The house republicans sponsored a budget based on Obama's budget. They did this for a reason. To get senate democrats to go on record as to how they would vote on a potential budget that raised taxes because democrats would not offer up a budget proposal themselves to vote on. Democrats had majorities in both houses for the first two years of Obama's presidency. They could have passed any budget they chose to.

The article you linked to says house republicans put forth a budget based on Obama's February budget. It was Obama's ideas, or ideas he helped shape or agreed with in the budget. Do you disagree with that? Democrats had majorities in both houses for 2 years. There is no reason they couldn't have passed legislation for their entire agenda.

I agree with that, but since Romney is the only alternative right now, they'll still with Obama.

Rupert Murdoch owns the New York Post, not the Times.

The story being a NYT article, I don't think you can cry spin on this one.

My point is that the higher tax rates were not responsible for the prosperity we enjoyed in the 90's. In an economy with little or no growth like it is now, it would be even more stifling to raise taxes on anyone. Flat tax. You earn a dollar you pay a %, you earn a billion, you pay the same %. That is the essence of fair.

dot com boom?

1, 2, 3......what's really fair?

so we are still trading, the computer is just doing the grunt work.

It's more important that what a day is be the same across the globe not what the hour is. Like you said, our time is relative to the where the sun is in the sky. It makes perfect sense.

Why should time ;)

I don't think /. or the article mean to imply anything other than what you took it to mean. The headline of the story

simply means that Facebook, the service helped Israel compile this blacklist, the same way the activists used it to coordinated their efforts. The context of how Facebook is used isn't clear from the headline, which actually makes it a good headline because people will read it. Hopefully they will understand once they do, that they were referring to the service, and not the company when they say Facebook.

This story isn't about Facebook, as a company helping Israel blacklist these activists. This is a story about how Facebook's service was used as a tool to compile this blacklist. Slashdot, nor the linked article mean to imply that FB, the company actively provided any assistance other than what the service already provides, to everyone. When it's said the Facebook aided Israel in spying on the activist, the correct context again is that Israel used Facebook's services which aided in monitoring these individuals, in the same way FB aided the activists in coordinating their efforts.

If your inbox were your house, it would be standing room only.

#1 Under general description says, "Intelligence analysts in theater do not have the tools required to fully analyze the tremendous amounts of information currently available in theater." DCGS-A is one of the tools used in theater for this purpose. Is is not? In the article, former intelligence officers are quoted as saying, "the system is still unusable. “You couldn’t share the data,” says one former officer, and they both agree that the system is “prone to crashes and frequently going off-line." Also in the article the Army issued patches for known problems with little effect. Is this untrue? The effective of this system can be qualified and quantified. I would agree the article was slanted if DCSG-A is an effective system, and the author is bringing forth false evidence of it's deficiencies. You indicate there is a motive for undermining this system, because they are backing Palantir, but the failures the article outlines are either true or false. Can you show me the system is effective, and if it's not, can you show me that it was never intended to be used to meet the needs outlined in the memo?