The Chancellor Search Committee has invited the Honorable Sean O'Keefe, Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, to visit the LSU campus for a two-day visit (Wednesday and Thursday, December 15-16) in connection with our ongoing search for a new chancellor. Mr. O'Keefe is the only candidate who is scheduled to be interviewed at the Chancellor Search Committee meeting this week. There will be an open forum on Wednesday at 4 p.m. in the Energy, Coast & Environment Building Auditorium, during which the entire campus community will have an opportunity to meet and interact with Mr. O'Keefe.
The Chancellor Search Committee would appreciate receiving comments on Mr. O'Keefe's candidacy for the chancellor's position, especially from those of you who have an opportunity to meet with him. Comments should be submitted to the committee electronically via the address chansearch@lsu.edu. Mr. O'Keefe's resume is available on-line at http://www.lsu.edu/okeeferesume.
First off, the iTunes Music Store has and uses DRM. Anything encoded with iTunes (the application) is open (uses open standards like AAC, MP3, and Apple Lossless) and not encoded with any sort of DRM, and can't be, unlike Windows Media Player which uses WMA's DRM by default when ripping and encoding CDs.
As for your argument that you can only use one device with iTunes (the iPod), this will be changing shortly. As I recall, Apple has partnered with Motorola's cellular division, and they're supposed to release an iTunes (and iTMS) compatible cell phone.
India could never meet the USA's output due to its size; China isn't developed enough yet to produce, and with the steps that are being taken by China, they may never become as great a greenhouse gas producer as the US.
China isn't developed enough to produce? Yeah, that's why they've got a huge smog cloud that can be seen from space...
Well of course John F'ing Kerry is going to win everytime in a poll conducted in FRANCE! The French like John Kerry. The French hate Bush. The French don't want to have their asses exposed in the U.N. oil for food scandal!
Seriously, though, this post looks like a campaign ad for John Kerry. Not the article, the post. If we're going to post a factual article, don't turn it into a campaign ad for either candidate by including commentary such as "John Kerry supports such a plan", or "George Bush supports such a plan", or "Ralph Nader is just too damn high to do anything about it."
So, let me get this straight. You vote Republican because when Democrats see something seriously wrong, they challenge it? It's better than sitting idly while your freedoms, liberties, and livelihood is challenged.
I'm all for them challenging something they believe is wrong. But, when they challenged the 2000 Election and brought in front of the highest court of the land - they lost. Why? Because they wanted to count the votes differently in each county (a benefit to Gore), a violation of equal protection under the law. And when they lose a fair case in the supreme court, they yell that Bush "stole" the election. What's going to happen if the electoral college splits their vote 269/269 and the House has to pick the President? That's what the law says - are they going to claim once again that the President "stole" the election, even though he would've legally won the election?
Gore won that election, even in Florida.
Bzzzt! WRONG! Gore didn't win in Florida. Recounts sponsored by various news outlets showed that Bush won Florida by 500-something votes.
I was a Republican, but crossed over to the Democratic party after watching the Republican party steal the presidency.
Once again, the election was not stolen. And you're in a minority, actually. After the 2000 election, most shifts in voter registration were to the Republican party.
ven this election, several republicans funded by the GOP have been caught disposing of tens of thousands of valid democrat voter registrations in swing states, and rarely vice versa, probably a fraction of the total fraud going on.
So it's okay that the Democratic GOTV efforts are registering people such as Mary Poppins & Michael Jackson in Ohio. Hell, thousands of new voter registration cards (mostly democrat) have been returned as undeliverable in Ohio. I could also point to the 1960 election, which Democrats literally stole from Nixon with the Daley Coffin Voters in Chicago. I even heard something on TV yesterday about more registered voters than residents over the age of 18 in one state.
I'm a Republican, and I haven't been to church since my parents forced me to go when I was a little kid, way back in 1991. I vote Republican for one big reason - Democrats are big cry babies. They proved that with the 2000 election. I'm not one of these guys that votes down party lines, though. For example, I'm supporting the Democratic candidate for Mayor Parish-President, because the Republican just can't get results.
And I suspect that even if Jesus Christ came out of the sky escorted by angels playing harps and trumpets, and said "I support John Kerry", 50% of republicans would still say "bah, liberal messiah bias" and vote Bush anyway.
I love the little tounge-in-cheek reference to the liberal media bias. Believe me, its there. Anyways, if Jesus came back, he'd probably support Badnarik.;-)
But having said that, I don't understand why the parties stand where they do on this stuff. Hollywood people are huge Kerry supporters, so you'd expect him to be falling all over himself to do whtaever he could to help them out.
Well, considering the survey was being conducted by a technology organization, and the responses are going to be read by geeks like us, he's going to do what any politician would do - pander. Kerry voted for the DMCA, btw, so he was pandering to the Hollywood elite.
Bush, on the other hand, gets creamed by Hollywood types all the time. They donate tons of money to his opponents, do benefits, make statements on talk shows, etc. But Ashcroft is behaving pretty much like the industry's dream AG.
The actors aren't the ones that care diddly about the DMCA. Hell, most of them probably don't even know what the damn thing is or what "DMCA" stands for. In this case, Bush & Ashcroft are doing one of two things - a) enforcing the law that's on the books because they feel its right or b) enforcing the law that's on the books because they're pandering to Hollywood executives and the executives of technology companies.
The only explanation for this that I can think of is that the candidates really believe what they say. The Republicans probably really do believe in the private property argument -- I imagine they find piracy deeply offensive.
I don't think its a matter of being offended. Its simply a matter of pandering to the people that make the donations. The Democrats are pandering to the classic Hollywood elite - the folks that were blacklisted back in the day, and the Republicans are pandering to the high level executives of Hollywood. Neither party will fix the problems with the DMCA until someone stands up and fights for consumer rights because they truly believe in it and understand the issue.. and meets the other big requirement - they're uncorruptable (people like Sen. John McCain would probably fit in this 'uncorruptable' category).
I can't wait to see this place explode after Bush wins - it's not going to be pretty. I predict 2500 posts or more on the thread.
I predict most people on Slashdot will say "BUSH STOLE THE ELECTION!", and "HE DISENFRANCHISED BLACK VOTERS!!", and the all-time favorite, "BUSH IS NOT MY PRESIDENT!"
I find it funny that people are complaing about a private company tearing up the registrations of Democrats, but when Democrats in swing states register to vote 39 times and openly brags about it in the media, nobody says anything about it.
Hey Mr. Wanna-be History Major, wake up!
The U.S. did not put the Taliban in power. In fact, the Taliban were not in power until 1996. Afghanistan had a democratic government after the Soviet Union left, and then in the 90s, the country went into a state of civil war, and when conditions were right - the Taliban sneaked in the door.
As for U.S. support of the Taliban, there wasn't any. Carter and Reagan supported the mujahadeen in their war against the USSR. Most mujahadeen were not radicals - they were just defending their country from the threat of the Soviet Union. Yes, one of these mujahadeen was Usama bin Laden, but he's just one man among many.
MTV is inheritently Democrat. Did you happen to watch their "war coverage" when the liberation of Iraq was taking place? They were broadcasting this crap 24 hours a day about how basically no matter what, Bush is an evil warmonger who wants to destroy the world.
And MTV did it again - by insinuating that the Republicans are bringing back the draft. They're taking advantage of an urban legend email that has been forwarded to people like me. But the fact of the matter is, the draft isn't coming back under a Bush administration... although I can't vouch for Kerry, since he wants to magically increase troop numbers by 40,000 and all...
When? Clinton never EVER testified before Congress, so right there you show you don't know what you're talking about. Sitting presidents don't.
Mr. Clinton sent his representatives to various forums (including the UN) in 1997 and 1998 during the height of the Iraq disarmament crisis in the 90s. In fact, the stated goal of Operation Desert Fox was to "degrade" Saddam Hussein's Weapons of Mass Destruction capabilities. Secretary Albright actually stated several times that Iraq had WMDs and that Hussein should be taken out - see Albright's March 1997 speech to Georgetown University on the subject
When? When did John Kerry know that aluminum tubes were not capable of being used in nuclear weaponsmaking, but claimed they were so capable anyway, and did so in front of Congress? Do tell.
Typical liberal, spinning what I said. The "lies" I was referring to was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Senator Kerry actually helped author and signed a letter to Clinton in 1998 which state [W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs.". Hmm... 1998? Yeah, that's right, I'm pretty sure Bush wasn't given any intelligence on Iraq in '98, seeing as how he wasn't President and all... There are more quotes where that came from.
They were stating what they believed. When the Bush admin officials testified in front of Congress, they were intentionally LYING. Big difference. They had information beforehand that contradicted what they were saying, and can be proven to have known it.
The article doesn't really state anything new. It just says the administration embraced a disputed theory, and there's really nothing wrong with that. Saying that the 9/11 Terrorists were arabs and followers of Osama bin Laden is a disputed theory, as there are some out there that are silly enough to believe that the MOSAD did it. Bush Sr, Clinton, and Dubya all believed there were WMDs in Iraq, and unlike his father and BJ Boy, he took action after we were attacked on 9/11. Yes, I know, Iraq was not involved in 9/11. However, the policy of this administration is that if you support ANY form of terrorism, expect your ass to be taken out. The case can be argued that Hussein supported Palestinian suicide bombers by paying their families, and actually on occasion trained terrorists. In addition, some members of al-Qaeda received medical treatment in Baghdad. And oh yes, did you know there was a camp outside of Baghdad that contained a Boeing 707 that Iraqi Special Forces used to practice hijacking planes?
I'm not even going to go into the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, passed by President Clinton, which actually made the policy of the United States that of regime change in Iraq. I'm not going to go into the 16 UN Resolutions that the United States pushed since 1991 which stated Hussein was a threat.
Shyah? Conservatives alwas find it so easy to find a hole to crawl into when the rhetoric fails to be convincing.
I'm not going to go into the rest of the evidence out there, because you're just a blind ideologue. It was obvious that you are one when you made the Halliburton comment. At least I can see the other side, and I've proven that by campaigning for Democrats in the past (and currently in the Baton Rouge Mayor-President race). Stop being an ideologue with spun arguments and maybe people will listen to you.
As I recall, Clinton made the same "lies" about Iraq in front of Congress... or did you not know that?? And Senator Kerry has been on television several times, as far back as 1995 in fact, stating the same "lies".
So, not, it's not irrelevant and inflamatory. How can something be inflamatory anyways when these people actually made those statements? In this country, that's what we call telling the truth.
But its obvious you've got the blind ideology stick shoved up your bum, so I don't think this post will make a bit of difference.
Once again, I'm visiting Slashdot to find "Bush Lied!" plastered on the front page, all based on a New York Times article. As I recall, the New York Times has a problem with lying, itself.
The President didn't lie about the information that was presented to him. Neither did President Clinton or Senator Kerry when they were presented with the same information. In fact, all the way up until the Democratic Presidential Debates, Kerry thought Saddam Hussein was a threat and even made the same claims about their WMD program(s) that President Bush has made.
Slashdot Mirror
The Chancellor Search Committee has invited the Honorable Sean O'Keefe,
Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, to
visit the LSU campus for a two-day visit (Wednesday and Thursday,
December 15-16) in connection with our ongoing search for a new chancellor.
Mr. O'Keefe is the only candidate who is scheduled to be interviewed at the
Chancellor Search Committee meeting this week. There will be an open forum
on Wednesday at 4 p.m. in the Energy, Coast & Environment Building
Auditorium, during which the entire campus community will have an
opportunity to meet and interact with Mr. O'Keefe.
The Chancellor Search Committee would appreciate receiving comments on Mr.
O'Keefe's candidacy for the chancellor's position, especially from those of
you who have an opportunity to meet with him. Comments should be submitted
to the committee electronically via the address chansearch@lsu.edu. Mr.
O'Keefe's resume is available on-line at http://www.lsu.edu/okeeferesume.
Thank you for your interest and cooperation.
Joel Tohline, Chair
Chancellor Search Committee
Last time I checked, the major news media sure as hell didn't have a problem criticising the President...
As for your argument that you can only use one device with iTunes (the iPod), this will be changing shortly. As I recall, Apple has partnered with Motorola's cellular division, and they're supposed to release an iTunes (and iTMS) compatible cell phone.
/. is always so quick to jump on anything that screams vast right wing conspiracy... and this time they got egg on their face. GOOD.
China isn't developed enough to produce? Yeah, that's why they've got a huge smog cloud that can be seen from space...
Actually, most of Ohio uses the good old fashion punchcards - pregnant chads and all....
Well of course John F'ing Kerry is going to win everytime in a poll conducted in FRANCE! The French like John Kerry. The French hate Bush. The French don't want to have their asses exposed in the U.N. oil for food scandal!
Amazingly, now that you have linked to it, the page is "Not Found".
Seriously, though, this post looks like a campaign ad for John Kerry. Not the article, the post. If we're going to post a factual article, don't turn it into a campaign ad for either candidate by including commentary such as "John Kerry supports such a plan", or "George Bush supports such a plan", or "Ralph Nader is just too damn high to do anything about it."
I'm all for them challenging something they believe is wrong. But, when they challenged the 2000 Election and brought in front of the highest court of the land - they lost. Why? Because they wanted to count the votes differently in each county (a benefit to Gore), a violation of equal protection under the law. And when they lose a fair case in the supreme court, they yell that Bush "stole" the election. What's going to happen if the electoral college splits their vote 269/269 and the House has to pick the President? That's what the law says - are they going to claim once again that the President "stole" the election, even though he would've legally won the election?
Gore won that election, even in Florida.
Bzzzt! WRONG! Gore didn't win in Florida. Recounts sponsored by various news outlets showed that Bush won Florida by 500-something votes.
I was a Republican, but crossed over to the Democratic party after watching the Republican party steal the presidency.
Once again, the election was not stolen. And you're in a minority, actually. After the 2000 election, most shifts in voter registration were to the Republican party.
ven this election, several republicans funded by the GOP have been caught disposing of tens of thousands of valid democrat voter registrations in swing states, and rarely vice versa, probably a fraction of the total fraud going on.
So it's okay that the Democratic GOTV efforts are registering people such as Mary Poppins & Michael Jackson in Ohio. Hell, thousands of new voter registration cards (mostly democrat) have been returned as undeliverable in Ohio. I could also point to the 1960 election, which Democrats literally stole from Nixon with the Daley Coffin Voters in Chicago. I even heard something on TV yesterday about more registered voters than residents over the age of 18 in one state.
But I'm voting for him anyway
Last time I checked, douche bags caused disease.
I'm a Republican, and I haven't been to church since my parents forced me to go when I was a little kid, way back in 1991. I vote Republican for one big reason - Democrats are big cry babies. They proved that with the 2000 election. I'm not one of these guys that votes down party lines, though. For example, I'm supporting the Democratic candidate for Mayor Parish-President, because the Republican just can't get results.
And I suspect that even if Jesus Christ came out of the sky escorted by angels playing harps and trumpets, and said "I support John Kerry", 50% of republicans would still say "bah, liberal messiah bias" and vote Bush anyway.
I love the little tounge-in-cheek reference to the liberal media bias. Believe me, its there. Anyways, if Jesus came back, he'd probably support Badnarik. ;-)
Well, considering the survey was being conducted by a technology organization, and the responses are going to be read by geeks like us, he's going to do what any politician would do - pander. Kerry voted for the DMCA, btw, so he was pandering to the Hollywood elite.
Bush, on the other hand, gets creamed by Hollywood types all the time. They donate tons of money to his opponents, do benefits, make statements on talk shows, etc. But Ashcroft is behaving pretty much like the industry's dream AG.
The actors aren't the ones that care diddly about the DMCA. Hell, most of them probably don't even know what the damn thing is or what "DMCA" stands for. In this case, Bush & Ashcroft are doing one of two things - a) enforcing the law that's on the books because they feel its right or b) enforcing the law that's on the books because they're pandering to Hollywood executives and the executives of technology companies.
The only explanation for this that I can think of is that the candidates really believe what they say. The Republicans probably really do believe in the private property argument -- I imagine they find piracy deeply offensive.
I don't think its a matter of being offended. Its simply a matter of pandering to the people that make the donations. The Democrats are pandering to the classic Hollywood elite - the folks that were blacklisted back in the day, and the Republicans are pandering to the high level executives of Hollywood. Neither party will fix the problems with the DMCA until someone stands up and fights for consumer rights because they truly believe in it and understand the issue.. and meets the other big requirement - they're uncorruptable (people like Sen. John McCain would probably fit in this 'uncorruptable' category).
Seeing as how your 2004 mock presidential ballot elected Howard Dean with almost every method just scares me... incredibly scares me.
I predict most people on Slashdot will say "BUSH STOLE THE ELECTION!", and "HE DISENFRANCHISED BLACK VOTERS!!", and the all-time favorite, "BUSH IS NOT MY PRESIDENT!"
Must have tried the Macintosh Portable from 1985...
Since when is stating an obvious fact being a troll????
According to Dell, 90% of the computers out there have spyware installed on them... the other 10% are Macs and machines running *NIX. :-P
Thank you. I asked if somebody knew the conversion off the top of their head earlier, and I got flammed for asking.
I'm sorry folks, I'm just lazy.
Can somebody provide us with the weight of the device in ounces or pounds instead of grams??
I find it funny that people are complaing about a private company tearing up the registrations of Democrats, but when Democrats in swing states register to vote 39 times and openly brags about it in the media, nobody says anything about it.
Hey Mr. Wanna-be History Major, wake up! The U.S. did not put the Taliban in power. In fact, the Taliban were not in power until 1996. Afghanistan had a democratic government after the Soviet Union left, and then in the 90s, the country went into a state of civil war, and when conditions were right - the Taliban sneaked in the door. As for U.S. support of the Taliban, there wasn't any. Carter and Reagan supported the mujahadeen in their war against the USSR. Most mujahadeen were not radicals - they were just defending their country from the threat of the Soviet Union. Yes, one of these mujahadeen was Usama bin Laden, but he's just one man among many.
MTV is inheritently Democrat. Did you happen to watch their "war coverage" when the liberation of Iraq was taking place? They were broadcasting this crap 24 hours a day about how basically no matter what, Bush is an evil warmonger who wants to destroy the world.
And MTV did it again - by insinuating that the Republicans are bringing back the draft. They're taking advantage of an urban legend email that has been forwarded to people like me. But the fact of the matter is, the draft isn't coming back under a Bush administration... although I can't vouch for Kerry, since he wants to magically increase troop numbers by 40,000 and all...
Mr. Clinton sent his representatives to various forums (including the UN) in 1997 and 1998 during the height of the Iraq disarmament crisis in the 90s. In fact, the stated goal of Operation Desert Fox was to "degrade" Saddam Hussein's Weapons of Mass Destruction capabilities. Secretary Albright actually stated several times that Iraq had WMDs and that Hussein should be taken out - see Albright's March 1997 speech to Georgetown University on the subject
When? When did John Kerry know that aluminum tubes were not capable of being used in nuclear weaponsmaking, but claimed they were so capable anyway, and did so in front of Congress? Do tell.
Typical liberal, spinning what I said. The "lies" I was referring to was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Senator Kerry actually helped author and signed a letter to Clinton in 1998 which state [W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.". Hmm... 1998? Yeah, that's right, I'm pretty sure Bush wasn't given any intelligence on Iraq in '98, seeing as how he wasn't President and all... There are more quotes where that came from.
They were stating what they believed. When the Bush admin officials testified in front of Congress, they were intentionally LYING. Big difference. They had information beforehand that contradicted what they were saying, and can be proven to have known it.
The article doesn't really state anything new. It just says the administration embraced a disputed theory, and there's really nothing wrong with that. Saying that the 9/11 Terrorists were arabs and followers of Osama bin Laden is a disputed theory, as there are some out there that are silly enough to believe that the MOSAD did it. Bush Sr, Clinton, and Dubya all believed there were WMDs in Iraq, and unlike his father and BJ Boy, he took action after we were attacked on 9/11. Yes, I know, Iraq was not involved in 9/11. However, the policy of this administration is that if you support ANY form of terrorism, expect your ass to be taken out. The case can be argued that Hussein supported Palestinian suicide bombers by paying their families, and actually on occasion trained terrorists. In addition, some members of al-Qaeda received medical treatment in Baghdad. And oh yes, did you know there was a camp outside of Baghdad that contained a Boeing 707 that Iraqi Special Forces used to practice hijacking planes?
I'm not even going to go into the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, passed by President Clinton, which actually made the policy of the United States that of regime change in Iraq. I'm not going to go into the 16 UN Resolutions that the United States pushed since 1991 which stated Hussein was a threat.
Shyah? Conservatives alwas find it so easy to find a hole to crawl into when the rhetoric fails to be convincing.
I'm not going to go into the rest of the evidence out there, because you're just a blind ideologue. It was obvious that you are one when you made the Halliburton comment. At least I can see the other side, and I've proven that by campaigning for Democrats in the past (and currently in the Baton Rouge Mayor-President race). Stop being an ideologue with spun arguments and maybe people will listen to you.
As I recall, Clinton made the same "lies" about Iraq in front of Congress... or did you not know that?? And Senator Kerry has been on television several times, as far back as 1995 in fact, stating the same "lies".
So, not, it's not irrelevant and inflamatory. How can something be inflamatory anyways when these people actually made those statements? In this country, that's what we call telling the truth.
But its obvious you've got the blind ideology stick shoved up your bum, so I don't think this post will make a bit of difference.
The President didn't lie about the information that was presented to him. Neither did President Clinton or Senator Kerry when they were presented with the same information. In fact, all the way up until the Democratic Presidential Debates, Kerry thought Saddam Hussein was a threat and even made the same claims about their WMD program(s) that President Bush has made.