Slashdot has notoriously always had a comically unfunny April 1st, and at this point I have to think the complete lameness of it all is the real meta-joke.

These guys stole Bitcoins? As the saying goes, "and nothing of value was lost".

Some Iraqis may have very well wished for the U.S. to remove Saddam Hussein from power. That has no bearing on the misrepresentation of the intelligence by the Bush administration in order manipulate the country into going to war. It also has no bearing on the bungling ineptitude of the Bush administration in prosecuting that war and the subsequent occupation of Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

Read Cobra II. It's a very balanced account of the planning and prosecution of the war. Rumsfeld micromanaged the military, and unfortunately for everyone involved he was grossly incompetent.

http://www.amazon.com/Cobra-II...

"Almost 1000 soldiers died!"

What about the Iraqis that just up above you claimed we were trying to save? Over 200,000 dead documented by Iraq Body Count. These deaths are all a result of the invasion of Iraq and the power vacuum which ensued.

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/

"you learn from the mistakes and move on"

The U.S. borrowed the money to pay for the war. The final tab will be in the trillions.

http://www.reuters.com/article...

Tens of thousands of American lives have been shattered, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives have been shattered, millions of Iraqis have had to flee their homes, barbaric ISIS has taken over parts of the region that the Bush administration intentionally weakened. Iran has turned into a major player in the region. The war was a complete, unmitigated strategic disaster.

It doesn't seem very objective to say that Democrats deserve "all the blame", which to me implies that you think the Bush administration is blameless. There's no factual basis for that opinion.

I said the Bush administration is "almost" wholly responsible. They deserve the preponderance of blame. They misrepresented the evidence on alleged WMDs and links to Al Qaeda.

https://news.vice.com/article/...

They executed a sustained propaganda campaign for the purpose of manipulating the country to go to war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...

Also, Rumsfeld has to rank as one of the three worst defense secretaries in American History. Read Cobra II for more information:

http://www.amazon.com/Cobra-II...

The Bush administration was incompetent. They promised that it would be easy to invade Iraq. They said it could be done on the cheap. SecDef Rumsfeld forced the military to deploy less than a quarter of the force which their own planning had determined was necessary for the occupation of Iraq. They expected and planned for no resistance. They expected and planned for all of the existing government structure to remain intact. They disbanded the military, which overnight created a highly armed and trained resistance movement which resulted in the deaths of thousands and debilitating injuries to tens of thousands of American soldiers. They were arrogant and stupid, and we as a country will be paying the price for a very very long time. Trillions of dollars and countless American lives ruined.

On top of that, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis lost their lives and millions were displaced (fled their homes) by the sectarian conflict which was unleashed by the invasion of Iraq. On top of that, priceless antiquities from the birth of civilization were destroyed in the looting which occurred after the liberation of Baghdad, and subsquently in areas where ISIS has taken over, such as Mosul, due to the power vacuum which resulted directly from the toppling of the Iraqi government.

The invasion of Iraq was unnecessary. It was stupid. It was careless. It was evil. It was the Bush administration's strong desire to invade Iraq. They ginned up the intelligence to make it happen. They are almost wholly responsible for the debacle which ensued.

I agree with you that Democrats and Republicans in Congress should not have authorized the Iraq war. It was a colossal mistake. But, the blame rests squarely with the Bush administration, which manipulated the country into going to war.

Democrats deserve far less blame than the Bush administration, which actually set the war in motion. The Bush administration argued that they needed the authorization to use force in order to have a strong negotiating position with Saddam Hussein. Turned out negotiation was the furthest thing from their minds. The actual invasion of Iraq was ordered by Bush. The Democrats watched from the sidelines, powerless to affect the actions of the executive branch (they had abdicated their power by authorizing the use of force).

I think the point about "serious film and theater" means film and theater which addresses the human condition or speaks truth to power.

The records law was brought into the 21st century after Clinton left the State Department. Also, she turned over all official correspondence.

She may not have violated any laws.

http://thedailybanter.com/2015...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...

The Internet, by design, is very different from the "natural monopolies" of water, sewer, etc. Because of the Internet's settlement-free peering regime (which the FCC also threatens to upend by starting to regulate peering), and because one can connect at any point and reach the others, there is no need for Internet infrastructure to be a monopoly. Our wireless ISP competes handily with cable, DSL, and all other forms of Internet service. Do you want to have a choice of providers, and be able to switch if you are not satisfied? Or do you want to be stuck with a monopoly -- one that (even worse) is run by unelected government bureaucrats and is therefore completely unaccountable to you?

There is no "muni network contract." The municipalities that petitioned the FCC want to get into the ISP business -- even outside their borders! They simply want to take over the business of broadband in and around their cities, without "bidding" on anything.

Actually, the FCC's action will have exactly the opposite effect. I own and operate a small, competitive ISP, and am quite willing to (and capable of) going up against any competitor on a level playing field. But I simply wouldn't enter any market where the city was providing service. Why? Because the city would engage in all of the following anticompetitive and predatory practices:

* The city would completely control my access to rights of way and pole attachments, and would be motivated to keep me from getting that access or make it expensive;

* I would be taxed and the taxes would be used to subsidize my competitor;

* The city would engage in horizontal monopoly leverage from its other monopoly businesses (trash, water, sewer, and in many places energy) and would enjoy cross-subsidies from them; for example, it wouldn't have to build a new billing system but could use its existing one;

* The city could also use its ability to tax, and bonding authority, to obtain capital for the buildout at bargain rates;

* The city, with its deep pockets and by expending some of that capital, could engage in predatory pricing, offering its service below cost due to taxpayer subsidies. It could do this at the outset, to take customers away, or possibly permanently;

* The city, because it provided those other services, would GET PAID more easily than I would because users wouldn't want their water, etc. cut off if they didn't pay the bill;

* The city would know when both owner-occupied and rental real estate was turning over (because of changes in the party being billed) and so could always sell to people as they moved into a new home before they would have a chance to consider my service;

* The city ISP would get the lucrative business of the city itself (eliminating one of the largest potential customers), as well as that of other government entities such as the county government and state government offices; and

* The city, under the FCC's new Title II regime, could demand franchise fees from me that it would not have to pay itself.

So, if you put yourself in the shoes of a hard working local ISP (which I am), or of a customer who wants choice, this no longer seems like such a good idea. Any ISP entering the market would have to fight an uphill battle against City Hall. So, new ISPs will not enter the market and existing broadband providers will have a strong incentive to pull out, leaving a monopoly. What is needed is FAIR, PRIVATE competition, not the unfair competition that turning unaccountable city bureaucrats loose would bring.

Thanks! OSM is pretty amazing.