<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for newsfanatic</title><link>http://disqus.com/by/newsfanatic/</link><description></description><atom:link href="http://disqus.com/newsfanatic/comments.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:53:20 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Glenn Beck Rally: What We Wish Jon Stewart Had Said (VIDEO)</title><link>http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/26069/glenn-beck-rally-what-we-wish-jon-stewart-had-said/#comment-72654879</link><description>&lt;p&gt;You make all good points. I would suspect the reason Stewart didn't touch on them was that his show is heavily focused on comedy. The points you make are all good, but Stewart wasn't going for that much depth on what was wrong with the concept. Just having a good ol' rip at the breadth of Beck's hypocrisy.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I'm amazed at how Beck's supporters are trying to defend their attendance of this farce, too. There was a pretty incredible interview from WBAL of a couple planning to attend, which I recommend if you want to be stunned by how vague and insubstantial these people's thoughts are. You can find it right around the middle of this clip if you want: &lt;a href="http://www.newsy.com/videos/dc-bracing-for-controversial-beck-rally" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.newsy.com/videos/dc-bracing-for-controversial-beck-rally"&gt;http://www.newsy.com/videos...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">newsfanatic</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:53:20 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: WikiLeaks Plans to Release CIA Paper Later Today</title><link>http://mashable.com/2010/08/25/wikileaks-plans-to-release-cia-paper-later-today/#comment-72485588</link><description>&lt;p&gt;On the flip side, if Wikileaks could get their hands on this information, who else could have? I suspect pretty much any competent spy could. So by releasing these, he's forcing the government's hand to mix things up to protect their assets. Otherwise, it's possible someone else could get their hands on this information without the government's knowledge and really mess things up.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I for one am looking forward to the release of the next 15000 documents (though I'm a little put off by their promotional antics, holding onto the docs as long as they have... more about that here if you're interested: &lt;a href="http://www.newsy.com/videos/wikileaks-publishes-cia-document/)" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.newsy.com/videos/wikileaks-publishes-cia-document/)"&gt;http://www.newsy.com/videos...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">newsfanatic</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 26 Aug 2010 18:25:56 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: More Headleys could earn US ‘terror exporter’ tag, says CIA - Home - livemint.com</title><link>http://www.livemint.com/2010/08/26212812/More-Headleys-could-earn-US.html?atype=tp#comment-72468339</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I for one was under the impression the US already had the terrorism exporter tag and we'd all just agreed to ignore that fact the same way we ignore the national deficit. Well, at least now we're all finally on the same page. Thanks, Wikileaks!&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;More seriously, I understand there's some thought that this leak was just a front runner for their next release: &lt;a href="http://www.newsy.com/videos/wikileaks-publishes-cia-document/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.newsy.com/videos/wikileaks-publishes-cia-document/"&gt;http://www.newsy.com/videos...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">newsfanatic</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:39:27 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Wikileaks Posts CIA 'Terrorist Export' Memo</title><link>http://www.newser.com/story/98996/wikileaks-posts-cia-terrorist-export-memo.html#comment-72467675</link><description>&lt;p&gt;After reading the report, I feel like this was "jailbait" just meant to catch a suspected mole. There's nothing worthwhile in the report. Everyone already knows the US is a major exporter of terrorism. So what will happen? Exactly what is happening. Dur da dur.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;As a possible silver lining, this is apparently only a lead-in to something else Wikileaks is looking to release soon: &lt;a href="http://www.newsy.com/videos/wikileaks-publishes-cia-document/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.newsy.com/videos/wikileaks-publishes-cia-document/"&gt;http://www.newsy.com/videos...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">newsfanatic</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:35:35 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Insufficient data sharing hobbles Army&amp;#39;s efforts to track suicide risks, report says</title><link>http://www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20100729_7292.php#comment-65461642</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I agree with the basic premise that commanding officers need to be much more aware of their people's statuses. However, I think the problem is more systemic in the nature of the Army than it is in their lack of data sharing. Note the complaint from commanding officers caught not watching out for their own was that they were too busy planning their next move, not that the technology was insufficient.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Now maybe data sharing would take less time than individually speaking with the people in their unit, but I think ultimately the personal connection would go a long way to preventing suicide all on its own.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;So, basically what Dr. Peel said. Fortunately, the Army has already increased the number of chaplains (source: &lt;a href="http://tinyurl.com/28g4jcd)" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://tinyurl.com/28g4jcd)"&gt;http://tinyurl.com/28g4jcd)&lt;/a&gt;. I hope the soldiers take advantage of that, regardless of their faith or lack thereof.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">newsfanatic</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 31 Jul 2010 13:02:51 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Some Pentagon employees found with child porn still working: report</title><link>http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/07/23/pentagon-employees-porn-working/#comment-64069254</link><description>&lt;p&gt;If that is in fact the case, I'm confident enough in our justice system to determine that to be the case. And considering how difficult it can be to convict an accused child pornography viewer, I'm sure some will get away with it like the guy who fessed up did.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;However, let's imagine for a moment everyone at the Pentagon is morally outstanding. Even if that was the case, this would be a serious problem because -someone- is putting this stuff on the computers. If it's not the users, then someone has cracked the systems used by our top intelligence organizations and that's another major problem in itself and cause for some review of those responsible for the security of the networks.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;But Occam's Razor says most of those accused are sexually depraved just like a good chunk of ordinary citizens.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Either way, this is a serious security breach (who knows if there were viruses hitchhiking on the pornography like is suggested at &lt;a href="http://bit.ly/dkjLqd" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://bit.ly/dkjLqd"&gt;http://bit.ly/dkjLqd&lt;/a&gt; ?). Not to mention this is an excellent opportunity for blackmail. Double security jeopardy. Time for a major review.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">newsfanatic</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 24 Jul 2010 14:20:22 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Pentagon Workers Accused of Downloading Child Porn</title><link>http://www.newser.com/story/96324/pentagon-workers-accused-of-downloading-child-porn.html#comment-64068049</link><description>&lt;p&gt;This isn't just troubling for moralistic reasons, but especially when you consider what someone with this information could do. Illicit sex blackmail is one of the oldest tricks of the counterintelligence trade. But this is even "better" since not only is it ripe blackmail ammo, but the pornography itself could by carrying viruses that could infiltrate national security networks (source: &lt;a href="http://bit.ly/dkjLqd)" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://bit.ly/dkjLqd)"&gt;http://bit.ly/dkjLqd)&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Even if these pervs can't be nabbed for child pornography possession as such (often a very difficult thing to prove in court), they should at the very least be fired for doubly jeopardizing national security.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">newsfanatic</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 24 Jul 2010 14:05:43 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: New Chevy Volt Gets 230 MPG In The City</title><link>http://tinycomb.com/2009/08/11/new-chevy-volt-gets-230-mpg-in-the-city/#comment-14728831</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Personally, I doubt the hype about this being a "game changer." What's the game and how are we changing it? We already have the Prius, which is far more cost-effective. Is it just a game changer for GM? Then why should we care? They're just playing catch up. If you don't think the Prius is efficient enough, what about the Nissan Leaf, which looks to come out right around the same time as the Volt.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;My money is on the hype dying off and the Volt joining the Tesla in relative obscurity.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;From CNBC, "They don’t expect that people are going to flock out to showrooms and buy these vehicles, there’s limited production right off the bat, b/c of the battery issues they have, in terms of developing those, it’ll be many, many years before we see GM return money, or make money on the Volt, that was the criticism of the task force.” (quoted from &lt;a href="http://www.newsy.com/videos/all_charged_up_over_the_volt)" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.newsy.com/videos/all_charged_up_over_the_volt)"&gt;http://www.newsy.com/videos...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">newsfanatic</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:01:33 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Forty years ago today Apollo 11 was launched sending men to the Moon</title><link>http://themoderatevoice.com/39493/forty-years-ago-today-apollo-11-was-launched-sending-men-to-the-moon/#comment-12970688</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I was just watching a video about this at &lt;a href="http://www.newsy.com/videos/moonstruck_40_years_later" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.newsy.com/videos/moonstruck_40_years_later"&gt;http://www.newsy.com/videos...&lt;/a&gt; and according to them the original tapes were accidentally erased (?) so they're actually working from post-broadcast copies.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">newsfanatic</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:32:51 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Google Earth Now Includes Moon, Lunar Landing Happening 40 Years Ago Today</title><link>http://www.ohgizmo.com/2009/07/20/google-earth-now-includes-moon-lunar-landing-happening-40-years-ago-now/#comment-12968839</link><description>&lt;p&gt;The video at &lt;a href="http://www.newsy.com/videos/moonstruck_40_years_later" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.newsy.com/videos/moonstruck_40_years_later"&gt;http://www.newsy.com/videos...&lt;/a&gt; started with a clip from &lt;a href="http://wechoosethemoon.org/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://wechoosethemoon.org/"&gt;http://wechoosethemoon.org/&lt;/a&gt;, and it looked pretty impressive. I haven't checked out the latter yet, but I think I will now.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Hopefully we can do something almost as impressive, whether it be establishing a base on the moon or putting a man on Mars, sometime in our lifetime.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">newsfanatic</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:49:13 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Four Important Defense Budget Decisions</title><link>http://themoderatevoice.com/28314/four-important-defense-budget-decisions/#comment-7990784</link><description>&lt;p&gt;It seems like nobody knows what to think about this situation. In the newsrooms coverage is divided. &lt;a href="http://www.newsy.com/videos/u_s_debates_defense_budget/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.newsy.com/videos/u_s_debates_defense_budget/"&gt;http://www.newsy.com/videos...&lt;/a&gt; has clips from the stories from various outlets.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">newsfanatic</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2009 19:05:08 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>