Patch Tuesday, also known as Black Tuesday amongst Administrators, is the second Tuesday of every month in which Microsoft releases a series of patches and critical updates for its various operating systems and applications.
I always refer to it as "That time of the month for P.M.S.: Patching Microsoft Servers."
Further down in the report... (Score:5, Funny) by It doesn't come easy (695416) * on Tuesday May 17, @01:15PM (#12557076)
The survey went on to say that the remaining 18 percent of people 'exhibited unusual behavior in the workplace while carrying out their normal daily activities.'
The original article states "that 82 percent of people who hack their company 'exhibited unusual behavior in the workplace prior to carrying out their activities.'"
This does not mean that 82 percent of the people who exhibit unusual behavior are going to hack their company.
That's like some racist bastard saying that because 50% of all homicides in the United States are committed by African-Americans (which is true), 50% of African-Americans are murderers (which is not true).
Or some leftist bigot claiming that becuase 65% of all homicides in the United States are committed by someone with a firearm (which is true), that 65% of gun owners are murderers (which is not true).
I'm sure there's a name for this common type of logical fallacy, but I don't have time to look it up.
An even better solution is to uninstall Adobe's Reader, and install FoxIt PDF Reader, which is free.
The download (zip) file is less than 1 MegaByte, so it can be downloaded even over a slow dial-up connection. By comparison, the download for Adobe Reader is about 15 MB - 20 MB.
The entire installation for FoxIt PDF Reader takes up less than 2 MB of hard drive space. Adobe Reader takes up about 60 MB. I don't know what Adobe Reader used the other 58 MB for, but I don't miss it. FoxIt PDF Reader loads much faster.
Re:You've missed the point (Score:2, Interesting) by lowrydr310 (830514) on Thursday March 17, @09:12AM (#11964442)
Is it possible for the Plaintiff (the spammers in this case) to be ordered to pay the Defendant's legal bills when they (the plaintiffs) lose the case?
The following essay was written circa 1999 by our editor and formerly appeared on the site's topical page on loser-pays.
* * *
America differs from all other Western democracies (indeed, from virtually all nations of any sort) in its refusal to recognize the principle that the losing side in litigation should contribute toward "making whole" its prevailing opponent. It's long past time this country joined the world in adopting that principle; unfortunately, any steps toward doing so must contend with deeply entrenched resistance from the organized bar, which likes the system the way it is.
Overlawyered.com's editor wrote an account in Reason, June 1995, aimed at explaining how loser-pays works in practice and dispelling some of the more common misconceptions about the device. He also testified before Congress when the issue came up that year as part of the "Contract with America". Not online, unfortunately, are most of the relevant sections from The Litigation Explosion, which argues at length for the loser-pays idea, especially chapter 15, "Strict Liability for Lawyering".
As other countries recognize, the arguments in support of the indemnity principle are overwhelming. They include basic fairness, compensation of the victimized opponent, deterrence of tactical or poorly founded claims and legal maneuvers, and the provision of incentives for accepting reasonable settlements. Sad to say, the American bar, though loud in proclaiming that every other industry and profession should be made to pay for its mistakes, changes its mind in this one area, demanding an across-the-board charitable immunity for its own lucrative industry of suing people.
Also in 1995, Rep. Chris Cox (R-Calif.) published a succinct defense of the loser-pays principle, terming it the "full recovery rule" and pointing out that it would improve the position of a large number of plaintiffs with meritorious claims who currently go undercompensated because of the need to pay their lawyers large sums which cannot be recovered from the opponent.
One place to look (Score:4, Interesting) by nizo (81281) * Alter Relationship on Monday March 14, @12:02PM (#11933488)...Nearly all of the detainees are being held without charges and some have been imprisoned there for more than three years.
Wen Ho Lee, Mazen Al-Najjar, and Allah knows who else, happened during the Clinton/Reno era, so they don't count (since we can't blame their cases on Bush, Ashcroft, and the PATRIOT Act).
Palestinian professor to stay in U.S. jail
December 8, 2000 Web posted at: 2:54 AM EST (0754 GMT)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- A Palestinian university professor in Florida, who has been jailed without charge since 1997 on secret evidence, will remain held in a federal facility, U.S. officials said Thursday....
ACLU Approves Of Overwhelming Majority of Patriot Act: One of the odd things about debates over the Patriot Act is that even its harshest informed critics actually only oppose a very small part of the Act; the overwhelming majority of the statute is uncontroversial among the fairly small number of people who understand what's in it. As best I can tell, this has been a well-kept secret for the last 3+ years mostly for tactical reasons: If you want to get the public very worried about a topic to help advance your cause in future legislative debates, you can't very well admit that your objections are actually quite limited.
In light of that, it's good to see that ACLU President Nadine Strossen apparently has admitted that the ACLU approves of more that 90% of the Patriot Act. As live-blogged at Ex Parte, from a recent address by Nadine Strossen at the annual Federalist Society student symposium: "[ACLU President Nadine Strossen] notes that the ACLU only has a few objections [to the Patriot Act, covering] about 12 of the 160 elements of the Patriot Act." While it's too early to know whether this live-blogged report is exactly accurate, note that the statement echoes the view of ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romer in early 2004 that "much of the Patriot Act is neutral legislation for civil liberties," and that only "about a dozen provisions" are objectionable to him. If anyone has a transcript of Strossen's remarks or a video, please send it on to okerr [at] law.gwu.edu.
I feel compelled to point out that the ACLU does not actually defend the constitution, but simply uses (or mis-uses) it whenver it's convenient to advance their agenda. As Nadine Strossen pointed out in the October 1994 issue of Reason:
Putting all that aside, I don't want to dwell on constitutional analysis, because our view has never been that civil liberties are necessarily coextensive with constitutional rights. Conversely, I guess the fact that something is mentioned in the Constitution doesn't necessarily mean that it is a fundamental civil liberty.
Re:Con-man gains fame at others expense... (Score:4, Insightful) by Skuld-Chan (302449) on Friday March 04, @12:56AM (#11841889)
Long before he was ever caught I had read about his exploits in computer magazines and the paper. His capture, and the scadal about his stay in federal prision I think made him famous. He's the only one - aside from those stuck in Guantanomo Bay who have been held without trial.
But since you can't blame those cases on Bush (because the only thing Clinton ever did wrong was lie about was a blow job), I guess those guys don't matter to you.
This isn't a new precedent (Score:1) by boohiss (804985) on Thursday March 03, @11:06AM (#11834619)
Everyone's favorite congressman, John McCain, and his buddy Feingold already got that awful Campaign Finance "Reform" law passed, which effectively abridges free speech.
But, that's only supposed to affect rich lobbyists and media conglomerates! It can't possibly apply to us as well!
John McCain is a hypocrite, whose constituency is the media (which can editorialize all it wants without being affected by campaign finance laws):
...Sen. John McCain's recent outburst at billionaires meddling in politics is starkly at odds with his feelings from a few years ago.
In a 2001 Wash Post article about the founder of Monster.com's interest in gun control, McCain was strongly supportive:
For McCain, [Andrew] McKelvey's willingness to devote millions of dollars to influence lawmakers on issues such as gun control is something to be lauded rather than criticized. "I'm glad a guy with a billion dollars, or two billion dollars, wants to spend is money on an issue he feels strongly about," McCain says.
Back in 2000, John McCain appeared in commercials sponsored by McKelvy (of Monster.com) promoting gun control referundums.
Dennis E. Powell Monday, July 23, 2001 02:23:15 AM
WASHINGTON -- Federal law enforcement officials today began rounding up men for alleged violation of the new Digital Millennium Rape Act.
The law, which went into effect June 30, bans "possession of any item or device that makes it possible to commit the crime of rape." It was approved last month by a narrow margin in both the House of Representatives and the Senate following intense negotiations during which a provision was added which excempts government employees, including senators and representatives, from the new law. The legislation was necessary to bring the U.S. into compliance with a treaty negotiated in Japan two years ago by the Clinton administration, but thusfar unsigned by any country. International pressure on the U.S. to sign the accord was intense, however, coming especially from the European Union and many non-European third-world nations. The treaty specifies actions that the United States must take, making no mention of other nations.
"This landmark legislation serves notice on all would-be rapists: If you've got the equipment, we'll lock you up," said the bill's sponsor, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-California), immediately after its passage.
Critics of the bill argued at the time that mere ability to commit a crime should not itself be a crime, but were overwhelmed by an intense public relations campaign mounted by proponents. Among the existing laws cited in defense of the bill were federal gun regulations and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which make possession of firearms and software, respectively, illegal.
"If you can do the crime, you will do the time," said Boxer. " This is a crime prevention measure -- by the time someone has actually committed an offense, it's too late."
Silly, Isn't It
The above is not real -- if you thought it was, get help at once. But it's a demonstration of the direction in which things are headed, and unless this trend is seen as a whole, there's not a chance of stopping it, if indeed a chance of stopping it still exists at all.
Monday's arrest of Dmitry Sklyarov for violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act has outraged many in the hacker community. Skylarov, who it is now reported also sold password-cracking software to the FBI, is accused of making it possible to circumvent certain technology owned by Adobe Systems Inc. Note that he is not accused of having employed this software to circumvent that technology but merely of having demonstrated that it can be done.
As readers of this column cannot have escaped noticing, there is no one louder in defense of copyright protections than I am. But there is a difference between the ability to violate copyright and actually doing so.
The community is enraged, but the rest of the world doesn't give much of a toot, one way or the other. Sound familiar?
That is how totalitarianism is achieved. You pick a fairly small, even fringe, community, and you use them to create the underpinnings for what could result in far broader controls. There's no broad outcry, because people figure it doesn't effect them, and they're too busy worrying about the truly important stuff, such as how the Yankees are doing.
You may think that what fol
Permission to Cache vs. Timeliness of Stories
on
A Dual Monitor Experiment
·
· Score: 4, Informative
was "Re:Movies while working are newsworthy & produ"
Slashdot didn't respond to a request for comment by press time. On its FAQ page, however, the service notes that while it sees some advantage to caching some of the smaller sites it links to in order to reduce the deleterious effect the crush of traffic has on them, it has chosen not to. In part, that's because Slashdot doesn't want to hurt sites by affecting their ad revenue. In addition, Slashdot is afraid that getting permission to cache sites would take too long and would cut down on the timeliness of the stories it posts.
Maybe it would be a problem the first time Slashdot posts a story, but by the time the dupe rolls around...
"As the president has repeatedly pointed out in response to the terrorist attack, "We can't love our country and hate our government."
Well, if he really said that, then I think we've found a reason why someone might hate him.
Were we supposed to love Nixon's presidency? Ignore his little flaws, and look on the positive side?
Dude, check it out - the most - MOST - basic tenet of our way of life is the idea that EVERY citizen of this country is expressly granted the right to criticize our government WHENEVER it is seen to be going in the wrong direction.
That's kinda the point of a democracy, dig?
The only people who want to suppress the criticisms of the populace are the people who KNOW that they will be the target of those criticisms. Describing honest political dissent as unAmerican is itself the most unAmerican behavior I can think of.
Well, I wouldn't call criticism of President Clinton "hate," but a lot of his supporters did -- and were more than willing to exploit the Oklahoma City terrorist bombing to do so. The whole "talk radio equals hate radio" and "the NRA's fund raising letter motivated McVeigh" were just some of the memes being tossed around by the mainstream media and pundits on the Left. (See Virginia Postrel's 1995 column "Fighting Words" for more on that subject.)
It hasn't always been an easy year for America. There have been moments that tested our national community. In the wake of the terrible bombing in Oklahoma City, which took the lives of 169 people, our nation reached out and recognized the bonds that hold us together. And out of the ashes of that tragedy, a new sense of national spirit took hold. We affirmed once again that all Americans are in it together. We recognized, once again, that we can't love our country and hate our government.
Remarks by the President of the United States Spartan Stadium Michigan State University May 5, 1995
[snip]
I would like to say something to [those of you] who believe the greatest threat to America comes not from terrorists from... beyond our borders, but from our own government.
[snip]
I believe you have every right, indeed you have the responsibility, to question our government when you disagree with its policies. And I will do everything in my power to protect your right to do so.
But I also know there have been lawbreakers among those who espouse your philosophy.
[snip]
But the Weathermen of the radical left who resorted to violence in the 1960s were wrong. Today, the gang members who use life on the mean streets of America, as terrible as it is, to justify taking the law into their own hands and taking innocent life are wrong. The people who came to the United States to bomb the World Trade Center were wrong.
[snip]
How dare you suggest that we in the freest nation on Earth live in tyranny.
[snip]
[T]here is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending that you can love your country but despise your government. There is nothing heroic about turning your back on America, or ignoring your own responsibilities. If you want to preserve your own freedom, you must stand up for the freedom of others with whom you disagree. But you also must stand up for the rule of law. You cannot have one without the other.
[snip]
(emphasis ad
Blade Runner:Only The Police Will Have Flying Cars
on
A Flying Leap for Cars?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Here's something I have yet seen mentioned: What about law enforcement? Unless the cops have these, I don't see how they'll let the general population drive them. It'll be pretty difficult for a cop in a standard cruiser to pull you over if you can just lift off and escape him. Even with radios and helicopters, by the time they can dispatch a chopper, you could be outta there.
Here's another possibility:
When the flying cars first come out, they will probably be limited to law enforcement (and important government officials and their connected friends/donors, of course). After all, if only the police should have guns, why should anyone else be trusted with potential flying bombs?
After a while, a whole generation will grow up in a world where flying cars are exclusively limited to the government, and the "right" to own one will never trickle down to us peons.
Besides, how many civilian flying cars did you see in Blade Runner? "You know the score; if you're not a cop, you're little people."
Why is ANY critisism of the government "unpatriotic" do you have any idea what "patriotic" means? (Rhetorical question you obviously do not)
Because the president said so:
Remarks by the President of the United States Spartan Stadium Michigan State University May 5
[snip]
I would like to say something to [those of you] who believe the greatest threat to America comes not from terrorists from... beyond our borders, but from our own government.
[snip]
I believe you have every right, indeed you have the responsibility, to question our government when you disagree with its policies. And I will do everything in my power to protect your right to do so.
But I also know there have been lawbreakers among those who espouse your philosophy.
[snip]
But the Weathermen of the radical left who resorted to violence in the 1960s were wrong. Today, the gang members who use life on the mean streets of America, as terrible as it is, to justify taking the law into their own hands and taking innocent life are wrong. The people who came to the United States to bomb the World Trade Center were wrong.
[snip]
How dare you suggest that we in the freest nation on Earth live in tyranny.
[snip]
[T]here is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending that you can love your country but despise your government. There is nothing heroic about turning your back on America, or ignoring your own responsibilities. If you want to preserve your own freedom, you must stand up for the freedom of others with whom you disagree. But you also must stand up for the rule of law. You cannot have one without the other.
More like this year's straight-to-video shark movie Megalodon:
Oil...the quest for it is unrelenting. The search for new reserves of the 'black gold' never-ends and leading the search is Nexecon Petroleum and its flagship-the largest drilling and refining platform ever constructed-'Colossus" located in the freezing North Atlantic waters off the coast of Greenland.
'Colossus' will drill deeper than any rig ever has, a fact that gratifies Nexecon CEO, Peter Brazier, but that has geologists the world over up in arms, concerned that delicate ocean floor fault lines could be disturbed with catastrophic effects. Skeptical news reporter Christen Giddings and her cameraman Jake Thompson are invited by Braziera to document the safety of 'Colossus.'
The powerful drill tears through the seabed, striking a rich oil deposit. As the drill penetrates further, it ruptures a fissure that reveals a second 'mirror' ocean that has existed beneath ours for millions of years. An ocean teeming with prehistoric life. As the choking oil posions the water, the frenzied creatures swarm for the surface.
Colossus buckles under the onslaught. Brazier, Christen, and a team of engineers descend in Colossus' glass elevator to assess the damage and come face to face with the most powerful oceanic predator that ever lived. Carcharodon Megalodon. The giant ancestor of the Great White Shark. This eleven-ton 'killing machine' quickly stakes its territory in the waters surrounding Colossus with disasterous and horrific consequences, destroying and devouring anything in its path.
Now fate will pull them together as they wager their changes of survival against the most fearsome creature that ever dominated the ocean, and pit the technology and machinery of man against beast. Megalodon...sixty feet of prehistoric terror.
I have also already approached my roomie and my sister about following up with that list for me as a last wish if and when the inevitable should occur.
Of course Al-qaeda is active in Iraq now. We've let them in by smashing the police force that kept them out. It's a free for all in seizing the new Iraqi government and of course Al-qaeda wants a piece of it.
Were there a few Al-qaeda operatives in Iraq before Saddam fell? Maybe. It would be very dangerous for them (death-sentence if captured, even if they haven't comitted a crime yet), but there might have been a few. Not nearly as many as in the U.S. Should we bomb ourselves too?
The U.S. invasion of Iraq is the best thing Al-qaeda could have hoped for. They get a big new country to play around in. The pressure is taken off them (are we even looking for bin Laden any more?). Most importantly, arabs around the world are seeing that peaceful co-existance with the U.S. is impossible. If anyone is supporting Al-qaeda, it's Bush.
Now let me clarify that last sentence. I don't think Bush is actually in league with bin Laden. It is possible. The point is that any time you see evidence of someone having Al-qaeda ties, compare it to hat for Bush. If it's weaker, and you don't suspect Bush, then you can't fairly suspect the other person either.
FROM: VAST LEFT-WING CONSPIRACY TO: USEFUL IDIOTS SUBJ: TALKING POINT
The only thing Bill Clinton ever lied about was getting a blow job, so it must all be George Bush's fault.
Make sure our friends at ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/NPR/NY Times/Washington Post/etc. don't remind people of this old story:
BIN LADEN, ATEF INDICTED IN U.S. FEDERAL COURT FOR AFRICAN BOMBINGS
(Terrorists will be tracked down, officials say) (920)
By Judy Aita USIA Staff Writer
New York -- Usama bin Laden and Muhammad Atef were indicted November 4 in Manhattan federal court for the August 7 bombings of the US embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and for conspiring to kill Americans outside the United States....
According to the indictment, bin Laden and al Qaeda forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in Sudan and with representatives of the Government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah with the goal of working together against their common enemies in the West, particularly the United States.
"In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq," the indictment said....
The liberals in this country want open and free discussion. the conservatives think that they can get away with censoring the liberals by labeling everything opposed to them as indecent.
On May 5, the president addressed the spring and summer degree candidates at Michigan State University. As he has done on several occasions, he attempted to shame his political opponents into silence, by somehow linking them with the terrorists. The mainstream media, which never questioned him on this, has only been all too willing to cooperate in this smear campaign.
[snip]
I would like to say something to [those of you] who believe the
greatest threat to America comes not from terrorists from...
beyond our borders, but from our own government.
[snip]
I believe you have every right, indeed you have the responsibility,
to question our government when you disagree with its policies.
And I will do everything in my power to protect your right to do so.
But I also know there have been lawbreakers among those who espouse
your philosophy.
[snip]
But the Weathermen of the radical left who resorted to violence in
the 1960s were wrong. Today, the gang members who use life on the mean
streets of America, as terrible as it is, to justify taking the law into
their own hands and taking innocent life are wrong. The people who came
to the United States to bomb the World Trade Center were wrong.
[snip]
How dare you suggest that we in the freest nation on Earth live in tyranny.
[snip]
[T]here is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending
that you can love your country but despise your government. There is
nothing heroic about turning your back on America, or ignoring your own
responsibilities. If you want to preserve your own freedom, you must
stand up for the freedom of others with whom you disagree. But you
also must stand up for the rule of law. You cannot have one without the
other.
[snip]
The president was Bill Clinton. The date was May 5, 1995 -- about 3 weeks after the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building. You can read the entire speech at http://oldsite.msu.edu/conv95/
In his last weekly radio address of that year, President Clinton noted that "we can't love our country and hate our government."
But even more than Moore's documentary, I hope more and more images and video keeps coming out of Iraq in regards to the abuse, torture, rape and slaughter of Iraqi citizens, most of whom are guilty of no crime. That more than anything is Bush's legacy, his mark upon the world and truly the images that best define our Fascist Leader and his doctrines.
InstaPundit.com has been posting links to other prison abuse stories. For some reason, these aren't getting as much attention in the mainstream media ("all Abu Ghraib, all the time").
Maybe the French, Germans, Arabs, public employees unions, California Attorney General, and their apologists should take note.
'It starts off by being stripped naked in front of 10 police officers including two women, gratutious humiliation is used to break you down.' '... worst jail that you can possibly imagine.' 'Not even a hole to go to the bathroom. You have to piss against a wall and you sleep in piss on the concrete floor.' The torture victim demands 'the immediate shutdown of this secret underground prison'. It's not at Abu Ghraib, it's in Marseille, France.
ARAB prisoners beaten and tortured, innocent bystanders killed by gunfire - another damning human rights report.
But the difference this time is that the violence is being perpetrated not by coalition forces in Iraq, but by the Palestinian Authority, and the victims are its own people.
The report, partly funded by the Finnish government, claims Palestinian cities are in a state of near anarchy, with people on the payroll of Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority (PA) blamed for 90 per cent of gangland violence.
It highlights numerous incidents of torture of prisoners and refers to the killing of civilians in gunbattles between Palestinian factions.
It is another blow for Mr Arafat's organisation, which was recently accused of misusing 134 million of European Union funds. Mr Arafat was accused of signing cheques to people linked with terrorist activity.
Hadi Kazwini is an Iraqi engineer who moved to Australia in 1997 and lives in Sydney with his wife and three children. He is amazed at the gullibility of those Australians who have taken the Arab response to the photos at face value.
This sort of brutality goes on all the time, it is happening now in jails right through the Middle East, he says. But of course there are no photos. This is selective outrage.
Kazwini believes that the behaviour revealed by the photos is awful and the US soldiers involved should be punished. But he says some of the Iraqi prisoners shown were Saddam's killers and torturers. They have been responsible for far worse violations of human rights than the Americans.
Where is the outrage about this, he asks. I haven't seen
Slashdot Mirror
Reminds me of something I posted five years ago:
Hey, why come up with something original when I can go for the cheap laughs and karma-whoring?
As of September 2005, Internet Explorer has an 85% market share, while Firefox has a 9.5% market share.
The BBC's numbers are simply representative of this, as any large web site would be.
I always refer to it as "That time of the month for P.M.S.: Patching Microsoft Servers."
("Patching Microsoft Systems" also works).
The original article states
"that 82 percent of people who hack their company 'exhibited unusual behavior in the workplace prior to carrying out their activities.'"
This does not mean that 82 percent of the people who exhibit unusual behavior are going to hack their company.
That's like some racist bastard saying that because 50% of all homicides in the United States are committed by African-Americans (which is true), 50% of African-Americans are murderers (which is not true).
Or some leftist bigot claiming that becuase 65% of all homicides in the United States are committed by someone with a firearm (which is true), that 65% of gun owners are murderers (which is not true).
I'm sure there's a name for this common type of logical fallacy, but I don't have time to look it up.
That fix is also described in MozillaZine.
An even better solution is to uninstall Adobe's Reader, and install FoxIt PDF Reader, which is free.
The download (zip) file is less than 1 MegaByte, so it can be downloaded even over a slow dial-up connection. By comparison, the download for Adobe Reader is about 15 MB - 20 MB.
The entire installation for FoxIt PDF Reader takes up less than 2 MB of hard drive space. Adobe Reader takes up about 60 MB. I don't know what Adobe Reader used the other 58 MB for, but I don't miss it. FoxIt PDF Reader loads much faster.
I don't believe it.
93 comments, and nobody has said
"Pez to Dispense Music, Instead of Swedes."
It's possible, but I don't know how likely it is. The trial lawyers, being a very powerful lobby, have consistently opposed the idea. See http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/000199.html
Go to http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/000199.html to read the rest of it.
An example from Overlawyered.com's "Loser Pays" archives (bold added):
Wen Ho Lee, Mazen Al-Najjar, and Allah knows who else, happened during the Clinton/Reno era, so they don't count (since we can't blame their cases on Bush, Ashcroft, and the PATRIOT Act).
I feel compelled to point out that the ACLU does not actually defend the constitution, but simply uses (or mis-uses) it whenver it's convenient to advance their agenda. As Nadine Strossen pointed out in the October 1994 issue of Reason
Obviously, you've never heard of Wen Ho Lee, Mazen Al-Najjar, and Allah knows who else.
But since you can't blame those cases on Bush (because the only thing Clinton ever did wrong was lie about was a blow job), I guess those guys don't matter to you.
John McCain is a hypocrite, whose constituency is the media (which can editorialize all it wants without being affected by campaign finance laws):
from http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2004/08/mccain_vs
Back in 2000, John McCain appeared in commercials sponsored by McKelvy (of Monster.com) promoting gun control referundums.
That's already been proposed.
/
See http://linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/3642/1
From the Wired article mentioned in jmulvey's post
Maybe it would be a problem the first time Slashdot posts a story, but by the time the dupe rolls around...
Why not? Some Slashdotters have been waiting longer than that.
Well, I wouldn't call criticism of President Clinton "hate," but a lot of his supporters did -- and were more than willing to exploit the Oklahoma City terrorist bombing to do so. The whole "talk radio equals hate radio" and "the NRA's fund raising letter motivated McVeigh" were just some of the memes being tossed around by the mainstream media and pundits on the Left. (See Virginia Postrel's 1995 column "Fighting Words" for more on that subject.)
and earlier that year:
Here's another possibility:
When the flying cars first come out, they will probably be limited to law enforcement (and important government officials and their connected friends/donors, of course). After all, if only the police should have guns, why should anyone else be trusted with potential flying bombs?
After a while, a whole generation will grow up in a world where flying cars are exclusively limited to the government, and the "right" to own one will never trickle down to us peons.
Besides, how many civilian flying cars did you see in Blade Runner ? "You know the score; if you're not a cop, you're little people."
Because the president said so:
(emphasis added)
Try FreeCycle.org
More like this year's straight-to-video shark movie Megalodon
FCC: F****ing Clear Channel
Haven't you read this article?
was Re:USA = China-Lite
FROM: VAST LEFT-WING CONSPIRACY
TO: USEFUL IDIOTS
SUBJ: TALKING POINT
The only thing Bill Clinton ever lied about was getting a blow job, so it must all be George Bush's fault.
Make sure our friends at ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/NPR/NY Times/Washington Post/etc. don't remind people of this old story:
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/981104
Emphasis added. You can read the actual indictment at http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.
On May 5, the president addressed the spring and summer degree candidates at Michigan State University. As he has done on several occasions, he attempted to shame his political opponents into silence, by somehow linking them with the terrorists. The mainstream media, which never questioned him on this, has only been all too willing to cooperate in this smear campaign.
The president was Bill Clinton. The date was May 5, 1995 -- about 3 weeks after the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building. You can read the entire speech at http://oldsite.msu.edu/conv95/
In his last weekly radio address of that year, President Clinton noted that "we can't love our country and hate our government."
InstaPundit.com has been posting links to other prison abuse stories. For some reason, these aren't getting as much attention in the mainstream media ("all Abu Ghraib, all the time").
Maybe the French, Germans, Arabs, public employees unions, California Attorney General, and their apologists should take note.
May 22, 2004
PRISON MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS AND A DYSFUNCTIONAL CULTURE OF ABUSE in the California prison guards' union.
posted at 03:53 PM by Glenn Reynolds
May 21, 2004
SOMEONE TELL 60 MINUTES about this secret underground prison:
'It starts off by being stripped naked in front of 10 police officers including two women, gratutious humiliation is used to break you down.' '... worst jail that you can possibly imagine.' 'Not even a hole to go to the bathroom. You have to piss against a wall and you sleep in piss on the concrete floor.' The torture victim demands 'the immediate shutdown of this secret underground prison'. It's not at Abu Ghraib, it's in Marseille, France.
No doubt Ted Kennedy will be condemning it soon.
posted at 07:41 PM by Glenn Reynolds
May 21, 2004
MORE STORIES OF ARAB PRISONERS BEING ABUSED:
ARAB prisoners beaten and tortured, innocent bystanders killed by gunfire - another damning human rights report.
But the difference this time is that the violence is being perpetrated not by coalition forces in Iraq, but by the Palestinian Authority, and the victims are its own people.
The report, partly funded by the Finnish government, claims Palestinian cities are in a state of near anarchy, with people on the payroll of Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority (PA) blamed for 90 per cent of gangland violence.
It highlights numerous incidents of torture of prisoners and refers to the killing of civilians in gunbattles between Palestinian factions.
It is another blow for Mr Arafat's organisation, which was recently accused of misusing 134 million of European Union funds. Mr Arafat was accused of signing cheques to people linked with terrorist activity.
I'm sure Ted Kennedy will have comments.
posted at 09:55 AM by Glenn Reynolds
May 18, 2004
IRAQI EMIGRES ON ABU GHRAIB: This is interesting:
Hadi Kazwini is an Iraqi engineer who moved to Australia in 1997 and lives in Sydney with his wife and three children. He is amazed at the gullibility of those Australians who have taken the Arab response to the photos at face value.
This sort of brutality goes on all the time, it is happening now in jails right through the Middle East, he says. But of course there are no photos. This is selective outrage.
Kazwini believes that the behaviour revealed by the photos is awful and the US soldiers involved should be punished. But he says some of the Iraqi prisoners shown were Saddam's killers and torturers. They have been responsible for far worse violations of human rights than the Americans.
Where is the outrage about this, he asks. I haven't seen