Slashdot Mirror


Bioterrorism Charges Brought Against Professor

gnetwerker writes "Wired and others are reporting about artist Steve Kurtz, professor at Univesity of Buffalo (NY), and member of the Critical Art Ensemble will face a Grand Jury in two weeks on bioterrorism charges over artwork that used samples of harmless bacteria to make a statement about genetic engineering and food safety. He is charged with BioTerrorism under Section 817 of the PATRIOT Act. Apparently John Ashcroft can't tell a weapons lab from an art installation. There is more info and a Defense Fund on the CAE Defense Fund Site."

611 comments

  1. Not likely Al Queda, but still terrorists! by LostCluster · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    "Deconstructing and disrupting the growth of genetically modified foods" might be done as a piece of performance art, but it's still vandalism and destuction of somebody else's property.

    I don't care if these people's intent is to improve the American government by teaching it something the hard way and to do their best not to harm anybody seriously in the process. They're still practicing terrorism in that releasing something genetically modified into the environment is likely to cause a scare even if it's found to be harmless later. And, in a worst case, these guys could botch it all up and cause the kind of environmental harm that they're so scared Monsanto will cause.

    At least Monsanto does its best to follow the laws... these people seem to have no respect for the law at all.

    1. Re:Not likely Al Queda, but still terrorists! by ignatus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      dude, the only thing they do is provide a test, so people can check if their food contains genetically modified food. That's not exactly vandalism or destruction of somedy else's property. You can't do any harm with the equipment they use.

      --
      - Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
    2. Re:Not likely Al Queda, but still terrorists! by rossifer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Deconstructing and disrupting the growth of genetically modified foods" might be done as a piece of performance art, but it's still vandalism and destuction of somebody else's property.

      I have two problems with your statement.

      First, you stated your opinion as a fact. You have assumed as facts several premises that are very much in debate. Many (including myself) will argue that much art is also political statement and that the artist being discussed here takes a slightly different view on the subject of what can be property and what should be done with genetic engineering. As such, you might sound more credible if you actually responded to the issues being raised rather than just bleating "terrorist!"

      Second, they didn't actually do any of the things you're saying they did, they described some ideas on how to do those things. You're allowed to write a story about robbing a bank and make lots of money, but if you actually rob a bank, you go to federal prison. See the difference? It's subtle, but it's there.

      They're still practicing terrorism in that releasing something genetically modified into the environment is likely to cause a scare even if it's found to be harmless later.

      RTFA. They haven't done any genetic modifications, nor have they released anything genetically modified into the environment. The equipment that the accused had in his home is for making gels: visualizations of genetic sequences. The most he could do in the way of genetic modification with the equipment he had was to create the equivalent of a bacterial breed by selecting bacterial populations for various conditions.

      And, in a worst case, these guys could botch it all up and cause the kind of environmental harm that they're so scared Monsanto will cause.

      Get your facts straight, you also have all of the equipment to do exactly the same thing in your home right now. The only thing you can't do that he could with his fancy gear is see what the bacterial genes look like in the mutant strain in the back corner of the fridge.

      At least Monsanto does its best to follow the laws... these people seem to have no respect for the law at all.

      Monsanto will definitely follow the laws that benefit its bottom line. To assume that Monsanto is therefore completely lawful is an entirely different set of assumptions. I have found that only rarely do companies do what is moral (or legal) when the immoral and illegal are much more profitable. While I have no evidence that that Monsanto learned at the Enron school of business, I'll reserve judgement about whether it "does its best to follow the laws." until I know for certain.

      Regards,
      Ross

    3. Re:Not likely Al Queda, but still terrorists! by elpapacito · · Score: 1

      Oh come on ! You're assuming Monsanto isn't messing up because it's a company, therefore it must be following law ? Enron was a company, was it following law ? I guess you don't even know which law you're talking about ?

      There's a lot of guilty or not guilty by assumption and prejudice going on I guess; remember it is "NOT guilty" until proven guilty, not the other way around !

    4. Re:Not likely Al Queda, but still terrorists! by cheekyboy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Everytime I see GWB do a press converence or speak I get immensley TERRIFIED....... then laugh at his utter incompetence.

      Meanwhile millions die from DU poisoning, tabacco deaths/ car accidents, pollutions, diabetes, cancer, aids, gun shots.

      But do we stop them? no, because some people still make millions of dollars out of those.

      McDonnalds should be a classified as a slow terrorist activity since they are slowly killing everyone by their crap-ass bad food that no respectable cook/chef would touch.

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    5. Re:Not likely Al Queda, but still terrorists! by Siniset · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Wait, can someone explain to me why this is offtopic, i don't necessarily agree with it, but it is definitely on topic. Jeez. moderators!

    6. Re:Not likely Al Queda, but still terrorists! by glk572 · · Score: 1

      That mutant bacteria at the back of my fridge is pretty scary, it gave me the finger once, and last time I looked in there it was making a shiv. I'm afraid to open it again I think it might stab me. I think you're right about the bacteria this guy was playing with, it seems like stuff from a dirty public bathroom, not a weapons lab; and definitely nothing compared to the hordes of six month old costco values lurking in the big white box over in the corner.

      (douglas adams reference [I'm about to get a new fridge just as soon as I can get rid of the dammed eagle.])

      --
      Well art is art isn't it, but then again water is water; and east is east; and west is west; and if you take cranberries
    7. Re:Not likely Al Queda, but still terrorists! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think it is silly to imagine he hasn't done any genetic modification. Infact every student who takes AP Biology in high school today does genetic modification of E. Coli to be resistant to a certain antibiotic, to express green fluorescent protein, or to express luciferase from fireflies to glow.

      The only equipment needed for genetic transformation of "competent" strains of E. Coli is a hot water bath. They suck bacterial plasmids right into the cells and their genome.

      You can go to a web site, enter in a gene nucleotide sequence, and get a vial of bacterial plasmid with your custome gene in a few days for as little as $500.

      I'm not saying this guy is dangerous, there really isn't evidence that people can cook up anything worse in their kitchens using genetic modification than they could not using genetic modigication, but with a bit of soil and an incubator.

    8. Re:Not likely Al Queda, but still terrorists! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's LostCluster, it is your patriotic DUTY to mod this karma whoring troll down.

    9. Re:Not likely Al Queda, but still terrorists! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it has nothing to do with the actual story?

      Maybe you should read the article, too.

    10. Re:Not likely Al Queda, but still terrorists! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just meta-modded your Offtopic mod unfair. I also disagree with the grandparent, but I've found that the concept of "objectivity" is foreign to non-aspergics, who put it down to a failure to understand (note the italics).

      In the meantime, put +1 Offtopic in your preferences, although it doesn't fix the karma problem.

  2. I'm no luddite by be-fan · · Score: 1, Troll

    But I think creating genetically-modified foods in the first place are terrorist activites!

    --
    A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    1. Re:I'm no luddite by Soporific · · Score: 1

      Like Round Up's genetically modified seed?

      ~S

    2. Re:I'm no luddite by bofkentucky · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You do realize that every food crop/animal that man has raised since the dawn of time has been slectively bred to produce higher yields, disease resistance, and/or other physical traits (Dog and Cat breeds look nothing like their ancestors, neither does your baked potato). GE/GM crops are just allowing us to add factors that would normally take millenia to add.

      --
      09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
    3. Re:I'm no luddite by shepd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      >But I think creating genetically-modified foods in the first place are terrorist activites!

      "We're 6.6 billion people now. We can only feed 4 billion; I don't see 2 billion volunteers to disappear."

      -- Norman Borlaug on Penn and Teller's Bullshit! - "Eat This!", speaking on the effects of removing modern farming techniques and genetic engineering from the food supply.

      Sorry. I'm gonna have to take the word of a man who is estimated to have saved 1 billion lives and has a nobel peace prize over yours. Hope you understand. Don't take it personally.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    4. Re:I'm no luddite by Skjellifetti · · Score: 3, Insightful

      GE/GM crops are just allowing us to add factors that would normally take millenia to add.

      And in a decade or so could possibly wreck the kind of ecological destruction that would normally take millenia as well. Sticking genes from one species into another is not at all the same thing as selectively breeding a single species for desirable traits.

    5. Re:I'm no luddite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course if something doesn't happen we will be 8 billion and 10 billion and at some point this planet will be so messed up you wont want to live on it and you will have no shortage of volunteers who want out.

      Starvation is the most basic form of population control. Its only thanks to man's arrogance and intellect that we are braking this most basic check on over population, and over population is ALWAYS bad.

      I wouldn't mind if it was only mankind that paid the price but we already wiping out species after species and when we reach the 10 billion mark and up, we are going to start wiping out every other species on the planet before we go down for our hubris and folly

    6. Re:I'm no luddite by unitron · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "GE/GM crops are just allowing us to add factors that would normally take millenia to add."

      Aren't GE/GM crops usually engineered not to produce seeds so that if you want to grow more next season you have to go back to Monsanto or whoever and buy more seeds or seedlings? Isn't this the worry about these "Frankenplants", that they'll crossbreed with regular plants on the next farm over and render them sterile as well, thus forcing all the farmers to become Mega-Ag-Corp. customers whether they want to be or not?

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    7. Re:I'm no luddite by unitron · · Score: 0, Troll
      I'm no luddite (Score:-1, Troll)
      by be-fan (61476) on 10:47 PM June 4th, 2004 (#9341980)
      But I think creating genetically-modified foods in the first place are terrorist activites!

      Every time I turn around I've got mod points...except when I really need them. You may not agree with be-fan, but he/she has a legitimate point of view. Hence this guerrilla up-mod.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    8. Re:I'm no luddite by bofkentucky · · Score: 1

      Northrup King, Monsanto, and Cargil would have went out of business long ago (since the late 1940's) if their sterile hybrids of corn and soybeans were capable of cross-pollination. Their techniques for seed control have been field tested for 60 years now, just because they are picking genes a la carte in the lab instead of trial and error in the field doesn't mean the end of world agriculture, despite the fears of some of the true luddites out there.

      --
      09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
    9. Re:I'm no luddite by bofkentucky · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Tell that to the guy who bred the first mule.

      When you talk about ecological destruction, are you talking about the overpopulation "problem" that these technologies will create or the unfounded fears of watermellonpeace who are actually so anti-business that they'll delibertly mislead consumers or destroy crops. Study the introduction of the potato in the old world for some insight on how this planet's population ceiling has been raised over the past 10,000 years of agriculture and animal husbandry. As for convicing the environmentalists, I'm waiting for them to wrap their minds around the basics of GE/GM technologies, as the bulk of their arguments have been based on hatred for profit making business.

      --
      09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
    10. Re:I'm no luddite by bofkentucky · · Score: 1

      Study the introduction of the potato in the old world, it kindled the industrial revolution and raised the planet's population ceiling. I don't hear anyone complaining about it now.

      --
      09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
    11. Re:I'm no luddite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, well, some of the things they've been putting into plants aren't even plant genes.

      For example, in plant life there exists tons of herbicides and insecticides, developed to help the plant survive. Nicotine, and caffiene, for example.

      But, they're going after fungus, and getting the BT toxin gene, putting it into corn and tobacco and the other cash crops. This is something that would quite likely never be developed in these species. Even after millions of years of cross breeding. Yeah, BT is killer stuff to bugs. In larger doses, it's not good for humans (or fungus for that matter).. Who knows what the long range impacts are from the large scale introduction of another toxin into our food chain.

    12. Re:I'm no luddite by MntlChaos · · Score: 1

      it is a point of view that is bizarre to most people, hence needs to be justified, otherwise the mod was correct

    13. Re:I'm no luddite by AoT · · Score: 3, Informative

      Except their GMO plants ARE capable of cross pollination.

      I'm a little lazy right now but here is an article/paper about managing cross pollination between GMO and non-GMO plants. I can only assume that if management of cross pollination is required then it must be possible.

      What normally would end up happening with cross pollination is that only some of the genes are in the new generation so the terminator gene is not in the new plant. I you look up some of monsanto's actions in canada and mexico against farmers whose fields have been contaminated by GMO crops I think you migh come away with a different view on things.

      Last but not least, Monsanto has a patent(copyright?) on all the gene sequences that they insert into their GMO. This means that if your crops get cross contaminated you owe them money. And trust me they'll come to collect.

    14. Re:I'm no luddite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The earth has enough food to feed 6.6 billion people comfortably. The issue is not one of supply, it's one of distribution (the food supply isn't distributed uniformly). GM crops are an attempt to solve a distribution problem by increasing supply. Seems stupid to me.

    15. Re:I'm no luddite by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      And the distribution issue is largely related to wars, strife, and totalitarian governments. Open it up and protect it so evil local capitalists can get in there to feed people...

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    16. Re:I'm no luddite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's always genocide!

    17. Re:I'm no luddite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to Somalia. May I take your life?

    18. Re:I'm no luddite by meanroy · · Score: 1

      This whole thread was moderately 'off topic' anyway, as the topic is *not* genetically modified foods.
      That being said, and having perused some of the comments in this thread, I have to point out that this issue has been discussed many times here.
      I don't think you can characterize G.M. food products as "terrorist activities". Monopolistic attempts, yes; Very different than 'selective breeding', yes; Dangerous, yes.
      I too am kind of lazy this morning so I'm not going to post a million threads to 'prove it', but any of you folks that think G.M. food products are so great should do a little research of your own.
      (And just wait until some of the G.M stuff thats being used to grow drug products escapes and crosses with regular crops)

    19. Re:I'm no luddite by meanroy · · Score: 1

      OK, so I was wrong. He apparently IS in opposition to Genetically Modified foods. (RTFADA).
      I wonder though, what those folks would have thought if he had been a part of this project. Frankenstein?

    20. Re:I'm no luddite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, you are.

    21. Re:I'm no luddite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Tell that to the guy who bred the first mule.

      Mules don't generally have offspring except for once in a blue moon so they are not likely to get loose and then propogate on their own into an unprepared ecosystem. Find a better example.

    22. Re:I'm no luddite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In addition to the lock-in (all /.ers are well aware of that concept) that the GMO producers will bring to a once self-sustainable human activity, there is the fact that all previous breeding efforts required cooperation from the plants/animals involved. Either the experiment was "accepted" by the organisms, who had a certain amount of agency in the matter, or it wasn't. This was nature's safeguard, if you will, against unleashing some very distruptive organisms into the ecosystem. Now with gene splicing, organisms can be forced to marry who would never have looked twice at one another. (Perhaps you can tell me how a fish pollenates a tomato!) In effect, bioengineers have created a sort of biological rape. And, for the most part, farmers are also getting f**ked in this deal.

    23. Re:I'm no luddite by Gumber · · Score: 1

      You do realize that every food crop/animal that man has raised since the dawn of time has been slectively bred to produce higher yields, disease resistance, and/or other physical traits (Dog and Cat breeds look nothing like their ancestors, neither does your baked potato). GE/GM crops are just allowing us to add factors that would normally take millenia to add.

      And you do realize that a millenia gives a lot of time to identify and weed out undesirable side-effects?

    24. Re:I'm no luddite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you get a troll mod too. Seems the /. mod crowd is a bunch of fucking bitches. Offtopic mofos, not troll. m2 will fuck you in the ass.

  3. Damn, what a bad summary. by Wavicle · · Score: 5, Informative

    The guy is being charged because his otherwise healthy wife in her 40s, mysteriously died.

    He is not being held on the patriot act, but a much older late 80's U.S. Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989.

    Good god. I'm not fond of Ashcroft or the PATRIOT Act, but not everything is a conspiracy, you know.

    --
    Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
    Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
    1. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by Azghoul · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nice try, but the freaking out will continue unabated. :)

      And it's a grand jury, not like he's been formally indicted with anything yet.

      The level of conclusion-jumping around here is staggering. I agree with your last sentence wholeheartedly.

    2. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by mcknation · · Score: 5, Informative


      RTFA...Again

      from the usa today sorce:

      "Kurtz's 45-year-old wife, Hope, died of apparent heart failure and her death is not believed related to the suspect materials, authorities said."

    3. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by khallow · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Good god. I'm not fond of Ashcroft or the PATRIOT Act, but not everything is a conspiracy, you know.

      I don't know what's been passed around here, but shouldn't they get some evidence of a crime first before they assemble a grand jury? As I understand it, they tested the lab equipment and didn't discover any bacteria or chemicals that warranted a quarantine of the residence, Mr. Kurst, or of the equipment (though obviously the equipment hasn't been returned). Mysterious deaths are suspicious, but one doesn't automatically start up a grand jury because of it.

      Besides why is the FBI involved? Suppose instead, that Kurst had rat poison all over the kitchen and his wife died from ingesting rat poison accidentally (eg, it got mixed in with her food by accident). Kurst would be legally responsible for the death of his wife (I gather it would be some sort of manslaughter offense), but it wouldn't be a federal crime.

    4. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by DangerSteel · · Score: 1
      If my tax dollars are going to fund "art" like this it should be a crime.

      My guess is that this guy is teaching "art" because he cannot even teach Biotech and genetics much less work in the field...

    5. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by Granos · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, the wired article got it wrong, it WAS in fact the patriot act. In a subpoena, the government cites sections of the US Code, not the act that modified the US code. In this case, the 1989 act modified section 175, and the PATRIOT act later modified that same section. The 1989 act says "Whoever knowingly develops, produces, stockpiles, transfers, acquires, retains, or possesses any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for use as a weapon" is commiting a crime. In this act, "`for use as a weapon' does not include the development, production, transfer, acquisition, retention, or possession of any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for prophylactic, protective, or other peaceful purposes." This does not say that any other use IS "use as a weapon".

      However, the PATRIOT act DOES make it bioterrorism to develop biological agents for any other reason than "reasonably justified by a prophylactic, protective, bona fide research, or other peaceful purpose," even if it is NOT use as a weapon. From the wired article:

      The subpoenas cited Section 175 of the U.S. Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, which prohibits the use of certain biological materials for anything other than a "prophylactic, protective, bona fide research, or other peaceful purpose."

      Since "bona fide research" is not present in the 1989 act, but is present in the PATRIOT act, and the fact that the PATRIOT act overwrote what was passed in the 1989 act, it is clear that the subpoena did in fact site the PATRIOT act.
    6. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by _iris · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 was amended by the PATRIOT Act. Prior to these amendments, he would have been well within his rights.

      The article doesn't say what the man is charged with. The subpoenas cite violating the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989. Nothing in that act prohibits murder. Therefore, he is not being charged with murder.

      Whomever rated the above comment 5:Interesting should be banned.

    7. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But that still leaves an unexplained death. When a married person dies, the spouse is an automatic suspect worthy of at least some investigation since they have the most to possibly gain by the death.

      The fact that he's being questioned by a grand jury is not alarming... if he's charged then we're all going to deserve to see more proof as to why, but so far I see nothing wrong with trying to find out if there's a link to the suspect materials that we just haven't discovered yet.

    8. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by JInterest · · Score: 1

      He is not being held on the patriot act, but a much older late 80's U.S. Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989.

      You are correct, and the summary is not. This has nothing to do with Ashcroft, and in most respects, this looks like a standard homicide investigation.

      There is a serious problem on Slashdot, which is that anything that bashes the Bush administration or a member of that administration gets posted without somebody doing a bullshit check.

      Sorry, but I have to lay this at the doorstep o f the moderators. Way to screw up again guys. Check these things before you approve them, ok?

    9. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by khallow · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The fact that he's being questioned by a grand jury is not alarming... if he's charged then we're all going to deserve to see more proof as to why, but so far I see nothing wrong with trying to find out if there's a link to the suspect materials that we just haven't discovered yet.

      The police generally don't host a grand jury unless they have a reasonable expectation that they'll be able to charge the suspect with a crime. If you're brought before a grand jury, then you should be concerned because that means there's a very good chance that you will be indicted (and hence go to trial) on something.

    10. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiot. SEC. 817 of the Patriot act is an EXPANSION OF THE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS STATUTE, you dimwit.

    11. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      The man is charged with nothing at this point. He's just a "person of interest" who's being forced to testify in front of a grand jury, who is trying to figure out if he's worth charging or not.

    12. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that he's being questioned by a grand jury is exactly what is alarming.

    13. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by dvnelson72 · · Score: 1

      This is America! I can do anything I want in my house as long as I don't infringe on anyone else's rights. It's not like anyone died! Doh! In all seriousness, it sounds like someone smells a rat, and they are using every tool possible to flush it out. I say bravo. If there is no true crime, he'll be fine. Sorry folks, but on the face of it there should be suspicion, so why wouldn't cops be suspicious?

    14. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by Zareste · · Score: 1
      but not everything is a conspiracy

      Y'know, he had some credibility before the 'OMG conspiracy tinfoil aliens are going to kill everyone who doesn't bend over and take it from the government!'

      The resistance against pointing out the painfully obvious seems to be getting more pitiful. Good thing the replies give some non-paranoid-nutcase input.

      --
      I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
    15. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by fenix+down · · Score: 1

      You tell 'em, Steve-Dave.

    16. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've heard Ken Brown has bio-terrorism weapons growing in his navel. Has anyone check this out?

    17. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by Mixel · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Besides why is the FBI involved?

      The whole thing is a stage to make kids and terrorist wannabes think twice. I mean, after this, would _you_ be more or less likely to put a piece of bacterial art on display (harmless or otherwise)? For most, I expect, this is a deterrent. The population is being scared into a hole as usual. Soon some common criminals will be branded terrorist, gagged using the right-deminishing legislation and crime levels will plummet. w00t.

    18. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by FattMattP · · Score: 2, Interesting
      "Kurtz's 45-year-old wife, Hope, died of apparent heart failure and her death is not believed related to the suspect materials, authorities said."
      Then why mention it at all? More poor journalism from USA Today.
      --
      Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
    19. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Agreed, a terrible summary. From my reading, Kurtz had not been charged at all, under any act, and so far does not have to face a grand jury. From the USA Today article:

      "No charges were brought against Kurtz. Earlier this week, however, three of Kurtz's colleagues were subpoenaed to testify in front of a grand jury."

      The death of his wife is only relevant because police initially discovered Kurtz's laboratory while they were investigating her death. He is definitely not being accused of murdering her.

    20. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 1

      There are hundreds, even thousands, of 'other peaceful purposes' that can be cited.

      Hell, any one of us could rattle off a dozen of them without having to think hard.

      --
      resigned
    21. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by dgatwood · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Which brings us to the obligatory... "Missuz Kurtz... she dead...."

      (Here's hoping somebody gets the reference....)

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    22. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by beeplet · · Score: 1

      Which brings us to the obligatory... "Missuz Kurtz... she dead...."

      The horror!

    23. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by CoolGuySteve · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not only is art a "peaceful purpose" but if his bacteria is not harmful then isn't he also protected under free speech rights? I'm not American but this doesn't seem to fall under that 'yelling fire in a crowded theatre' example.

      Is the government allowed to confiscate tools used to create and distribute messages? Especially in a case like this where the communication is clearly both physically safe (I assume) and political.

    24. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by Liquidrage · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But that still leaves an unexplained death. When a married person dies, the spouse is an automatic suspect worthy of at least some investigation since they have the most to possibly gain by the death.

      Umm, no. An "apparent heart attack" is an explanation.

      FYI: Just because someone dies doesn't mean there's a suspect. In fact, a vast majority of the time that is what happens. No suspect. It's pretty sad that I had to point this out.

    25. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whomever wrote the above is badly in need of grammar lessons.

    26. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Should whomever rated your commend 5:Informative be banned as well? You seem misinformed on legal matters. He hasn't been charged with ANYTHING at this point. That's what a grand jury does. For "capital, or otherwise infamous crime(s)" a grand jury indictment is required prior to charges. What that means varies state to state but murder ALWAYS counts. So for something like shoplifting, the prosecution just charges you with it by themselves. However stuff likemurder they have to present a case to the grandy jury, who has to return an indictment for murder. If they don't you don't get charged.

      It's a pre trial thing to keep people from being brought up on big charges with no evidence. The standard isn't very high, all the grand jury must find is legally sufficient evidence and reasonable cause to believe and they can return an indictment.

      So a murder charge may well be pending. Depends on what the grand jury finds. They may find there is no evidence of anything, and refuse to indicte him at all. They may indicite him on murder, and other charges.

    27. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -1 STUPID

    28. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't entirely know what criteria is used to determine who gets an article posted on slashdot, but I really do think objectivity should be one. This guy was clearly just trying to make a political point, one which neither of his articles, nor any of the actual facts of the case back up. And when you consider how many people don't read the articles and just the summery, thats not a good way to start a debate.

    29. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by TelJanin · · Score: 0

      Actually, he will not "be fine". As stated earlier, being indicted by a Grand Jury can ruin somebody's life.

    30. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by shurakai · · Score: 1

      Sure, his wife died, but he called it in...

    31. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by jtwJGuevara · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Good god. I'm not fond of Ashcroft or the PATRIOT Act, but not everything is a conspiracy, you know.

      And tell me, what part of the articles that were linked had ANYTHING to do with the Patriot act? This will get modded as flamebait, but seriously, allowing articles with falsified summaries to make it to the front page is not good AT ALL. It's not good for the slashdot admins because it makes them look careless and it's not good for us readers because we are being subject false information unless we read all of the links ourselves - which we know isn't happening for every article!

    32. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was more alarmed that he was running a bioweapons lab in his home, was attempting to breed a race of mutant flies to be released in a restaurant, and that he killed his wife. Then again, I never really did "get" art.

    33. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This reminds me of the Sokal affair. If you really tried hard, what do you suppose the most ludicrous thing is which you could get posted to Slashdot...

    34. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by Wellmont · · Score: 2, Informative

      Everyone is missing the point entirely, the case is not a terrorism case, this is merely the federally apointed prosecutor charging him to the full extent of the law. That's why when you see a murder trial there's 10 charges the least of which is a misdemeanor.

      The big Pizza here is the fact that he violated a law by using live bacteria in a place where it was strictly against building code and health law. The Patriot ACT is designed to prevent a sleeper implimenting a similar "art project" and summarily infecting half of it's viewers. No need to go ape-shit over references to the Patriot Act in a Grand Jury proceeding.

    35. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by mikael · · Score: 1

      "Whoever knowingly develops, produces, stockpiles, transfers, acquires, retains, or possesses any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for use as a weapon"

      Uh-Oh! I better remove those pre-packaged foods with expired use-by dates from my fridge freezer before someone gets hurt.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    36. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Apocalypse Now", right?

      </sarcasm>

    37. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The big Pizza here is the fact that he violated a law by using live bacteria in a place where it was strictly against building code and health law.

      I don't know whether you realise, but the building will have been full of live bacteria, whatever the building code and health law says. You're covered in them. The keyboard you typed that on is swarming with bacteria. John Ashcroft's anal tract contains microbes that any bio-terrorist would be overjoyed to get their hands on.

      Every art installation is covered in live bacteria. The only difference is that this one was supposed to be. Please tell me you don't seriously think that's deserving of a terrorism charge?!

    38. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by CaptainFrito · · Score: 1
      Kurst would be legally responsible for the death of his wife

      If he was the guy responsible for the rat poison in the first place. If she croaked because of ingested rat poison becasue she was picking her teeth after getting the stuff all over her, how could he be responsible? Only if he were negligent and not excercising reasonable care.

      All these anti-terrorist initiatives use fear and promise of security to circumvent protections against persecution by the government. That's why it smacks of conspiracy every time these tactics are employed, because it quite possibly could be persecution. Of course the case itself could be a sideshow: the government knows most people are superficial morons that just want to voice their opinion about things they know nothing about over headlines they don't even care were planted, then be left alone to continue consuming. William Randolph Hearst comes to mind: Remember the Maine.

      This man could be getting pulled through a wringer simply to send a message that anyone except the government is simply not permitted to fool with bacteria -- or anything else for that matter -- on purpose. If someone needs to be killed, or if nature is to be manipulated, the govenment will handle it, thank you very much. The government is in unilateral control of life and death and it demands profound submission on this subject. Just like railroading innocent people over fair-use recording and format shifting of licensed video and audio materials, and fair-use forensic analyses to understand how things work (reverse engineering for academic purposes). It's okay if your a corporation (nobody is raiding Micro$oft where they no doubt reverse everything -- like video game boxes and whatnot. The former is about complete social domination and the later is about economic enslavement, IMHO.

      Even the densest people know at some level that they get the best deal from government when they go along to get along. This poor guy -- or maybe this sinister madman, who knows? -- is for sure being made an example of, whether guilty or not. His "crime" is, in my view, merely an excuse to make an entirely different [subliminal] point.

    39. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by M1FCJ · · Score: 1

      He is free to talk about it but he can't do it. That's free speech.

    40. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by M1FCJ · · Score: 1
      Actually if you read the whole Wired article you would see that this is actually a political pressure applied by FBI. The guy is working on art which discredits genetic seed companies. It looks like a frame to me. Someone wants this guy discredited, silenced, got rid of. If you can't incite him for killing his wife, you can by saying he's a terrorist. Apparently FBI sent mails around suggesting substly (by asking) if the guy is "un-american". Since even FOSS can be claimed to be un-american"... I rest my case.

      This is very disturbing. Western goverments are trying to silence people just because it would hurt them (The Ruling Class) in their wallets.

    41. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by deanj · · Score: 1
      From USA Today:
      Kurtz created a display of small soy, corn and canola plants growing under large incubating lamps. The exhibit said some of the plants had been treated with a compound that made them vulnerable to herbicide. A nearby computer screen explained that, if successful, the compound would be the newest weapon in the war on advanced agricultural technology.

      Read that last line. This guy is against what the ag industry is doing to food, and was looking for a way to stop it.

      Also, further in the article, one of the things he was incubating was E. Coli. That's hardly harmless, despite what "da Costa" said, in the article. She's a freaking artist for crying out loud! No background in this stuff!

    42. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by Quixote · · Score: 2, Funny
      The police generally don't host a grand jury unless they have a reasonable expectation that they'll be able to charge the suspect with a crime. If you're brought before a grand jury, then you should be concerned because that means there's a very good chance that you will be indicted (and hence go to trial) on something.

      There's an oft-quoted saying in legal circles, 'a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich if he chooses.'

    43. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If there is no true crime, he'll be fine.
      Except that he'll be out hundreds, maybe thousands of dollars in legal expenses.
      Not "fine" in my book.
    44. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by hattig · · Score: 1

      Everybody is literally covered in living bacteria. Everybody contains living bacteria.

      Does everybody that enters this building get taken to grand jury for being covered in these bacteria? I bet the bacteria in the toilets are 200x more dangerous. Meanwhile your 'sleeper' is walking around town putting deadly bacteria and toxins on all push-to-open doors and shopping trolley handles and infecting 100x as many people that would view the artwork.

      This is a stupid case brought about by a government that distrusts the people it 'governs'. Something is inherently wrong with this.

    45. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by Knightfall · · Score: 1

      Haven't been around the United States very long have you? A grudge can get you indicted .... convicted is another story .....

      --


      Knightfall
    46. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by Dave2+Wickham · · Score: 1
    47. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by killjoe · · Score: 1

      It is a well known fact that the grand jury is a mere formality. I am sure you have heard the phrase "a prosecutor can get the grand jury to indict a ham sandwitch if they want to".

      It's not like the grand jury will do anything to get in the way of a prosecutor.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    48. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Heart failure can be caused by bacterial infection; hence the cause could well have been inadvertent ingestion of their "art" materials. Frex, E.coli, if it gets where it doesn't naturally belong, can wreak all sorts of havoc.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    49. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by _iris · · Score: 1

      I said he isn't being charged with murder. You seem to agree with that: "He hasn't been charged with ANYTHING at this point."

      As an aside, I made the comment about banning the moderator because neither the commenter nor the moderator had read the link in the post, showing how the PATRIOT Act is involved.

    50. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by jbash · · Score: 1

      There was nothing mysterious about the death. This is why it's good to read the fucking articles. Here's a snippet: "Kurtz's 45-year-old wife, Hope, died of apparent heart failure and her death is not believed related to the suspect materials, authorities said."

    51. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by Phurd+Phlegm · · Score: 2, Funny
      The police generally don't host a grand jury unless they have a reasonable expectation that they'll be able to charge the suspect with a crime.
      Drawing on my many years watching The Rockford Files, I have to question this. I thought that attorneys general and their ilk convened grand juries. The police have nothing to do with it at all. Neh?

      And as we see in this episode, grand juries are subject to abuse by prosecuters. I can't believe there wasn't a link to this in the original article....

    52. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by HiThere · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Depends on what you think the point of journalism is. If the point is to get people excited and sell papers, then perhaps it's excellent journalism. And they didn't even have to lie this time.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    53. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by malowman · · Score: 1

      And . . . "A penny for the Old Guy"

    54. Re: Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by Performaman · · Score: 1

      Not only is art a "peaceful purpose" but if his bacteria is not harmful then isn't he also protected under free speech rights? I'm not American but this doesn't seem to fall under that 'yelling fire in a crowded theatre' example. Is the government allowed to confiscate tools used to create and distribute messages? Especially in a case like this where the communication is clearly both physically safe (I assume) and political.

      It's free speech as long as it's okay with the DOJ.

      --

      I have gas, but my car uses petrol.
    55. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When a married person dies, the spouse is an automatic suspect worthy of at least some investigation since they have the most to possibly gain by the death.

      Yeah, they went after OJ(Kato did it, BTW) and Robert Blake, but William Shatner? How did he get off so easily? Was the DA a Trek fan?. He did it, I tell you.:-)

    56. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      It's a pre trial thing...

      Kind of like a pre-season game? Maybe no charges were filed, but you still gotta show up and play. And they still took his stuff, which even if no charges are ever filed, he night not get back.

      --
      What?
    57. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by Moofie · · Score: 1

      "Making an art project" would be pretty high on the list.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    58. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Is the Bush administration somehow special? Should news and discussion outlets give them some sort of benefit of the doubt? "Oh, this looks like a troublesome issue, but I'm sure the Bush administration will handle it fairly and responsibly."

      Freedom of the press is important. Prior restraint is bad. I don't know what "bashing" is, but I'd like all news outlets to do it to all political wonks all the time. It's, like, their job.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    59. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are many, MANY different strains of E. Coli, only a few of which are harmful. In fact, it is one of the primary inhabitants of your intestines.

    60. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by Gary+Destruction · · Score: 1

      In America, there's a fine line between journalism and propaganda. Sadly enough, ratings are often held higher than the intent of being completely truthful on a story. By omitting facts, stories that would otherwise be overlooked become hot commodities.

    61. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by nwbvt · · Score: 1
      There is a clear difference between giving Bush the benefit of the doubt and not jumping on every Bush bashing story that comes in front of you.

      Objectivity is not always a bad thing you know.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    62. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Objectivity comes from me reading stories and drawing conclusions. Objectivity does not come from reading The Authoritative News Source That Tells Me All I Need To Know. Because that publication, like Santa Claus, does not exist.

      The PATRIOT Act is a bad law. Any stories about its application are interesting and useful to me. If that's "Bush bashing", again, I would like to see more of it. Me, I don't think that stories about the consequences of one's actions constitute "bashing".

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    63. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by Phragmen-Lindelof · · Score: 1

      Is this like the material witness (reg. req.) case?
      Of course, the "justice system" is always right! (Right?)

    64. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by nwbvt · · Score: 1
      I have no problem with having and presenting opinions, assuming they are based on fact and they are presented in the proper forum for opinions. I have no problem with news stories presenting the opinions of the opposing sides of the debate. This allows for a proper debate on the issue ("PATRIOT Act bad, Ashcroft is evil" is not a proper debate). Proper debates on the controversial issues are important as in most cases both sides have at least some valid point which needs to be addressed, even if in the end only one side is actually right (in this case IMNSHO, my side).

      A reply to a slashdot story is a great place for opinions as these discussions are great forums for debates. Anyone can post their opinion, and moderation provides a somewhat effective way to filter our the flames from the legitimate arguments. Add to that you can challenge someone's post and have your challenge shown with the post you are challenging.

      A summary for a submitted story is on the other hand a poor place for opinions. There is a high level of control over who gets a story in and who doesn't, and generally speaking only one submission per story is accepted (meaning both positions cannot be presented as submissions). Add to that challenges to opinions presented in the summary cannot be displayed with the summary on the slashdot home page. Thus if opinions are presented

      Objectivity can thus be achieved by either leaving opinions out of summaries altogether or by presenting both sides. That allows a legitimate debate and not just flaming about how evil John Ashcroft is which has no end other than to boost the egos of those involved.

      And false statements about the case (like with this summary) are just unacceptable.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    65. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by Read+Icculus · · Score: 1

      Oooh E. Coli. How dangerous. Jack in the Box has biological weapons, and they've already killed children with them! Somebody call the feds! I think you're the one who has no background in this stuff. If a guy with frickin hamburger bacteria raises your heckles you are out of your depth.

      --
      Anti-social? My code is just platform-specific.
    66. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by khallow · · Score: 1
      Haven't been around the United States very long have you?

      You can't be talking to me. I've been in the US so long that my jadedness has acquired a patina. And as you mention:

      A grudge can get you indicted .... convicted is another story .....

      Confirms my point, right? What's a total naive newbie like yourself, who no doubt lost their Internet virginity five minutes ago, doing in the snake pit that is /.?

    67. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by Knightfall · · Score: 1

      OK Mr. 566160, Mr. 558914 surely has not been around as long as your regal self. Why should I risk my widdle itty bitty self here in this vast wasteland? Perhaps it is because I STILL HAVE A GRIP ON REALITY. If your life here is so incredibly awful then wy continue? Put us all out of your misery.

      --


      Knightfall
    68. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by khallow · · Score: 1
      OK Mr. 566160, Mr. 558914 surely has not been around as long as your regal self. Why should I risk my widdle itty bitty self here in this vast wasteland? Perhaps it is because I STILL HAVE A GRIP ON REALITY. If your life here is so incredibly awful then wy continue? Put us all out of your misery.

      I just got annoyed at the barb, "Haven't been around the United States very long have you?" I figure knowing the difference between "indicted" and "convicted" (which we both demonstrated that we know) would rule me out as having just stumbled off the boat. In my book, insinuations of naivety (of which the "you're new here, aren't you?" category is a variant) are one of the more annoying ad hominem attacks out there. Hence, my payment in kind.

      My apologies if you perceived the prior message as anything other than a crude, rude, baseless slur upon your fine character. ;-)

  4. OH MY GOD by Rupan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This man is an activist! What the hell is our government smoking? The man's wife died, which probably had an effect on his life and goals. Since when is a political statement grounds for federal charges? What will be next - will I br imprisoned for life without trial in solitary for burning a flag?

    Who else here thinks the government has gone too far? Is there no way to stop this insanity?

    --
    Ads? What ads?
    1. Re:OH MY GOD by bstadil · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Who else here thinks the government has gone too far? Is there no way to stop this insanity?

      Yes, vote the clowns out in November

      --
      Help fight continental drift.
    2. Re:OH MY GOD by aosgood · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Please

    3. Re:OH MY GOD by gerardrj · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since when is a political statement grounds for federal charges?

      Since they enacted the Patriot act, and a slew of other "protect the people at all costs" bullshit excuses for more federal programs, police powers and general ickyness.

      --
      Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
    4. Re:OH MY GOD by bagboy · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      >>>> This man is an activist! What the hell is our government smoking?

      So, If Osama started out as an activist who performed some unusual activites, played with biologicals and chemical "art" and we sat and waited for 911 - you would say what? That we sat on our hands to long?

      You know, times HAVE changed. If you want to sit in your house and wait for the next activist (Okalahoma City) to go looney - that is of course you right. However - I'd rather be proactive than reactive. This man will have his day in court and may or may not be found guilty.

      Tell me, when you buy a car - do you err on its safety record or its price?

    5. Re:OH MY GOD by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      Since when was being an activist a defense to everything?

      Burning an American flag should be tolerated, in fact, it's part of the official way to respectfully retire a worn out flag. If you want to burn it in protest, go right ahead.

      However... if its not legal to burn a solid-colored piece of cloth in the way plan on burning a flag, then it's not going to be legal to burn that flag either. The flag had better be your property, you'd better have permission to be on the property you're buring the flag on, and you'd better comply with fire safety codes and get a permit if one is needed. There's sure a lot of ways you can screw up your flag burning activity and make it illegal...

    6. Re:OH MY GOD by Soporific · · Score: 1

      I think times are still the same. It still only takes one person willing to give their life to take any one other life. I don't think this will change any time soon unless everyone besides yourself is destroyed. That said, I don't think doing nothing is the correct thing to do, however most anyone who read the Anarchists Cookbook and tried anything in it could easily be labelled a terrorist.

      ~S

    7. Re:OH MY GOD by psykocrime · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You know, times HAVE changed.

      No, they haven't. Not other than to the extend that people are buying into that very line.

      Times have NOT changed... this WAS, and IS a free country, where the people do not tolerate the government trampling on their civil liberties and natural rights. IF we begin to allow ourselves to believe that we must change THAT, then the terrorists have won, game over.

      Just as it was before, and just as it always will be, life is dangerous. Do it long enough and you die. Every one of us.... And so life in a truly free country may be a little more dangerous than life in a more tightly controlled country. Big deal... we're all gonna die eventually eitherway, and there's a reason that things like:

      Live Free or Die!
      and
      Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death

      are rallying cries in this country. It's better to live, and die, having liberty, freedom, and the "right to the pursuit of happiness" than to live without freedom, IMNSFHO. And in the opinions of a great many Americans who have preceded me.

      The truth is, most Americans have more to fear from George W. Bush or John Ashcroft than they do from this professor, or even from Osama Bin Laden.

      --
      // TODO: Insert Cool Sig
    8. Re:OH MY GOD by ophix · · Score: 1

      and replace them with who? politicians have a tendency to be idiotic morons who are corrupt to the core. they are ALL in someone else's pocket, no matter what party line they say they support. politicians who arent (or at least dont seem to be) corrupt dont tend to be reelected.

    9. Re:OH MY GOD by polecat_redux · · Score: 0

      Well, could the GM food industry possibly be a lobbiest for G.W.?

    10. Re:OH MY GOD by wibs · · Score: 1

      Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death

      Wow, I hadn't even thought of that phrase for a while, it had completely left my memory. I wonder if that's irony or just a coincidence...

      --
      If you get nervous, just remember that there are a few billion other people who don't really give a damn.
    11. Re:OH MY GOD by Deathlizard · · Score: 1

      Yes, vote the clowns out in November

      ...and vote in a whole new set of Clowns.

      Just Because you vote out Ronald Mc'Donald and replace him with Mayor Mc'Cheese, doesn't mean you can "Have it your way".

    12. Re:OH MY GOD by CrowScape · · Score: 2, Informative

      Since when is a political statement grounds for federal charges?

      Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports, or false statements, . . . or incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct . . . the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, or . . . shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States . . . or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully . . . urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production . . . or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both....

      US Sedition Act, May 16, 1918

      Worse than the PATRIOT Act ever dreamed.

      --
      common sense: noun
      What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
    13. Re:OH MY GOD by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      Just don't vote in the Kerry clowns at the same time! It doesn't do any good to replace Bozo with Krusty.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    14. Re:OH MY GOD by cliffy2000 · · Score: 1

      "Burning an American flag should be tolerated, in fact, it's part of the official way to respectfully retire a worn out flag. If you want to burn it in protest, go right ahead."

      That's incorrect. Worn out flags are to be BURIED.
      Now, I'm all for free speech but you should get your facts straight.

    15. Re:OH MY GOD by wass · · Score: 1
      Yes, vote the clowns out in November

      (from that Simpson's episode where Bart gets Stampy the Elephant)

      DJ3000: Those clowns in Congress did it again. What a bunch of clowns.
      Bill: How does it keep up with the news like that?

      --

      make world, not war

    16. Re:OH MY GOD by dvnelson72 · · Score: 1

      We are free to to whatever we want in the U.S.A., but there are consequences. If you infringe on other people's rights, you will be prosecuted.

      Killing you wife, for instance, is a crime.

      I think y'all are confusing activism, terrorism and freedom.

      It boggles my mind that people hate the President so much that they link law enforcement efforts against a man whos wife died mysteriously to "activism" to the Patriot Act to Ashcroft to the President.

    17. Re:OH MY GOD by fredrickleo · · Score: 1

      actually, you are incorrect, worn out flags are burned in a cerimonious fashion befitting the nations colors.

      --
      Yay me! ^^
    18. Re:OH MY GOD by the_mad_poster · · Score: 1

      It does if Bozo was a marauding psychopath and Krusty is a just an ineffective turd... it's better to be nothing than dangerous and destructive.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    19. Re:OH MY GOD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      US Sedition Act, May 16, 1918

      Shut up. All good slashdotters know that the United States was a libertarian heaven until Pres. Bush came along.
    20. Re:OH MY GOD by bagboy · · Score: 1

      You know - I love liberty... But it does not come without a price... I'm sorry some of you have not really looked into the past. You think the Revolutionary War was won by "just and righteous" means from a defensive point.

      You must think that every Englishman was killed "righteously" in battle. This is not rocket science people. War is NOT FAIR. It is not just and it WILL trample on the rights of individuals, even innocent ones. What, you think our own revolutionary soldiers did everything perfect? You are quoting a phrase from a time you obviously do not understand. Chaos is synonomous with war.

      I find it interesting that people pretend to be righteous under the flag of freedom. See the movie "Red Dawn". You don't think terrorists can take over a small community and hold them at will? (um, if they can take over a plane of 100+ passengers - what makes you think they cannot hold a community hostage?) WAKE UP! If you choose to fight back after they've killed your neighbors and friends, will you be "honest and just" or more interested in wiping them off the planet? Your indignation shows your inability to fathom actual possibilities...

    21. Re:OH MY GOD by the_mad_poster · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, you should get your facts straight.

      The proper way to dispense of a worn out American flag is to burn it, optionally cutting it into pieces first. The purpose is to reduce it to a non-flag state. i.e. - once it's ashes, it's not a flag anymore so the detritus can simply be disposed of.

      I don't know where on earth you heard or saw that you should bury a flag, but that's probably the single most disrespectful suggestion for elimintating a flag that needs retired I think I've ever seen.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    22. Re:OH MY GOD by bstadil · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I somewhat agree with you. I used to have a signature that read like this:

      Politicians and diapers needs to be changed often and for the very same reason.

      Funny and often true.

      --
      Help fight continental drift.
    23. Re:OH MY GOD by finkployd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      vote the clowns out in November

      We did last election (we got rid of that Clipper Chip and DMCA happy Gore). It didn't help.

      I'm starting to think that the government is an organism unto itself, bent on amassing more and and more power over it's subjects (errrr, consumers....errrrr, citizens. Yeah that's it). At this point I don't think it matters who is in office, or in congress. Whoever gets elected will become just as corrupt as everyone else and the cycle will continue. Honestly, we have gone so beyond voting for the lesser of two evils we are now pretty much voting for the evil that most entertains us.

      Finkployd

    24. Re:OH MY GOD by Atzanteol · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually burning a worn-out flag is considered proper. At least by these folks. Not to mention many others.

      "A lesser-known fact is that the proper way to dispose of an old and tattered flag is to burn it - something many citizens do not feel comfortable doing."

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    25. Re:OH MY GOD by fyngyrz · · Score: 1
      "It doesn't do any good to replace Bozo with Krusty."

      You're quite wrong - even assuming Kerry is just as much of a feebleminded idiot as Bush, or has some other set of problems that make you legitimately anticipate he'll screw up on other grounds.

      Here's the value: It shows that what the current resident of the office presided over was not acceptable to the rank and file, and therefore, he loses his job. This is (A) something the incumbent will be somewhat likely to keep in mind and (B) the current resident won't have a chance to continue doing whatever it was the rank and file didn't like and (C) the supporting party will mull this over and ever so slightly change the platform. If the new resident does perform similarly... he can also be made to lose his job. And so on.

      Politicians are quite resistant to input from the masses - I can cite chapter and verse on that - but even they can be made to "get it", or at least some smallish part of it, when we kick them out of the job they have.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    26. Re:OH MY GOD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no, a worn out flag should be ...eaten!

    27. Re:OH MY GOD by TheAntiCrust · · Score: 2, Funny

      IMNSFHO. Best. Acronym. Ever.

    28. Re:OH MY GOD by 2short · · Score: 2, Insightful


      Who the heck cares what anyone else thinks is the "proper" way to dispose of a worn out flag?

      If it's flying on a pole, and symbolizing lots of good things like freedom, and the people who have sacrificed to obtain and protect those things, then by all means, be respectful. Get a little choked up over it if you want, I've been known to.

      But when I pull it out of a drawer and notice moths have gotten at it, and it's all mildew stained? It's a peice of cloth. It symbolizes nothing. I'm cutting it up for rags.

      And if someone publicly burns an American flag in protest, I'd say they are making a powerful statement about what that flag has come to symbolize for them (something bad). I'd probably even like to know why. I'm certainly not going to suggest they should be prevented from making that statement, thus betraying the very thing that flag represents to me. If it is possible to desecrate the flag, surely it is done by making it a symbol of the opression of free thought and expression.

    29. Re:OH MY GOD by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      It shows that what the current resident of the office presided over was not acceptable to the rank and file, and therefore, he loses his job.

      I totally agree. But that still doesn't mean I'm going to vote for either Bush or Kerry. A clear message that twits-in-office are unacceptable without having to elect yet another twit. There will be more than two candidates in the coming election...

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    30. Re:OH MY GOD by fyngyrz · · Score: 1
      That's fine, as long as you're sure that all you want to do is send a message that these guys can't get your vote.

      Not me. I want the current guy to lose his job. I want the current guy to know he can't get my vote, and I want my vote to have a chance at helping unseat him.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    31. Re:OH MY GOD by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You get a 99% agreement here. The only quible is that last line(not the sig, more later). It's not just dubya and co., it's all the bought and paid for in our government.
      We really need to kick most of them out of office, except they play on joe six packs apathy and ignorance. The dems and the republicans both.
      The dems try to stay in power by telling the poor they somehow magically deserve a free ride and hooking them on this free ride like a crack dealer. The republicans trade favors to big bussiness for helping with thier election and by playing on fears of 'them'.
      As to your sig. yes! I first ran into the Libertarian party in 92 when G.Bush Sr. was running against Perot and Clinton. The Libertarian party had repeatedly met the ever moving target set for participation in the debates untill they were finally told 'no we won't tell you what the new criterion are unless you meet them'. Perot never met the criterion, he was 'invited'. Most likely because he had enough $$ to make them look bad if they shut him out. I participated in the demonstration at Washintong U. in Missouri that year as much out of protest on the way they were treated as in support of thier ideals.
      Those Ideals are simple. Follow the constitution. If it's not in the constitution the feds have no bussiness, or authority, touching it. It even says so, despite someones sig badly mangling the tenth amendment(not picking on him, I get his point, but it's lessened by his scrambling). The ninth amendment also indirectly bears on this.

      <BLOCKQUOTE>
      Amendment IX

      The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

      Amendment X

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

      Freedom has a price, that price is responsibility, a willingness to deal with uncertantity, and somtimes 'the blood of mmartyrs and tyrants'. Not random searches and siezures, not warrents based on anonymous tips, not a million other <B>bad</B> things that we currently put up with.
      Anytime a civilation needs professionals to help the common man figure out what he can and can't do in everyday life because of the complexity and volume of it's laws, it has ceased to be a civilzation and become a beuraucracy. Taxcode should fit in a pamphlet as well.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    32. Re:OH MY GOD by nyseal · · Score: 1

      Just a question: define natural rights....that's what Osama is fighting for.

      --
      [SIG] Remember Mattel handheld games?
    33. Re:OH MY GOD by sfjoe · · Score: 3, Informative

      Whoever, when the United States is at war, ...

      Sometimes I think I am the only person in the US who realizes this but we are NOT at war. Just because President Dumbass sez so doesn't make it so.
      Section 8 of Article 1 of the US Constitution clearly states that the US Congress has the power to declare war. Not Bush. Not Ashcroft. Not any bozo bureacrat who declares a war on drugs, poverty, illiteracy, this, that or the other thing.
      No war, no extra-constitutional powers, no sedition. Period.

      --
      It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
    34. Re:OH MY GOD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative


      Just an FYI for everyone - The Sedition Act was repealed in 1921.

    35. Re:OH MY GOD by psykocrime · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't think terrorists can take over a small community and hold them at will? (um, if they can take over a plane of 100+ passengers - what makes you think they cannot hold a community hostage?)

      Interestingly enough, it's already been proven that terrorists *cannot* take over a plane of 100+ passengers, when the passengers are aware that it's not in their best interests to cooperate.

      The passengers on the first two 9/11 planes did not know that the terrorists intended to fly the planes into buildings and kill everyone onboard... in the past, passengers on hijacked planes had almost always been released / rescued eventually, so everyone would have assumed it made sense to cooperate.

      On the third plane, once people found out what was going on, we see that the passengers were able to resist and thwart the terrorists plans. Yes, it cost them their lives, but we see that hijackers cannot just take over a plane and do their will, when the passengers know the score.

      In fact, I expect there will never be another attempt to hijack a plane and use it in that manner, even again... just because the would be terrorists now know that the passengers on board almost certainly will resist.

      --
      // TODO: Insert Cool Sig
    36. Re:OH MY GOD by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      You realize that if no one voted for either Bozo or Krusty, Bozo would still be unseated. I think it would be a POWERFUL message if the November showed election results of 50% Green and 50% Libertarian.

      It sounds impossible, but if everyone voted *for* a candidate, instead of *against* a candidate, it would happen.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    37. Re:OH MY GOD by bagboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >>> Yes, it cost them their lives, but we see that hijackers cannot just take over a plane and do their will, when the passengers know the score.

      Ah... Now you are talking along my line of thought. When a terrorist (or activist with extreme thoughts) takes over a plane, you do not (as a passenger) know what his intensions are. At this point in time, you don not care - you are simply going to take away his ability to commit whatever act he had in mind - even if you did not know he simply wanted to only have 15 minutes of "air time" on national TV to talk about alien conspiracy theories. You aren't aware he only wants that while in your seat - but in this day and age you cannot take that chance. So you fight - even to the death.

      This is the only way to deal with those whose intentions are unknown but threatening - whether on a plane or next door. Pro-active is what you stated - and that is all our government is attempting to do.

    38. Re:OH MY GOD by nonane · · Score: 1

      Mod up parent!

    39. Re:OH MY GOD by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      Congress may not have explicitly declared war, but they did 'authorize the use of force' in Iraq. While one may argue that technically this might not be a declaration of war, I would argue that it's equivalent for all practical purposes.
      Also one could argue that Saddams failure to honor the terms of the cease fire effectively re-instated the state of conflict that existed after he invaded Kuwait.
      Still the whole thing would be better off if we had statesmen in office instead of politicians trying to play with words (like I just did, /rolls eyes at self/) for the sole purpose of spin durring thier next re-election campain.

      Mycroft

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    40. Re:OH MY GOD by CrowScape · · Score: 1

      President Dumbass... don't believe I know of that one. Must have held office during the 1800's, right? I was never very good with that time period.

      Not at war, huh?

      Anyway, that was not the point. The Sedition Act of 1918 was repealed in 1921. The point was to illustrate that laws, such as the PATRIOT Act, are nothing new. Any time the US has knowingly (collectively) faced the imminent threat of attack Federal powers have been expanded to deal with them.

      --
      common sense: noun
      What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
    41. Re:OH MY GOD by brsmith4 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree with your statement about the Bush Administration: This group has turned me from a centrist/conservative to a screaming liberal in the span of just two years (perhaps with the aid of some college philosophy courses ;), however I strongly disagree with your assessment that "Times have NOT changed... this WAS, and IS a free country"

      Over the last 50 years, the rights of the citizens in this country have slowly disappeared. From the "Red Scare" and McCarthyism to the current topic of the Patriot Act, it is undeniable that the last 50 years have shredded the constitution provided us by this nation's founders.

      A free country does not allow the government to pass laws that provide for the silent imprisonment and execution of its citizens, citizens who haven't even been convicted of a crime. A free country does not allow its private sector and capitalists to dictate domestic and foreign policy in their favor and to the disadvantage of the majority. A free country does not encourage the widening of gaps between social classes by promoting the elite and trampling and stifling the poor. A free country does not make its will dominate another sovereign country, regardless of their political system and certainly does not invade it without clear justification. A free country allows its citizens to hold its leaders accountable for their actions, actions that have caused the deaths of hundreds of your brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters and countless civilians overseas.

      My friend, I have seen a free country, a country where two right-winged political parties do not dominate the political spectrum and national tickets, where peoples rights are preserved and social classes have been all but eliminated, a country where soft-money and corporate sponsorships are not permitted to "buy" elections. The U.S. is no longer a free country and it's high time something is done about it.

      Sorry for the rant, but these times have gotten me in a sort of frenzy over the current state of things. Think about it. You don't have to agree, thats freedom, but believe you me, there are many that do and many more that want to see change.

    42. Re:OH MY GOD by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Yes, it is impossible.

      The sad facts: The center of the IQ field is 100. That means half the population is there, or under there. The majority of the country (not just those with 100 or under IQs) thinks god(s), or goddess(es), or some astrological constellation-wielding reincarnated future-seeing TV personality, created everything. The populace is, by and large, not very bright and/or deluded and/or other Very Bad Things. They're going to vote republican or democrat, because they simply don't know any better - and can't learn any better, either. They don't just think poorly, their thoughts consist of superstition and hokum. They swallow unmitigated tripe like "all persons are created equal" without even blinking. They absolutely wiggle with joy at the sound of the words "in god we trust" and they accept glittering generalities such as "anyone can become president" as if it were truth and not the basest of misdirection.

      So... what that means is that votes thrown to marginal parties can only send messages of dissafection - if they change an actual result, they do it by tilting the election towards one of the two viable parties and away from the other. You can't involve the masses in a democratic exercise designed to correct complex political problems - They wouldn't know a complex political problem if it rose up and bit them in the butt.

      Now, as long as that's ok with you, then your vote is being spent just as you want it to.

      But please, don't vote libertarian with the idea that you might actually get a libertarian elected to the presidency. Speaking as a fairly rabid libertarian myself, I'm telling you that's a complete waste of your vote. You'd be better off spending the time doing something else. Almost anything else.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    43. Re:OH MY GOD by nwbvt · · Score: 2, Interesting
      "This man is an activist! "

      Being an activist does not give you a free pass to do whatever the hell you want. Anyone who has worked in genetics knows there are many regulations that you have to follow, for good reason. You can't just start up a biotech lab in your basement just because you have insane radical views.

      "What will be next - will I br imprisoned for life without trial in solitary for burning a flag?"

      First of all, he is not being "imprisoned for life without trial in solitary", he is being forced to stay in a hotel while his house is tested to make sure nothing dangerous is involved in his little science project. Minor difference between the two. This just proves to me that your post is a knee jerk reaction to something you have no clue about.

      Second, yes you will be jailed for burning a flag... if you do so with an illegal biotech lab in your basement!

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    44. Re:OH MY GOD by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      According to you, I'm deluded. Oh well.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    45. Re:OH MY GOD by fyngyrz · · Score: 1
      "According to you, I'm deluded."

      The good news: What I think has absolutely no bearing on the truth or falsehood of any superstitious convictions you may hold dear.

      The bad news: What you think has absolutely no bearing upon the truth or falsehood of any superstitious convictions you may hold dear.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    46. Re:OH MY GOD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I agree with your point, but not with "Not at war, huh?"

      That simply authorizes the use of force in Iraq. It is NOT a formal declaration of war. It does reference the war powers resolution, but that isn't a formal declaration of war. Declaring war is something the United States rarely does, the last time it was done was World War II.

      Anyway, I'm posting the following just for the heck of it. The U.S. has formally declared war six times in its history:

      1. First Barbary War
      2. The War of 1812
      3. The Mexican-American War
      4. The Spanish-American War
      5. WWI
      6. WWII

      The U.S. has been involved in many other wars that had no formal declaration: Iraq (2003), the Gulf War, the Korean War, Vietnam, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and the Civil War. It's interesting to note that more than half of all U.S. battle deaths are the result of these conflicts.

    47. Re:OH MY GOD by unic1 · · Score: 0

      Didn't you get the memo. the war ended over a year ago according to Bush.
      Thank fuck I don't live in Amerika

      --
      Red eye's at night, Hackers delight. Red eye's in the morning, Professors Warning.
    48. Re:OH MY GOD by j_w_d · · Score: 1

      You know, times HAVE changed. If you want to sit in your house and wait for the next activist (Okalahoma City) to go looney - that is of course you right. However - I'd rather be proactive than reactive. This man will have his day in court and may or may not be found guilty.

      Neither you nor the government have any legal right to be "proactive" in any fashion that negates an individual's constitutional rights. You can move away if you think someone is a hazard, or complain to the authorities, who should probably ignore you unless you have more than a worry to offer. Also, the man is not a car and it is unconstitutional and I would suggest unethical and immoral to treat him as one, unless of course you don't mind being treated as one yourself. That was an issue settled by the Civil War.

      --
      ------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
    49. Re:OH MY GOD by CrowScape · · Score: 1

      No, I didn't. I remember him saying something about the end of major combat operations, but nothing about an end to the war.

      --
      common sense: noun
      What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
    50. Re:OH MY GOD by biscrage · · Score: 1

      if people don't stop using phrases that end with ...then the terrorist win, then the terrorist win.

    51. Re:OH MY GOD by Laebshade · · Score: 1
      My friend, I have seen a free country, a country where two right-winged political parties do not dominate the political spectrum and national tickets, where peoples rights are preserved and social classes have been all but eliminated, a country where soft-money and corporate sponsorships are not permitted to "buy" elections. The U.S. is no longer a free country and it's high time something is done about it.


      What is this free country you speak of?

      Really, not trying to sound funny, are you talking about what the U.S. used to be? And... where are you getting these:

      A free country does not allow the government to pass laws that provide for the silent imprisonment and execution of its citizens, citizens who haven't even been convicted of a crime. A free country does not allow its private sector and capitalists to dictate domestic and foreign policy in their favor and to the disadvantage of the majority. A free country does not encourage the widening of gaps between social classes by promoting the elite and trampling and stifling the poor. A free country does not make its will dominate another sovereign country, regardless of their political system and certainly does not invade it without clear justification. A free country allows its citizens to hold its leaders accountable for their actions, actions that have caused the deaths of hundreds of your brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters and countless civilians overseas.
      ... definitions of a free country? Same thing as I mentioned before? Ok. Just wanted to clarify.

      As far as the political party duo-domination goes, I remember reading (some time ago) that in the early 20th century, most parties disappeared except Democratic and Republician. Unfortunately, I can't find where this is stated, so if someone could assist me I would appreciate it.

      And according to this, Democratic and Republican used to be one and the same.
    52. Re:OH MY GOD by M1FCJ · · Score: 1
      I found how to make a Molotov Coctail by reading it in an encyclopedia. Does this make me a terrorist? A terrorist is who is planning to use this information, actively. Even contemplating is not good enough.

      I read Anarchist's Cookbcook and it is not that useful. Any idiot who knows his high school chemistry knows how to get Nitro. Well, read some Jules Verne books and you'll learn how to make nitro from sea weed!

    53. Re:OH MY GOD by Whumpsnatz · · Score: 1

      Well stated. I was going to mod the parent post as funny - LOL funny. The US a free country? Yeah, right.

      I would like to know what country you're referring to, though. Where is this free country? Maybe I'll move there.

    54. Re:OH MY GOD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congress authorized the use of force against Drugs, too. I guess the War on Drugs is a legit war after all.

      I personally can't wait for Congress to authorize the use of force against War. Bring on the War on War!

    55. Re:OH MY GOD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that is of course you right

      "your".

    56. Re:OH MY GOD by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      On the third plane, once people found out what was going on, we see that the passengers were able to resist and thwart the terrorists plans. Yes, it cost them their lives, but we see that hijackers cannot just take over a plane and do their will, when the passengers know the score.

      Everyone keeps forgetting about Flight 77, the plane that went into the Pentagon. The fourth plane, Flight 93, was the one that crashed before reaching its destination, and would likely have made it had it not been delayed for 40+ minutes prior to takeoff.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    57. Re:OH MY GOD by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      I would like to know what country you're referring to, though. Where is this free country? Maybe I'll move there

      Either he is thinking of the USA of old or of Utopia. The first no longer exists and the latter only exists in our dreams.

      BTW I believe people should realise slogans and titles do no define patriotism, rather it is actions. Sometime the most patriotic thing you can do is act against mis-labels of 'patriotism'.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    58. Re:OH MY GOD by HarryGenes · · Score: 1

      Uh...check that- the Congress granted rights to Bush to declare this a war and to act with aggression against hostile enemies. Your buddy Kerry even voted in favor of it...So yes, we are at war...

    59. Re:OH MY GOD by Hanzie · · Score: 1

      It depresses me how much I agree with your opinions.

      I think the most important point, however, is to vote the experienced clowns out and new incompetents in. That way we at least have a respite while the new guy learns the ropes.

      --
      ********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
    60. Re:OH MY GOD by the_mad_poster · · Score: 1

      Who the heck cares what anyone else thinks is the "proper" way to dispose of a worn out flag?

      People other than you, apparently. Or, I'm sorry - are only the things you care about the things that matter?

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    61. Re:OH MY GOD by Gary+Destruction · · Score: 1

      The flag is a sign of what's wrong with America. People are embracing something tangible when in fact, it's the intangible freedoms that matter the most. The flag is a just a piece of cloth. Without the freedoms it represents, it means nothing. Materialism has gotten the best of many Americans. Hopefully, one day, people will realize that it's what you can't hold in your hand that counts.

    62. Re:OH MY GOD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What is this free country you speak of?

      Switzerland's nice. Assault rifle in every basement, private bank accounts, other civil liberties largely uninfringed, decentralized political structure. Costa Rica's not bad either - no standing army, low crime with few cops, real estate laws designed to avoid a permanent underclass, private bank accounts again. I imagine there are plenty of other countries where trial by jury survives, and lots of countries don't have the two-party system which is the inevitable result of our election structure. Americans who think they still live in the paragon of liberty are clueless.

    63. Re:OH MY GOD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You don't think terrorists can take over a small community and hold them at will?

      No, not if the government doesn't take all our assault rifles away. Note that all civilians on the planes had been disarmed by their government. If our lords and masters would stop forcibly turning us into helpless sheep, we'd do just fine.

      Try imagining terrorists taking over a community in peaceable Switzerland, for example, where there's a full-auto military rifle in the home of every adult male, and rifle marksmanship is the national sport. Heck, the U.S. military would have trouble there...it's bad enough in Iraq, where the other guys trust to Allah instead of aiming...our casualties would be a lot higher if we took on the Swiss. No ragtag band of terrorists is going to get far at all.

    64. Re:OH MY GOD by shostiru · · Score: 1
      If you are going to advocate preemption, perhaps you should learn what "proactive" means.

      If you're on a plane, and terrorists take over the plane, putting your life on the line to resist (whether you know their intentions are not) is NOT proactive, it's reactive. You're reacting to aggression by the terrorists.

      If you're on a plane and decide to start shooting all the brown people because they might be terrorists and might someday attack you, now THAT is proactive. Stupid, but proactive.

      "This day and age" nothing. In this day and age, people in the US have an unprecedented level of safety and security. Terrorism is an insignificant risk compared to the threats that faced the architects and early defenders of democracy (or for that matter people just a few generations ago).

    65. Re:OH MY GOD by psykocrime · · Score: 1

      This is the only way to deal with those whose intentions are unknown but threatening - whether on a plane or next door. Pro-active is what you stated - and that is all our government is attempting to do.

      Talk about "apples and oranges."

      There's a huge difference between someone who has just hijacked an airplane, and some guy next door who does something vaguely suspicious.

      even if you did not know he simply wanted to only have 15 minutes of "air time" on national TV to talk about alien conspiracy theories.

      Just out of curiosity.. has this ever actually happened? Someone hijacking a plane just to get their "15 minutes of fame to babble about aliens?"

      --
      // TODO: Insert Cool Sig
    66. Re:OH MY GOD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You assume they will willingly step down!

    67. Re:OH MY GOD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      are only the things you care about the things that matter?
      Yes, yes they are. So FUCK OFF AND DIE YOU ASSHOLE.

      This has been a public service message
  5. wtf are you talking about by autopr0n · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This guy was arrested for things in his own home. The Police are treating this just like finding a huge cache of explosives or something, when in fact its what (he claims) is harmless bacteria.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:wtf are you talking about by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 3, Funny
      when in fact its what (he claims) is harmless bacteria.
      "Is that a bioweapon?"
      "Yes ... I mean ... no."
      "Very well. Carry on."
      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
  6. Re:If you test the system, they'll show you it wor by OverlordQ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Where did it mention anything about a security checkpoint? Where did it mention smuggling?

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
  7. In related news... by k4_pacific · · Score: 3, Funny

    The FBI announced today that TCBY (The Country's Best Yogurt) has been shut down until further notice under section 817 of the PATRIOT Act.

    --
    Unknown host pong.
    1. Re:In related news... by Entropy+Unleashed · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Begun the witch trials have.

      --

      "I would give my right hand to be ambidextrous."
    2. Re:In related news... by c0dedude · · Score: 1

      Slightly OffT: Wasn't it originally The County's Best Yogurt, until they expanded?

      --
      Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
    3. Re:In related news... by noidentity · · Score: 5, Funny

      "The FBI announced today that TCBY (The Country's Best Yogurt) has been shut down until further notice under section 817 of the PATRIOT Act."

      So, is "contains live and active cultures" a bug or a feature?

    4. Re:In related news... by Ieshan · · Score: 1, Redundant

      So, is "contains live and active cultures" a bug or a feature?

      Down here, we call it Yogurt.

    5. Re:In related news... by Ieshan · · Score: 4, Funny

      I just replied... but for some reason, it didn't include the full text of my reply. It should have said:

      So, is "contains live and active cultures" a bug or a feature?

      Down here, we call it Yogurt. Up there, they call them Chemical Weapons frozen for storage. Washington is a scaaaary place?

    6. Re:In related news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was originally "This Can't Be Yogurt!" until they were sued by "I Can't Believe It's Yogurt!" and forced to abandon the, um, catchy phrase. Like KFC (until recently anyway), they seem to have done their darnedest since to pretend it's simply four random letters with no intended phrase associated.

      Junk food joints don't start off as little mom and pop one-horse-county operations, and it's been a long time since they did. They start off with tens of millions of dollars of venture capital and an intention to sell as much profitable sugar and fat as possible. When they say it's country-wide, they mean it, and then some (I've bought the stuff in the Cayman Islands).

    7. Re:In related news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      down under, we call it yoghurt. Will the Webster Platoon be invading soon?

    8. Re:In related news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      My roommate once had a yoghurt container in which the message was truncated...

      "CONTAINS LIVE AND ACTIVE YOGHURT CULT"

    9. Re:In related news... by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      You counter culture guys crack me up!

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  8. I dunno by autopr0n · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Frankly, I really should be up to a jury to decide. I mean, He wasn't out spraying crops or anything. He was simply tooling around in his house with "harmless" bacteria and writing crazed manifestos.

    Was he "practicing" terrorism? No. But neither were the 9/11 hijackers untill that day.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:I dunno by wibs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Until you actually commit the crime, you can't be guilty of it. Not much for the jury to decide on.

      People who pose a real and direct threat should be investigated, otherwise national intelligence doesn't have anything to go on. I would say that it should stop at simply gathering intelligence because preemptive actions by law enforcement (PD, FBI, whatever) are unconstitutional, but then I remembered our foreign policy.

      Christ I can't even get through a simple slashdot post without confusing myself anymore. I'm moving to Canada.

      --
      If you get nervous, just remember that there are a few billion other people who don't really give a damn.
    2. Re:I dunno by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      lock everyone with a brain- they could go postal and pull 911s out of their ass.

    3. Re:I dunno by vespazzari · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Was he "practicing" terrorism? No. But neither were the 9/11 hijackers untill that day.

      So now we do not need to commit the crime before we get in trouble? Is it only required that someone must have the capability to commit a crime, maybe someone with just the thought to commit crime, before that person is persecuted? Should we start calling the fbi the thought police?

      Maybe we should start calling America the home of the safe instead of home of the free?

      --
      "Alcohol, cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems" -Homer Simpson
    4. Re:I dunno by flinxmeister · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, If you're planning a crime, isn't that called "conspiracy to commit" that crime. That's potentially the case here (or what they are investigating).

      I'm not a big fan of the PA and Ashcroft, but if I have pipe, black powder, and manifestos about how certain places should be blown up....I should at *least* expect to be investigated of conspiracy/intent to commit such a crime if someone finds the stuff.

      Sure, in some way my pipe bomb building could be artistic expression...or maybe it was purely for research for my novel I'm writing...or maybe I wasn't going to actually do anything at all. But that's what the process will try to discover.

    5. Re:I dunno by autopr0n · · Score: 1

      Well, it's a crime to possess WMD, which the government thinks these may be.

      --
      autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    6. Re:I dunno by wibs · · Score: 1

      You said:

      I'm not a big fan of the PA and Ashcroft, but if I have pipe, black powder, and manifestos about how certain places should be blown up....I should at *least* expect to be investigated of conspiracy/intent to commit such a crime if someone finds the stuff.

      I said:

      People who pose a real and direct threat should be investigated

      You're writing as if you're debating my point, but I'm not sure on what we disagree.

      --
      If you get nervous, just remember that there are a few billion other people who don't really give a damn.
    7. Re:I dunno by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      E.Coli is a WMD? Jesus Christ. Do you have any idea how much of that stuff I dump down my toilet every day??? I guess it's a good thing I flushed the evidence!

    8. Re:I dunno by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      agreed.

      i hope in the near future that ppl who use the term WMD are laughed into the ground.

      not because i don't think DEVELOPED NATIONS don't have nukes or other nasty toys that will kill hundreds of thousands or millions, i hope because people are fucking stupid.

      it's the fucking red scare all over again.

      we'll catch all sorts of people who are of no threat...and miss the ones that are really going to pull a number on us....

      true story: at the Hoover Dam, as I was crossing, they now stop people to check you out. fine. well two cars ahead of me, a van occupied by young were let through with nary a second look. then directly in front of us, an elderly couple (i mean older then dirt), just the two of them in a yugo were pulled off to the side and searched. i driving a suburban by myself, was not given a second glance and passed the check.

      real fucking geniuses (sing it to the miller lite tune)

  9. No, it's more like... by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 0, Troll

    "Apparently John Ashcroft can't tell a weapons lab from an art installation."

    I believe that should read: "Apparently John Ashcroft can't tell his head from his ass."

    1. Re:No, it's more like... by iabervon · · Score: 2, Funny

      And, in this case, he seems to be confused about which one contains E. coli...

    2. Re:No, it's more like... by cheekyboy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Hes a genetically modified alien by the Greys, he is an alien, and he has no ass, coz he shits from his mouth green turd.

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  10. +3 Insightful... by NSash · · Score: 1

    ...and you didn't even read the article. Not only is your comment stupid, it's completely irrelevant to the story.

  11. Uh-oh, hope they don't look in my fridge! by C3ntaur · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...it's probably an illegal biotech lab by their definitions too. I really need to throw out that months-old foil-wrapped leftover something-or-other in there.

    --
    Loading...
    1. Re:Uh-oh, hope they don't look in my fridge! by blindbat · · Score: 5, Funny

      >I really need to throw out that months-old
      >foil-wrapped leftover

      You found my hat!

    2. Re:Uh-oh, hope they don't look in my fridge! by TheHornedOne · · Score: 1

      OK, now that I have managed to pick myself up off the floor and stop laughing, thanks. That made my morning.

    3. Re:Uh-oh, hope they don't look in my fridge! by Drathos · · Score: 1

      There's something gross in the fridge today. It's green and growing hair.
      It's been there since July
      If you can name the object in that baggie over there
      Than mister you're a better man than I


      Ah.. Gotta love Wierd Al.. :D

      --
      End of line..
    4. Re:Uh-oh, hope they don't look in my fridge! by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      It's worse than that: he found your head!

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    5. Re:Uh-oh, hope they don't look in my fridge! by Captain+DaFt · · Score: 1

      Hmm, maybe I'd better quit baking yeast bread and brewing my own beer too! Definitely nails me as a bio-terrorist since my activities deprive American corporations of revenue, eh?

      --
      The U.S. really needs an English to Wisdom dictionary.
  12. My two pennies... by students · · Score: 0

    I think that our ability to change our selves and the world around us for our own emprovement is what makes us homo sapiens sapiens - wise men (and women). People who try to stop this are dehumanizing modern society - "terrorists," since that's the word in style for describing evil.

  13. let's ask him by dncsky1530 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why no ask John Ashcroft?
    or mabey sign a petition?
    Why don't we just write him a letter:
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Fax: (202) 307-6777
    Phone: (202) 353-1555

    1. Re:let's ask him by ikkonoishi · · Score: 1

      Because Ashcroft wasn't involved with this?

      Since this isn't a patriot act crime...

    2. Re:let's ask him by theguitarizt · · Score: 1

      whitehouse.org is a parody website.

    3. Re:let's ask him by fenix+down · · Score: 1

      To answer your question, yes, "niggaz" can be terrorists. As can spics, spear chuckers, chinks, jiggaboos, injuns, slants, camel jockeys, kikes, porch monkeys, micks, beaners, dot heads, faggots, japatronics, pope-fuckers, oreo cookies, frogs, gooks, wetbacks, wops, jungle bunnies, slopes, and coons.

      Well thank God you warned us, we never could have guessed.

    4. Re:let's ask him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not ask John Ashcroft?

      No thanks, I'd rather not be on his list.

    5. Re:let's ask him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why no ask John Ashcroft?
      or mabey sign a petition?


      HAY GUYS! LET'S SIGN AN ONLINE PETITION! THAT'LL SURE SHOW ASHCROFT LOL OMG!

      Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
      Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
      Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

  14. Tough crowd tonight. by Soporific · · Score: 1

    I didn't think it was that far off topic.

  15. Wait. Confusing. by Ieshan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Huh? I'm so confused.

    He didn't actually use the stuff on other people's crops, or do any of these things that he *could* have done. He advocated doing it.

    I mean, there are plenty of organizations in America which advocate doing ridiculous things, none of which are called in to testify on charges of actually doing the things with no concrete evidence. I mean, being a member of a white supremacist group and owning a machine gun doesn't mean you're a murdering psycho and can be thrown away for it, even I'd wager most Americans are strongly against white supremacists and a good deal of them are against high-powered weapon ownership.

    1. Re:Wait. Confusing. by randyest · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I mean, there are plenty of organizations in America which advocate doing ridiculous things, none of which are called in to testify on charges of actually doing the things with no concrete evidence

      OK, I'kll bite -- which orgs, exactly, publicly advocate lawbreaking in the same document with instructions on how to do it in new and clever ways without retribution?

      If The Anarchist's Cookbook has said that the reader should use the instructions contained within it to break laws and hurt people, you'd probably never have been able to read it.

      And that's a good thing.

      --
      everything in moderation
    2. Re:Wait. Confusing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd wager most Americans are strongly against white supremacists and a good deal of them are against high-powered weapon ownership

      On the latter point, you're incorrect. As for the former, there are probably quite a lot of people against white supremacy groups on the basis that all white supremacy groups are evil. They don't even realize that a lot of the African American groups sometimes back measures that could very well be considered "black supremacy" measures. Racism is a very fine line with lots of groups having valid points, but it's only politically correct for pro-black groups' points to be recognised.

    3. Re:Wait. Confusing. by LostCluster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One new power that the War on Terror is properly justifying is that encuraging somebody else to comitt a crime on your behalf needs to be a crime. The actual people who flew on the 9/11 planes are dead... however most of the people who funded and planned that operation are still alive and able to plan future attacks. We can't have that, we need to cut off the major act before it happens.

      This isn't making a crime out having thoughts or expressing ones thoughts... it's making a crime out of the proactive action of training or assiting somebody who intends on comitting a big crime. That's one concept I have no problem with having established.

    4. Re:Wait. Confusing. by fenix+down · · Score: 1

      it's making a crime out of the proactive action of training or assiting somebody who intends on comitting a big crime.

      It's called "conspiracy", we invented it somewhere around 5,000 B.C. Try to keep up, kids.

    5. Re:Wait. Confusing. by Ioldanach · · Score: 1
      One new power that the War on Terror is properly justifying is that encuraging somebody else to comitt a crime on your behalf needs to be a crime.

      As far as I know, conspiracy to commit murder is not a new crime. The individuals who planned the attacks and are still alive are party to the conspiracy. No new laws needed. Of course, we could just label them "enemy combatants" and lock them away without actually putting them on trial, now. That's what's changed. The government apparently no longer needs to actually prove they committed the crime.

    6. Re:Wait. Confusing. by LostCluster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The new crime is that it's now a "conspiracy to committ terrorism" rather than only murder... a conspiracy to disrupt a economically vital system without killing anybody has to be considered as well. If somebody is killed without the intent to do so, that's manslaughter rather than murder...

    7. Re:Wait. Confusing. by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > I mean, there are plenty of organizations in America which advocate
      > doing ridiculous things,

      Yes it is sometimes a fuzzy line between free speach and sedition/inciting to riot/etc. But the line does have to be drawn.

      > I mean, being a member of a white supremacist group and owning a
      > machine gun doesn't mean you're a murdering psycho and can be thrown
      > away for it,

      Not at all. But first let us lose the machine gun since you need to pass an FBI background check before being issued a permit for one of those. Ok, a white supremisist is perfectly within his rights to proclaim the superiority of the White Race, even for revoking the 14th Amendment, hell they can even advocate repeal of the 13th. They can rant all they want about the evils of affirmative action or forced bussing, the supposed inferiority of the 'mud races'. They can strut around in jackboots and Nazi regalia for all anyone cares like the skinheads do. Then can even get away with veiled hints of the 'revolution to come'. What I think we can all agree they can't do is get up in front of the group and yell "Lets go lynch us a nigger or two." The actual line is in a fuzzy area somewhere between those last two statements.

      This asshat demonstrates a compound that renders crops susceptable to herbicides, and in the same display with said compound has statements that threaten to use these chemicals in a "war" against modern agriculture. This is means, motive and a threat in one neat package wrapped up with a bow. If that isn't a clear and present danger would someone please give me the new "progressive" redefination of the term? Or can I just assume it has been rewritten to be "Bush and Ashcroft are the #1 and #2 threat to the World."

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    8. Re:Wait. Confusing. by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      Well, there you go then, apparently all you have to do is put a disclaimer on it and you are no longer a terrorist!

  16. Where does the PATRIOT act come into this? by demaria · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I read both linked articles. I've searched them for patriot as well as 817. No hits. It sounds like this guy is being charged with a law signed 15 years ago, brought to attention by a mysterious death of his wife. From the Wired writeup, I'd say he's done activities which would make me slightly suspicious. Enough to warrant an investigation at least.

    So where's the PATRIOT act charges come from? Because Slashdot isn't showing it.

    1. Re:Where does the PATRIOT act come into this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought I was reading a Fark link for a second there. Usually blatantly misleading headlines are there.

    2. Re:Where does the PATRIOT act come into this? by EvanED · · Score: 5, Informative

      See comments further up. The Patriot act amended the 1989 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act.

    3. Re:Where does the PATRIOT act come into this? by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The PATRIOT act part comes from the fact that this is a Michael article.

      The only surprising part is it's not somehow contrived as a YRO topic.

      --
      resigned
    4. Re:Where does the PATRIOT act come into this? by anethema · · Score: 2, Informative

      This guy explains it well HERE

      --


      It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
    5. Re:Where does the PATRIOT act come into this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that you're wrong. And you're an idiot.

    6. Re:Where does the PATRIOT act come into this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sealed warrant that the FBI used to collect evidence was issued under the PATRIOT act. This isn't the first time we've seen sealed warrants.

  17. President Bush's erratic behavior by demachina · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    If you want and insight in to just how dangerous Bush and Ashcroft have become this might be it. It is from the web so you have to take it with a grain of salt, maybe its B.S., but Capitol Hill Blue is mostly ex D.C. newspapermen with stories from current newspaperman who cant get controversial stories in the major papers. Apparently the new name for Bush and Ashcroft is the Blues Brothers because they are "on a mission from God" and everything they do, no matter how over the top is "God's Will". If there is even a shred of truth in this be afraid, be very afraid:

    Bush's Erratic Behavior Worries White House Aides By DOUG THOMPSON Publisher, Capitol Hill Blue Jun 4, 2004, 06:15

    President George W. Bush's increasingly erratic behavior and wide mood swings has the halls of the West Wing buzzing lately as aides privately express growing concern over their leader's state of mind.

    In meetings with top aides and administration officials, the President goes from quoting the Bible in one breath to obscene tantrums against the media, Democrats and others that he classifies as "enemies of the state."

    Worried White House aides paint a portrait of a man on the edge, increasingly wary of those who disagree with him and paranoid of a public that no longer trusts his policies in Iraq or at home.

    "It reminds me of the Nixon days," says a longtime GOP political consultant with contacts in the White House. "Everybody is an enemy; everybody is out to get him. That's the mood over there."

    In interviews with a number of White House staffers who were willing to talk off the record, a picture of an administration under siege has emerged, led by a man who declares his decisions to be "God's will" and then tells aides to "fuck over" anyone they consider to be an opponent of the administration.

    "We're at war, there's no doubt about it. What I don't know anymore is just who the enemy might be," says one troubled White House aide. "We seem to spend more time trying to destroy John Kerry than al Qaeda and our enemies list just keeps growing and growing."

    Aides say the President gets "hung up on minor details," micromanaging to the extreme while ignoring the bigger picture. He will spend hours personally reviewing and approving every attack ad against his Democratic opponent and then kiss off a meeting on economic issues.

    "This is what is killing us on Iraq," one aide says. "We lost focus. The President got hung up on the weapons of mass destruction and an unproven link to al Qaeda. We could have found other justifiable reasons for the war but the President insisted the focus stay on those two, tenuous items."

    Aides who raise questions quickly find themselves shut out of access to the President or other top advisors. Among top officials, Bush's inner circle is shrinking. Secretary of State Colin Powell has fallen out of favor because of his growing doubts about the administration's war against Iraq.

    The President's abrupt dismissal of CIA Directory George Tenet Wednesday night is, aides say, an example of how he works.

    "Tenet wanted to quit last year but the President got his back up and wouldn't hear of it," says an aide. "That would have been the opportune time to make a change, not in the middle of an election campaign but when the director challenged the President during the meeting Wednesday, the President cut him off by saying 'that's it George. I cannot abide disloyalty. I want your resignation and I want it now."

    Tenet was allowed to resign "voluntarily" and Bush informed his shocked staff of the decision Thursday morning. One aide says the President actually described the decision as "God's will."

    God may also be the reason Attorney General John Ashcroft, the administration's lightning rod because of his questionable actions that critics argue threatens freedoms granted by the Constitution, remains part of the power elite. West Wing staffers call Bush and

    --
    @de_machina
    1. Re:President Bush's erratic behavior by demachina · · Score: 1

      For the retard that modded this off topic please read this part about John Ashcroft who did something erratic and is the subject of this thread:

      "God may also be the reason Attorney General John Ashcroft, the administration's lightning rod because of his questionable actions that critics argue threatens freedoms granted by the Constitution, remains part of the power elite. West Wing staffers call Bush and Ashcroft "the Blues Brothers" because "they're on a mission from God."

      "The Attorney General is tight with the President because of religion," says one aide. "They both believe any action is justifiable in the name of God."

      --
      @de_machina
    2. Re:President Bush's erratic behavior by randyest · · Score: 1

      And for you (whatever this correction makes you -- meta-retard?) -- note that the subject of this thread is a man arrested under a 15-year old statute (i.e., not Ashcroft's PATRIOT Act, nor anything to do with him) that regulates biotech labs.

      Just because some non-RTFA'ing poster incorrectly dragged Ashcroft into this doesn't make it on topic.

      --
      everything in moderation
    3. Re:President Bush's erratic behavior by demachina · · Score: 1

      Since John Ashcroft IS in the original submission, right or wrong IT IS ON TOPIC whether you all like it or not.

      --
      @de_machina
    4. Re:President Bush's erratic behavior by c0dedude · · Score: 1, Informative

      Anonymous Authorities a plenty. That's all I got to say 'bout that source.

      --
      Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
    5. Re:President Bush's erratic behavior by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

      So is GWB the anti christ? Will we get rained down from the sky fireballs of death (ie meteors) and wrath of god for GWB claiming to be doing gods work?

      6-09 6-11 6-19 6-29

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    6. Re:President Bush's erratic behavior by Anenga · · Score: 1

      God, this thing is spreading like wildire.

      Take a look at the article. It has all anonymous sources. Do you really believe that this guy -- Doug Thompson -- has access to the aides to the President and is able to write up this article, and yet the Washington Post, New York Times, LA Times etc. are not? Right.

      The guy who wrote this is an ex-Freeper (Free Republic member) who is on a crusade to ruin Bush. He's admited to fabricating stories before. This guy is clever, he writes stories out of thin air and adds stuff you wish were true. I could just see you reading it and going "OMG! THAT RIGHT-WING BIBLE-THUMPING SHRURB!"

    7. Re:President Bush's erratic behavior by demachina · · Score: 1

      Yea they are anonymous sources you can't trust it. What kind of idiot with a job working in the White House is going to say that stuff on the record with his name attached. The retaliation from the Bush administration would be swift and brutal. So you have a problem, no one really knows what is going on in the White House and if its bad and anyone says that on the record their life will be destroyed. In spite of that at least three former insiders O'Neill, Clark and
      Zinni have painted fairly distrubing portraits of the Bush administartion ON THE RECORD, O'Neill said he expected retaliation but he is rich so he doesn't need to work again and he was careful to not leak anything classified though the Bush administration accused him of doing just that until it became clear the White House itself cleared everything he used in the book.

      I hate to break it to you but the link you point to with "admited to fabricating stories before" doesn't say any such thing. All it is a conservative trying to defend Bush saying he couldn't find a person named in a Capitol Hill Blues article. I hate to break it to you but if you work in the CIA and are going to attack the President you aren't likely to use your real name unless you want massive reprisals. There is absoultely zip in there about anyone admitting to fabrications and no proof anyone did.

      Unless you can point to something that really says the guy isn't creditable your post is more bullshit than that article has been proven to be.

      --
      @de_machina
    8. Re:President Bush's erratic behavior by Anenga · · Score: 1

      Here, how about this? It's an OP/ED he posted a while back admitting that the "major source" he's had for a long time was fake/an imposter.

      Dude, this guy is not credible. It's just that you want to believe it. MoveOn.

  18. RE:Bioterrorism Charges Brought Against Professor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    With any luck they'll never see the vegetable bin in my refrigerator..

  19. Five bell barn burner by Cyburbia · · Score: 1

    The Buffalo Five, the Buffalo Spammer, and now Steve Kurtz. Can't Buffalonians get a break? Any minute now, the Torontonians of Slashdot will probably start posting the usual Irv Weinstein references. "Blaze busters battle a five bell barn burner in Cheektowaga!" C'mon ... let's just get it over with already, okay?

    1. Re:Five bell barn burner by InterruptDescriptorT · · Score: 1

      Any minute now, the Torontonians of Slashdot will probably start posting the usual Irv Weinstein references. "Blaze busters battle a five bell barn burner in Cheektowaga!"

      LMAO! I grew up in St. Catharines, so we watched a lot of the WKBW 'Action News'. And Commander Tom, when I was a kid. I can't believe how at the time I didn't realize he was the weatherman.

      --
      Karma: Excellent Birds (mostly as a result of listening to Laurie Anderson)
    2. Re:Five bell barn burner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it wasnt Action News. It was Eyewitness News

  20. From transgenic plants to bioterror? by beeplet · · Score: 5, Interesting

    CAE's latest project, included a mobile DNA extraction laboratory for testing food products for possible transgenic contamination. It was this equipment which triggered the Kafkaesque chain of events.
    FBI field and laboratory tests have shown that Kurtz's equipment was not used for any illegal purpose. In fact, it is not even _possible_ to use this equipment for the production or weaponization of dangerous germs. Furthermore, any person in the US may legally obtain and possess such equipment.


    If that's true (and the quote does come from the CAE defense fund page - obviously a biased source), it doesn't seem to me like anyone could have much of a case against him.

    I think this is just a symptom of a more general problem - most people don't understand the biology of transgenic food, and ignorance breeds fear and suspicion. There's also the conflation of ideas between transgenic plants and bioterror organisms. Yes, some of the same lab techniques of gene manipulation might be used in both, but "transgenic" seems to get confused with "harmful".

    I would be awfully surprised if this guy was growing something in his home that caused the death of his wife. And if he did, chances are it came in on whatever material he was studying - in which case that's who should be investigated.

    On the one hand, I think Mr. Kurtz probably should have set up a lab in his university rather than doing it in his home. But to lose your wife (most likely to some freak of chance - an undetected heart problem, or whatever) and your livelihood as well, is a steep price to pay.

    1. Re:From transgenic plants to bioterror? by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      And I think it also just proves that the regulations around companies like Monsanto are doing their job. They require people who are playing with biotech to document what they're doing... playing with such stuff without the papers in order should be a crime.

    2. Re:From transgenic plants to bioterror? by khallow · · Score: 2, Insightful
      On the one hand, I think Mr. Kurtz probably should have set up a lab in his university rather than doing it in his home.

      The Kurtz's were on a budget. Also, a biology professor has a reasonable expectation of getting a lab in his university, but an art professor does not.

    3. Re:From transgenic plants to bioterror? by dekeji · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think this is just a symptom of a more general problem - most people don't understand the biology of transgenic food, and ignorance breeds fear and suspicion. There's also the conflation of ideas between transgenic plants and bioterror organisms.

      The "conflation" is justified: transgenic methods are one of the primary means of constructing bioterror organisms. Furthermore, even transgenic organisms harmless to human beings, have a significant potential for causing environmental harm (e.g., by creating herbicide-resistant weeds).

      That is one of the reasons why any kind of experimentation with transgenic organisms is regulated. In particular, it is necessary to regulate tightly what gets released into the environment. Reputable labs working on improved food crops have to comply with those regulations, and so does everybody else.

      it doesn't seem to me like anyone could have much of a case against him.

      A lot of work in molecular biology is regulated, so even if he did not intend to create a dangerous organism, he may still have run afoul of health and safety regulations.

    4. Re:From transgenic plants to bioterror? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      On the one hand, I think Mr. Kurtz probably should have set up a lab in his university rather than doing it in his home.
      That which is not explicity permitted is forbidden? Fuck you. This is allegedly the Free World.
    5. Re:From transgenic plants to bioterror? by tgibbs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That is one of the reasons why any kind of experimentation with transgenic organisms is regulated. In particular, it is necessary to regulate tightly what gets released into the environment. Reputable labs working on improved food crops have to comply with those regulations, and so does everybody else.

      Most regulations only apply to recipients of federal funds or to the food safety. While a few localities may have specific regulations, I am not aware of any general regulation of private genetic experimentation. Saying "transgenic organisms are one of the primary means of constructing bioterror organisms" is a bit like saying "chemistry is one of the primary means of creating explosives," or "machining is one of the primary means of creating automatic weapons." Most uses of these technologies are entirely benign.

      Moreover, it seems rather doubtful that transgenic technology is all that important for creation of bioweapons, anyway. Why go to the trouble of trying to create a novel pathogen when there are so many natural ones to work with? The most likely method of creating a bioterror weapon would be to grow a conventional pathogen such as anthrax in the presence of antibiotics to select resistant strains.

    6. Re:From transgenic plants to bioterror? by rgmoore · · Score: 1
      Saying "transgenic organisms are one of the primary means of constructing bioterror organisms" is a bit like saying "chemistry is one of the primary means of creating explosives," or "machining is one of the primary means of creating automatic weapons."

      Actually, the comment that "transgenic organisms are one of the primary means of constructing bioterror organisms" is substantially less accurate than either of your statements. People are worried about the use of transgenic technologies in the production of biological agents, but that's a worry rather than an accomplished fact. It's not as though there are a host of known bioterrorists who we can interview to find out how they're planning on killing us all.

      Moreover, it seems rather doubtful that transgenic technology is all that important for creation of bioweapons, anyway. Why go to the trouble of trying to create a novel pathogen when there are so many natural ones to work with?

      The limited real world experience seems to back up your suggestion. There have been a small number of real attacks and a slightly larger number of groups that have been stopped before they had a chance. AFAIK, though, none of those cases have involved bioengineered diseases. Most of them used fairly crudely cultured lab strains of reasonably boring pathogens. One one that I know of- the 2001 anthrax letters- used anything approaching military grade material.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    7. Re:From transgenic plants to bioterror? by Eminor · · Score: 1

      most people don't understand the biology of transgenic food, and ignorance breeds fear and suspicion.

      Agreed. People are focusing on the wrong suspect. Really they should be focussing on the big biotech firms, not some artist. That's the irony here. He was trying to point out the issues with biotechnology, but instead, people thought he was the bad guy. People seem to trust large corporations too much.

    8. Re:From transgenic plants to bioterror? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is totally BS. It is like saying that computers should be regulated because someone might create a virus that could blow up a nuclear power plant.

      There is no history of transgenic work contributing to bioteror, period.

      For that matter, there has never been a bioterror attack of any kind that was significantly worse than spreading your own feces on your hands and touching a salad bar.

      This is big time over-reaction.

    9. Re:From transgenic plants to bioterror? by whitis · · Score: 2, Interesting

      CAE's latest project, included a mobile DNA extraction laboratory for testing food products for possible transgenic contamination. It was this equipment which triggered the Kafkaesque chain of events. FBI field and laboratory tests have shown that Kurtz's equipment was not used for any illegal purpose. In fact, it is not even _possible_ to use this equipment for the production or weaponization of dangerous germs. Furthermore, any person in the US may legally obtain and possess such equipment.

      In a political climate where the one loses all right to due process at the mere accusation of involvement in terrorism and with Education Secretary Rod Paige revealing the administrations definition of "terrorism" by labeling the National Educational Association a "Terrorist Organization" for excercising their first amendment rights to criticize Bush Regime policy and a White House aide is quoted elsewhere in this discussion as saying "In this administration, you don't have to wear a turban or speak Farsi to be an enemy of the United States. All you have to do is disagree with the President" , there are some things about this particular case that should be regarded as red flags.

      Educating people about the presence of unsafe GM organisms in their food could be the "terrorism" in question. In this case, it is not the Bush Regime who is being criticised but their sponsors at Monsanto. According to the Organic Consumer Association the link between Monsanto and the Bush Regime is almost as bad as the Haliburton/Oil Industry Links.

      • Clarence Thomas, Supreme Court Judge, "who put GW Bush in office", Former Monsano Lawyer
      • Anne Veneman, Secretary of Agriculture, Former boardmember of Monsanto subsidiary
      • Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, former monsanto subsidiary board member
      • Attorney General John Ashcroft, one of the top two monsanto campaign contribution recipients in a recent election. This is the same John Ashcroft who lost to a dead man in a prior election.
      • other campaign recipients
      I would point out, also, that genetically modified foods were approved by the FDA by revolving door Monsanto employees and executives. The FDA Deputy Commisioner for Policy who supervised the creation of the FDA policy on GE foods was Michael Tayler , a lawyer who represented Monsanto before serving as Deputy Commisioner and became a Monsanto Vice President afterwards. Also, Margaret Miller , the FDA employee who approved the FDA required Monsanto report on the safety of the companies growth hormones, was the same person who had earlier written the report while working at Monsanto.

      The death of Prof. Kurtz's wife combined with the biological laboratory is legitimate reason for at least some investigation. But it also could be a convenient excuse for an administration that is motivated to harrass him. If these artists have committed a crime, it is probably bad web design (Shitwave Flush (tm) web navigation) rather than terrorism. Unless the mutant flies and roundup-sensitizing compounds prove to be not just consciousness raising experiments but actual intended eco-terrorism; but I certainly don't trust the likes of John Ashcroft to make such a determination.

    10. Re:From transgenic plants to bioterror? by CaptDeuce · · Score: 1

      On the one hand, I think Mr. Kurtz probably should have set up a lab in his university rather than doing it in his home.

      Yup. He'd be better off if he kept guns at his home. Guns don't give you no fatal infection. :-j

      --
      "Where's my other sock?" - A. Einstein
    11. Re:From transgenic plants to bioterror? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is totally BS. It is like saying that computers should be regulated because someone might create a virus that could blow up a nuclear power plant.

      No, it's like saying that nuclear technology and materials should be regulated because someone may create a dirty bomb. And that's exactly what we are doing.

      This is big time over-reaction.

      The founders of modern biotechnology would disagree. They were concerned about this from the start.

    12. Re:From transgenic plants to bioterror? by dekeji · · Score: 1

      Most regulations only apply to recipients of federal funds or to the food safety.

      Well, this very case shows you otherwise. If it looks like it might be related to bioterrorism, the feds can and will step in.

      Moreover, it seems rather doubtful that transgenic technology is all that important for creation of bioweapons, anyway.

      First of all, since bioweapons research is not carried out publicly, nobody knows; the Soviets certainly tried.

      Second, who said anything about people trying to create bioweapons specifically? Reputable molecular biology labs take precautions to prevent the release of genetically modified organisms or engineered DNA because nobody knows what the potential risks or environmental effects are in each case. And the risk isn't necessarily mass epidemics (although that is a possibility), the primary risk is environmental.

      Why go to the trouble of trying to create a novel pathogen when there are so many natural ones to work with?

      Because artificial pathogens can combine high mortality rate and high infectivity; natural pathogens don't generally have that combination because it is evolutionarily disadvantageous.

      The most likely method of creating a bioterror weapon would be to grow a conventional pathogen such as anthrax in the presence of antibiotics to select resistant strains.

      How do you think anthrax acquires antibiotics resistance? Most likely through gene transfer from some other organism. It's academic whether you want to call the resulting organism "transgenic" or not. And, from the point of view of the police, this would look the same anyway: lots of petri dishes and bacterial cultures.

    13. Re:From transgenic plants to bioterror? by Secrity · · Score: 1

      Running afoul of health and safety regulations should not trigger the FBI and a grand jury. Historically, the enforcement of the regulations that you are speaking of result in negotiated token fines -- and no admission of guilt.

    14. Re:From transgenic plants to bioterror? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which brings up an interesting point.

      Killing someone with a gun is murder. Killing someone with a gun by accident is manslaughter. But apparently killing someone with bacteria is terrorism, whether it was deliberate or not.

      Gotta love these well-thought-out and balanced laws...

    15. Re:From transgenic plants to bioterror? by tgibbs · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, this very case shows you otherwise. If it looks like it might be related to bioterrorism, the feds can and will step in.

      On the contrary, it proves my point. He is not accused under any law that specifically relates to the use or release of transgenic organisms, but under a general law that almost certainly is not applicable (since the law does not actually forbid individuals from carrying out such research in their homes).

      Because artificial pathogens can combine high mortality rate and high infectivity; natural pathogens don't generally have that combination because it is evolutionarily disadvantageous.


      Tell it to smallpox. Or bubonic plague. There are many ways in which diseases can have this property. Many natural diseases infect multiple hosts. For example, if we are not the primary reservoir of disease, then there is not evolutionary disincentive for the disease to have a high mortality rate.

      How do you think anthrax acquires antibiotics resistance? Most likely through gene transfer from some other organism.

      Give me a break. It has been known for decades that microorganisms in pure cultures acquire antibiotic resistance when grown in the presence of antibiotics. The classic work of Luria and Delbruck showed that the mechanism is pre-existing mutations in the population. If you want to speed it up a bit, you can add a mutagen or irradiate the cultures. After all, how did you think the genes of different species got different to begin with? All genetic differences between species are the same kind that arise by mutation. Transgenic technology is just a convenient shortcut to achieving the same kinds of results that people have been achieving since prehistoric times by selective breeding.

    16. Re:From transgenic plants to bioterror? by dogfart · · Score: 1
      Saying "transgenic organisms are one of the primary means of constructing bioterror organisms" is a bit like saying "chemistry is one of the primary means of creating explosives," or "machining is one of the primary means of creating automatic weapons."

      You might expect chemistry equipment and machine tools to result in a similar investigation in the future. After all "normal" citizens have no need for these items, chemical equipment could be used to make meth as well as terror agents, etc.

      I believe that possessing chemical equipment (including lab glassware) without a permit is already illegal in Texas for just this reason. Need to find a good cite for this.

      Instead of outlawing crime, we are fast moving to a society where anything that might be connected with a possible crime is illegal.

      --

      "dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope"

    17. Re:From transgenic plants to bioterror? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      And even if his intent was "only" to create an organism that would wipe out, say, genetically engineered wheat, and given that he's no expert (as amply evidenced by the lack of clean-room controls) -- the end result could well have been something that wiped out ALL wheat. The potential for such disasters is one reason why the regulations you cite exist in the first place.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    18. Re:From transgenic plants to bioterror? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      So you walk over to the bio lab, and you sign up to use it during slack time. Or you enlist the help of some professor of biology. Of course, in that case you might not want to be performing experiments that are questionable either legally or ethically...

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    19. Re:From transgenic plants to bioterror? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      No, they require people who don't have huge piles of money and trained attack lawyers to document what they're doing.

      Monsanto and their ilk are powers unto themselves.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    20. Re:From transgenic plants to bioterror? by geoswan · · Score: 1
      So you walk over to the bio lab, and you sign up to use it during slack time. Or you enlist the help of some professor of biology. Of course, in that case you might not want to be performing experiments that are questionable either legally or ethically...

      So you think he should have gone begging for permission from some biology professors to let them schedule you some time in their labs?

      May I suggest it is possible that a Biology professor might object to giving away their lab resources for reasons that have nothing to do with ethics or legalisms?

      What if their labs are busy? What if they said, "I may be able to find you some space, during the summer, if one of my grad student's experiments goes south."

      What if they said, "Geez Kurtz, we don't like how your previous work tackled the bio-food industry. My colleagues and I count on grants from those guys. We can't piss them off."

      What if they said, "Geez Kurtz, we are real scientists, and we think you are a kook. Fuck Off."

      What if they said, "OK Kurtz, you can use my lab. But since you are not in the Biology department, regulations compel me to charge you a lab fee..."

      People sometimes put disclaimers in their notes. Well, I took a micro-biology course. Mind you, it was a long time ago. I think the most important precaution, when working with e coli, is that one watch one's hands afterwards. It seems to me that using a corner of the rec room to incubate bacteria isn't necessarily any more dangerous than brewing beer, fermenting wine, or aging cheese.

    21. Re:From transgenic plants to bioterror? by cyberwench · · Score: 1
      Transgenic technology is just a convenient shortcut to achieving the same kinds of results that people have been achieving since prehistoric times by selective breeding.

      Well, that's not entirely accurate. There's no way that selective breeding could ever account for, say, genes from a pig coming up in genes for a plant. I'm not sure that would qualify as being the same kind of result. Part of the issue about GE foods is that while you can expect the plant-based gene responsible for flower colour to perform the same function across many plants, it's much more difficult to figure out what effect or chain of effects an animal-based gene for skin thickness will have on a plant. Even straight plant-plant breeding and GE can have unforseen effects - for example, it's possible to plain-old-fashioned breed plants in the nightshade family that have the toxins normally found in the plant part (the leafy bits of tomatoes, potatoes, etc.) spread throughout the normally edible part.

      Personally, although I find a lot of the anti-GM arguments to be fairly anti-scientific, I'm also very uncomfortable with the quite flippant attitude a lot of companies have about the safety of such products. I don't think there's enough long-term testing being done.
      --
      ~ Leilah
    22. Re:From transgenic plants to bioterror? by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      Well, that's not entirely accurate. There's no way that selective breeding could ever account for, say, genes from a pig coming up in genes for a plant. I'm not sure that would qualify as being the same kind of result. Part of the issue about GE foods is that while you can expect the plant-based gene responsible for flower colour to perform the same function across many plants, it's much more difficult to figure out what effect or chain of effects an animal-based gene for skin thickness will have on a plant.

      In fact, pigs and plants have a large number of homologous genes, because most genes families originated in microorganisms that are in the common heritage of pigs and plants. So in a functional sense, a modest number of mutations can in many cases effectively transform a gene of a pig into a gene for a plant. The important thing about a gene is not where it comes from, but what the protein it codes for does in a biochemical sense.

      Even straight plant-plant breeding and GE can have unforseen effects - for example, it's possible to plain-old-fashioned breed plants in the nightshade family that have the toxins normally found in the plant part (the leafy bits of tomatoes, potatoes, etc.) spread throughout the normally edible part.

      Indeed. This is far more likely to happen with conventional selective breeding than with transgenic technology. The plant already is evolutionarily optimized to coordinate the expression of the multiple genes required to make the toxin, and where in the plant that that toxin is produced is likely to be controlled by a small number of regulatory factors. It would be much harder to achieve such a thing with a small number of foreign genes, even by design. To do it by accident is incredibly unlikely. Perhaps if we're very unlucky, we'll come up with a GM food as dangerous as a peanut. People worry about GM plants escaping and running wild, but the chances are overwhelming that a gene from a pig expressed in the plant will have a deleterious effect on the plant in the wild, even if it might be useful in specific circumstances, such as the manufacture of pharmaceuticals. A GM plant is far less likely to cause ecological damage than a wild-type plant released into a part of the world where it does not normally grow. There have been many such disasters with native plants. There has yet to be one with a GM plant.

    23. Re:From transgenic plants to bioterror? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      E.coli is the stuff that makes you deathly ill or even kills you if it happens to incubate in meat, which you then eat... the stuff that prepackaged hamburger gets recalled if found to be contaminated with...

      LOTS of bacteria are harmless to beneficial, including those found in cheese. (Bacteria in beer is not so good, tho -- makes it spoil. Beer is a yeast product.) E.coli is beneficial and normal in your intestine, but not so good in your mouth or stomach, and can be fatal if you get it in a wound, depending on which of hundreds of varieties are involved.

      BTW, my college *major* was biochemistry and microbiology. And yes, one can quite easily walk over to the next department and ask for lab time, and probably get it with no questions asked. All we had to do at my University was sign up during open hours.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    24. Re:From transgenic plants to bioterror? by dekeji · · Score: 1

      Tell it to smallpox. Or bubonic plague. There are many ways in which diseases can have this property. Many natural diseases infect multiple hosts. For example, if we are not the primary reservoir of disease, then there is not evolutionary disincentive for the disease to have a high mortality rate.

      Yes, but if we are not the primary reservoir of the disease, then it probably doesn't spread that easily among humans. SARS and ebola are examples of this.

      In any case, there is currently no known natural disease that would be capable of eradicating the majority of the population around the globe. Smallpox probably comes closest, but even it is "only" 30% fatal and we have known preventative measures.

      On the other hand, there is evidence that such diseases can exist in principle and may have killed or nearly killed off entire species in the past (and then quickly disappeared themselves). Genetic engineering has the potential to create such diseases, diseases that are easier to spread than the common cold, far more deadly than smallpox, and have no vaccines available against them. Genetic engineering isn't the only thing that has the potential to do this--all sorts of other practices do as well. But just because there are other dangers doesn't mean we should be careless with genetic engineering.

      And what's the harm of being careful? It doesn't take a lot of effort to destroy waste from biologial research.

      [How do you think anthrax acquires antibiotics resistance? Most likely through gene transfer from some other organism.] Give me a break. It has been known for decades that microorganisms in pure cultures acquire antibiotic resistance when grown in the presence of antibiotics

      The two statements aren't contradictory.

      In any case, you brought up the artificial creation of antibiotics resistance as an example threat, not me. I think that threat is actually not the biggest worry when it comes to bioterrorism or accidents. While creating antibiotics resistant bacteria is not nice, it is not a huge threat--even if we didn't have antibiotics at all, we'd be back in the 19th century; medically unpleasant, but not incompatible with civilized life.

      More importantly, you implicitly assume that the old techniques, selection, breeding, mutagenesis, etc., are "OK" and proven harmless because people have been using them for so long. But that's wrong. Our ability to perform screens, breeding, and mutagenesis has improved greatly over the last few decades, and those techniques may have become much more effective tools for the creation of dangerous organisms than in the past.

      Furthermore, we already know that the association with domesticated animals and the creation of new kinds of plants has had serious medical and environmental consequences. Therefore, if anything, the last few thousand years of history should teach us to be much more careful in the future.

      Transgenic technology is just a convenient shortcut to achieving the same kinds of results that people have been achieving since prehistoric times by selective breeding.

      Yes, quite right: transgenic technology is a shortcut. It's a shortcut to let humans make things happen within a span of a few years that might otherwise take millions or even hundreds of millions of years to happen in the normal course of evolution, or even through directed breeding.

      Now, we know that occasionally, entire species die out because some new organism arises. That might well happen to humans eventually. But it makes a huge difference to me and probably everybody else whether that happens to humans some time over the next few millions years or some time over the next three.

      By analogy, we know that an asteroid might kill us at any time. By your argument, we shouldn't mind if some people decided hurling asteroids at earth for fun--after all, it wouldn't really matter, it would just be a shortcut to the same kind of result that would occur naturally eventually anyway, right?

    25. Re:From transgenic plants to bioterror? by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      if we are not the primary reservoir of the disease, then it probably doesn't spread that easily among humans

      We are not the primary reservoir of influenza. Or bubonic plague. Contrary to your statement, ebola is highly contagious. An antibiotic-resistant strain of bubonic plague would also be quite nasty. Mortality from bubonic plague is 50-90%

      In any case, there is currently no known natural disease that would be capable of eradicating the majority of the population around the globe. Smallpox probably comes closest, but even it is "only" 30% fatal and we have known preventative measures.

      I don't get your point. Are you saying that this makes natural diseases such as ebola, anthrax, and bubonic plague not a concern as bioterror weapons? From all accounts, previous pandemics of these diseases were pretty terrifying. Are or you suggesting that transgenic diseases are likely to have this property? This is far less likely than the accidental evolution of an epidemic disease. Expecting some protein from a different species to create a disease capable of wiping out the majority of the population is a bit like imagining that taking the carburetor of a Toyota and bolting it under the hood of a Ford will create a car capable of winning the Le Mans. The real threat of natural diseases is their genetic diversity. Even though the chances of any one mutant or hybrid having properties of high infectivity and mortality, natural diseases will have millions of variants, and the most infectious will propagate. A transgenic variant created by man would not have this property. People have been incorporating foreign genes into bacteria for decades. It is not a high containment activity. There is not a single known case of accidental creation of a dangerous disease.

      And what's the harm of being careful? It doesn't take a lot of effort to destroy waste from biologial research.

      There is no harm in being careful. But an exaggerated notion of risk is an impediment to progress. There is certainly some risk that the green stuff in the back of your refrigerator could create a global epidemic, but we don't call out the CDC to clean out refrigerators.

      While creating antibiotics resistant bacteria is not nice, it is not a huge threat--even if we didn't have antibiotics at all, we'd be back in the 19th century; medically unpleasant, but not incompatible with civilized life.

      I suggest that you read up on the Black Death. I'd say that "unpleasant" is a bit of an understatement.

      you implicitly assume that the old techniques, selection, breeding, mutagenesis, etc., are "OK" and proven harmless because people have been using them for so long.

      On the contrary, my point is as far as bioterror/biowarfare are concerned, these techniques are the greatest threat: they are easy, low tech, and have been proved to work.

      Furthermore, we already know that the association with domesticated animals and the creation of new kinds of plants has had serious medical and environmental consequences.

      However these are breeds that have experienced many generations of selection for health and survival, taking advantage of the genetic variability of natural populations. The ecological hazards of laboratory created species--genetically identical, not optimized for the presence of a foreign gene--are certain to be much less than the hazards posed by domesticated or geographically transposed natural species.

      Yes, quite right: transgenic technology is a shortcut. It's a shortcut to let humans make things happen within a span of a few years that might otherwise take millions or even hundreds of millions of years to happen in the normal course of evolution, or even through directed breeding.

      Or, when talking about short generation microorganisms, a few months.

    26. Re:From transgenic plants to bioterror? by dekeji · · Score: 1

      We are not the primary reservoir of influenza. Or bubonic plague. Contrary to your statement, ebola is highly contagious. An antibiotic-resistant strain of bubonic plague would also be quite nasty. Mortality from bubonic plague is 50-90%

      You are presenting an assemblage of facts out of context; let's not go into that again. All I am saying is that civilized human societies lived with those diseases in the past and that we can control them through public health measures.

      I don't get your point. Are you saying that this makes natural diseases such as ebola, anthrax, and bubonic plague not a concern as bioterror weapons? From all accounts, previous pandemics of these diseases were pretty terrifying. Are or you suggesting that transgenic diseases are likely to have this property?

      I'm saying that we are likely getting to the point where we can create diseases that are far more dangerous than influenza, bubonic plague, or ebola. We can create those through genetic engineering, through artificial evolution, and probably through other means. There is a significant risk that people create them deliberately as part of bioweapons research, and there is a small risk that we create them accidentally.

      That doesn't mean that the existing diseases aren't frightening enough to people (and hence usable as weapons of terror), but the existing diseases don't threaten our survival as a species.

      But an exaggerated notion of risk is an impediment to progress.

      Risk, whether exaggerated or not, and speed of progress are always tradeoffs. You seem to take it as a given that we want to proceed scientifically as fast as we can possibly justify the risks. I don't see why.

      The ecological hazards of laboratory created species--genetically identical, not optimized for the presence of a foreign gene--are certain to be much less than the hazards posed by domesticated or geographically transposed natural species.

      I don't see where you get that "certainty" from. There is no physical or biological principle that says that introducing a foreign gene makes organisms significantly less fit.

      In any case, when a virus or bacterium is not "optimized for the presence of a foreign gene", that means that it is likely to be more virulent and deadly than a disease that has been in a population for a while. For disease agents, higher virulence equals lower fitness, so by your own argument, if the introduction of foreign genes into diseases leads to lower fitness, one common way in which it may do so is through higher virulence.

      And I don't understand why you keep talking about "geographically transposed natural species". Yes, they are a hazard. In fact, introduction of new diseases into humans by contact with exotic animals is probably a far greater risk than the accidental creation of new diseases through genetic engineering (whether it's a greater risk than the deliberate creation of biowarfare agents through genetic engineering I don't know and neither do you, I suspect--that depends on the state of the art in biowarfare research). But why do you keep repeating that comparison? Your chances of being killed in an automobile accident are also higher than dying from a terrorist attack--that doesn't mean that we don't do anything about terrorism.

      Or, when talking about short generation microorganisms, a few months.

      I'm sorry, but that is just naive. Sure, there are a lot of microorganisms around us, and they mutate and divide at an astounding rate. But the space of possible sequences is even bigger and the space of possibilities evolution explores is limited: it's limited by the actual environmental pressures and it's limited by the fact that mutations accumulate gradually and that intermediates between where the organism started and where the organism ended up generally can't be too deleterious. Even bacterial evolution only explores an astronomically small part of the space of all possible sequences; there are probably an enormous number of possible bacteria that would wipe out humans as a species--evolution just happens not to produce them. And viruses and eukaryotes are even more limited in what they can do.

    27. Re:From transgenic plants to bioterror? by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      I'm saying that we are likely getting to the point where we can create diseases that are far more dangerous than influenza, bubonic plague, or ebola. We can create those through genetic engineering, through artificial evolution, and probably through other means.

      More dangerous than diseases that (in the absence of effective drugs or vaccination) have documented ability to spread rapidly and kill a large fraction of the population? Seems doubtful. And even from the viewpoint of a terrorist or a rogue government, there is hardly any reason to attempt such a thing. These existing diseases are quite devastating enough for any imaginable purpose. To intentionally create a dangerous novel disease would be a difficult and hazardous process, requiring a multiyear high-level research effort involving extensive human experimentation on large populations. It would be hard to carry out and hard to keep secret. While modifying an existing disease is relatively easy, and the methods are well-understood.

      That doesn't mean that the existing diseases aren't frightening enough to people (and hence usable as weapons of terror), but the existing diseases don't threaten our survival as a species.

      I think the notion of a disease "threatening our survival as a species" is ridiculous. There is no example of a disease that infects everybody. The human population is quite large and genetically diverse. There are always some individuals who are resistant. And even if it were possible to do such thing, and somebody was insane enough to try, it is hard to imagine how it could be done in practice. Imagine the number of research subjects you would need to detect resistance at a level of 10e-7, which would still be quite a few people worldwide.

      I don't see where you get that "certainty" from. There is no physical or biological principle that says that introducing a foreign gene makes organisms significantly less fit.

      Organisms are highly optimized evolutionarily. By definition, that means that any small change will make them less fit. This is confirmed by experimental studies, which find that the overwhelming majority of mutational changes decrease fitness. Proteins do not function in isolation. They are regulated and interact in complex ways that have been optimized over many generations. So the chance that some novel protein will improve function in any particular individual organism is vanishingly small. Now if you were to introduce that protein into billions of individuals in a genetically diverse population, there might be a few that, because of their specific genetic makeup, could make use of it and thrive. But current methods do not do that.

      In any case, when a virus or bacterium is not "optimized for the presence of a foreign gene", that means that it is likely to be more virulent and deadly than a disease that has been in a population for a while. For disease agents, higher virulence equals lower fitness, so by your own argument, if the introduction of foreign genes into diseases leads to lower fitness, one common way in which it may do so is through higher virulence.

      This is a logical fallacy of the form, "All men are mortal. Dogs are mortal. Therefore dogs are men." There are lots of ways to lower fitness, and hardly any of them have anything to do with virulence. So fact that introducing an out of context protein will almost certainly lower fitness does not imply a greater risk of virulence.

      And I don't understand why you keep talking about "geographically transposed natural species". Yes, they are a hazard. In fact, introduction of new diseases into humans by contact with exotic animals is probably a far greater risk than the accidental creation of new diseases through genetic engineering (whether it's a greater risk than the deliberate creation of biowarfare agents through genetic engineering I don't know and neither do you, I suspect--that depends on the state of the art in biowarfare research). But why do you keep repeating tha

  21. I'm in trouble by Tablizer · · Score: 0, Troll

    I took a shit today, and shit has loads of bacteria. I'm gonna be locked up and tortured in Iraq, help!

  22. My God.. by Tesko · · Score: 0

    You poor saps in the States, through artwork and harmless economical(?) advocacy, you get slammed under some tyranical act.

  23. Thanks for the gratuitous Ashcroft bash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting
    FYI, the Patriot Act passed the Senate by something like 99-1 - John Kerry voted for it

    So Kerry's actually more at fault for the Patriot act than Ashcroft or even GWB himself (on the theory that a 99-1 or so would override any attempt at a veto, not that W would have even thought of doing that...). Ashcroft's charged with enforcing the laws, not making them.

    1. Re:Thanks for the gratuitous Ashcroft bash by wibs · · Score: 1

      Hey, Kerry sucks too, I admit it. But I hate Bush for more than just the US's recent transformation into the Fourth Reich, so I'll be voting Kerry come november.

      Reminds me of a good quote... "There is plenty of evidence to suggest that politicions in both parties are lying scum."

      --
      If you get nervous, just remember that there are a few billion other people who don't really give a damn.
    2. Re:Thanks for the gratuitous Ashcroft bash by CrowScape · · Score: 1

      Recent? I know I posted this furthur up, but if you think something as mild as the PATRIOT Act is going to change the US to the Fourth Reich, you missed out on the Sedition Act of 1918, or even the Sedition Act of 1798. Both of these had far more likelyhood of turning the US into a totalitarian regime than the PATRIOT Act, and yet it didn't happen. So please, save the hyperbole.

      --
      common sense: noun
      What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
    3. Re:Thanks for the gratuitous Ashcroft bash by ExtremeGoatse! · · Score: 0

      Where would Slashdot be without all the hysterical end of world rantings?

    4. Re:Thanks for the gratuitous Ashcroft bash by jcuervo · · Score: 1
      Ashcroft's charged with enforcing the laws, not making them.
      Which is worse?
      --
      Assume I was drunk when I posted this.
    5. Re:Thanks for the gratuitous Ashcroft bash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Bush's appointments to the federal government DOJ, CIA, and FBI drafted the Patriot Act. And Bush himself signed it into law without any objections. Plus, Bush did nothing back in July of 2001 when briefed that terrorists were planning to hijack airplanes and fly them into major buildings. (Bush was too busy taking more vacation time to bother acting on the new information.) So, yes, Bush is more than responsible for the Patriot Act. You might even say he sought its creation and is hoping to reap every benefit possible from the deaths of American citizens he can. Oil, oil, oil. And not a drop of non-conventional weapons found anywhere which could have justified the invasion of the sovereign nation of Iraq. Fictious war for fictious reasons. Add up Bush's vacation time during these 4 hellish years and he has even taken another 1 year AWOL from the national guard. Old guard Yalie family from the East Coast faking out the good people from this country. Savings and Loans customers, give us your money! Automobile drivers, give us your money! Home owners using gas (or electricity in California with Kenny-Boy), give us your money! VP Dick Cheney's Halliburton and tax-payer funded government contracts, give us your money! Bush is a criminal. He belongs in prison.

    6. Re:Thanks for the gratuitous Ashcroft bash by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      Minor item of note:
      <BLOCKQUOTE>
      Godwin's Law prov. [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful
      </BLOCKQUOTE>

      From:
      http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Go dwin_s_La w.html

      sorry it's not a link, I dunno if it's me or slashdot but I can't get it right. probably me I am running a fever of 101 right now.

      However the second part I totaly agree with, espcially about Kerry, I've heard the man lie outright and stupidly. At least Bubba is smart enough to have plausible deniability. Everyone including clinton, gore, kerry, the un, etc. 'knew' saddam had wmd's, and we have found some just not the huge stockpiles everyone expected. Not that you need stockpiles for bio-weapons, just the starter cultures we found and a little time, very little.
      Since you agree thier both crooked bastards why waste a vote on them. The libertarian party could use the support.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    7. Re:Thanks for the gratuitous Ashcroft bash by wibs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're right, it was hyperbole.

      And you're right too that the Sedition Act of 1918 was nasty. But they didn't have much in the way of logs, surveilance cameras, or hell, even tape recorders back then, and what little technology that was at their disposal could never have been turned into a way of keeping tabs on the entire population.

      The thing is, the Sedition Act was just a law, but that's doesn't mean it was possible to enforce. Prohibition? Last I checked I have a beer in the fridge. Laws, no matter how good or bad, have to be enforcable for them to do any good.

      What's scary about the Patriot Act is that not only is it possible to enforce, but there is ample room for the government to overstep the already extensive bounds its given itself. A government by the people for the people should not depend on secret courts granting waivers from warrants to invade privacy, without any knowledge or opportunity for defense by the citizens accused. The problem with the Patriot Act is as much its tolerance for abuse as what it actually allows.

      And one final point... if the time has come that even Bush's defenders are comparing his work to some of the worst bits of American history, isn't that kind of making an argument against him in itself?

      --
      If you get nervous, just remember that there are a few billion other people who don't really give a damn.
    8. Re:Thanks for the gratuitous Ashcroft bash by wibs · · Score: 1

      Well, as long as you want to explore the Nazi side of it...

      "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. 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 pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

      Reminds me of Vietnam and the war in Iraq. Unfortunately it was Hermann Goering who said it. reference

      --
      If you get nervous, just remember that there are a few billion other people who don't really give a damn.
    9. Re:Thanks for the gratuitous Ashcroft bash by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      The most unfortunate part? It's mostly true. Most people people are lemmings.
      Two paraphrases (because I'm to tired from fighting flu to search for exact quotes, sorry)
      "And it profits evil that good men do nothing" Burk IIRC, the only possible answer to Goering, and then only when backed by somthing like our constitution, which also unfortunately the 'two' parties have been undermining because no-one follows Burkes admonition there.
      "A person is smart, but people are blind, stupid, panicky and you know it." -K men in black.
      I have alot of belief in the goodness of my fellow man, but people scare the shit outa me.--me:)
      I wasn't attacking with the godwins law ref, and I'm honestly sorry if you got that impression. I've been fairly sick with the flu last two days and fevers and exaustion play games with my sense of humour. I was humourously trying to point out that some hyperboly can damage credibility (for all I'm often guilty of excess hyperboly myself).

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    10. Re:Thanks for the gratuitous Ashcroft bash by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      addendum: Just because someone is an evil @#$$ doen't make it axiomatic that everything they say is wrong or the product of inferior intellect. Nor because someone is Good and saintly do they posses great wisdom or insight.
      I gather from your post you probably realize this, but others may proffit from the reminder.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    11. Re:Thanks for the gratuitous Ashcroft bash by CrowScape · · Score: 1

      The Sedition Act was very enforceable; there were 10,000 convictions associated with it. Meanwhile, we haven't heard of a single abuse of the PATRIOT Act (besides a Law and Order episode). Honestly, many of the tennats of the PATRIOT Act make sense: take the tools currently available to combat organized crime and drug dealers and make them available to combat terrorism, such as roving wiretaps or those warrants granted by those secret courts you mentioned. Those tactics have been in the system for decades, passing constitutional muster as far as the Judicial branch is concerned, yet suddenly it's trampling our civil liberties because Bush wants it?

      The comparison to the Sedition Act is not an argument against the PATRIOT Act at all. I could easily compare the seatbelt laws to the Sedition Act if we had the same hysteria surrounding them. "You think needing to harness yourself into a car is bad..." I'm simply providing some much needed perspective.

      --
      common sense: noun
      What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
    12. Re:Thanks for the gratuitous Ashcroft bash by wibs · · Score: 1

      Would you mind posting some links that reference these preexisting courts? I have to admit that I know pretty much nothing about it, and I wouldn't want to make an ass of myself by taking a position on something I'm not familiar with.

      --
      If you get nervous, just remember that there are a few billion other people who don't really give a damn.
    13. Re:Thanks for the gratuitous Ashcroft bash by wibs · · Score: 1

      no offense was taken, don't worry about it :). My political beliefs are pretty middle of the road actually (registered independent), it's just that most of this administration goes so strongly against most of the things I believe in that it's hard not to get worked up. Of course then I get clumped with fanatic left, which isn't a whole lot better than the fanatic right.

      Anyway, my point is that you seem like a reasonable guy in my book and not that different from myself. But who really cares, we're just a couple of random people on slashdot after all.

      --
      If you get nervous, just remember that there are a few billion other people who don't really give a damn.
    14. Re:Thanks for the gratuitous Ashcroft bash by Kaemaril · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      we have found some just not the huge stockpiles everyone expected.

      It's news to me that we've found ONE "weapon of mass destruction" in Iraq, let alone "some". Did I miss a meeting?

      Wouldn't Bush, Blair and the rest of the coalition be screaming this from the top of their lungs by now? I mean, we've found mobile labs ... only they weren't. We've found a shell (which is a battlefield munition, not a WMD), we've found a couple of drums which had some sort of chemical residue which was initially claimed to be WMD ... only that sort of fell by the wayside ...

      So ... where was the WMD(s) again?

    15. Re:Thanks for the gratuitous Ashcroft bash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's news to me that we've found ONE "weapon of mass destruction" in Iraq, let alone "some". Did I miss a meeting?
      Last time I checked, Nerve gas is a WMD. Sarin is a nerve gas...ergo an artillery shell filled with Sarin and left as a road side bomb in/near Bagdad would be a WMD, would it not? They found one last month, can't remember the date, sometime around May 17. Granted, the DoD believes this to be a leftover so they are not making a very big deal out of it.
    16. Re:Thanks for the gratuitous Ashcroft bash by CrowScape · · Score: 1

      There are the secret courts from the Foriegn Intellegence Surveillance Act and secret evidence in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. The US District Court for the Southern District of Florida has been known to hold them.

      --
      common sense: noun
      What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
    17. Re:Thanks for the gratuitous Ashcroft bash by Kaemaril · · Score: 1

      > Last time I checked, Nerve gas is a WMD.

      Check again. A weapon of mass destruction relates more to the delivery method than the actual weapon. A missile which released billions of anthrax spores into the air over a major city would be a weapon of mass destruction. A hypodermic needle containing anthrax spores which could be injected into a person would not.

      A battlefield munition doesn't count as a WMD.

  24. Re:Corporate protection by slickwillie · · Score: 0, Troll

    He should have incorporated under the guise of doing GMO development. Asscrap never would have touched him.

  25. Re:Home Biolab != "Art Installation" by stephentyrone · · Score: 1

    By that reasoning, if I have an unregistered physics lab, is that "grounds for nuclear terrorism"? (Answer: No.) There are a whole hell of a lot of things you can do with a biolab, most of which have nothing to do with bioterrorism. I'm not surprised the feds are investigating (hey, someone died; if someone died in my home physics lab, i'd expect them to investigate too), but calling this bio-terror is about the most absurd thing i've ever heard.

  26. Come on, the poster should RTFA by tbase · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The CAE presents its performance arts pieces as satire. But the group's electronic books, with introductions featuring quotes from the likes of Malcolm X ("By any means necessary," is one of the quotes), may have the federal government suspecting that artists connected to the ensemble harbor sinister motives.

    One of the ensemble's e-books advocates releasing mutant organisms into the environment to disrupt the work of biotech firms. Another proposes secretly releasing mutated flies into restaurants.

    The CAE says this tactic, which it calls "fuzzy biological sabotage," would encourage "those who never would join a movement (to) become unknowing cohorts or willing allies" in the struggle against the biotech industry.


    Let's not mention that his "healthy" wife was found dead in their home among all the bio-lab equipment. Just another example of the Man keeping an artist down! He's an artist and an activist - so they shouldn't even investigate the bio-lab in his house, or his views on releasing mutant organisms in the wild! It's his constitutional right!

    The slant on this posting is reprehensible. If you want to stand up for this guy, I suggest you take a trip to his house, go inside and take a deep breath.

    --

    666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast
    1. Re:Come on, the poster should RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Inhale the aroma of my "meat bin" after a three week road trip. After that, let's have lunch.

    2. Re:Come on, the poster should RTFA by polecat_redux · · Score: 0

      Sweeping his house for evidence of bioterror is one thing, but it sounds to me like he's going straight to court despite the fact that they may not have found anything harmful (and that the death of his wife has not been attributed to him).

      I say search his house for anything illegal (including said petri dishes and equipment), and if nothing is found, leave the poor man alone. Aside from suggesting intent IF something dangerous is found, I do not believe his views alone are enough to put him in front of a grand jury. A large part of freedom is being able to express your views without fear of reprisal from the government.

    3. Re:Come on, the poster should RTFA by AEton · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't claim to know anything about biology - at least, nothing more than I learned in an AP class some three years ago.

      And nobody on Slashdot knows from these brief summaries the full story behind the case. For instance, when the police say they think bacteria have nothing to do with the death, are they only saying that because they're legally compelled not to accuse someone? Or do they really think that bioterror is an essentially implausible option and this fellow is just an activist a little too extreme to let slide? (His emotional state re: having a wife suddenly die is, apparently, not terribly important especially if he might have done it.)

      Still, from the summaries alone - and this is a big caveat - the bioterror thing strikes me as a very familiar kind of alarmist angle used and supported by people that don't know any better. It's the kind of attitude that kept Kevin Mitnick (according to John Markoff of the New York Times an FBI Most Wanted List star, although he can't prove it) in solitary confinement for some eight months. Otherwise, a judge was convinced, he might start global thermonuclear war by whistling at NORAD through a payphone.

      In the war against terrorism (can you wage war on a method?), letting our own ignorance make us deathly afraid of one another is tantamount to conceding defeat.

      --
      We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
    4. Re:Come on, the poster should RTFA by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      You're also working on incomplete information. What if his wife found his work interesting, and spent 8 hours a day in his lab? That would mean, taking nothing else into consideration, she was just as likely to die there as she was to die in bed, and as likely she would die there as anywhere else.

      Sure, the guy could be guilty, but you or I could be as equally guilty for some other unsolved crime in our respective areas. Shall we start presuming guilt until proof of innocence?

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    5. Re:Come on, the poster should RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A grand jury puts the decision whether or not to indict in the hands of the people, not the government.

    6. Re:Come on, the poster should RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasnt joe scarborough's perfectly healthy intern found dead in his office? Bet you watch him a lot don't you?

    7. Re:Come on, the poster should RTFA by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      I don't claim to know anything about biology...

      Don't know much about history
      Don't know much about biology
      Don't know much about a science-book
      Don't know much about the French I took...

      --
      What?
    8. Re:Come on, the poster should RTFA by tbase · · Score: 1

      Well, I do believe that I am not alone when I say the circumstances outlined in the Wired article would make me very afraid of this guy, long before 9/11 and regardless of what he's for or against. I mean, come on - this guy is an artist.

      Nothing against artists, but I would feel only slightly less comfortable with an artist who makes unexploded ordinance sculptures. Actually, I'd be more comfortable with that, because as long as you're out of the blast zone, you're pretty safe. This guy makes a mistake with some microbes, and who knows how far or fast it would spread. I'm just as (or maybe more) scared of him making a mistake than doing something intentionally malicious.

      To me, real art is about experimentation outside of traditional boundries. With abstract art especially, "mistakes" are often a good thing. Somehow I'm just not comfortable with anyone experimenting in their home based bio-lab for the sake of art, especially if they may be trying to prove a point. I mean, some of the stuff their literature talks about - wouldn't that be kinda like Peta slaughtering lab monkeys outside a department store to protest cosmetics testing on rabbits?

      --

      666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast
    9. Re:Come on, the poster should RTFA by tbase · · Score: 1

      You're absolutley right. Just like if she had called 911 on him for domestic abuse a dozen times in the past year - it wouldn't mean that couldn't have slipped on a bar of soap in the shower - but they'd probably look into any pattern of bruises a little closer at the autopsy. /hypothetical

      --

      666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast
    10. Re:Come on, the poster should RTFA by tbase · · Score: 1

      "perfectly healthy intern found dead"

      Doesn't sound very healthy to me. I didn't know Scarborough had a bio-lab in his office.

      --

      666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast
  27. Slow day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this news or is it just the expected Ashcroftian behaviour?

    Move along

  28. Eh? I'm confused! by randyest · · Score: 1

    . . .charges over artwork that used samples of harmless bacteria to make a statement about . . .

    . . . is so very different from:

    Kurtz's work and his beliefs are more radical than those of many of his peers. He has written proposals for releasing mutant flies into restaurants, and demonstrated methods for destroying genetically modified crops.

    Tests of the suspect materials at the Kurtzes' home could only have found nonpathogenic strains of E. coli, Serratia and Bacillus globigii, according to Da Costa, who contributed to the CAE's GenTerra piece.

    But local and federal authorities are reacting appropriately to the discovery of a suspect biological and chemical laboratory in the Kurtzes' home, said a law enforcement analyst with the University of Maine who helped formulate protocols for responding to bioterrorism attacks in Maine's urban areas.

    "Unless you know what the heck you're doing," said Richard Mears, assistant professor of criminal justice at the University of Maine at Augusta, "you can get hurt playing games with microbes."

    Even harmless bacteria can become harmful under certain, but extremely rare, circumstances, said Richard Roberts, a leading DNA researcher.

    Today's the day. It now appears that a judge and jury will ultimately decide whether and how artists will be allowed to work with the materials that scientists are trusted with daily inside biotech laboratories. \

    Just now? Today? There aren't already regulations in place to limit who can run bio-labs or what qualifications the must have, or what safety protocols they must follow? Aaaaargh!

    The Department of Justice this week took steps toward charging Steven Kurtz with running an illegal biotech laboratory in the Kurtzes' home in Buffalo, New York.

    Bravo, I say. Art or not, some things are (or/and) should be regulated, restricted, subject to inspection and enforcement, etc. and f'ing biotech labs is one of them, IMHO.

    --
    everything in moderation
    1. Re:Eh? I'm confused! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no reason people should not be able to pursue their interests in their own home (unless it harms someone else).

      Do you need a license to have sex too?

    2. Re:Eh? I'm confused! by randyest · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Do you need a license to have sex too?

      If you have AIDS and know it, and don't tell your partner, you can't even (legally) have sex -- license or not. And that's the kind of case we're talking about.

      If you're breeding Anthrax in your basement (not saying he was -- maybe his stuff was harmless, and maybe it would have remained so -- or not) I want you stopped.

      Sorry, your right to pursue your interest in your home stops when that interest might get out of control and kill everyone in the neighborhood.

      --
      everything in moderation
    3. Re:Eh? I'm confused! by TRACK-YOUR-POSITION · · Score: 1
      You could write a computer virus in your house and shutdown a hospital or transportation system and kill people, too. Can you believe there are no regulations prohibiting the unqualified or politically radical from running these home cyber-weapon factories? People with no formal security training whatsoever can simply install a C compiler. Madness!

      See, it turns out that you're allowed to have sex without a license, you just aren't allowed to spread AIDS. You're allowed to program a computer unlicensed, you just aren't allowed to program viruses. You're even allowed to possess deadly firearms and vastly more deadly automobiles (near infinitely more deadly than all terrorism combined)--but you aren't allowed to kill people with them.

      It's not the tools that we are supposed to ban, it's the usage of these tools. Sorry, your right to paranoia about what I'm doing in my basement ends when it means we must all live in submission to Monsanto.

    4. Re:Eh? I'm confused! by dead+sun · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Oh dear god, not E. coli! Heavens forbid that somebody should have a bacteria that can be found in every single functioning stomach on the damn planet. Or Serratia, heavens, that isn't found in the soil or in damp areas. It was certainly never used in public schools in experimentation. And Bacillus globigii, I feel faint. Another soil bateria that isn't considered harmful unless you're a chemo patient in terrible shape that's pretty much hospital bound (which makes any bacteria potentially harmful).

      What's next, we shut down any lab that deals with the all deadly "microbes" of doom that aren't officially run by the government? Schools will have their doors beaten down and all the petri dishes will be rounded up and taken away? What the hell? Maybe they could round up all the dirt nearby and make sure to take the terrifying E. coli out of people's guts.

      And what's so terrifying about proposals to release mutant flies or demonstration that GM crops have vulnerabilities? Should we silence anybody that has the gall to show us that our tampering with food has the possibility to cause problems? Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with GM foods boosting yield and such, but it'd be a bit like somebody publishing a proof of concept that the internet can be destroyed if somebody had the resources to do so. We don't want potential hazards silenced so we can live in lala land and seal our own fates, do we?

      I agree that there should be a list of substances which shouldn't be made, and if the gov't finds somebody doing so then prosecute away. I don't think we should really worry too hard about a few nonpathogenic microbes though. They certainly shouldn't be wasting my tax money on charges of having everyday bacteria. Sure, under extremely rare and odd circumstances they might become hostile, but since these bacteria are everywhere anyway that isn't really the point, is it?

      --
      If not now, when?
    5. Re:Eh? I'm confused! by platypibri · · Score: 1

      So, I really want people's access to 25 gallon propane tanks restricted. That thing hooked up to your webber is, in fact, a bomb. Don't forget the explosive potential of your gas tank, or the natural gas piped to you home. There is somethiong risky I don't want you fooling with. I don't truist you with a toilet. You can brew up a biological disater in there by just not flushing for a few weeks. Also, I don't trust you with a refrigerator. You can just uplug it and breed al sorts of disease on your meat. Just remember, when you start drawing lines in the sand with people's freedom, you yourself may not like where that line ends up.

      --
      Yeah, I guess I'm funny like that.
    6. Re:Eh? I'm confused! by randyest · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All those lines are already drawn and the effects are mostly for the common good. Misuse (or obviously intending to misuse) explosive gas or propane and you get in trouble. If you let your toilet brew feces until it creates a public health hazard, someone will come make you clean it up, or haul you off to the asylum and clean it up for you.

      None of these things are unreasonable. If you run a bio-tech lab, you should be forced to adhere to public safety precautionary standards and regulations.

      --
      everything in moderation
    7. Re:Eh? I'm confused! by platypibri · · Score: 1
      And I'm saying right now, I DON'T TRUST YOU with any of that technology. Now, if I was say THE PRESIDENT, I could go a long way toward infringing on your freedom, couldn't I?
      Some of us are uncomfortable with gun control. Yeah, you could make the argument there is no use for a gun except to injure or kill. Frankly, I don't think very many people out there are smart enough, and stable enough, to manage owning a gun. I'd be all for gun control. Luckily for our freedom, I don't get to make that rule.
      Here's one that will hit home on slashdot, with the economic damage caused by spam and viruses, I don't think the average citizen needs access to a computer. It's too risky. Is that a call you want to let what ever man gets elected make? Think hard, because I could run. With enough party support, I could win. And I could push my personal agenda through legislation.

      THIS is why we fight for EVERY freedom, reegardless of whether or not YOU feel that freedom is not neccesary.

      --
      Yeah, I guess I'm funny like that.
    8. Re:Eh? I'm confused! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a good thing you are not an American citizen or else you would understand that the Constitution protects the American people from loonies like you.

      Turn off your computer and read a book.

    9. Re:Eh? I'm confused! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If you run a bio-tech lab, you should be forced to adhere to public safety precautionary standards and regulations.
      You do realize that bread- and beer-making are bio-tech, right? That gardeners routinely use bacillus thuringiensis which is as lethal as bacillus anthracis (the causative organism of anthrax) but only affects insects? That quite a few people dose themselves with lactobacillus acidopholus and friends for improved digestion? Bio-tech is crawling all over you right now.
    10. Re:Eh? I'm confused! by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      Hey, public schools ARE run by the government. Don't forget that, it explains quite a lot about the educational system.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    11. Re:Eh? I'm confused! by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      Well said.

      I'm glad someone understands the point of the constitution is to protect us from both governement and the passions of the moment (tyranny of the masses). And why our founding fathers set up a constitutional REPUBLIC (with democratically selected leaders) instead of a direct democracy.

      this is the second on target post I've seen
      I've got to figure out how to set a few things in the friends/foes/etc. part of my user page.

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    12. Re:Eh? I'm confused! by Alexei · · Score: 1
      Today's the day. It now appears that a judge and jury will ultimately decide whether and how artists will be allowed to work with the materials that scientists are trusted with daily inside biotech laboratories.

      Examples of materials scientists are trusted with include pencils, test tubes and calculators. A "suspect biological and chemical laboratory" could as easily describe "40+ Experiments You Can Do in Your Own Kitchen" as anything else. Look at the specifics: there is nothing in those articles to indicate that anything he was using was dangerous.

      "Even harmless bacteria can become harmful under certain, but extremely rare, circumstances, said Richard Roberts, a leading DNA researcher." This is really stretching it. The world is filled with both harmful and harmless bacteria, and sometimes the one becomes the other. What of it? It may not be the world's safest art project, to work with bacteria, but neither is using power tools (in, of course, extremely rare circumstances).

    13. Re:Eh? I'm confused! by dead+sun · · Score: 1

      I thought about that when I wrote the school bit, but there are, nonetheless, private schools which teach bio. So the statement still stands.

      --
      If not now, when?
    14. Re:Eh? I'm confused! by Qwaniton · · Score: 1
      And what's so terrifying about proposals to release mutant flies or demonstration that GM crops have vulnerabilities? Should we silence anybody that has the gall to show us that our tampering with food has the possibility to cause problems? Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with GM foods boosting yield and such, but it'd be a bit like somebody publishing a proof of concept that the internet can be destroyed if somebody had the resources to do so. We don't want potential hazards silenced so we can live in lala land and seal our own fates, do we?

      Lots. Think about what happens when this loony coward actually releases those flies. I wouldn't be surprised if we found it to be a disaster. In fact, I'd like to get far, very far away from there.

      Releasing mutant flies into the environment does not compare to GM. Not at all. Monsanto has at least a minute bit of safety and protocol in its scummery. This unqualified, unsound proposal by this moonbat non-scientist self-proclaimed "artist" is a threat.

      By the way, just because you call something "art" doesn't make it so. If some loony Birkenstock hippie shot the mayor of city council[1] and called it "art" representing the "oncoming revolution and death of the Old Power" blah blah blah, does that truly make it art? Or is it still assassination?

      [1] We all know hippies hate guns. Just follow me, okay?

    15. Re:Eh? I'm confused! by dead+sun · · Score: 1
      I'm not trying to defend it as art, I'm trying to look at this rationally. I can write a proposal to shoot the mayor of city council for artistic purposes. I own guns and I'm sure there's a distant possibility that if I wanted to plan it all out that it could actually happen, were I so determined. However, I am not going to shoot anybody, respect guns and human life, and am a nice law abiding citizen. If I were to write such a proposal I hope they'd not be trying to lock me away and rather opening a file on me and monitoring me to make sure I'm not a huge threat. I'd hope this since a proposal is a tad different than the actual act or even a conspiracy to commit such and act.

      I think people are getting way out of hand with the "It could happen" line of reasoning for trying to lock people up. Has this guy released a bunch of mutant flies? Are we in such a position that it'd be a huge disaster if he did? I mean, here we have somebody that's going out of their way to try to get this to qualify as art, big threat. Think for a second if somebody who was a little more stealthy and wanted to do some damage went about releasing mutant flies. Think there'd be warning?

      Perhaps an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, but if it's so easy for some "moonbat non-scientist self-proclaimed artist" as you put it to do such things, maybe we should be spending a few tax dollars making sure we have adequate response plans, detection of abnormalities to prevent wide spread, and proper equipment to clean up such a mess. Because somebody like this isn't a real threat, the person who you'll find out has such plans after the fact is the real threat. If this guy is so seriously spooky he can be monitored and brought up on charges when he goes to do something illegal, rather than just proposing it.

      Seriously, it'd likely be bad if such a thing were to happen, but I don't want to live in a damned police state because a few people get scared about what somebody could possibly do. Monitor the guy and nab him before he does it, but make sure he actually is going to do it before you do so.

      --
      If not now, when?
    16. Re:Eh? I'm confused! by Blastrogath · · Score: 1

      Anthrax is not very deadly because it needs to be eaten or inhaled to have much chance of harming you, and anthrax is not an airbourne pathogen. So don't eat from the petri dishes.

      Weapons grade anthrax is made airborne by grinding it into a fine powder then it's placed in a shell or bomb designed to disperse it. Used like this it's quite deadly. The delivery system is far harder to make than the anthrax.

      Regulatting anthrax this way is like regulatting raw lead instead of guns.

      --
      "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." -Plato
    17. Re:Eh? I'm confused! by Qwaniton · · Score: 1

      First of all, this self-proclaimed artist is not a law-abiding citizen.

    18. Re:Eh? I'm confused! by yanestra · · Score: 1
      Oh dear god, not E. coli! [...] a bacteria that can be found in every single functioning stomach [...]

      The same gene that would make better maize would prove to kill you if it was inserted into E. coli and planted into your body.

      You can't say E. coli is harmless per se.

    19. Re:Eh? I'm confused! by randyest · · Score: 1

      You could write a computer virus in your house and shutdown a hospital or transportation system and kill people, too.

      Networks, unlike the air within your home or the water that goes down your drain, are relatively easy to isolate from everyone else. Hospitals try to do both, but they're usually more successful isolating the networks. HCl gas leaks or Anthrax outbreaks nearby will be a lot harder to stop than incoming computer viruses or trojans.

      Can you believe there are no regulations prohibiting the unqualified or politically radical from running these home cyber-weapon factories?

      Again, the product of those "cyber-weapon factories" may only propagate via a medium which persons and organizations voluntarily connect themselves to, and that they can easily disconnect themselves from. Real, natural viruses can fly through the air and infect those with LAN's not connected to the internet and even those who don't have a computer. If you claim to be unable to see the difference I'd call you a liar because you're clearly smart enough to understand the significant distinction.

      People with no formal security training whatsoever can simply install a C compiler. Madness!

      Not on my machine, they can't, and not on the machines of (properly run and regulated) organizations upon which lives depend, such as hospitals and transportation systems. Those are regulated. See the trend yet?

      See, it turns out that you're allowed to have sex without a license, you just aren't allowed to spread AIDS.

      No, even if you don't manage to give anyone AIDS, if you knowingly subject someone to the risk of catching it by having sex with them without telling them you have it, you're still in trouble. It's like shooting at people -- even if you miss, you're in trouble. Again, this is as it should be.

      You're allowed to program a computer unlicensed, you just aren't allowed to program viruses.

      I think you can program viruses -- assuming you don't release them. Again, it's easier to control a computer virus than a real one. Computer viruses don't fly through the air or get conveyed by human contact without computers involved.

      You're even allowed to possess deadly firearms and vastly more deadly automobiles (near infinitely more deadly than all terrorism combined)--but you aren't allowed to kill people with them.

      And both are regulated and require licenses and registration. Had this guy done what we all do before we (legally) drive on public roads or own a firearm, he'd not be in trouble. Again, this is right and appropriate.

      It's not the tools that we are supposed to ban, it's the usage of these tools.

      We're not talking about banning (at least I wasn't), we're talking about regulation -- forcing people who muck with risky stuff to be adhere to some safety rules. That's not an infringement of rights, that's sane protection of public health. I support anyone's ability, even artists', to have a bio-tech lab, as long as they are as qualified and regulated as commercial labs.

      Sorry, your right to paranoia about what I'm doing in my basement ends when it means we must all live in submission to Monsanto.

      You really can't conclude that requiring bio-tech labs to adhere to regulations is equal to living in submission to Monsanto. Nice try, though.

      --
      everything in moderation
    20. Re:Eh? I'm confused! by TRACK-YOUR-POSITION · · Score: 1
      Again, the product of those "cyber-weapon factories" may only propagate via a medium which persons and organizations voluntarily connect themselves to, and that they can easily disconnect themselves from. Real, natural viruses can fly through the air and infect those with LAN's not connected to the internet and even those who don't have a computer. If you claim to be unable to see the difference I'd call you a liar because you're clearly smart enough to understand the significant distinction.

      The difference is vanishing--as the number of devices increases, as our dependence on them decreases, as their interdependence increases, they're going to get harder and harder to disconnect from each oher. So while I see a difference today, neither of us might be able to see one tomorrow.

      Not on my machine, they can't, and not on the machines of (properly run and regulated) organizations upon which lives depend, such as hospitals and transportation systems. Those are regulated. See the trend yet?

      You can practice good hygeine with your body as well. This is certainly applicable to AIDS, horrible and tragic as the disease is. You have described no trend.

      And both are regulated and require licenses and registration. Had this guy done what we all do before we (legally) drive on public roads or own a firearm, he'd not be in trouble.

      He hasn't been accused or suspect of any sort of license violation, so I'm afraid you're defending a set of laws currently existing only in your mind.

      We're not talking about banning (at least I wasn't), we're talking about regulation -- forcing people who muck with risky stuff to be adhere to some safety rules. That's not an infringement of rights, that's sane protection of public health. I support anyone's ability, even artists', to have a bio-tech lab, as long as they are as qualified and regulated as commercial labs.

      Regulation can certainly be a defacto ban--one can imagine ridiculous regulations crafted for the specific purpose of making sure large corporations and governments are the only ones capable of engaging in this research. ISO900X compliance comes to mind. And any such regulaton at all would be extremely hypocritical, given the dangerous disease-spreading practices that lots of other individuals and companies engage in all the time--ranging from not washing your hands long enough to filling all your cattle with antibiotics.

      You really can't conclude that requiring bio-tech labs to adhere to regulations is equal to living in submission to Monsanto. Nice try, though.

      I could on two counts--more generally, if the regulations were specifically crafted such that large corporations like Monsanto had a monopoly on food, well, see how long you can go without eating. More specifically, this guy had equipment for the purpose of testing whether food was genetically engineered. Making such technology illegal would certainly be submission to Monsanto--giving them absolute control of the food we eat.

  29. Stupid people deserve prison by poutine514 · · Score: 0

    Used bacteria for art? Come on now, this euro-trash thing has gone WAY too far.

    1. Re:Stupid people deserve prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the fuck are you talking about?

  30. Dear John Ashcroft and PATRIOT Act Haters by C-Diddy · · Score: 4, Informative
    Anyone reading the links in the story would quickly determine two key facts:

    (1) You would discover, in both the Wired and USA Today pieces, that Mr. Kurtz is *not* being charged under the Patriot Act. If he is charged with anything, it will be an older act related to bioterrism. He is not being charged under the Patriot Act. He is NOT being charged under the Patriot Act (did it get through?)

    (2) Mr. Kurtz hasn't been formally charged with anything. He is currently the subject of a investigation brought about by the death of his wife. This investigation may or may not result in an indictment. Take this fact into consideration before forking over $$ to this "defense fund" (for which there is a VERY convienient link).

    From the Wired story: "The subpoenas cited Section 175 of the U.S. Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, which prohibits the use of certain biological materials for anything other than a "prophylactic, protective, bona fide research, or other peaceful purpose."

    Section 817 of the PATRIOT Act is not mentioned in either linked story.

    Wow. Some people have been subpoenaed to get facts about this case. What an unheard of trampling of rights.

    Someone needs to do some fact checking before posting.

    --
    "Me fail English? That's unpossible." - Ralph
    1. Re:Dear John Ashcroft and PATRIOT Act Haters by EvanED · · Score: 4, Informative

      "You would discover, in both the Wired and USA Today pieces, that Mr. Kurtz is *not* being charged under the Patriot Act. If he is charged with anything, it will be an older act related to bioterrism. He is not being charged under the Patriot Act. He is NOT being charged under the Patriot Act (did it get through?)"

      Read posts further up the page; while he IS being charged under the 1989 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act, the specific sections of said act in question were amended by the Patriot Act. Previously, it was required that the bio agent be used as a weapon; now it is not so.

    2. Re:Dear John Ashcroft and PATRIOT Act Haters by platypibri · · Score: 1

      Y'know, I've always tried to spare Slashdot readers my self righteous ranting when I wasn't entirely sure what I was talking about. Now I see I shouldn't have bothered. If I had just pulled something outta my hole and yelled loud enough, I might have gotten modded up as informative. It apparently WAS the Patriot Act that MODIFIED the section his IS charged with.
      Also, my 2 cents... As an artist, I feel have an obligation to be on the cutting edge, and I have to expect that can confuse or offend people. I have to be ready for the consequences of that, or I should move off the cutting edge. This guy should fight this, and if the facts are as presented and interpreted, he should win. But, he should have saw it coming too.

      --
      Yeah, I guess I'm funny like that.
    3. Re:Dear John Ashcroft and PATRIOT Act Haters by C-Diddy · · Score: 1
      I'm not familiar with the details of what may or may not have been amended by the PATRIOT Act.

      But I'm fine making that stipulation: Mr. Kurtz is being investigated for potential violations of the 1989 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act, as amended by the PATRIOT Act. There.

      Perhaps you or other Slashdoter can help me: I've read the linked Wired and USA Today stories yet again. Where, in either story, is it metioned that Mr. Kurtz been formally charged with anything? The headline of the USA Today article is "Anti-terrorism agents *investigate* New York state artist." [emphasis added] The Wired article indicates that he is "on the wrong side of an *investigation*." [again, emphasis added].

      In fact, the headline of the original thread post is inacurrate. Mr. Kurtz has not yet been charged with anything.

      --
      "Me fail English? That's unpossible." - Ralph
    4. Re:Dear John Ashcroft and PATRIOT Act Haters by C-Diddy · · Score: 1

      He isn't charged with anything yet. Certain individuals (who are artists) are being subpoenaed in connection with activities that may be in violation of federal law. A Grand Jury will determine if an indictment is in order.

      --
      "Me fail English? That's unpossible." - Ralph
    5. Re:Dear John Ashcroft and PATRIOT Act Haters by EvanED · · Score: 1

      That I'll give you, and I was wrong with my statement. I should have said "while he IS being investigated for" instead "while he IS being charged with."

    6. Re:Dear John Ashcroft and PATRIOT Act Haters by C-Diddy · · Score: 1

      You're a good man, and I appreciate your reply. :-)

      --
      "Me fail English? That's unpossible." - Ralph
    7. Re:Dear John Ashcroft and PATRIOT Act Haters by platypibri · · Score: 1
      Our legal system is quite complex.
      From Nolo:Law For All To be "charged" with a crime means to be formally accused of that crime. Police officers usually start the charging process with an arrest or citation. They then send copies of their reports to a prosecutor's office staffed by government lawyers whose job it is to initiate and prosecute criminal cases. The prosecutor is supposed to either:

      * make an independent decision as to what charges should be filed, or

      * in felony cases, enlist the help of citizens serving as grand jurors in deciding what charges to file. Prosecutors can look at all the circumstances of a case, including the suspect's past criminal record. They can file charges on all crimes for which the police arrested a suspect, can file charges that are more or less severe than the charges leveled by the police, or can decide to not file any charges at all.

      He is in the process of being charged. Is that better for you? And the Patriot Act is involved.

      --
      Yeah, I guess I'm funny like that.
    8. Re:Dear John Ashcroft and PATRIOT Act Haters by C-Diddy · · Score: 1
      If it makes you feel better, than I feel better.

      But the Slashdot headline for this thread proclaims that Mr. Kurtz has been charged, when in fact he has not (as you have confirm with your eloquent reply).

      I personally think the "unexplained" death of his wife has more to do with this than whatever "statement" he was trying to make with his "art." The FBI and other agencies will routinely use violations of other federal statutes to get someone on a murder rap. This is all speculation on my part (which I'm happy to admit), but I think this might explain the situation more adequately than the hysterical need, by some Slashdoters, to blame everything wrong in the world on John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act.

      Let's see if an indictment is actually handed down by the Grand Jury. Federal Grand Juries usually won't unless the prosecutor makes a pretty damn convincing case.

      --
      "Me fail English? That's unpossible." - Ralph
    9. Re:Dear John Ashcroft and PATRIOT Act Haters by platypibri · · Score: 1
      "the hysterical need, by some Slashdoters, to blame everything wrong in the world on John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act."

      I certainly agree the river FUD runs both ways on Slashdot. never the less, I think the Patriot Act is a dangerous piece of legislation, if only for the precedent it sets.

      --
      Yeah, I guess I'm funny like that.
    10. Re:Dear John Ashcroft and PATRIOT Act Haters by EvanED · · Score: 1

      I see too often people arguing online after they have clearly lost but still refuse to admit they were wrong, so I try to avoid that...

    11. Re:Dear John Ashcroft and PATRIOT Act Haters by nwbvt · · Score: 1
      Considering what his 'art' advocated, it wouldn't be hard to convince a judge that his little lab could be intended to be used as a weapon. Thus the PATRIOT Act's amendment doesn't really matter.

      And without question, he would have been at least investigated (which is all that has happened so far) under the old act.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    12. Re:Dear John Ashcroft and PATRIOT Act Haters by C-Diddy · · Score: 1

      Agreed. What bothers me most about this thread is that it was an obvious attempt to try and slam the Attorney General and the Patriot act. The actual issues invoved in the case were widely ignored by many of the folks who responded to the original post.

      --
      "Me fail English? That's unpossible." - Ralph
  31. Re:threatening someone is a crime by stephentyrone · · Score: 1

    did you actually read the article? there are no "fake bioterror weapons".

  32. Get used to it... by psykocrime · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Shit like this is only going to continue to happen more and more often...

    I've said it before, and I'll say it again(I wasn't first to say this, mind you)...

    if you want an unlimited source of free energy, just attach a turbine to George Orwell's body

    Orwell's vision is coming true, little by little by little... and if the American people don't stand up and do something about it, pretty soon it will be too late (if it's not already).

    There's an election coming up folks... think long and hard about whether the people you're voting for are FOR or AGAINST this kind of shit. My suspicion is that any major party candidate is FOR this shit, personally.

    --
    // TODO: Insert Cool Sig
    1. Re:Get used to it... by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      How about a better idea--you actually RTFA and realize that once again, you and your ilk are overreacting because you don't know the facts.

    2. Re:Get used to it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no non-major party can possibly win an election ever.

    3. Re:Get used to it... by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 2, Informative

      Orwell's vision is coming true, little by little by little...

      George Orwell's vision had come true, in the big noisy clunky physical world, before he even wrote the book '1984.'

      It was about Stalinism. I know that most of us had 'new left' influenced teachers in High School, where we were forced to study '1984,' and thus nobody mentioned the 'dirty russkies' (without heavy footnotes to 'McCarthyism, etc'), but the truth stands. Orwell was a disgruntled 'fellow traveller' of the Communists, and the world he described in '1984' was already in existence when he wrote the book.

      It's almost a 'Soylent Green Is People' thing to have to bring stuff like this up, because everybody is so afraid to acknowlege what went on in Russia.

      --
      resigned
    4. Re:Get used to it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reading articles doesn't get you karma.

    5. Re:Get used to it... by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 1

      And with an atitude like that, you'd never figure out why.

    6. Re:Get used to it... by psykocrime · · Score: 1

      How about a better idea--you actually RTFA and realize that once again, you and your ilk are overreacting because you don't know the facts.

      How about this.. I *did* read the article.. and unlike you, I appear to be capable of reading between the lines, seeing the connections between this event **and others like it** and seeing the "big picture" of what's going on around me.

      This country is descending away from the principles of freedom, liberty, and democracy it was based on, and I don't like it. What's next, are we going to say that anytime the police have to come to your house for any reason, if they see a chemistry set, some hobby electronics gear, or a few books on nuclear physics, that the government should launch an "investigation?"

      It's easy to sit back and say "Well, if they didn't investigate the guy, and he did turn out to be a terrorist, blah, blah..." But the flipside is, once the citizens of this nation get adjusted to that mindset, and begin to accept those types of intrusions of their civil liberties, it will be too late to go back. (Maybe it already is).

      Sorry if you disagree, but as far as I'm concerned, the old "Live Free or Die" saying is NOT just a historical legacy... it's a very real principle that, IMO, represents the most fundamental nature or fabric of what the U.S. is all about.

      --
      // TODO: Insert Cool Sig
    7. Re:Get used to it... by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      Does "reading between the lines" mean conspiracy nut by any chance? :-p What you call "reading between the lines" I and others call a lack of historical knowledge and rampant paranoia.

      this guy is associated iwth groups that advocate radical activities. His wife was found dead under very suspicious circumstances. He had very suspicious things in his house. This isn't an electrical hobby kit, or an elementary school chem lab--again, your paranoia is getting the best of you. The govt would have been negligent NOT to investigate him. Not to mention, all your exagerrating is about a couple of sub poenas--no court charges, no imprisonment, no nothing..

      Even if you take a hardcore libertarian stance, one can make a very compelling argument that Kurtz's activities should not have allowed--in some libertarian thought (and I refer not the big L libertarian party, of which while I am a member, I believe to be full of crackpots, but to little l libertarians) the argument is made that some things are so ultimately dangerous, they pose such a threat to others, that they should nto be allowed. Now you say, that sounds horrible---but look at it this way. I don't think any libertarian of any ilk would say gun control is a good thing. But what about nuclear weapons--should anyone be allowed to have nuclear weapons? One guy could kill millions just like that. A lot of libertarians would say no--nukes should not be allowed. Likewise, things like biolabs in a house are extremely hazardous, for reasons I'd be happy to elaborate in a reply. Possibly even by libertarian standards, those activities should be limited -- the argument could even be made if you don't buy that, that in this case his wife is dead, possibly because of something he did--a full investigation should be done.

      I was a student at Duke Univ. where there was a big debate over liberal bias. There was a panel discussion (I'd be glad to provide the link if you like--it was very entertaining) and one of the panel members, a democrat and liberal and a law professor, in response to a a grad student who went off about McCarthyism et all, and how terrible stuff was today, he said (and I'll paraphrase, again, I'll send you a video link, and a time, it's really interesting) that people talking about mccarthyism, and how bad stuff is today, lack any understanding of how things are, how things were, and are subject to paranoia. he then went on to say "I've been on the national board of the ACLU on and off for decades...this is simply not the armageddon of intellectualism in the US...and it really takes a fevered mind to conjure that kind of dread"

      And that is my problem you and your ilk--you so strongly overreact to what is an incredibly minor problem at WORST, or (and in this case, imho) a 100% desirable action, that when something really bad does come about, you're like the boy who called wolf--no one cares anymore, and you've given everyone else who cares about such things a bad name,

    8. Re:Get used to it... by fishbowl · · Score: 1


      "Everybody is so afraid to acknowlege what went on in Russia."

      To be fair to them, few had any real opportunity to learn about Russia. Information was actively suppressed in the US. You really had to be motivated to find anything at all, past the surface.

      Even in the Soviet Union, people didn't know their own history. They are just now discovering some of it.

      So everybody read 1984. How many read "We" by Zamyatin? How many read "A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich?" How many Americans *really* understand what a complete bastard Stalin was? Or have any idea how many people just plain died under the Soviet plan? Most of them cannot even imagine farmers literally starving to death. (Again, to be fair to them, most Americans really don't know what it is that farmers *do*).

      "Have you heard the news? Someone killed the Tsar!"

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    9. Re:Get used to it... by fishbowl · · Score: 1


      "no non-major party can possibly win an election ever."

      Of course not -- a party that gets enough support, by definition, becomes "major."

      I don't know how your assumption jibes with the Libertarians who've been elected to various state and local offices though.

      There was a time that your argument was used to dismiss the Republican party -- the Whigs and the Democrats were the order of the day, and the upstart Republicans (ironically with their policies of appeasement and seeking peaceful resolutions to the questions of 1850!) were considered by many to be a complete joke.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    10. Re:Get used to it... by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >But the flipside is, once the citizens of this
      >nation get adjusted to that mindset, and begin to
      >accept those types of intrusions of their civil
      >liberties, it will be too late to go back.

      Once they presume you are a revolutionary and accuse of you being one and threaten to treat you accordingly, you might as well become one. You don't have anything to lose at that point. What's stopping this country from revolution is that the people still have much to lose. They are largely very comfortable, hopeful, and generally satisfied with the status quo, at least in the big picture.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    11. Re:Get used to it... by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 1

      Information was actively suppressed in the US. You really had to be motivated to find anything at all, past the surface.

      Actually, what happened during the Cold War era was that information about Russia was 'polarized.' There were people who went out of their way to contradict anti-Communists with 'workers paradise' propaganda, and there were extreme rightists who presented the truth about the Gulags and Stalin, but who were so extreme-right in every way that they lost all appearances of being objective.

      The truth has been coming out in the last decade, however. There is a lot of bloody history being revealed. While 'Orwellian' tendencies have always existed in the West, an almost complete real version of Orwell's vision happened in real time in the USSR.

      Sad thing to say is that similar 'labor camps' to the ones of Stalinist Russia exist to this day, and the output of said camps is sold in WalMart, Target, etc. Granted, the authoritarians running the camps today are south and east of Russia, in China.

      --
      resigned
    12. Re:Get used to it... by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      if you want an unlimited source of free energy, just attach a turbine to George Orwell's body

      Wouldn't it be better to attach a generator?

      --
      What?
    13. Re:Get used to it... by psykocrime · · Score: 1

      And that is my problem you and your ilk--you so strongly overreact to what is an incredibly minor problem at WORST, or (and in this case, imho) a 100% desirable action, that when something really bad does come about, you're like the boy who called wolf--no one cares anymore, and you've given everyone else who cares about such things a bad name,


      Well, I can respect your position, despite the fact that I disagree. For what you see as "crying wolf", I see as "not waiting until it's too late."

      And if I err on the side of extremism, I feel that I'm only helping to offset somebody who takes a completely opposite, but equally extreme, position.

      --
      // TODO: Insert Cool Sig
    14. Re:Get used to it... by psykocrime · · Score: 1

      this guy is associated iwth groups that advocate radical activities. His wife was found dead under very suspicious circumstances. He had very suspicious things in his house.

      Ok, 3 things:

      1. what radical activities do the groups he's associated with promote, exactly? Neither linked article mentions anything but writing papers and making art. Nothing I could find on the website of the Critical Art Ensemble suggests that they promote any "radical activities."

      2. what was so suspicious about his wife's death? The article(s) clearly say the coroner found nothing unusual about her death and ruled it as "natural causes." Neither article I read added anything to suggest that her death was anything out of the ordinary.

      3. what was so suspicious about the materials found in his home? The only lab equipment specifically named (in the Wired article) were Petri dishes... Oooh, boy, those evil, scary Petri dishes... can't allow ordinary folks access to those, can we?

      --
      // TODO: Insert Cool Sig
    15. Re:Get used to it... by psykocrime · · Score: 1

      Now you say, that sounds horrible---but look at it this way. I don't think any libertarian of any ilk would say gun control is a good thing. But what about nuclear weapons--should anyone be allowed to have nuclear weapons? One guy could kill millions just like that. A lot of libertarians would say no--nukes should not be allowed.


      I agree. I see no compelling reason for private citizens to own nuclear weapons, although I do believe that in general, citizens should be allowed to own "military class" weaponry.


      Likewise, things like biolabs in a house are extremely hazardous, for reasons I'd be happy to elaborate in a reply.


      No need, I can fully appreciate why a bio-lab *could* be dangerous. However, my point is that not all "home laboratories" are dangerous, and there is a danger in allowing the government too much power to declare someone dangerous because they happen to be an amateur scientist or enjoy hobby electronics. In this case, again, the articles make it clear that the materials found in his home were determined to be essentially harmless. To quote:

      The bacteria included E. coli, bacillus globigii and serratia, all of which da Costa described as "completely harmless" and commonly used in research.

      Keep in mind, I'm operating from the point of view that all governments eventually descend into repressive, totalitarian regimes (if they do not fall first, for some other reason), and that we, as citizens, must constantly work to keep our government from exercising more control over the affairs of private citizens.

      In this case, it appears that the government is overstepping it's bounds. There appears to be no reason to believe that any crime was committed, that anybody was murdered, or that this guy was brewing up biological weapons in his secret bio-terror lab.

      --
      // TODO: Insert Cool Sig
  33. Mod Parent Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As other posters point out, he didn't RTFA and just got modded up for FPing with proper grammer.

    1. Re:Mod Parent Down by XryanX · · Score: 1

      "proper grammer."

      Irony?

    2. Re:Mod Parent Down by lancomandr · · Score: 1

      Perhaps "spelling" was the word you were looking for.

      --

      "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

  34. Reality check time by jmorris42 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    As others have alreadt pointed out, the police got suspecious when they were in his house investigating a death. So they had every reason in the world to be there, and since the spouse is always the first suspect, he had to get investigated until they were SURE the death was from natural causes. They were doing their job, by the book.

    Next we get this paragraph in the story:

    "Kurtz created a display of small soy, corn and canola plants growing under large incubating lamps. The exhibit said some of the plants had been treated with a compound that made them vulnerable to herbicide. A nearby computer screen explained that, if successful, the compound would be the newest weapon in the war on advanced agricultural technology."

    Sounds like typical "Earth First!" ecoterrorism brewing to me. Combine this with a peek at this asshat's website and a mention of "critical theory" on the toplevel, which anyone who follows politics knows is code for "Marxist" in much the same way that "liberal" has been replaced with "progressive" in modern usage as the old terms become associated with failed policies, ruined economies and mass graves. So is this guy a terrorist? Perhaps not himself.... yet. Does he consort with them? Probably. Does he support their aims? By his own admission, an unqualified yes.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
    1. Re:Reality check time by dekeji · · Score: 1

      which anyone who follows politics knows is code for "Marxist" in much the same way that "liberal" has been replaced with "progressive" in modern usage as the old terms become associated with failed policies, ruined economies and mass graves.

      Or, for that matter, the way in which "fascist" has been replaced with "conservative values" or the way "anarchist" and "social Darwinism" have become replaced with "libertarian" in modern usage as the old terms become associated with failed policies, ruined economies and mass graves.

      You see, all parts of the political spectrum have been responsible for holocausts, mass murder, human rights violations, and other atrocities.

      Seems to me like you and this guy are cut from the same cloth.

    2. Re:Reality check time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Combine this with a peek at this asshat's website and a mention of "critical theory" on the toplevel, which anyone who follows politics knows is code for "Marxist" in much the same way that "liberal" has been replaced with "progressive" in modern usage as the old terms become associated with failed policies, ruined economies and mass graves.

      You know, conservatism wasn't always like this. I mean, even the loony rants coming from far right seccessionist militia movements pre-Oklahoma City made more sense than you are right now. Conservatives used to be a mixture of libertarians and "if it ain't broke don't fix it" traditionalists. Conservatives used to brag that they should be called "classical liberals." Conservatives shared the Enlightenment goals of ever increasing knowledge, freedom, and prosperity for the masses that Liberals claimed to profess, but they mixed it with a healthy dose of skepticism that any Big Idea can successfully solve all humanities problems. Conservatives were essentially the first Postmodernists.

      I used to be proud to call myself a conservative..

      Now look at this shit. Skepticism was once the defining feature of conservatism (even if this skepticism manifested itself as populist distrust of academia--which is what "critical theory" is really all about, btw--academia's distrust of academia.) But it seems like ever since Bushcroft has rolled into the Washington, the Blind Obedience faction has managed to completely overwhelm the Republican Party, with anyone still retaining conservative, libertarian, or even traditionalist ideas slowly but surely realizing that they have more in common with their former opponents than they did with the opposition. Better to have liberals and progressives than cronyists, nepotists, and facists. So liberals are associated with mass graves, huh? Where is fucking Thomas Jefferson's mass grave?

      So anyone entertaining skepticism of the Patriot Act or Monsanto is just a Marxist in disguise? You know, I know I'm just wasting my time replying to this crap. It doesn't even upset me so much that your faction of enforced ignorance is the unwitting dupe of some very scary corporate executives and government bureaucrats, working actively to make this world an uglier but more controlled place--because control and power are the only beauty they see in the world.

      What pisses me the fuck off here, what really drives the rage with which I've been posting lately, is that you folks have co-opted a political movement and philosophy that was once associated with patience, humility, and honor, constructed a bizarre mythology of code words in which anyone who disagrees with you is a Stalinist, that has wrapped a lust for power and wealth in the American flag.

    3. Re:Reality check time by AoT · · Score: 1

      Hey, I still call myself an anarchist and let me tell you, we have no part in holocausts or all that other bad stuff. Of course anarchists have only had power, so to speak, for like a year and a half during the spanish civil war.

      check out Orwell's "homage to catolonia" for a good book about it.

    4. Re:Reality check time by rhinoX · · Score: 1
      Combine this with a peek at this asshat's website and a mention of "critical theory" on the toplevel, which anyone who follows politics knows is code for "Marxist" in much the same way that "liberal" has been replaced with "progressive" in modern usage as the old terms become associated with failed policies, ruined economies and mass graves.
      You know, conservatism wasn't always like this. I mean, even the loony rants coming from far right seccessionist militia movements pre-Oklahoma City made more sense than you are right now. Conservatives used to be a mixture of libertarians and "if it ain't broke don't fix it" traditionalists. Conservatives used to brag that they should be called "classical liberals." Conservatives shared the Enlightenment goals of ever increasing knowledge, freedom, and prosperity for the masses that Liberals claimed to profess, but they mixed it with a healthy dose of skepticism that any Big Idea can successfully solve all humanities problems. Conservatives were essentially the first Postmodernists.

      I used to be proud to call myself a conservative..

      Now look at this shit. Skepticism was once the defining feature of conservatism (even if this skepticism manifested itself as populist distrust of academia--which is what "critical theory" is really all about, btw--academia's distrust of academia.) But it seems like ever since Bushcroft has rolled into the Washington, the Blind Obedience faction has managed to completely overwhelm the Republican Party, with anyone still retaining conservative, libertarian, or even traditionalist ideas slowly but surely realizing that they have more in common with their former opponents than they did with the opposition. Better to have liberals and progressives than cronyists, nepotists, and facists. So liberals are associated with mass graves, huh? Where is fucking Thomas Jefferson's mass grave?

      So anyone entertaining skepticism of the Patriot Act or Monsanto is just a Marxist in disguise? You know, I know I'm just wasting my time replying to this crap. It doesn't even upset me so much that your faction of enforced ignorance is the unwitting dupe of some very scary corporate executives and government bureaucrats, working actively to make this world an uglier but more controlled place--because control and power are the only beauty they see in the world.

      What pisses me the fuck off here, what really drives the rage with which I've been posting lately, is that you folks have co-opted a political movement and philosophy that was once associated with patience, humility, and honor, constructed a bizarre mythology of code words in which anyone who disagrees with you is a Stalinist, that has wrapped a lust for power and wealth in the American flag.



      Unfairly moderated down!
      --
      The copper bosses killed you, Joe. 'I never died', said he.
    5. Re:Reality check time by jmorris42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > What pisses me the fuck off here, what really drives the rage with
      > which I've been posting lately, is that you folks have co-opted a
      > political movement and philosophy that was once associated with
      > patience, humility, and honor, constructed a bizarre mythology of code
      > words in which anyone who disagrees with you is a Stalinist, that has
      > wrapped a lust for power and wealth in the American flag.

      Sigh. Guess you don't get out much.... or even watch TV. Socialists have a long history of wearing out one label and 'reinventing' themselves under a new one. Back around the turn of the 20'th Century 'Socialist' was a perfectly respectable political label. But as it actually went into practice and rapidly descended into the horrors of Stalinism in Russia and then National Socialism in Germany it fell out of favor for reasons which should be obvious to all. (If it isn't obvious to you, get off slashdot and pick up a history book!)

      Thus the modern 'Liberal' was born. Swiping the name made respectable by the Classical Liberals of the 18 and 19th Century was a genius stroke of marketing. But by the 1970s and 1980s it had become obvious that people had caught on to the fact that the modern "Liberals" where the same old income redistributionists and group rights race baiters under a new name and if an opponent hurled the label "Liberal" and made it stick a pol was toast.

      The Democratic party didn't start to face that reality for another decade when the "New Democrats" were born and Bill Clinton ascended to the White House. Then promptly set out to govern as caricitures of Liberalism, leading the voters to respond by creating Speaker Gingrich and Pres. Clinton stuffing a sock in Hillary's mouth and tacking towards the center a bit. But the "New Democrats" had an element in their movement who actually wanted to change the soap, not just design a new box with "New & Improved" on the label.

      We now know which side won that battle for the Democratic Party. So now we have the Howard "I have a scream" Dean phenom and the "Progressive" movement, which is the same Socalists/Liberal ideas fired by anger now that the Democrats are nominally out of power for the first time in recent memory. Disagree with my assessment? Well then name some major policy differences between the three labels?

      I'm not yanking code words out of my ass and seeing Commies under every rug, I'm reading their fucking webpages you silly twit. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to read a few of the fringe nutjob's webpages to confirm for yourself that 'critical theory' prattle almost always appears on pages by obvious crackpot Marxists. After all, they needed a new name for Marxism since even the Russians don't want anything to do with it anymore.

      Which brings us to this specific asshat. He is making very public statements threatening to release chemicals to DESTROY CROPS! Should we really wait until he actually does it? Or knowing the gutless nature of most academic green terrorists, gets one of his young and stupid students to do it for him.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
  35. Some clarification by ignatus · · Score: 1

    I will try to give a clear view on the situation here, because not everyone is getting the full picture here.
    This is a sensibilisation project around genetically modified food. They try to inform the public about the misjudgements and myths of gentechnology.
    To express the commodoty of genetically modified food, you can bring some food you bought and let it be analysed in a mobile lab. The only thing they do there is perform some dna-test. It has little to do about hasardous materials. The charges are mainly related to some equipment used to extract dna. You can't do anything harmfull with them

    --
    - Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
    1. Re:Some clarification by randyest · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Thanks for the clarification. I hope you can also help clarify how E. coli, Serratia and Bacillus globigii are "mainly related to some equipment used to extract dna."

      Oh, and while you're at it, please reconcile:

      You can't do anything harmfull with [E. coli, Serratia and Bacillus globigii]

      . . . with:

      Even harmless bacteria can become harmful under certain, but extremely rare, circumstances, said Richard Roberts, a leading DNA researcher.

      --
      everything in moderation
    2. Re:Some clarification by AoT · · Score: 1

      Those are commonly occuring bacteria, they are everywhere.

      This makes me think of the rants against dihydrogen monoxide.

      How does a kit to extract, and only extract, DNA somehow magically make a bioterror lab?

      It doesn't. Its like saying people with spectography equipment can make explosives because they will know elemental composition. The "them" he was refering to was the equipment used to test whether food is GE or not.

    3. Re:Some clarification by ignatus · · Score: 1
      Allright wiseguy,

      This is an simple dna-extraction example, in which the dna of a coli bacteria is extracted: DNA Extraction
      I tried the test myself in college, and it wasn't any harmfull.

      For your information, E. coli is a bactery which lives inside your intestines and are even necessary for us to remain healthy. However, there are some variants of this bacteria that are indeed very harful (E. coli O157:H7) but there is not a single article who reports that the bacteria in this case were deed the harmfull ones. read more

      Your quote of the leading DNA researcher is indeed correct, given the fact that bactery can mutulate themselve very quickly, and become dangerous. We experience that in our everyday lives because this is the cause of rotten food. The professor had bacteria in a jar that you could as easely obtain by scraping in from your thongue. To me, that's no quite a basis for terorrism

      It got the impresison that this news is jet another FUD to keep people under the constant pressure of the "biological threat".

      --
      - Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
    4. Re:Some clarification by randyest · · Score: 1

      However, there are some variants of this bacteria that are indeed very harful (E. coli O157:H7) but there is not a single article who reports that the bacteria in this case were deed the harmfull ones.

      Some are harmful indeed -- quite an understatemennt. Kinda like saying some people got sick from the plague. Anyway, this high potential for massive and widespread harm is why places where (qualified and/or supervised) people muck about with them (in accordance with safety protocols) are registered and subject to regulation and inspection.

      Such as your college probably was. But not this guy's basement -- the guy who advocates bio-terrorism as a statement about the dangers of GM foods -- he was doing it his way. But it was safe, he assures us, despite utter lack of qualification or training to say anything with certainty about the safety of his "art."

      More pessimistically stated: If I miss when I shoot at you, do you carry on as normal since it's only the bullets that hit you that are of concern?

      --
      everything in moderation
  36. I'd investigate him! Geeze!! This is good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As other readers have pointed out, he isn't charged with the patriot act, but with a 1989 law. Also, reading the facts pointed out in the article and his wife's mysterious demise, I'd have to say, I am sure glad I live in a country were someone would investigate this!!!??!!! Geeze. A few snips below. Also, by the way, isn't this the area where someone was suspected might be behind the anthrax killings?

    ----- ...
    The CAE presents its performance arts pieces as satire. But the group's electronic books, with introductions featuring quotes from the likes of Malcolm X ("By any means necessary," is one of the quotes), may have the federal government suspecting that artists connected to the ensemble harbor sinister motives. ...
    One of the ensemble's e-books advocates releasing mutant organisms into the environment to disrupt the work of biotech firms. Another proposes secretly releasing mutated flies into restaurants. ...
    The CAE says this tactic, which it calls "fuzzy biological sabotage," would encourage "those who never would join a movement (to) become unknowing cohorts or willing allies" in the struggle against the biotech industry.

  37. Re:threatening someone is a crime by jaxdahl · · Score: 1

    Except you are using the toy gun to make threats to coerce money from the other person for your own purposes.

  38. Professor's response by Rassleholic · · Score: 1

    What!? Today it's the mad scientists, tomorrow it'll be the mad grad students. When will it end?

    --
    Not noteable, IMO a rubbish article.
    1. Re:Professor's response by black+mariah · · Score: 1

      I always keep my genetically engineered anthrax around for duck hunting.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    2. Re:Professor's response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " What!? Today it's the mad scientists, tomorrow it'll be the mad grad students. When will it end?"

      When nobody but ignorant 5th graders are left. We're talking Ashcroft; AG; lost his last election to a dead guy. The goals of Dubya and Ashcroft are obvious. Contribute, support the Bush oil aims or you're fscked.

      There are no uncomitted votes in Bush-Heaven.

  39. Excerpt of Text from Cookbook by Ieshan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I typed "Anarchist's Cookbook" in Google.

    I clicked a chapter. This is what I found:


    Unstable Explosives by the Jolly Roger

    Mix solid Nitric Iodine with househould ammonia. Wait overnight and then pour off the liquid. You will be left with a muddy substance. Let this dry till it hardens. Now throw it at something!!!!


    Read the last sentence. What was your point, exactly?

    1. Re:Excerpt of Text from Cookbook by Soporific · · Score: 2, Informative

      Isn't that Nitrogen Triodide (sp?). I remember making something like that and as soon as it dried it exploded. Sound waves would set it off if I remember correctly and this is the same substance. A little went a long way too.

      ~S

    2. Re:Excerpt of Text from Cookbook by randyest · · Score: 1

      "something" is not as specific as "local restaurant" or "GM research building" and therefore conveniently includes legal things to blow up, such as big stumps on your property far from buildings or people.

      Nice try though.

      --
      everything in moderation
    3. Re:Excerpt of Text from Cookbook by Ieshan · · Score: 1

      From the same website.

      http://isuisse.ifrance.com/emmaf/anarcook/opfuqu p. htm

      Check that one out.

    4. Re:Excerpt of Text from Cookbook by randyest · · Score: 1

      Also from the same website (the same page, in fact):

      The creator of this page and any links it may lead to hereby takes no responsability or liability for anything that happens as a result of reading anything on this page or anything contained in subsequent pages. Users read at their own risk. It is NOT reccomended that the user do anything described in this and subsequent pages. Doing so may result in serious trouble, arrest, injury, and possibly deportation or death. Thank you.

      Bzzt. Next.

      --
      everything in moderation
    5. Re:Excerpt of Text from Cookbook by Ieshan · · Score: 1

      That's posted by the author of the webpage, not the text.

    6. Re:Excerpt of Text from Cookbook by randyest · · Score: 1

      It's in the printed version of the text too. In my copy and every other one I've seen.

      --
      everything in moderation
  40. How so??? by DrugCheese · · Score: 2, Funny

    Our justice department, using its overwhelming powers granted in the aptly named PATRIOT ACT, cannot make mistakes!! If the government says this man is a terrorist, then he is!

    Question them, you're on the list next...

    Love thy country, fear they government.

    --
    *DrugCheese rants*
  41. The legacy of the Bush Administration by mabu · · Score: 1, Informative

    Don't mean to repeat myself, but the critical importance of this IMO necessitates this...

    Al Gore's speech last week touched on some of the issues here and I think he expressed them poignantly. Everyone should see this speech. video [c-span.org] or audio [rbn.com].

    "President Bush is claiming the unilateral right to do that to any American citizen he believes is an "enemy combatant." Those are the magic words. If the President alone decides that those two words accurately describe someone, then that person can be immediately locked up and held incommunicado for as long as the President wants, with no court having the right to determine whether the facts actually justify his imprisonment.

    Now if the President makes a mistake, or is given faulty information by somebody working for him, and locks up the wrong person, then it's almost impossible for that person to prove his innocence - because he can't talk to a lawyer or his family or anyone else and he doesn't even have the right to know what specific crime he is accused of committing. So a constitutional right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness that we used to think of in an old-fashioned way as "inalienable" can now be instantly stripped from any American by the President with no meaningful review by any other branch of government.

    How do we feel about that? Is that OK?

    Here's another recent change in our civil liberties: Now, if it wants to, the federal government has the right to monitor every website you go to on the internet, keep a list of everyone you send email to or receive email from and everyone who you call on the telephone or who calls you - and they don't even have to show probable cause that you've done anything wrong. Nor do they ever have to report to any court on what they're doing with the information. Moreover, there are precious few safeguards to keep them from reading the content of all your email.

    Everybody fine with that?

    If so, what about this next change?

    For America's first 212 years, it used to be that if the police wanted to search your house, they had to be able to convince an independent judge to give them a search warrant and then (with rare exceptions) they had to go bang on your door and yell, "Open up!" Then, if you didn't quickly open up, they could knock the door down. Also, if they seized anything, they had to leave a list explaining what they had taken. That way, if it was all a terrible mistake (as it sometimes is) you could go and get your stuff back.

    But that's all changed now. Starting two years ago, federal agents were given broad new statutory authority by the Patriot Act to "sneak and peak" in non-terrorism cases. They can secretly enter your home with no warning - whether you are there or not - and they can wait for months before telling you they were there. And it doesn't have to have any relationship to terrorism whatsoever. It applies to any garden-variety crime. And the new law makes it very easy to get around the need for a traditional warrant - simply by saying that searching your house might have some connection (even a remote one) to the investigation of some agent of a foreign power. Then they can go to another court, a secret court, that more or less has to give them a warrant whenever they ask.

    Three weeks ago, in a speech at FBI Headquarters, President Bush went even further and formally proposed that the Attorney General be allowed to authorize subpoenas by administrative order, without the need for a warrant from any court.

    What about the right to consult a lawyer if you're arrested? Is that important?

    Attorney General Ashcroft has issued regulations authorizing the secret monitoring of attorney-client conversations on his say-so alone; bypassing procedures for obtaining prior judicial review for such monitoring in the rare instances when it was permitted in the past. Now, whoever is in custody has to assume that the government is always listening to consultations between them and their lawyers.

    Does

    1. Re:The legacy of the Bush Administration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. Why in the hell couldn't Gore have been that eloquent in the months leading up to the November, 2000 election?

    2. Re:The legacy of the Bush Administration by nberardi · · Score: 1

      What gore conviently left out is that the patriot act still requires a warrent signed by a judge, if you don't beleive me go read the act.

    3. Re:The legacy of the Bush Administration by finkployd · · Score: 1

      Strong words from one of the most powerful supporters of the Clipper Chip (and the second part of that plan which was to outlaw all non-clipper forms of encryption). Imagine how much worse this situation would be if he had his way in '94

      Not that I support Bush and his nightmare of a justice department in their war on the constitution (far from it), but Gore isn't exactly Mr Civil Liberties.

      Finkployd

    4. Re:The legacy of the Bush Administration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For now.

    5. Re:The legacy of the Bush Administration by wibs · · Score: 4, Informative

      The relative term "last week" used by parent is misleading. The speech was actually delivered November 9, 2003, and the full version (longer than the excerpt posted by parent) can be read here.

      --
      If you get nervous, just remember that there are a few billion other people who don't really give a damn.
    6. Re:The legacy of the Bush Administration by Triv · · Score: 1
      What gore conviently left out is that the patriot act still requires a warrent signed by a judge, if you don't beleive me go read the act.

      Ever heard of the FISA court? No? Why does that not surprise me?

      FISA stand for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a secret court presided over by secret judges taken from district courts around the country. They're authorized to, among other things, allow domestic wiretapping of people suspected of being agents of foreign powers. At least, that was the way the court was originally set up. The PATRIOT Act expanded those powers to allow the wiretapping of anybody, ever, provided the judges agrees.

      "So...what? There's still a judicial measure in place to keep things from getting out of hand, right?" Wrong. You know how many warrants the FISA court has rejected since Nixon formed it in the 70's? ONE, and that one was overturned on appeal.

      It's a threat, man. Without proper judicial review everything falls apart, and this court has been operating in anonymity for 30 years.

      Just...be careful where you put your faith. Judges aren't the be-all and end all of this.

      Triv

    7. Re:The legacy of the Bush Administration by GSloop · · Score: 1

      Pen and Trace warrents don't.
      Email recipients (email pen and trace) and website (url) destinations don't.

      I could list many more. Further, the requirements for getting a warrant have also been lowered, so the Judge has less reason NOT to grant the warrant.

      Finally, law enforcement always knows which judges are friendly to their cause. They make sure as possible to get in front of those judges.

      So, the only protections you have are those provided in the law. In otherwords, the language law that allows a search warrant is about the only thing that that protects you. When the language is dramatically weakened in terms of the "probable cause" to give one, your rights are dramatically weakened too. Don't expect the judge to protect you, expect the law to require it. If it doesn't, you're screwed.

      Cheers,
      Greg

    8. Re:The legacy of the Bush Administration by Vengeance · · Score: 1, Troll

      I think that just goes to show how egregious the rights violations committed by the Bush administration really are. If a man like Mr. Tipper Gore can get all huffy and upset about how invasive the government is becoming, it is perhaps already too late for the rest of us.

      --
      It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
    9. Re:The legacy of the Bush Administration by some+guy+I+know · · Score: 1
      Why in the hell couldn't Gore have been that eloquent in the months leading up to the November, 2000 election?
      Duh, maybe because at that time Bush hadn't done, and wasn't advocating, the things that he eventually did once he became president?
      If Gore had made these statements prior to the election, Bush would have denied that those actions were in his agenda, and Gore would have come off looking even more foolish than he did.
      It's important to understand that campaign promises mean nothing, and that Democratic and Republican presidents will do nearly identical things when in office.
      Does anybody really think that Gore would have acted much differently than Bush did?

      Yes, yes, there are small things on the fringes, like stem-cell research, where Gore may have acted differently, but both sides work hard at suppressing more and more American (and other) citizens' freedoms.
      Don't forget that Congress, which overwhemingly passed USAPATRIOT and other unpatriotic legislation, is nearly half Democratic.

      There is little real difference between the Republican and Democratic parties.
      This is something that voters can't seem to get through their heads.

      My advice: Vote third party.
      Anybody but Bush or Kerry.
      --
      Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
    10. Re:The legacy of the Bush Administration by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mr Goore was on a campain stop when he made that speech. Don't believe for a minute it was develped by him at all. There is a movment on the "left" to try and discedit bush by any means necessary, including lying cheating and stealing. The only thing huffy and upset was Gore thinking "it's payback for winning against me" .. nothing more.

  42. Freenet mirror of John Ashcroft link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The blog post linked in the summary (as John Aschroft) contains what appears to be an entire Vanity Fair article. While it's properly attributed, it will no doubt be removed via pressure from somewhere or other; most likely not at the request of Vanity Fair, but by someone else using the article's copyright as a straw man.

    The text has been mirrored for posterity in the Freenet network at:

    CHK@~hhRclleaZhvLuTqszqG3ZuoGCsQAwI,u3nABqXhTmGA tC 9SDv5lYw/Ashcroft.txt

    If the CHK@ is greek to you, please have a look at the Freenet project.

  43. America has gone insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    America has gone insane... we need more Moore, less Bush...

  44. corpse in the kitchen by dekeji · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A corpse in the kitchen with an unknown cause of death and a stack of bacterial cultures ought to be cause for concern for the police and ought to prompt a police investigation. Furthermore, determining whether some genetically engineered bacteria are dangerous or not is far from trivial, so it's not like one can just look at the situation and determine that it is harmless. So, no, I don't think police overreacted in this case. Take away the corpse, and maybe one could say that they overreacted. Even then, dangerous and harmless kinds of experiments are difficult to tell apart, and the question of why this work isn't happening in a lab, with proper documentation and notification, is still valid.

    1. Re:corpse in the kitchen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ian Fleming (discoverer of penicillin) would now have been indicted ? He was raising a culture that killed organisms (bacteria). It can kill something, so could potentially be used as a weapon ...

    2. Re:corpse in the kitchen by gnuslov · · Score: 1

      The police investigation isn't what this article is about. Of course there should have been an investigation - but then they should have realized the guy was clean, and dropped it. It's the damn prosecution of this case that goes too far.

    3. Re:corpse in the kitchen by Qwaniton · · Score: 1

      We don't know he's clean yet, buddy. I'm still not sure his little frankengerms are safe. How can you be?

      The man is obviously dangerous!

    4. Re:corpse in the kitchen by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Discoverer of penicillin and 007?

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  45. More crazies. by digitaltraveller · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Steven Kurtz sounds like a bit of a nutjob to me. Unless his 'proposal for the release of mutant flies in restaurants' is Johnathan Swift style satire.

    Most biotech scientists would support labelling of GM foods. Only the Monsato's of the world oppose this. It's a reasonable, conservative viewpoint. When that doesn't occur, the crazies come out and want to release mutant flies, or do other insane things.

    People with these type of radical viewpoints will continue to grow in the U.S., as the government becomes more disconnected from the people.

    (eg. Because of congressional gerrymandering something like 80% of U.S. house representatives are in safe districts, and have almost no risk of party loss in an election.)

    The consequence of this is that these politicians have less incentive to worry about the concerns of their electorate. Enter the lobbyists to fill this time on their hands.

    1. Re:More crazies. by beeplet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Steven Kurtz sounds like a bit of a nutjob to me. Unless his 'proposal for the release of mutant flies in restaurants' is Johnathan Swift style satire.

      Most biotech scientists would support labelling of GM foods. Only the Monsato's of the world oppose this. It's a reasonable, conservative viewpoint.


      Ironically it's because of fanatics like Kurtz that the GM companies oppose labelling. People who are set on convincing the world that all GM food is harmful force the companies into the position of feeling they have something to hide.

      It's too bad that the people holding the "reasonable, conservative viewpoint" don't usually feel motivated to do crazy things to get that message heard. We need education - not performance art with mutant flies...

    2. Re:More crazies. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      People with these type of radical viewpoints will continue to grow in the U.S., as the government becomes more disconnected from the people.
      That can only happen if the people become disconnected from the goverment first.

      I hope you voted in the last election (assuming you are eligible), because otherwise you have no right to complain about the misdeeds of the goverment because you are the root cause of the problem.

    3. Re:More crazies. by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      Of course, "the Crazies" and companies should have to follow the same laws. If a nutcase is capable of hurting people via a particular technique, then a company is capable of doing the same (albeit for profit).

      For instance, I'd still like to know why the toxicity tests of Monsanto's "Roundup Ready Soybeans" didn't include the application of roundup to the soybeans. Wouldn't that be important.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    4. Re:More crazies. by Hatta · · Score: 1

      People with these type of radical viewpoints will continue to grow in the U.S., as the government becomes more disconnected from the people.

      Oh dear god no! I can see it now... "50 ft. liberal nutjob terrorizes LA. Film at 11" Funny thing is, I'd still be more frightened of the gov't.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    5. Re:More crazies. by AoT · · Score: 1

      voting is a scam. Nothing will be changed at the ballot box. Moreover, I have every right to complain whether or not I voted in the last election. I have these things called principals, and they rule out voting for the lesser evil, or even dignifying the repressive american regime with some sort of tacit show of my support.

    6. Re:More crazies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try these on for "the root cause of the problem," Junior Hitlerian:

      1) Voting (and all other forms of personal identification with state violence).

      2) Minds full of barked demands which include the phrase "You have no right to..." (and all other forms of personal identification with state violence).

      Hey, lookie--a trend. Wonder how it ends... If only there were some recent examples we could turn to...

    7. Re:More crazies. by Hatta · · Score: 1

      I hope you voted in the last election (assuming you are eligible), because otherwise you have no right to complain about the misdeeds of the goverment because you are the root cause of the problem.

      You have that exactly backwards. If you vote you are accepting that the system is fair. If your guy lost, he lost, and you have to accept the winner as your ruler, just like you would expect everyone else to accept your guy if he won. It's like losing your pants at a poker game, and at the end of the night saying "no fair guys"

      If the system is crooked, it doesn't matter if 100% of the voters turn out, it'll still be crooked. We essentially have a one party system in the US. Dems and Repubs differ on minor issues that appeal to the public, guns, abortions, etc. They bring home a minor symbolic victory to distract the voters, while systematically increasing the power of the government and corporations at the expense of the individual. And lets not forget the vast body of unelected buerocrats.

      The point is, high voter turnout lends legitimacy to such a system. Less than 50% of the population votes in any election. At this point we really ought to be questioning the legitimacy of the US government. But what if voter turn out continues to drop? Can this be a government of the people if only, say, 5% of the population votes? At that point wouldn't it be clear that the government does not represent the will of the people?

      Remember, when you vote, all you do is encourage them.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    8. Re:More crazies. by GSloop · · Score: 1

      No, I think bio-tech companies DO have something to hide.

      Here's my proposal.

      If bio-tech is SO VERY SAFE, then lets just require the company to post a bond of say one trillion dollars should unforeseen damages occur from the release of genetically modified organisms.

      If the risk really is that low, and it's been tested so very well, then getting insurance should be pretty cheap.

      We both know that the insurance company would say..."Well yes, that's pretty nice testing and all but there are still a vast number of unknowns." They, and the bio-tech companies all know that there is a lot we really *don't* know and that the potential costs from even minuscule risk could be massive, so neither would want to take on that huge risk.

      The side-effect is that I think they dramatically overstate their certainty that these products are perfectly safe. Let's assume it is 99.999999% safe. But what are the impacts of a 0.0000000001% chance event in a worst case scenario. It isn't pretty.

      The result is the public is mislead to keep them complacent about the unknown levels of risk and cost should worst case happen.

      So, yes, they DO have something to hide.

      Cheers,
      Greg

    9. Re:More crazies. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      voting is a scam. Nothing will be changed at the ballot box.
      Right. Which is exactly why, multiple times across history things *have* changed at the ballot box. (Watergate changed that, people lost faith and the politicians have been running wild ever since.)
      Moreover, I have every right to complain whether or not I voted in the last election. I have these things called principals, and they rule out voting for the lesser evil,
      That's not a principle, that's a cop-out. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
      even dignifying the repressive american regime with some sort of tacit show of my support.
      If you believe the American goverment is even remotely repressive, I can see why you lack the mental equipment to understand the difference between a principle (as well as how to spell it) and a cop-out.
    10. Re:More crazies. by AoT · · Score: 1

      When you get arrested for standing on a sidewalk with more than 9 people you come back and tell me the government isn't repressive.

      And I suppose I should clarify my first comment; things will change but not for the better, in the long run.

      As for being part of the solution, I contribute in ways other than voting. I've helped organize a local group that feeds the hungry. I have put myself in the path of the war machine in an attempt to stop it. I've even run for city council.

      My principles are just that, principles, despite my poor spelling, and for you to call them a cop-out is as absurd as me calling your voting a cop-out because I know it doesn't make a difference. So if you'd like to keep on lending your approval to corrupt politicians be my guest, but don't come crying to me when the fascists take over. and for the record, I don't mean bush.

    11. Re:More crazies. by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > If bio-tech is SO VERY SAFE, then lets just require the company to post
      > a bond of say one trillion dollars should unforeseen damages occur from
      > the release of genetically modified organisms.

      You make a very good point, and in a sane world would make perfect sense. However we live in an insane one currently. What would happen is that with a trillion dollars up for grabs every single ambulance chasing politically motivated lawyer on the planet would start launching wave after wave of lawsuit hoping to hit the biggest bonanza in the history of scum sucking lawyers. The tobacco settlement would be peanuts compared to bagging a TRILLION dollars and somewhere random chance, aided by an activist judge, would assemble 12 mental defectives into a jury willing to crack open the piggy bank on the flimsiest of evidence, and it wouldn't matter if it took ten thousand pulls of the lever waiting on a jackpot that huge.

      Insurance companies don't survive without having enough brain cells rubbing together to calculate the near 100% probability of such an outcome, so the premium would be priced accordingly.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
  46. Hypocrisy? by PatHMV · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why is it that genetic manipulation to make more and better food is bad, but genetic manipulation (with intentional release into the wild) to protest something is good? Why is it that when Monsanto says they've tested the GM crops to be safe, they are disbelieved on general principles, but when some art professors say THEIR GM bacteria are safe, they must know absolutely what they are talking about?

    1. Re:Hypocrisy? by nberardi · · Score: 1

      I totally agree with you. This is what is usually called BIAS, and is usually used to push a point. Since it is an election year you will see a lot of this.

      Remember, the press only uses the facts if it supports the story they are trying to tell.

      What conviently got left out of this /. new post was, that what sparked all this was an unusual death of this guys wife. It didn't really say what she died of, but I am guessing an autopsy led to some kind of biological agent. So the FBI was probably involved and this is where everything started.

    2. Re:Hypocrisy? by k4rm4_p0l7c3 · · Score: 1

      her cause of death is quite unknown. The Feds are throwing their hands in the air over it. that's why the husband is under such scrutiny- Feds are wondering "what in sam hell was in the air in there?" they've only ID'd a handful of benign types of bacteria so far.

    3. Re:Hypocrisy? by dekeji · · Score: 1

      Why is it that when Monsanto says they've tested the GM crops to be safe, they are disbelieved on general principles, but when some art professors say THEIR GM bacteria are safe, they must know absolutely what they are talking about?

      I think he probably would freely admit that his release of organisms is not very professionally supervised or tested. His point is that he believes that neither is Monsanto's release of genetically modified organisms. And, whether or not he is right, that's something to think about: how do you know whether what Monsanto does is safe?
      His work is art and it is intended to stir this kind of controversy and debate, to make you think.

      On the other hand, it is also perfectly reasonable for the police
      to investigate him when they find his wife dead surrounded by
      a bunch of petri dishes with bacterial cultures. If he did his homework, he will be able to prove that what he did was harmless and this will end with the grand jury. If not, he was merely a stupid artist, but that does not change whether the debate he was trying to stir up is valid and important.

    4. Re:Hypocrisy? by danharan · · Score: 1

      (Note: I'm not saying I agree with this protestor's tactics either)

      A multinational company whose entire survival hinges on the acceptance of a product gives you the results of their studies, yet does not publish it in any peer-reviewed journal, or share with you enough details to assess whether the studies were in fact legitimate.

      What's more, the technology is provably dangerous, and early field trials show alarming results. What studies from Monsanto were leaked were shoddy at best.

      And if that wasn't enough, their crop would either let farmers spray more (Roundup-Ready), destroy the value of an existing natural pesticide (Bt), or lock you in to buying their seeds by not letting you germinate those you saved.

      And you're not supposed to think that maybe, just maybe, a company might put its own survival over scientific integrity and ecological thinking? That MAYBE THEY ARE LYING TO YOU TO MAKE A QUICK BUCK?

      Ok, sorry for shouting, but for god's sake, people, can we please be 1% as cynical about Monsanto's claims as we are about Microsoft's claims? GM stuff we release in the wild can't be taken out. Once cross-pollinated, we're stuck with this shit in our food supply. We ought to be extremely critical.

      --
      Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
    5. Re:Hypocrisy? by Qwaniton · · Score: 1

      No, it's not art. Just because you claim it's "art" doesn't make it so. What he is doing is KNOWINGLY releasing large amounts of dangerous organisms into the environment to make a point he is not QUALIFIED to make. He doesn't have ANY CREDENTIALS. He's just a dangerous, no-good hippie. Damnit, this is not "art", this is a CRIME.

    6. Re:Hypocrisy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh that's easy. he is a Professor, he must know what he's doing.. who cares that's he's trained in the fine arts rather than science.

      whereas monsanto is of course an evil money-grubbing corporation bent on destroying the world and killing us all.

    7. Re:Hypocrisy? by dekeji · · Score: 1

      into the environment to make a point he is not QUALIFIED to make. He doesn't have ANY CREDENTIALS. He's just a dangerous, no-good hippie. Damnit, this is not "art", this is a CRIME.

      His point, and a point with which I tend to agree, is that nobody is qualified to determine whether releasing genetically modified organisms into the environment is dangerous.

      In different words, if what this guy did upsets you, what Monsanto is doing should upset you as well. If you think that a bunch of Ph.D.'s at Monsanto know the effects of what they are releasing on the environment, based on the strength of their credentials, or that they have your best interests at heart, you are a fool.

      As to whether it is art or not, that's for social scientists and art critics to decide. I think this work falls under what is generally considered "performance art", but you are free to disagree. However, just because something is "art" doesn't mean it can't also be a legal crime.

      What he is doing is KNOWINGLY releasing large amounts of dangerous organisms into the environment

      There is no evidence that he has released anything dangerous. He may want you to think that he may have released something dangerous, but it seems implausible that he did or could.

  47. Scariest. Comment. Ever. by feronti · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I can't believe I just read that. Maybe this country is going down the tubes after all. I'm very frightened for the future of freedom if political activism and terrorism are now one and the same.

  48. Re:Home Biolab != "Art Installation" by black+mariah · · Score: 1

    Well, if you were trying to build a small nuclear reactor to power your home while spouting anti-whatever propaganda and someone ended up dead in your house under questionable circumstances... yeah, you'd probably be up on some heavy charges.

    --
    'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
  49. sheesh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rescue workers from the Buffalo Fire Department responded on the morning of May 11 to a 911 call from the Kurtzes' home, where they found Hope Kurtz, whom a fellow artist and Kurtz family friend described as healthy and in her 40s, dead.

    The rescue workers attending to Hope Kurtz were alarmed by the presence of petri dishes and lab equipment in the home, and called in local and federal hazmat teams, who quickly sealed off the residence and removed bacteria samples for testing by the New York State Department of Health in Albany.

    The Erie County Medical Examiner's Office was unable to determine the exact cause of Hope Kurtz's death after an autopsy and toxicology tests, and ruled that she died of natural causes, said the family friend, Beatriz da Costa.


    Ummm yeah, let's all rally behind this shitbird.

    But be sure to wear your foil lined cognitive dissonance helmet

    1. Re:sheesh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So what's going to happen if my girlfriend electrocutes herself with her hair dryer, and the medics find my basement full of oscilloscopes, spectrum analyzers, and RF/microwave components?

      Same idea. Petri dishes and bacteria samples -- even dangerous ones -- are not illegal to own. At least, they weren't, before Ashcroft and his boss came to town.

      Your hobby, unless it's birdwatching, may be next.

    2. Re:sheesh! by http · · Score: 1

      your optimism is refreshing. birdwatching may not be exempt.

      --
      If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
      3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1
    3. Re:sheesh! by fishbowl · · Score: 1


      "Same idea. Petri dishes and bacteria samples -- even dangerous ones -- are not illegal to own."

      That's a good thing. A certain med student living in my house has lots and lots of tools of her trade. There's really nothing about working for the University that gives her special entitlements that any other private citizen isn't afforded. I could spend my spare time growing bacteria cultures and/or making competent cells too, if that was my thing.

      If it's illegal for me to do it, it's illegal for researchers to do it too. They aren't special just because they wear a lab coat to work!

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    4. Re:sheesh! by mikael · · Score: 1

      Your hobby, unless it's birdwatching, may be next.

      Wandering around a public airshow with a notebook could get you into trouble in some parts of the world.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    5. Re:sheesh! by some+guy+I+know · · Score: 1
      Your hobby, unless it's birdwatching, may be next.
      I would advise you not to go bird-watching around nuclear power plants or other "sensitive" installations.
      Hanging around such places with binoculars, cameras, shotgun mics, and recording equipment may land you in some serious doo-doo.
      Bird-watching is already "next" in some locations.
      --
      Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
  50. This is actually valid. by nberardi · · Score: 4, Informative

    People know very little about the patriot act, it is actually hard to use it, because you have to convince a federal judge to grant a warrent under the act. It doesn't give the government a be-all end all right of invastion of priviouy, it just consolidates many of the common requests for wire-tapping and other things, that would require seperate warrents. So in essesnse it speeds up a process doesn't change it or grant any more rights or take away any more. This is probably one of the biggest mist conseptions that has been spread by the anti-patriot act people, and most of those people just use it to bash the president, they aren't really concerned with the rights of the people, just more of gaining power back.

    Also in the wired article it states: "But Kurtz's work and his beliefs are more radical than those of many of his peers. He has written proposals for releasing mutant flies into restaurants, and demonstrated methods for destroying genetically modified crops. And it is Kurtz's views, his supporters say, that have Kurtz on the wrong side of a federal investigation sparked by the death of his wife, Hope Kurtz."

    This professor has talked about in papers of releasing genetically engineered flies into resurants, and destroying crops that have been genetically modified. These might be on the lower end of the terrorism totem-pole, but it is still a terroist act. And all of this was sparked by a pecular death of his wife, normally deaths are handled by local cops, unless something really weird is going on that requires the FBI.

    So this is IMHO a perfectly good use of the Patriot act. Just remember, that a judge has to agree to sign the warrent inorder for the patriot act to be used. And many of the Federal judges in the past couple of months have rejected the use of the patriot act for stuff they didn't deam in the realm of what is required to warrent one. In addition Ashcroft has been rejected many times by Federal judges including a couple big ones in Chicago about doctors records. So the author of this /. news post is totally off base and probably has a bias against Aschroft (i.e. Bush).

    Take my comments at what you will, but if you want the real truth go read the patriot act on the U.S. Congress web site.

    1. Re:This is actually valid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I have personally been approached by the feds demanding all records we have on certain students at the university I work for. In the past the standard response was to reply with "sure thing, as soon as we see a warrant for that data". Under the Patriot Act (and don't kid yourself into thinking parts of it are not classified) if I tried that now I personally would be charged with obstruction of justice. I am literally not allowed to request a warrant if the Patriot Act is brought up. Nor am I allowed to tell anyone that the request happened. This is real "secret police" kinda stuff people.

      Anonymous Coward (accept no substitutes)

    2. Re:This is actually valid. by fossilstar · · Score: 1

      People know very little about the patriot act, it is actually hard to use it, because you have to convince a federal judge to grant a warrent under the act... It's been a while since I've read it, but (IANAL) it didn't seem to me that the judge could legally refuse any request made under usa-patriot. I think it flatly says that upon request, the judge "shall issue" the warrant, period. My impression was that the judge might be in violation of the act if it refused to issue the warrant. Attorneys have raised this same issue, but obviously, since they're not "with us" on this, they're "with the terrorists."

      --
      "Support our Oops."
    3. Re:This is actually valid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are your thoughts on the Patriot Act vis-a-vis the FISA courts?

      Oh, you hadn't thought about that yet?

      Oh.

    4. Re:This is actually valid. by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      "My impression was that the judge might be in violation of the act if it refused to issue the warrant."

      Which puts the judges in a unique position to protest the law, if they were of a mind to.

      When the government locks up academics, poeple laugh about it.

      When they start locking up their own *judges*, people might start to realize something is wrong.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    5. Re:This is actually valid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They probably hate professors because they got a bad grade because they didn't study hard enough. Didn't do well in calculus? It's automatically your professor's fault.

    6. Re:This is actually valid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the patriot act, it

      "the USAPATRIOT Act. It".

      grant a warrent

      "warrant".

      be-all end all

      "be-all end-all" or "be all end all".
      Make up your mind.

      invastion of priviouy, it

      "invasion of privacy; it".

      in essesnse

      "essence".

      mist conseptions

      "misconceptions".

      etc., etc.

      they aren't really concerned with the rights of the people, just more of gaining power back.

      Image that! People want to gain power back that the government unconstitutionally took away from them. Those terrorists! They should just accept recent government abuses like good little sheep. Like you.

    7. Re:This is actually valid. by nberardi · · Score: 1

      No that would be against the seperation of power that is granted under the constitution. Congress makes the laws and judges impliments them. There is nothing saying a judge has to issue a warent, then what is the use for have the judge even in the process. Not to mention a law like that would violoate 235 years of how consitutional law has worked. So I think you should re-read it, the patriote act just consolidates many common warrents and gives a broader range for those warrents, but none the less a Judge still has the final descistion. This is exactly what I was talking about when you listen to a moron on the news that has never read the thing offering commentation on it.

      You know the fable about hte Pied-Piper that played a flute and led the rats out of town isn't just a made up story it is about the general population following somebody in ingnorance.

    8. Re:This is actually valid. by nberardi · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, so you say. I can make up something to justify something that is totally not true too. I doubt you even work at a university, and what you are talking about is a grand jury, in which cases are sealed. But I guess you just broke that not telling anybody about it, huh?

    9. Re:This is actually valid. by eluusive · · Score: 1

      How can you expect anyone to believe that you an an accurate understanding of a legal document, when you can't even spell or follow English grammar correctly?

      Also, get the gist of what "terrorist" means. According to dictionary.com: "One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism". Well, what is terrorism? Acts that instill terror. What is terror? Intense, overpowering fear.

      Based on that, tell me again; you say this man is a terrorist? Do you honestly think he was trying to instill terror?

  51. In related news... by gmuslera · · Score: 2, Funny

    Terrorism charges were brought against all professors that used surprise exams against students.

  52. Inaccurate Summary by crimson_alligator · · Score: 1

    Neither article claims that the man was charged.

  53. That's what a grand jury is for by Kohath · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They investigate. They indict or not after their investigation.

    This is a perfect case for a grand jury. There was a lot of stuff going on. Some of it seems criminal at first, but may not be.

    The grand jury is there to decide what to do.

    How should they decide whether to indict? Coin flip? Slashdot poll?

    Also: The FBI is involved because there's an investigation to determine whether a Federal law has been broken. I is for Investigation. F is for Federal.

    1. Re:That's what a grand jury is for by AoT · · Score: 2, Funny

      And the B is for Bureau, as in bureacracy, and that is the real reason they are involved.

    2. Re:That's what a grand jury is for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also: The FBI is involved because there's an investigation to determine whether a Federal law has been broken. I is for Investigation. F is for Federal.

      And C is for Cookie; that's good enough for me

    3. Re:That's what a grand jury is for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

      Grand juries don't investigate anything. They listed to whatever evidence the prosecuting attorney brings to them.

      Theotetically the grand jury can go off on its own, but that almost never happens.

      The saying among criminal lawyers is that "A grand jury will indict a ham sandwich" if the prosecutor asks it to.

    4. Re:That's what a grand jury is for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How should they decide whether to indict? Coin flip? Slashdot poll?

      Finally, a use for the CowboyNeal option.

    5. Re:That's what a grand jury is for by Paleomacus · · Score: 1

      I'm betting the Slashdot poll would be best for this guy. Everybody will select the CowboyNeal option.

    6. Re:That's what a grand jury is for by abulafia · · Score: 1
      This is a perfect case for a grand jury. There was a lot of stuff going on. Some of it seems criminal at first, but may not be.
      The grand jury is there to decide what to do.

      Um. Couple of points:
      - Grand juries do not hear from the (likely) defendent - only the prosecutor. Primarily because of this (but for other reasons as well) , GJs usually result in interdiction.
      - If this is a "perfect case", then one is resigning one's self to a rather heavy economic burden on government review of what I think most people would think of as normal, everyday life - I have no idea what this particular case is costing, but a starting point of high 6-figures is not unlikely. All because, well, "artists are weird". It isn't hard to make a case that government money should be spent elsewhere. Isn't there a "war on terror" going on, or something?

      It isn't hard to imagine that this is a law enforcement effort largely about communicating that law enforcement wants to reduce costs in finding "evil doers" by intimidating those who would play with strange toys into not doing so. If lots of people play with biotech, it is hard to smoke out those with ill intent. But if we harass the hell out of innocents, they won't, so LEAs can more easily attack Those Who Mean Ill.

      Too bad that it chills freedoms, but, you know, there's a war on. In order to preserve freedom, we had to destroy it.

      (Yes, I'm being hyperbolic. No, I don't think projecting possible outcomes dismisses the line of argument.)

      --
      I forget what 8 was for.
    7. Re:That's what a grand jury is for by Kohath · · Score: 1

      It isn't hard to make a case that government money should be spent elsewhere.

      If the guy turns out to be innocent, then yes. If the guy turns out to be guilty, then no.

      By going through the process, we'll find out whether the guy is a criminal or just seems like it. If he's not a criminal, he could have saved some people a lot of time and expense by not acting so suspicious -- even though he's free to act as suspicious (or otherwise uncivil) as he wants within the law.

    8. Re:That's what a grand jury is for by abulafia · · Score: 1
      The really distressing thing here is that you so completely missed the point I was making. I was talking about money flow, about the economics of law enforcement, at a wider level what a society wishes to spend on security vs. free behaviour.

      And here you come back with "well, we'll see if we were wrong. That would suck if we were. But, you have to understand..."

      That is the notion I find increasingly wrong. And it is OK if you don't. Lots of people don't get it. Even some I respect.

      The notion that you, as a person, have no responsibility for your freedom, is appalling.

      --
      I forget what 8 was for.
    9. Re:That's what a grand jury is for by khallow · · Score: 1
      They investigate. They indict or not after their investigation.

      But in practice, they are convened only when the authorities believe that they have strong evidence of a crime. In other words, nobody sets up a grand jury just because something weird or suspicious occurs.

  54. By the way... by nberardi · · Score: 1

    I am only talking to the people in this forum that I called the PRESIDENT, Mr. Bush. It is PRESIDENT Bush, not Mr. Show a little respect, if not for the man, at least the position.

    1. Re:By the way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mr. Bush is not my president. To me George Bush is just a person - an ignorant, scarily religious, republican person... but still just a person.

      Mr. Bush is perfectly adequate. If you go along the path you suggest, at what point do people begin to say that the actions of Mr. Bush or the rest of the Amercian Govt. should not be criticised at all, "for the good of the country." ???

      Oh wait, that's right -people already believe that.

    2. Re:By the way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll personally Paypal $100 to any reliable witness who has ever heard you utter the words "PRESIDENT Clinton."

      No, really. You guys can split it.

    3. Re:By the way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Convicted criminals don't deserve respect. George W. Bush, son of George W. H. Bush, is a convicted criminal. Anyways, I believe you mean Governor Bush.

  55. Bioterroism and the Outhouse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think there are far worse offenders to this bioterroism act than mere artists!

    Anyone who has stepped into an outhouse, public washroom or campground should know. There are far worse things to breathe and smell. Among the symptoms: disorientation, feelings of nauseousness, headache, sensation of vomiting.... Those capabable of producing such things should be isolated from society! I am much more scared of these people than artists!

  56. or other peaceful purpose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wow, thats pretty vague.

  57. Re:ARG AGAIN!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're basing your vote around the patriot act, why should we give our vote to someone that helped write it?

  58. The quote I like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like the following quote from the article the best (emphasis mine):

    "It takes a lot more than a simple little gene to make something pathogenic. But you could teach these skills to a high-school student, and you could probably teach them to an artist."
  59. Artist == Criminal? by handy_vandal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Apparently John Ashcroft can't tell a weapons lab from an art installation.

    Of course he can tell the difference --

    * An artist is a dangerous subversive, who must be arrested to stop the spread of ideas.

    * A bio-weapons specialist is a valuable national resource, who must be recruited to work for Homeland Security.

    -kgj

    --
    -kgj
    1. Re:Artist == Criminal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen(!)

    2. Re:Artist == Criminal? by eskayp · · Score: 1

      'Apparently John Ashcroft can't tell a weapons lab from an art installation. ' What else would one expect from John Ashcroft: He can't tell art ( bare breasted statue of Justice ) from porn -- put a blue blanket over her! He felt she was to tittilating (to him).

      --
      I didn't desert Windows; Windows deserted me: BSOD
  60. Flipper for President!!! by AWHITEMAN · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    LMAO!!!

    --
    -- Note to liberals, yes please flee to Canada.
  61. Re:Kerry 4 President by Beer_Smurf · · Score: 1

    Kerry has been in government for a long time.
    If he was going to make some kind of huge changes, wouldn't he already have been working on them?
    Don't get me wrong, Bush stinks, but Kerry is just more of the same also.
    I'm not voting for Kang or Kodos.

  62. University AT Buffalo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, its "Univeristy at Buffalo" (short for State University of New York at Buffalo) not "University of Buffalo".

  63. Re:ARG AGAIN!! by ExtremeGoatse! · · Score: 0

    If you think anything will change with Kerry in office, think again. He comes from a very similar background (wealthy family, Skull and Bones) and will be just as easy to bribe as any Republican.

  64. Re:Ashcroft is just fun to make fun of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you know John Ashcroft lost an election against a dead man? The people said: "Sorry Ashcroft, but the dead man scares us less than you do."

    Attorney General John Ashcroft had surgery to remove his gall bladder. Doctors say the surgery was difficult because Ashcroft refused to take his clothes off.

  65. Uhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The fact that he's being questioned by a grand jury is not alarming."

    Really? I would get alarmed any time there is a chance I'll be put on trial and my life wrecked.

    But perhaps someone like you who has been in court many times; this is not such a big deal to you?

  66. Grand Juries by darkmeridian · · Score: 2, Informative

    The fact that he's being questioned by a grand jury is not alarming... if he's charged then we're all going to deserve to see more proof as to why, but so far I see nothing wrong with trying to find out if there's a link to the suspect materials that we just haven't discovered yet.

    Getting questioned by a grand jury is pretty alarming because it means someone is seeking an indictment against you for a crime. Prosecutors get indictments at a high rate because the defendant does not have a chance to present evidence or cross-examine witnesses. It's all the prosecutor's show at that point.

    So yeah, getting indicted for a crime such as murder is a bad thing. You get arrested and as such. It's more than the police or DA asking you questions or holding you as a witness.

    --
    A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
  67. he's advocating bioterrorism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    from the article in Wired, about releasing gengineered agents (bugs, viruses, whatever)
    The CAE says this tactic, which it calls "fuzzy biological sabotage," would encourage "those who never would join a movement (to) become unknowing cohorts or willing allies" in the struggle against the biotech industry.

    Whether capable or not himself, this f**kwit is advocating not merely terrorism, but BIOTERRORISM, which is about as uncontrolled as you can get. I might give him credit for being an ignorant jackass, but he's still a jackass and he's still advocating actions which could be hugely destructive for a very long time. I say jail the f**ker for advocating acts of mass destruction and forget the art installation. It was probably pretty lame anyway.

  68. Good god, you don't make any sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We are free to to whatever we want in the U.S.A., but there are consequences. If you infringe on other people's rights, you will be prosecuted.

    Killing you wife, for instance, is a crime. "

    Let me get this straight. You're saying we're free to kill anybody, but there are consequences?

    Perhaps you misunderstand what "free" and "freedom" mean. Here's Encarta's definition:

    FREEDOM - ability to act freely: a state in which somebody is able to act and live as he or she chooses, without being subject to any, or to any undue, restraints and restrictions

    Wow. Sounds like you're mistaken. Freedom means that you can do something without restraints or restrictions.

    So your example, if you'll pardon my phrase, is complete bullshit.

    Oh, and Bush is probably the worst president of the last 100 years, and I even voted for the guy. Worst mistake I've made in a voting booth.

  69. Apparently... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This administration has trouble making a great deal of distinctions. Let's see what this phrase brings to mind:

    Nobody died, when Clinton lied.

    OH wait, they found 2 old shells with trace residues!

    Best of all this case will give more existing material to use to erase the Constitution. That is if there is no place else in the world to play Cowboys & Muslims.

    http://toostupidtobepresident.com

    Somewhere in Texas, a village is missing it's idiot...

    1. Re:Apparently... by fishbowl · · Score: 1


      >Nobody died, when Clinton lied.

      What about that guy they found on the park bench, in his car, on the park bench?

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  70. What do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    John Ashcroft lost TO A DEAD GUY!

    If you run for office, and the guy running against you isn't a guy, but a piece of rotting flesh, and yet the rotting flesh gets more votes for you, what does that tell us about the loser of that race?

    How did bush think Ashcroft was a good idea for AG? OH right, a president who is a complete moron, a.k.a. GW Bush. A guy who can't even control his own daughters, much less a big complicated country.

  71. Another stunning display of ignorance by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is up there with FBI's alert about people with maps and or almanacs.
    And the FBIs' investigation of a book that contained 100yr old smallpox scabs and launched an investigation as to whether or not it was bioterrorism.

    The fact is a woman died and the fact is the womans death was ruled "due to natural causes". So pardon me, but I do not see how a jury grand or not could be a better judge than a doctor trained to perform an autopsy and atoxicilogy lab. Perhaps if they ordered a few additional autopsies and toxicology tests... but a grand jury should not be concerned with a procedure so mundane as to have already been done by the police department.

    That and the additional fact that no cultures have been found at said lab that pose any threat.

    Overall, this does not add up.
    It seems once again those who have brains and initiative should bee feared. Why doesn't Ashcroft just come out and say it? "All people with higher education than a highschool degree are a potential threat and should be watched closely".

    Next thing you know the DoJ will be demanding the banning of home chemistry sets currently available at Toys 'R' Us and Walmart due to a "A very present and significant threat by educated youngsters against the free people of the world."

  72. Insanity by ikekrull · · Score: 3, Insightful


    I mean really, people have been working microbes and selectively breeding organisms for thousands of years.

    Modern industrial processes and practices have essentially supressed the knowledge in the general population of how our foodstuffs, beverages, drugs and other products are produced, and attempt to disguise as completely as possible the materials, and biological processes that are used in their production.

    As a result, when sucking back a 6-pack of beer we don't think about the bacteria and biological reactions necessary to make it.

    We don't think, when eating cheese, that maybe we're exposing ourselves to potentially fatal biological agents.

    When you light up a cigarette, you don't really think about the centuries of genetic engineering that has resulted in the smooth taste of your laramie.

    Bacteria is bad because some bacteria will kill us? Is this really the US government's message?

    That learning for yourself and practicing the same techniques that are some of the foundations of modern civilisation is somehow wrong?

    If its not in a can or a plastic package with pretty branding, it can't be right?

    If its not part of a commercial process, it should be banned?

    This is a massive over-reaction by the government - A corporation doing exactly the same thing is not in breach of the law.

    When Jesus Christ turned water into wine, was he a frickin bio-terrorist?

    --
    I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
    1. Re:Insanity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When Jesus Christ turned water into wine, was he a frickin bio-terrorist?

      I don't know, but there was probably an indictment from the Wine Industry Association of Judaea on the list of charges that led to his crucifixion...

    2. Re:Insanity by ckedge · · Score: 1

      selectively breeding organisms for thousands of years.

      I'm not an extreme anti-anything nut, but your statement is as ignorant in reverse as the anti-anything nuts.

      In the natural environment if something is lethal to other organisms, the other organism either adapts or dies. Furthermore the rate at which such modifications occur is limited. Finally the types of modifications possible in the natural world is limited by the systems themselves. This includes everything humans actively did before genetic technology appeared.

      Human intervention with genetic technology changes all of that, and as such we need to methodically, systematically, and logically consider our actions. There is no one universal "rule" that can be applied, it will have to be on a case by case basis, as the number of potential ways of doing things is not small.

      Although large numberss of your statements are correct in and of themselves, they can not be lent to any useful argument in respect to the things you are implying that they can be applied to.

      Please fuck off and leave the thinking to the rest of us.

      Note that I'm not making any comment one way or the other with regards to this guy or what he did or what he's accused of. I am in no position to make an informed opinion, considering the lack of solid information. That's why we have grand juries and trials, checks and balances, etc etc.

      But I'll say this, the notes about the organization he belongs to and some of the things they advocate in their literature are those of extremists - who think that they are *so* right that they want to win at all costs using extra-judicial methods.

  73. Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The agents asked the gallery director whether she believed Steven Kurtz holds anti-American sentiments

    *cough* McCarthyism *cough*...

  74. Next up young men by shadowofdarkness · · Score: 0

    Whats next? 20-25 year old men with there fridges full of bioterrorism projects.

    On a related note don't leave milk in a fridge for a month after it expires it gets so that the jug is about to explode.

    The preceding was meant to be funny please mod as such.

  75. Oppose Patriot Act == Make Money From Home by rm3friskerFTN · · Score: 1
    [HUMOR ON ;-);-);-)]

    After sending me money you too can learn how to make money from home by opposing the PATRIOT Act

    As of today, two organizations utilizing "FUD" marketing principles are attempting to earn money from home to support their Brie & Strawberry addictions.

    CAE Defense Fund

    ACLU

    Only by sending me money now to my Nigerian Bank Account will you move from the Ruby to Emerald Level of the "Earn Money From Home By Sowing Patriot Act FUD (EMFHBSPFUD)" ... learn what these individuals have not yet learned.

    You must act now!!!!

    You must act now!!!!

    You must act now!!!!

    [HUMOR OFF :-(:-(:-(]

    ... link for those who have never bothered to read the PATRIOT Act source documentation

    --

    I believe Juanita

  76. fridge by sPaKr · · Score: 1

    I got some stuff in the fridge that has been there for mm.. a while.. It has some stuff growing in it... it may have mutated...
    sshh did you hear something?
    CHEEZE IT they are on to us!

  77. Bio Artists by TribeDoktor · · Score: 1

    I recently had the honor of assisting a "Bio Artist" set up a show. He was one of the most fascinating (and nicest) artist (or scientist for that matter) I've ever met. Ariel works with stem cell research and photographs some of the more beautiful things he has seen under the microscope. Please check out his website (Just don't /. the heck out of it!) http://ruizialtaba.com/ I had a very interesting talk with him about art and science restricitons and how they are very much alike.

  78. Tinfoil Hats by xeeno · · Score: 0, Troll

    This is a conspiracy.

    Microsoft and SCO must have secretly funded this person's art, and Ashcroft is taking advice from RIAA and the MPAA in order to prosecute him. Clearly, it's because he distributed his artwork over a p2p network and his wife was really murdered by secret microsoft ninjas.

    Oh yeah, and BSD is dying.

  79. The Wrong Side Of Things by Emperor+Tiberius · · Score: 1
    He has written proposals for releasing mutant flies into restaurants

    OK, now does that sound "right" to any of you? To me it sounds like he's trying to create havoc "against" genetic engineering rather, than using it as an art. Maybe people shouldn't be so quick to protect him. Unless Wired phrased that wrong, of course.

  80. Re:threatening someone is a crime by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

    Actually you don't even need a gun, just say you have one and keep a hand in a pocket.

    I don't think there was a fake bio-weapon or even the pretense of one though.

    Mycroft

    --
    https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
  81. Oh come on now by freedom_india · · Score: 1
    Oh come on now!

    It's a clear case of journalism at its worst (after iraqi war coverage).
    Reporters who don;t know the technicalities of a crime must be outlawed from covering the crime. Having a Lab is CERTAINLY not a crime...er...i think so.

    Hail John Ashcroft !!
    God Bless America!

    --
    "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    1. Re:Oh come on now by M1FCJ · · Score: 1
      Apparently it is.

      From the article

      The subpoenas cited Section 175 of the U.S. Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, which prohibits the use of certain biological materials for anything other than a "prophylactic, protective, bona fide research, or other peaceful purpose."

      Looks like a very stupid rule to me. There might be other legitimate use like doing your own research. Not everyone belongs to a research institute. Many researchers don't get their grants and spend their own money to do research on their own time.

    2. Re:Oh come on now by eggegg · · Score: 1

      Since when is "doing your own research" not "bona fide research, or other peaceful purpose"? A little reading comprehension please.

    3. Re:Oh come on now by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1
      No it's not (necessarily)...

      But you may want to think twice about doing this in the comfort and presumed privacy of your own home.

      from the law

      "`(b) DEFINITION- For purposes of this section, the term `for use as a weapon' does not include the development, production, transfer, acquisition, retention, or possession of any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for prophylactic, protective, or other peaceful purposes"

      While it may take a few runs down the sentence to unscrample the double negative, as long as you aren't using the biological agents for nefarious purposes, you're in the clear as far as the law goes. This is an important safeguard for the Rest of Us (TM, patent pending) since otherwise our refrigerators would get us incarcerated. Thank god they're not all connected to the internet, but that's another story.

      However, as has been pointed out before, within the social confines of our latest two minute hate, you've got to expect the feds to wander into such a potentially juicy investigation.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  82. stripping liberties by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    All you conservative-types who are in favour of stripping liberty at the expense of "security" and "war" on terrorism should re-consider your positions. This latest example is nothing more than the future. As long as you conservatives (and clueless liberals) keep supporting things like this, it is only the beginning.

    I guess people who were laughing at others over the concern of things like the Patriot Act hope learned a lesson...

    --
    Sivaram Velauthapillai
    Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    1. Re:stripping liberties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      All you conservative-types who are in favour of stripping liberty at the expense of "security" and "war" on terrorism should re-consider your positions.

      Maybe if it actually did limit our freedoms, then I would be worried. But it does not, I've actually read it and talked to friends who are lawyers and they all agree it's mass hysteria.

      Please read it, then decide for yourself. Don't listen to Michael Moore or Airhead America.
    2. Re:stripping liberties by black+mariah · · Score: 1

      Oh shit yes. It's so horrible that someone would assemble evidence and submit it to a grand jury. I mean, that's not something that happened before the patriot act was signed. Police doing their jobs, district attorneys deciding whether or not to charge someone, Federal prosecutors stepping in at certain points... what a horrible blow to the justice system that was.

      *COUGH*

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
  83. READ PARENT POST by Hatta · · Score: 1

    This is the single most insightful and clearly stated anti-FUD I've ever seen on slashdot, and most other places.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:READ PARENT POST by TRACK-YOUR-POSITION · · Score: 1

      Really? I thought it was a pretty common metaphor. Well, thanks.

  84. No charges were brought against Kurtz. by PHPhD2B · · Score: 1
    Can people please RTFA?

    The USA Today article states "No charges were brought against Kurtz." Three of his colleagues were subpoenaed to testify, but again, NO charges.

    I dare say that when they're investigating the death of a family member and they find bacteriological lab equipment, they a) have the right to, and b) SHOULD err conservative and investigate what the heck has been going on. The article further states that the health officials had declared the apartment safe, and the artist was staying in a HOTEL while they were checking the apartment.

    The grand jury has been convened so that some answers can be gotten as to what has been going on. Nothing unreasonable there.

    --
    --I am Sun Tzu of the Borg. Resistance is feudal.
    1. Re:No charges were brought against Kurtz. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



      >The USA Today article states "No charges were
      >brought against Kurtz." Three of his colleagues
      >were subpoenaed to testify, but again, NO charges.

      Who needs *CHARGES* when you can do so much better:

      Discredit an academic by inferring him as an enemy of the state.

      Seize his property.

      Set an example to show how easily they can, and how agressively they will, enforce judgement on anyone they'd like.

      Yeah, no charges were filed. But will this person ever get his property back? Will he ever be able to get a job without this incident being brought up?

      If there are no charges, then what is the basis for subpoenaing the witnesses? No charges means no hearing, no hearing means no venue for testimony. Are they being subpoenaed to testify in order to prove the guy's innocence? Isn't that entirely backwards from the official doctrine of the Justice Department?

      On one hand, you say no charges are filed. On the other hand, there is a grand jury hearing. That just means no charges are filed *yet*.

      The reason I'm hot about this, is it hits close to home. My partner is a med student who does a whole lot of bacteria work, and also works with genetic stuff (making competent cells, doing cancer research, etc.) I really don't see the difference here, that makes the guy in the article a suspected terrorist, while my partner is merely an industrious student. They're doing the same thing, after all. The difference is the guy in the article isn't really doing it with anything *dangerous*...

    2. Re:No charges were brought against Kurtz. by black+mariah · · Score: 1

      You are fucking stupid. Do you know a goddamned thing about how grand juries work?

      Wait, obviously not. Stupid question.

      What's the basis for the subpoena? Umm... maybe the GRAND FUCKING JURY. Grand juries are convened in order to go over the evidence in a case and determine whether charges can be brought. It is not a trial, there is no jury of peers, there are no charges unless the grand jury decides to proceed with them. Sometimes, witnesses are subpoenaed to testify. This is merely more evidence gathering. This is also called THE JUSTICE SYSTEM AS IT HAS WORKED FOR A COUPLE OF HUNDRED YEARS NOW.

      Seriously, pick up a fucking book. You're either in college or old enough to be in college. If you have such an interest in how this country works, you should at least know a BASIC FUCKING THING ABOUT IT. You'll whinge on all fucking day about how shitty this is, and why are they tossing out subpoenaes... do you even know what a fucking subpoenae is, what it does, or why they're used?

      I don't know why, but I seriously doubt it.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
  85. Ummmmm by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    That's what grand juries do, they check the evidence before someone can be charged with big crimes. That is their reason to exist. Along those lines, they have actual power to investigate. Grand jury members (normal citizens) may subpoena evidence, witnesses, etc. They decide if there is sufficient evidence to indicite someone, and if so on what crime, which allows it to proceed to trial.

    So what we have here is due process at work as it should be. The DoJ thinks this guy might have comitted a crime (capital, or otherwise infamous crime, specifically), and they think there is enough evidence for trial for that. Well, that's not for them to decide in this case, that's for the grand jury. They must decide there is legally sufficient evidence and reasonable cause to believe. If they do, they return an indictment, and they can go to trial.

  86. No, I'm afraid you don't make any sense by jkczyz · · Score: 1
    Wow. Sounds like you're mistaken. Freedom means that you can do something without restraints or restrictions.

    So your example, if you'll pardon my phrase, is complete bullshit.

    Wrong. Try goggling "Schenck v. U.S." and see what comes up.

    Oh, and Bush is probably the worst president of the last 100 years, and I even voted for the guy. Worst mistake I've made in a voting booth.

    Presidents are ultimately judged by historians 10 or 20 years down the road. Comparing a sitting president to any previous president over the last 100 years is just absurd. Wait to see what comes about because of his actions before you pre-judge him. You may not like him or where he's leading the country. In that case, don't vote for him. But such a broad, sweeping statement is naive at best. Contrary to what you may believe, Bush's presidency won't be judged by the day-to-day successes and failures of his decisions. The big picture is all that will eventually matter.

  87. At the risk of Godwin's Law... by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1
    The Nazi Hell Creatures burned "decadent" art, i.e., art that didn't cowtow to the Reichsparty line.

    Now Ashcroft's thugs just bust in, take all the gear (note: NONE of his art supplies have been returned, even though the place was declared "not a hazard") and then vow to prosecute.

    Next thing, Widower Kurtz will be breakin' rock till Kingdom Comes in Gitmo.

    Face it, folks, it's fascism. Pure and simple. A new kind of fascism, a marginally democratic, largely free market, and prozac addled, but still - it's the steel toed boot of authority stomping on the face of humanity. Again. And Again. And Again.

    We have always been at war with EastAsia.

    RS

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
  88. For some very needed context by LibrePensador · · Score: 1

    Check out these two articles: This one and this one

    --
    Pragmatism as an ideology is not particularly pragmatic in the long term. Keep it in mind when you dismiss Free Software
  89. Rule of the law... by Maljin+Jolt · · Score: 3, Informative

    Bacteria are not a threat to politicians. A Kurtz's radicalism is.

    What makes referenced Patriot Act section extremely practical for political reuse is simple fact, that any chemical or biological substance could be considered as toxic, either in certain condition or in certain quantity.

    Expired yoghurt? Molded bread? Can of meat forgotten on sunlight? Either of that is highly biologically dangerous material...

    --
    There you are, staring at me again.
  90. Wrong by nwbvt · · Score: 1
    "No, (times) haven't (changed)."

    Actually yes they have, no matter how much you want to deny it. We now live in a world where a few pissed off people can, using something like a biological weapon, kill hundreds, maybe even thousands or millions of people. That was not possible just a hundred years ago. Technology has drastically changed our world. So as it relates to this particular article, yes, it makes perfect sense to keep people from developing illegal biotechnology programs.

    Look, I believe the best government is a limited government. I believe that government action should be confined to a few limited purposes. I also believe that one of the most important of those purposes is to protect the lives of the people who live under it. That is in effect what government is. You give up a few freedoms to gain some safety. Its a constant balancing act. Allowing some psycho "artist" to play around with potentially dangerous technologies would tip that balance way over to the side of life being "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

    But hey, if you disagree, go find yourself some cabin out in Montana.

    --
    Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    1. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      giving infected blankets to Native Americans? All that has changed is that it's now easier to deliver bio-weapons. They have been used for a long long time. What freedoms are you willing to give up for safety? How about being tracked as you go about your business? Giving up the right to bear arms maybe? Regular lie detector tests to pick out subversives? Banning interstate travel without permission? Once you start giving things up then where does it end? You are either free to go about your law-abiding business or you are not, there is no inbetween.

    2. Re:Wrong by nwbvt · · Score: 1
      "giving infected blankets to Native Americans?"

      Thats nothing compared to what is possible today.

      "All that has changed is that it's now easier to deliver bio-weapons."

      And thats a pretty big ass change.

      "What freedoms are you willing to give up for safety..."

      As I said, its a balancing act. We give up some freedoms (such as the right to build a biotechnology lab in your basement) in exchange for safety. Your slippery slope argument is completely invalid, as is your apparent assertion that we can either have a police state or anarchy but nothing in between.

      Long ago we gave up many freedoms that would exist in anarchy in exchange for the safety provided by the state. We gave up the freedom to kill, rape, and steal from whomever we feel like. We gave up the freedom to secede from the union and form our own sovereign state here on American soil. We gave up the freedom to earn a living and keep all income to ourselves. Did the loss of any of those freedoms bring about the creation of a police state where we have no freedom? If not, what is so different about the freedom to build an unregulated biotechnology lab in your basement that will cause us to fall down the slope now but not then?

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
  91. Land of the free! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    US is becomming worse than USSR ever was!

    1. Re:Land of the free! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > US is becomming worse than USSR ever was!

      You *really* don't realize how bad that was. For some anyway.

  92. Well, you KNOW... by orenzero · · Score: 1

    ... there's only so much sailormongering one can prosecute whilst fighting a War on Terra.

    -oZ

  93. If I'm ill, and sneeze in public by dtfinch · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Am I a bioterrorist? I will have collected a dangerous biological material, harvested it in my body, and exposed the public to the substance knowing its potential to cause harm.

    1. Re:If I'm ill, and sneeze in public by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, if you obviously and purposefully sneezed in someone's face or something and they decided to alert the proper authorities then, yes you probably could be brought up on bioterrorism charges. Whether or not you would get convicted, I don't know.

      Didn't that happen not too long ago? I saw it on the news, a student tried to get a teacher sick or something.

    2. Re:If I'm ill, and sneeze in public by base3 · · Score: 1

      Actually, assualt would be the more appropriate charge, although I guess if you pissed the right person off, it could be spun as "bioterrorism."

      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
  94. Mmmmmmm... yogurt by thehomeland · · Score: 2, Funny

    Guess that means the yogurt industry is screwed.

  95. think about the implications, please. by twitter · · Score: 2, Informative
    He's an artist and an activist - so they shouldn't even investigate the bio-lab in his house, or his views on releasing mutant organisms in the wild!

    Nice straw man, tbase. I've yet to see anyone but you say such a thing.

    How about remembering that the good professor is innocent until proven guilty? I'd like to see real planning and materials pinned to the artist himself. What's being presented is petri dishes full of mold and literature, perhaps fantasy, from an organization the professor is a member of. It's all flimsy stuff that exposes problems with the Patriot Act.

    Quoting Malcom X does not make you a terrorist any more than reprinting, "Give me liberty or give me death." does. Actions are what laws forbid, not thoughts.

    A lab in your living room does not make you a terrorist either, but it looks like that will now get you into trouble with the Patriot act. While it seems clear that the "biological agents" found in the apartment were not harmful and not the cause of Hope's death, the lab itself is being treated as a weapon.

    Where do you draw the line? If you can't breed bugs for art, what can you breed them for? Do you want to have to convince Big Brother you are politically correct when you want to grow brewer's yeast?

    If you really want to be convinced of how harmless this group is, go visit their website yourself. The thing is a joke. The only thing that's disgusting is how far some prosecutor's clerk had to dig to find anything that looks threatening.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:think about the implications, please. by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      Er... he is innocent until proven guilty, that's why they're taking it to a jury. What is it about the whole court proccess that has people so confused?

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    2. Re:think about the implications, please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but teh twitt, what is teh M$ angle 2 this??? tell us twit,,, tell us!!!!!!!1!

    3. Re:think about the implications, please. by tbase · · Score: 1

      It's all a matter of levels. If this guy was a member of Critical Art, OR he had a home based lab, OR his wife died of apparently natural causes, we wouldn't have even heard about him. Even 2 out of 3 probably would have gotten him questioned a little. This guy hit the trifecta, so he's going to have to deal with the consequences. Not that I'm saying any of it is wrong or his fault. But for everyone's safety, they need to look into it.

      And where do you people keep getting the PATRIOT Act connection? There are plenty of examples of abuse of the PATRIOT Act for those (like myself) who oppose all or parts of it. Trying to blame unrelated (FACT), legitimate (IMHO) investigations on the PATRIOT Act only serves as ammunition to it's supporters.

      --

      666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast
  96. Yes you are by nwbvt · · Score: 1

    How dare those evil scientists! Trying to feed starving kids in third world countries... When will man ever learn?

    --
    Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
  97. Wow... by rayvd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you combine the death of his wife, the goals (satirical or not) of the organization this guy is a part of, and the fact that he does all this stuff from a lab in a residential area, it seems pretty clear to me that at least *investigating* would be an extremely appropriate thing to do. It appears that's what happened and the fact that they are leveling charges makes me think something was discovered.

    Throwing up a lot of quotes of disbelief by various people associated with the projects does little to discount that the whole situation surrounding this guy is more than a bit strange.

    This is far from an invasion of personal rights as some of you knee-jerk types would like to paint it...

    1. Re:Wow... by Qrlx · · Score: 1

      This is far from an invasion of personal rights as some of you knee-jerk types would like to paint it...

      You seem to have missed the point of your own post. This is indeed an invasion of personal rights; your argument is that in this case it's justified.

  98. Oh FUCK ME. I'm just screwed, aren't I? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    if I have pipe, black powder, and manifestos about how certain places should be blown up....
    Pipe.

    The refrigerator water line broke a valve. I just replaced a bad faucet in the kitchen. My sewer line sprung a leak last month. The freshwater line is leaking this month. I've got spare plumbing parts lying all over the house, just trying to keep up with it all.

    Black Powder.

    So I'm into target shooting. Hey, geeks with guns, and all that... Ammo is expensive. Reloading cuts my costs in half. I've got top of the line ammo reloading gear. Liters of black powder. Hell, I've got boxes of fulminate based primers. (They come in lots of 1000 units.)

    manifestos

    After the Oklahoma City Bombing back in '95, I began to doubt our various news sources' accuracy/truthfulness. They didn't seem to be sticking too closely to the facts. So I bought some books, old army manuals really, on how to blow shit up. Improvised explosives, and how to use them. Sifted through the news reports for facts that were there. Ignored the obvious rants. And drew my own conclusions.

    (FYI: I concluded the second seismic disturbance occurred from lateral displacement of a supporting column in the structure. When it broke, the energy released would have been like a second bomb going off. Neatly accounting for the asymmetrical damage. Thank god Timothy McVeigh was a such an incompetent bomber. Oh, and the feds were almost certainly responsible for burning those Davidians alive. The wind patterns. The holes punched by their tear-gas tank created a chimney effect. The pattern to the holes appears deliberate.)

    about how certain places should be blown up.

    I've been a long-time critic of airport security. It's just nuts. (I can't take a pair of nail clippers on. What's the rational there? If you don't let me hijack the plane, I'll trim my toenails? Or forcing women to drink their own breast milk?)

    On the other hand, even with all the extra post-911 security, its still damn trivial to slip guns/knives/bombs through. Obvious security lapses that just aren't being patched.

    I'd like to get them to change. Preferably without getting myself arrested in the process...

    I'm just doomed, aren't I? But imagine if they raided Sam Barros' place!

    P.S. As long as we're playing gestapo here, I hope you won't be put out about coming down to the station for some hard questioning, not to mention paying for a lawyer, for conspiracy to rape that girl out in Timbuktu. After all, you've got the equipment! We need to investigate...

    ...Is this really anonymous? If you don't hear back from me, its not...

  99. Re:ARG AGAIN!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    time to turn off Art Bell for a while....

    coe back to earth EG

  100. Ruh Roh by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    If Ashcroft gets wind of the toxic dust and nasty icky stuff that lives in everyday keyboards, we could all be in a world of hurt!

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  101. PCR Machine by daina · · Score: 0, Troll
    In one of the articles it said this guy had a PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) machine and a centrifuge. Frankly, this scares the stuffing out of me.

    The dark secret is that right now, a smart person could end all life on this planet with some broth, agar, a blender and an electric drill. This fellow had a lot more that that on hand.

    His goal was to draw attention to the dangers of commercial genetic modification. He hasn't accomplished that because most of you sheep don't seem to understand that his message was this: GM is dangerous precisely because of its unpredictability. Life adapts, evolves, and mutates. Genes are transferred horizontally and vertically as well.

    An unexplained death in an otherwise healthy 40-something woman is strange as hell. When she dies in the vicinity of a PCR machine, a centrifuge and a pile of bacterial cultures and the coroner can't assign a precise cause of death, this is a major cause for concern.

    Get this, and get it good: when you start messing with gene sequences (and yes, he WAS doing that) and replicating organisms, ANYTHING can happen, and it cannot necessarily be easily categorized or explained.

    It may already be too late, but this should be a wake-up call to freeze all GM experimentation except in Level IV labs.

    One way or another, this is probably the index case. Wait. You'll see.

  102. Everything as it should be by iamacat · · Score: 1

    Unless you really want your neighbors growing bacteria cultures in their homes. 999 out of 1000 will be harmless, and then one will escape, sicken a hundred people and kill an eldery woman with weak immune system. That would be some practice of art, huh?

  103. He'll get off easy. Read 817.b by eaglebtc · · Score: 1

    (b) ADDITIONAL OFFENSE- Whoever knowingly possesses any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system of a type or in a quantity that, under the circumstances, is not reasonably justified by a prophylactic, protective, bona fide research, or other peaceful purpose , shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
    ====

    It has been demonstrated that art can be a peaceful act of protest. Clearly this professor is not in violation of the law. He'll get off quite easily.

    --
    Homestarrunner.net -- It's Dot Com!
    1. Re:He'll get off easy. Read 817.b by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1
      It has been demonstrated that art can be a peaceful act of protest. Clearly this professor is not in violation of the law.

      Operative phrase here being 'can be.'

      He has written proposals for releasing mutant flies into restaurants, and demonstrated methods for destroying genetically modified crops.

      I'd say this is worth checking into.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  104. This really IS terrorism! by xenobyte · · Score: 1

    A quote from the Wired article:

    One of the ensemble's e-books advocates releasing mutant organisms into the environment to disrupt the work of biotech firms. Another proposes secretly releasing mutated flies into restaurants.

    They are advocating outright sabotage and scaring people by secretly releasing 'mutant flies' (which could be just as dangerous as any GMO produced by a biotech company according to themselves) into restaurants! - How is this different from blowing up these biotech retsaurants or biotech companies with explosives?

    Art may be art but this is much more than that. Their motives are clearly political and their advocated methods firmly planted in the realm of terrorism.

    --
    "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
    1. Re:This really IS terrorism! by Qrlx · · Score: 1

      They're no more terrorists than Monsanto.

      Of course, if Monsanto is engaging in environmental bioterrorism by releasing unregulated self-replicating GMOs is open for debate... it's just that such a debate is simply not happening among members of the Justice Department, or Congress, or pretty much any where else in America. In fact the people raising this issue are, ironically, the ones now being labelled "terrorist!"

      If you can't tell the difference between releasing GMOs into the environment and blowing up buildings, you need to figure that one out on your own. Have some Doritos with GMO corn in them while you ponder it.

      As for "Their motives are clearly political" are you telling me that Guernica is not art? Art is more than a Norman Rockwell painting you know.

      Lastly, if you're labelling someone a terrorist because of what they wrote in an eBook, then you might want to re-read the First Amendment before you string people up for ThoughtCrime.

  105. I live here by {tele}machus_*1 · · Score: 1

    I live in Buffalo, and our local NPR affiliate (WBFO WBFO has been covering this story quite well. (Unfortunately, I can't find any link to their coverage through the site, but then the coverage mostly comes with daily news reports as part of the Morning Edition feed). The last report I heard was that none of the stuff found in his house was found to be harmful. Also, no charges have been filed against him. I am surprised to hear that the FBI is continuing to investigate. I had thought that we had heard the last of it.

    I think the important thing to realize is that in our post-9/11 world, if you do something involving radical viewpoints AND dangerous/hazardous materials, you can expect to undergo a little more scrutiny than you otherwise might think is fair. The fact is, law enforcement is completely in the dark, and thus they completely overreact to everything, on the theory that false positives are not as bad as one false negative.

    I hope that if Kurtz was simply creating harmless art, as his colleagues claim, then he will eventually be exonerated. But frankly, some of the things mentioned in the article (e.g., releasing mutated flies in a "battle against the biotech industry") smack of bioterrorism. If Kurtz was planning something similar, then he can hardly call his work art, and he shouldn't be surprised to be under investigation.

  106. -1 FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "The dark secret is that right now, a smart person could end all life on this planet with some broth, agar, a blender and an electric drill."

    I don't know if this is -1 Troll, or -1 Complete Moron. In any event, it's FUD.

    1. Re:-1 FUD by daina · · Score: 1
      It's not FUD or a troll, and the last time I checked I was not a complete moron. People often react that way to radical ideas they do not understand. I recall Galileo receiving a similar reaction.

      Fact: the technology for marking, extracting, and replicating genes from almost any organism is well established and straightforward.

      Fact: While PCR machines and centrifuges make the task easier, DNA can be extracted with a blender and the fragments sorted with a crude centrifuge.

      Fact: Many bacteria take up gene sequences readily under conditions easily achieved in a home lab.

      Fact: Selective culturing techniques (such as slant plates) to achieve pure colonies of bacteria are childishly simple, and require no more than the appropriate broth, agar and possibly an indicator medium.

      If you want FUD, I can spell out exactly which genes can be extracted from common organisms and placed in which bacteria, but I'll refrain from doing so on the basis that there may be deranged individuals out there who are too stupid to think of this on their own.

  107. How about leaving the "consumer" the choice ? by aepervius · · Score: 1

    I mean, if some people are refusing all the "good" stuff that GM bring us, then so be it. This is all about choice. By avoiding flagging product as "used with GM food" then you are effectively REMOVING this choice and REMOVING THE FREEDOM OF PEOPLE TO CHOOSE !!!!

    Think of this : as a vegetarian you have a reasonable expectation to know if something is cooked with MEAT FAT. So why anti-GM people should not have a reasonable expectation to know what is build with GM food, directly or indirectly (after the GM food has been prepared and changed) ???

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  108. Can we drop the tinfoil hat stuff? by jmorris42 · · Score: 3, Informative

    > Under the Patriot Act (and don't kid yourself into thinking parts of it
    > are not classified) if I tried that now I personally would be charged
    > with obstruction of justice.

    I call bullshit. There are no 'secret' sections of the PATRIOT act. We can;t be expected to obey laws we can't possibly know anything about. I work in a public library and went through all this tinfoil hat stuff already when all the Nadorites went into a frenzy. (Think I'm being extreme? Well I was AT the Texas Library Assoc Convention a few months ago and watched Mr. Nader get more standing ovations than Kerry will likely get at the Democratic Convention next month.)

    > I am literally not allowed to request a warrant if the Patriot Act is
    > brought up.

    Wrong. Our orders are that if a Fed asks for ANYTHING we respond that we aren't authorized to do ANYTHING and to pick up the phone for our boss. She will get in touch with the city attorney (our legal representation of record) and they will handle it from there. But while that happens we should begin collecting the information, but stall on any turnover until we hear from her.

    And yes they do nead a warrant to actually take anything, but it is generally considered that a Fed on site will have little problem with that detail and to assume they either already have one or soon will so go ahead and start collecting the requested info. No sense being a total asshole about it.

    > Nor am I allowed to tell anyone that the request happened.

    Yes, this part IS true. Not sure how I personally come down on this one, but it does make a certain sense. But the more I ponder it the potential for misuse is just fscking huge so I guess I'd prefer to see that section of PATRIOT sunset.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
    1. Re:Can we drop the tinfoil hat stuff? by jbash · · Score: 1
      >> Nor am I allowed to tell anyone that the request >>happened.

      >Yes, this part IS true. Not sure how I personally come >down on this one, but it does make a certain sense.

      Why on earth would you be undecided? For the life of me, I can't figure out a sane argument to throw librarians in jail because they tell people the feds came to search library records.

    2. Re:Can we drop the tinfoil hat stuff? by Kaa · · Score: 1

      I call bullshit. There are no 'secret' sections of the PATRIOT act. We can;t be expected to obey laws we can't possibly know anything about.

      The obvious response is "well, duh, if they are secret you wouldn't know about them, would you?".

      However I believe that the original poster refers to a very specific capability of the US government -- "National Security Letters" also known as NSLs. Google a bit for them or, for example, here is link to the ACLU case challenging them: http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID =15543&c=262

      So, no, this ain't bullshit. Welcome to the brave new world, citizen.

      --

      Kaa
      Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
    3. Re:Can we drop the tinfoil hat stuff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And yes they do nead a warrant to actually take anything, but it is generally considered that a Fed on site will have little problem with that detail and to assume they either already have one or soon will so go ahead and start collecting the requested info. No sense being a total asshole about it.

      In other words, why worry about a warrant at all? Just trust the feds, they're your friends. And they never lie.
  109. Re:Rule of the law... (Return of 1) by Bloodmoon1 · · Score: 1

    FINALLY!

    The Bloodmoon has come back... (Dramatic Pause Here, as we stare out into the gazes of the thousands in attendance and the millions at home in front of their computers, and for a brief moment, we crack a smile as they hinge on our aforementioned Dramatic Pause)

    To Slashot!

    This is what we were missing before. I don't know where they all went, but it's good to see them returning. This is one of the few intelligent posts I've read recently.

    I applaud you. You're actually able to read between the fucked up lines getting drawn in the United States right now. This is a skill virtually all other people seem to lack. Most just see the face value of the story (Ashcroft is a dumb ass and thinks art might be used for terror!) and assume we have morons running the country. You, my friend, see the bigger picture, that we have some seriously fucked up and manipulative people running the show.

    I was going to continue my ongoing protest of /.'s general worthlessness and not even bother pointing out the same thing, but you've drawn me back out into the /world. Finally, some intelligence displayed around here. Why, why can't they all be like you?

    I cannot even think of the number of laws this administration has passed that have duel political uses like the example here. But look all up and down the board and you'll see them. Everything from the DMCA to CAPPS to the PATRIOT Act can be used in a way to curtail political descent.

    Just a thought, tying back to my most recent journal entry. The last president I can think of (and it's 0400 here, so I'm really not thinking to clearly, but still) that suspended Habeas Corpus (See: Guantanamo Bay) was Lincoln, and that was in the middle of the Civil War. Or maybe I should start referring to it as Civil War 1...

    So, in short, to you, Maljin, thank you. To the rest of you sheeple, wake the fuck up, and do it before it is to late.

    --

    Request: ECM unit, 1000 km fullerene cable, 1 tactical nuclear weapon. Reason: Birthday party for foreign dignitary.
  110. You must be new... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... in this country.

  111. giving artists too much credit by poincare · · Score: 1

    "It takes a lot more than a simple little gene to make something pathogenic. But you could teach these skills to a high-school student, and you could probably teach them to an artist."

  112. Response to petition: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you for providing us with your opinion on the matter of homeland security. Your name will be added to a list, and you will be contacted by your nearest federal law enforcement office as soon as more information becomes available [read: " when we have enough evidence to make you dissapear"].

    Hey, you have to EARN a foil hat!

  113. Take action.... by abram10 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    JUST SO YOU KNOW: I'M JOKING.... I DON'T REALLY WANT THE FOLLOWING TO HAPPEN....

    Do you know what this means?! Ban chemistry and biology from our schools! Ban physics and math! Ban art! Leave only English and American History. There's no harm in speaking English, and American History can instill patriotism in young Americans!

    Oh, yeah: ban PE too; we don't want strong terrorists! ;-)

  114. Re:Oh FUCK ME. I'm just screwed, aren't I? by phoenix321 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Mod up please.

    Try posting your comment not anon and I'd have added you to my friends list for this classic civil liberty embracing post. Thank you anyway. ;)

    If you are afraid of what you say and hide your name deliberately "then the _censors_ will have already won" ;) - oppression only works if all people have the *impression* that public dissent is considered insane from a "majority" and may even be outright dangerous.

    If you can't criticize "the ruling party" without fearing crippling ridicule from others (even if it's the "Freepers" et al.) or incarceration by the authorities, it's only a matter of time before real dictatorship is established. Just because it shows no swastika it can be fascism anyway.

    And in commemoration of "D-Day" tomorrow, I need to say as a German: thank you for the liberation *but* please make sure your nation does never transform into a fascism. The media cartels and its almost obvious manipulations are making me nervous and the military-industrial complex is already elected vice-president. Please, Americans, learn from German history on what NOT to do and when NOT to remain silent. If the totalitarian trend apparent in all branches of the US government continues I think it could soon be worse than we realize yet.

  115. Not a free country - a costly one by dbIII · · Score: 2, Interesting
    A free country does not allow its private sector and capitalists to dictate domestic and foreign policy in their favor and to the disadvantage of the majority
    The US lobbying system has confused me, paticularly since I live in a part of the world where members of a previous goverment were jailed for taking bribes. How is lobbying prevented from turning into outright bribery, paticularly in the defence sector where almost everything is kept secret? This affects everyone, my own country has made some rather stupid purchases on the request members of the US government (eg. obsolete torpedos we need to modify our submarines to use - when the supply runs out we'll have to modify them back; forty year old helicopters; tanks that do not fit any likely combat role of our military, which cost more, have a catastophicly short range and generally are worse in all areas than the light long range tanks they are replacing).

    The state I live in had a catch all piece of legislation known as the "drugs misuse act", which gave "Patriot" style powers. No warrents, prisoners could be held for some time without charge etc - it was abused a great deal by members of the local police force until it was repealed, such a thing will be abused by some even if it is set up with the best intentions. Removing the checks and balances unleases all kinds of actions. Alarm bells should have run the second it was called the "patriot" act - vote against something with a name like that and you'll look bad, no matter what the contents of the bill are, since you would obviously not be a patriot.

    As for the bioweapon shadow jumping, what really happened with the anthax? There's been a lot of sideshows and distractions since then.

    1. Re:Not a free country - a costly one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US lobbying system has confused me, paticularly since I live in a part of the world where members of a previous goverment were jailed for taking bribes. How is lobbying prevented from turning into outright bribery, paticularly in the defence sector where almost everything is kept secret?

      The vast majority of defense business in the US is not secret, but public. The defense budget is published and included the procurement of ships, planes, tanks, and other equipment. There is a small percentage of equipment, like the development of stealth aircraft, which is hidden, but that is a minor fraction.

      Bribery is a crime, lobbying is not. There are strict limits on the size of gifts, meals, etc., that a government employee can accept. I've seen government employees reimburse a company I worked at for coffee and donuts at meetings. Outright bribery isn't a big problem in the US, but there is a "revolving door" in which former members of government take jobs in industry. That has some negative effects. Much more troublesome is the desire by members of the legislature to win defense contracts which include production in their districts. There may not be a lot that can be done about that.

      I think you are distorting the facts regarding some of the defense purchases Australia has made. I wonder if you understand the issues?

      The torpedo issue is not as silly or straight forward as you seem to think.

      The M1 tank purchase is cost effective given the alternatives, and provides a significant upgrade for the Australian Army over the ancient Leopard tanks they have now. I kind of have to laugh... I didn't track down the reference to 40 year old helicopters that you complain about, but the use of 40 year old, severly outclassed and increasingly expensive to operate and maintain Leopard tanks doesn't bother you. I think you can rest easy, even mighty Norway has concluded it is time to replace the Leopard. The M1 isn't a bad choice. It is battle proven, lethal, reliable, and heavily protected. Its cruising range isn't as long as the Leopard, but you generally dont' want to move tanks long distances under their own power anyway. You should use tank transporters to move them long distances since it is much cheaper and cuts down on maintenance. The Australian Army has plenty of data to decide if the M1 tank's range is a problem or not based on their own experience, and the 1991 & 2003 Gulf Wars.

      Regarding the anthrax investigation, it continues. Last fall, IIRC, the FBI drained a pond looking for evidence. Maybe the source will be found, maybe not.

      Cheers.

    2. Re:Not a free country - a costly one by dbIII · · Score: 1
      The torpedo issue is not as silly or straight forward as you seem to think.
      But what do we do when the current supply runs out? Fitting ordinance which is no longer manufactured when we do not have the means to manufacture it ourselves seems pointless.

      As for the forty year old tanks, they were purchased decades ago, while the forty year old sea sprite helicopters are being delivered in a year or two.

      There have been a lot of arguments against the M1 tank, it's not built for long distance combat operations in remote areas (which is mostly what the Australian Army has done in the last fifty years), so it wasn't even on the list for consideration before ministerial intervention. A lot has been written as to why the M1 tank is not suitable with small mobile forces - the Australian army isn't big enough for a big USA/USSR setpiece battle just off the autobahn - they want things they can use in Timor, Afganistan, Solomon Islands and other places where you can't get tank transporters to move long distances. Put down the purchase of those tanks and the stockpiled torpedoes (which we don't even get at a competitive price) as lobbying - the only thing we get over the cheaper and more suitable alternatives is goodwill. When the USA is buying the Australian made metalstorm technology, we'll be buying some forty year old US gear for a higher price, since it will come with more goodwill.

    3. Re:Not a free country - a costly one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what do we do when the current supply runs out? Fitting ordinance which is no longer manufactured when we do not have the means to manufacture it ourselves seems pointless.

      I looked into the torpedo thing. It looks to me like Australia is buying US MK48 ADCAP torpedos. That is the standard US sub torpedo. If that is what is being bought, that will be around for a very loooooong time.

      the forty year old sea sprite helicopters are being delivered in a year or two.

      Found them. It is a helicoper that was originally designed almost 50 years ago, but has been regularly updated. It looks like they are still being made. The US Navy still uses them. New Zealand bought some too, and they seem to think they will be a powerful addition to their fleet. I don't think that I would we sweating that one too much either..

      lot has been written as to why the M1 tank is not suitable with small mobile forces

      For a small, mobile force, the real question isn't Leopard or M1. The real question is: tank or something else. Tanks are heavy, including the Leopard, and that is the real killer when it comes to mobility, especially by air. The M1 and all of its contemporaries (Leopard 2, Challenger, Le Clerc) are all too heavy to move by anything but the largest aircraft. The Leopard 1 is only marginally better. If small and mobile is what is needed, then it is time get get something like the AMX-10RC. I don't think that will happen though.

      For what its worth, the Australian Army wants a force that is capable of combined arms operations, which is reasonable. That generally means you want to have tanks available. If you are going to have tanks, they better be good ones given the increasing lethality of hand held anti-tank weapons. If you don't have good tanks, all you get is human torches jumping out of a brewed up tank.

      Today, the Leopard is extremely vulnerable compared to the M1 in terms of armor protection. The M1 can hit and kill a target at a considerably longer range. You are much better off with M1s than Leopard 1s if you are going to have tanks. If you aren't going to have tanks, I will let you break it to the men in 1st Armoured Regiment.

      Cheers.

      One last thing. I'm not sure where you are getting your defense related information from, but as far as I can see from the quick looks that I took, your sources are not serving you well.

  116. Interesting choice of expert by dbIII · · Score: 1
    "Unless you know what the heck you're doing," said Richard Mears, assistant professor of criminal justice
    I suspect an assistant professor of criminal justice is not qulified to know what the heck they are doing with anything related to microbiology.

    Also, could someone in the USA fill me in on this: would the assistant professor be second in charge of criminal justice at the University of Maine (the meaning of the title in most parts of the world) or are things really like the movies where even high school science teachers get to call themselves professor?

  117. Re:Kerry 4 President by attobyte · · Score: 1

    Yea I agree, I was just really thinking of getting rid of ASScroft. That guy is really really bad. I don't think Bush is that bad but I really hate ASScroft.

    --
    I didn't use the preview button, so get over it!!!!

    Mike

  118. Still confused, re:Wait. Confusing. by boneglorious · · Score: 1

    Why do you equate CAE's mission, which seems to me to be encouraging the public to educate itself about GMO, with white supremacism? Education = racism? All this guy was doing was testing food to see if it had been modified by one or more of the most common methods. What is wrong with doing that (or advocating that others do it)?

    --
    Can I mod something +1 Scary if it's true but I wish it weren't?
    1. Re:Still confused, re:Wait. Confusing. by Ieshan · · Score: 1

      I was replying to the parent of my post, which assumed that the individual had actually done the actions of burning crops, etc.

      It was a comparison, using another group which advocates something but doesn't neccessarily do it.

  119. At War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    point 1. The Constitution requirement applies when the U.S. initiates the war, not when someone else initiates war against us.

    point 2. Congress has passed TWO resoultions which, while not labeled "delaration of war", contain all the elements of such. So it comes down to wether or nor the phrase "declaration of war" is magically required.

  120. Sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A guy who ignored his own agencies telling him there was going to be a big deal from Al Queda.

    So gets us involved in Iraq, which had nothing to do with the attack, which has cost us half a trillion dollars and ruined our influence in the middle east as well as western europe.

    Which he did by claiming WMD were in Iraq, but guess what, they weren't.

    Oh, but the Vice-President's company Haliburton (no, he didn't sell all his stock), got a multi-billion no-bid contract to "help" the troops.

    All the while giving tax breaks to rich people, which didn't help the economy.

    All the while crushing our civil liberties and going after boobies on TV and radio to cover the fact that they're trying to allow media consolidation to occur.

    Oh, and I mention the guy can produce a single sentence that makes sense unless it comes off a teleprompter.

    Name one president worse in the last 100 years. Carter at least was honest.

    Be honest. I'm a republican, lifelong (I've been voting for 30 years), never voted for anything but a republican, this will be the first time I don't. He's that bad. I mean... REALLY bad.

    1. Re:Sure by jkczyz · · Score: 1
      A guy who ignored his own agencies telling him there was going to be a big deal from Al Queda.

      How did Bush ignore his own agencies? The preliminary results of the 9/11 hearings show that 1) the FBI and CIA weren't providing anything specific to act on and 2) he actually did take al-Qaida more seriously than Clinton.

      So gets us involved in Iraq, which had nothing to do with the attack, which has cost us half a trillion dollars and ruined our influence in the middle east as well as western europe.

      Which he did by claiming WMD were in Iraq, but guess what, they weren't.

      A half a trillion dollars is chump change for us. Kerry is willing to spend more than Bush on Iraq anyway. As far as WMD, true nothing was found yet. Maybe everything either had already been destroyed, went to Syria, or never even existed. Does it really matter? Saddam is an evil SOB. He should have been removed a long time ago. He'd been a thorn in our side during the entire Clinton administration and started being more vocal immediately after the World Trade Center went crumbling down.

      Oh, but the Vice-President's company Haliburton (no, he didn't sell all his stock), got a multi-billion no-bid contract to "help" the troops.

      All the while giving tax breaks to rich people, which didn't help the economy.

      Bush gave tax breaks to everyone. Kerry wants to give tax breaks to everyone but the rich--which also happens to translate to small business owners. If you truely are a Republican (which I don't think you are at all), then you would agree with Bush on taxes. BTW, check the latest economic reports and you'll see that they are helping the economy.

      All the while crushing our civil liberties and going after boobies on TV and radio to cover the fact that they're trying to allow media consolidation to occur.

      You are sounding more and more like a democarat after each sentance.

      Oh, and I mention the guy can produce a single sentence that makes sense unless it comes off a teleprompter.

      For someone you claims to be nearly 50 years old, you don't seem to have a very good grasp of the vernacular either.

      Name one president worse in the last 100 years. Carter at least was honest.

      Again, see my point that history will ultimately decided how Bush is viewed.

      Be honest. I'm a republican, lifelong (I've been voting for 30 years), never voted for anything but a republican, this will be the first time I don't. He's that bad. I mean... REALLY bad.

      Maybe you're the one that needs to be honest. If you really are a Republican you would care more about core issues of your party than what's going on in Iraq. Kerry and Bush differ very little on Iraq anyway. If you are a Republican and voted for a Democrat then you would be throwing away all your core beliefs. You shouldn't care who is running for presdient on the Republican ticket. Elections are decided by the middle of the road Joe Swing-Voter, not lifelong Republicans or Democarats.

  121. Lets be clear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Also one could argue that Saddams failure to honor the terms of the cease fire effectively re-instated the state of conflict that existed after he invaded Kuwait."

    Oh please. You go to war when it suits a purpose. Its not about treaties, words, this or that.

    What purpose did we serve going to war in Iraq? How did it help us?

    This thing is nam-viet all over again. I was alive then, and I'm telling you its so the same that its scary.

  122. Re:If you test the system, they'll show you it wor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At first I'm like, DAMN that dude has no life, I mean all he does is post to slashdot. So I was like dude, don't post to slashdot so much. But now I am like, SHIT this is the ultimate troll account, used by no less than four different people. Mr. Cluster(s), you got greedy in the last few days. You flew to close to the sun.

  123. Yogurt by dacarr · · Score: 1

    That's it. I'm going to report my local supermarkets for terrorism. I mean, anybody who stocks yogurt is just asking for trouble, you know?

    --
    This sig no verb.
  124. talk about confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I read the summary, I thought of Scott Kurtz of PVP fame. Instinctively, instead of RTA, I went to his website and saw:
    "Home again
    Posted on Wednesday, June 2, 2004
    We're back! KC was a blast. The wife and I had a great time....


    I was like, wtf! When did his wife die? Yesterday?

    Gotta at least open one link in the summary.

  125. What's confused. by twitter · · Score: 1
    Another T asks:

    Er... he is innocent until proven guilty, that's why they're taking it to a jury. What is it about the whole court proccess that has people so confused?

    The Patriot Act is confused. It has made non harmful activities criminal and subjects anyone who owns "biologic agents" to the whims of a jury trial and national infamy. The presumption of guilt inherent in the Patriot act makes a mockery of the presumption of innocence. There is potential for abuse beyond shutting up an artist, though that is bad enough.

    By the letter of the Patriot Act, he IS guilty. He did have a lab with "biologic agents" removed from their natural setting. He can spend years in prison for that. He will have to spend years of his life fighting off the charges and his reputation has been irrevocably damaged. Yet it seems clear that his artwork was not a threat to anyone. The patriot act presumes guilt for innocent activities and forces people to prove that innocence.

    The potential for abuse is huge. Once upon a time, you could found a company like HP in your garage. Today, the Patriot act stands in the way of anyone who would do the same with "biologic agents". The basic tools of research have been outlawed for an entire field. The same kinds of bogus arguments can be made about compilers and printed circuit board making equipment.

    The Patriot Act is a truly unAmerican set of laws that will continue to harm us all.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:What's confused. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      twit, is tath teh M$ faults? bogus dishonests evil nasty M$? tell us teh twit!!!!!!!!!1!

    2. Re:What's confused. by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      Except he's not guilty thats the thing. Look a law says you may not do X, and if you are suspected of doing X, you're arrested and charged with doing X and it's taken to a court. You are still INNOCENT despite the fact that you were arrested. While you are in court, you are still INNOCENT despite the fact that you are in court. You are INNOCENT until a jury declares you guilty. Period. It does not matter what the PATRIOT Act says except as the basis for your charge. Yes, he had a lab, with biological agents, removed from their natural setting. So yes, he is suspected of breaking the law. Hence the arrest and jury. HOWEVER, he is not guilty yet, and the PATRIOT act provides for uses of such labs for peacful purposes. That is why he is in trial. To decide if he broke the law or not. The prosecution has to prove that it was not for peacful purposes.

      Innocent until proven guilty still holds.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
  126. Re:Oh FUCK ME. I'm just screwed, aren't I? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They have already won. They can come in, at the drop of a hat, any hat, and confiscate all my hardware and software. Even the backups.

    Can you imagine a plumber losing all his tools? Or an electrician? My tools are on my computers. My contacts. My contracts. All work in progress. Everything.

    All gone, in a heartbeat. On some powermonger's whim. No defense available. I'm unemployed. I'm unemployable. Blacklisted. I lose my life savings. My house. If I'm damn lucky, I won't be jailed, trying to come up with money for an attorney.

    And what becomes of my wife? My kids?

    Yeah. They've won. I've lost. I'm not trying to save the world. I'm just trying to survive.

  127. It's Worse than you realize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In some areas of the good o'l U.S.of.A., the government can force the local population to be inoculated against disease.

    Adult, functioning, sane, supposedly "free" individuals.

    Against the desires of the individual.

    Against the recommendations of the individual's doctors.

    Knowing full well that said inoculation will kill the individual.

    It is suspected as being a mechanism for removing chronically ill people from the health care system.

    You can do that in some places. My state has concealed-carry. Most of the population has guns. Good luck trying it here.

  128. Re:"Nothing unreasonable there" by meanroy · · Score: 1
    Uh, Yeah, right.
    However, Grand Juries are often presented with 'cases' when an ambitious prosecutor or a federal agency has an agenda.
    "The grand jury at the federal level has had a troubled history. Required by the Constitution as a check on judicial and prosecutorial abuse, it has often been used as a tool of abuse against political dissidents. Most grand juries are mere "rubber stamps" for prosecutors, but others become "runaway" grand juries, taking the lead in investigations of official corruption and abuse."
    Info here
    (I know, I know, obviously just another commie, pinco, left-wing liberal FUD site.)
    In another article
    "And unlike a search warrant situation, where the agent has to obtain permission and authority from a judge to seize records or property after demonstrating probable cause to believe an offense has been committed, in the case of a grand jury subpoena the discretion of the prosecutor is virtually unfettered."
    Article here
    Oh, thats just Opinion?

    How about this
    MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY OF GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS, DUE TO ABUSE OF GRAND JURY PROCESS

    Case eventially dismissed/dropped: Info Here
    More info on Grand Jury abuse Here
  129. Just common-sense really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps it has something to do with this particular company having a long unpleasant history of attempting to cover up and deny the illness and death some of their products have caused.

  130. Re:Home Biolab != "Art Installation" by stephentyrone · · Score: 1

    "Questionable circumstances" = heart failure, according to the police.

    And this is hardly comparable to having a small nuclear reactor; they had some basic lab equipment that you can find in any college freshman genetics class. This is more comparable to the feds confiscating your son's petri dishes that he was using for his science fair project.

    The fact that they spout "anti-whatever propaganda" should have absolutely nothing to do with anything.

  131. What is a Grand Jury? by geoswan · · Score: 1
    Hello! What is this Grand Jury you speak of? Not everyone lives in the USA you know. How is a grand jury different than a preliminary hearing? Do you Americans have them as well as preliminary hearings? Or are they instead of preliminary hearings?

    Only the prosecutor gets to ask questions? Yipes! That doesn't sound fair! I thought the USA was supposed to be a democratic Country? Seriously, why have them? How often do you have them? Are the jurors for Grand Juries drawn from the same pool as jurors for regular trials? Is the prosecutor on his own, or does a judge preside?

    1. Re:What is a Grand Jury? by LostCluster · · Score: 2, Informative

      A grand jury is a replacement for a preliminary hearing, done in secret so that the evidence doesn't have to be published or given to the defense at this stage. It's overseen by a judge to keep the prosecutor in line, but it really is the prosecutor's show. There's no defense lawyer to challenge the witnesses, but the jury members are usually allowed to directly question the witnesses.

      The burden at such a proceedure is trivial, because all a grand jury can do is return an indictment. The common joke that a procecutor can talk a grand jury into indicting a ham sandwich is more or less correct, it's a real slap in the face for a grand jury to respond that they were not convinced the burden to get an indictment was met.

      This process is done to prevent really pointless trials from even getting started.

    2. Re:What is a Grand Jury? by geoswan · · Score: 1
      Thanks. Is it more expensive than preliminary hearing?

      Secret? How often do some of the secret elements of the Grand Jury proceedings leak out?

      Seriously, the secretiveness does seem to contradict the general openness people expect of the USA.

    3. Re:What is a Grand Jury? by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      It's cheaper than a preliminary hearing because there's no need to involve defense council.

      Leaks happen in high-profile cases, but in low-profile cases there's really no chance for much to leak because the indictment is public, and the prosecution is going to have to show even more evidence at trial. Besides, the only people who can't speak are the jurors about what they heard... anybody who testifies in front of a grand jury is free to tell what they told the jury on the steps of the court house if they wish, but nobody can force them to until the trial.

      A conventional grand jury session is like a factory for indictments. A police officer comes in, is put under oath, and then the prosecutor basically goes down the list of people the officer arrested recently and asks him why he did so. It really only takes one complaining eyewitness to create enough evidence to justify there being a trial at which point that eyewitness can be confronted by the defense.

    4. Re:What is a Grand Jury? by Asterisk · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that a preliminary hearing is a replacement for a Grand Jury, since the Grand Jury is the traditional means of issuing indictments under the common law?

      I find it suprising that the above poster, who I presume is from Canada (due to his posting google.ca links) has never heard of Grand Juries, considering that they were used in English Canada, along with most other common-law jurisdictions.

  132. Come now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a dead woman who died of undiscerned causes; and a grand jury will decide. Surely that is a bit different from the Hatfill case.

    Jerry Pournelle
    see http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view312.html#FB I

  133. Are you English or retarded? by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

    We aren't talking about fiddling with genes and bacteria, we're talking about THE GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO IT. We don't like Monsanto for their patents and their lawsuits against farmers or their "terminator" seeds, but if their labs were raided by and their employees arrested by counter-terrorist teams, we would object too.

    Hypocracy is only when you're talking about the SAME ISSUE, moron. By (wrongly) rushing to call Slashdot a bunch of hypocrites, you are no better than what you are accusing them of being.

  134. The guy lost his wife goldarnit ! by geoswan · · Score: 2, Insightful
    If there is no true crime, he'll be fine...

    I've read about fifty comments here, and no one has expressed any sympathy for the guy who has just lost his wife. She was an artist herself, and they worked together on their projects. I am going to assume he loved her.

    Put yourself in his shoes. You lose your wife and you get your life turned upside down, at the same time, by the Justice department?

    This reminds me of that Oregon lawyer. He had defended someone suspected of terrorist ties. He had converted to Islam. The FBI said there was a match between him and a fingerprint found at the Madrid bombing. But they were wildly wrong. They were told they were wrong.

    Carlos Corrales, a commissioner of the Spanish National Police's science division, said he was also struck by the F.B.I.'s intense focus on Mr. Mayfield. "It seemed as though they had something against him," Mr. Corrales said, "and they wanted to involve us."
    What is the point of patting yourself on the back for having a "free Country" if you let paranoia around security make you act like a Police State?
  135. Bare-Breasted Justice by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

    'Apparently John Ashcroft can't tell a weapons lab from an art installation. ' What else would one expect from John Ashcroft: He can't tell art ( bare breasted statue of Justice ) from porn -- put a blue blanket over her!.

    This morning, I happened to take a good look at the Classics building (Burton Hall) @ the University of Minnesota. Classic-style building, big Greek pillars, stone friezes, etc.

    One of the friezes depicts various academic virtues -- Science, Architecture, Painting, Literature, etc. -- each with several people (and sometimes cherubs). Some of the people were scientists, architects etc., all men; accompanied by stately women wearing togas, in various states of revealing one or both breasts.

    Now that's my kind of academia -- men sit around, surrounded by cool toys and looking important, while stately half-naked women admire them (admire the men, not the cool toys).

    And I have to observe: Science gets the best chicks.

    -kgj

    --
    -kgj
  136. Dense on purpose or did you ride the short bus? by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

    > In other words, why worry about a warrant at all? Just trust the feds,
    > they're your friends. And they never lie.

    Please. Did you even read the post? Or perhaps I just wasn't being clear enough. If a Fed is going to bother driving at least fifty miles to show up at our door, we figure that it is reasonable they will either have a warrent already or will be able to get one so fast as not to matter so we have decided that we won't be an asshole about it and go ahead and start data collection. But had you actually READ my post, you would know our policy is NOT to release without one. The reason for this is that I live in Louisiana and we have had a law on the books for decades requiring a warrant for the release of patron records from a public library.

    We might be backwards ass country folk with a screwed up legal system based on French instead of English laws, but we do get a few things right down here in the swamps.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
  137. Secret laws by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

    > The obvious response is "well, duh, if they are secret you wouldn't
    > know about them, would you?"

    Well a Fed had better not be dumb enough to try that trick on us. Because I'd be asshat enough to reply something along the lines of:

    "Well we developed our policy on PATRIOT based on the published law so if you have any addendums you can bring them up at the next scheduled meeting of the Beauregard Parish Library Board of Control and they can reevaluate our policy. This is a government instituition operating under the control of the Soverign State of Louisiana's chain of command and is not directly subject to Federal control. We are required to submit to warrants lawfully issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, but since you lack one of those and are now becoming irrational and disruptive I must insist that you leave this facility. Should you fail to do so I shall call the Sheriff's Office and ask for their assistance in removing you and authenticating your credentials."

    The last bit is because the odds of a real FBI agent being dumb enough to try "well it is a secret law" crap is pretty low, but a CIA or NSA agent posing as FBI might, but certainly wouldn't want a Sheriff checking his fake papers.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
  138. Witchcraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Just because someone dies doesn't mean there's a suspect.

    Except in certain African tribes. When I majored in anthropology, I learned about some cultures that believed every death was caused by witchcraft. It wasn't that they were ignorant of natural causes...my professor related one case in which an elevated hut collapsed on a person sitting under it. Witchcraft! He pointed out that everybody knew the supports were rotting...the Africans said "Sure, we know that, but that still doesn't explain why it collapsed while Joe was sitting under it." Then they went witchhunting.

    Nice to know we're heading down the same road.

    1. Re:Witchcraft by Liquidrage · · Score: 1

      That's actually rather interesting. Thanks for point that out.

  139. Re:Home Biolab != "Art Installation" by black+mariah · · Score: 1

    "The fact that they spout "anti-whatever propaganda" should have absolutely nothing to do with anything."

    It has quite a lot to do with it. A person who is known to be an activist and has proposed ways of destroying GM crops is found with a dead wife and a basement full of lab cultures? Any combination of two isn't cause for alarm. But mix them all together and you have a problem.

    --
    'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
  140. This guy was my professor... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He was a pretty good guy... our class was in 'tactical media', where we'd put together public demonstrations against stuff, so he definitely was an activist type. But I had a lot of fun in his class and he gave me an A.

    1. Re:This guy was my professor... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea. He might be a good guy. . . But
      was he a Gay Nigger???

  141. ugh. by twitter · · Score: 1
    Yes, he had a lab, with biological agents, removed from their natural setting. So yes, he is suspected of breaking the law.

    No, he broke the law by doing that.

    ... the PATRIOT act provides for uses of such labs for peacful purposes. The prosecution has to prove that it was not for peacful purposes.

    No, the Patriot act outlaws labs not for "bona-fida" research. Let me quote the second paragraph of the linked code:

    Whoever knowingly possesses any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system of a type or in a quantity that, under the circumstances, is not reasonably justified by a prophylactic, protective, bona fide research, or other peaceful purpose, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

    And just like that, guilt is presumed. The good professor must now prove that his artwork was for a "reasonably justified" "peaceful purpose".

    The same kinds of laws and language are applied to special nuclear materials. You can't own them, period. If you listen to what the prosecutors are saying, the same logic is guiding the above ban. While the careful licensing of nuclear materials may be justified, banning people from collecting and breeding common bacteria is absurd.

    This case would never have gotten as far as it had without the massive ignorance and presumption of the Patriot Act. The man's displays have been deemed safe enough for public exhibition by experts. His wife's autopsy exonerated the artwork. Yet, here he is going to trial for running a lab based on a few snips of satirical literature published by a group he belongs to. Before the Patriot Act, this case would have been laughed out of court because there was nothing wrong with a collection of moldy petri dishes and there's no evidence of any other wrongdoing. The Patriot act forces the accused to prove their innocence as if NO ONE BUT A TERRORIST WOULD RUN A LAB.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:ugh. by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      Except he's not guilty yet. What part of this don't you understand? He is not serving a 10 year sentence for this, nor has he been fined. hence HE IS NOT GUILTY. Guilt is not presumed, the law outlines the exceptions to itself. The prosecution MUST PROVE that this was for a peacful purpose.

      You're not reading the law right. It's not a "reasonably justified peaceful purpose" it's that the possession is "reasonably justified" by it's "peaceful purpose". The prosecution must prove that it wasn't peacful. He is not guilty yet.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    2. Re:ugh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it is probabley all teh m$ faults right twit??!!

  142. sure, M$ loves this kind of thing. by twitter · · Score: 1
    A persistent AC asks:

    it is probabley all teh m$ faults right twit??!!

    M$ would like to do the same for compilers and "unsigned" code. They would love to have more government support to stamp out any and all competition, especially free competition. They have come a long way towards having DRM inbeded in hardware and having trade secrets enforced by government under the DMCA. They will justify the next steps by the poor quality of their code and the damage malware does to their customers because of it. If owning a few petri dishes and ROM programmers can get you arrested and people don't question it, one day M$ may have it's way with basic software tools as well.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:sure, M$ loves this kind of thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Moderators: Please note that "twitter" is a known fanatical psycophant whose obnoxious offtopic rants are legend here on Slashdot. It doesn't matter what the topic is, he'll find a way to scrape in some pointless Microsoft bashing. While nobody expects us to love Microsoft in any way, his particularly tepid style of calling anyone he replies to "troll" or "liar" because he happens to disagree with whatever they're saying is well documented and should not be rewarded. If anything, twitter is the type of person that should not be part of the open source/free software community. He is an anathema to all that is good about free software.

      I'm posting this so that you (the moderator) have some context to consider twitter and not mod him up whenever he posts his filler preformatted rants about installing Knoppix or whatever that unfortunately get him karma every single time and allow him to continue posting his trademark toxic crap (read on) day in and day out. You may consider this a troll - I consider it community service. And I ain't kidding.

      If you're a /. subscriber, I invite you to look through some of his posting history. I guarantee that you'll be hard pressed to find someone that is more "out there" than twitter. You'll also probably notice he's got quite an AC following. Don't just read his posts, make sure you go through the replies.

      To get an idea of what I'm talking about, check this post out. I mean, this is an article about email disclaimers, right? The parent of the post is complaining about the ads in the linked page and so on, and twitter actually goes off on a rant to blame it on Microsoft and recommend Lynx. WTF?

      Here's another. In this post twitter not only calls the OP a troll but attempts to "tell it like it is" while making some vague argument about "GNU". Yes, if you're confused, you're not alone. The reply (modded +4) proceeds to simply destroy his bogus argument. You will notice he did not reply. This is what some people call "drive-by advocacy". A sort of I'll just leave you with my thoughts here and move on to the next flamebait kind of deal. In fact, he almost never replies because he knows that his fanatical arguments simply do not hold up to any sort of discussion. It's not that he's chosen the wrong cause - he's just going at it in a completely wrong way.

      More? Just read though this post and the subsequent replies. I guess this stands on its own.

      More? Bad spelling in astounding conspiracy theories, more offtopic FUD and uninformed "I'm right, look at me" rants, promptly proven wrong. Worse even, twitter wants to be RMS, apparently (that first one is a winner). I mean, really. You think?

      FUD, FUD, FUD, FUD, offtopic FUD, and mo

    2. Re:sure, M$ loves this kind of thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      i r teh persistent AC twit, u r teh persistent pathetic zealott!!!!!!

      hahahahahah!!!!!!!! thanks u teh twit!!

  143. College Biology labs and e. coli by geoswan · · Score: 1
    ...my college *major* was biochemistry and microbiology.

    Ah. Good to have an expert.

    ...easily walk over to the next department and ask for lab time, and probably get it with no questions asked. All we had to do at my University was sign up during open hours.

    You have probably heard this old aphorism: "Why is academic politics so vicious? Because the stakes are so low." Is it possible that a professor, or department, that normally had a policy of allowing members of the University community to sign up for open lab time would prohibit someone who might cost them research grants from Monsanto?

    Or maybe Dr Kurtz didn't think his dignity was consistent with sharing a lab with undergrads?

    E. coli can be fatal in a wound? I didn't know that. I thought that meat contaminated with e. coli was a problem because it could cause food poisoning -- nausea and diarhea. What does e. coli do to your mouth?

    1. Re:College Biology labs and e. coli by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Don't know how "expert" I am this many years removed, but I do remember most of the principles :) And I've certainly had my share of lab time, back when. Potential pathogens were kept tightly controlled, but there are all sorts of other interesting things one can grow in a petri dish.

      In my experience it's the department head who determines who is allowed to sign up for lab time. And most labs have a lot of idle time when no one would even notice if you were signed in or just using it on your own. Students wander around at every hour of the day and night, and who's going to question someone in an official-looking lab coat, with a professor's name tag, who looks like they know what they're doing?

      My suspicion is that this guy just didn't want anyone to SEE what he was doing, as it would have been a helluva lot easier to just park his experiments in the university's incubators (where they'd probably go unnoticed, permission or no), than to try to get consistent growing conditions at home.

      Food poisoning can be fatal, if it goes far enough. Bacteria colonies anywhere they don't belong can be harmful to fatal, depending on what byproducts they make and how badly they overgrow when they get into an ecosystem where there are no competing types that keep them in check, so your immune system can no longer keep up (normal systems develop natural resistance to those you live with all the time).

      Your skin is loaded with organisms that are harmless there, but could make you very sick (or dead) if they got established in your bloodstream (such as staph bacteria -- harmless on the skin, can cause rheumatic fever if it gets into the bloodstream. "Flesh-eating bacteria" is another of like ilk). Most heart disease is now believed to be caused by bacterial colonies that get into the bloodstream by way of gum disease (which is essentially an ongoing infection around the roots of the teeth). Your gut teams with bacteria that digests your food and manufactures vitamins for you, and you can't survive without them, but if you puncture the intestinal wall and let them out, you have 4 or 5 days before you die of septicemia if you don't get heavy-duty treatment, and even then you might not make it. A normal healthy person can deal with some ingested fecal bacteria if it's from fresh or dried dung from a healthy person or animal, but you don't want the stuff to spend a week growing in meat or beans first (rotten veggies, especially beans, are much more likely to make you really sick than rotten meat is). And so on.

      Here's a good one-liner reference for a few common bacteria found in a normal environment, and what they do when misplaced:
      http://www.surgical-tutor.org.uk/core/ preop1/staph _strep.htm (beware the /. space)

      I'd guess his wife died of an infection from some oddball variety he'd cooked up, to which she lacked normal immunity, given that it wasn't part of the normal everyday environment. It doesn't take much if something untoward gets into the central nervous system, and that can be very hard to diagnose or identify. To some degree, you need to know what you're looking for before you can find it, and it doesn't help if the corpse isn't absolutely fresh. If no one thought to culture her more-critical tissues before filling her full of preservative, it may be too late to determine the cause.

      Bacteria are not generally anything to be afraid of in their normal habitats, other than a few species with specific disease-causing or toxin-generating habits; you live surrounded, filled, and sustained by beneficial bacteria your whole life. But like the Force, they can do great harm when they are misplaced or misused. And this fellow seemed bent on turning them to the Dark Side.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  144. Someone call the FBI!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've got some serious biotech going on in my fridge...