No, what I believe he means is that the "inflate and deflate" that the trader can do is worthless to society. It adds no real property or value to society, it only transfers value from one person to another. That's the leach part, the part that derivative traders maximized to harm the housing market (I won't say crash because that implies that mortgoage brokers and customers were free of fault, which they certainly were not.)

I doubt it. The vehicle owner's quote seems to indicate he was (legitimately) pissed at the potential danger to his family. Just a little while before, they had been in the vehicle.

I keep telling my Christian friends that if God is who we believe Him to be, He has absolutely nothing to fear from honest application to science and discovery.

The anonymous coward is calling the person who logged in to disagree with him a sock puppet.

Funny though, in my two decades plus in uniform, Democrats always gave me better pay raises.

I've been in the US military and I find the coverup horrendous. Don't pain us all with the same brush.

You're both wrong. Bradley Manning is, like all humans, a complex mixture of a half a dozeon or more motivations, some altruistic, some self-serving, some fearful. His motives included retribution because he was getting kicked out under an unjust law (don't ask, don't tell) and patriotism because he felt that something should be done about a wartime atrocity and apparently out of some sense of admiration for anarchy.

He's a fool who committed a possibly traitorous act partly for revenge and partly for patriotism. I'm glad he's getting his day in court, and and I wish it had been a lot sooner. I hope all of his motivations are laid bare in court for a judge to decide what's to be done.

I am a retired military officer, and yes, within the confines of the information available to them, even the lowest ranking military member needs to make legal judgments. In most cases they should listen to those appointed above them, but they are always responsible to avoid criminal activity.

And had he leaked that and only that, or that and only specific other examples of crimes, he would still be in jail, but he'd be there for a just act and would be worthy of people's praise. Instead he dumped a lot of stuff with no relevance to that crime that endangered other innocent people. So, in order to achieve justice for the death of innocents, he put other innocents in danger?

First - I am not here to defend the previous administration's ill-advised actions, so don't bring it up in reply to this. I have no interest in going to war with Iran for oil, mink or the treasure of Sierra Madre.

Why wouldn't we want to prevent Iran from gaining access to nuclear weapons? They have not shown themselves willing to play by the rules of international discourse. They have rather indicated that another country has no right to exist. Isn't in the best interest of all nations to keep nuclear weapons out of the continual hotbed of conflict that is the middle east.

- Yes, I know Israel has them - would that that could be undone.

Citation?

For whatever B.S. security reason someone sold them on, my organization's default web browser settings trash many Web 2.0 pages. slashdot's new layout is just the latest victim. In this case, I cannot see the story summaries, but if I have a link to an actual story I can see that. So the only way I can see what's on slashdot is via my iGoogle page. If I go to the front page, all the story summaries are under the left sidebar. Please offer a "no 2.0 element: version.

Did you read where the individual continued to attempt to assault the officer even after being cuffed?

In the American Air Force, we questions superiors routinely. As long as it's done respectfully, it's usually welcome, and often improves accomplishment of the mission.

9 times out of 10, probably more like 999 times out of a 1000, I'll heartily agree that a company is being an ass about similar naming. Monster comes to mind as the biggest bad guy in this arena - going after anyone whether there is a clear association with electronic cables or not. Microsoft's laughable attempt to trademark Windows a decade or so ago. Apple's iFetish. The list of tech companies that have attempted to abuse trademark is very long.

This is different. I think anyone not ideologically bound to hate on big companies or maniacal about "information wants to be free" will see that Teachbook is trying to capitalize on Facebook's brand recognition. If I tried to create an online journalling site called Daybook.com, then Facebook wouldn't have a case. But a social networking site with the same name extension? C'mon - only those who wish to be obtuse about electronic freedom can't admit that this is clearly infringement.