Google censors? i knew they did for china, but in america?

@empireman:

Where I live would be the spot where the war will first start, So I would have the choices of being a slave or a part of a resistance group. I would choose to fight the evil commies.

same here…

Prem #1 What if the debt held by B2 was in the form of stocks of A1.  A1 could depreciate their stock in exchange for benefits that would derive from the borrowed money from B2.  You in fact get all the benefits from the loan and screw the lender.

Prem #2 B2 never required use of your patents called ControlledShippingLanes.  Now B2 requires use of this patent which A1 has spent a great deal of money investing in ‘lawyers’ and ‘updated patent modifications’ in order to defend the ControlledShippingLanes patent that most western companies require use of. Now that B2 now requires a ‘license’ to use the ControlledShippingLanes patent for various things, A1 now finds itself in a great position.

It does make for an interesting movie premise doesn’t it?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/chinese-hackers-breach-key-u-weapons-designs-133849940.html

Hi Everybody

I have 100 invites to google mail (@gmail.com) and was wondering if any of you needs more space or just wants to shift email account. Its the greatest webmail Ive tried, here are some of its features.
It has 2,7 gb space (and still increasing in size).
It allows up to 10 mb attachments
It has incorporated googles search engine, which is a great help when looking for mails that goes a year back
and one of the greatest things is that it has mail forwarding and POP, so you can have all your mails sent directly to thunderbird or whatever you use.

This is not to be taken as a commercial, I write this because you can’t sign up for a gmail without being invited and because I know how much space you end up using sending all those battlemap files and all those diceymails.
Generally because I just want to be a nice guy  :-P

So its quite simple, write your email in this post and I’ll send you an invite to sign up for gmail.
If you don’t want to post your mail addy here, you can send me PM or throw me an email.
Ive got 100 invites waiting so I don’t think I’ll run dry.

Regards,
Daniel

This news sotry shows just how close the United States is to becoming just like Germany of the 1930’s.

We have always been a nation of the rule of law, and have prided ourselves on our Constitution to the point where we expected EVERYONE else to accept, adopt, and follow it.

Not anymore.  Now, 42% of Americans think that the Constitution is irrelevant and should be discarded in order to keep them “safe” from outside agression.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060108/ap_on_go_pr_wh/eavesdropping_ap_poll

WASHINGTON - A majority of Americans want the Bush administration to get court approval before eavesdropping on people inside the United States, even if those calls might involve suspected terrorists, an AP-Ipsos poll shows.

Over the past three weeks,
President Bush and top aides have defended the electronic monitoring program they secretly launched shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, as a vital tool to protect the nation from al-Qaida and its affiliates.

Yet 56 percent of respondents in an AP-Ipsos poll said the government should be required to first get a court warrant to eavesdrop on the overseas calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens when those communications are believed to be tied to terrorism.

Agreeing with the White House, some 42 percent of those surveyed do not believe the court approval is necessary.

“We’re at war,” Bush said during a New Year’s Day visit to San Antonio. “And as commander in chief, I’ve got to use the resources at my disposal, within the law, to protect the American people. … It’s a vital, necessary program.”

According to the poll, age matters in how people view the monitoring. Nearly two-thirds of those between age 18 to 29 believe warrants should be required, while people 65 and older are evenly divided.

Party affiliation is a factor, too. Almost three-fourths of Democrats and one-third of Republicans want to require court warrants.

Cynthia Ice-Bones, 32, a Republican from Sacramento, Calif., said knowing about the program made her feel a bit safer. “I think our security is so important that we don’t need warrants. If you’re doing something we shouldn’t be doing, then you ought to be caught,” she said.

But Peter Ahr of Caldwell, N.J., a religious studies professor at Seton Hall University, said he could not find a justification for skipping judicial approvals. Nor did he believe the administration’s argument that such a step would impair terrorism investigations.

“We’re a nation of laws. … That means that everybody has to live by the law, including the administration,” said Ahr, 64, a Democrat who argues for checks and balances. “For the administration to simply go after wiretaps on their own without anyone else’s say-so is a violation of that principle.”

The eavesdropping is run by the secretive National Security Agency, the government’s code-makers and code-breakers.

Charles Franklin, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said most people think that the eavesdropping is aimed at foreign terrorists, even when the surveillance is conducted inside the country.

“They are willing to give the president quite a lot of leeway on this when it comes to the war on terror,” said Franklin, who closely follows public opinion.

Some members of Congress have raised concerns about the president’s actions, but none of those lawmakers who have been briefed on the program has called for its immediate halt.

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, GOP Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record) of Pennsylvania, has promised hearings this year. Five members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, including GOP Sens. Olympia Snowe of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, have called for immediate inquiries.

On top of that, a memorandum circulated Friday from two legal analysts at the Congressional Research Service concluded that the justification for the monitoring may not be as strong as the administration has argued.

The NSA’s activity “may present an exercise of presidential power at its lowest ebb,” the 44-page memo said.

Bush based his eavesdropping orders on his presidential powers under the Constitution and a September 2001 congressional resolution authorizing him to use military force in the fight against terrorism.

The administration says the program is reviewed every 45 days and that Bush personally reauthorizes it. His top legal advisers argue its justification is sound.

The issue is full of grays for some people interviewed for the poll, including homebuilder Harlon Bennett, 21, a political independent from Wellston, Okla. He does not think the government should need warrants for suspected terrorists.

“Of course,” he added, “we all could be suspected terrorists.”

exactly
:lol:

I’m not sure you know what I mean