I don't see any evidence of censorship, even in the PDF report. The reports were still published, albeit without the administration's blessings.
To summarize this page, the EPA's Report on the Environment in 2003 was released without a section on the climate or any mention of global warming -- because White House officials (this site does not name them) allegedly wanted to change that to an extent that would misrepresent the scientific consensus, by including discredited research and . Also, the White House (yes, directly) allegedly blocked reprinting of a brochure listing ways for farmers to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
They distort this conclusion to represent that Texas has higher pregnancy rates that most other states. Of course, they really mean that Texas has higher rates among secually active couples.
Quote: * Texas' teen pregnancy rate is 113 per 1,000 teen females aged 15 to 19. Only Nevada, California, Arizona, and Florida have higher teen pregnancy rates. * Texas has the second worst teen birth rate among 15- to 19-year-old females, ranking 49th out of 50 states. Only Mississippi has a higher teen birth rate.
(I suppose that means Texas has a low rate of abortions and miscarriages? That's something good.)
A very simple google search for ["teen pregnancy rates" texas] seems to confirm these statistics.
In other words, if you teach abstinence, and they have sex anyways, they are more likely to get pregnant.
Um. Well, that makes sense to me. And they will. Really. It may surprise you to learn this, but teenagers are both rebellious AND horny. (A shocker, I know.)
Really, I'm not trying to push a radical gay whale-saving communist agenda on you, but you ought to at least read the site instead of briefly skimming it before you accuse them of spin-doctoring and shoddy research. And I personally don't imagine that it would be much different under a different administration. This one is probably more extreme, but the same shit goes on in any bureaucracy.
We already know a lot of eggheads don't like our cowboy president.
See that great big yellow sidebar on the right side of all the ucsusa pages, with "Reports", "Cases", and "Activism" headings? It takes up nearly half of each page. The "Cases" section, as you might surmise from the name, contains links to specific pieces of evidence.
The page linked to in the/. summary contains a "Related Links" box with a link to a 351k PDF. (The text is "Read the new report".)
I meant for normal browsing, non-work-required, etc. The number of sites that don't work properly with Gecko or KHTML (due to badly tested DHTML or whatever) is very small and shrinking all the time, so if people are aware of alternatives and capable of switching, I don't know why they wouldn't. Apathy? No need for extra features?
All of you who still use IE, or were only recently persuaded to switch, why do/did you use it? I've seen a number of comments here that say "IE isn't worth the problems anymore" or "I could tolerate the non-standards-compliance and unreliability" etc. What makes it worth the problems? Is there something you actually like about it?
I was about to disagree with you, but I changed my mind mid-comment. Having an external protocol-handling system sort of puts the burden of responsibility on the protocol handler to check things for security, and having a "shell" protocol handler is absurdly insecure. The fact that IE doesn't pass along shell:// urls leads my paranoid brain to suspect that Microsoft set this up deliberately as a trap -- they can say "Look, the competition isn't any more secure than we are." AIM has the same bug, BTW.
DOM Inspector? Javascript debugger? Generic cross-platform application support? Does Opera even have XMLHTTPRequest support yet? Let alone an XMLRPC or SOAP client? HTTP live header tracking? Okay... so maybe none of these are exactly killer features for the general public, but they are all highly useful to me, for specific purposes. Gotta agree that Opera is faster than Moz though.
Visually, the borg don't really resemble the cybermen, who look like people in foil jumpsuits, wearing rugby helmets with vacuum cleaner tubes stuck on. But compare the dialogue: "You will help us. You will be like us. Resistance is useless." -- Cybermen
It's highly useful to keep supplicants in line. Eye candy is intended to send the message: "I have a computer that looks really complicated -- just like the ones YOU see hackers using in movies -- and therefore I'm important and far too busy to handle your pathetic request." This is particularly fulfilling if you're playing a game or reading a website that looks complicated (and therefore important and work related) to the laity.
I won't be quite as extreme as some others here, but you really can't extend "under God" to cover atheists. I think it's quite a stretch to make it cover Buddhists, Hindus or even Muslims. It might not be provable in court -- I don't know -- but certainly everyone I've actually discussed the subject with has assumed that to mean the God of Christianity. I certainly suppose it to mean that. In particular, when it was added in 1954, it was "officially" meant to represent a vague higher power, but was added specifically to emphasize that the U.S. *was not atheist* like the USSR.
You will definitely get a lot of shit for being a public Christian on Slashdot... but you don't really think this place is representative of the real world?:-)
In some areas, some people are almost embarassed to admit they goto church
I suspect that applies to very few areas. I live in one of the least religious towns around, and it's not like that here. If some people feel embarrassed to admit they go to church, I doubt it has anything to do with any anti-religious taboo. It's probably because they are shy of being identified with the growing numbers of intolerant, deliberately ignorant fundamentalists. There is a public taboo against intolerance, and I think that's quite appropriate. Yes, there is a small minority of people who will attack any expression of religion, but it hardly constitutes a culture of repression.
There is a separate issue of church/state separation. This has really been an issue since before the constitution was signed, and there have always been churches on both sides of it. You want a public taboo against religion? There were states in 1789 that prohibited Jews and Roman Catholics (and - ladies, cover your ears - atheists) from holding public office. Why? Because Protestantism is the correct religion, of course. That is why the constitution forbids a religious test for public office, and that's why the government is forbidden to favor any religious expression. Does it offend your religion for the words "under god" to be removed from the official pledge of allegiance? Don't you think that means it offends someone else's religion (or lack thereof) for it to be in there? Having it there is just a little bit of the way to "No one but a Mormon shall hold any public office in Utah". Which is, in many areas, de facto the case, but, thank Jefferson, not de jure.
Personally, I think there shouldn't even *be* an official pledge of allegiance. But that's a different issue altogether:-)
Hrm, I do both. Coincidence?:-) (Yeah, part of my bike commute is technically a highway.)
Re:Just more of the ancient art of hardening.
on
Amorphous Steel
·
· Score: 1
You must be from Livermore. Yeah, everybody knows about your great big rivalry with Oak Ridge, but can't you master scientists just get along? All this sour grapes just makes you look like a jerk who can summarize wikipedia articles.
(Are you sure you spelled "decolessant" right? You should write to Google and have them add the word to their index.)
This could really be remedied easily by including a slightly more complicated shell script than the ones in the links we posted, in the t-bird and firefox linux distributions. All it would have to do (I imagine) would be to check for the most likely of several different standards for identifying the default browser, and launch it using the appropriate template. Or else add a visible preference for it in the config dialog. The first would cover 95% of linux usage, and the couple guys who use w3m as their main browser can write their own damn shell script. I think this is just a matter of nobody having the energy or time to add the tools to make things work right. I'd do it myself if I wasn't so lazy:-)
Maybe we're being too cautious, or unfairly lumping Germany and France together. (A search for one of the books on abebooks.com reveals lots of German booksellers offering it. I will have to bring that up to my boss.) Yahoo was prevented from selling this stuff in France, though, and I believe we would be, too, though AFAIK we are self-censoring it.
It's because of the U.K.'s libel laws, which are so restrictive that it's basically illegal to allege (or, apparently, even sell anything alleging) anything negative about a person or organization unless you can prove it in court. We are not legally prohibited from selling it there; that is, I don't think any British censorship board has declared the book to be illegal. But we have been sued for making it available. And people call the U.S. litigious...
You know, every once in a while I have to add a few lines to a database, where I work, to prevent certain books from being shipped to the U.K., France, and Germany. Some of the books that are illegal to sell in France and Germany are 1936 Olympics memorabilia. (They were held in Berlin that year. There are swastikas in some of the pictures.) No such restrictions apply to the U.S. We regularly ship out books on how to do many illegal things...
Oh, I see you've somehow become aware of the secret state of Quincy, the east border of which extends from Vancouver, B.C. all the way to Cannon Beach, OR, and which (to the untrained eye) looks remarkably like the Pacific Ocean. *holds up mysterious chrome rod* Look over here, please...
Lea used G++ (GCC) 3.3.1 20030930 (with glibc 2.3.2-98) for the C++, with the -O2 flag (for both i386 and i686). He compiled the Java code normally with the Sun Java 1.4.2_01 compiler, and ran it with the Sun 1.4.2_01 JVM. He ran the tests on Red Hat Linux 9 / Fedora Test1 with the 2.4.20-20.9 kernel on a T30 laptop. The laptop "has a Pentium 4 mobile chip, 512MB of memory, a sort of slow disk," he notes.
Cut'n'pasted for your convenience. It's the second paragraph.
Slashdot Mirror
Sadly, I can't take credit for that one... :-)
I don't see any evidence of censorship, even in the PDF report. The reports were still published, albeit without the administration's blessings.
t sheet/fsbush.htm
:-)
To summarize this page, the EPA's Report on the Environment in 2003 was released without a section on the climate or any mention of global warming -- because White House officials (this site does not name them) allegedly wanted to change that to an extent that would misrepresent the scientific consensus, by including discredited research and . Also, the White House (yes, directly) allegedly blocked reprinting of a brochure listing ways for farmers to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
They distort this conclusion to represent that Texas has higher pregnancy rates that most other states. Of course, they really mean that Texas has higher rates among secually active couples.
No, actually, that means what it says. They might be lying, but that should be easy to demonstrate. This is a source the UCS used: (Scroll past the quotes to "Texas' Recent Record") http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/fac
Quote:
* Texas' teen pregnancy rate is 113 per 1,000 teen females aged 15 to 19. Only Nevada, California, Arizona, and Florida have higher teen pregnancy rates.
* Texas has the second worst teen birth rate among 15- to 19-year-old females, ranking 49th out of 50 states. Only Mississippi has a higher teen birth rate.
(I suppose that means Texas has a low rate of abortions and miscarriages? That's something good.)
A very simple google search for ["teen pregnancy rates" texas] seems to confirm these statistics.
In other words, if you teach abstinence, and they have sex anyways, they are more likely to get pregnant.
Um. Well, that makes sense to me. And they will. Really. It may surprise you to learn this, but teenagers are both rebellious AND horny. (A shocker, I know.)
Really, I'm not trying to push a radical gay whale-saving communist agenda on you, but you ought to at least read the site instead of briefly skimming it before you accuse them of spin-doctoring and shoddy research. And I personally don't imagine that it would be much different under a different administration. This one is probably more extreme, but the same shit goes on in any bureaucracy.
We already know a lot of eggheads don't like our cowboy president.
Why, what a subpontibian thing to say
See that great big yellow sidebar on the right side of all the ucsusa pages, with "Reports", "Cases", and "Activism" headings? It takes up nearly half of each page. The "Cases" section, as you might surmise from the name, contains links to specific pieces of evidence.
/. summary contains a "Related Links" box with a link to a 351k PDF. (The text is "Read the new report".)
l icationID=877
l icationID=730
The page linked to in the
Here's the link, in case you still can't find it:
http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/report.cfm?pub
Here is the full report, published in February:
http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/report.cfm?pub
I meant for normal browsing, non-work-required, etc. The number of sites that don't work properly with Gecko or KHTML (due to badly tested DHTML or whatever) is very small and shrinking all the time, so if people are aware of alternatives and capable of switching, I don't know why they wouldn't. Apathy? No need for extra features?
All of you who still use IE, or were only recently persuaded to switch, why do/did you use it? I've seen a number of comments here that say "IE isn't worth the problems anymore" or "I could tolerate the non-standards-compliance and unreliability" etc. What makes it worth the problems? Is there something you actually like about it?
I was about to disagree with you, but I changed my mind mid-comment. Having an external protocol-handling system sort of puts the burden of responsibility on the protocol handler to check things for security, and having a "shell" protocol handler is absurdly insecure. The fact that IE doesn't pass along shell:// urls leads my paranoid brain to suspect that Microsoft set this up deliberately as a trap -- they can say "Look, the competition isn't any more secure than we are." AIM has the same bug, BTW.
DOM Inspector? Javascript debugger? Generic cross-platform application support? Does Opera even have XMLHTTPRequest support yet? Let alone an XMLRPC or SOAP client? HTTP live header tracking? Okay... so maybe none of these are exactly killer features for the general public, but they are all highly useful to me, for specific purposes. Gotta agree that Opera is faster than Moz though.
Visually, the borg don't really resemble the cybermen, who look like people in foil jumpsuits, wearing rugby helmets with vacuum cleaner tubes stuck on. But compare the dialogue: "You will help us. You will be like us. Resistance is useless." -- Cybermen
That was PGE Park in Portland. It seems to be up and running, but I hadn't heard anything since the park got all snippy.
e w.php?nodeid=512
http://www.nodedb.com/unitedstates/or/portland/vi
http://www.personaltelco.net/index.cgi/Node512
It's highly useful to keep supplicants in line. Eye candy is intended to send the message: "I have a computer that looks really complicated -- just like the ones YOU see hackers using in movies -- and therefore I'm important and far too busy to handle your pathetic request." This is particularly fulfilling if you're playing a game or reading a website that looks complicated (and therefore important and work related) to the laity.
I won't be quite as extreme as some others here, but you really can't extend "under God" to cover atheists. I think it's quite a stretch to make it cover Buddhists, Hindus or even Muslims. It might not be provable in court -- I don't know -- but certainly everyone I've actually discussed the subject with has assumed that to mean the God of Christianity. I certainly suppose it to mean that. In particular, when it was added in 1954, it was "officially" meant to represent a vague higher power, but was added specifically to emphasize that the U.S. *was not atheist* like the USSR.
:-)
You will definitely get a lot of shit for being a public Christian on Slashdot... but you don't really think this place is representative of the real world?
In some areas, some people are almost embarassed to admit they goto church
:-)
I suspect that applies to very few areas. I live in one of the least religious towns around, and it's not like that here. If some people feel embarrassed to admit they go to church, I doubt it has anything to do with any anti-religious taboo. It's probably because they are shy of being identified with the growing numbers of intolerant, deliberately ignorant fundamentalists. There is a public taboo against intolerance, and I think that's quite appropriate. Yes, there is a small minority of people who will attack any expression of religion, but it hardly constitutes a culture of repression.
There is a separate issue of church/state separation. This has really been an issue since before the constitution was signed, and there have always been churches on both sides of it. You want a public taboo against religion? There were states in 1789 that prohibited Jews and Roman Catholics (and - ladies, cover your ears - atheists) from holding public office. Why? Because Protestantism is the correct religion, of course. That is why the constitution forbids a religious test for public office, and that's why the government is forbidden to favor any religious expression. Does it offend your religion for the words "under god" to be removed from the official pledge of allegiance? Don't you think that means it offends someone else's religion (or lack thereof) for it to be in there? Having it there is just a little bit of the way to "No one but a Mormon shall hold any public office in Utah". Which is, in many areas, de facto the case, but, thank Jefferson, not de jure.
Personally, I think there shouldn't even *be* an official pledge of allegiance. But that's a different issue altogether
Hrm, I do both. Coincidence? :-) (Yeah, part of my bike commute is technically a highway.)
(Are you sure you spelled "decolessant" right? You should write to Google and have them add the word to their index.)
My UT2004 pings would be through the roof!
:-)
You're in space. Where else would they go?
Wow, I was about to say this new steel would make a huge advance in bicycle frames --- but never mind that now :-)
This could really be remedied easily by including a slightly more complicated shell script than the ones in the links we posted, in the t-bird and firefox linux distributions. All it would have to do (I imagine) would be to check for the most likely of several different standards for identifying the default browser, and launch it using the appropriate template. Or else add a visible preference for it in the config dialog. The first would cover 95% of linux usage, and the couple guys who use w3m as their main browser can write their own damn shell script. I think this is just a matter of nobody having the energy or time to add the tools to make things work right. I'd do it myself if I wasn't so lazy :-)
Find out how to work around that here: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/thunderbird/linuxu rls.html
This is a pretty major UI bug in T-bird, IMO.
Maybe we're being too cautious, or unfairly lumping Germany and France together. (A search for one of the books on abebooks.com reveals lots of German booksellers offering it. I will have to bring that up to my boss.) Yahoo was prevented from selling this stuff in France, though, and I believe we would be, too, though AFAIK we are self-censoring it.
It's because of the U.K.'s libel laws, which are so restrictive that it's basically illegal to allege (or, apparently, even sell anything alleging) anything negative about a person or organization unless you can prove it in court. We are not legally prohibited from selling it there; that is, I don't think any British censorship board has declared the book to be illegal. But we have been sued for making it available. And people call the U.S. litigious...
y s_libel_damages_again (I don't work for Amazon)i tain.shtml
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/01/02/amazon_pa
http://www.indexonline.org/indexindex/20021219_br
http://www.urban75.org/archive/news013.html
this is the book we can't ship to the U.K. We used to, but we were sued just for selling it, and we lost.
Fuck you very much, French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier.
You know, every once in a while I have to add a few lines to a database, where I work, to prevent certain books from being shipped to the U.K., France, and Germany. Some of the books that are illegal to sell in France and Germany are 1936 Olympics memorabilia. (They were held in Berlin that year. There are swastikas in some of the pictures.) No such restrictions apply to the U.S. We regularly ship out books on how to do many illegal things...
Oh, I see you've somehow become aware of the secret state of Quincy, the east border of which extends from Vancouver, B.C. all the way to Cannon Beach, OR, and which (to the untrained eye) looks remarkably like the Pacific Ocean. *holds up mysterious chrome rod* Look over here, please...
Huh?
Lea used G++ (GCC) 3.3.1 20030930 (with glibc 2.3.2-98) for the C++, with the -O2 flag (for both i386 and i686). He compiled the Java code normally with the Sun Java 1.4.2_01 compiler, and ran it with the Sun 1.4.2_01 JVM. He ran the tests on Red Hat Linux 9 / Fedora Test1 with the 2.4.20-20.9 kernel on a T30 laptop. The laptop "has a Pentium 4 mobile chip, 512MB of memory, a sort of slow disk," he notes.
Cut'n'pasted for your convenience. It's the second paragraph.