren't denying that then.

      So your point is that in your opinion the amount that they broke a treaty wasn't enough to justify war. There is a big, big difference between "it's a pre-emptive war"(meaning we attacked without any provokation, which is technically forbidden) and what you are saying now.

      If you want to argue that it wasn't worth it, fine. That is debatable and a somewhat reasonable stance. What bothers me it when people call it a "pre-emptive strike", and an illegal war, when it clearly was neither.

      >What's the next country you are going to invade? North Korea?

      Clearly we can't since they are backed by China, although the world would be a much better place without Kim Jung Il(or however you spell it). Plus there is a difference between shooting at us from your own borders and airspace( or close to it ) which we encroach on occasionally, and breaking a treaty which you signed with an occupying power in exchange for being about to keep power in your country. Saddam knew what the conseqences were and he kept firing at us.

    52. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by cfuse · · Score: 1
      America, despite all the hatred you hear, is loved by the world and we're looked up to virtually everywhere.

      Really, by whom?

      I hear less vitriol regarding China (who run over their own populace with tanks no less) than I do about America.

      Do you think the Romans worried about being 'loved'? or the British? The hallmark of the American empire is that everyone must 'love' you. You always have to be the 'good guys', but you aren't the 'good guys'. Actions speak louder than words, look at the things you do. Some of things done by America are evil, pure and simple.

      You aren't loved by anyone, no one loves a bully. You are hated. Either accept that or change your ways.

    53. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by Cranx · · Score: 1

      There isn't a single country whose citizens don't still come here and settle in droves, when they can get a tab on immigration.

      German, Russian, Iranian, Mexican...you name it. America still takes in more immigrants than any other country in the world.

      Because we're hated of course.

      Dumbass.

    54. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by cfuse · · Score: 1
      There isn't a single country whose citizens don't still come here and settle in droves, when they can get a tab on immigration.

      'Droves' would be about 12 million? That was the best figure I could find for American inbound immigration. It would be fascinating to see the outbound migration figures.

      12 million is not representative of the whole world.

      Additionally, it's not a binary argument, there are degrees of opinion. However the parent argues that by and large America is loved. I do not concur with this viewpoint, I believe the opposite.

      Dumbass.

      Thankyou for your feedback. I think that you need to learn how to construct and analyse an argument a little more fully.

    55. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by Cranx · · Score: 1

      You're right. Too many words. Here's a condensed version for you:

      Dumbass.

    56. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > the American Military not only shoots civilians willy-nilly, they shoot themselves and our allies as well.

      You must not understand what "willy-nilly" or my usage of it means or something, because they certainly do NOT just walk around towns shooting random people (that's what the phrase means) walking to work. If they shoot someone, it may be because they were running towards them, or felt "threatened" in some equally or less mundane way. (That would also mean that they routinely (ie, several times a day) shoot their fellow soldiers, which also does not happen) It may not be a valid threat coming from the eyes of an onlooker, but you have to remember that probably at least half of the soldiers there are real people who are not trying to kill everyone.

      I would hope it's closer to 100%, but I realize that the people who choose military service tend to be more aggressive and many have ego "issues," to say the least.

      Basically, you may not think there's a good reason for any deaths, but (ignoring that there's no good reason for war) you are not the one there trying to protect the lives of yourself & 5-50 men -- mostly yourself. If you were in a war zone, you have heard real reports of suicide bombers & the like in your area, some guy in baggy clothing is running up to you & doesn't respond to your shouts of "stop." Do you let someone kill you and your friends, or do you shoot an innocent person with no sense to stop when someone points a gun at him?

      You talk about empathy and putting yourself in others' shoes... That's exactly what I am doing, except I am in the shoes of the one with a family a thousand miles away because his government felt like invading another counry. It's cliche, but I support our troops. I DO NOT, however, support the government action that put them there. The military personnel, for the most part, have no choice, and are subject to the whims of an idiot (or 10). These people have to make fast decisions and are real people, not mindless killing machines (as hard as the military tries to kill it, most of these people still have a grain of freewill & morality).

      I think anyone who signs up for military service is a fool, but it is still their choice & I respect that they made such a hard decision.

    57. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      China doesn't back North Korea.

      In any case, everything I say is from a moral/ethical point of view. I never talk about the law because justice does not exist. For instance, USA can do whatever it wants--and it has. Invading Iraq is just as "legal" as invading Panama, or Vietnam. That is to say, "legally" USA does whatever it wants. USA can invade Mexico tomorrow and it will be perfectly "legal"...

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    58. Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) by Hittite+Creosote · · Score: 1
      I use gasoline and fire and destroy ALL the wasp, bee, etc nests I can find. Then I set out poison so that any I missed will be killed as well.

      So, now you have no honey, and your plants aren't being pollenated.

  49. They're in trouble! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The Utah documents included a Seisint presentation saying the scoring system was developed by the company and law enforcement officials by reverse engineering an unnamed "Terrorist Handbook" that reveals how terrorists "penetrate and in live our society."
    Looks like a DMCA violation!
  50. Re:Gotta love the ACLU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Why do people consistently use "ACLU" and "bitch" in the same sentence?

    The ACLU is the only organization that ever has the balls to look at what the Federal Government is doing and make a stand against the overarching, draconian measures that many government officials would *love* to see happen. Guess what? The Federal Government wants to control your actions as much as possible, not only so that you are not a threat against Americans, but more so that you are not a threat against them.

    Protecting us from random acts of terror is about as possible as landing a 747 on the Brooklyn Bridge. We're too open, too easy, too soft. Guess what? I LIKE IT THAT WAY.

    "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither".

    Did you see the latest FBI Suidice Bomber Warnings sent out today? Here's a pointer from the alert: Be on the lookout for people with clenched fists!!

    Living in the United States used to be about living out a free existence with minimal government intervention. In the last few years we have become an Orwellian society where you are stamped with a number and contstantly tracked by the government for 'threat status'. Your primary purpose is to receive advertising, consume products, and pay the government a share of it all.

    I have bad news for some: the War on Terror is not a war anyone could win, and even fighting it for a thousand years would not end the cycle of violence that perpetuates it. I wonder how many young Iraqi children are thinking about their bombed out homes and dead parents and swearing vengeance on the United States someday. Those will be the next generation of people who fly planes into our skyscrapers.

  51. Hypocritical griping? Physician, heal thyself by ianscot · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ACLU stands for "American Civil Liberties Union." You might want to check a dictionary for definitions of those words.

    They understand that they're going to sometimes be defending unpopular positions and people. They defend the rights of white supremacists to march in public, for example. They've also defended Rush Limbaugh against what they view as intrusive attempts by the police to get at his medical records and show that he was "doctor shopping" to feed his addiction. They're making those choices consciously, according to principles which they state conspicuously.

    You, meanwhile, don't seem to be doing anything more than bitch for reasons you haven't thought through.

    First off: when, exactly, has the ACLU complained that not enough is being done to fight terrorism? Hello? Anyone home? Or were you just confusing "liberals" or "Democrats" with the ACLU?

    And more to the point: "Potential terrorists"? When you start using a term like that, perhaps you'd like to devote some thought to it. Because the FBI has, in the past, regarded people like Martin Luther King, Jr. as a "potential terrorist." Because, you know, that let them bug his hotel rooms and accumulate evidence that he wasn't faithful to his wife, which put some nice blackmail material in the hands of J. Edgar Hoover.

    The ACLU tries to protect American citizens from the abusive use of power. You, meanwhile, resent them for 'getting in the way.' What does that say about you, exactly? Maybe you want to think that through rather than sleepwalking through your life vaguely angry at those pesky liberals.

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
    1. Re:Hypocritical griping? Physician, heal thyself by dmitriy · · Score: 0, Troll

      And why precisely should I trust ACLU?

      With their "Action Alerts" like this:

      Patriot Act: Urge Congress to Reject Ashcroft's Veto Threat

      Marriage Amendment: Oppose Writing Intolerance into the Constitution

      Urge Congress to Stop Racial Profiling

      their political views fall squarely on one side of the aisle.

    2. Re:Hypocritical griping? Physician, heal thyself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So, you're for a police state, intolerance, and racism?

      You're right - the ACLU doesn't like you.

      But they'll defend you if someone tries to silence you, or stomp all over *your* civil rights. Just like all the other groups you just mentioned.

    3. Re:Hypocritical griping? Physician, heal thyself by dmitriy · · Score: 1

      Let me translate it into English.

      > So, you're for a police state,

      Means: Don't surrender to Bin Laden.

      > intolerance,

      Means: No, you can not marry your cat.

      > and racism?

      Means: you still can investigate minorities.

    4. Re:Hypocritical griping? Physician, heal thyself by dasmegabyte · · Score: 1

      Uh, yeah. Their political views fall on the "Civil Liberties" side of the aisle.

      If you choose to ally yourself with a political party that believes in legislating away people's civil freedoms, then I could definitely see you upset by them. I am -- or was, registered Dem this year to vote in the primary -- a registered Republican. I've also been a member of the ACLU for several years. See, the ACLU is a non-government agency working within the system to prevent government tyranny. Yes, when a "conservative" (and I use the term loosely...Bush & co are obviously neither state's rights conservatives nor are they fiscal conservatives) government is in power, they'll have to fight conservative rulings, and thus appear liberal. But they're also there to fight liberal rulings under a liberal government. Want to know who's going to protect you from forced multiculturalism or the removal of your right to free and open assembly or religion? Two guesses.

      But remember: the ACLU is there to help their members regardless of political affiliation. They stepped in at my college to prevent the heavily liberal student union from preventing distribution of the "offensive" right wing newspaper in student government kiosks. This same newsletter had written many articles critical of the ACLU's plotical stance.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    5. Re:Hypocritical griping? Physician, heal thyself by dasmegabyte · · Score: 1

      Nobody can surrender to Bin Laden. He's a terrorist, not a general. Living paranoid does more to help him seed terror with the slightest action than it does to help our country find him. Ask yourself: has the Patriot act made you feel more secure to be living in the US?

      If you want to make a law about not marrying your cat, go ahead. It'll probably stick...I doubt even the ACLU would fight for beastiality. But this is hardly the same as making a law trying to establish as abstract a concept as marriage just to appease some homophobes and reactionaries who can't get over the fact that the institution of marriage doesn't match some gothic ideal (and never has; witness the countless marriages of convenience, marriages for money, shotgun marriages, marriages that are essentially bribes, etc). Certianly it's foolish to make an amendment out of this; the first amendment to actively deny Americans a right since the well accepted, highly successful 18th.

      And of course you can investigate minorities. But not for BEING minorities. That's retarded. A guy in the paper today got arrested for selling marijuana. He lived down the street from me, I didn't know him. We're the same colour, came from the came background, have similar educations and similar politics. But I don't even SMOKE marijuana. I don't think the feds should be allowed carte blanche to investigate me just because I have a similar background -- do you? Or is it "okay" because so many white college boys sell marijuana, so that's the only way to catch 'em?

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    6. Re:Hypocritical griping? Physician, heal thyself by dmitriy · · Score: 1

      > He's a terrorist, not a general

      He has the ambition and may become one, given time.

      > beastiality

      Wow. I was talking about marriage of convenience.

  52. Corporations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't forget the Government was developing a DB where corporations could submit names of people (citizens and not) who they thought might be terrorists. Next explaination needed. Was on /. a few weeks back.

    No, Mr. Car Dealer I don't want the pinstriping and the undercoating or the extended warranty. - Well if you don't then we might just have to make a call....

  53. Ah Florida by Mawrin · · Score: 1

    I wonder how many of those 120,000 were also on the list of people removed from voter rolls in 2000.

  54. My TQ? I'm not cleared to know that! by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Funny
    > "What's Your Terrorism Quotient?"

    I'm sorry, I'm not cleared to know that. If I could tell you, I'd have to kill me.

  55. MOD PARENT UP by Niles_Stonne · · Score: 1


    Wish I had mod points.

    --
    Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but copyright will always protect me.
  56. Ripe for abuse... by Snorklefish · · Score: 2, Funny

    Judge: State your business.
    Prosecutor: Your honor, we seek a warrant to search the home of J.Q. Public for terrorist related materials.
    Judge: Grounds?
    Prosecutor: Your honor, Mr. Public scored an 87 on the Matrix.
    Judge: And why did he score an 87?
    Prosecutor: Um..., national security interests prevent me from divulging the complete basis for his score. I can say that he got a speeding ticket in '03 and has a mustache.
    Judge: Well, I'm sure we can assume the underlying data is correct, was duly entered and processed by an impeccably accurate algorithm, yes?
    Prosecutor: (purses lips and nods).
    Judge: This court finding probable cause to issue said warrant, it is hereby done and ordered.

    1. Re:Ripe for abuse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's funny...you assume that someone has to
      get permission to issue the warrant. I remember
      those days.

    2. Re:Ripe for abuse... by freedom_india · · Score: 1

      No, it should be modded up.
      It is way scary what the Prez Dubya has done to psyche of US.
      I remember the clinton days when US was really the beacon of freedom, fun loving, good, friendly country.
      Now in just 4 years it has turned out to be a... different... place.

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    3. Re:Ripe for abuse... by PhxBlue · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That hypothetical conversation will never happen. . . because, if a prosecutor can cite a "national security need," thanks to the USAPATRIOT act, he can get the warrant without ever having to go before a judge.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    4. Re:Ripe for abuse... by double_h · · Score: 1

      That hypothetical conversation will never happen. . . because, if a prosecutor can cite a "national security need," thanks to the USAPATRIOT act, he can get the warrant without ever having to go before a judge.

      No, the prosecutor would have to answer to a judge, only thing is it would be a judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court -- the FISC is a seven-member panel, comprised of judges hand-picked by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and it meets in secret and answers only to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (which also meets in secret).

      In all of the FISC's existence, only a single case has gone up for review, a case which challenged some of the more severe powers granted by the USA PATRIOT Act -- the FISCR's ruling upheld that yes, the FISC did have the right to use the powers it sought.

  57. YHBT, YHL, HAND by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The moderators are either blinded by the their America-hating to realize they got trolled, badly.

    1. Re:YHBT, YHL, HAND by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The moderators are either blinded by the their America-hating to realize they got trolled, badly.
      Or..?
  58. Ben Franklin knew by corporate_ai · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My sig says it all.

    --
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    1. Re:Ben Franklin knew by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1
      Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

      What about those who give up non-essential liberty? Or who purchase a lot of temporary safety? Or who purchase some permanent safety?

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    2. Re:Ben Franklin knew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      My sig says it all.

      Your sig is absent. What does that say?

    3. Re:Ben Franklin knew by dasmegabyte · · Score: 1

      ooh, good comeback.

      Personally, I don't consider the "right to not be in a database" an essential liberty, mostly because I assumed I didn't have it anyway. Shit, you can get my name, address, annual income, and a bunch of details about my house for free on NY State's geo database website. You have to do some work to process it, but the fact is this: if you see me walk my dog and enter my house, you're about three clicks away from finding anything you want about me.

      Ergo, I endeavour to live my life without any secrets. That way, I don't have to act surprised or indignant when they're exposed.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    4. Re:Ben Franklin knew by Warlok · · Score: 1
      mostly because I assumed I didn't have it anyway


      And who's fault is that? The Constitution of the U.S. states the explicit powers of government in Articles I, II, and III. Amendment 10 says that powers we didn't give the government are reserved for the states and the people. Amendment 9 says that rights we listed here aren't the only ones, and just because it's not listed doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


      Get it? You have rights that aren't listed anywhere, and just because some guy 200 years ago couldn't foresee listing "right to not be part of a government database" as a right doesn't mean it's not there. However, the fact that they didn't list "power to gather information on all residents and citizens" means the government cannot do that without amending the Constitution to give them that power.


      These are your rights - this is your government. Government will take all the power you give it, and respect all your rights it feels like. You need to exercise your rights and tkae back that power.

      --
      ...and you run and you run and you can't stop what's been done...
    5. Re:Ben Franklin knew by srcosmo · · Score: 1
      I turned off sigs...

      You insensitive clod!!

      --
      free speach
      Did you mean: free speech
  59. "Are" is incorrect usage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    But still, it is one union.

    Using your standard, Julia Roberts is a collection of various cells, organs, and systems, so "Julia Roberts are winning an award" is correct, according to you.

  60. Neo-McCarthyists or Neo-Inquisitionists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Mr. Smith. Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Muslim faith?"

    The following courtesy of Mel Brooks and his excellent documentary film, "The History of the World: Part I."

    The Inquisition, what a show.
    The Inquisition, here we go.
    We know you're wishin' that we'd go away!
    So all you Muslims and you Jews
    We got big news for all of yous:
    You'd better change your point of views TODAY!
    'Cause the Inquisition's here and it's here to stay!

    Or, the more appropriate section of the song given recent events in Iraq:

    "I was sitting in a temple. I was minding my own business. I was listening to a lovely Hebrew mass.
    Then these Papus persons plungered and they throw me in a dungeon and they shove a red hot poker up my ass.
    Is that considerate? Is that polite?
    And not a tube of Preperation H in sight!"

    "I'm sittin' flickin' chickens and I'm lookin' throught the pickins' and suddenly thes goyim pull down valls.
    I didn't even know them and they grabbed my by the stoghum and started playing ping pong with my balls!
    Ooh, the agony! Ooh, the shame!
    To make my privates public for a game?"

    The Inquisition (what a show)
    The Inquisition (here we go)
    We know you're wishin' that we'd go away.
    But the Inquisition's here and it's here to-
    "Hey Toquemada, walk this way."
    "I just got back from the Auto-de-fe."
    "Auto-de-fe? What's an Auto-de-fe?"
    "It's what you oughtn't to do but you do anyway."
    Will you convert? "No, no, no, no."
    Will you confess? "No, no, no, no."
    Will you revert? "No, no, no, no."
    Will you say yes? "No, no, no, no!"
    Now I asked in a nice way, I said, "Pretty please."
    I bent their ears, now I'll work on their knees!
    "Hey Toquemada, walk this way.
    We got a little game that you might wanna play,
    so pull that handle, try you're luck."
    "Who knows, Toq, you might win a buck!"

    "How we doin', any converts today?"
    "Not a one, nay, nay, nay."
    "We flattened their fingers, we branded their buns!
    Nothing is working! Send in the nuns!"

  61. I CALL PLAGARISM by nebaz · · Score: 5, Informative
    --
    Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
    1. Re:I CALL PLAGARISM by redherring22 · · Score: 1

      well, yeah... that was awfully long for a first post...

    2. Re:I CALL PLAGARISM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      How is it possible for an AC to plagarise??

    3. Re:I CALL PLAGARISM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, but it probably expresses the persons (and probably many other people's ) sentiments.

      Including americans since there seem to be a record number of immigrations out of the country.

  62. This sounds familiar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now we are at war with East Asia!!!! HUZZAH.

    Tomorrow

    Now we are at war with Oceania!!! HUZZAH

    (sorry if I got the name wrong, but I'm sure you all get the reference).

    Thankfully, I still have my musket. We've dealt with institutions like this before.

  63. Sorry, what counts as... by NeoThermic · · Score: 3, Interesting

    >> people who showed a statistical likelihood of being terrorists

    Come again? How does one define an activity that makes you statistically a terrorist?
    Is it by the car they drive?
    Is it by the job they have?
    Is it by their nationality?
    Is it by their age?
    Is it by their house?
    Is it by anything bar the obvious ones, such as actively supporting terrorist activities?

    Probably not. They probably picked at almost random 120,000 people and defined them as a 'likelihood of being terrorists'.

    The question is who gets to make that choice? To me, it seems that the person(s) who make the choice could be as much of a terrorist as your average next door Jones, yet because they make the choices, they call the shots; they will never be featured in that list.

    I would love to know how many of the 120,000 people were -NOT- charged with terrorist activities; i doubt that even 1% of them were arrested with enough evidence to prove it. However, given the current state of the laws, that doesn't matter now, does it?

    Why seed the data? Why not let the information be collected the way it's intended, and then compile a list from it? Ok, this system might be rather like the 'big brother' we are all fearing, but currently, most major supermarkets track what you buy almost without you noticing, so its not like this information will be collected obtrusively.

    Maybe its time someone out there took a step back and looked at the system they have just partaken in creating, and they just might, possibly, see it as something that shouldn't be.

    Someone needs to look at this before the next 'red-ball' has your name on it, because by then, it's too late.

    NeoThermic

    P.S, is it me, or have they forgotten how to make an acronym? How does one get from Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange to Matrix? To me that makes 'MATIE'...

    --
    Use my link above, or to view my server, NeoThermic.com
    1. Re:Sorry, what counts as... by zerOnIne · · Score: 2, Funny

      nah, MATIE is what the RIAA and MPAA are using to track down all those darned pirates. ARR!

      --
      09
    2. Re:Sorry, what counts as... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Count it as a Bushism:

      Multistate Anti-Terro' Rism Information eXchange.

    3. Re:Sorry, what counts as... by Mr.+Bad+Example · · Score: 1

      >MATIE is what the RIAA and MPAA are using to track down all those darned pirates.

      And of course, they protect the server from viruses with Avast.

    4. Re:Sorry, what counts as... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does one define an activity that makes you statistically a terrorist?

      Since I've worked with people who are trying to answer exactly this question, I'll tell you what I can recall. It's none of those things individually, but everything added up together.

      Say there's intelligence that there's a terrorist cell in Florida which plans to bomb the Democratic Convention. People who lived in Florida and have recently traveled to Boston would be flagged. Among that group, people with past criminal records, ties to known terrorist groups, and anything else that fits the intelligence profile (e.g. recent immigrants) would get extra points. Now you have a list of names to keep an eye on. You don't arrest these people, just check and see if they've done anything suspicious recently.

      We actually worked on software at one point that would facilitate this scenario. But bureaucracy kept it from really working: state and local government agencies do not like to share information with each other. Last I heard the software is still running in a limited fashion in a couple states.

    5. Re:Sorry, what counts as... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come again? How does one define an activity that makes you statistically a terrorist?
      Is it by the car they drive?
      Is it by the job they have?...


      You are not your car.
      You are not your job.
      You are not your house.
      You are not the contents of your wallet.
      You are not a fucking terrorist.

      You are the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world

    6. Re:Sorry, what counts as... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sneaked a peek at the criteria for 'likely to be a terrorist'

      Unemployed 100 points
      Employed,but making less that $100,000 p/a 100 points
      Breathing 50 points
      Voted Democrat 200 points
      proponent of civil rights 300 points
      has read the constitution 500 points
      has read the amendments 700 points
      understands either 1000 points
      posts on /. 10000 points

  64. Seisint's Questionnaire by MooseByte · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Karma be damned....

    Seisint's Proposed Questionnaire for next stage of study:

    Are you or have you ever been a member of any of the following
    (check all that apply):

    - Amnesty International
    - ACLU
    - Nature Conservancy
    - National Academy of Sciences
    - Any non-GOP political party
    - Any GOP group that has ever disagreed with the White House
    - Any non-Christian religion
    - Any Christian sect that fails to see that creating all-out war in
    the Middle East that melts down Jerusalem will invoke the
    Second Coming.

    Do you associate with anyone to whom the above may apply? (Yes/No)

    Do you get your news from any media sources other than the White
    House Press Office, Fox News, or conservative talk radio? (Yes/No)

    Do you associate with anyone to whom the above may apply? (Yes/No)

  65. Give it a rest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    I'm SO sick of all you liberals blaming Bush for 9/11, while things weren'te perfect, he didn't fly the planes into buildings. And you all complain incessantly about how the gov't didn't do enough. Well now we've got President Bush who is trying to do something to try to improve the world and try to make it better for everyone and all you do is bust him for it. ITS NOT HIS FAULT.

    Now you all say, "how did we have these terrorists training in our country for so long and not know about it?" How are we supposed to know? Now they are trying to set up a system, I'm not advocating it I don't know enough about it, to find the people we might want to watch a little closer and all you do is complain and talk about how horrible the US is. If you live here and hate it, get out...we don't want you.

    There's just no way to respond to all of you liberal drones, it makes me sick that there are so many people out there who don't think for themselves or who think that tucking our tails between our legs and running like France is a good idea. Are you ready to convert to Islam? That's the only way these terrorists are going to leave us alone. Voting Bush out won't make them like us more. With someone else in office it will just be easier for them to attack us again.

    1. Re:Give it a rest by dylan.ucd · · Score: 1

      actually it was his fault, but we will excuse your typo.

      the end

  66. Perfectly Legitimate by jgardn · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think systems like these are perfectly legitimate. For one thing, the terrorist quotient (TQ from here on) isn't evidence of terrorism; it is an indication of possible terrorism.

    The police or FBI should investigate people who have patterns of behavior that are similar to known terrorists. They should gather real data to either confirm or deny the possibility. Then what they find should be fed back into the system.

    Having a high TQ is only enough to make someone suspect. Having a low TQ is not enough to clear someone. As long as police and FBI realize this, the system will work fine and do exactly what it is intended to do.

    If you're wondering how they calculate TQ, they examine country of origin (terrorists tend to come from a few countries), age, length of stay (terrorists will return occasionally to known terrorist locations), location of residence (terrorists may live close together), income source (terrorists will get large sums of money suddenly), and behavior.

    For instance, a guy from Saudi Arabia who is 35 and visited Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Iran, and who inexplicably received several hundred thousand dollars, and who ordered several tons of fertilizer when they live near downtown New York where they work as a taxi driver, and who rented a large truck would score high.

    A geek who was born in Canada and only visited the Far East and/or Europe, who has a steady income from his job as a (insert IT job here) and who bought a large supply of fertilizer (along with farming supplies and tools) and lives in a rural location in Montana would not have a high TQ.

    The system won't be perfect as it won't detect every single terrorist and may render a few obvious false positives. But it will identify a large enough number that it will give the police and FBI a start.

    --
    The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
    1. Re:Perfectly Legitimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Do you pay for delivered pizza with a credit card? Then you might be a terrorist. As for your straw man arguement, it is obvious that the Canadian from Montana who works as an IT geek didn't buy the farm equipment for a legitimate crop. IT geeks have no need for farm equipment. And because IT is a synonym for unemployed, especially from rural Montana where nobody is really using these new fangled computers anyway, I'd guess that the fertilizer is either for revenge against the co-op you used to run the checkout counter for or to grow and sell weed to suppliment your unemployement check.

      BTW, checkout clerks arn't considered IT, even if the cash register looks a lot like a computer.

      Now move along, I'm sure that another library patron is waiting to use this terminal; you must have a rifle that needs cleaning. Tring to justify that the gummit doesn't know what you are up to because you are white is a waste of time ... those gummit black helicopters could be on their way to your compound right now!

    2. Re:Perfectly Legitimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the reason you like it is because it will never make you a suspect:

      A geek who was born in Canada and only visited the Far East and/or Europe, who has a steady income from his job as a (insert IT job here) and who bought a large supply of fertilizer (along with farming supplies and tools) and lives in a rural location in Montana would not have a high TQ.

      i have heard of poeple being put to jail for month without trial for less than this:

      For instance, a guy from Saudi Arabia who is 35 and visited Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Iran, and who inexplicably received several hundred thousand dollars

      now how would you morron like it if suddently canadian geeks were considred terrorists and you were taken in for questioning?

    3. Re:Perfectly Legitimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having a high TQ is only enough to make someone suspect.

      Suspect of what? They haven't done anything.

      By the way, why wouldn't that Canadian be as suspect as the Saudi? Seems to me a guy who is a professional driver delivering a few tons of fertilizer via a truck is a lot less suspicious than a guy who has a white collar career suddenly taking up farming.

      And what of the fact that domestic terrorism is far more common than foreign terrorism?

    4. Re:Perfectly Legitimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with you.

      I think it should be perfectly legitimate to investigate all the people of races statistically tied to terror incidents on 9-11. It is legitimate to put them in concentration camps, because the oens that turn out to be innocent, will of course be released properly.

      Sig Heil, Soviet States of America, "More Safe All the Time"

    5. Re:Perfectly Legitimate by beta21 · · Score: 1

      I'm looking through your example and can't help wondering, how about running some test cases?

      Guess who wouldn't be flagged as a terrorist:

      Timothy McVeigh

    6. Re:Perfectly Legitimate by BladeRider · · Score: 1

      How is this scheme any different than police using profiling? If you can justify this TQ, then the same reasoning should apply to racial profiling.

      --
      j.
    7. Re:Perfectly Legitimate by dasmegabyte · · Score: 1

      Of course, the assumption here is that all terrorists are of middle eastern descent, visit there often, etc.

      Terrorists need not fit your depiction of them. Shit, we have eco-terrorists in this country, and radical militia men, and god-fearing christians bombing abortion doctors. None of these is arab. Most of them are white. They probably keep to themselves...you can't give somebody a score for being a LONER, can you?

      All this stupid database is is twenty first century profiling. And it will fail to catch the next batch of terrorists.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
  67. It does not correct past injustices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Racist policies such as affirmative action do not correct "past injustices". They only claim they do, while creating new injustices.

    Quite simply: the past injustices involved are instances of person A oppressing person B for their race. Affirmative action oppressions person D for their race, and gives person E preferential treatment. The past injustice is not corrected: person A and person B are not affected by the policy at all.

  68. Re:Fuck you America - well said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well said that man.

  69. I'm as paranoid as the next guy, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    C'mon. What do you expect the government to do? Why is it that no one ever offers better solutions? Just gripe and complain.

    Even with the 9/11 commisions, we are so focused on "intelligence" - who had it, who didn't, who ignored it, etc. How do you expect agencies to gather accurate intelligence wihtout stepping on some civil liberty toes? I know *in theory* this is wrong (save your Ben Franklin quotes), but what other *practical*, effective means do they have?

    Some people always offer up the the "carebear" alternatives - e.g. fostering peace and goodwill to these countries that butcher innocents (READ: sending even more welfare to them). Or isolationism, just ignore them and spend our money at home. (The "la la la, I don't see you...Go away bad man" solution). These stratgies just don't work against these cultures that are based on thousands of years of bloodthirsty tribal agggresion, and later rationalized and justified by a maniacal perversion of religion.

    So before you bemoan your supposed injustices, please dazzle us with your alternative practical, effective measures to gather intelligence.

    1. Re:I'm as paranoid as the next guy, but.... by vidarh · · Score: 1
      You want better solutions? Stop hyping up the terrorist threat, and while you're at it, stop pissing off most of the world by invading sovereign countries, and instead use all that money to reduce road accidents.

      It's a significantly larger threat to the average American than terrorists, and as an added bonus if your government didn't do their best to piss off everyone with their foreign policy all the time the terrorists would have a significantly harder time finding recruits.

    2. Re:I'm as paranoid as the next guy, but.... by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      > stop pissing off most of the world by invading
      >sovereign countries

      If the rest of the world were truly upset about an invasion they should have raised a military opposition to it. You don't stop a war by wishing it would stop, or simply saying you oppose it. You have to fight fire with fire. None of the countries that supposedly opposed the US made any committment of this nature.

      If you don't believe in the use of force, there are still diplomatic methods that were not explored. For example, no "first world" leader has yet taken the podium and formally denounced the United States or declared the illegitimacy of its military adventures. Likewise, no "first world" nation has ceased trade with the US, nor demanded that American businesspeople and tourists exit its borders.

      Nothing at all of that nature. Just hollow words of dissent with no action, which I interpret as support...

      Stop claiming that "most of the world" is pissed off unless you can show evidence that they are more than "mildly annoyed, but still okay with it." The US is not acting alone. It ventures with the support, or at least the complicity, of every nation that had a standing army.

      The American people would NOT have invaded Iraq, had it meant killing Europeans to get there. But, Germany, France, and Russia decided not to blockade the Persian Gulf, didn't they? Right, the question was never on the table. But if you want to SAY you oppose a military operation, you have a responsibility to raise some opposition to it -- which, generally means, a military committment, and may require sacrifices, such as lives, broken treaties, or economic consequences.

      I don't think you can have your cake and eat it too, when it comes to war.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    3. Re:I'm as paranoid as the next guy, but.... by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1
      Why is it that no one ever offers better solutions? Just gripe and complain.

      If it's a good idea it will likely survive the criticism.

      Even with the 9/11 commisions, we are so focused on "intelligence" - who had it, who didn't, who ignored it, etc.

      That's how it should be - when something goes wrong you should find out why, this gives you a chance to do better in the future.

      Why is it that no one ever offers better solutions?

      How about spending the money to do proper security checks on US domestic flights?

    4. Re:I'm as paranoid as the next guy, but.... by michael_cain · · Score: 1
      Even with the 9/11 commisions, we are so focused on "intelligence" - who had it, who didn't, who ignored it, etc. How do you expect agencies to gather accurate intelligence wihtout stepping on some civil liberty toes? I know *in theory* this is wrong (save your Ben Franklin quotes), but what other *practical*, effective means do they have?

      Arguably, the 9/11 attacks were successful (in three of four cases) because the US government and airlines continued to pursue a 40-year-old policy WRT hijacking situations. If the cockpit in all commercial airliners were separated from the passenger compartment by a REAL bulkhead, a REAL door, and a REAL lock, along with a policy that in a hijack situation the plane would make an emergency landing at the nearest airport and be immediately disabled, none of the 9/11 attacks would have succeeded. Four or five terrorists armed with box cutters could not seize control of the airplane. Heck, in one of the 9/11 planes they could not maintain "control" when attacked by the unarmed passengers.

      There is no evidence that suggests that the old airport security measures were ineffective in detecting weapons that could penetrate such a bulkhead/door combination. Instead, tens of millions of passengers are inconvenienced (and worse) at possibly a higher total expense.

  70. Repost Re:Fuck you America by xpccx · · Score: 1, Redundant
  71. 120,000 is a lot of terrorists... by InfiniteZero · · Score: 2, Funny

    Shouldn't we start attacking Florida?

  72. The old Fox News myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah yes, the old myth about Fox News being conservative. The same Fox News that has as its main figurehead the angry moderate Bill O'Reilly, who bashes Cheney for secrecy and bashes the Bush administration for bungling things.

    1. Re:The old Fox News myth by MooseByte · · Score: 1

      "Ah yes, the old myth about Fox News being conservative. The same Fox News that has as its main figurehead the angry moderate Bill O'Reilly, who bashes Cheney for secrecy and bashes the Bush administration for bungling things."

      So you're claiming that conservatives never bash conservatives? That's one funky world you live in. O'Reilly is bashing Dubya because he was forced to apologize (or as close as he'll ever get). George Will is bashing this administration. Plenty of conservatives are beginning to so. Do you know why?

      Because this unimaginably inept administration is causing the conservative movement irreparable damage. Conservative Republicans are supposed to be "small government, fiscally responsible, personal freedom". That's the EXACT opposite of what this administration has done. What a tragic joke. And it will haunt the GOP with a taint for many years to come.

      Even Robert Novak is now finding himself criticizing Dubya and crew. Because Dubya and crew are doing THAT MUCH damage to the conservative movement.

      Fox News is extremely conservative, to the point of farce. How bad must if be if even THEY are beginning to raise questions?

    2. Re:The old Fox News myth by zombiestomper · · Score: 1
      Ah yes, the old myth about Fox News being conservative. The same Fox News that has as its main figurehead the angry moderate Bill O'Reilly, who bashes Cheney for secrecy and bashes the Bush administration for bungling things.
      Ah yes, 2 out of 24 hours does not a 'fair and balanced' channel make. (one hour first airing, one hour repeat-- and probably only 10 minutes of those are non-conservative oriented opinion)

      Seriously though, how can you defend Fox News as being non-conservative (politically oriented) when they do such things as:
      • The omnipresent Stars-n-Stripes waving in the corner
      • repeated references to U.S. Military Personell as 'our troops'
      • Instead of news reporting, the schedule is loaded with news talk-shows (yelling matches) editorializing from a conservative slant (i.e. pimping the 'Hannitization of America', Ann Coulter et. al.)

        Moreover, who's not conservative on Fox News?
        I'll give you Alan Combs-- the mostly harmless liberal? They cut his nuts off long ago...

        See, Fox 'news' figured out the secret. People don't want the news-- people want to be told stuff that they already agree with and fits in their pre-conceived worldview. News is news: the story is the same-- but now ratings are driven by how you spin the news story to get an audience.

        And audiences are going to tune into news channels that make the feel 'good' or 'comfortable' and reaffirm what they already hold to be true.

        It's thus that news stops being news and becomes propaganda.

        Same goes for CNN, NPR, ABC, NBC, etc.
    3. Re:The old Fox News myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "So you're claiming that conservatives never bash conservatives"

      No, just that O'Reilly is a moderate on a centrist network falsely proclaimed as being right-wing just because it isn't left-wing like CNN is.

      "O'Reilly is bashing Dubya"

      So much for any intelligent discussion. You are a liberal loon who can't talk about Bush without insulting him. I'd say the same about you being a conservative loon if you were calling Clinton "slick willie".

      "Fox News is extremely conservative"

      Only if you measure from the very far left. As far as the political center goes, they are very close to it.

      "How bad must if be if even THEY are beginning to raise questions?"

      They always have been.

    4. Re:The old Fox News myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "The omnipresent Stars-n-Stripes waving in the corner"

      Fox News is conservative because of THAT? In case you hadn't noticed, the Democrats, too, love the flag and use it in their symbology. You seem to be operating out of an idea that only conservatives love America.

      "repeated references to U.S. Military Personell as 'our troops'"

      It is, after all, a US network. As such, that description is true. The "our troops" description of American troops is used across the board in America, including groups that want "our troops" brought home.

      "Instead of news reporting, the schedule is loaded with news talk-shows (yelling matches) editorializing from a conservative slant"

      They report every half hour. The talk shows are not from a conservative slant: Either a moderate like O'Reilly is the only host, or the show is balanced out like Hannity AND Colmes: conservative and liberal. Ann Coulter does not have her own show. She is just s frequent guest along with frequent liberal guests.

      "I'll give you Alan Combs-- the mostly harmless liberal? They cut his nuts off long ago... "

      Would you like a lengthy list? Starting off, Combs is one of the best liberals on TV. He makes his case intelligently and results in "he might be right". CNN gives you cartoons instead (Carville). Now look at Fox's prime time schedule. 2 of the hours are hosted entirely by non-conservatives O'Reilly and Van Susteren.

      "See, Fox 'news' figured out the secret. "

      The only "Secret" they won in is that people want the news to be more accurate.

    5. Re:The old Fox News myth by MooseByte · · Score: 1

      An anonymous coward wrote: "No, just that O'Reilly is a moderate on a centrist network falsely proclaimed as being right-wing just because it isn't left-wing like CNN is."

      Fascinating. Perhaps you can share with us some examples of what you consider to be conservative news outlets, as well as another example or two of "centrist" outlets?

      "So much for any intelligent discussion. You are a liberal loon who can't talk about Bush without insulting him."

      No, actually I'm a conservative (small government, fiscal responsibiltiy, personal freedom, personal responsibility and accountability) who simply cannot ignore the facts. Bush Sr. I was all for, until he hosed up the domestic agenda. Lack of "the vision thing" as you may recall. You, on the other hand, appear to be one of those individuals who can't grasp the nuances of a shades-of-grey world.

      So tell us, are you a conservative? Do you believe in small government, fiscal responsibiltiy, personal freedom, personal responsibility and accountability? If so, who are you voting for this year and why?

      "They always have been."

      Please cite examples where Fox News presented views critical of the Bush administration prior to the painfully obvious discovery that there was no imminent threat "smoking gun" of WMD in Iraq.

    6. Re:The old Fox News myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Fascinating. Perhaps you can share with us some examples of what you consider to be conservative news outlets, as well as another example or two of "centrist" outlets? "

      Why is this fascinating? It is quite obvious that CNN, CBS etc are left-wing, Fox and C-Span are centrist, and most of the big guns in AM Radio (Hannity, Limbaugh, Dr Laura) are right-wing.

      There is no right-wing TV news network right now. MSNBC might turn into one; they've made stabs at it with Savage Nation and Scarborough Country, but this might be more of an idendity crisis in a badly failing network than an actual ideology shift. "No, actually I'm a conservative"

      Yet you seem to have a strong liberal's bias and misperceptions concerning media. I wonder, are you a Pat Buchanan supporter? That might explain some of the views.

      "...Bush Sr..."

      That is not even his name. George W. Bush is not a "Jr".

      "You, on the other hand, appear to be one of those individuals who can't grasp the nuances of a shades-of-grey world."

      No, I can grasp then where they exist. I'm much more concerned with accuracy than whether or not something is "black/grey/white" according to some irrelevant subjective measurement.

      "Please cite examples where Fox News presented views critical of the Bush administration prior to the painfully obvious discovery that there was no imminent threat "smoking gun" of WMD in Iraq."

      How many thousands of links do you want from foxnews.com linking to stories critical of the Bush administration, and also Bush as a candidate? The list is similar to what you will find at cnn and other sites.

      By the way, a quiz qusstion. Which network first broke the story of George W Bush's past drunk driving offense?

    7. Re:The old Fox News myth by MooseByte · · Score: 1

      Now that's some damn good trolling, AC. Gotta hand it to you. You tipped your hand with the Buchanan reference though. Other than that, not bad.

      Cognitive dissonance is more than just a buzzword.

  73. The Prisoner by JohnGrahamCumming · · Score: 1

    "I am not a number, I am a free man"

    Oops.

    Turns out that in the US the opposite is true.

    1. Re:The Prisoner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Truer than you might suspect... I think we may be on the SAME 'wavelength' here.

      A pal of mine I went to college with, fairly brilliant programmer then & now, was from Russia pointed this out to me & made me "rethink" my views, even if in jest only @ that time of this statement to him.

      I busted on him one day saying "Oh yea, you guys in the U.S.S.R. are prisoners" & he simply stated this:

      "You're more tracked here in the U.S. than I ever was in the Soviet Union"

      & he was right, it's amazing how tracked (credit cards etc.).

      The number of the Beast & all that:

      One "cannot buy, nor sell, nor hold a job" etc. unless one has the number on/in one's head or hand.

      (Not quite a direct biblical quote, but close enough & I think you infer my meaning...)

      WTF? Sounds like a Social Security Number... doesn't it??

      APK

    2. Re:The Prisoner by dasmegabyte · · Score: 1

      Not really. Especially not since you can buy and sell whatever the fuck you want regardless of a social security number.

      I don't see why people persist in finding meaning in a bullshit allegory of the fall of rome written by a deranged disciple in the first century. Oh yeah, that's right: because people are weak and they like the idea that some benevolent force is guiding their chaotic lives. Tracking the events of Revelations is on par with thinking "Helter Skelter" was a metaphor for the coming race war: it's dangerous, idiotic superstition.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
  74. Fuck America? No. Fuck You! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Judging from your spelling, you're not even an American. However, I am and I believe that you are entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to mine: I think you're a douchebag.

  75. Re: inventions by bobhagopian · · Score: 1

    Internet -- Tim Berners Lee, an Englishman, who invented the device while he was at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland Light bulb -- Thomas Edison didn't invent the light bulb, but improved it. The inventor was a Sir Humphrey Davy of England, who created the first carbon arc lamp. Edison and Sir Joseph Swann DID, however, create the first incandescant lamp. Telephone -- Credit is normally given to Alexander Graham Bell (a Scot, but living as an American), and it's largely deserved, since he was the first person able to get the device to work somewhat reliably and at reasonable cost. However, the first implementation of the technology was by a fellow named Innocenzo Manzetti, an Italian national. Some will give credit to a guy named Meucci, but as far as I know, he was never able to get the thing working, but he did have the idea.

  76. Dealing with Muslim extremists by amightywind · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The problem of Muslim extremists exists and needs to be dealt with, not encouraged by invading innocent countries and waging war on people who have done nothing to deserve it.

    What does 'dealt with' mean? Muslim extremists want to run your country under strict (their interpretation) Islamic law, or they want you dead. You deal with them by killing them. I say lets fight for the next 100 years if necessary.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
    1. Re:Dealing with Muslim extremists by dave420 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      How on earth is that insightful?? Muslim extremists want to be left alone. They don't want US troops running around their country, pissing on their shrines, riding around in Humvees killing wedding guests, wearing Oakley sunglasses and waving US flags around like jocks. They don't want Americans forcing the American(tm) way of life down their throats. They don't want to kill anyone, they just feel they have to to survive.

      You want to end terrorism? Get the US to act like a normal country. Don't go running all over other countries as if they were second-class. Learn respect for other people. You don't win friends by beating them up.

      It frustrates me so much when I hear people saying the terrorists want to "destroy america" because they "envy our freedoms" or "hate democracy". I mean come on - think about it for one second. Sheesh.

      Muslim extremists just want to be normal muslims. Normal muslims just want to get on with their lives, like normal everyone-else-on-this-planet.

      America has done more to cause terrorism than any other country has in recent years, possibly ever. You want to know who the bad guys are? They're on your team.

    2. Re:Dealing with Muslim extremists by RatBastard · · Score: 1

      They are no different from any other extremist group. Christiand and Jewish extremists would love to do teh very same things to the unwashed hordes. And some of them are trying.

      How do we deal with them? Killing them just produces more of them. So that's not going to work.

      How about dealing with the socio-economic conditions that created them in the first place? Without a reason to hate us their nuimbers will dwindle.

      --
      Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
    3. Re:Dealing with Muslim extremists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am still waiting for somebody to ask the real question that we, in the west, need to ask: Why do we have a terrorist problem at the scale we do right now ?.

      Terrorist is a very subjective word. Terrorists usually come from ordinary people that have nothing else to care for. Their governments, and the international community have ignored them. Religion is the only thing that people cling to when they have nothing else left that is when fanatisism flourishes. When you really want something, you belive in it 110%. Fanatisisim is no different.

      I am simply saying if we find the root of a certain type of terrorism, we can eliminate it. Nobody wants to see their kids blown up on either side.

      Please let us drop this WAR WAR atitude and sit down and think before we go and make things worse

    4. Re:Dealing with Muslim extremists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do we deal with them? Killing them just produces more of them. So that's not going to work.

      uhhh.. not if we kill them fast enough

    5. Re:Dealing with Muslim extremists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What bothers me about the parent (and th fact that it was modified +3 Insightful) is that it suggests killing a broad category of people because of their ostensible beliefs.

      Not all Muslims are extremists. Not all extremists are Al Qaeda. Maybe I'm reading too much into your post, but someone should not be considered an enemy combatant simply because he yells "Death to America" on some streetcorner. If you want to run a background check on him because of that, fine. But his opnion does not automatically make him worthy of death.

      There are a great number of groups that want us/me dead, or who want to relegate me to second-class citizen status. While I may be angry about this, it does not justify my killing members of these groups simply for having this ideology.

      A Klan member has a right to live, work, etc. in American society, and I would never be justified in attacking him unless he *personally* (not just a buddy of his, not just a guy in the same group, not just someone who looked like him) was a genunie threat.

      You do not deal with hate by killing hateful people--I think a lot of slashdotters would be at high risk if that were the case =). The cure for bad speech is more speech--speech that promotes reason and undertstanding.

      You kill those with whom you are at war. We should declare war against attackers, not peoples, not ideas.

      I keep hearing people say that we need ot "fight fire with fire" or be willing to use "guerilla tactics." It seems that people want us to be as ruthless as possible. This is understandable rage. It is also the wrong way to go about things.

      I remember hearing about the Washington sniper shootings, and imagining all the wonderfully sadistic things I'd like to do to the evil coward who would prey upon innocent people like that. That was a reaction of rage, a personal, visceral reaction. That is how I might act towards him in the absence of a civilzation.

      But we exist in a civilized nation, and in fact we see the current conflicts in terms of one way of life versus another. A key value of our civilization and way of life is the rule of law. We cannot make, or agree to rules for others, and then abandon them simply because we are angry. We want to believe that we stand for freedom, justice, and equality--if that is so, we need to abide by those principles in presrving them.

    6. Re:Dealing with Muslim extremists by shlaf · · Score: 1

      Oh, gimme a break. I just love when people make all extremist equal. I still have to hear about a Jewish extremist to blow up a school bus full of kids or to cut off a head of a captured POW. There are extremists AND extremists. And islamic extremists are the most disgusting.

    7. Re:Dealing with Muslim extremists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I still have to hear about a Jewish extremist
      [...]

      Just because it ain't reported in the mainstream press doesn't mean it ain't happening.

    8. Re:Dealing with Muslim extremists by Grym · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How on earth is that insightful?? Muslim extremists want to be left alone.

      Bullshit. They want to have the wealth of a modern country but without adapting their culture to something even slightly resembling a modern one. They want nuclear technology and, at the same time, a situation where half their population is locked up in houses or under burkas. One problem: it just isn't possible. By definition, things can't change and still be the same. Muslim extremists are idiots; plain and simple. And, not surprisingly, idiots of all types get used and played by politicans for power. You don't honestly think Arafat would EVER put on one of the bomb-vests he blows up teenage kids with, do you?

      They don't want Americans forcing the American(tm) way of life down their throats. They don't want to kill anyone, they just feel they have to to survive.

      I've never try to force my way of life on anyone. Apart from a true, long-term military occupation, I don't know if that's even possible. The simple fact is that the world copies us... JUST as we copy things from the rest of the world. It's just the way things are. And as far as I'm concerned, tough shit for the muslims who want their society to be the way it was thousands of years ago while they wave their AK-47s in the air.

      You want to end terrorism? Get the US to act like a normal country.

      Like a normal country? How about a normal muslim country? When's the last time you heard Pakistan do of something altruistic? Why is it we don't expect Iran or Saudi Arabia to help out if there's an earthquake in Turkey or other need for humanitarian assistance?

      The problem is the United States is expected to do the impossible. We're supposed to take BOTH sides on EVERY issue. We're supposed to look out for ourselves and every third-world shithole as well. It's no wonder we're hated when we are held to that kind of standard. Let me assure you, you should FEAR the day the United States acts like a "normal" country, because most countries are purely self-serving. As it turns out, we're only partially self-serving.

      -Grym

  77. And next a few extra batch jobs: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure this system has some idle time.

    Here's some other reports they could produce:

    - who's likely to cheat on thier taxes
    - who's likely to trade files illegally
    - who's likely to circumvent copyright protection
    - who's likely to attend a protest gathering
    - who's likely to oppose further "security" legislation
    - who's likely to vote for a non-republican candidate
    - who's likely to join a union
    - who's likely to use a non-microsoft os
    - who's likely to write a book
    - who's likely to influence fellow citizens
    - who's likely to point out government malfeaseance
    - who's likely to notice the loss of civil liberties
    - who's likely to do something about thier loss of liberty

    1. Re:And next a few extra batch jobs: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You forgot a couple:

      - who's likely to live a fearfull, pathetic life, always thinking that Big Brother is around every corner and out to get him

      - who's likely to use any opportunity to criticise their Government and spout hate for America, but at the same time take no active role in civic duties or the political process

  78. Ask me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I don't know... ask me the next time I have to install a Windows Service Pack.

  79. Which dice? by pjt33 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yes, but D6s or D20s?

    1. Re:Which dice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Percentile.

    2. Re:Which dice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Modifiers:
      -4 for helping old ladies cross the street
      +10 knowing how to fly a plane but not knowing how to land

    3. Re:Which dice? by the.WZA · · Score: 1

      use 2d10 in order to roll a 1d100

    4. Re:Which dice? by CrkHead · · Score: 1

      D10s and get a percentage.

  80. Matrix configuration file leaked by rduke15 · · Score: 2, Funny
    That software's configuration file has leaked. Here is an excerpt:
    reads SLASHDOT forums =~ /slashdot\.org/
    score SLASHDOT 10
    describe SLASHDOT Participates or reads a suspect online forum
  81. history...repeating... by GirTheRobot · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...watch as McCarthy...I mean Rumsfeld, rounds up all the commies...I mean terrorists.

  82. Jesus wants us to eat pork by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    First of all, pork is tasty
    Second it tastes good.

    The ancient jews and muslims didnt' eat it because of health concerns.

    Those health concerns have been taken care of, but today jews and muslims don't eat it simply to show that they're special to god.

    They're all crazy. Nuts.

    Anybody who listens to a Rabbi, or Priest or holy man about important things in your life has a self-image problem.

    1. Re:Jesus wants us to eat pork by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, for the catholics, it went like this:

      "DON'T MASTURBATE"
      What?
      "YOU HEARD ME, I SAID DON'T MASTURBATE"
      How do you know about that?
      "I'M GOD, I KNOW EVERYTHING. DON'T MASTURBATE"
      Wow. Hmmmmm.
      What about pork?
      "SURE, GO AHEAD, HAVE A SANDWICH"

      shamelessly ripped off from John Stewart

    2. Re:Jesus wants us to eat pork by ChuyMatt · · Score: 1, Flamebait
      My brother worked with 2 Pakistani guys at a pizza shop. One of the was uber devout, would not TOUCH pork. the other did the 5 times prayer thing and, out of sight of his countryman, chowed on canadian bacon and ham.

      When my brother asked him he said that he had been like that, then he called his dad his 2nd month in the states. His dad asked him how he was liking America. He explained his difficulties in keeping clean from pork "contamination." His dad laughed and told him

      "son, you need to try ham and bacon. Sometimes sin is good. The profit didn't know what the hell he was missing"

  83. Cabbie by onyx+pi · · Score: 1

    Brilliant!

  84. Terrorist Detected!! by Databass · · Score: 2, Funny

    I prefer false negatives (spam messages that end up in my inbox) over false positives (real mail that end up in the bin)

    Sooo... you're saying you'd prefer to have a bin laden with spam messages?!

    Allright FREEZE!!!! Get down on the ground!

  85. clockwork orange by Politicus · · Score: 1
    The government can't be concerned any longer with outmoded penological theories. Soon we may be needing all of out prison space for political offenders. Common criminals like these are best dealt with on a purely curative basis. Kill the criminal reflex that's all. Full implementation in a year's time.
    Perhaps the state can give those with high terrorism quotients free treatment. Come in for your monthly pill allotment for a couple months and your quotient is reduced.
    --
    Politicus
  86. Hah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Americans always try to do the right thing after they've tried everything else."
    - Winston Churchill

  87. Obligatory quote by phyruxus · · Score: 4, Funny
    "The matrix has you, Anonymous Coward."

    If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, and you cut off it's head and there's a fully functional biological cranium, maybe it's not a clockwork toy resembling a duck and is in fact a duck.

    --
    "A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
    "d'Oh!" ~Homer
    1. Re:Obligatory quote by oofoe · · Score: 1

      > If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a > duck, and you cut off it's head and there's a > fully functional biological cranium, maybe it's > not a clockwork toy resembling a duck and is in > fact a duck. Uh. Dude. By the time you've done all that cutting, there won't be anything functioning. Much less fully.

      --
      Curse you plastic mold maker!
    2. Re:Obligatory quote by fwc · · Score: 1

      By the time you've done all that cutting, there won't be anything functioning. Much less fully. But I bet it would taste good after being cooked.

  88. The warm war. by Paul+Neubauer · · Score: 1

    I don't want to go through the next 50 years of my life living in an international air of worry and uncertainty.

    That is, alas, the usual state of affairs. Nobody wanted the Cold War, either. It was merely the least-worst option. It wasn't pleasant. It wasn't nice. It certainly wasn't cheap, in any way you care to consider - save one. It was better than the alternative.

    What's going on now is a response. It is not a response to a single event, but to an accumulation of events. Sitting back and just taking it is no longer happening. It was treid. It didn't work. So something else is being tried.

    It isn't pleasant. It isn't nice. It isn't cheap - save that it's better than alternative, which doesn't work at all.

    --
    I don't subscribe to RMS's GNUtopian vision.
  89. the terrorists already won? by shrubya · · Score: 1

    If we don't want the USA to become like Israel, then perhaps we shouldn't be trying so hard to turn Iraq (et al) into giant versions of Palestine?

    I guess we should be thankful they're 10000km away.

    1. Re:the terrorists already won? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Iraq independence day is in 5 weeks. When was Palestine's?

    2. Re:the terrorists already won? by Cameroon · · Score: 1

      Oh please. Do you really think that in 5 weeks we'll be packing up "Well, everything looks good here, call us if you need anything?"

    3. Re:the terrorists already won? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      No, that's a process. It'll take longer. It starts in 5 weeks.

      (Actually it's already started, but the major milestone is on 6/30.)

    4. Re:the terrorists already won? by Jagasian · · Score: 1

      In the meantime, the USA's main duty is to organize as many butt pyramids as possible, in addition to allowing Bush to spend more tax payer dollars on glow sticks for some good old-fasioned forced sodomy.

      The major milestone of the process is on 6/30, when 100 Iraqi men will be piled into one large butt pyramid and each one simulatenously sodomized with red, white, and blue glow sticks. This will all be done in an effort to "blow some steam off" since everyone has gotten so uptight since the start of the war - everyone just needs a good "emotional release".

    5. Re:the terrorists already won? by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      lol You actually believe that? Even conservatives know that nothing will change in 5 weeks. The US forces will still be there for years; US soldiers and Iraqi civilians will still die for years; USA will still pay billions (mostly recycled to US corporations); etc.

      If you don't believe me, wait and see what happens in a few months. Everything will still be the same... the only difference would be symbolic. Now you would have some Iraqi puppet...

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
  90. WTF is (CLEANED UP)??? by CarrionBird · · Score: 1

    Thoughtcrime in the comments?

    --
    Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
    1. Re:WTF is (CLEANED UP)??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The formatting! Paragraphs, you dick brain!

  91. Arrest via rating? by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So are they implying that if you get a high score you are going to be arrested and/or have your home raided?

    JUST because of some abstract number in a database?.. NOT because you actually have done something..

    So this 'suspicion rating' = probable cause?

    I would think the ACLU would be all over this..

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Arrest via rating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting



      >I would think the ACLU would be all over this..

      In case you haven't noticed, America has elected Tyranny, and seeks to homogenize the population. There are many, many people who believe that anyone who does not fit the idealistic mold ought to be locked up, or at least, certainly not provided with luxuries such as jobs, opportunities for housing, freedom to travel.

      This program enjoys ADAMANT support, although there is a certain amount of opposition and dissent.

      The current American society and government may indeed be Nazi Germany of 1940 made whole. Only this time, the rest of the world seems to be perfectly content to do nothing to stop it.

    2. Re:Arrest via rating? by shiftless · · Score: 1

      So are they implying that if you get a high score you are going to be arrested and/or have your home raided?

      No.

  92. All Governments Decay Over Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A government is, after, just a machine. The cogs may be biological, but that doesn't change the principle.

    The American government is no exception. It was founded by freedom-loving leaders, but by the very nature of the political mechanism is now composed of people full of divided loyalties and ulterior motives.

    Americans love freedom, sure. But Americans are also lazy. They would rather not know about the evil their government does. So long as they can't directly feel its effects, they feel free, and thats good enough for them.

    Does the DVD work on the computer? Yes? Thats good enough for them. Does everyone want to record your social security number? Yes? So what? Its just a number. Does the FBI sometimes arrest people for no good reason? Of course not....they are the FBI and we should trust them....so long as nobody I care about is being arrested then they must be doing a good job...

    Its all so predictable.

  93. For hundreds of years, by HermanZA · · Score: 1

    the underground railroad ran from the USA to Canada and it is still going strong, just different reasons - Vietnam was a big one that gained Canada thousands of US immigrants. If the USA was such a free place, then Canada would have been empty long ago. Makes you think, doesn't it?

  94. I wonder... by leetdan · · Score: 1

    I wonder just how encompassing this list is. I'm 21/m, white, kinda tall, and have nothing on my record save a pair of speeding tickets. Yet without fail, I am searched EVERY single time I pass airport security, 8 or 10 times a year. No matter what I'm wearing, no matter who I'm with, no matter where I'm going, I'm given the full search. I'm sure profiling is responsible to an extent, but doesn't it seem unusual that I'm flagged every single time?

    --
    -
    1. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember to remove your ear rings, nose studs and that bolt from your bell-end next time you fly.

      I hear they can cause no end of trouble with metal detectors.

    2. Re:I wonder... by edraven · · Score: 1

      That system is called CAPPS. Yeah, it's based on profiling.

  95. 120,000 people not allowed to vote? by NoSuchGuy · · Score: 1

    Are these registered democrat voters in Florida?

    I think I've got a deja-vu....!

    --
    Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
  96. Re:Think about it (umm, physician heal thyself) by gosand · · Score: 1
    I'm sure all the tin-foil hats will come out of the woodworks about this. Seriously though, do you not expect the agency reponsible for anti-terrorism efforts to actually do its job well? If this could have stopped those planes from killing thousands of civilians, people would be screaming in outrage about how we didn't use it when we should have. The problem is this country (this world, really) is that everybody wants to be reactive and not proactive. This is especially true in the computer security field, as we all know. Everyone bitches and moans about systems like this that can prevent terrorist attacks, but then they make a huge stink about some memo from Richard Clarke that had next to nothing useful in it. Go figure.

    Of course we all want them to do their job well. But how can you say this is doing their job well? This sounds to me like a lazy, half-assed attempt at doing their job.

    Identification means exactly jack. We knew EXACTLY who Bin Laden was, and what he was capable of. We didn't care. Where were the efforts in the YEARS leading up to 9/11 to track his ass down? What about all the ones we don't know about? Instead, we go after high profile targets like Saddam, who while still a ruthless prick deserving of being overthrown, was no direct threat to the United States. It is a smoke job that backfired.

    How about rooting out the reasons behind terrorism, like intolerance and stomping on other countries necks? All of your suppositions mean nothing. How can you base an argument on "Hey, this might work, let's try it!"? Profiling does NOT WORK. Instead of attacking the known sources of terrorism, they are attacking the unknown sources. They are breeding fear by doing this, and by breeding fear they can keep us under control.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  97. Hey /. WTF is up with this thread?? by CarrionBird · · Score: 2, Interesting
    One of the first posts disappears then reappears "CLEANED UP".

    Anyone care to explain?

    Are we censoring the threads now? Will I get booted for making this post??
    --
    Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
    1. Re:Hey /. WTF is up with this thread?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You eediot. The guy simply noticed that he had forgotten to add

      tags to his reply, so he reposted it. You may call it self-censoring, if you want, but that's about it.

      Now, if you want to see some real /. censorship...

    2. Re:Hey /. WTF is up with this thread?? by CarrionBird · · Score: 1

      You mean we can repost? Cool! How does one do this?

      --
      Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
  98. I've learned one thing from this post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would appear that most slashdotters don't bother to read the article before they respond. At least half of these posts are knee-jerk reactions, posted without having done any more research than reading the short summary provided /. We would all be better served to read up and think before reacting.

  99. Lemme guess.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are 120,000 muslims in the US?

    Great, this reeks of Animal Farm.

  100. All respondents have been noted... by intnsred · · Score: 2, Interesting

    All respondents to this article have been noted.

    From Seisint Inc. system logs:

    Querying site...processing HTML...correlating post data with ISP logs...submitting data to database...updating/creating user entries...updating users' Seisint Inc. "terrorist quotient"(tm)...submitting relevant users and data to federal authorities so that they can protect our freedom[sic]!

    On a serious note: In a police state where the gov't can snatch anyone they want off the streets and hold them incommuncado, without charges and without access to a lawyer, we have no civil liberties.

    To me, articles about such things are no surprise today. The only surprise is that the American people surrendered to fascism so easily. :-(

    1. Re:All respondents have been noted... by shiftless · · Score: 1

      On a serious note: In a police state where the gov't can snatch anyone they want off the streets and hold them incommuncado, without charges and without access to a lawyer, we have no civil liberties.

      Where's that?

      To me, articles about such things are no surprise today. The only surprise is that the American people surrendered to fascism so easily. :-(

      Huh?

    2. Re:All respondents have been noted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where's that? The USA.

      He's talking about Joseph Padilla, et. al. Try Google.

    3. Re:All respondents have been noted... by intnsred · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Where's that?

      Okay, I'm in the mood for a good troll... :-) Maybe you're one of the millions that haven't heard that key portions of the Bill of Rights have been revoked.

      The answer: Why right here in the good ol' land of the free, the USA!

      This editorial from the Boston Globe should illustrate the point.

      FWIW, I'd also highly recommend that Common Dreams web site, if you're inclined to learn more. It is a site run by some Yankees in Maine which features tons of mainstream news articles from the US, Canada, and the UK, along with a smattering of leftish/non-mainstream articles. It's done in the concept of informing people and "speaking truth to power." A few searches on that site will turn up dozens of articles supporting the above statement.

    4. Re:All respondents have been noted... by shiftless · · Score: 1

      I read the link you posted, and I still fail to see how "key portions of the Bill of Rights have been revoked". This man was captured in Afghanistan while fighting with the Taliban, which effectively makes him an enemy combatant. Thus, he has no rights except those under the Geneva Conventions. It doesn't matter if he's a U.S. citizen or not.

    5. Re:All respondents have been noted... by intnsred · · Score: 1

      That's what I get for trying to grab a quick article to summarize a complex point. :-)

      First, the person in question was an American citizen. He has unalienable rights including all the protections of the Bill of Rights. The enemy combatant label was invented by Lincoln and has no basis (or at best, a weak basis) in American law as pass by an elected Congress. While Lincoln's actions may have been understandable, in my view they were -- like his closing of newspapers -- blatantly unconstitutional. We are supposed to be a society based on the rule of law. We have a law against treason. The person in question should be told what he is accused of and entitled to a lawyer and the protections we give American citizens. After a trial, if found guilty, he should be punished.

      The one incident mentioned in the Boston Globe editorial is but one incident. There have been thousands of other people (admittedly, mostly non-US citizens) snatched off from American streets and put in prison without charges and without access to a lawyer or families. How many? We don't know -- the gov't refuses to say.

      Another example is an Intel engineer, Maher Mofied 'Mike' Hawash. Maher was snatched off the street in Oregon and held without charges.

      At the time, Intel VP Stephen McGeady wrote, "I think many of your readers would be surprised to learn that our government can detain indefinitely a U.S. citizen, especially one with a wife, three children, a job and deep roots in our community....Americans are taught that the Constitution protects us against arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, and that our freedom and these constitutional liberties are what we are fighting for in Iraq and elsewhere, yet one of our neighbors can be taken from his home or office and held without charge for weeks or months."

      After months of imprisonment, Maher plead guilty in a plea bargain.

      Guilt or innocence isn't the top priority -- the process is. Hitler executed a lot of guilty people in his concentration camps; what's the difference between his methods and the Texas death penalty today -- it's the legal process. It's following the rules of law and our laws give citizens certain rights, including a presumption of innocence, the right to a lawyer, to face your accuser, etc. Violation of these rights is LITERALLY un-American.

      And this is what the Bush administration is currently doing. In the most literal sense, the people doing these violations are undermining our Constitution. Are these so-called "patriots" committing acts of treason?

      Besides the previously mentioned Common Dreams site, another useful source on this issue is the ACLU's Patriot Act site and in particular, its Summary of the USA PATRIOT Act and Other Government Acts. A close examination of those sites will show the rights to a lawyer, fair trial, search & seizure, assembly and other essential rights in our Bill of Rights have been severely curtailed in the name of the failing war on terrorism. What's worse, this violation of civil liberties by Attorney General Ashcroft and Bush has resulted in 0 (zero!) terrorists being convicted!

      Whether one agrees with all the ACLU's points or not, one should remember that there is a small difference between fascism and liberal democracy. While it may be melodramatic, one should remember that pre-WWII Germany lead the world in many ways. It only took a failed war and some economic chaos to pave the way for the election of Hitler and the rise of fascism.

      And one should also remember Ben Franklin's words of wisdom, "Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

      (And with that said, climbing off from this soapbox is going to be a helluva job...:-)

    6. Re:All respondents have been noted... by CaptainTux · · Score: 1
      Maybe you're one of the millions that haven't heard that key portions of the Bill of Rights have been revoked.

      As I said in a previous post on this article, I can understand people being frustrated at the US government for their actions in the "War on Terror". But the notion that key portions of the Bill of Right have been revoked is total and utter nonsense. The article is no better either.

      My strong belief is that we have a God given right to be frustrated with the government and, as a people, we have a God given right to take up arms and stand with fellow patriots against our own government if the need arises. However, we're not talking about someone who did that. We are talking about a man who deliberately went and fought for a foreign government against his own country. That is, IMHO, treason and I think that those who do things like this by default give up their civil liberties. How can you fight against your country and what it stands for while invoking the protections thereof when they come to get your ass? Terrorists, American citizens or not, give up their rights when they choose to enable or support terrorist activities against their own government. I feel the same about someone who goes to another country and relinquishes their American citizenship.

      --
      Anthony Papillion
      Advanced Data Concepts, Inc.
      "Quality Custom Software and IT Services"
    7. Re:All respondents have been noted... by intnsred · · Score: 1
      We are talking about a man who deliberately went and fought for a foreign government against his own country.

      If the person was killed in battle, then it would be a moot point. But he wasn't, he was captured and was a US citizen. Citizens of the US have unalienable rights that cannot be denied without due process of law.

      That is, IMHO, treason

      Agreed. So what we should do is to put the person on trial -- with all the rights of a citizen -- and if he's found guilty, execute him, throw him in jail, or carry out whatever legal punishment that the court decreed. That is following the rule of law. (Isn't this Civics 101?!)

      Terrorists, American citizens or not, give up their rights

      Who gets to issue out the label of "terrorist"? I've already cited one example of a US citizen snatched off the street in the US -- and there are dozens of others. Who gets to put the label of "terrorist" on a person? What process decides when this label is issued?

      These are serious questions. Already there are lawyers arguing that peaceful protesters against the war can be ID'ed as "terrorists" under existing post-9/11 laws. The president himself has said that making an analogy between Iraq and Vietnam is "aiding" the enemy!

      Without clear, democratically established legal guidelines firmly written in law, we create a slippery slope where civil liberties will become increasingly threatened. Besides the war protester example I mentioned, we're already seeing parts of the Patriot[sic] Act being applied to organized crime instead of terrorists. Hey, I'm not for organized crime, but I am for the 4th and 6th Amendments to the Constitution. The slippery slope is already starting...

      I feel the same about someone who goes to another country and relinquishes their American citizenship.

      IMHO that's irrelevant. The person gave up their citizenship. In that case, they're not an American citizen, they're not entitled to our constitutional rights; they're entitled to various rights under international treaties that the US has signed, but that's not the same as the rights US citizens possess.

  101. Re: inventions by displaced80 · · Score: 1

    TBL invented the World Wide Web

    WWW != Internet. ... and of course, like almost every invention ever, it only happened because of progress made by others before him.

    I don't think any honest inventor can, without hubris, claim they are wholly responsible for their innovation.

    --
    What's the frequency, Kenneth?
  102. Democracy by phyruxus · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Issues like this, which inherently require double-think and open, honest debate are what Democracy resolves best. There ought to be a law, sure, and that law ought to be based on a bill which has made its way through all three branches AND PUBLIC REFERENDUM.

    Without public acceptance this can only be a tool of a "gestapo" secret police. I'm not saying the FBI shouldn't exist. I'm saying that guardianship requires honest and competent debate in good faith, or else there WILL be problems and some might be drop-dead killer problems. After all, who wants to go to sleep each night wondering how much their "terrorist quotient" changed today, and in what way?

    BTW, America is still free and will remain so as long as we the People remain certain in our right to be protected from unwarranted search and seizure. If we ever trade democratic freedom for the safety of an Autocratic police state, we're f*kt. (And as a democrat, I feel that Bush is angling for a police state every time I hear him ask me to "trust" him. He seems to gloss over the fact that he was not elected by a unanimous landslide. I don't trust Bush. And I won't until his spinmeisters stop telling me that it's "OK" because black is white... because black is not white.)

    I never said I was a centrist.

    --
    "A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
    "d'Oh!" ~Homer
    1. Re:Democracy by shiftless · · Score: 1

      I don't trust Bush. And I won't until his spinmeisters stop telling me that it's "OK" because black is white... because black is not white.

      Racist!

  103. Nice troll. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What your comment conveniently overlooks is that the US has a history of undermining and even overthrowing secular and democratic governments, often by supporting violent fanatics, some of whom we're having a problem with now. And that the brutal regimes that you think the "carebears" propose sending aid to have largely been the regimes that the US has been lending its support to, much to the distress of the "carebears".

    1. Re:Nice troll. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. The term "Banana republic" springs to mind.

  104. Drug Runner by Evil+MarNuke · · Score: 2, Interesting

    South Florida Sun-Sentinel (www.sun-sentinel.com)

    By Nicole Sterghos Brochu
    Staff Writer
    Posted January 11 2004

    The counter-terrorism database is so efficient at analyzing billions of records, so comprehensive in finding links between people and events that some investigators believe it could prevent another attack like 9-11.

    Although some intelligence experts are awed by the potential of the so-called Matrix network, others are uncomfortable with the man who built it.

    Hank Asher -- a Boca Raton multi-millionaire called a patriot by a former Watergate prosecutor, consulted and admired by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani -- once smuggled millions of dollars worth of cocaine.

    Asher avoided detection and was never charged with a crime during what he calls "the hazy period" of his life. The statute of limitations has long since elapsed on drug-running activities he admits spanned eight months in 1981 and 1982. Those reckless days, he told the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, drove him to depression and drug and alcohol abuse.

    He didn't pay for his crimes in a jail cell, but a price was exacted by years of negative publicity and intense public suspicion. The climax came in August, when Asher walked away from the Matrix so it could proceed unencumbered by its designer's infamy.

    Asher, now 52, made peace with himself.

    "I go to sleep every night knowing that I've done much more good than harm," he said.

    Indeed, Asher's notoriety has done little to deflate his clout among some influential crime-fighters.

    Giuliani, now an international crime consultant, uses Asher in the hunt for terrorists. Brian Stafford, the former head of the U.S. Secret Service, is one of a handful of top law enforcement officers who work for Asher's database company. John Walsh, host of the TV show America's Most Wanted, sings Asher's praises.

    To understand the contradiction of the public pariah with quiet influence is to understand his road to redemption. It is a path lined with powerful innovations and financial benevolence that have aided the hunt for criminals and the safe return of missing children.

    "I have a great admiration for what he's doing, both in finding missing children and in coming up with creative solutions to terrorism, as well as owning up to his mistakes," Giuliani said. "People do a lot of things in life. It's a question of what you can do to make up for it, and Hank has done a lot."

    why he smuggled

    In his first interview on the drug allegations, Asher said he got into smuggling for the adrenaline rush.

    "It seemed like an adventure," he said, chain-smoking Marlboro Lights between bites of nicotine gum at his mansion next to the Royal Palm Polo fields. "I had no idea of the hideousness of drugs."

    He got mixed up in the business after "retiring" at age 30 to the Bahamas. Asher moved there after selling the paint contracting business he started at 18 and built into what a 1975 Sun-Sentinel article described as "apparently unmatched anywhere" in the South Florida high-rise market.

    In Great Harbour Cay, Asher said, he attracted attention with his plane and his speedboat. Drugs were rampant, he said, and so were offers for easy money flying the contraband into the United States. Asher said he resisted the offers -- until one came from a group of older men with expensive tastes who "ran in social circles that appealed to me."

    He said he agreed to do them a favor after, having recklessly spent his paint company proceeds, he borrowed money from them.

    An FDLE investigation details how far that favor went. The probe, launched in August and completed in September, was meant to resolve the longstanding rumors of Asher's past, particularly at a time when several states interested in the Matrix were threatening to pull out over the smuggling questions.

    The report concluded that Asher piloted up to seven planeloads of cocaine from Colombia into the United States in 1981 and 1982,

    --
    The journey is better then the end.
  105. Proactive vs reactive by isotope23 · · Score: 1
    You are right, but not in the way you mean. If we really cared about "winning" the war on terror, we would change our foreign policies which are blatantly imperialist, pro-corporation and in some cases racist. We are not seen as neutral in the arab world when it comes to Israel vs Palestine. Another thing is the CIA needs to stop training insurgentsin other countries. They seem to come back and biteus.

    --
    Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
  106. I've heard this before: by nukeade · · Score: 2, Funny

    Don't worry, if you're not a terrorist, you probably don't have anything to worry about!

    Just another reason why I'm re-voting against Ed Rendell, the most nearsighted governor of all time, when his turn comes around.

    ~Ben

  107. Leaked Sourcecode by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 1

    /* Revision date 10/11/2001 */

    if (strcmp (FirstName, "mohammad" == 0 && strcmp (LastName, "Atta") == 0)
    Score += 50;

    1. Re:Leaked Sourcecode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      * Revision date 10/11/2001 */

      if (strcmp (FirstName, "mohammad" ) == 0 && strcmp (LastName, "Atta") == 0)
      Score += 50;

  108. Re: inventions by red+floyd · · Score: 1

    Internet -- Tim Berners Lee, an Englishman, who invented the device while he was at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland

    Repeat after me. "The Web is NOT the Internet."

    The Internet developed from the ARPANet, which was a US production.

    --
    The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
  109. 9-11 Terrorists were in Top 80 of 120,000 by HighOrbit · · Score: 2, Informative
    From the Article:
    Of the people with the 80 highest scores, five were among the Sept. 11 hijackers, Seisint's presentation said. Forty-five were identified as being or possibly being under existing investigations, while 30 others "were unknown to FBI."

    This database looks like it could be one valid tool among many, but not conclusive evidence all by itself. So, it alone won't prove anybody guilty, but if some other independent reasons cast attention on someone and they showed up high on this list, then it would be prudent to take a deeper look at them. Doing otherwise would be negligent and could cost the lives of thousands of innocents, versus a fairly non-obtrusive background check or questioning of somebody with a suspicious history.
  110. your textbooks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    aren't the textbooks in our public institutions at least 20 years out of date? ironically, isn't this because the funding was diverted to fund terrorism so the gov't could justify the funding to fight terrorism?

  111. Re: inventions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you think "The Internet" is just www then sure it was invented by T B Lee, but it was my understanding that "The Internet" was also a collection of various other transport protocols built up around routing protocols which rely on underlying physical protocols. Now lets not start listing who invented which physical protocols because "The Internet" was designed to be independent of the underlying physical layer, but I do recall reading somewhere that a group called ARPA started this whole thing with gobs and oodles of help from some dudes at some school out in California. And wasn't there some company that was integral in making this new fangled, what's it called? oh yeah "The Internet"? I think they were American too... But hey, I could be wrong, what do I know, I'm just a dumb American.

  112. Voted for Kronos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I knew this would happen. That's why I voted for Kronos.

  113. New Diablo II item by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny


    Bin Laden's Scared Armour of Terror
    False beard

    Defense: 255
    Durability: Invulnerable
    Required Strength: 56
    Required Level: 99

    [Only usable by Terrorist]

    +150 TQ
    +3 to RPG
    +150% Enhanced defence in caves
    +500% Enhanced evasion against US
    75% Better chance of finding magic WMDs
    +1 mana after each kill
    Requirements -100%
    Socketed (6)

  114. fire with fire by happyfrogcow · · Score: 1

    time to make a database of politicians likely to sell you're future to the highest bidder? i thought i recall something along these lines, but a web search isn't turing up anything. i'm possibly putting the wrongs words into google.

    granted, most people don't know their representatives names. a search by zip code would be great. gives your representatives names on local, state, and federal level and where they are getting their money, what their criminal history is, where they own property, where they went on their last vacation, what bills they are for and against. that's a lot of hard work. if they can do it about us, why can't we do it about them? there are vastly more of us than them.

    "they've got the guns but, we've got the numbers..."
    -Morrison.

  115. "Quotient" implies division... by idontgno · · Score: 1
    So, what's my Terrorist Divisor?

    And while we're at it, when do we start cashing those big checks from the Terrorist Dividend?

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  116. If Wolfowitz can get it wrong by orim · · Score: 2, Informative

    and that 'about 100 or so' soldiers have died in Iraq.

    Yeah, well, if even the DEFENSE DEPARTMENT'S DEPUTY SECRETARY doesn't know the figure (he was off by at least 40%), then what expectations can we possibly have of an average Joe? I mean, it's like like it's Joe's *job* or anything to know this, but Wolfowitz... it goes beyond incompetence, it's just insulting to our soldiers. He may as well have walked over to the Arlington cemetary and started pissing on the graves for that matter...

    Speaking of dense, (but completely unrelated), this is a great stat: 19% of Americans think they're in the top 1% of the income range.
    Chew on that one for a little while :)

    --
    "If you could only see what I've seen with your eyes..." - Roy Batty
  117. The Adventures of Tinfoil Safety Hat Man by MooseByte · · Score: 1

    /dev/trash wrote: "What if they are still waiting for the signal?"

    (Cut to mysterious Evil Island HQ of bin Laden, patrolled by sharks with freakin' lasers on their heads)

    "Evil One! We have sent the signal, but they do not hear!

    "Gaaaaaar! The hats! Those damn tinfoil hats are blocking the signals! (Throws VHS copy of Telefon into trash.) Drat! Foiled again! (Doh!)"

    (Cut back to a smiling Tinfoil Safety Hat Man giving the thumbs-up, who mouths out of sync:)

    "For great justice!"

  118. Michael Moore by Petronius · · Score: 1

    Wait until the new Michael Moore movie arrives to the States... you might be shocked to learn who was really helping the Bin Ladens after 9/11. I doubt any of them are among the 120,000.
    Have a nice day.

    --
    there's no place like ~
  119. NSA food by jesup · · Score: 1

    Ah, for the days when a good fraction of Usenet postings had NSA Food signatures... Though I don't think they're looking for references to Kremvax anymore.

  120. repeating mistakes over and over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you look at Afganistan the CIA poured money in to it to fight the Russians. When the war was was over they stopped spending money, the taliban filled the power vacume and plaines got flown into your buildings.

    So for the price of a few million, instead of having an friend there, you now have a lawless country to police which will cost more that if you had built a few schools and hospitals in the first place.

    Iraq. We won the war, whilst the politicians were still buisy awarding contracts to their cronies. As a result we've lost loads of lives needlessly.
    So instead of helping the people and having a friend, we tried to rip them off, now we have another mess that will cost more lives to fix.

    So to save a few $$ in the short term, costs you 1000 X $$ in the long run.

    But hey, I'm shure that you'll forget about that and repeat the mistakes again in a few years. Or even now.

    I mean whats going on with all the unwavering suport for Israel ?? Both sides do evil things, but one gets to buy weapons from the US and the other sides kids throws stones and gets shot for it.

    Lather, rinse, kill, repeat, ??, short term profit foor a few, long term pain for the rest.

  121. Background check by sckeener · · Score: 1

    I wonder how long before businesses start doing terrorist background checks in addition to criminal checks....

    just cut to the chase as I've seen the movie

    --
    "Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
  122. hey u, u r a terrorist! u just dont know it yet !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    jeebuz friggen krizt, what kinda fucked world is this? somebody get me outta here.

    i am really thankful, that this all is gonna end really soon now.

    look up into the heavens....

  123. End prohibition == no profits to bad people by pherris · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Anyone care to guess one of the main sources of [a] terrorist['s] income?

    Depends on the terrorists. In the middle east it's oil, diamonds and some heroin. In South America for at least the FARC it's the greatly over inflated value of drugs caused by prohibition.

    If we end the WoD (war on drugs) by legalizing marijuana and making all other drugs available for prescription for maintance (with the execption of antibiotics) the price of drugs would bottom out. Heroin could be purchased from CVS for $5.00 a dose instead $100 off the street. Lower prices means the end of drugs partly funding bad things. The bonus would be a dramatic drop in property crimes. A few years ago in Bern, Switzerland they tried selling heroin directly to addicts for ~$4.50 per dose. Property crimes dropped by 60%.

    Without prohibition illegal drugs would cost 100th of their current price and would save the US over 15 billion dollars every year in law enforcement and prison costs. At least an extra 1 billion dollars a year would be made from the taxation of marijuana. BTW, studies in the Netherlands showed that drug use did not increase with an easing supply.

    The economic forces of prohibition fund a lot of bad things including terrorism.

    --
    "And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
    1. Re:End prohibition == no profits to bad people by TimboJones · · Score: 1

      Not only this, but ending prohibition will also decrease drug fatalities. According to DEA figures from the early 90s, cocaine and heroin on the street range in purity from 32% to 90%. The remaining 10-68% consists of anything from benign baking soda to deadly poisonous cleaning chemicals. The unknown quality and potency of these drugs accounts for nearly all unintentional drug overdoses.

      If these drugs were legalized, the potency would be listed on the package, much like alcohol or any prescription drug. This would allow users to regulate their dosage so as not to become abusers or dead.

    2. Re:End prohibition == no profits to bad people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awesome! Make stuff up! Neither Alcohol's past history, nor other countries that have different cultures, societies, doesn't equate with legalizing drug use. why? noone's ever tried it in the states.

      A billion dollars? Is your pinky in your mouth? A billion dollars in extra tax income for the entire united states isn't even worth a drop in the hat. Just managing who gets that money and distribution to 50 states and outlying areas would approach that cost alone!

    3. Re:End prohibition == no profits to bad people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, $100/dose? You're getting seriously ripped off.

    4. Re:End prohibition == no profits to bad people by pherris · · Score: 1
      Normally I don't feed the fire of flamebait but ...

      I said: "Without prohibition ... the US [would save] over 15 billion dollars every year in law enforcement"

      From NORML Economics Reports:

      "The societal costs of propagandizing against marijuana and marijuana law reform, funding anti-marijuana 'science', interdicting marijuana, eradicating domestically grown marijuana and industrial hemp, law enforcement, prosecuting and incarcerating marijuana smokers costs U.S. taxpayers in excess of $12 billion annually."
      It's safe to say the US spends more than 3 billion on the enforcement of other illegal drugs. My figure seems too low.

      I also said: "At least an extra 1 billion dollars a year would be made from the taxation of marijuana."

      From NORML Marijuana Crop Reports:

      "By most rankings, America's domestic marijuana crop is easily valued in excess of $10 billion annually and usually ranks in the top 10 cash crops."
      Since alcohol is taxed at a rate higher than 10% my figure is actually low. BTW, don't think of just the 1b in tax revenue but the >12b saved. $13b is still $260m to each state each year. That will pay for a lot of teachers, fire fighters and health care.
      --
      "And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
    5. Re:End prohibition == no profits to bad people by WM_NCDESTROY · · Score: 1
      That will pay for a lot of teachers, fire fighters and health care.
      What about all those unemployed DEA agents? You insensitive clod!
      :-)
      --
      posted via satellite
    6. Re:End prohibition == no profits to bad people by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      There is a huge infrastructure built around prohibition now. Private prisons, various police agencies, some local municipalities are making big profits fron it. Not to mention corrupt gov't officials. RICO is being used by the gov't to steal property. Furthermore, because weed needs no processing other than drying, anybody can grow their own, so I don't believe it will be the big money maker that other drugs would. For the people in power, the status quo works pretty darn well.

      --
      What?
    7. Re:End prohibition == no profits to bad people by dasmegabyte · · Score: 1

      Of course, for unbiased statistics and thoughtful debate on Marijuana, we should always look to NORML.

      Jesus, how about some peer review, man? What do the DOH and Johns Hopkins say about the legalization of marijuana? Or are we to ignore their numbers because they're in league with the prohibtionists?

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    8. Re:End prohibition == no profits to bad people by pherris · · Score: 1
      Of course, for unbiased statistics and thoughtful debate on Marijuana, we should always look to NORML.

      While I believe NORML's stats are correct, you are justified in questioning them.

      "Report of the Senate Special Comminttee on illegal drugs (2002)":

      ... permit persons over the age of 16 to procure cannabis and its derivatives at duly licensed distribution centre.
      The Canadian Senate recommend legalizing marijuana.

      Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding, Commissioned by President Richard M. Nixon (March 1972)

      1. Possession of marihuana for personal use would no longer be an offense, but marihuana possessed in public would remain contraband subject to summary seizure and forfeiture.
      2. Casual distribution of small amounts of marihuana for no remuneration, or insignificant remuneration not involving profit would no longer be an offense.
      The "Schaffer Report" recommend decriminalizing marijuana. Possession would result in seizure and forfeiture with no ticket and no fine.

      Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base by the Institute of Medicine (1999)

      "The vast majority of evidence on harmful effects of marijuana is based on smoked marijuana, and, except for the psychoactive effects that can be reasonably attributed to THC, it is not possible to distinguish the drug effects from the effects of inhaling smoke from burning plant material. "
      While smoking anything is harmful to the body, THC itself causes no harm.

      I'm not saying marijuana is harmless but studies place it's dangers less than alcohol, tobacco and caffeine. IMO it's not worth jailing someone for.

      --
      "And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
    9. Re:End prohibition == no profits to bad people by horza · · Score: 1

      Without prohibition illegal drugs would cost 100th of their current price and would save the US over 15 billion dollars every year in law enforcement and prison costs.

      About what it would cost in lost productivity. :-)

      BTW, studies in the Netherlands showed that drug use did not increase with an easing supply.

      I call BS on this one, unless they happened to all be junkies in the first place. Provide link to this study please.

      Phillip.

    10. Re:End prohibition == no profits to bad people by pherris · · Score: 1
      About what it would cost in lost productivity.

      Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base by the Institute of Medicine (1999)

      One of the more controversial effects claimed for marijuana is the production of an "amotivational syndrome." This syndrome is not a medical diagnosis, but it has been used to describe young people who drop out of social activities and show little interest in school, work, or other goal-directed activity. When heavy marijuana use accompanies these symptoms, the drug is often cited as the cause, but no convincing data demonstrate a causal relationship between marijuana smoking and these behavioral characteristics. Sited from: Chait LD, Pierri J. 1992. Effects of smoked marijuana on human performance: A critical review. In: L Murphy and A Bartke, Editors, Marijuana/Cannabinoids: Neurobiology and Neurophysiology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Pp. 387--424.)
      "Report of the Senate Special Comminttee on illegal drugs (2002)"
      Thirty years later [after the LeDain Commission], we assert that the studies done in the meantime have not confirmed the existence of the so-called amotivational syndrome and add that most studies rule out this syndrome as a consequence of the use of cannabis.

      I said: "BTW, studies in the Netherlands showed that drug use did not increase with an easing supply."
      You said: "I call BS on this one, unless they happened to all be junkies in the first place. Provide link to this study please. "

      Linky linky:

      Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base by the Institute of Medicine (1999)

      In 1976, the Netherlands adopted a policy of toleration for possession of up to 30 g of marijuana. There was little change in marijuana use during the seven years after the policy change, which suggests that the change itself had little effect.
      --
      "And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
  124. 120,000 what good is that anyways? by Facekhan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A list of 120,000 names does not really narrow it down much. Perhaps there are a few hundred foriegn terrorists operating in the United States. 1% of 120,000 is 1200 and I would venture a guess that there are no more than 1200 foriegn terrorists in the US even by the widest stretch of the term terrorist. If my assumption is accurate then that mean MATRIX has a 99% false positive rate and sorting through 120,000 names to find 1200 or less is not a very useful tool. If there were really 120000 terrorists or even 12000 don't you think they would have gone to the store bought some guns and started shooting people by now. 12000 is a small army and could easily cause a lot of damage before our military could respond. Even 1200 could all get together and really do a lot of damage. That leads me to believe that they are a few hundred at most in a number of different groups espousing vastly different ideological and political goals. This system is just one more tool to turn America into a police state. Who are the real terrorists here?

    1. Re:120,000 what good is that anyways? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I can't believe I'm doing this (hence the AC posting) but it very much depends on what you consider terrorists. Maybe 1200 is about right for the number of middle eastern, muslim fundamentalist terrorists (though I think there's a substantial margin for error on that guestimate). But the NRA has 3 million members. While many (in fact most) are decent citizens who have legitimate 2nd ammendment beliefs, a certain percentage of them are closer to Timothy McVeigh than Charleton Heston. Assuming the same 1% that's 30,000. Plus the cooks who we don't know about.

      It's a big scary world we live in, with a lot of bad people. There needs to be a balance between security and freedom, agreed upon by the majority of the population, not based on the discretion of a few politicians. Of course the weak point here is that a large mass of the public is dumb and will believe the politicians when they say that all have to do is give up this liberty or that and we'll all be safter even though it's not true.

  125. one of the main sources of terrorist income by dmitriy · · Score: 1

    Selling Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange databases?

  126. On this tool... & other "things" in the system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fact it exists is not a bad thing really, I mean, the nearest analog I can think of its weathermen!

    The fact it can produce a false positive is a bad thing & if they act incorrectly on it costs me money as a taxpayer!

    Hey, you know this:

    It costs coins/deadpresidents to pull an investigation like that, to arrest someone, & to put them thru the legal system!

    BIG COIN$...

    (On the legal system: They have folks outta work & it is a MAJOR problem our politicians are not addressing?

    WELL, make minimum wage professional jurors that are trained as such instead of spending half-a-trillion dollars on wars!

    They say the legal system is overloaded?

    Yea, for lawyers (future politicians club)... no wonder they are the first to get hung during revolutions with judges typically if history is any indicator!

    (Dealmakers, not justice bringers: Your life hangs on a game of golf they played the judge against for example OR how much ca$h you can sling to be "innocent"...

    Think that's b.s.? Deliberations & deals are BULLSHIT!)) :)

    * Anyhow: Sorry for the rant... but, they need the tools for this, this is as good as any...

    It's just the possible wrongdoings involved that make it risky for the person apprehended/suspected, & for us, the taxpayer!

    APK

    P.S.=> And, I do think that a professional juror system would go a long ways to helping unemployment AND also to stop the 'alleged' lag in the legal system AND to remove the biggest bunch of b.s. in it: Lawyers & judges... the best jury, is a jury of your peers you can select as the defendant no less... let people decide as a group, NOT an individual who is potentially greed influenced OR corrupt! apk

  127. The ACLU's take on it by Larry_Dillon · · Score: 1

    can be found on there site: Matrix

    --
    Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
  128. Matrix agents solve terrorism AND energy crunch by EdZep · · Score: 1

    ...with prisoners housed in 'cell' blocks as human batteries.

  129. Indeed! by FatSean · · Score: 1

    They say the USA wages a 'culture war' on them...with our pop music and Coca-Cola. They want that done away with. They say we meddle in their business...they want that done away with. Yet their whole religion centers arround converting or killing the heathens. What about THEIR culture war? What about their tactics which include hiding their soldiers and military supplies in mosques and schools and hospitols...so they can point the finger and call the US Military hypocrits when they destroy those places to prevent their own injury? There is no reasoning with this kind of thinking...simple minded relgious zealots only respect one thing...force. And the USA has got force. Lots of it. Momentum as well.

    Guerrilla wars can be won by over-whelming firepower and disregard for all civilians. This is what it will come to, I believe. Geneva Convention be dammed...times have changed and so must tactics. We cannot afford to be 'better' than our enemy as it is a huge weakness. We must eliminate those who would do us harm...collateral damage or not.

    --
    Blar.
    1. Re:Indeed! by wwest4 · · Score: 1

      > We cannot afford to be 'better' than our enemy as it is a huge weakness.
      > We must eliminate those who would do us harm...collateral damage or not.

      Since its emergence as a military might, the US has used exactly the tactics you describe in many situations. The results in military win/loss terms have been mixed.

      But purely military victories are not everything, and to think only in those terms is to grossly oversimplify global politics and foreign policy. In the long run, some of these "victories" have turned into huge defeats (the victory by proxy in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan, for instance). A subsequent increase in enemies abroad over the years has triggered a security situation, which has in turn been evoked repeatedly and compelled the citizens of the US to gradually abrogate many of the fundamental rights we once held dear.

      > We must eliminate those who would do us harm...collateral damage or not.

      Reaching moral equivalence with our enemies for the sake of merely beating them militarily is not worth it, especially when coupled with increased authoritarianism at home. Hopefully, the logic you use here becomes a marginal ideal - otherwise, very few people will be free and war and misery will become self-perpetuating constants.

  130. How would you know? by Patman · · Score: 1

    120,000 terrorists in the US? C'mon! Has ANYONE on /. ever met a "terrorist"?

    Well, honestly, how do you know? That's like asking if you've ever met a child molester, or a murderer, or a rapist. Without full background checks on everyone you know, you have no idea.

    As for 120,000 terrorists, if that's out of the population of the US, that's only .04% of the population. That number doesn't sound too off-the-wall to me.

  131. Most sensible people would by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    silly analogy, but to continue with your logic, it's a shame Bush/Rumsfeld etc sprayed the wrong 'fuckers' huh?

    Pre-invasion links with Al-Qaida?
    uh, no...

    Post-invasion links with Al-Qaida?
    YEP

    Weapons of Mass Destruction?
    uhm...

    Guerilla war you can't win?
    YEP

    Welcome to the real world, oh, and in case you forgot, they already fucked up one country after invading, perhaps it's time we made an attempt to guide that one to democracy, or was that not really the intention?

    1. Re:Most sensible people would by Rayonic · · Score: 0

      So we shouldn't have invaded Iraq because Al-Qaeda wouldn't like it?

      And it was okay that Saddam tried to hide and create WMDs, just as long as he wasn't successful?

      And we're losing a guerilla war where we're killing 20 times more of the guerillas than they are of us (at least)?

    2. Re:Most sensible people would by 2WheelCowboy · · Score: 1

      I believe the intent of the message was "I hate Bush and will bitch about anything he does."

    3. Re:Most sensible people would by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So we shouldn't have invaded Iraq because Al-Qaeda wouldn't like it?

      Uhm..Al Qaeda probably was quite pleased with the invasion. They wanted to get rid of Saddam as badly as the US did. And lets not forget: the war has dramatically increased anti-American sentiments in Iraq and the rest of the world, boosting support for terrorist organisations like Al Queda. No doubt recruitment of these organisations will have gone up as a direct result of the war in Iraq.

      And we're losing a guerilla war where we're killing 20 times more of the guerillas than they are of us (at least)?

      You have been playing to many computer games. Wars aren't necessarily won by the ones who score the highest body count.

    4. Re:Most sensible people would by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So we shouldn't have invaded Iraq because Al-Qaeda wouldn't like it?

      Actually yes, that should have been a consideration. We should have looked at what we'd get out of it vs what the cost would be. In this case we got nothing out of it and we are paying billions each month for the privilege of occupying the place. And to top all that off we provided Al-Qaeda with the best damn recruitment photograph in history.

      And it was okay that Saddam tried to hide and create WMDs, just as long as he wasn't successful?

      Do you have any evidence that he was still trying to create them? I'm sorry but we don't go to war on "We think he might be doing this". And quite frankly who the hell cares what Saddam may or may not have had? I'd have started worrying about it when he had delivery systems to actually get the damn things here. And don't come back at me and say "He was in bed with the terrorists" unless you are prepared to say exactly what terrorists he was "in bed" with (Al-Qaeda hated him) and what motivation he would have had to give them WMDs.

      And we're losing a guerilla war where we're killing 20 times more of the guerillas than they are of us (at least)?

      I don't know that we're losing but we aren't winning now are we? If you think killing 20 of them for every one of our own is a victory then I suggest you check out the Korean War in your history book. 54,246 Americans died -- DoD estimates that we killed over 1,500,000 North Koreans/Chinese. That's one point five million. That's a ratio of slightly over 27 enemy KIA for each one of our own. And guess what? We didn't win the Korean War.

      Furthermore the Korean war wasn't a guerilla war -- it was a conventional war. Every time we kill an Iraqi insurgent we piss off the local population and two or three more step forward to take his place. Does this sound like a winning formula to you? Are you prepared to kill every man of military age in Iraq so we can declare victory?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    5. Re:Most sensible people would by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      So we shouldn't have invaded Iraq because Al-Qaeda wouldn't like it?

      Are you kidding me, Al-Qaeda LOVES it. Free anti-american press and lines around the block at the terrorist signup station.

      And it was okay that Saddam tried to hide and create WMDs, just as long as he wasn't successful?

      yes it is because guess what, reason aside, he had no WMD's and was no threat!

      And we're losing a guerilla war where we're killing 20 times more of the guerillas than they are of us (at least)?

      We managed to kill 20 times more vietnamese people than they killed americans and we lost that one too.

    6. Re:Most sensible people would by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So we shouldn't have invaded Iraq because Al-Qaeda wouldn't like it?

      Nice try, but invading Iraq is exactly what Al-Qaeda wanted. It's you that wants invading Iraq to be bad for Al-Qaeda, probably for political reasons.

      Old Iraq was bad. Saddam was an evil mother fucker. Nobody, absolutely nobody, disagrees.

      But Iraq had zippo to do with 9/11. The Iraq war has made us and the world less safe, and has let Osama (remember him?) regroup and work his terrorism evil elsewhere. And now we have $200-bil tied up in a war that has nothing to do with terrorism.

      Removing Saddam is good. Invading Iraq to do it was completely wrong. And, we've now got a wag-the-dog situation with the real evildoers not being persued.

    7. Re:Most sensible people would by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And it was okay that Saddam tried to hide and create WMDs, just as long as he wasn't successful?

      Maybe what you are saying would make sense if Saddam actually had WMDs. Claiming someone is hiding something that doesn't exist is just an excuse. Too bad you have been reduced to peddling lies and speculations.

      And we're losing a guerilla war where we're killing 20 times more of the guerillas than they are of us (at least)?

      Most of the people you kill are innocent people. Too bad you like to count the innocent as "terrorists" as per Bush Administration doctrine... In any case, you can kill or lose more people than your opponent and yet win/lose. Classic examples include Vietnam and USSR.

      USA was killing 10 Vietnamese (Viet Cong and civilians) per 1 US soldier killed, yet they couldn't control the country, let alone win anything.

      A contrary example would be Russia during WWII. Nazi Germany lost around 3.5 million soldiers but Soviet Union lost 19 million (this includes total casulties--not necessarily Germany vs USSR, although most of the major battles were between them). Even though Germany was killing 6x more Soviet soldiers (actually it's higher since a lot of German losses were due to the western front) yet in the end, USSR won. Germany couldn't even win Stalingrad/St. Petersberg, let alone try to invade Moscow.

      Furthermore, body counts mean nothing given that terrorists use asymettric warfare. They can do massive damage with small resources.

      Obviously you are an old-school Imperialist who is still stuck in the past. The fact of the matter is USA, or for that matter any other country, cannot combat terrorism by imperialism. Even a superpower like USA will go bankrupt trying to invade a few countries. Already, USA can't control Iraq and the plans to invade Iran, Syria, and possibly North Korea are totally infeasible. USA has the largest military by far and it is running out of troops, and is close to conscription (watch next year to see what happens). In addition, USA is running massive deficits and escalating the imperialist wars, as you will surely call for, will simply bankrupt the country.

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    8. Re:Most sensible people would by protohiro1 · · Score: 1

      This article from The Nation (yes, I am aware that The Nation puts the Liberal in Liberal Media) has a really good discussion of the morality of war. The fact being that people, including innocent people die. You'd better have a pretty good reason to go to war. The kind of reason that you would be willing to die for. The kind of reason that when you hear about children being killed accidently you can honestly believe it was worth it. (see: World War II) Someone trying (yet failing) to create and hide weapons is not this kind of reason.

      --
      Sig removed because it was obnoxious
    9. Re:Most sensible people would by Specter · · Score: 1

      > yes it is because guess what, reason aside, he had no WMD's and was no threat!

      Really? I guess that Sarin bomb they exploded the other day must have come from eBay.

    10. Re:Most sensible people would by Eccles · · Score: 1

      And we're losing a guerilla war where we're killing 20 times more of the guerillas than they are of us (at least)?

      One word: Vietnam.

      (Ok, further explanation: ~58,000 American dead, ~1,000,000 North Vietnamese dead. Looks damned close to 1:20 to me...)

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    11. Re:Most sensible people would by Jeremi · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I believe the intent of the message was "I hate Bush and will bitch about anything he does."


      Absolutely. Since we know that Bush never makes mistakes, anyone who criticizes him must be an irrational liberal, overcome with mindless partisan rancor. The fact that well-being of the United States and the world have nose-dived straight into the toilet over the last three years is completely coincidental, and has nothing at all to do with Bush's radical ideas about how the foreign policy, the economy and the environment should be handled. Move along citizens, nothing to see here.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    12. Re:Most sensible people would by Rayonic · · Score: 1

      Since we know that Bush never makes mistakes, anyone who criticizes him must be an irrational liberal, overcome with mindless partisan rancor

      And anyone who agrees with anything he's done must be a mindless conservative dittohead, right?

    13. Re:Most sensible people would by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey man, the top bidder said he just collected the stuff, I swear!

    14. Re:Most sensible people would by Rayonic · · Score: 1

      Maybe what you are saying would make sense if Saddam actually had WMDs. Claiming someone is hiding something that doesn't exist is just an excuse. Too bad you have been reduced to peddling lies and speculations.

      Uh-huh, and the reason that he never complied with U.N. inspectors and got his sanctions lifted was...?

      And, oh yeah, who can forget the massive international web of corruption he created with the "Food-for-Oil" program. I guess that was a sure sign that he was going to comply, right?

      But hey, I shouldn't waste anymore time trying to convince you. Hell, you still think that they're going to reinstate the draft -- even with the military still turning applicants away!

      I can't wait until you and your ilk get smacked upside the head by the final report of the Iraq Survey Group. Word on the grapevine is that they've found tons of evidence of WMD programs (some of which was outlined in their interim report, on the off chance you want look it up and educate yourself.)

    15. Re:Most sensible people would by Rayonic · · Score: 1

      Actually yes, that should have been a consideration. We should have looked at what we'd get out of it vs what the cost would be. In this case we got nothing out of it and we are paying billions each month for the privilege of occupying the place. And to top all that off we provided Al-Qaeda with the best damn recruitment photograph [smh.com.au] in history.

      So you have definitive proof that the occupation would have gone smoother if Saddam had, say, gassed another country before being invaded? Or that our Lynndie England would have behaved better if the U.S. have gotten a U.N. mandate?

      Do you have any evidence that he was still trying to create them?

      Rumor has it that the Iraq Survey Group has found evidence of just that. I'd wait for the final report if I were you.

      I'm sorry but we don't go to war on "We think he might be doing this".

      Just like we shouldn't have gone to war with Afghanistan before Sept 11th?

      But even besides the subject of preemption, there still was the matter that Iraq violated the terms of it's cease-fire with the United States. One of those terms was compliance with U.N. inspectors, but the U.N. did not have the last say. (Just in case they were incompetent or corrupt, which they were.)

      And quite frankly who the hell cares what Saddam may or may not have had? I'd have started worrying about it when he had delivery systems to actually get the damn things here.

      Delivery systems -- you mean like commercial boats or airplanes? How hard do you think it would be to smuggle destructive devices into the U.S. through Mexico or Canada? Not all that hard, considering the massive amounts of drugs flowing into this country.

      And we all know that Saddam heartily approved of Al-Qaeda's WTC attacks.

      "He was in bed with the terrorists" unless you are prepared to say exactly what terrorists he was "in bed" with
      I've heard about his terrorist links, but... why would he need them anyway? I mean, he ran a whole country. He had many more resources at his disposal than any two-bit group of jihadi yahoos.

      I don't know that we're losing but we aren't winning now are we?

      As long as we successfully hand over the Iraq to the planned Iraqi government, we won. As it stands, there are no significant military threats to that. Al-Sadr has lost significant ground, and Fallujah has been pacified.

      A small group of unpopular "rebels" are not a threat to the upcoming interim government.

    16. Re:Most sensible people would by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well fucking* said.

      Unfortunately there's no easy solution now though as the country's infrastructure was gutted as soon as the dictatorial authority was taken out.

      Incidentally, when I lived in Libya Gaddafi used to perform an interesting tactic: if there was a public insurgence he'd make a big fuss and hand over "power to the people". Of course he'd do it in such as way that it was doomed to failure - power corrupts and the appointed people were soon corrupted, and there was such an overload of administration that it was impossible to manage. So shit would go down, then he'd roll back in (arresting and executing a few on the way) and offer to save the people, who'd then love him again.

      Except there's no-one that can roll back into Iraq and make things right again. Democracy, for all its benefits, has to be fought for and earned, not forced upon the people. And as Ghandi famously said, "Liberty and democracy become unholy when their hands are dyed red with innocent blood." Things sure are unholy enough in Iraq right now :(

      *Sorry to swear, but that post deserves the emphasis.

    17. Re:Most sensible people would by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I find most interesting is that majority of the American public have completely forgotten that the US has had sanctions in place in Iraq for like 10 years now. Exports and imports have been restricted for a long time. I mean, if you go back and look at how this all started, the weapons inspectors were not being given access to all of Sadams facilities. But, with these restrictions in place, and Iraq being watched for the past 10 years, and these inspections taking place throughout this period, suddenly after 9/11 Iraq managed to obtain WMD. Yeah...right. Thats why we can't find them right? Never could find them. Never was any evidence to support the notion that they were there other than some bogus information that most likely was planted regarding plutonium...which was later retracted and publicly stated as false.

      But in the US still goes. People are freaking dying over there for nothing. It has nothing to do with freedom. Polls show 60% of the Iraqis don't want the US there. Go figure. DUH! If we had a bunch of soldiers running around the US with Guns from another country, you can sure bet that people here wouldn't want them either. "We are doing it for the Iraqi people." Yeah...uh huh. This was fucking idiotic from day one. I hope the American People can show they are smarter than a bag of rocks and get rid of Bush in 04. But even then, now what the hell do we do? Leave and say I'm sorry? Were fucked now anyway you slice it. Where is the great things we are doing for the Iraqi people? If it is happening, there is no coverage of it at all. Don't get me wrong, I support our troops. I just hate to see those same people risking their lives for ? Of all the dumb things we could have done. I'm just waiting for the Timothy Mcveigh freaks to start popping up on our own soil. There is always some bizarre spin off on these things.

    18. Re:Most sensible people would by Jeremi · · Score: 1
      And anyone who agrees with anything he's done must be a mindless conservative dittohead, right?


      That's about where the level of debate is these days, alas. Most people would rather set up straw men and knock them down than engage in actual discussion of the issues.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    19. Re:Most sensible people would by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We didn't win the Korean War

      What makes you say that? North Korea invaded the South. They're parked back behind their border again. South Korea is very successful, rather than having been incorporated into the North Korean debacle.

      Seems like a nice defensive victory, just the sort you'd want your army for.

      Or are you some sort of conspiracy theorist that thinks the US really provoked the Korean War to conquer the North, but were beaten back by the brave North Koreans (what Chinese)? No doubt that's what they'll tell you there...

    20. Re:Most sensible people would by Handpaper · · Score: 1
      And we're losing a guerilla war where we're killing 20 times more of the guerillas than they are of us (at least)?
      Yes, you(we) are. The war in Iraq is not against Al-Quaida, it is not against former Ba-athists and it is most certainly not against such a nebulous concept as 'Terror'. It is for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.
      It is not possible to win a guerrilla war by occupation or force of arms.
      It is possible to win by persuading and demonstrating to people that you are their friends. Compare the methods used in Vietnam before and after the operation was brought under the control of the US army. Compare that whole mess to the Borneo conflict ('What Borneo conflict?' 'That's how well it was handled').
      And in case you think I'm trying to say the US army are meatheads and the British perfect gentlemen, look at Northern Ireland. We've made mistakes too.
      I only hope that Britain and the US (et. al.) can make a peaceful and dignified withdrawal from Iraq, leaving behind a government that has the confidence of its people and the respect of the rest of the world.

      Normally I don't use my karma bonus. But in this case, fuck it, I want to shout.

    21. Re:Most sensible people would by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      I think I follow the Iraqi situation more closely than you do.... just wait for the draft. Already, one division(?) was reassigned from South Korea to Iraq. I think this is the first time in over 20 years that some troops were moved away from South Korea, which USA considers high priority...

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    22. Re:Most sensible people would by WarmBoota · · Score: 1

      Well there was that little incident with U.N. inspectors bugging the place

      Now, I don't believe Bush's folks as far as I can comfortably spit a rat, and I definitely don't believe Saddam's regime. I suspect that the truth, as always, lies somewhere in the middle.

      --
      90% of everything is crap. Also, crap is relative.
    23. Re:Most sensible people would by freejung · · Score: 1
      And we all know that Saddam heartily approved of Al-Qaeda's WTC attacks.

      So now people should be attacked for their opinions? Just because he approved of it, doesn't mean he had anything to do with it. Sorry, I know it is terrible to approve of mass murder, but an opinion, however unsavory, is not (yet, at least) a crime.

      As long as we successfully hand over the Iraq to the planned Iraqi government, we won.

      Does it still count as a victory at that point if the new govenment is not democratic? Does it still count as a victory if US troops keep dying? Or is it just going to be good for another carrier-deck photo op?

    24. Re:Most sensible people would by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      What makes you say that?

      What makes me say that [we lost the Korean war]? Simple: North Korea still exists. We liberated the entire country of Korea. Then we allowed ourselves to be forced back to the 38th parallel (actually further because Seoul traded hands a few more times) by the communists.

      That is one of the most shameful moments in American history. We were welcomed as liberators by people in the North when we came through. Then we allowed ourselves to be pushed out and we didn't fight our way back. We surrendered millions of people to decades of starvation and oppression under one of the most evil regimes in the World.

      I consider the Korean war to be a defeat because it's the first time in history that an American army retreated and didn't retake the battlefield. We had everything we needed to win that war but the politicians decided not to do it. Perhaps that was the right thing to do if you look at the bigger picture (it didn't turn into WW3 did it?) but it's still one of the most shameful moments in our history.

      If you want my opinion then MacArther should have been allowed to take the war into China. I'm sorry but they opened themselves up for attack the minute they fired on American troops. We should have started systematic bombing of Chinese cities -- if they refused to back down (they would have) we should have employed nuclear weapons. Allowing communists to stalemale us and enslave several million people should have been considered unthinkable.

      Or are you some sort of conspiracy theorist that thinks the US really provoked the Korean War to conquer the North, but were beaten back by the brave North Koreans (what Chinese)?

      No, but nice way to try and lump me in with the radical left flower children. Read my posting history before you go making such assumptions.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    25. Re:Most sensible people would by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Informative

      So you have definitive proof that the occupation would have gone smoother if Saddam

      No, actually the occupation would have gone smoother if we had done it back in 1991 when we had just cause to do it. Hell forget that -- perhaps we actually would have been welcomed as liberators if we hadn't told them to rise up against Saddam then stood aside while he mercilessly crushed them after the first Gulf War.

      How about another tact? Perhaps the occupation would have gone smoother if Robert McNamara.. err I mean Donald Rumsfeld had listened to his Generals and deployed enough manpower to actually carry out a real occupation instead of trying to wage war on the cheap.

      Just like we shouldn't have gone to war with Afghanistan before Sept 11th?

      Sorry, we already had cause to go to war with them -- specifically the attack on the Cole and the bombing of our embassies in Africa. Show me some evidence that Iraq actually attacked us and maybe I'll change my stance. The United States doesn't launch preemptive wars -- or at least we didn't used to.

      Delivery systems -- you mean like commercial boats or airplanes? How hard do you think it would be to smuggle destructive devices into the U.S. through Mexico or Canada? Not all that hard, considering the massive amounts of drugs flowing into this country.

      Oh, please explain to me why Saddam would want to attack the United States knowing full well that we would figure out he did it and respond with massive overwhelming force. Or did mutually assured destruction cease to be viable against dictators? That's funny it seemed to work quite well against Stalin and Khrushchev and I don't think Saddam has anything on Stalin in terms of evil.

      And we all know that Saddam heartily approved of Al-Qaeda's WTC attacks.

      So did the Saudi royal family (or at least elements of it) and you don't see us invading that country do you? I'd point out that 15 of 19 hijackers came from there (how many came from Iraq? Zero) -- but of course we aren't going to do anything about that (except perhaps censor out parts of the 9/11 report relating to the Saudis) because the Saudis are good friends of the Bush family and they have millions invested in oil coming from Saudi Arabia.

      A small group of unpopular "rebels" are not a threat to the upcoming interim government.

      Unpopular? Is that way the common people in the street mutilate the bodies of fallen Americans? Not a threat? When that interim government can police the streets without American troops let me know. In any case the "interim Government" is going to be an American puppet and everybody knows it. We aren't even going to give them control over their own military and police forces. Do you really think that's going to fool anyone?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  132. I've seen this somewhere before... by Ossadagowah · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh yeah, it was the Paranoia RPG.

    --
    anata sekai o kakumei surush ga nai deshou? Anata no susumu michi wa yoi shite arimasu.
  133. Losing the conservative base by antizeus · · Score: 1

    If you haven't noticed, more and more conservatives are getting fed up with the Bush regime, not just for bungling the war, but for things like presiding over a huge increase in the size of the federal government. Some are even talking about voting for Ralph Nader (as they can't bring themselves to vote for Kerry). Criticizing BushCo does not disqualify you from being a conservative.

    --
    -- $SIGNATURE
  134. You can't make a difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not try and make the world a better place? Because it's ultimately futile when the masses aren't even intellectually gifted enough to appreciate or understand "the better way".

    Have you ever tried to argue an issue with someone who was very opinionated yet obviously average (or less) intelligence? These people operate on completely different logic rules. You might as well be arguing with your cat, or a wall. Because just as many people just "don't get" simnple algebra, they "don't get" other things either, like world politics, economics, etc, etc.

    1. Re:You can't make a difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait. A random leftist pseudo-intellectual on slashdot is calling everyone ELSE sheep?

      You are an idiot. A complete fucking moron. You're as blindly stuck on your ideals as everyone else is. Actually, probably more so, judging by the average /. left-wing whiner.

  135. Whatever else, it sounds effective. by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1
    From the story:
    Of the people with the 80 highest scores, five were among the Sept. 11 hijackers, Seisint's presentation said. Forty-five were identified as being or possibly being under existing investigations, while 30 others "were unknown to FBI."

    On the one hand, this seems to be a gross invasion of privacy, but on the other hand, I want those other thirty people put under the microscope.

    It doesn't sound like the FBI immediately ran out and packed the people on the list off to Guantanamo. The database was used to look for patterns of suspicious behavior, and then the feds sat down and looked at the evidence that caused their scores to be ratcheted up.

    I'm not a believer in strong privacy protections. Instead, I believe in transparency. It's getting impossible to stop the flow of information, and much of that information is about us: our lives, our tastes and proclivities, our goals. This data is going to be warehoused, mined, and used by people who don't have our interests at heart. I believe that the only choice we really have is whether to demand it to be done in an open, transparent way, or simply outlaw the whole shebang and watch as it continues under a cloak of secrecy.

    If we are all to be watched, then those who wield power should be watched closest of anyone. Applied to the MATRIX system, it might be allowed to continue, but with every search being logged and opened to public scrutiny after some reasonable length of time. Any person arrested due to a tip from the MATRIX system would have to be notified of the fact, and the nature of the evidence against him. Obviously, there are other needed safeguards I haven't considered, but the point is that they would make it harder for the government officials to use the tool to conduct secret vendettas, and give us all the opportunity to determine just how effective the system really is.
    --

    You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

  136. Ahoy, Matey? by RowdyReptile · · Score: 1

    Wake up Neo. The MATRIX has you.
    Really, can these guys pick a name with worse symbolism? Skynet, maybe?


    And am I the only one who noticed that it should really be abbreviated as MATIE?

    To get "Matrix" from Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange, they had to grab a random 'r' from the middle of Terrorism and the second letter of Exchange.

    --

    You want a sig? I can get you a sig... Hell, I can get you a sig by 3 o'clock this afternoon... with nail polish.
  137. Wonder what they used... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder what they used to run the ranking system. If I were to do it, probably postgres+python (for easy maintenance and updates) :)

  138. Absolute safety: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The 99% safe solution is to lock everyone up. Is that what you want?

  139. I thought so too, actually... by mark-t · · Score: 1
    Shame, really... I would've liked to see how low or how high I might've ranked...

    Oh, heck! We could even start an informal game to see who can score the highest without ever getting performing any real crimes or getting arrested!

    But aww... no such luck.

  140. Muslim extremists do not want to be left alone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
    "How on earth is that insightful?? Muslim extremists want to be left alone"

    No, they do not. They want to expand their rule into regions of Central Asia. They want to invade Israel and exterminate its people. They want to expand Muslim "law" into traditionally non-Muslim places like the southern Sudan. In already-Muslim places like Turkey, they want to replace secularism with a system where everyone is forced to obey one brand of Islam. These are just a few examples. Extremist Islam is aggressive and expansionist.

    "America has done more to cause terrorism than any other country has in recent years, possibly ever"

    "Muslim extremists just want to be normal muslims. Normal muslims just want to get on with their lives, like normal everyone-else-on-this-planet."

    If they did, they would put down their guns and take up a "live and let live" attitude.

    "You don't win friends by beating them up."

    If they are already beating you up for the sole reason that you do not worship the Muslim god, then it is part hope for winning them as friends.

    "It frustrates me so much when I hear people saying the terrorists want to "destroy america" because they "envy our freedoms" or "hate democracy". "

    It may frustrate you, but it is quite true. The terrorist's own speech and documents list as prime reasons for "hating America" such things as America's tolerance of religious freedom. Think about it.... long and hard.

    No, America has done much to reduce and minimize terrorism.

    1. Re:Muslim extremists do not want to be left alone by Temsi · · Score: 1

      they want to replace secularism with a system where everyone is forced to obey one brand of Islam
      Extremism is always bad regardless of what it refers to, hence the word EXTREMISM. I'm sure John Ashcroft (who spent $7000 of tax-payer money to cover up the breast of a naked statue of Lady Liberty, because it offended his religious beliefs) and George Bush (who supports public schools teaching Creationism - one of the most ridiculous fairy tales ever written - as well as school prayer) would have no problem supporting a constitutional amendment making Christianity the state sanctioned religion.

      do not worship the Muslim god

      Same god, different prophet.

      It may frustrate you, but it is quite true.

      Not so fast, buster. Sure, they don't like the fact that we're technically open to other religions, despite printing "In God We Trust" on our currency and making witnesses swear on the Bible in courts of law, and we change a pledge to include the words "under God".
      But guess what! Turns out former President George H. W. Bush is so full of religious tolerance, he states that Atheists are not citizens and not patriots.
      And he's not even the religious one in the family!

      Here's a very simplified list of why they hate us:
      1. US Foreign policy has always been: "what's in it for us?" and we make many deals and decisions that affect the middle east negatively.
      2. We claim to love democracy, but we help overthrow democratic governments if we think the replacement will be more benefitial to us, even when the replacement is a dictator deals with terrorists in order to get our oil fix.
      4. We don't want to seem soft, so when we're hit by an ally, we strike back at a former ally who's now an enemy with a debilitated military which made him an easy target. In the words of Chris Rock: "If they were such a threat to us, how come it only took us two weeks to take over the whole f**king country?!"

      Recommended reading: Why do they hate us?

      --
      -- This sig for rent.
  141. You deal with them by killing them by guet · · Score: 1

    oh please, are you talking about the invasion of Iraq, or some vague catch-all 'War on Evil' which will change definition every time someone asks who you're attacking?

    Hate to break it to you, but Saddam ran quite a secular (though evil) government, and actually persecuted a lot of people for their muslim beliefs. The war in Iraq has nothing to do with Muslim extremism and everything to do with the crazy obsession of right wing cranks like Cheney and Rumsfeld with having a puppet regime in the gulf. Unfortunately they didn't learn from previous mistakes (remember the Iranian revolution? Remember that photo of Rumsfeld visiting Saddam in the eighties under Reagan to discuss cooperation?).

    Do you really believe the roughly 10,000 people killed in Saddam's army during the invasion were actually interested in your country or in imposing Islamic law there? They didn't even have it in Iraq. Who exactly do you mean by 'them', and what exactly do you think the war in Iraq has to do with that?

    The war in Afghanistan had some direct justification, and the country is still a mess, arguably in worse shape than when we invaded. No one even bothers to talk about it in the US media (or in Europe for that matter) anymore. Will that war stop a terrorist sponsoring government from taking over there? It won't if we leave the country to slide into chaos again afterward.

    1. Re:You deal with them by killing them by amightywind · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Afghanistan...arguably in worse shape than when we invaded

      Then your standard for what an argument consists of are low. I wonder what the average Afghan woman thinks of that statement?

      --
      an ill wind that blows no good
    2. Re:You deal with them by killing them by dasmegabyte · · Score: 1

      We'll never know...the current regime is slowly working its way back to Taliban levels of gender based repression. But I'll bet you never saw that on Fox News.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    3. Re:You deal with them by killing them by FunkyChild · · Score: 1

      I realise this info is a bit old, but it was still after the majority of the US' campaign was over - I can't see much happening there these days that would make these articles much different:

      http://www.hrw.org/editorials/2003/afghan0121.htm
      http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/01/afghan0116.htm
      http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/12/herat1217.htm
      http://www.hrw.org/editorials/2002/afghan1217.htm

  142. Met a terrorist? by complexmath · · Score: 1

    I guess that depends on how you define the term "terrorist." In the past few years that definition has loosened considerably, and refocused a bit at the same time. It seems, for example, that being of Anglo-Saxon descent automatically excludes someone from "terrorist" status. Kind of a racist McCarthyism.

  143. Mod Parent Up by p00p+at+instable.net · · Score: 0

    This guy is right... I want an America that's not an empire.

  144. Lying? by farnham · · Score: 1

    I think it's more like you testifying you ate all the leftover birthday cake. however the cross examination reveals that when a police forensic team scoured your house they found a tiny crumb. Obviously you're a liar and none of your testimony should be considered.

    --
    pending committee review
    1. Re:Lying? by cheezedawg · · Score: 1

      Saddam was caught in his lies many times in the past 12 years- if you don't believe me, read any of the 12 unanimous UNSEC resolutions that were passed against him during the 1990's condeming him for this, or even Hans Blix's reports to the UN that detail the history of the WMD searches there. Saddam was a liar, so thats why we didn't consider his "testimony".

      And we don't know if this is an isolated weapon that just slipped through the cracks or not. All we know is that Saddam had x number of illegal weapons in 1991, we know that he destroyed y of them, and x > y.

      --
      "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
    2. Re:Lying? by workindev · · Score: 1

      To be fair, lets continue this analogy:

      This isn't just any birthday cake. It's a birthday cake that, when in the hands of the wrong people, has the capability to kill millions of people and create global pandemonium. This is special birthday cake.

      Not only that, but I have been under international order for well over a decade to provide proof that my birthday cake, as well as the ability to produce more birthday cake, has been destroyed. I claim that I destroyed this birthday cake, but offer no proof that I actually did. Inspectors from the UN Birthday Cake Monitoring team have been visiting my house, but I keep denying them access to my secret birthday cake kitchens and ovens, saying that these inspectors are spies that will share secrets to other houses on the block. I bug the inspectors hotel rooms so I can get advance warning of which room they are inspecting, and there are even satellite photos of me unloading boxes outside my back door just as the birthday cake inspectors are arriving.

      And when the inspectors do finally find evidence that my claims are untrue with the discovery of a special birthday cake ingredient called Vx in 1998, I kick them out of my house for 4 years. I still claim that I do not have any birthday cakes, even though no intelligence agency in the world believes me.

      When a substantial portion of the US Navy pacific fleet, as well as 150,000 US troops, park outside my front gate, I reluctantly agree to let the birthday cake inspectors back into my house. These inspectors still find that I have not provided enough proof that my birthday cake is destroyed. The US attacks my house, and they find me in a rat hole in the basement.

      Despite claming all along that I did not have any more birthday cake, insurgents loyal to me try to use birthday cake in an attempted attack against US solders on patrol in my house, proving that I did in fact still have birthday cake somewhere in my house.

      Lefty Americans, who oppose the US president and the war on my house, refuse to accept this as evidence, and even resort to foolish analogies where the destructive power of my birthday cake is compared to harmless sweets, when they are proven wrong.

    3. Re:Lying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry I didn't look between the walls where the cockroaches might have hidden the crumbs of my birthday cake.

  145. Anonymous Coward... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just became suspect 120,001

  146. My counrtymen are morons. by RatBastard · · Score: 1

    There are some of us, like myself, that value freedom and individuality. But many of my fellow Americans are terrified sheep who still see the Twin Towers falling and have let the government blind them with fear that this impending doom will be heading their way any second now. They honestly do not care about losing their freedoms as long as they think they'll be safer for it. They refuse to observe the historical evidence that disproves thier ideas.

    But why are they so stupid and short-sighted? A combination of a school system designed to create an unthinking and docile workforce for 19th century factories and a media owned by large corporations intent on keeping people afraid and under control.

    --
    Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
    1. Re:My counrtymen are morons. by sakyamuni · · Score: 1
      But why are they so stupid and short-sighted? A combination of a school system designed to create an unthinking and docile workforce for 19th century factories and a media owned by large corporations intent on keeping people afraid and under control.

      And, as you put it so bluntly in the subject of your post, because their IQ is not high enough. For the same reasons that the rich live longer, many of your fellow Americans are easily manipulated by the gummint, believe violence to be the answer to many problems (both those in their daily life and those at a much grander scale), don't think about the long-term consequences of their actions, &c., ad nauseam.

  147. WMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no such thing. The mass isn't destroyed, but rather converted to energy.

  148. Mod parent down by shiftless · · Score: 1

    Parent is a troll, and the "karma be damned" line doesn't change that fact. Why is it that inserting a karma disclaimer is guaranteed to get you modded up?

  149. Just like a Credit Score? by z3r0w8 · · Score: 0

    Can they make this publicly available so that I can get my score and then they can suggest remedies to help me adjust my score? "sorry sir, Your face vector scores fall into the shifty category. Plastic surgery can help you with this. " Get your free Terrorist Score Today! Don't wait until you get imprisoned! Act Now!

    --
    -----
  150. History repeats itself? by Zordok · · Score: 1

    Let me guess, one of the criteria for being labelled a potential terrorist is wearing a black trench coat and playing video games...

    oh wait, wrong incident.

    -Z

  151. Government Claimed I Was a Terrorist by militiaMan · · Score: 1

    I wonder how I scored. They never told me when they confiscated my property. They still have not given my guns back.

    Apparently applying for a FFL (Federal Firearms License), being a Computer Scientist, and wanting any kind of civil rights drives up the score.

    Yea I was acquitted, but they didn't need a conviction to destroy my life and career.

    I hate Fascism. I feel like I am in a bad Starship Troopers film.

  152. You can do better than that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    a commondreams.org link? Bring on the kooks!

    That is not a news site. It is a rant site from a far-left notjub group. Not only that, but the editorial was written by someone representing "FAIR", a group that advocates censorship of all media that isn't extreme left wing. Try something factual, rather than editorials from fringe extremists. You are just as bad as the right-wingers who quote www.rushlimbaugh.com. Or the boobs who quote www.moveon.org (a Democrat Party press-release site) to prove "Republicans are bad". Yes, a news flash: Democrats say Republicans are bad.

  153. frankie says... by proj_2501 · · Score: 1

    relax! i was quoting a t-shirt which was making fun of those drug commercials.

    on the topic of saudi arabia, that government doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense. nor does that of kuwait, who may or may not have tried to frame some iraqis as trying to assassinate the first bush.

  154. Re: inventions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dr. Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web in 1989, long after it was developed by DARPA in 1969 and switched to TCP/IP in 1983.

  155. He is right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In your example of WW II, if we had not encouraged the Japanese to arm and funded Hitler into power, then we wouldn't have had to fight them later on. Keep in mind that the same people who funded Hitler (Henry Ford, Prescott Bush etc) were the same ones who made all the profits by fighting them later on, often making profits from both sides. You avoid wars and terrorism by dealing with the conditions that create them. War is a racket and only benefits the rich.

  156. Terror Databases and my Master's by TheBracket · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm a UK citizen, living (with a Green Card, happily married) in the USA. Prior to 9/11, I could travel easily within the country - rarely stopped, security were somewhat courteous, and life was easy. Since 9/11, I can't make it through a single airport without being taken aside for a full search! Last time, I asked why - and was told that I'm in a database of likely travel threats. The only connection I have to terrorism is that I authored my Master's thesis (back in '98) on Terrorism and Democracy (the basic thesis was that terrorism is extra-effective against Western-style Democracies because panic reactions to acts of terror tend to remove the freedoms on which the society is based; terrorism therefore 'wins' against the Democracy because the rights of the citizens are increasingly compromised until the society is so locked down as to not be free at all. I really didn't think it would be that prophetic!). I can't find any way to have myself removed from this database, so now I travel Greyhound!

    --
    Lead developer, http://wisptools.net
    1. Re:Terror Databases and my Master's by LincolnQ · · Score: 1

      Wow. That's pretty amazing. Good story.

    2. Re:Terror Databases and my Master's by stud9920 · · Score: 1

      got a pdf of that thesis ?

    3. Re:Terror Databases and my Master's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is your thesis online? I'd like to read it.

    4. Re:Terror Databases and my Master's by norkakn · · Score: 1

      Wow, I hope you understand the signifigance of what people have replied to this post.

      People actually _want_ to read your thesis! If the four of us read it, it may become one of the most read masters thesises of all time.

    5. Re:Terror Databases and my Master's by srcosmo · · Score: 1
      Welcome to big government. If they can't get the bad guys, they'll get you instead.

      Sigh.

      --
      free speach
      Did you mean: free speech
  157. GeekTV by MikeFM · · Score: 1

    Freaks & Geeks was a show that seemed popular with a lot of us nerds and yet it was struck down before it's time. I think we need our own tv network.. not just showing PBS type stuff.. but something like TLC, Cartoon Network, Spike TV, Comedy Central, etc all mixed together to have the shows that most appeal to nerds. Anime, Junkyard Wars, Freaks and Geeks, Red Dwarf, and Southpark. Maybe throw in Dead Like Me and MXC for good measure. To be fun we should make some opensourced shows just to see how things work out.

    --
    At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    1. Re:GeekTV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reminds me of TechTV (no real comedy, though), but alas, things will change on May 28th when G4 completely takes over and it becomes G4TechTV.

    2. Re:GeekTV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe with a network aimed at more educated people, the commercials will actually be worth watching.

      I subscribe to circuit cellar magazine. It's very highly targeted at professionals developping embedded systems. It's a very narrow scope, and the ads are well targeted. I normally hate advertising, but in that magazine the ads are as useful to me as the articles.

  158. 120,000 by HyperCash · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The only terrorist attacks that come to my mind that happened in America somewhat recently are the 9/11 attacks and the Oklahoma City bombing. For a grand total of 19 terrorists. And this list brings up a 120,000 potential terrorists.

    I would fucking hate to be on that list. These are going to be the people that can't fly because they're blacklisted, that can't get government jobs because they're blacklisted, or who knows, can't take out a mortgage because they're blacklisted. Even though the odds are overwhelmingly in their favor that they aren't a terrorist.

    And what exactly do you have to do to get on this list? I mean you could say that Mr. McVeagh (sp?), the only American out of the aforementioned 19 terrorists, was an extremist libertarian...Do we suspect all of the libertarians? Its a sad time for a once free country when you seriosly have to consider what you register [to vote] as because you might end up on some list because even if you're peaceful they're not going to know that.

    --HC

    --
    So I'm jump'n up and down screaming show me the money.
    1. Re:120,000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      These are going to be the people that can't fly because they're blacklisted, that can't get government jobs because they're blacklisted, or who knows, can't take out a mortgage because they're blacklisted.
      Says who?
    2. Re:120,000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Do we suspect all of the libertarians?

      Don we now our shiny hats.

    3. Re:120,000 by CaptainTux · · Score: 2, Interesting
      And what exactly do you have to do to get on this list?

      I think most Americans realize that the entire "finding terrorists" thing here in the USA is being mis-used as a means to expand the governments powers into places they used to want to be in but couldn't because of those pesky civil liberties.

      These days it doesn't take much for the government to invade your privacy. All they need to do is label you a "terror suspect" (which of course can mean pretty much anything they want it to mean). Are you a fundamentalist Christian? Do you believe the Bible is the inspired word of God? Do you take some or all of it literally? Then, in the governments eyes, you have a very high probability of being or becoming a terrorist. Are you concerned about your civil liberties being stripped away? Likewise if you've voiced ANY anti-American sentiment or shown any kind of pro-islamic views. Scary huh? When youhave some time, go read the FBI, CIA, and DHS's papers on identifying terrorists. It gets scarier.

      I realize that we are in a war and we are at war with a movement that would love nothing more than to see as many people dead as possible. But taking away our rights simply isn't the answer to winning that war. Personally, I would rather have a higher risk of terrorism and more civil liberties than be totally safe with few liberties. There has to be a balance somwhere and I do hope that the government finds it soon. It's getting pretty weird out there. I'm starting to understand how our society ends up breeding people like Timothy McVeigh and how they end up so frustrated with the government that they commit these horrible crimes. I'm not saying I condone it - it's wrong; it was murder. But I do understand it.

      --
      Anthony Papillion
      Advanced Data Concepts, Inc.
      "Quality Custom Software and IT Services"
    4. Re:120,000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you a fundamentalist Christian? Do you believe the Bible is the inspired word of God? Do you take some or all of it literally?

      Wait -- so being a terrorist is something like being an idiot? Who's next, people who think American Idol has an accurate voting process?

  159. I can't help but thinking about by the.WZA · · Score: 1

    The previous thread about CAPPS and the Carnival Booth: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/13/19 51210&mode=thread&tid=103&tid=158&tid= 99

  160. Pedantic WMD apologists by swb · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Since sarin and other gasseous nerve agents are worthless as single-instance munitions, they'd have to be stockpiled by the thousands to be considered an effective military weapon. Given Hussein's well-known paranoia and lack of trust of even his own military leadership, he likely moved the stockpiles around, deliberately mislabeled them and, this, coupled with his military's incompetance and corruption likely led a few of them to be overlooked or retained by local commanders, either deliberately or out of fear that they would be punished for destroying them.

    Arguing that he "had" weapons of mass destruction simply because a few random shells have turned up is entirely pedantic given the circumstances of Hussein's regime and the nature of the weapons.

    1. Re:Pedantic WMD apologists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What was President Bush thinking? He should have consulted SWB before attacking, because SWB seems to know exactly what Saddam was up to prior to the war.

    2. Re:Pedantic WMD apologists by cheezedawg · · Score: 1

      Since sarin and other gasseous nerve agents are worthless as single-instance munitions, they'd have to be stockpiled by the thousands to be considered an effective military weapon.

      First of all, thats bull crap. Sarin is one of the most toxic substances on earth. 100mg of Sarin will kill you within a few minutes. The 155mm shell found in Iraq had about 6kg of chemical agent. This single weapon, if properly placed, could kill tens of thousands of people.

      And do you think we just found the only chemical shell that Saddam made? Do you honestly think he only made one? Lets ignore the fact that Saddam denied that he had weaponized Sarin in artillery shells- its just another lie that we caught him in. Of course he stockpiled them.

      Arguing that he "had" weapons of mass destruction simply because a few random shells have turned up is entirely pedantic given the circumstances of Hussein's regime and the nature of the weapons.

      I am not trying to argue that he had WMD- that is an established fact. And I think that it is entirely pedantic of you to assume Saddam didn't have a stockpile of weapons given his 12 year track record of lies and deciet.

      --
      "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
    3. Re:Pedantic WMD apologists by swb · · Score: 1

      First of all, thats bull crap. Sarin is one of the most toxic substances on earth. 100mg of Sarin will kill you within a few minutes. The 155mm shell found in Iraq had about 6kg of chemical agent. This single weapon, if properly placed, could kill tens of thousands of people.

      The reason chemical weapons aren't very popular is that they're only as effective as the weather. If the wind is strong or blowing in the wrong direction, your gas attack is either ineffective or quickly diluted. It takes a large quantity of chemical weapons, carefully deployed with regard to the weather to be effective in outdoor environments. A single artillery shell isn't going to do much besides terrorize the population, unless you define "carefully placed" as "detonated in the ventilation system of a major domed stadium". In fact, chemical artillery shells are a huge threat to the troops firing them, since a change in the wind can gas them, which is another reason they've seen little use since World War I.

      And do you think we just found the only chemical shell that Saddam made? Do you honestly think he only made one? Lets ignore the fact that Saddam denied that he had weaponized Sarin in artillery shells- its just another lie that we caught him in. Of course he stockpiled them.

      No, he made thousands of them. That he had them in the past doesn't mean he has them now. Why can't we find them? Where are they? Where are the plants for making them? Where are the stockpiles of sarin, VX, and mustard gas? Finding random leftovers from the 1980s is neither suprising nor indicative that Hussein had the quantities of gas weapons it takes to be taken seriously as a threat, especially when the vast majority of those weapons found are artillery shells with a range of only several km, not ballistic missles capable of hitting anything far away.

      Of course in blind pursuit of pedantic definitions of "possession of weapons of mass destruction", we've managed to completely trash our diplomatic standing and credibility, kill hundreds of American troops and spend hundreds of billions of dollars, when there are far more dangerous regimes like North Korea, which possess NUCLEAR WEAPONS *and* launch systems capable of delivering them.

      The Iraq war remains a fool's errand at the behest of revenge-minded neocons, lacking a sense of proportion and any kind of a plan.

  161. It doesn't matter if you leave them alone. by Blastrogath · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I believe his logic can best be explained as:
    a)"When you poked the wasp nest you got stung"
    b)"Poking the bee nest just to get back at the wasps will only make things worse"



    According to the terrorist's interpretation of islamic law it is their duty to attack the US and all other non islamic states. They believe they are instructed to convert or kill all non islamic people. Those are your choices, join islam or die. This is not an rare interpretation of islamic law.

    The US is considered an evil nation because it aids other nations (esp. israel) to resist being "converted by the sword". The surrounding arab nations would probably happily drive the jews into the sea.

    The US is percieved to be a leader among the corupt (meaning non-islamic) western nations. Also, american media and culture are considered obcene by islamic standards.

    The very fact that anyone non-islamic lives is an evil thing to these terrorists. They belive it is their religios duty to opress and kill you, with paridise guaranteed to them if they die for their cuase.

    Not all muslims believe thus, but the groups who are driving planes into buildings do. The "wasps" where out to get you anyway.

    --
    "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." -Plato
    1. Re:It doesn't matter if you leave them alone. by atallah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A tiny minority of Muslims might actually believe anything remotely near to what you say.

      The Israel situation has got absolutely nothing to to with "resisting conversion"... that is fundamentalist christian bullshit. It is to do with occupation, repression and desparation. ...To further extend the wasp analogy, the "RAID" is causing honey bees to mutate into angry wasps.

    2. Re:It doesn't matter if you leave them alone. by pinkocommie · · Score: 1

      Quick q, would you accept something like that about somebody else? Probably not, regardless of being an impressionable gung-ho adolescent or whatever? Then your bro gets nicked by the US saviours and then you see pics of the whole Abu Ghuraib stuff. Hmm, perhaps bin laden suddenly doesnt seem so wrong to you? Oh yeah, add in a dash of history about Saddam being damn evil and being loved by Americans till like a decade ago when the med's all went away after his fallout with America? Multiple that with Afghanistan, Iran n whoever else has been fucked with even the slightest. And i'm not saying you or I would go down that road but consider the amount of people , its statistically impossible that the amount of people seeing America as evil now versus 2-3 years ago hasnt gone up by a significant amount. My point being people are fucked up everywhere and the more reason you give em to vent at you, well bully for you / be prepped for flying shit ;)

    3. Re:It doesn't matter if you leave them alone. by Blastrogath · · Score: 1
      A tiny minority of Muslims might actually believe anything remotely near to what you say.

      Islam according to the extremeists compels the believer to attack the non-believer. They wouldn't be called extremeist if their opinions where common, but while they are a small minority they are large enough and well funded enough one to be taken seriosly.

      The Israel situation has got absolutely nothing to to with "resisting conversion"... that is fundamentalist christian bullshit. It is to do with occupation, repression and desparation.

      I agree it's all about occupation, repression and desperation. But the hard liners on both sides are trying to occupy and repress each other. Neither side's extremeists are willing to compromise.

      Labeling me as a "fundamentalist christian" is a pathetic argument. Why do you have to try to label and demonize me to attack my point of veiw? The directive to convert by violence is in the Quran:

      Surah 9:5 (Ali translation) Fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and sieze them, beleager them, and lie in wait for them in every strategem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open thew way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, most mercifull.

      Surah 4:89 (the noble Quran) Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take (hold of) them and kill them wherever you find them...

      Surah 47:4 (the noble Quran) So, when you meet (in fight - Jihad in Allah' cuase) those who disbelieve, smite (their) necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)

      Surah 9:123 (the noble Quran) O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers that are close to you, and let them find harshness in you; and know that Allah is with those that are Al-Muttaqun (the pious).

      Surah 8:67 (The noble quran) It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them for ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land.

      It is far better to argue with facts than by labels.
      --
      "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." -Plato
    4. Re:It doesn't matter if you leave them alone. by Blastrogath · · Score: 1

      Of course they hate the US more now. That's beyond queastion. My point is that they believe they have an obligation to kill americans regardless of how they act.

      I definitely agree that the american government and milatary have been cheerfully makeing a bad situation worse though.

      But for either side, both bin laden and the american government, two wrongs don't make a right. I don't support either side murdering, kidnapping, and tortureing civilians.

      --
      "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." -Plato
    5. Re:It doesn't matter if you leave them alone. by bckrispi · · Score: 1
      A tiny minority of Muslims might actually believe anything remotely near to what you say.

      Yeah, but the bitch of it is that the "tiny minority" you refer to are the ones who like to fly airplanes into buildings.

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    6. Re:It doesn't matter if you leave them alone. by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      According to the terrorist's interpretation of islamic law it is their duty to attack the US and all other non islamic states. They believe they are instructed to convert or kill all non islamic people. Those are your choices, join islam or die. This is not an rare interpretation of islamic law.

      There have been many "terrorists" throughout the ages. These Islamic fundamentalists aren't the first ones. So are you saying that USA should just carry out imperialism and attempt to take over huge chunks of the world just because of this problem?

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    7. Re:It doesn't matter if you leave them alone. by shlaf · · Score: 1

      "It is to do with occupation, repression and desparation. " Bullshit. It is to do with hatred, extremism and fanatism indoctrinated in children from the age 0 troughout the entire Islamic world. And please spell it despEration.

    8. Re:It doesn't matter if you leave them alone. by Blastrogath · · Score: 1

      I only stated what the problem is, as I see it. Any ideas that provokes as to solutions are your own, not mine; I sugest nothing.

      Quite frankly, outright imperialism might work better than the half assed imperialism the americans are practicing now. But I don't think the american people have the will to be as brutal as that would require them to be (not that that's a bad thing). I mean real brutality, burning down cities and killing every last man, woman, and child or assasinating the entire extended family of terrorists or something. If you're not willing to be a heartless villan, don't try to be an imperialist. The thing with evil strategies is, they can work if you're commited enough.

      Anyway, I didn't sugest any solutions because I'm not entirely satisfied with any of the ones I've thought of so far. It's not an easy problem to solve. Do you have any ideas for a moral and effective plan?

      --
      "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." -Plato
    9. Re:It doesn't matter if you leave them alone. by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      You are basically suggesting genocide.. I don't know if you realize that or not... Anyway...

      My solution would be as follows. I could write pages upon pages on this but I'll keep in short and succint (hopefully). HEre is what USA needs to do:

      1. Stop imperialism: USA has been messing in other countries since WWII. It has basically inherited imperial Britain's role. Invading other countries, overthrowing goverments, propping up tyrants, etc, is no the way to go. It might work in the long term but ultimately it will fail. With respect to terrorism, this basically means end support of the Middle Eastern countries like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.
      2. Picking the lesser of the two evils leads to allying with the devil. I don't need to comment much because everyone knows about it. Usama bin Laden would not be where he is without the CIA. Stick to a clear moral path, which is actually much easier than people think. If you support democracy for example, you stick with that. Don't go propping up and supplying weapons to dictatorships. And so forth.

      3. Practice non-intervention. Do not get involved in other countries' affairs. What another country does is their problem (assuming that it doesn't directly impact USA). If the Middle Eastern countries want to practice theocracy that's their problem. Don't sell weapons to one side or another. Just stay out of it.

      4. Protect the borders and mainland USA. If USA needs to post more border guards, or improve the immigration system, or clean up smuggling, or whatever, do it. Instead of spending billions on the military, USA should be protecting itself. You should be able to do this without switching to a police state (although this would be hte most difficult of my recommendations IMO).

      5. Use the tools of capitalism. I'm not a capitalist but even I have to admit that USA is better at capitalism than imperliasm, fascism, or anything else. This essentially means that you use capitalism to acheive your goals. For instance, instead of propping up tyrannies in Kuwait for oil, just buy the oil on the open market. The middle Eastern countries have to sell the oil to someone and USA can still get in on the action using capitalistic elements. USA has some of the biggest corporations and huge amount of capital so buying stuff, investing in companies, etc will be much better in the long term, than sending the military or the CIA to reinforce the tyrants.

      Anyway, that provides a rough view of vision. I might be missing a few things but that's the general idea. Basically, go with non-intervention and dump the imperialism favoured by the modern elite.

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    10. Re:It doesn't matter if you leave them alone. by Blastrogath · · Score: 1

      It was sort of my point that imperialisim is pretty hard to practice sucessfully with atrocities. It's not an easy or good thing to enslave another nation.

      I was not sugesting genocide though. Just leveling cities as an example to other cites, and killing those closely related to rebels so they can't rebel without risking the lives of their whole family. Basicly a submit or die campain, similar to the roman policy for conquering cities.

      I was also trying to say that I think that the US and others should act justly in all things. I personally think that good works best when you are good in all your actions, but evil and unjust actions also work best when you go for it full power. Lukewarm goodness is inefectual and you're still not acting justly. I think the US needs to choose what it wants to stand for, and then act on those beliefs.

      Anyway, that provides a rough view of vision. I might be missing a few things but that's the general idea. Basically, go with non-intervention and dump the imperialism favoured by the modern elite.

      One problem with a system of non-intervention is not all states will follow your plan, and you can't make them as that goes against your plan in itself. Annother is that most of the benifits come from long term use of non-intervention, and you may not be able to wait. And a third is that non-intervention does not help against expantionist regimes.

      Many of the US's worst blunders happeded durring the cold war, when they had the clear and present danger of the USSR. They supplied and trained Bin Laden because they could not afford to let the USSR gain military inroads into the middle east. The middle eastern contries can't sell oil to anyone if they're siezed by the USSR.

      If you look at WW2, Britain would have fallen to Germany without US aid, and then africa and probably both the middle east and russia. After Hitler consolidated his hold on europe, asia, and africa then who'd be next?

      I pesonally think that what the US realy needs to do is to pick it's battles a little better, and follow through when they have to fight. They should have removed Saddam in the first war, and they shouldn't have ever started the second one. Also, if some guy that you trined as a terrorist says that he declares war on you, kill him.

      --
      "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." -Plato
    11. Re:It doesn't matter if you leave them alone. by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      I was not sugesting genocide though. Just leveling cities as an example to other cites, and killing those closely related to rebels so they can't rebel without risking the lives of their whole family. Basicly a submit or die campain, similar to the roman policy for conquering cities.

      What you are advocating IS genocide and crimes against humanity. What the Romans did would be considered crimes against humanity. Of course, when the Romans were around it was tolerated just like slavery was but not now...

      One problem with a system of non-intervention is not all states will follow your plan, and you can't make them as that goes against your plan in itself.

      Non-intervention is based on home country only. It doesn't matter what other countries do unless they directly threaten...

      Many of the US's worst blunders happeded durring the cold war, when they had the clear and present danger of the USSR. They supplied and trained Bin Laden because they could not afford to let the USSR gain military inroads into the middle east. The middle eastern contries can't sell oil to anyone if they're siezed by the USSR.

      USSR did influence some of the Middle Eastern countries. Who was supplying weapons to the Middle East?

      In any case, it doesn't matter who controls the resources because of capitalism. The Middle Eastern countries need to sell their oil. They can't just sit on it...

      If you look at WW2, Britain would have fallen to Germany without US aid, and then africa and probably both the middle east and russia.

      I don't want to get into WWII because there wouldn't even have been one if USA, France and Britain didn't slap massive reparations on Germany.... Also, Germany basically lost the war even before USA actually sent troops. Contrary to US propaganda, Nazi Germany wouldn't have taken over anything signficant. It couldn't even defeat USSR (couldn't even control Moscow) so I don't know how you expect them to control the Middle East, Africa, and Asia...

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    12. Re:It doesn't matter if you leave them alone. by Blastrogath · · Score: 1

      What you are advocating IS genocide and crimes against humanity. What the Romans did would be considered crimes against humanity. Of course, when the Romans were around it was tolerated just like slavery was but not now...

      You miss my point. I am stating that I think that one cannot efectively empire build without being evil. So, one should not try to empire build, because the methods that work are evil.

      Non-intervention is based on home country only. It doesn't matter what other countries do unless they directly threaten...

      US domestic oil production has been going down because of lack of new deposits since 1970. It was apperent that was happening sooner than then. The US is dependent on oil, and anything that treatens their supply is a significant threat. Without oil the american economy would nose dive.

      USSR did influence some of the Middle Eastern countries. Who was supplying weapons to the Middle East?

      Everyone who manufactured weapons was selling them weapons. The US and Russia where probably the biggest supliers by far though, the US to the states they favored, and the russians likewise.

      In any case, it doesn't matter who controls the resources because of capitalism. The Middle Eastern countries need to sell their oil. They can't just sit on it...

      Why not? Are you going to force them to sell it? They can just leave it in the ground. What if they put an embargo on oil shipments to the US?

      Capatalisim doesn't help you if the country isn't capatalist, if the USSR had taken over the middle east they would have taken the oil and kept it for themselves.

      I don't want to get into WWII because there wouldn't even have been one if USA, France and Britain didn't slap massive reparations on Germany....

      The US never supported the reperations, in fact they where the only one against them.

      Also, Germany basically lost the war even before USA actually sent troops.

      Long before the US ever sent troops it was sending immense amounts of supplies to England on credit (technicly an act of war by international law) and guarding the convoys with american naval vessels with orders to sink submarines. Even before the americans sent troops they where bankrolling the british war effort.

      Britain would have run out of food and war materials long before the americans sent troops if not for this.

      Contrary to US propaganda, Nazi Germany wouldn't have taken over anything signficant.

      So, what do you call almost all of mainland europe?

      It couldn't even defeat USSR (couldn't even control Moscow) so I don't know how you expect them to control the Middle East, Africa, and Asia...

      They got stoped within sight of Moscow before the winter stopped them. Moscow was the centre of the russian rail network, it's capture would have cut their inferstructure and supply lines apart. If it hadn't been for a rebelion in yugoslavia delaying the attack they'd have had 6 more weeks to use. They lost more men to the winter than to the russians.

      Russia was the only industrial power in asia, and there where no industrial powers in africa. With russia gone the germans could have taken whatever they wanted, but they'd not need anything further than russia as russia had all the oil and farmland that germany needed.

      --
      "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." -Plato
    13. Re:It doesn't matter if you leave them alone. by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      I'll keep this brief...since it is a few days old...hope you don't mind...

      You never indicated that you were against imperialism so it was my impression that you were an imperialist who supported the actions you mentioned. Most of what you say still makes me think you are an imperialist.

      As far as the oil situation is concerned, we can talk about this for ages--it REALLY is that complicated. For starters, USA does not rely on the Middle East for oil consumption. Less than 20% of USA's oil consumption comes from the Middle East. The vast majority of US oil comes from Mexico, Canada, and Venezuela.

      So the whole oil situation has nothing to do with consumption. Rather, it is all about profits! That is, even if USA's oil consumption drops 90% tomorrow, the plutocrats controlling USA will still want to control the Middle East. What matters is the profits made by a few oil and services companies (eg. ExonnMobil, Halliburton/KBR, etc). The whole war and hegemony is for these companies. Whoever controls oil controls profits. It's all about profits. The rest (like democracy, need, end of the world, etc) are just bogus reasons.

      I'm not a capitalist but hardcore capitalists, like the CATO institute (for example), call for free markets as opposed to imperialistic hegemony. The reason is pretty much for the reason above. My impression is still that you are an imperialist who is calling for taking over the Middle East. Nothing you have said is to the contrary.

      As far as WWII is concerned, I'm not going to go there because: (i) I'm not too knowledgeable in that area, (ii) I'm not interested in it, (iii) it is way off-topic and we can talk for ages about that, and (iv) it is too complicated to discuss right now. Anyway, I will say the following:

      My impression is that USA WAS part of the deal which slapped massive reparations on Germany. Nothing I have read has indicated that USA was against it. If you can find some references to the contrary, that would be helpful.

      You say Germany was close to Moscow and only weather prevented them from winning. Well, I say that's part of war. The terrain and weather are all part of it. You cannot excuse the weather...

      As far as Germany having the ability to take over Asia, Africa, etc, I still stick with what I said. Germany couldn't have taken over the world. Germany "easily" took over Europe because of two reasons. Firstly, Europe is a relatively small area with easy terrain (mostly plains and forests). Taking over other parts of the world is far more difficult. Not only do you have to cover greater distances, you also have to battle through terrain (mountains, deserts, jungles, etc), weather (snow--like in Russia, heavy rain, etc), and so on. USA "lost" Vietnam (or at least had difficulties controlling the country) and that was with far superior technology and forces (since USA was just fighting on one front). I really cannot imagine Germany trying to take over Vietnam, let alone Iran or India or Kenya or whatever, during WWII with worse technology.

      Second, fascists controlled key areas of Europe--contrary to popular opinion. Fascism was even popular in USA and Britain (you can easily find people praising Hitler in major newspapers at that time--before the breakout of the war). Since fascists basically "controlled" Europe, it was easy for them to win. In contrast, fascism had little support in other parts of the world. It is very difficult to take over a country where you have no ideological support. For example, there were actually quite a few fascists in France, Spain, and others, who basically facilitated and helped the Nazis take over. I am pretty sure the Nazis would not have had locals help them or fight alongside them if they invaded many other parts of the world.

      So in summary, I don't think Nazis would have taken over the world. I personally think that only one tribe/race/civilization/country/whatever had the potential to take over all of known earth. And that happens to be the Mong

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    14. Re:It doesn't matter if you leave them alone. by Blastrogath · · Score: 1

      As to the middle east situation, my opinion is that we should never have got involved in the first place. It's a huge mess and we're better off without becomming part of it, at least not as combatants or arms dealers.

      As to the Germany Vs the World, I said that germany could take asia and africa, not the US. There's no land bridge across to american soil, and the atlantic is wide enough to make an invasion very tricky.

      Also, I said they could probably take over asia and africa, not that they could hold that much territory for any significant period. Also, they'd have all the raw materials a growwing empire needs from capturing russian territory, so I dought they'd try too hard. Isn't a violent facist german state ruling europe bad enough to want to stop?

      As to Vietnam, the USSR was funding the north. It was russian guns and planes the north where fighting with. The US was also worried about pushing to hard and bringing china or russia all the way into the war.

      The problems the US has in the middle east are the result of 50 years of forein policy, not recent actions. But it doesn't cheer me much to see them still gleefully making it worse now. The american military doesn't even follow the geneva conventions anymore and ignores the UN. I can't see any good reason for them to have started a war with Iraq.

      The main gyst of my stance against non-interference practiced to an extreme is that it's not always the best tactic. Why I brought up Hitler is because if the league of nations had stomped on him as soon as he first invaded another country then the damage from WW2 could have been reduced. And if the US had not interfered then the germans would have captured and kept most of europe, and possibly more.

      How can one have propper democratic discourse on an issue if people are too busy calling each other names to debate? "Agree with me or the terrorists win" type argumets are pathetic. You should stop calling people imperialist just because they don't believe in a system of absolute non interference.

      "Once you label me you negate me."
      Soren Kierkegaard

      --
      "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." -Plato
    15. Re:It doesn't matter if you leave them alone. by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      As to the Germany Vs the World, I said that germany could take asia and africa, not the US. There's no land bridge across to american soil, and the atlantic is wide enough to make an invasion very tricky.

      Germany was much better on land than sea so you have a point. However, they COULD have attacked USA because the technology was there. It will all come down to how strong the US Navy would be. If Germany can control the seas, invasion of USA is no different than trying to march across Russia. Just like how the allies invaded Germany from sea (France to be more accurate), Germany would invade USA via sea. Land is obviously easier but sea isn't that bad if you can control the seas.

      The US was also worried about pushing to hard and bringing china or russia all the way into the war.

      USSR and China were supplying Vietnam but I completely disagree that USA actually wasn't trying to "push too hard". USA WAS trying to take over completely, but they just couldn't. Otherwise, why would they be involved in Cambodia and Laos?

      The problems the US has in the middle east are the result of 50 years of forein policy, not recent actions. But it doesn't cheer me much to see them still gleefully making it worse now. The american military doesn't even follow the geneva conventions anymore and ignores the UN. I can't see any good reason for them to have started a war with Iraq.

      Yeah... the problem IMO is that USA likes allying with the lesser evil. This basically leads to allying with the devil IMO. Classic example obviously is Usama bin Laden, who wouldn't have any of the expertise if CIA didn't train him and his warriors in the 80's. Even more relevant perhaps is Saddam Hussein, who would have been kicked out by the mid 80's at best (due to his loss in Iran-Iraq war) if USA didn't back him.

      Unless USA changes its path, it is going to self-destruct, a la Rome--or even worse. Yes, that's kind of a pessimistic view but let's face it, there are so many looming "crises" on the horizon that USA is simply a mess. Examples include the massive debt, which even the capitalists in power admit has the potential to blow up, likely collapse of social programs (pretty much everyone admits that old age programs will collapse within 20 years), ever expanding and totally out of control military (USA has invaded/overthrown/attacked one country every 6 years or so), and so forth. Let's also not forget that if my pessimistic views become true and USA institutes a draft next year then it's going to misallocate resources to war.

      The main gyst of my stance against non-interference practiced to an extreme is that it's not always the best tactic.

      Agreed. I'm not a pacifist by any means. If a tank is crushing your people, it's time to do something. BUT I AM primarily a non-interventionist. The vast majority of interventions do not lead you anywhere. In the short term it may seem good (because one side is defeated). But this just causes problems in the long term. Even interventions with best intentions lead you nowhere.

      You should stop calling people imperialist just because they don't believe in a system of absolute non interference.

      Your views weren't clear to me. It seemed to me that you were calling for invasion of Iraq. Obviously I was mistaken. The confusion probably arose from the fact that you were saying stuff like "if X then Y is necessary" without actually saying you were against Y. Believe it or not, there ARE actually people calling for mass invasions and reckless slaughter of people (you might find these people calling for levelling of Fallujah or the invasion of Syria). These people clearly are imperialists. I guess you are not! So I was wrong... sorry about calling you an imperialist when in fact you weren't. Take that as my apology.

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    16. Re:It doesn't matter if you leave them alone. by Blastrogath · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I see where you're coming from now. No hard feelings. My main grudge against US forein policy is that when they do interfere it's only for their own benifit, and they have "flexible" morals. Nobody can realy respect a person or country that doesn't stand behind their beliefs, whether or not you agree with them.

      --
      "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." -Plato
  162. Fuck you Non-American by hysteresis · · Score: 1

    Well you always have the option to move out of this country if you do not like it. The mere fact that you have the option to even post such comments on this site shows what America and its way of life has done for you. My guess is you (Anonymous Coward) are either a totally mystified liberal that is so entrenched in liberal propaganda that you have the inability to see more than one side, or you are some pussified Euro-trash succumbing to the "French" point of view by posting your disallusioned opinions on an AMERICAN WEBSITE. So STFU pu$$y.

  163. That's what you think by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1

    I thought the invisible tinfoil hat was working great. That is, until I woke up one morning and found an invisible communist under the bed. Not only that, a pair of invisible FBI agents was found hiding in the closet. I only was able to discern them after I drank my liquid Jim Beam breakfast.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  164. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  165. Re:Isn't it odd how the U.S. government allies by symbolic · · Score: 1

    ...with unsavory people, and worse, how they're so entrusted with a key source of influence and/or control? First there was Poindexter with the TIA nonsense, and now Asher with the MATRIX project. I decided to do a little browsing on topics related to Seisint - turns out, this project is very much tied to the Department of Homeland Security:

    http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=15834 &c =130

    This could easily be a drop-in replacement for TIA.

  166. False positives and security, real loss of rights by geekotourist · · Score: 5, Insightful
    parenthetically- that of the 80 highest scores "five were among the Sept. 11 hijackers" doesn't show that the system works. It most likely shows that the hijackers' profiles were part of the 'seed profiles' used to teach / test the system. And 120,000!... any chance of false positives? Go re-read this Bruce Schneier essay.

    Why should any regular individual be worried about these systems? From the best essay on privacy and 9/11 laws I've seen (from the former privacy czar of Canada- warning Canadians not to lose rights Americans have already lost):

    "...But there also will be tangible, specific harm. The more information government compiles about us, the more of it will be wrong. That's simply a fact of life.

    "But if our privacy becomes ever more systematically invaded by the state for purposes of assessing our behavior and making judgments about us, wrong information and misinterpretations will have potential consequences.

    "If information that is actually about someone else is wrongly applied to us, if wrong facts make it appear that we've done things we haven't, if perfectly innocent behavior is misinterpreted as suspicious because authorities don't know our reasons or our circumstances, we will be at risk of finding ourselves in trouble in a society where everyone is regarded as a suspect. By the time we clear our names and establish our innocence, we may have suffered irreparable financial or social harm...

    "Decisions detrimental to us may be made on the basis of wrong facts, incomplete or out-of-context information or incorrect assumptions, without our ever having the chance to find out about it, let alone to set the record straight...

    "The bottom line is this: If we have to live our lives weighing every action, every communication, every human contact, wondering what agents of the state might find out about it, analyze it, judge it, possibly misconstrue it, and somehow use it to our detriment, we are not truly free. That sort of life is characteristic of totalitarian countries, not a free and open society like Canada...

    " Compiling dossiers on the private activities of all law-abiding citizens is the sort of thing the Stasi secret police used to do in the former East Germany. It has no place in a free and democratic society."

    "...When people are worried about their safety, when we have seen the horrors of which today's breed of terrorists are capable - and there may be more - it's easy to lose perspective. It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that security is all that matters and that human rights such as privacy are a luxury. But such extremes can only reward and encourage terrorism, not diminish it. They can only devastate our lives, without commensurately safeguarding them. Of course we all want to be safe. But we could be safer from terrorism - perhaps - if we permanently evacuated all the high-rise office towers, if we closed down the subways, if we forever grounded all airplanes. Yet no reasonable person would be likely to argue for adopting such measures. We'd say, "We want to be safe, yes - but not at the price of sacrificing our whole way of life." The same reasoning should apply, in my view, to arguments that privacy should indiscriminately be sacrificed on the altar of enhanced security..."

  167. Just goes to show... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... that you should never trust anything coming from a place known as Rat's Mouth, Florida.

  168. actually by TubeSteak · · Score: 1
    the main reason drug prices are so high is that 90%+ of the drugs get seized en route to their destination. the narco types from S. America sell those drugs for next to nothing, the price gets jacked up by several factors before hitting the streets. Remember, drugs are a multi-billion dollar business... and they make that money off the fraction of drugs that end up on the street.

    On a seperate topic, The U.S. can tax marijuana right now if they want to, the 1 Oct 1937 Marihuana Tax Act allows the treasury department to tax maryjane and apply an official stamp I imagine you're right about property crimes & tax revenue, but drugs are a Bad Thing(TM) and the relegious conservatives would never let it happen. There are also some business interests involved (hemp vs nylon/etc) that helped make it llegal in the first place.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  169. Fessing up to my ignorance. by spoonyfork · · Score: 1
    Wow. I'd like to think that I'm big enough to admit this. I knew about the Internet, computer, and car but if you had asked me 20 minutes ago who I thought invented the light bulb and the telephone I would have said Edison and Bell. I can't even recall a mention in reading or lecture about anyone else in those fields from my primary education in America.

    Bastards.

    --
    Speak truth to power.
    1. Re:Fessing up to my ignorance. by The-Dalai-LLama · · Score: 1
      ...I would have said Edison and Bell. I can't even recall a mention in reading or lecture about anyone else in those fields from my primary education in America.

      I would have said the same, except that I read An Underground Education just last week. It had the correct information on those topics (telephone, lightbulb, and auto - not computers), and a lot more information about the parts of history that get glossed over or never mentioned. It's a thought-provoking book. It's broken into sections that make it easy to pick up and put down, but it's well-written and entertaining enough to be read cover-to-cover.

      You might also be interested in Lies My Teacher Told Me . It's similar, but I haven't read it in a few years so I can't tell you much more than that.

      The Dalai LLama
      ... loves his country, warts and all...

    2. Re:Fessing up to my ignorance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It had the correct information on those topics (telephone, lightbulb, and auto - not computers)

      That's 'cause the parent post was completely wrong on the computer (almost offensively so, if you're a computer geek). See a much better history over at Everything2.

    3. Re:Fessing up to my ignorance. by The-Dalai-LLama · · Score: 1

      That's 'cause the parent post was completely wrong on the computer (almost offensively so, if you're a computer geek)

      Sorry, my sentence was unclear: Underground Education didn't address computers at all. Now that you bring it up, however, I sorta wondered why Babbage didn't even rate a mention in the parent post. I'm not even cool enough to be considered a real geek, and I've heard of him.

      See a much better history over at Everything2.

      Thanks for the cool link.

      The Dalai LLama
      ... let's try this "No Karma Bonus" thing...

    4. Re:Fessing up to my ignorance. by JDevers · · Score: 1

      I didn't want to turn it into a freaking thesis... I just highlighted some of the RECENT inventions, you'll note I said "modern digital computers." I also qualified it at the end and said that Americans had made significant contributions and not that it was "invented" here. My intention was really more to highlight the contributions made by American's with a few additional notes than to summarize everything leading up to the invention.

      Everything I summarized started after number 9 on the page you reference.

    5. Re:Fessing up to my ignorance. by spoonyfork · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the book links.. they look interesting. I'll definitely give An Underground Education a read.

      --
      Speak truth to power.
  170. Sounds like Iraq's future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Arrest citizens in order to gather embarising photographs. Keep them in line. Get important information from them so you know who else to arrest.

  171. Pax Americana by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ... the British got because a superpower best known for producing mass produced crap is never going to get the respect that one who gave the world Shakespeare, culture, ...

    Don't know much about Shakespeare, do you? He merely wrote very popular mass produced crap.

    And see how much of Elizabethan or Victorian Era culture is great.

    While you're at it, look up Pax Britannia and see if it sounds familiar.

  172. Privacy Concerns by blair1q · · Score: 2, Funny

    If they were so concerned about privacy, how did they compile the database and develop the profiling method in the first place?

  173. Algorithm Revealed! by gg3po · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Algorithm for determining terrorist tendencies revealed:

    • Drives automobile with 'unpatriotic' themed bumper stickers as detected by stoplight 'traffic' video cameras (examples of offending stickers: "Bring our troops home", "No blood for oil", "Save the Whales")
    • Home contains 'subversive' media as detected by random drive-by RFID scans of neighborhood (examples of offending materials: Farhenheit 9/11 DVD, Free as In Freedom, framed U.S. Constitution hanging on wall)
    • Home computer uses 'non-government-approved-cyber-terrorist-hacker operating system', as determined from network scans subpoenaed from ISP's (and kept secret per the 'Patriot' Act(TM))
    • Home computer accesses 'questionable' websites... centers of thought for known subversives, all too frequently. (examples: slashdot, kuro5hin, news.google.com)
    • Subject's brain displays 'unacceptable' patterns of activity as determined by random drive-by, neighborhood cerebral scans (examples: Considering joining a labor union, Switching to alternative fuels, or voting for the 'wrong' candidate) [someone will point out that they can't do this remotely...yet, but you can bet your bottom dollar they're working around the clock on a solution]
    • Subject makes 'strange' store purchases as recorded in credit/debit/check card billing history. (examples: Vitamin supplements [aren't our FDA sponsored^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H approved remedies good enough for them?], pizza [long known to be the preferred food of hacker-terrorists])
    • Subject frequently votes for 'non-traditional' 3rd parties, instead of participating in our beloved Two Party System(TM) as recorded by the new, improved, and federally mandated Diebold Cyber-Voting Machines.
    • Subject resists indoctrination^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H avoids our tried and true 'national passtimes' of televised sporting events, sitcoms, and talk shows, according to digital cable/satellite viewing records, preferring, instead, to spend more time on the internet -- a proven tendency of the typical terrorist/hacker.
    • Subject avoids our wonderful system of 'No Child Left Behind'(TM) public education where they'll be taught useful skills like 'how to conform', 'shut up and let the teacher finish the lesson', and 'How to beat the essay E-grader' ...by sending their children to private/home schools, and therefore putting them in danger of, indeed, 'being left behind'.
    • Subject conducts searches for 'forbidden' terms on Google (examples: "Abu Ghraib Prison", "community involvement", "private schools") [I know we all love Google here, but they're not perfect, just look at Gmail's privacy issues]
    • Subject actually goes to the public library and checks out *any* books as evidenced by library checkout history. This is an obvious sign of a non-passive participant in society^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H terrorist -- someone who does too much thinking^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H planning/scheming, and could be dangerous.

    ... The sad thing is, this is nothing. I could go on for days about various things like these that are in the works, or already in place that can be used to create an evironment that would make the old U.S.S.R. blush (Soviet Russia jokes not withstanding ;-) )

    "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." --Louis Brandeis, U.S. Supreme Court justice, 1928

    --
    ---
    1. Re:Algorithm Revealed! by geoffspear · · Score: 1
      Subject avoids our wonderful system of 'No Child Left Behind'(TM) public education where they'll be taught useful skills like 'how to conform', 'shut up and let the teacher finish the lesson', and 'How to beat the essay E-grader' [slashdot.org] ...by sending their children to private/home schools, and therefore putting them in danger of, indeed, 'being left behind'.

      You're way off on that one. The purpose of No Child Left Behind is to get everyone out of the public schools and into religious schools funded by tax money, by blaming the underfunded public schools, instead of the parents and students, for their poor performance.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    2. Re:Algorithm Revealed! by gg3po · · Score: 1

      Actually, that's just what they're selling it as... No Child Left Behind is really all about extending federal control (article by Ron Paul - a *Republican* congressman), even into the private schools. Think about it... the main reason you have so little say in the public education system is because they get all their funding from the State and, increasingly, Federal level (this varies depending on where you're located). If the private schools start getting more cash from the government than from you... why should they care what you think, anymore? Following the money trail is a good rule of thumb to finding out who's really in charge of anything.

      --
      ---
  174. What makes you a terrorist? by dindi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In some countries it is probably enough to have a different colour of skin..

    In some countries you demonstrate against globalisation, or as a student you join the greens and make a stand in front of the train carrying nuclear waste.....

    Then again... you log-in to a chatroom being angry because of a recent event (just watching everyday CNN, or local news) and say something stupid - eg whoever deserved whatever because they did that other thing the first place .... (-yes I do not want to give any example)

    Think of kids (teens) ... have you ever said something too radical, maybe racist because at a certain age you were influenced by an adult or just a stupid friend ? (a radical music group, or someone in a movie that made you think for a split second that his cause was the right one? )

    Seriously what are the steps (what is the method) that puts you on that list ?

    What if these lists get public and even the cashier in the supermarket gets the blinking red sign when she slides your creditcard ?

    And what's more scary: do you ever get off that list if you get on it ? Or your FSCK'd for life ?
    Being stared at, stripped at checkpoints and occasionally dragged into interrogation and have your door kicked in in the middle of the night ?

    I'm not a politician, that's for sure, but it is reaching a point when I do not want to travel anywhere, I do not want to say anything to anyone online....
    I am scared that what I might say can and will be used against me, my family, my kids ...

    What's in my head? Honestly I would grab a bunch of good souls and move to an other planet and retry with a new model of society ... (of course for that statement alone I might be considered something bad and dangerous to society)

  175. Sample enlargement by davekebab · · Score: 1
    TiVo's audience measurement analysis is based on aggregated data from a sample of 20,000 anonymous TiVo households. TiVo viewership information gauges the interest in programming content by measuring the percentage of the TiVo Super Bowl audience watching in "play" speed.
    http://www.tivo.com/5.3.1.1.asp?article=200

    AND THEY JUST SIGNED A DEAL WITH.......NIELSEN !!

  176. Yay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've got a tinfoil hat the size of Bermuda and now I have a thread to show my friends!

    This is great.

  177. Negative Quotient by ari_j · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have a negative terrorism quotient - I own guns and will shoot you if you are a terrorist, so the more of me there are, the fewer terrorist points we have.

  178. I am not racist, you troll b@st@rd by phyruxus · · Score: 1
    There's a world of difference between saying that :

    B!=W (what I said)

    and

    (black person) != (white person) [what you implied I said].

    Grow up, get a better sense of humor, or deal with your demons. I am not a racist. You sir, are a philistine.

    --
    "A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
    "d'Oh!" ~Homer
    1. Re:I am not racist, you troll b@st@rd by shiftless · · Score: 1

      That was a joke.. dumbass. :)

  179. Edward Abbey once said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "There comes a time for a True Patriot to stand between his Country and his Government."
    -Desert Solitaire

  180. Bzzt, wrong. by commodoresloat · · Score: 2, Informative

    Osama was never paid or trained by CIA. It is true that the CIA funded muslim extremists in Afghanistan, the "Afghan Arabs" as they were called, and that Osama was an Afghan Arab fighter, but there is no evidence that he ever was offered money by CIA and in fact there is some evidence he would not have taken it had it been offered. That is not to downplay CIA involvement in and responsibility for the growth of al Qaeda -- US arms and money flooded the region during the 80s, the CIA built bases (many of which were later used by terrorists) and made deals with Afghan warlords (including Hekmatyr, now one of our biggest enemies in the region), and surely Osama's men benefited from this -- but suggesting that bin Laden was on the CIA payroll just makes the argument seem looney. There is no evidence of any direct contact between CIA and bin Laden during the Soviet war in Afghanistan.

  181. Ubeeeer by Kizzle · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I mentioned this story on ep5 my show if anyone cares.
    http://hackermedia.net/uberleeto/

  182. fuzzy math. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If only American lives count, the current tally is three shy of 800;

    If one were to argue that ally deaths count too, as I'm sure those allies would contend, 907;

    and if the lives of Iraqi civilians are graciously given any worth, on the low side, the body count is currently over 10,000.

  183. Nothing but facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trolling? It's nothing but the facts. Unlike you, I measure whether or not media is left or right from the center. Trolling? That is what I think you are doing. You are claiming to be conservative, but you tip your hand by using far-left arguments from fronge-left sites like commondreams.org.

  184. One specific example: the David Nelsons by geekotourist · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Is your name David Nelson? You're now on the "always a suspect" list at airports. By my rough estimate (based on the number of Davids and Nelsons in the Census data) there are about 5,500 of them in the US. Evidently there is one "David Nelson" who is a criminal- because of him, all others get checked. David Nelson the child TV star. David Nelson the Washinton State Senator.

    What happens to you if someone else has a similar name? From this article on the ACLU's No Fly List lawsuit:

    Administered by airlines since November 2001, the "no-fly" list has resulted in routine stops of passengers without terrorist ties who "have no meaningful opportunity to clear their names," said the complaint filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

    "They are detained, interrogated, delayed, embarrassed, humiliated in front of other passengers," said plaintiffs' attorney Reggie Shuford, an ACLU senior staff attorney...

    Plaintiff David Nelson, 34, a trial attorney in the St. Louis, Missouri, area, said he has been stopped more than 30 times -- every flight he's taken since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, which gave rise to the "no-fly" list.
    Or from this article from 2003:

    "This week 18 men named David Nelson, all residents of Oregon, confirmed they have been repeatedly delayed at airport counters and security checkpoints in the last year or so."

    "Remember Ozzie and Harriet's son, David Nelson? "I got stopped at the John Wayne Airport" in Orange County, Calif., he said by phone from Los Angeles this week. "Two police officers knew who I was and tried to explain to the guy behind the security desk. It didn't faze him at all." Even as another officer was saying he had once met David's mother, Harriet, David was being instructed to remove his shoes, he says. "I asked, 'Does the guy on the list have a middle name of Ozzie?' He said, 'It just says David Nelson.' "

  185. Why does privacy equate to freedom? by Precipitous · · Score: 1

    I might ramble a bit in making this point - so here's where I'm trying to go: I don't see how the government, or anyone else, knowing more about me and my life affects my freedom. I'd like to see much more emphasis on rights to fair trial, rights to do what I want when it doesn't hurt anyone else, rights to unionize, rights to know what my government is doing, and so forth and a lot less worrying about my privacy.

    I've decided to launch a tirade on this subject, because they eventually dropped this because of "privacy" concerns. I frankly don't care at all how much or how little the government knows about me. I care how they use it.

    For example: I attended an extremely liberal college in a foreign country. I've attended numerous protests. Out of curiosity I've visited a few countries not on the US's list of nice guys. I don't care if the US government knows this. I do care about how they act on it. I want to be able to act peaceable on my politics and pursue my business interests without arbitrary interference. The no-fly lists were abhorrent not because the government had lists of people that deserved watching, but because the effectively enforced punishment in the form of limiting travel without good cause.

    So, I'm happy if they keep these matrix generate lists and such provided:
    1) I can easily access and correct my own status in these lists. For example I should be able to walk into my local police precinct, have them establish my identity and provide my file in a few minutes. At the same time, I can petition for corrections.
    2) They do not use weak evidence to restrict my rights to travel (such as the no-fly lists). If they want to hang out outside my condo and watch me - what do I care? As soon as they start inconveniencing me, they are abusing this information. But this is not about privacy, this is about other rights.

    What is worrying, is at the same time the government is collecting more information about its citizens, it is providing less information about itself. This administration has classified documents at a much greater rate than previous administrations. (E.G. Why were human rights abuse reports classified?). This creates a discrepancy in the information that the government has about me, and the information that I have about the government.

    So:
    Let the government collect all the info it wants, but make it very difficult for the government to classify and conceal information, and put in place much stronger safe-guards to ensure fair treatment and due process.

    --
    My motto: "A cat is no trade for integrity."
  186. Don't get me wrong but why by Archfeld · · Score: 1

    should NOW suddenly be different than ALL OF RECORDED HUMAN HISTORY ??? We have been plagued by wars, persecution, violence done upon ourselves in the name of Justice, Revenge, Country, Honor, and every other abstract concept up to and in my opinion including religion, not to mention the 'real' reasons for a war: food, and living space. Do you think that Americans today are any different than the Greeks or Romans, the Mongols, or the Spanish Inquisition ? So circus is now on TV. The Middle east has been at for 2500 years now ? Asia has seen millions put down in one so-called 'wave' of barbarians or another, and we have not even touched on the sweeping plagues...or the more 'recent' humanitarian causes taken up by humans, for humans, or is it TO humans. Stalin, Hitler, Franco...

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  187. What's Your Terrorism Quotient? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, umm... Is there any way to find out?!?

  188. you forgot some.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    gang raped, brutal beatings, again ganged, while your bound hand and foot, and murdered.

    These havn't gotten as much air play as the lighter weight abuses that been paraded about.

  189. he doesn't live in the U.S. anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He doesn't live in the United States. Here, we spell the word "program" with one "m" and no "e"s.

  190. Ladies and Gentlemen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Denis Leary!

    Give him a big hand!

    Sir, that was your finest monologue since the end of Demolition Man!

    Woot!

  191. likely to commit (x) database by FaerieBoy · · Score: 1

    Oh but they do have such a database, it's called racial profiling...i wont even get into classism...but it's along the same lines

    we also have longer sentencing for lower class/black drugs (crack rock vs powder) (in calif) in north carolina pot was a major offense (i believe a felony) until it became a 'white' drug.

    they also DENY COLLEGE LOANS to people that got busted due to classist/racist methods

    they also DENY FOOD STAMPS to federally convicted drug users. Sucks to be a poor recovering addict and not have food eh? Guess you have to steal? fall off the wagon? and go back in the slammer.

    i guess what im saying is that we DO have some very very fucked up law enforcement systems that focus on pulling in a set group of people or observing a set group of people all the time. And guess what, those people lose the right to vote...oops. And noone had stood up for them, quite a shame really.

    --
    All your preview button are belong to hello kitty.
  192. 1 out of 2,500 is a terrorist? by geekotourist · · Score: 1
    while .04% sounds small, 1/2,500 doesn't. That would be:
    • One terrorist per 10 airplane flights
    • several terrorists per large sporting event or rock concert
    • 400 in Silicon Valley (although 30 were laid off and are moving back in w/ the parents)
    So if there are that many terrorists floating about, they've got to be terribly incompetent ones. We should be swarming with terrorist events, shouldn't we? Even if they are all zombie terrorists, pinging the master to see when to go off, shouldn't at least 0.1% of them have gone off early? Leading to 1 terror event every three days? (assuming they are industrious and want to do one event per year)
  193. The same around here... by aepervius · · Score: 1

    If you think this is only symptomatic of Nilsen-US, well wake up. We have the same "rating" evaluation around here and the same result. Big Brother, Star Search and other inane shows.

    I can't even count all those bad stats made on small sample (vore prediction and so on). The smalles the sample, however you do your sample, the highiest the error, up until the point your error is greater than your sample size [total uncertainty]. And frankly the argument forwarded by Nilsen and co about how good their sample are (blahblahblah we take a % of every soci-class and cook the number until we get something which please us) will NOT change that.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  194. Gee you people whine a lot.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I just love how everybody wants to cry havoc when the government starts removing their 'liberties.' I'd just like to take this moment to point out how many people were outraged when the Clinton era 'crime bill' (AKA 'assault weapons ban of 1994) was passed. This was a direct violation of the Second Ammendment (as were previous FEDERAL laws governing firearm ownership/posession), and yet the American Public (you know who you are) did nothing. It's sad that less than 10 years after that putrid 'law' went into effect we have a supreme court that passes a law DIRECTLY abridging the First Ammendment (I'm referring to the law governing the airing of 'negative' political ads for the 90 days preceeding a public election), and the American Public (once again, you know who you are) remains curiously silent.
    Oh, and for those of you (contempt warning) "Americans" who actually BELIEVE that the Second Ammendment applies only to the National Guard- I'd just like to point out that the Bill of Rights was signed 112 years before the National Guard existed.
    I have not voted to elect a SINGLE in office politician EVER. None of the canidates I vote for ever get even CLOSE to winning, because I vote based on my convictions. If you really want to have our government do something to deterr(sp?) terrorist acts in this country- write your 'elected' representative and tell them in NO uncertain terms that you will not vote for them again if they allow the 1994 'assault' weapons ban to be resurrected. Put some REAL 'antiterrorism' tools out there, where they will do the most good; in the hands of law abiding citizens.

    Flame away, but there will come a time that you will remember these words, and wonder if I may have been right.

    -Joe Glessner

  195. links please by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 1

    I'm not calling you a troll or a liar--I just think that people need to be confronted with actual proof of these statements or they're never going to believe them. I know a little of the shit the CIA has pulled in the past (bay of pigs, anyone?), but I don't have the specifics in regards to "overthrowing democracies" or "funding terrorists." My guess is, the guys who mod you "troll" and "overrated" don't know the specifics, either. So show us. Every time you make the claim, post the links. Hell, put it in your sig.

    If enough people do this, maybe the American public will stop viewing our government through rose-colored glasses.

  196. So you think it justifies anything? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > "Ya 9/11 was horrible ... but
    >
    > That's all I need to know about your post right there.

    Does that mean you think 9/11 justifies _anything_ in the name of War on Terror? Even martial law and summary executions in the USA?

    Please think a moment - nothing is worth sacrificing everything, not even 9/11.

  197. More Accurately by NEOtaku17 · · Score: 1

    If you buy and use illegal drugs you support terrorism.

    1. Re:More Accurately by proj_2501 · · Score: 1

      not necessarily.

      there's plenty of chemistry students makin some money on the side.

  198. We lose 'em all the time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The US itself often misplaces small stocks of chemical weapons, completely forgetting about them, and then finds them later. If we - with our much superior information infrastructure and tracking capabilities - can lose chemical weapons, is it any wonder a few were misplaced in another country?

    Links:

    Mustard gas
    Sarin nerve agent

  199. "Lethal Dose" by MarcQuadra · · Score: 1

    You'd have to inhale 100mg?!? That's quite a bit!

    A lethal dose of nicotine is 50mg.

    A Pall Mall King cigarette has 0.2mg nicotine in it, and about 25mg of 'other' stuff.

    So this would be like inhaling four cigarette's worth of gas? That's a lot.

    FYI. I know some of the metrics are useless, but it's just an idea.

    --
    "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
    1. Re:"Lethal Dose" by cheezedawg · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I didn't know nicotine was that lethal. A google search found several sites that confirm that 50mg number.

      Anyway, I did some more digging about Sarin. Here are some more numbers.

      A "lethal" dose of sarin (50% would die with that exposure) is 100 mg-min/cu.m. This means that while resting, if you inhaled air with a concentration of 100mg of sarin per cubic meter for 1 minute, you would probably die. It is cumulative, so the same goes with a 50mg per cubic meter concentration for 2 minutes, or 25mg for 4 minites, etc. If you were exercising or breathing heavier, then the concentrations would be lower.

      So if my calculations are correct, if this 6kg of sarin was fully mixed and evenly dispursed across 60,000 cubic meters (I know- it wouldn't), it would kill 50% of the people within those 60,000 cubic meters (or everybody within about 30 meters of the detonation) if they breathed it for 1 minute.

      --
      "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
  200. Hey, us-residents, America isn't only USA by inaciog · · Score: 1

    You allways forget this. America is USA, Mexico, Brazil, Cuba, Argentina, and dozens of other countries. You could start some change by not thinking "America=USA"...

  201. So that is what it was about! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This has got to be one of the silliest, most narcissistic posts I've ever read on Slashdot. So, you think that the Government thinks that the real problem we face is not Islamist extremists who are willing spend years training and cross oceans to kill us by the hundreds or thousands by flying planes into buildings, detonating the bomb vest they are wearing while standing in a crowd, poisoning us with nerve gas, or any of a number of things. No, the real problem is pimple faced, young, liberal leaning Democrats sitting at home posting to message boards from their computers. You really believe or feel that this is what the war is all about? The only thing that scares me more than the fact that you believe that is that your post was moderated up significantly. God help us.

  202. Are you on the list? Am I? by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

    How many people here think they are on this list? How about other blacklists held by agents?

    I have a feeling that I'm on some blacklist cuz... well... I post openly on slashdot with my real name :) ... It wouldn't surprise me if the CIA or some other domestic agency scans slashdot on a regular basis. People who are technically inclinded, even though unemployed :( and without money, are always a greater danger to the government than anyone else...

    --
    Sivaram Velauthapillai
    Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
  203. Former spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    SEISINT has a spam connection.....as well as one to the NCIC.....lookup their corp docs, look where they came from, do some googleing and you will see all the neat stuff.

  204. Minimize terrorism? by harmonica · · Score: 1

    I agree that Muslim terrorists only understand force. Radical Muslims in general don't like the concept of tolerance and much that the Western civilization stands for. But where do you get

    No, America has done much to reduce and minimize terrorism.

    from? What did America do to reduce terrorism?

  205. 9 / 11 was NOT the beginning by andr0meda · · Score: 1



    Firstly, as you say, yes; the problem of Muslim extremists does exist, and does have to be dealt with. However, you earlier claimed that the atmosphere of fear (I won't say terror) is being created by the US government. I would make the case to you that the atmosphere of fear was created on September 11th, that it sent very large and very real ripples through the very social fabric of the country, and even with no government prompting and no further attacks, will take decades to get back to 2000 normal.


    This is simply wrong. The TradeCenter was the target of terrorists earlier with a bomb explosion going of in the basement area. Luckily back then, the structure remained intact. The US 'created' Osama, and both FBI, CIA and government were more 'aware' of the problem than they would like to admit publicly, so stating that 9/11 came out of the blue, or 'started' on it's own, is not accurate. Investigations are under way to see if the republicans 'used' the attacks to gain support for their 10 year old war plans.

    What DID change was the fact that the world woke up with the acute knowledge that their civilians were no longer safe from harm, and that terrorism was getting more apt and proliferated every day.


    Then you claim that the greenies were right all along. Well, not precisely. They've been right on some things, wrong on others, just like every other group out there. Global cooling, anyone?


    Well, melting the icecaps is still going on. The sealevel is still rising. The ocean currents may be slowing down, wales are beginning to migrate to other locations and still reduce in numbers.

    Do me and the world a favour, and vote for anything BUT republican or democrat, so that your country can, for once, truely experience the merrits of a multi-party democracy.

    --
    With great power comes great electricity bills.
    1. Re:9 / 11 was NOT the beginning by Mukaikubo · · Score: 1

      I've been a Libertarian supporter since I was old enough to figure out that neither the 'Pubs or 'Dems were my bag of chips. Pounded pavement for them in 2000, got called a traitor and communist for not voting for Dubya. Quite entertaining.

  206. You need better news sources. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because it sounds like you've bought the 'it's just a small minority' story. or I'd say you're just not RTFAs, as revelations that it's widespread, policy, and goes all the way to the top have even been in the cow news.

  207. Edision invented the first practical lightbulb by blitz487 · · Score: 1
    Modern light bulb: I'll give you this one. I believe that most American's credit Thomas Edison for this, but Heinrich Goebel or Joseph Swan (depending on what you define as the invention...) definitely deserve it. Edison actually did very little in this field, he invented a longer lasting filament but within a year or two Lewis Latimer improved significantly on Edison's filament.

    Edison invented the first practical lightbulb. Previous "lightbulbs" were useless. That gives the nod to Edison.

  208. Wrong. by Confessed+Geek · · Score: 1

    Um... No. They were ALL Moderates until colonial period. Then extreamism became a political rallying point to over throw their oppressors. (sometimes sponsored and encouraged by the US when the ruling group was on the wrong side of the iron curtain).

    Takeing a big chunk of Holy land, kicking out everyone who lived there, and dropping a bunch of shell shocked and justifiably parinoid/defensive refugees there didn't help much either. (Did you know that the Koran groups Muslims, Christians and Jews all togoether as "people of the Book" and demands that Muslims PROTECT other people of the Book ?)

    Anyway, all your reasoning would do is get rid of moderates and liberal muslims, justify the claims of the hardliners, and convert all the moderates that were left.

    I'm sorry but that was just stupid.

    1. Re:Wrong. by nursedave · · Score: 0, Troll
      In reference to your people of the book statement; Christians and Jews (NOT Muslims) are called people of the book. In Mohammed's (from this point on called "Big Mo") early days, when he was given sanctuary by the now spinning-in-their-graves Jews and Christians while he was being chased by his fellow Arabs who wanted to kill him, he 'received' the message from Allah about the 'people of the book.'

      Later, after he had gathered a large following of people attracted to his success as a highway robber (he and his fellow Muslims attacked villages, travelling caravans, etc, killing the men and raping the women), he began receiving NEW direction from Allah, that gave them orders to kill those who do not convert. Reverence for the 'people of the book' disappeared. Instructions that it was permissible by Allah to rape the women captured in war made the budding Islam that much more attractive, plus an afterlife of service by those whom you have killed, while you spend your time with the 72 virgin women and 28 young nubile boys, since you are promised the sexual prowess of 100 men (homosexuality, while condemned in the Koran, it ironically permitted in Paradise, and it was quite popular back in Mo's day).

      So, if this is the PROTECTION of which you speak, this infidel wants the OPT-OUT number.

      --

      The Democratic Party: We've been pussies since 1968!

  209. What is wrong with this picture? by Confessed+Geek · · Score: 1

    What is wrong with this picture? Someone says the most intelligent thing I've seen on slashdot in weeks and they have to post anonymously?

  210. sad/shameful but true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All I see when I think about America (my country) is how much potential we had and still have. Every day when I flick on the news, I grind my teeth at the latest effort our leaders are making to dig our hole deeper. Some days it makes me want to vomit how the president and corporate America wipe their asses in the faces of US citizens.

    I wish those outside the US knew how sad regular, normal, sane Americans are at what has happened to our country. We've turned into a nation of door-to-door cutlery salesmen.

    Shame on us.

    All I can do is do my best to be different and be fair to international citizens. My fiance is australian and you would not believe the conversations we had when we first met. There are so many misconceptions about the states, while the situations and specifics may not be accurate, the results are. In the end, the world is pretty fucked up and we arent doing anything to help.

    If i could speak for all of america and apologise to the world, I would.

    I think thats the main reason why I could never submit to military service.

  211. Re:F--- you America by gg3po · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    How in the world did this get a +5 Informative? If ever a post fit into the 'Flamebait' category, it's this one. Judging from other comments it's even plagiarized.

    --
    ---
  212. Re: inventions by blitz487 · · Score: 1
    Light bulb -- Thomas Edison didn't invent the light bulb, but improved it. The inventor was a Sir Humphrey Davy of England, who created the first carbon arc lamp.

    Arc lights are not "light bulbs" and are completely impractical for most lighting applications.

    Edison and Sir Joseph Swann DID, however, create the first incandescant lamp.

    Swann's light bulb was not practical. Edison's was.

  213. Only a quarter terrorist? Phooey by Zareste · · Score: 1

    Evidently, the government's 'terrorists' will never be as much of a threat as the government itself. Soon enough they'll just brand barcodes into our ass-cheeks indicating what-percent terrorist we are.

    How do I know this? Because my terrorist-level just went up ten points.

    I'm gonna go to my window and moon the cameras.

    --
    I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
  214. Re:two wrongs don't make a right by Tandoori+Haggis · · Score: 1

    "two wrongs don't make a right"

    Indeed so. Alas this is the curse of mankind throughout history.

    Religion - single biggest force for evil

    Ignorance - single biggest excuse for perpetual stupidity

    Instead of sending probes in search of life in outer space, perhaps we should have probes looking for common sense.

    Left and right are relative positional terms neither of which imply the presence of intelligence , common sense or relative correctness.

    I've never seen rocking horse shit either.

    --
    My hyperlinks aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
  215. Score; 5, Troll by Atario · · Score: 2, Funny

    Copy unreasoning rant against the U.S. into an Anonymous Coward first post: (Score: 5, Insightful).

    "You'll probably be modded down, but I agree.": (Score: 5, Insightful).

    Insulting and spitting on Americans on an American computer forum over American internet connections in order to piss off Americans and getting applauded for it (probably by Americans): Priceless. Er, I mean: (Score: 5, Troll).

    YHABT. YHAL. HAND.

    --
    "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
    1. Re:Score; 5, Troll by p00p+at+instable.net · · Score: 0

      Don't like a post named "Fuck You, America"? Well... Fuck you, Atario!

  216. whoops I forgot something.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I KNOW that I just put myself on every terrorist watch list because I posted with my real name on that last one. Not that I didn't realize this before I did it, I just couldn't give a fuck less if these assholes know who I am. I'll take my terrorist quotient tattoo on my left nut please.

    -Joe

  217. Law enforcement cares about YOUR privacy! by Max+Threshold · · Score: 2, Interesting
    "...law enforcement officials who oversee Matrix insist that the terrorism scoring system ultimately was kept out of the project, largely because of privacy concerns."

    Yeah, and the assistant director of the FBI testified before Congress that Carnivore was only used to monitor suspected criminals. That was three months after Special Agent Irwin K. Summerville showed up at my door with a copy of an email I'd sent to my father, in which I called Janet Reno "the domestic enemy I swore an oath to defend the Constitution against."

    Maybe they changed their policy. You know, because the FBI cares about privacy. Honestly.

    1. Re:Law enforcement cares about YOUR privacy! by Blademun · · Score: 1

      In one sense, isn't it just paranoia to think we are being watched right now? (don't think I miss your sarcasm) However, in another, its really exciteing to think some pencil neck in washington is reading what we type -and actually cares-. We all need that feeling, deep down, that what we say really is noticed and appreciated. Especially if our words are filtering up the Domestic/Beaureacratic/Social/Corporate/Goverment ladder to those -other- intelligent people like ourselfs who just happened to fight (lie, cheat, walk on, mislead, ect) their way to the top.

      Technically, it doesn't seem possible that washington possibly has the resources to monitor all the chatter on the net. Perhaps -targeted- chatter, moving these discussions to perhaps a web forum on a islamist's extremist's website, would garner us the resonance we'd all like to belive we have.

      *switching topics*

      Personally I find myself wavering on whether we should try and follow through with Iraq..become trully righteous (which will never happen)..or become a genocidal society that takes pleasure in the destruction of entire cultures bent against us.

      One school of thought: Islamic culture is, moderate or not, against ours. They see the way we are, and they don't like it. Deep down in every muslims heart, they like it when they see americans get blown up. Look at all the celebrations after 9/11.

      Is it trully a stretch to say that to envisage the death of Americans in your mind is no diffrent from the actual deed committed with your own bloodied hands? Is the underlying support given by the general muslim populace towards terrorist and anti-west efforts not as much a affront to the West as the actual bombings?

      Look at muslim history, past to present. Look at their culture, look at their achievements. Before oil was discovered their greatest gifts to humanity were pretty rugs and the Bong(some would argue this is reason enough to enshrine them eternally.)(PS thats suppose to be funny, please don't lay into me with factoids on that one...). They have given nothing but violence, strife and poverty to this world.

      Ok, Christians also gave those things, but we calmed down..they haven't.

      Finnaly, do you not feel disgusted by their arrogance? Whether they take up arms against us in their minds or in their hands...dosen't it turn your stomach how they spit on us. Its the equivalent of a cockroach shitting on our shoe.

      So what should we do? Systematic Nuclear Erradication! HooWah! Instantly errase a couple of islamic countrys from the earth, then gauge their attitude..if it gets worse, erase more countrys. Naturally the muslims will either learn the error in their ways and finnaly submit..or they all die. Either way, problem solved.....

      Of course, then our culture would go down as one of the vilest, evil, demonic...wait, what am I saying, we did the exact same thing to the navtive americans and no one gave a fart...

      Of course the other school of thought is to try and buddy up with the muslims and take away their innitiative to attack. That was my old belife too..but I'v familiarlized myself with the muslim way of thinking..generally, they will -never- accept us.

      Final recourse: Stop buying their oil, reinvest our capital elsewhere, ect,ect. If they want to live in the stone age, we can assist! Or if they really do want to become a modern society, they should get up and take charge. Oh wait, we're talking about muslims, one of the most ass-backward people on this planet.

    2. Re:Law enforcement cares about YOUR privacy! by Max+Threshold · · Score: 1
      However, in another, its really exciteing to think some pencil neck in washington is reading what we type -and actually cares-.

      That's just the thing, though; human beings aren't reading most of this stuff. I'm sure my email got through several levels of AI filters before a human ever saw it.

      You might rationalize that I was being routinely monitored because I was in the military and held a "secret" clearance for the ECM gear I worked on. But... the email in question was sent via a commercial email account from my off-base apartment. I was never required to disclose my private email address to the government. So even if I was specifically being monitored at a higher level than the average citizen, it at least shows that the FBI has some way of locating and identifying you any time you go online.

      Ok, Christians also gave those things, but we calmed down..they haven't.

      Exactly. And look at when Christianity was founded, and when Islam was founded. Consider where Christianity was 500-1000 years ago, and you'll see that Islam is right about on schedule. Give 'em a few hundred years, they'll mellow out.

  218. That's why a lot of people said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just blow up the entire middle east. Turn it into glass. The people who live there *without exception* are animals who don't deserve much.

    The US Soldiers who beat the crap out of those animals made one mistake... leaving witnesses.

    Fuck the animals and kill em. Kill their relatives, friends, family, anybody who even looks like them. They're lower than whale shit. Kill them and salt the earth where they lived.

  219. You forgot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Despite a lot of people claiming otherwise, the Wright brothers (US Born and Bred) invented the airplane.

  220. NO they aren't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real people are the generals, and the paper pushers in Washington DC.

    Why do you think they're pushing for a quick end to this? Because the stink of this goes all the way up to Rumsfeld.

    Frankly, I'd like to see Rumsfeld and his cronies in jail for this fiasco.

  221. parent is only at three - MOD UP by phossie · · Score: 1

    I don't do this often, but this statement is right on:

    "You both are hitting the mark, but you aren't dead-on and it's that wild swing left and right that is the real trouble these days. ... My point is, few people are absolutely correct these days about either side of the issue."

    Thanks... way to transcend the rhetoric. We need more of this.

    --

    [|]
    1. Re:parent is only at three - MOD UP by Cranx · · Score: 1

      Doh, I hope that's not sarcasm. I see way too many people jiggle their particular side's flags to think anyone has seen too much moderate commentary. After all this "I'm right!" -- "No I'm right" nonsense, how sad it would be if people with a middle-ground sort of thinking we're thought of as the third rhetorical viewpoint.

    2. Re:parent is only at three - MOD UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, it wasn't sarcasm.

      i'm personally sick of all the flag waving, but i don't think i could be characterized as a moderate - which is not to say that anybody out there represents me all that well. i'm just happier every time someone suggests taking a step back to look at the bigger picture. people need to actually put some effort into forming their opinions, not just 'supporting' them.

    3. Re:parent is only at three - MOD UP by Cranx · · Score: 1

      That's what being a moderate really means. Moderate is how each side says "hey, you aren't backing us up 100%!" It's really just thinking and making the right choices, but each side likes to call anyone in their party a "moderate" when they don't put their brain in a jar and follow along in step.

  222. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  223. The Crusades were justified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Atrocities like the crusades are relatively recent

    Who says the Crusades were atrocities, other than the Muslims who started the whole thing in the first place? Did you think that the kings of Christendom just decided one day they would sail east and kill Muslims for no reason?

    No, the Eastern Mediterranean used to be Christian until the Muslims invaded. The Crusades were wars of self defense and now they begin again. I hope they continue until Islam is exterminated from the face of the earth.

    I don't care what methods are used or how many "innocent" Muslims suffer; their religion is a cancer on mankind and must be viciously suppressed even if it results in the death of every Muslim man, woman and child. Everywhere the Muslim world borders its non-Muslim neighbors, there is bloodshed and strife caused by Muslim aggression and fanaticism. We should no more allow a Muslim to draw breath than we should allow a live rattlesnake loose in our house.

  224. My American education made me smrt by Professional+Slacker · · Score: 1

    Yeah, we are that dense. I'm a senior in an American high school, my English class just finished Arthur Miller's The Crucible. Not a single person in the class grasped the connection between the story and the McCarthy Hearings. Our teacher tried to stimulate discussion about the relationship between the Red Scare and the current terrorist hunts, this was met with glazed over looks. The future generation isn't going to be much better educated than the current bunch of dopes aiming the American war machine, sorry folks. The irony here is if we took the over bloated "defense" budget and spent it on education we might be smart enough not to go around stirring up wars, or at the very least smart enough not to elect warmongering idiots to office.

    --
    A Free Market requires informed intelligent consumers, such people are rare, we're in trouble.
  225. Vietnam by freejung · · Score: 1

    Sounds like this may be arguable. The grandparent's argument really applies much more to Vietnam. The kill ratios were similar, and it definitely wasn't anything remotely like a victory.

    1. Re:Vietnam by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Sounds like this may be arguable. The grandparent's argument really applies much more to Vietnam. The kill ratios were similar, and it definitely wasn't anything remotely like a victory.

      Korea wasn't a victory in a classical sense either. I'm sorry but we liberated virtually every city and village in Korea -- our troops were welcomed in the North as liberators. Then we were forced to retreat by the Chinese -- abandoning the people that we had liberated to decades of Communism and starvation.

      We then waged a two year long bloody stalemale along the lines of WW1. Rather then fight the war to the finish (we could have won) we sued for peace.

      That's many things (maybe even smart in historical hindsight) but it's not victory.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  226. Criminals by freejung · · Score: 1
    Terrorists, American citizens or not, give up their rights when they choose to enable or support terrorist activities against their own government

    Your argument could equally well be applied to any sort of criminal, particularly murderers. Under the US legal system, criminals are still supposed to have rights. That's one thing which supposedly makes this a free country.

    One problem with this whole war on terror trip is that it creates a special class of criminal, the "terrorist", which is a very losely defined term, who has no rights. The only real difference between a "terrorist" and any other kind of murderer is that the terrorist is politically motivated. This makes the whole thing even more problematic. If you start denying rights to politically motivated criminals, you can't help getting ever closer to criminalizing any form of dissent. That is what this sort of blacklisting represents: the criminalization of dissent. That is one of the classic characteristics of a totalitarian regime.

    Terrorists who commit murder are murderers and should be treated as such. But if you take away their rights, you erode the very foundations of our society. This does violate the bill of rights, and it is a serious problem, not to be dismissed lightly.

  227. The truth is... by Swen+Swen · · Score: 1
    Europe invented America in 1620. Check this out

    "In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, e&.

    Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.

    In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord, King James of England, France and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini, 1620."

    As you see, all your bases are belong to Europeans !
  228. Clarification by pherris · · Score: 1

    My comment "BTW, studies in the Netherlands showed that drug use did not increase with an easing supply." referred only to marijuana. I apologize for the confusion.

    --
    "And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
  229. Really ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    90% get siezed ? Don't think so. More like 90% get through.

  230. As a brit, by lorcha · · Score: 1

    certainly you must understand irony. Well, if you didn't before, you do now.

    --
    "Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
  231. No worries, mistah. by jswalter9 · · Score: 1

    If you're labeled as a potential terrorist in the new america, you'll be "secured" somewhere and won't have to worry about any cashiers in supermarkets.
    Heh.

    --
    Retired from software... maybe. Sort of.
  232. Re:Fuck you America & free refills? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would those free refills be FROM an "American Company?" or would it be OF an "American Product?" AND was it an "American Company" that started the "free refills"?

  233. ok by phyruxus · · Score: 1
    >>That was a joke.. dumbass. :)

    Okay, well please accept my apology, and also, please don't call me a racist. :)

    --
    "A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
    "d'Oh!" ~Homer