Simple way to help the children of Ghana

Hello folks, I friend of us has set up a non-profit organization on the US to help the orphanages in Ghana (and maybe in the future, other parts of the world). http://www.orphansheroes.org/ They are desperately need help to keep up with the increased food prices and inflation to be able to feed those childrends and keep them in school. You can help by changing the search setting of your web browser to http://www.goodsearch.com by following some simple tasks. It will not cost you anything, and will not interrupt your daily work, but everytime you search the web, Orphan's Heroes organization will receive 1 cent, if you make 500 searches a month they receive $5 which means they feed one child for one week. If 100 people do the same, they will be able to feed a whole orphanage for one month, if 1000 people do the same, they can pay for the school and material of those childrens as well. It is as simple as that. Your 10 minutes of work to change the setting of your browser can make a HUGE difference in the lives of those kids. Thanks in advance for your help, Cheers, /Farhad Hi everyone, I discovered a wonderful way to raise funds for Orphans' Heroes that requires very little time from my friends and family, and absolutely no expense. The concept is very much like other click for a good cause websites -- but uses a search engine -- which we all do nearly every day anyway. The name of the company is goodsearch.com. It is powered by Yahoo. Search engines make about 8 billion dollars a year from their advertisers. The founder of goodsearch.com is committed to donating 50% of their profits to registered nonprofits. Here's how you can help: 1. For convenience, set goodsearch.com in your browser preference panel to be the search engine window that comes up when you log onto the internet. 2. Under "Who do you goodsearch for?" type in Orphans Heroes and then press the yellow "verify" button to the right. If your cookies are set in your preferences then your computer will remember your selection every time you log on until you empty your cache (and then you will need to enter Orphans' Heroes again.) 3. Now every time you do a text search (images and videos don't count) $.01 will be donated to Orphans' Heroes. It's that simple. You can even keep track of the amount of money raised for Orphans' Heroes and see a demonstration of how quickly the money will add up if many people participate (click on the yellow "amount raised" button to view this chart). So, please ask all of your friends and family to participate as the number of people clicking, and the number of clicks will greatly affect our potential to raise money. Also, offered by goodsearch.com is GoodShop. Right above where you enter your search parameters is a tab called "shopping." This will take you to the GoodShop. All of the biggest stores where you do your online shopping anyway -- Gap, Amazon, eBay, Barnes & Nobles, Lands' End, iTunes, Target, among many others -- participate in GoodShop. If you enter the store through the GoodShop site (rather than going directly to their websites) they will automatically donate a percentage of every order you place to Orphans' Heroes. When buying through these sites, the purchase prices are NOT raised. All items are the same exact price as on the regular store websites, so the buyer's costs are the same. You will see underneath the name of the store the percentage the store has agreed to donate to your charity. Please take a few moments to change your browser to http://www.goodsearch.com, select Orphans¹ Heroes, and then search as your normally do. Your clicks will bring lots of smiles to some very needy children in far off places where many don¹t even have the opportunity to sit at a computer and make a choice as to what browser they would like to use. And, please pass this along to as many people in your address book as you can. Thanks so much for your support! Warmly, Jen ------------------------------ Jennifer Millett-Barrett Founder and President Orphans' Heroes http://www.orphansheroes.org http://www.millettbarrett.com

FW: "law and Logic"read till end

> دانشجويي پس از اينكه در درس منطق > نمره نياورد به استادش گفت: قربان، > شما واقعا چيزي در مورد موضوع اين > درس مي دانيد؟ > استاد جواب داد: بله حتما. در غير > اينصورت نميتوانستم يك استاد > باشم. دانشجو ادامه داد: بسيار > خوب، من مايلم از شما يك سوال > بپرسم ،اگر جواب صحيح داديد من > نمره ام را قبول ميكنم در غير > اينصورت از شما ميخواهم به من نمره > كامل اين درس را بدهيد. > استاد قبول كرد و دانشجو پرسيد: آن > چيست كه قانوني است ولي منطقي > نيست، منطقي است ولي قانوني نيست و > نه قانوني است و نه منطقي؟ > استاد پس از تاملي طولاني نتوانست > جواب بدهد و مجبور شد نمره كامل > درس را به آن دانشجو بدهد. > بعد از مدتي استاد با بهترين > شاگردش تماس گرفت و همان سوال را > پرسيد. و شاگردش بلافاصله جواب > داد: > قربان شما 63 سال داريد و با يك > خانم 35 ساله ازدواج كرديد كه البته > قانوني است ولي منطقي نيست. > همسر شما يك معشوقه 25 ساله دارد كه > منطقي است ولي قانوني نيست.واين > حقيقت كه شما به معشوقه همسرتان > نمره كامل داديد در صورتيكه بايد > آن درس را رد ميشد نه قانوني است و > نه منطقي > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Dela foton på ett smidigt sätt med Windows Live™ > Photos. > http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/products/photos.aspx       __________________________________________________________ Ta semester! - sök efter resor hos Kelkoo. Jämför pris på flygbiljetter och hotellrum här: http://www.kelkoo.se/c-169901-resor-biljetter.html?partnerId=96914052

Fw: [hoi] -- Re: Realpolitik for Iran

The suggested solution is reasonable and face saving for pretty much all parties.  Here is another article by BusinessWeek editor who is in Iran: <http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/apr2009/gb20090413_335347.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily> Reporter's Notebook April 13, 2009, 11:58AM EST text size: TT Iran Diary: A Thawing with the U.S.? The tone of the Obama Administration's approach improves the chances for a better relationship between the two countries By Stanley Reed Editor's note: BusinessWeek London Bureau Chief Stanley Reed is traveling and reporting in Iran this week. This is the first in a series of dispatches about the country and its complex relationship with the outside world. Just about everyone I have talked to so far in Iran—with the exception of an immigration officer at the airport who fingerprinted me, as has been unpleasantly required for some years now—is optimistic about the chances for better relations with the U.S. and in favor of such a change. The main reason for the optimism is, of course, the change of Administrations in Washington, and, more specifically, President Obama's recent appeal to Iran on the occasion of the Iranian New Year, or Nowruz. See, for instance, this excerpt from the White House transcript of Obama's videotaped talk: "So in this season of new beginnings, I would like to speak clearly to Iran's leaders. We have serious differences that have grown over time. My Administration is committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us, and to pursuing constructive ties among the U.S., Iran, and the international community. This process will not be advanced by threats. We seek instead engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect." More Conciliatory The tone and substance were a sea change from what Iranians became accustomed to hearing from George W. Bush, who notoriously included the Islamic Republic among his "Axis of Evil" nations. The answer to Obama from Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who will be the key decision-maker on this issue, was not especially gracious but also not as negative as portrayed in the media. In fact, many Iranians interpreted the leader's Mar. 21 remarks in Mashed as offering a dialogue with the U.S. Essentially, Khamenei said that Iran will look for deeds, not words, from the U.S. and even pointed toward steps that might help thaw the ice, such as easing of sanctions or the release of some of the Iranian assets that have been held in escrow in the U.S. for almost 30 years. Even hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has sounded more conciliatory of late. Sayed Laylaz, an Iranian analyst, said there were small but important gestures that Obama could make, such as lifting sanctions on civil aircraft spare parts. Some Iranians consider their air fleet unsafe because of its reliance on ancient aircraft and the difficulty in obtaining spare parts. Aside from the prospect of a safer air fleet, there are several reasons Iranians would welcome a warming of relations with the U.S. First, U.S. sanctions are hurting the Iranian economy. They are preventing the oil industry, which is struggling to maintain production, from purchasing the state-of-the art equipment it needs to modernize oil fields and move into technologies such as liquefied natural gas. The rules also discourage investment by Western oil companies—although Iran's difficult terms may be an even bigger factor. Hossein Noghrehkar Shirazi, Iran's Deputy Oil Minister for International Affairs, recently said investment by U.S. oil companies would be welcome. Tired of All the Strain Sanctions also hobble Iran in information technology, and U.S. pressure on the financial-services industry means that the big European banks have pretty much stopped dealing with Iran. This forces the country to use lower-tier banks and pay higher rates for the financing of imports, analysts say. But above all, people are tired of the situation, which has damaged both countries, but especially Iran, over the past three decades. Iranian businesses think they could be a much bigger factor in the world economy if there were no stigma attached to doing business with them, and if they had access to better technology and, above all, management skills. It's almost a cliché to say that Iran with its big, youthful population of 74 million and fairly serious industrial base could be a huge opportunity for American companies—and, indeed, many others. None of this, of course, means that a thaw will happen soon. While the Obama Administration and some in the Iranian leadership see the benefits of change, hostility between the two nations is ingrained in the internal politics of both. Iran, in particular, is deeply suspicious of the U.S. Iranians recite a long list of grievances dating back to the CIA-aided coup of 1953 that ousted Iran's elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq and led to the restoration of the Shah. More recently, the Iranian leadership believes that it has received the back of America's hand after being helpful to the U.S. in the invasions of both Iraq and Afghanistan earlier in this decade. Need to Think Hard Again Warming relations with the U.S. might be disorienting for some Iranian politicians, and the topic could become a big issue in what could be a highly charged June presidential vote, when Ahmadinejad will be challenged by one or more candidates from the so-called reform camp. As one businessman remarked to me with some exaggeration, roughly 60% of the content of political speeches in Iran is criticism of the U.S., so with normal relations, that 60% would need to be replaced with something else. The tensions in Iran between different factions and uncertainty over how to respond to Obama mean that the Islamic Republic is likely to continue doing things that are deeply disturbing to the U.S. Only two days ago, Ahmadinejad opened a nuclear fuel plant, proclaiming that Iran was pushing ahead with its energy program. The Iranians have thrown an Iranian American freelance journalist, Roxana Saberi, in jail, charging her with being a spy for Washington. But a patient approach by Obama might gradually produce some results. As one person said, Obama is in some ways making things tougher for the Iranian leadership, which did not have to think very hard about how to deal with Bush. By being respectful and reaching out, Obama is putting pressure on the Iranian leadership to justify continued hostility toward the U.S. Reed is London bureau chief for BusinessWeek. The New York Times April 13, 2009 Op-Ed Columnist Realpolitik for Iran By ROGER COHEN VIENNA For Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, "a combination of ignorance and arrogance" under the Bush administration squandered countless diplomatic opportunities with Iran and so allowed it to forge ahead with its nuclear program. Referring twice to Dick Cheney as "Darth Vader," ElBaradei told me in an interview that "U.S. policy consisted of two mantras — Iran should not have the knowledge and should not spin one single centrifuge. They kept saying, wait, Iran is not North Korea, it will buckle. That was absolutely a mistake." Instead of building on Iran's Afghan help in 2001, exploring an Iranian "grand bargain" offer in 2003, or backing 2005 European mediation that hinged on the U.S. agreeing to sale of a French nuclear power reactor, "We got Darth Vader and company saying Iran was in the axis of evil and we have to change this regime." The result, ElBaradei said, was that instead of containing the program at a few dozen centrifuges, "Iran now has close to 5,500 centrifuges, and they have 1,000 kilos of low enriched uranium, and they have the know-how." Still, he dismissed the notion that Iran "could go to a weapon tomorrow" as "hype," putting the time frame for that at two to five years. Imagine if Roosevelt in 1942 had said to Stalin, sorry, Joe, we don't like your Communist ideology so we're not going to accept your help in crushing the Nazis. I know you're powerful, but we don't deal with evil. That's a rough equivalent on the stupidity scale of what Bush achieved by consigning Iran's theocracy to the axis of evil and failing to probe how the country might have helped in two wars and the wider Middle East when the conciliatory Mohammad Khatami was president. Seldom in the annals of American diplomacy has moral absolutism trumped realism to such devastating effect. Bush gifted Iran increased power without taking even a peek at how that might serve U.S. objectives. So here we are, several thousand centrifuges on, with Iran getting what it has long craved: recognition of the regime from the Obama administration, relegation of threats and renunciation of the demand that enrichment be suspended as a condition for America's joining other major powers in nuclear talks with Iran. That's salutary. American realism is now essential. It should heed ElBaradei's view: "I don't believe the Iranians have made a decision to go for a nuclear weapon, but they are absolutely determined to have the technology because they believe it brings you power, prestige and an insurance policy." I think it's almost certainly too late to stop Iran achieving virtual nuclear power status — something like Brazil's or Japan's mastery of the know-how without a weapon. Iran's advances of the past eight years cannot be undone. What can be transformed is the context Iran operates in; that in turn will determine how "virtual" Iran remains. One context changer was Obama's call for a nuclear-free world: it's hard to argue for nonproliferation without tackling disarmament. "You can't have nine countries telling the likes of Iran nuclear weapons are dangerous for you, but we need to go on refining our arsenals," said ElBaradei, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005 and ends his term later this year. "It's a different world." He sees two years of U.S.-Iranian talks as needed, given the degree of mistrust, with "every grievance on the table." Here's one normalization scenario: Iran ceases military support for Hamas and Hezbollah; adopts a "Malaysian" approach to Israel (nonrecognition and noninterference); agrees to work for stability in Iraq and Afghanistan; accepts intrusive International Atomic Energy Agency verification of a limited nuclear program for peaceful ends only; promises to fight Qaeda terrorism; commits to improving its human rights record. The United States commits itself to the Islamic Republic's security and endorses its pivotal regional role; accepts Iran's right to operate a limited enrichment facility with several hundred centrifuges for research purposes; agrees to Iran's acquiring a new nuclear power reactor from the French; promises to back Iran's entry into the World Trade Organization; returns seized Iranian assets; lifts all sanctions; and notes past Iranian statements that it will endorse a two-state solution acceptable to the Palestinians. Any such deal is a game changer, transformative as Nixon to China (another repressive state with a poor human rights record). It can be derailed any time by an attack from Israel, which has made clear it won't accept virtual nuclear power status for Iran, despite its own nonvirtual nuclear warheads. "Israel would be utterly crazy to attack Iran," ElBaradei said. "I worry about it. If you bomb, you will turn the region into a ball of fire and put Iran on a crash course for nuclear weapons with the support of the whole Muslim world." To avoid that nightmare Obama will have to get tougher with Israel than any U.S. president in recent years. It's time. Source:   http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/opinion/13iht-edcohen.html?ref=opinion

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175058/roane_carey_will_israel_attack_iran_ Tomgram: Roane Carey, Will Israel Attack Iran? Sometimes, reading about the Middle East, or at least about Israel, Iran, and nuclear weapons, feels like your most basic broken-record phenomenon. As New York Times op-ed columnist Roger Cohen reminded readers recently, there's nothing new about Israeli predictions that Iranian "madmen" -- or rather, as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the head of a rather extreme new government, put it recently, "a messianic apocalyptic cult" -- would soon have nuclear weapons in their hands. The charges and predictions of the imminent arrival of the Iranian bomb go back well into the 1990s and yet, despite Iran's growing nuclear enrichment program, we still don't know what the true predilections of its leaders are on the basic issue of weaponization. (They might, for instance, be planning to opt for the Japan "solution," not weaponizing, but simply being capable of doing so relatively quickly.) The other part of that broken-record phenomenon concerns Israel's nuclear arsenal, which I wrote about at TomDispatch back in 2003, since which time remarkably little has changed. One of the genuinely strange aspects of just about anything you can read here in the U.S. on nuclear weapons and the Middle East is this: all fear and much print (and TV time) is focused on whether the Iranians may someday, in the near or far future, get a nuclear weapon; that is, we're focused on a weapon that doesn't yet exist and, for all we know, may never exist. In the meantime, just about no mention is ever made of Israel's massive nuclear arsenal, which includes city-busting weapons, and leaves that tiny country as perhaps the fifth largest nuclear power on the planet. In addition, at least some of its nuclear weapons are on submarines in the Mediterranean, which means that the country is invulnerable to the madness of a take-out first strike by any other nation. This is simply reality. The Israelis have long taken a position in which, as Jonathan Schell once put the matter, "They won't confirm or deny that they have [nuclear weapons], but they have this curious phrase: 'We will not introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East.' Evidently, in some abstruse way, possessing them is not introducing them." Our media has, in essence, accepted the Israeli approach to its arsenal as if it were a reasonable reportorial stance on the subject. It's from within this distinctly unbalanced world of heightened fear and silence that we read of both the dangers of the Iranian bomb and responses to it, which is in itself, simply put, dangerous. Recently, warnings from Israel about possible future attacks on Iran have multiplied. Roane Carey, managing editor of the Nation magazine and co-editor of The Other Israel, is in Israel at the moment on a journalism fellowship at the Chaim Herzog Center for Middle East Studies and Diplomacy. As his first piece for this site, I asked him to offer an assessment from that country of just how dangerous the most recent warnings and threats actually are. Tom Don't Flash the Yellow Light Mixed Messages from Washington Could Lead to Catastrophe in Iran By Roane Carey JERUSALEM -- Israel has been steadily ratcheting up pressure on the United States concerning the grave threat allegedly posed by Iran, which seems poised to master the nuclear fuel cycle, and thus the capacity to produce nuclear weapons. The new Israeli prime minister, Likud Party hawk Benjamin Netanyahu, has warned President Barack Obama that if Washington does not quickly find a way to shut down Iran's nuclear program, Israel will. Some analysts argue that this is manufactured hysteria, not so much a reflection of genuine Israeli fears as a purposeful diversion from other looming difficulties. The Netanyahu government is filled with hardliners adamantly opposed to withdrawal from, or even a temporary freeze on, settlements in the occupied territories, not to mention to any acceptance of Palestinian statehood. On his first day as foreign minister, extremist demagogue Avigdor Lieberman, with characteristic bluster, announced that Israel was no longer bound by the 2007 Annapolis agreements brokered by Washington, which called for accelerated negotiations toward a two-state settlement. Such talk threatens to lead the Israelis directly into a clash with the Obama administration. In what can only be taken as a rebuttal of the Netanyahu government's recent pronouncements, in his speech to the Turkish Parliament Obama pointedly reasserted Washington's commitment to a two-state settlement and to the Annapolis understandings. So what better way for Netanyahu to avoid an ugly clash with a popular American president than to conveniently shift the discussion to an existential threat from Iran -- especially if he can successfully present it as a threat not just to Israel but to the West in general? All of this adds up to a plausible argument against undue alarm over the latest Israeli warnings about an attack on Iran, but it's flawed on several grounds. There is a broad, generally accepted paranoia in Israel about Iran, a belief that its leaders must be stopped before they proceed much further in their uranium enrichment program. (This view is not shared on the Israeli left, but it's now a ghost of its former self.) In an interview for TomDispatch, Ephraim Kam, deputy director of the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv and a specialist on the Iran issue, commented, "Of course there are different opinions, but there is a general consensus, among both security experts and political leaders, from Labor to the right wing. This is not a controversial issue: if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it will pose a deep threat. It will be the first time in our history that another country can deal a major blow to Israel." Kam hastens to add that, in his own view, the scenario Netanyahu proposes -- that Iran is led by irrational fanatics who would nuke Israel at the first chance, even knowing that an Israeli nuclear counterstrike would be swift and catastrophic -- is false. "Iran is a pragmatic, logical player," Kam says. He remains convinced that "even a radical fundamentalist regime" wouldn't attack Israel, but he adds, "This is just my assessment, and assessments can go wrong. I wrote a study on wrong assessments, so I know something about this." In other words, if Kam's claims about the Israeli consensus are correct, the country's leadership takes it for granted that Iran is indeed hell-bent on producing a nuclear weapon and is not inclined to take a chance that a nuclear Iran will play by the MAD (as in mutually assured destruction) rules hammered out by the two Cold War superpowers decades ago and never use it. This attitude reflects a longstanding Israeli strategic principle: that no neighboring state or combination of states can ever be allowed to achieve anything faintly approaching military parity, because if they do, they will try to destroy the Jewish state. By this logic, Israel's only option is to establish and then maintain absolute military superiority over its neighbors; they will, so this view goes, accept Israel's presence only if they know they're sure to be defeated, or at least vastly outmatched. This is the famous "iron wall," conceived by early Zionist leader Vladimir Jabotinsky more than 80 years ago, well before the founding of Israel itself. (Jabotinsky founded the Revisionist movement, which in opposition to the Labor mainstream refused to accept any territorial compromise regarding Zionist aims, such as partition. Although he and his followers were for years shut out of the political leadership, their views regarding Israel's neighbors became deeply lodged in the public psyche.) If Iran were to acquire the capacity to build even one nuke -- Israel itself is estimated to have 150-200 of them -- that iron wall would be considered seriously breached, and the country might no longer be able to dictate terms to its neighbors. Given Iran's support for Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, Israel would then have to recalibrate its strategy both on its northern front and vis-à-vis the Palestinians. Recent developments in Israel could certainly give the impression of a nation preparing for war: the Home Front command, one of four regional divisions of the Israeli army, has just announced the largest defense exercise in the country's history. It will last an entire week and is intended to prepare the civilian population for missile strikes from both conventional warheads and unconventional ones (whether chemical, biological or nuclear). Meanwhile, the country is accelerating its testing of missile defense systems, having just announced the successful launch of the Arrow II interceptor. Can Israel Go It Alone? Would Israel really attack Iran without at least tacit approval from Washington? Could Israel do so without such approval? At the very least, Israel would need approval simply to get permission to fly over Iraq, whose airspace is controlled by the U.S. military, not the Iraqi government in Baghdad. As columnist Aluf Benn put it in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, "Defense experts say that without a green light from Washington, Netanyahu and Barak will not be able to send in the air force." Kam adds, "In my judgment, it is somewhere between difficult to impossible for Israel to do it alone, for both technical and political reasons." Most analysts here believe that a solo Israeli attack would, at best, set back Iran's nuclear program by several years -- not that this would necessarily be a deterrent to Netanyahu & Co. It's widely believed that, in their view, even a temporary delay in Iran's nuclear capability would be an improvement on the current course. It's worth recalling that Israel sought an explicit go-ahead from the Bush administration for an attack last year, which President Bush -- presumably fearing massive conventional retaliation from Iran in both Iraq and Afghanistan -- sensibly refused, a rare moment in his tenure when he did not accede to Israeli wishes. It's also clear that President Obama seeks to resolve the standoff with Iran through diplomatic means. He's abandoned the confrontational rhetoric of his predecessor and continues to extend peace feelers to the Islamic Republic. Tehran's response has been mixed, but at least a new mood of negotiation is in the air. Israeli strategists, however, see this new mood as threatening, not hopeful. Any U.S. rapprochement with Iran -- especially if carried out on terms that acknowledge Iran's status as a regional power -- could, they fear, undermine Israel's "special relationship" with Washington. As Iran analyst Trita Parsi put it in a recent piece in the Huffington Post, Iran would then "gain strategic significance in the Middle East at the expense of Israel." It's within the realm of possibility, for example, that Washington could work out a grand bargain with Tehran terminating its policy of regime change and ending sanctions in return for Tehran's vow never to weaponize its nuclear program. Intrusive international inspections would presumably guarantee such a bargain, but Tehran's national pride would remain intact, as it would be allowed to retain the right to enrich uranium and develop a peaceful nuclear infrastructure. There has even been some recent slippage in Washington's language when it comes to demands placed on Iran -- with an insistence on an end to all nuclear enrichment evidently being replaced by an insistence on no weapons development. To Israel, this would be a completely unsatisfactory compromise, as its leaders fear that Iran might at some point abandon such an agreement and in fairly short order weaponize. Given Obama's new approach, it might seem that Israel is stymied for now. After all, it's hard to imagine Obama giving the go-ahead for an attack. Just this week, Vice President Joe Biden told CNN that he thought such an Israeli attack "would be ill-advised." Other factors, however, play in the hardliners' favor: the Obama administration's new special envoy for Iran, Dennis Ross, is himself a hardliner. Last year, Ross was part of an ultra-hawkish task force that predicted the failure of any negotiations and all but called for war with Iran. Ross is a man who not only knows how to play the bureaucratic game in Washington, but has powerful backers in the administration, and his views will have plenty of support from pro-Israel hawks in Congress. The attitude of another key sector in decision-making, the high command of the U.S. military, may also be evolving. Washington's dilemma in Iraq is not nearly as dire as it was two years ago. The nightmare envisioned by the American generals running the Iraq campaign in recent years -- that, in response to an attack on its nuclear facilities, Iran could send tens of thousands of well-trained commandos across the border and inflict grave damage on U.S. forces -- has faded somewhat. The Iraqi government's military has much better control of the country today, with insurgent violence at far lower levels. The Shiite Mahdi Army and Iran-connected "special groups" seem to be mostly quiescent. Of course, the situation in Iraq is still unstable, and any attack on Iran could easily throw the country back into ungovernable chaos. Still, given the role we know American commanders played in nixing such an attack in the Bush years, the question remains: Has resistance to such an attack lessened in the military? It's unclear, but an issue worth monitoring, because American commanders were the most consistent, persuasive voices for moderation during the Bush administration. It should go without saying that an Israeli attack on Iran would have disastrous consequences. No matter what Washington might claim, or how vociferously officials there denounce it, such an attack would be widely understood throughout the Muslim world as a joint U.S.-Israeli operation. It would, as a start, serve as a powerful recruiting tool for extremist Islamist groups. In addition, an outraged Iran might indeed send commandos into Iraq, aid armed Iraqi groups determined to attack U.S. and government forces, shoot missiles into the Saudi or Kuwaiti oilfields, and attempt to block the Straits of Hormuz though which a significant percentage of global oil passes. Washington would certainly have to write off desperately needed cooperation in the war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Any attack would only strengthen the reign of the mullahs in Iran and reinforce the country's determination to acquire a nuclear deterrent force that would prevent future attacks. And keep in mind, Iran's nuclear program has overwhelming public support, even from those opposed to the current regime. Given the Netanyahu government's visible determination to attack, an ambiguous signal from Washington, something far less than a green light, could be misread in Tel Aviv. Anything short of a categorical, even vociferous U.S. refusal to countenance an Israeli attack might have horrific consequences. So here's a message to Obama from an observer in Israel: Don't flash the yellow light -- not even once. Roane Carey, on leave as managing editor of the Nation magazine, is on a journalism fellowship at the Chaim Herzog Center for Middle East Studies and Diplomacy at Ben-Gurion University in Beer-Sheva, Israel. He is co-editor of The Other Israel (New Press). Copyright 2009 Roane Carey

Good English abbreviation: BOHICA

This is an acronym that can be used often in today’s economy J

1 BOHICA acronym, although pronounced as if it is a single word, for "Bend over! Here it comes again."

Commonly used around the workplace when getting repeatedly fucked by the work center supervisor. Very commonly used within the military, specifically the navy and FFG-22.

 

2 (Office Space reference)
Bill Lumburgh asking Peter Gibbons to work on Saturday is a perfect example of getting fucked by the supervisor.
Lumbergh asking Peter to come in on Sunday is even more fucked up. Peter should have yelled "BOHICA!" and walked out of the office.

 

3. BOHICA Acronym: Bend Over Here it Comes Again. Often associated as the 3rd and highest level of something gone very wrong.

Level 1) SNAFU Situation Normal All Fucked Up.
Level 2) FUBAR Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition.
Level 3) BOHICA Bend Over Here it Comes Again.

"I've already been chewed out by the customer, my boss and now my wife found out. It's a friggin' BOHICA".

4. Bend over, here it come again. Military slang.

The Navy screwed me twice this month, but BOHICA.

 

5. BOHICA

That act of getting shafted by your unit, common reference to homosexual act of bending over and grabbing your ankles for insertion of object/s into your anus, usually painfully and without pleasure.

Look guys, the 726th shut down the porta-johns for some stupid ass reason, BOHICA!

6. BOHICA An acronym for "bend over, here it comes again". Refers to getting screwed over by the same means twice.

Dan, your car broke down again! BOHICA!

Mixing Real and Virtual Controls : A Microsoft project lets a touch screen control other hardware.

I am not such a big fan of MS products, but this project sounds like fun!

Halo effect: This MIDI controller is surrounded by virtual controls. Four of the virtual buttons control discrete tasks, including playing or pausing a track. The physical knobs provide finer control of the same function than the four virtual sliders.
Credit: Microsoft Research

 

Mixing Real and Virtual Controls

http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/22411/?nlid=1936&a=f

 

A Microsoft project lets a touch screen control other hardware.

By Kate Greene

Large touch-screen tables have emerged as a useful way for several people to collaborate on projects like video editing or graphic design, but often these tasks require fine controls that can be difficult to simulate on a touch surface with limited resolution. When a person needs precision, it may be best to use a physical controller instead, says Dan Morris, a researcher at Microsoft.

Morris and his colleagues have developed software for touch-screen surfaces that allows physical controls to be added to them. In addition, the software lets people define the functions that each knob, button, and slider on a controller will perform.

The researchers' system, called Ensemble, was presented on Monday at the Computer-Human Interaction (CHI 2009) Conference in Boston. It consists of a custom-made touch table that is two meters long and one meter wide, and several portable sound-editing controllers that connect to the computer that controls the surface. The table is similar to Microsoft's Surface, but larger. As with Surface, cameras underneath the tabletop are used to sense when a user touches the surface or when an object is placed on top of it.

The idea of incorporating traditional input devices like mouses or keyboards with a touch display is not new, but the Microsoft researchers show with Ensemble that it's possible to make hardware do more than a single specified task.

Cameras within the Ensemble table detect a special tag on the bottom of each audio control box to recognize each box and determine its position on the surface. The software then produces an "aura" around each device, including touch-surface controls like "play," "pause," and "stop," and virtual sliders that correspond to physical knobs on the box.

A person can then edit a music track, for example, using both the physical device and the touch-surface controls. The virtual sliders can be used to zoom in on the audio waveform of a track, or to go to a different location on the waveform by panning. The physical knobs on the box perform the same function but offer much finer control. The system also allows a person to change the function of the knobs to, say, control the volume of a trumpet track instead.

"It's a software mechanism for telling the hardware what to do," says Morris. He explains that once a person has mapped different functions onto the controller, she's able to save it for later or pass it along to someone else who has a similar role in the editing process.

The paper, presented at CHI 2009 by Rebecca Fiebrink, a graduate student at Princeton University, also describes a study examining how people used the interface. Most of the study participants used the physical controls, favoring the accuracy and responsiveness that they offer. However, these participants also made extensive use of surface controls, choosing them mainly for tasks in which a single touch produced a discrete result, such as playing or stopping a track.

Robert Jacob, a professor of electrical engineering at Tufts University, in Medford, MA, says that the researchers "did a nice job of investigating what users actually did when given both [physical controllers and a touch screen] and the opportunity to switch between them."

Jacob, who chaired the session in which the paper was presented, acknowledges that bridging the gap between physical and digital objects can be challenging. "It's a difficult problem with no general solutions, but rather individual interesting designs," he says. "Ideally, you want the benefits of the digital without giving up those of the physical."

While Ensemble was designed for sound editing, its underlying technology could find other applications in graphics, gaming, and visual design, says Morris. "It could be used in scenarios where you want people to collaborate on a surface as a group," he says, but where the resolution of touch surface limits the precision of the virtual controls.

Copyright Technology Review 2009.

 

DAMN those doctors, they are taking away every good things in life as dangerous for our health :(

Oral sex linked to throat cancer

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6639461.stm

 

Scientists looked at tissue samples from patients

A virus contracted through oral sex is the cause of some throat cancers, say US scientists.

HPV infection was found to be a much stronger risk factor than tobacco or alcohol use, the Johns Hopkins University study of 300 people found.

The New England Journal of Medicine study said the risk was almost nine times higher for people who reported oral sex with more than six partners.

But experts said a larger study was needed to confirm the findings.

HPV infection is the cause of the majority of cervical cancers, and 80% of sexually active women can expect to have an HPV infection at some point in their lives.

It is important for health care providers to know that people without the traditional risk factors of tobacco and alcohol use can nevertheless be at risk of oropharyngeal cancer Dr Gypsyamber D'Souza, study author

The Johns Hopkins study took blood and saliva from 100 men and women newly diagnosed with oropharyngeal cancer which affects the throat, tonsils and back of the tongue.

They also asked questions about sex practices and other risk factors for the disease, such as family history.

Those who had evidence of prior oral HPV infection had a 32-fold increased risk of throat cancer.

HPV16 - one of the most common cancer-causing strains of the virus - was present in the tumours of 72% of cancer patients in the study.

Risk factors

There was no added risk for people infected with HPV who also smoked and drank alcohol, suggesting the virus itself is driving the risk of the cancer.

Oral sex was said to be the main mode of transmission of HPV but the researchers said mouth-to-mouth transmission, for example through kissing, could not be ruled out.

Most HPV infections clear with little or no symptoms but a small percentage of people who acquired high-risk strains may develop a cancer, the researchers added.

Study author Dr Gypsyamber D'Souza said: "It is important for health care providers to know that people without the traditional risk factors of tobacco and alcohol use can nevertheless be at risk of oropharyngeal cancer."

Co-researcher Dr Maura Gillison said previous research by the team had suggested there was a strong link.

But she added: "People should be reassured that oropharyngeal cancer is relatively uncommon and the overwhelming majority of people with an oral HPV infection probably will not get throat cancer."

A vaccine which protects against cervical cancer caused by HPV strains 6, 11, 16 and 18, and also against genital warts is available and the researchers said the study provided a rationale for vaccinating both girls and boys.

But whether the vaccine would protect against oral HPV infection is not yet known.

Dr Julie Sharp, science information officer at Cancer Research UK, said: "There is conflicting evidence about the role of HPV, and this rare type of mouth cancer.

"As this was a small study, further research is needed to confirm these observations."

"We know that after age, the main causes of mouth cancer are smoking or chewing tobacco or betel nut, and drinking too much alcohol."

 

EU becoming the new Stasi state-DDR's last leader Eric Honecker is laughing in his grave

Net firms start storing user data Details of your website visits will be recorded Details of user e-mails, website visits and net phone calls will be stored by internet service providers (ISPs) from Monday under an EU directive. The plans were drawn up in the wake of the London bombings in 2005. ISPs and telecoms firms have resisted the proposals while some countries in the EU are contesting the directive. Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, said it was a "crazy directive" with potentially dangerous repercussions for citizens. All ISPs in the European Union will have to store the records for a year. An EU directive which requires telecoms firms to hold on to telephone records for 12 months is already in force. The data stored does not include the content of e-mails and websites, nor a recording of a net phone call, but is used to determine connections between individuals. Authorities can get access to the stored records with a warrant. Governments across the EU have now started to implement the directive into their own national legislation. The UK Home Office, responsible for matters of policing and national security, said the measure had "effective safeguards" in place. ISPs across Europe have complained about the extra costs involved in maintaining the records. The UK government has agreed to reimburse ISPs for the cost of retaining the data. Mr Killock said the directive was passed only by "stretching the law". The EU passed it by "saying it was a commercial matter and not a police matter", he explained. "Because of that they got it through on a simple vote, rather than needing unanimity, which is required for policing matters," he said. Sense of shock He added: "It was introduced in the wake of the London bombings when there was a sense of shock in Europe. It was used to push people in a particular direction." Sweden has decided to ignore the directive completely while there is a challenge going through the German courts at present. "Hopefully, we can see some sort of challenge to this directive," said Mr Killock. In a statement, the Home Office said it was implementing the directive because it was the government's priority to "protect public safety and national security". It added: "Communications data is the where and when of the communication and plays a vital part in a wide range of criminal investigations and prevention of terrorist attacks, as well as contributing to public safety more generally. "Without communications data resolving crimes such as the Rhys Jones murder would be very difficult if not impossible. "Access to communications data is governed by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Ripa) which ensures that effective safeguards are in place and that the data can only be accessed when it is necessary and proportionate to do so."

Fw: جوکهای انقلابی

: جوکهای انقلابی      معلم از بچه ها ميپرسه :كي ميدونه بازيافت زباله يعني چي ؟  يه بچه اجازه ميگيره ، ميگه : يعني اينكه احمدي نژاد دوباره راي بياره …!!! تست ديني كنكور 87:  اولين خوني كه بر زمين ريخته شد كدام است ؟  الف - قتل هابيل !  ب- عادت ماهانه حوا !  ج - بكارت حوا !  د- ختنه آدم !! انقلاب   دل مي‌رود ز دستم صاحبدلان خدا را   ما انقلاب كرديم يا انقلاب ما را؟   ناگه صدايي آمد از پشت سنگ خارا   آخوند و شيخ و ملا كردند هر سه ما را به يه بسيجيه ميگن يه شعار محكم براي رهبري بگو ميگه: توپ تانك مسلسل، دو تاش تو كون اكبر يكيش تو كون رهبر   ميگن:محكمتر ميگه: توپ تانك مسلسل، يكيش تو كون اكبر دو تاش تو كون رهبر  ميگن: از اينم محكمتر ميگه: توپ تانك مسلسل، سه تاش تو كون اكبر، اكبر تو كون رهبر        نمایش لباس زیر زنانه در ویترین مغازه  ها ممنوع است (چون نظام اسلامی دستور داده امت اسلام حشری میشوند   به همین دلیل مغازه داران شرت ماماندوز مردانه پشت ویترین مغازه ها  آویزان میکنند، و زیرش مینویسند 'مال خواهران نیز موجود است!'     يه روز خبرنگاره از يكي مي‌پرسه: مي‌تونيد در اين يوم الله بيست و دو  بهمن پرچم سه رنگ ايران اسلامي رو توصيف كنيد؟  طرف ميگه: سبزش مال سيدهاست. سفيدش مال آخونداست. قرمزش خون شهداست  چوبشم كه ميكنن تو كون من و تو مقام عظماي ولايت: در مبارزات انقلاب زنم نقش دست راستم رو داشت. لكن  زماني هم كه در بازداشت بودم، دست راستم نقش زنم رو داشت!!! از يه بسيجيه مي‌پرسن: توي انتخابات به كي رأي ميدي؟   ميگه: به نام خدا و با عرض سلام ويژه خدمت مقام عظماي ولايت و خانواده  معظم شهدا و جانبازA 7ن و ايثارگران، بنده به چند دليل به آلت خودم رأي  مي‌دهم! 1-   انسان سازه 2-    سرشو در راه اسلام داده  3-  در برابر مشكلات قد علم مي‌كنه 4-   نه شرقيه و نه غربي و فقط در صراط مستقيم حركت مي‌كنه     از بسيجيه مي پرسن معيار شما واسه انتخاب همسر چيه؟   مي گه: صداقت فاطمه. عفاف زهرا. صبر زينب. هيكل جنيفر لوپز!!    يه آخونده داشته روضه مي‌خو6ده، كه يهو يه بسته پاسور از جيبش ميفته بيرون.   براي اينكه ضايع نشه ميگه: اي مردم، ميدونيد اين چيه؟   همه ميگن: بي‌بي خشت.   > آخونده ميگه: اي خاك بر سرتون كه ميدونيد بي‌بي خشت چيه، اما نمي‌دونيد  بي‌بي زينب كيه!   احمقي نژاد: براي حفظ ارزش‌هاي اسلامي، اسم شهر سوسنگرد رو به فاطي قلمبه  تغيير مي‌دهيم!   احمدینژاد میره سر قبر کورش میگه ای کوروش بیدار شو، پاشو، ما ریدیم. از حضرت امام خمینی پرسیدند شما ورزش را دوست دارید؟   ایشان گفتند: من خود ورزش نمیکنم ولی ورزشکاران را چرا.!!    شيخي را پرسيدند اسلام چيست؟   شيخ گفت: اسلام ديني است كه اگر در آن داخل شوي سر آلتت ببرند و اگر از  آن خارج شوي سر خودت را.!! يه روز يه جهنمي ميره دم در بهشت ميگه: ا گه ميشه يه كاسه يخ بدين!   بهش ميگن: برو بابا   ميگه: باشه من ميرم، ولي فردا صبح دنبال آب جوش نيايدا!!!