As far as I understand it, the Indymedia was hosted in UK but the FBI seized it on the request of Italian and Swiss governments. Is there an active interest in this matter by the US government other then just complying with the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Treaties (MLATs)?
Really. So constitution democracy includes locking people away without charges, trials, or lawyers?
Who cares? A good number of people here on Slashdot probably spend more money and time waiting in line to buy games like Halo 2 than to vote or feed the homeless.
Constitutional democracy allows for the FBI to write themselves a warrant, plant bugs and video cameras in your home, and install a key logger in your keyboard for 6 months without telling you. Constitutional democracy intended for the 'Miami Model' of silencing peaceful demonstrations and public protest?
Have anyone here on Slashdot experience such a thing? If so, please share with us your method of detecting the bugs, video cameras, and key loggers planted by the FBI.
First of all, the first article contridicts the congress being in favor of the draft. Second, the send article comes from Batanttruth.org, who'soal is to "exposing the Bush Doctrine of greed, repression and fraud". This hardly seems to be an unbiased source. It'll be like me going to the NRA site and use their articles to argue that everyone should own a gun.
One of the reasons why I voted for Kerry is that Bush streached the military too thin. However, I don't believe that it's streached to a point where the draft is needed. I believe that site overplaying the possibility of the draft to scare voters away from Bush.
Since December is only about two months away, we'll see soon enough if blatanttruth.org is telling the truth or if they are blatant liers. If the plan that you stated do come true, I'll be the first one to post on my journal about how I was wrong and you where right, and will tell everyone one about the Bush's "evil" plan.
No state votes will go for kerry, they all go for bush no matter what. The system is flawed.
I'm pretty sure that the Democrats didn't complain about all of the CA and NY states votes going to Kerry, not to mention that Bush actually managed to also win by the popular vote as well this time. According to the exit polls, 56% of voters 60 and older voted for Bush so they sure got someone they liked elected.
I didn't vote in 2000 as I disliked both Bush and Gore (I was a McCain supporter). Even though I'm not fan of either Bush or Kerry, I voted for Kerry this time around because I didn't want Bush re-elected. Unfortunately, Kerry didn't get elected, but I can at least say I tried to make a difference.
You don't get it because you think bills in Congress matter.
I think that it's you that don't get it. How do you think the PATRIOT Act became the law? Because the Congress passed it and Bush cann't sign something that do not pass the both Houses. And the article that you posted even states that Congress shows little support for effort to draw skilled Americans.
I ended up voting by absentee ballet this year as I didn't want to risk not voting due to possible problems at the poll. I suggest that your girlfriend and your other friends sign up for it for the next election.
I think Kerry courted the right demographic, he would have had a rough go of things trying to convert the older voters who are generally pro war and big on morals similar to Bush's.
I'll have to disagree with you on this one since Clinton his election by courting the older folks while the younger crowd was pretty evenly split. I'm not saying that the future candidates should alienate the younger voters, but they should make them their base.
That would imply that there will be Republicans and Democrats vote will cast their career ending vote for the future draft bill. Then again, they were spineless to stop Bush during his first term...
I am disappointed that the younger crowd (18-25 age group), who bitched the loudest, ended up with the piss poor voting record as usual. I'm also disappointed that Kerry was foolish enough to court that group of voters while Bush was busy courting older voters which proven record of voting and won.
So if any of you out there (of legal voting age) who bitched but didn't vote, please stop bitching, as some other foolish candidate in the future may end up running supporting your cause thinking that you may actually vote.
The ones who brought up the first draft bill where Democrats, which was opposed by the Republicans and rest of the Democrats alike, so how does Bush winning make it more likely?
Has not Kerry been said to completely decimate Bush in the under-30 demographic?
While that's true, the problem is that 18-25 age group has piss poor voting record in the past, and it seems that it's also true for this election. While Kerry was courting the younger voters, Bush courted the older voters and it paid off big time.
The lession learned? The younger crowd bitches and moans the loudest, but they don't walk the talk by voting. In the future, Democrats should stop wasting their time courting the young crowd and focus on the older folks.
Check out the exit polls [cnn.com]. Scroll down to what people believe are the most important qualities in a president. Only 7% said intelligence!!!!! HOLY FUCK!!! JESUS CHRIST, is this the country that I'm living in?!?!?!?
The same country where girls won't date geeks for their intelligence or programming skills.
The bad news for Kerry is that while majority of voters in the 18-25 age group voted for Kerry but that group also had the worst voter turn out as well. I guess getting drunk or playing games all night is more important than voting for their future.
New Hampshire and Nevada look poised to switch to Kerry; if everything else stays the same, that gives us a tie.
The problem is that if both of them manage to end up of 269 votes each, the House of Representatives will end up deciding who gets to be the winner. And it looks like the Republicans will end up controlling the House, which would most likely lean toward Bush. This means that we may end up with the House deciding who gets to be the president this time around instead of the Supreme Court.
Bush wins because he's got a brother in one of the most contested states in the country, Diebold is counting and tabulating, and the 'lost ballots' are ever-increasing.
You forgot to say "Bush will California because the governer is a Republican who's also a Bush supporter".
I ended up voting for Kerry. However, I didn't vote for him because I like him, but rather because he's not Bush (I was a McCain supporter in 2000 and did not vote from Bush or Gore) and the third party candidates seemed too extreme for me.
Your post seem to make Kerry look like a saint, but us geeks will end up being disapointed if we believe that Kerry will solve all our problems. Here are some differences about Kerry that you've failed to mention:
1. Both Kerry and Edwards are lawyers and their biggest contributers are also lawyers. They have no incentive to lobby for patent reform as lawyers benefit greatly from patent suits.
2. The TV, movie, and entertainment industry historicly donate more to the Democrats, which could mean that Kerry will not do anything to curb RIAA's all out war against the consumers.
Canada's system is working out better than ours, and they pay less. This remains true regardless of all the personal anecdotes about Canada's healthcare that people keep brigning up.
That doesn't seem so from the articles I've seen from Canadian media. For example "Hansen said the B.C. government turned to private clinics to clear up a surgical backlog created by last spring's week-long health-care workers' strike".
In a free country, you really couldn't stop private healthcare for those want to invest in it.
You are right on that statement because Canada couldn't stop its citizens from paying to seek faster medical care. "Pettigrew's comments appear to mark a big change from the position of former health minister Anne McLellan, who objected to such clinics and warned provinces to stop them from charging fees. Critics say the clinics violate the Canada Health Act because they allow quicker diagnosis of medical problems for patients with the ability to pay."
Statistics don't bear this out. The cost of malpractice insurance in 2002 came out to 0.4% of total healthcare costs for the year. Since the insurance companies are not going bankrupt, it's quite clear that payouts as a result of malpractice suits were even less than 0.4% of total healthcare costs. Malpractice suits are a red-herring in the debate about healthcare.
I should've been more clear on this. I didn't make that statement for the welfare of the insurance companies, but rather for the doctors who may high malpractice insurances. During the second debate, Bush confronted Kerry about this and Kerry himself even admitted that it's something that needs to be looked at. Malpractice suits drive the doctors out of the profession and that's why they are not red-herring in the debate about healthcare. Highly paid speciality surgeons can afford the insurance, but the lowest paid family physicians can't.
IBM's a mega-corp, and like other mega-corps, they had their share of lies (like the Deskstar post I made earlier) It is foolish for many geeks to believe them blindly, although they are of less evil when compared to SCO and MS. Besides, didn't IBM have a license that allows it to use SysV code?
IBM hasn't been competely honest in the past, either. Remember the IBM branded Deathstar... er Deskstar hard drive issue?
SVR4 code in System 3-based AIX for its proprietary Power chip architecture
Even if the above statement is true, how does it relate to Linux? If this is all that SCO has, it'll open itself up to lawsuits for threatening businesses that use Linux in the past.
Please do take note that the Canadian media is interested in promoting the idea that the health care system is failing: it sells eyeballs and it curries to their corporate advertisers.
The typical "I don't agree with your facts, so your facts must be false" theory. Can you prove that any of the stories that I presented from the Canadian media is false? Where all those private clinics actually cardboard boxes made by the Canadian media to serve their corporate overloards? Maybe this whole thread is a sham because originated from The Washington Post as it's owned my American corporate media.
Objective studies have a much better chance of at least being in the ballpark of reality.
If that's the case, why are proponents of univeral health use polls to argue that majority of Americans want some sort of universal health care? And only one of my link goes to a poll. The rest of the links shows what's actually happening in Canada.
I never said that I was against universal health care. In fact, I believe a tiered version of universal health care may be the way to go. I'm just against the idea of "Let's just copy Canada's version of universal healthcare because everyone there is happy!". First, there are plenty of people there who are unhappy with the speed of care and want access to private healthcare. Second, American has a problem that Canada does not; high cost malpractice suits (which forces doctors to practice defensively) and high levels of obesity (with related diseases).
Slashdot Mirror
This is just a crazy, they call it the 'land of the free' but how free are you?
I guess no less free than UK, Italy, and Sweden.
As far as I understand it, the Indymedia was hosted in UK but the FBI seized it on the request of Italian and Swiss governments. Is there an active interest in this matter by the US government other then just complying with the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Treaties (MLATs)?
Really. So constitution democracy includes locking people away without charges, trials, or lawyers?
Who cares? A good number of people here on Slashdot probably spend more money and time waiting in line to buy games like Halo 2 than to vote or feed the homeless.
Constitutional democracy allows for the FBI to write themselves a warrant, plant bugs and video cameras in your home, and install a key logger in your keyboard for 6 months without telling you. Constitutional democracy intended for the 'Miami Model' of silencing peaceful demonstrations and public protest?
Have anyone here on Slashdot experience such a thing? If so, please share with us your method of detecting the bugs, video cameras, and key loggers planted by the FBI.
First of all, the first article contridicts the congress being in favor of the draft. Second, the send article comes from Batanttruth.org, who'soal is to "exposing the Bush Doctrine of greed, repression and fraud". This hardly seems to be an unbiased source. It'll be like me going to the NRA site and use their articles to argue that everyone should own a gun.
One of the reasons why I voted for Kerry is that Bush streached the military too thin. However, I don't believe that it's streached to a point where the draft is needed. I believe that site overplaying the possibility of the draft to scare voters away from Bush.
Since December is only about two months away, we'll see soon enough if blatanttruth.org is telling the truth or if they are blatant liers. If the plan that you stated do come true, I'll be the first one to post on my journal about how I was wrong and you where right, and will tell everyone one about the Bush's "evil" plan.
No state votes will go for kerry, they all go for bush no matter what. The system is flawed.
I'm pretty sure that the Democrats didn't complain about all of the CA and NY states votes going to Kerry, not to mention that Bush actually managed to also win by the popular vote as well this time. According to the exit polls, 56% of voters 60 and older voted for Bush so they sure got someone they liked elected.
I didn't vote in 2000 as I disliked both Bush and Gore (I was a McCain supporter). Even though I'm not fan of either Bush or Kerry, I voted for Kerry this time around because I didn't want Bush re-elected. Unfortunately, Kerry didn't get elected, but I can at least say I tried to make a difference.
You don't get it because you think bills in Congress matter.
I think that it's you that don't get it. How do you think the PATRIOT Act became the law? Because the Congress passed it and Bush cann't sign something that do not pass the both Houses. And the article that you posted even states that Congress shows little support for effort to draw skilled Americans.
I ended up voting by absentee ballet this year as I didn't want to risk not voting due to possible problems at the poll. I suggest that your girlfriend and your other friends sign up for it for the next election.
I think Kerry courted the right demographic, he would have had a rough go of things trying to convert the older voters who are generally pro war and big on morals similar to Bush's.
I'll have to disagree with you on this one since Clinton his election by courting the older folks while the younger crowd was pretty evenly split. I'm not saying that the future candidates should alienate the younger voters, but they should make them their base.
That would imply that there will be Republicans and Democrats vote will cast their career ending vote for the future draft bill. Then again, they were spineless to stop Bush during his first term...
Just wondering, if by some highly improbable miracle the provisional ballots give Ohio to Kerry does the concession really mean anything?
Gore took his concession back from Bush during 2000 so I don't think that it really means anything yet.
I am disappointed that the younger crowd (18-25 age group), who bitched the loudest, ended up with the piss poor voting record as usual. I'm also disappointed that Kerry was foolish enough to court that group of voters while Bush was busy courting older voters which proven record of voting and won.
So if any of you out there (of legal voting age) who bitched but didn't vote, please stop bitching, as some other foolish candidate in the future may end up running supporting your cause thinking that you may actually vote.
is the link to the Draft-Dodging HOWTO.
The ones who brought up the first draft bill where Democrats, which was opposed by the Republicans and rest of the Democrats alike, so how does Bush winning make it more likely?
Has not Kerry been said to completely decimate Bush in the under-30 demographic?
While that's true, the problem is that 18-25 age group has piss poor voting record in the past, and it seems that it's also true for this election. While Kerry was courting the younger voters, Bush courted the older voters and it paid off big time.
The lession learned? The younger crowd bitches and moans the loudest, but they don't walk the talk by voting. In the future, Democrats should stop wasting their time courting the young crowd and focus on the older folks.
Check out the exit polls [cnn.com]. Scroll down to what people believe are the most important qualities in a president. Only 7% said intelligence!!!!! HOLY FUCK!!! JESUS CHRIST, is this the country that I'm living in?!?!?!?
The same country where girls won't date geeks for their intelligence or programming skills.
The bad news for Kerry is that while majority of voters in the 18-25 age group voted for Kerry but that group also had the worst voter turn out as well. I guess getting drunk or playing games all night is more important than voting for their future.
New Hampshire and Nevada look poised to switch to Kerry; if everything else stays the same, that gives us a tie.
The problem is that if both of them manage to end up of 269 votes each, the House of Representatives will end up deciding who gets to be the winner. And it looks like the Republicans will end up controlling the House, which would most likely lean toward Bush. This means that we may end up with the House deciding who gets to be the president this time around instead of the Supreme Court.
Bush wins because he's got a brother in one of the most contested states in the country, Diebold is counting and tabulating, and the 'lost ballots' are ever-increasing.
You forgot to say "Bush will California because the governer is a Republican who's also a Bush supporter".
I ended up voting for Kerry. However, I didn't vote for him because I like him, but rather because he's not Bush (I was a McCain supporter in 2000 and did not vote from Bush or Gore) and the third party candidates seemed too extreme for me.
Your post seem to make Kerry look like a saint, but us geeks will end up being disapointed if we believe that Kerry will solve all our problems. Here are some differences about Kerry that you've failed to mention:
1. Both Kerry and Edwards are lawyers and their biggest contributers are also lawyers. They have no incentive to lobby for patent reform as lawyers benefit greatly from patent suits.
2. The TV, movie, and entertainment industry historicly donate more to the Democrats, which could mean that Kerry will not do anything to curb RIAA's all out war against the consumers.
In other news, Bud Light gets you lots of chicks. In bikinis. And twins.
Yes!!! I knew that getting a keg of Bud Light for the Halloween party was a good idea.
Canada's system is working out better than ours, and they pay less. This remains true regardless of all the personal anecdotes about Canada's healthcare that people keep brigning up.
That doesn't seem so from the articles I've seen from Canadian media. For example "Hansen said the B.C. government turned to private clinics to clear up a surgical backlog created by last spring's week-long health-care workers' strike".
In a free country, you really couldn't stop private healthcare for those want to invest in it.
You are right on that statement because Canada couldn't stop its citizens from paying to seek faster medical care. "Pettigrew's comments appear to mark a big change from the position of former health minister Anne McLellan, who objected to such clinics and warned provinces to stop them from charging fees. Critics say the clinics violate the Canada Health Act because they allow quicker diagnosis of medical problems for patients with the ability to pay."
Statistics don't bear this out. The cost of malpractice insurance in 2002 came out to 0.4% of total healthcare costs for the year. Since the insurance companies are not going bankrupt, it's quite clear that payouts as a result of malpractice suits were even less than 0.4% of total healthcare costs. Malpractice suits are a red-herring in the debate about healthcare.
I should've been more clear on this. I didn't make that statement for the welfare of the insurance companies, but rather for the doctors who may high malpractice insurances. During the second debate, Bush confronted Kerry about this and Kerry himself even admitted that it's something that needs to be looked at. Malpractice suits drive the doctors out of the profession and that's why they are not red-herring in the debate about healthcare. Highly paid speciality surgeons can afford the insurance, but the lowest paid family physicians can't.
IBM's a mega-corp, and like other mega-corps, they had their share of lies (like the Deskstar post I made earlier) It is foolish for many geeks to believe them blindly, although they are of less evil when compared to SCO and MS. Besides, didn't IBM have a license that allows it to use SysV code?
But he'll probably exit 'the nexus' to save a fellow actor named Patrick Stewart and get killed in the process.
IBM hasn't been competely honest in the past, either. Remember the IBM branded Deathstar... er Deskstar hard drive issue?
SVR4 code in System 3-based AIX for its proprietary Power chip architecture
Even if the above statement is true, how does it relate to Linux? If this is all that SCO has, it'll open itself up to lawsuits for threatening businesses that use Linux in the past.
Please do take note that the Canadian media is interested in promoting the idea that the health care system is failing: it sells eyeballs and it curries to their corporate advertisers.
The typical "I don't agree with your facts, so your facts must be false" theory. Can you prove that any of the stories that I presented from the Canadian media is false? Where all those private clinics actually cardboard boxes made by the Canadian media to serve their corporate overloards? Maybe this whole thread is a sham because originated from The Washington Post as it's owned my American corporate media.
Objective studies have a much better chance of at least being in the ballpark of reality.
If that's the case, why are proponents of univeral health use polls to argue that majority of Americans want some sort of universal health care? And only one of my link goes to a poll. The rest of the links shows what's actually happening in Canada.
I never said that I was against universal health care. In fact, I believe a tiered version of universal health care may be the way to go. I'm just against the idea of "Let's just copy Canada's version of universal healthcare because everyone there is happy!". First, there are plenty of people there who are unhappy with the speed of care and want access to private healthcare. Second, American has a problem that Canada does not; high cost malpractice suits (which forces doctors to practice defensively) and high levels of obesity (with related diseases).
But sure, your personal examples are so much more convincing than WHO studies...
I personally find the reports by Canada's own media and its citizens more convincing that of WHO.