Slashdot Mirror

In the interest of balance and intellectual honesty, you might wish to also link to the Iraqi Torture Video

hand amputation

finger chopping

beating with metal pipe

arm breaking with metal pipe
... presumably more videos exist but DOD refuses to release them

From the Wall Street Jounal Online Edition:

The American Enterprise Institute held an unusual video screening [several days ago], and hardly anyone showed up. One who did was the New York Post's Deborah Orin: The video only lasts four minutes or so--gruesome scenes of torture from the days when Saddam Hussein's thugs ruled Abu Ghraib prison. I couldn't bear to watch, so I walked out until it was over.

Some who stayed wished they hadn't. They told of savage scenes of decapitation, fingers chopped off one by one, tongues hacked out with a razor blade--all while victims shriek in pain and the thugs chant Saddam's praises.

Saddam's henchmen took the videos as newsreels to document their deeds in honor of their leader.

But these awful images didn't show up on American TV news ["the truth is out there" but being hidden from us???].

In fact, just four or five reporters showed up for the screening at the American Enterprise Institute think tank, which says it got the video via the Pentagon. Fewer wrote about it. ["the truth is out there" but being hidden from us???]

[snip][snip][snip]

As Orin notes, this "raises a very complex problem in the War on Terror. It's worse than creating moral equivalence between Saddam's tortures and prisoner abuse by U.S. troops. It's that we do far more to highlight our own [western liberal democracy] wrongdoings precisely because they are less appalling."

Part of the problem may be that the press hasn't quite figured out how to deal with such "asymmetric propaganda," [the internet changes everything ;-];-];-] as Orin calls it. Yet it doesn't seem that it would be that hard to provide context--to make sure that every story about American abuses at Abu Ghraib also included graphic descriptions of what went on there before Iraq's liberation.

[snip][snip][snip]

In the interest of balance and intellectual honesty, you might wish to also link to the Iraqi Torture Video

hand amputation

finger chopping

beating with metal pipe

arm breaking with metal pipe
... presumably more videos exist but DOD refuses to release them

From the Wall Street Jounal Online Edition:

The American Enterprise Institute held an unusual video screening [several days ago], and hardly anyone showed up. One who did was the New York Post's Deborah Orin: The video only lasts four minutes or so--gruesome scenes of torture from the days when Saddam Hussein's thugs ruled Abu Ghraib prison. I couldn't bear to watch, so I walked out until it was over.

Some who stayed wished they hadn't. They told of savage scenes of decapitation, fingers chopped off one by one, tongues hacked out with a razor blade--all while victims shriek in pain and the thugs chant Saddam's praises.

Saddam's henchmen took the videos as newsreels to document their deeds in honor of their leader.

But these awful images didn't show up on American TV news ["the truth is out there" but being hidden from us???].

In fact, just four or five reporters showed up for the screening at the American Enterprise Institute think tank, which says it got the video via the Pentagon. Fewer wrote about it. ["the truth is out there" but being hidden from us???]

[snip][snip][snip]

As Orin notes, this "raises a very complex problem in the War on Terror. It's worse than creating moral equivalence between Saddam's tortures and prisoner abuse by U.S. troops. It's that we do far more to highlight our own [western liberal democracy] wrongdoings precisely because they are less appalling."

Part of the problem may be that the press hasn't quite figured out how to deal with such "asymmetric propaganda," [the internet changes everything ;-];-];-] as Orin calls it. Yet it doesn't seem that it would be that hard to provide context--to make sure that every story about American abuses at Abu Ghraib also included graphic descriptions of what went on there before Iraq's liberation.

[snip][snip][snip]

hand amputation

finger chopping

beating with metal pipe

arm breaking with metal pipe
... presumably more videos exist but DOD refuses to release them

From the Wall Street Jounal Online Edition

The American Enterprise Institute held an unusual video screening [several days ago], and hardly anyone showed up. One who did was the New York Post's Deborah Orin:

The video only lasts four minutes or so--gruesome scenes of torture from the days when Saddam Hussein's thugs ruled Abu Ghraib prison. I couldn't bear to watch, so I walked out until it was over.

Some who stayed wished they hadn't. They told of savage scenes of decapitation, fingers chopped off one by one, tongues hacked out with a razor blade--all while victims shriek in pain and the thugs chant Saddam's praises.

Saddam's henchmen took the videos as newsreels to document their deeds in honor of their leader.

But these awful images didn't show up on American TV news.

In fact, just four or five reporters showed up for the screening at the American Enterprise Institute think tank, which says it got the video via the Pentagon. Fewer wrote about it.

We saw part of this video a few weeks back, and indeed it is every bit as horrific as Orin's fellow reporters describe. Our computer crashed about a third of the way through and we didn't have the stomach to start watching again after rebooting. So we can certainly understand why television news outlets would see it as unfit to air.

As Orin notes, this "raises a very complex problem in the War on Terror. It's worse than creating moral equivalence between Saddam's tortures and prisoner abuse by U.S. troops. It's that we do far more to highlight our own wrongdoings precisely because they are less appalling."

Part of the problem may be that the press hasn't quite figured out how to deal with such "asymmetric propaganda," [the internet changes everything ;-];-];-] as Orin calls it. Yet it doesn't seem that it would be that hard to provide context--to make sure that every story about American abuses at Abu Ghraib also included graphic descriptions of what went on there before Iraq's liberation.

[snip][snip][snip]

hand amputation

finger chopping

beating with metal pipe

arm breaking with metal pipe
... presumably more videos exist but DOD refuses to release them

From the Wall Street Jounal Online Edition

The American Enterprise Institute held an unusual video screening [several days ago], and hardly anyone showed up. One who did was the New York Post's Deborah Orin:

The video only lasts four minutes or so--gruesome scenes of torture from the days when Saddam Hussein's thugs ruled Abu Ghraib prison. I couldn't bear to watch, so I walked out until it was over.

Some who stayed wished they hadn't. They told of savage scenes of decapitation, fingers chopped off one by one, tongues hacked out with a razor blade--all while victims shriek in pain and the thugs chant Saddam's praises.

Saddam's henchmen took the videos as newsreels to document their deeds in honor of their leader.

But these awful images didn't show up on American TV news.

In fact, just four or five reporters showed up for the screening at the American Enterprise Institute think tank, which says it got the video via the Pentagon. Fewer wrote about it.

We saw part of this video a few weeks back, and indeed it is every bit as horrific as Orin's fellow reporters describe. Our computer crashed about a third of the way through and we didn't have the stomach to start watching again after rebooting. So we can certainly understand why television news outlets would see it as unfit to air.

As Orin notes, this "raises a very complex problem in the War on Terror. It's worse than creating moral equivalence between Saddam's tortures and prisoner abuse by U.S. troops. It's that we do far more to highlight our own wrongdoings precisely because they are less appalling."

Part of the problem may be that the press hasn't quite figured out how to deal with such "asymmetric propaganda," [the internet changes everything ;-];-];-] as Orin calls it. Yet it doesn't seem that it would be that hard to provide context--to make sure that every story about American abuses at Abu Ghraib also included graphic descriptions of what went on there before Iraq's liberation.

[snip][snip][snip]

Abu Ghraib, under Saddam (warning: graphic, explicit video!)

You, sir, are almost as much of an asshole as your idols.

78%-80% of schools were already connected to the Internet when ERate was passed.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11894

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.9135/pub_det ail.asp

Let's put the cliche conspiracy theories aside and actually see what kinds of people are REALLY interested in the price of oil remaining high, and would not flinch at using violence to achieve their aims:

MR. RICHARD: Let me begin by saying that a few weeks after President Vladimir Putin's telephone call offering condolences and support to a troubled George Bush on 9/11, I was part of en e-mail exchange that focused on a 1998 comment from Osama bin Laden, in which Mr. bin Laden stated that if he were in control of the Arabian Peninsula, oil would trade at $144 a barrel.

Source

We became his sworn enemy only when he invaded Kuwait and we realized that oil would be far cheaper in the hands of people we saved from invasion.

Ok- he tried to illegally expand his borders, and we kicked is ass back out. Even if we did just do it for oil, it was the right thing to do. And do you realize that we only get about 2% of our oil imports from Kuwait, right? If the was was just about oil, we would have probably gone after Canada or Mexico or Saudi Arabia instead.

Before or after we invaded Iraq? Nobody had any proof to this speculation before we invaded

President Clinton knew about Iraq's terrorist links. According to this recently leaked memo, the CIA has been tracking an al qaeda/Iraq link for over 10 years.

Where exactly are these again?

If Saddam had complied with the UN, we would know now, wouldn't we...

A capitalistic Iraq will allow those who participated in the invasion to profit immensely from transforming the middle east into a "western" country.

The Iraqis themselves are very optimistic about their future after Saddam. Why aren't you?

African nations in which we can lord impossible debts over their heads and force them into low wage labor.

Yeah- lets blame the US for everything. Many African nations are struggling with poverty- must be our fault. Theres no other explanation.

North Korea did react by announcing their intentions to blow up South Korea and Japan

North Korea's actions have just confirmed why we have regarded them as a terrorist supporting rouge nation for years now.

BUT, you had the possibility of owning one. So, I had to shoot you.

If you had seen me shoot people in the past with a gun, and you had no evidence that I had got rid of my gun, then yes, you should shoot me if I threaten to kill you. That is the smart thing to do. We are not suicidal, after all.

The reason for the recesion is clear. Clinton/Gore kept pumping and pumping the bubble. Where were they when Enron / Worldcom / Wall Street were up to their shenanigans? That's right hitting, up the ChiComs for campaign donations and hitting up interns for BJ's.

Clear to only the hard-line Clinton haters. Do you really think any significant regulation of Wall Street would have made it out of the Republican majority Congress? You can blame Clinton all you want, but hardly anybody outside of Alan "irrational exuberance" Greenspan and Warren Buffett was saying much during the bubble. It was most assuredly a bipartisan bubble.

And James K. Glassman, the author of Dow 36,000, one of the most notorious of the pro-bubble books, is now a "well-respected" fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute and making big bucks on the corporate lecture circuit. Your claim about Clinton/Gore causing the bubble is disingenuous at best.

And it seems you right-wingers are just obsessed over this BJ thing. As the advocacy group group said, censure and Move On.

Bush's approval rating is at 61%

As was mentioned in the same article that you quoted, it was a 5 point rise (61-5=56) from the previous poll taken four days before Thanksgiving, and it was probably caused by the pictures from his Thanksgiving trip to Baghdad.

And as an added bonus, he's now got new pictures to use on the campaign to replace those discredited "mission accomplished" flight suit photos.

We know what (the Democratic Agenda) is. 1. Raise taxes. 2. Surreder to Hussein.

Ann Coulter? Is that you?

Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.

If you are triumphant, Machiavelli reminds us, people "will always find the means you used to have been appropriate."

I'm not sure if you've ever seen the punchcards up close, but I'd be surprised if you could push a wire hanger (or similar) though more than 5 or 6 of them stacked up, much less 100 or so.

I think it becomes easier to believe if you take into account the fact that many of the cards already have a punch through your candidate. This creates gaps between unpunched chads. That gap makes a big difference. I'm sure you've seen Karate experts smashing through multiple planks of wood before. Now, no one would be able to smash through 6 planks stacked right on top of each other, but put some space between each one and it becomes much easier.

The biggest flaw that I see in this "logic" is that all the cards would have a very similar hole in them, and due to the cards underneath the punch-thru hole would look much different than a normal legit punch.

Not really.

When a punch is made, the whole chad (usually) comes out. The impression of the punching device is left on the chad, not the punch-card.

The other thing is that most of the ballots are read electronically. The machine doing the reading doesn't care what the hole looks like. The only ballots that get close looks are those with chads still hanging.

Seems more like a media conspiracy theory than a reality to me...

Well, a 30% above average spoilage rate seems unusual to me.

In Florida where I'm from there were rumors about people using stiff pieces of wire, like from a hanger, to punch holes in punch card ballots that were stacked-up 100's in a pile. The idea is that you can spoil large numbers of votes for opposing candidates by creating double-votes.

In fact, there were counties where the rate of spoiled ballots was 30% greater than the average for the state.

Now this technique doesn't take a lot of effort to make work and just about anyone can do it.

By making voting electronic, don't we at least make it more difficult to cheat?

That must be why they cite and interview folks from the American Enterprise Institute so often, right?

Whom is the audience for this post? Those who believe in "Fair Use" as defined under the law. Not Fair Use as "I want everything to be free, and damn the consequences to everyone else".
First a clear explanation of copyright

CAFE at the EFF
Note what it doesn't say as well as what it does.

Here as well is a "balanced" look at what's being fought for, for both sides.

A summation of positions

Note in all the above the author isn't being denied his rights, and the consumer isn't his.

Personal Computer Software Copyright Violation: An Unobtrusive Analysis of Internet Software Piracy

Looking at the "piracy" phenomena from the sociologist perspective.

White collar crime increasing

Of which copyright theft is.

The Digital Challenge to Intellectual Property Rights

Note this part of the above "To an economist, assets are valuable not because they merely exist, but because they can be bought and sold and traded.". Note to people who argue that the copyright holder has the original even if you make an exact copy are missing the point. Existance isn't enough.

. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Technology, Intellectual Property,and the Operation of Information Markets

There is more for such a complicated topic with far reaching consequences. Which I intend to expand upon latter.

I don't expect anyone to read this, partically because the battle lines have already been drawn. US vs THEM, and when that's done. Proper discussion is very hard.

Also remember that on BOTH sides there are those factions that seek only their own ends and "Fair Use" really isn't one of them.

A later study by Lott and William Landes found that concealed-carry prevents mass shootings. This study is available online here. There is also a list of his non-academic articles here and a brief bio here.

Gary Kleck has also done many studies on the issue of guns, crime, and self-defense. There is a good introduction and an interview with him here, a summary of his work here, and a his own home page here.

It might be worth noting that none of the above studies were funded by gun advocacy groups, gun control groups, gun manufacturers, or any other special interests. They are politically balanced -- John Lott is an iconoclastic conservative/libertarian, and Gary Kleck is a lifelong liberal Democrat. (I don't know David Mustard's affiliation.)

Also, they have impeccable credentials. John Lott got his Ph.D. in economics at UCLA, and David Mustard at University of Chicago. Gary Kleck got his Ph.D. in Sociology at the University of Illinois at Urbana.

There is an extensive list of articles on gun control here. The folks running this site are against it, but they don't seem to be connected to pro- or anti-gun groups. They have, among other things, an excellent chart showing gun ownership rising as gun crime stays steady and then falls here.

This should be enough to get you started -- feel free to post follow-up for sent me e-mail if you have any questions! --Robert A. Book, Ph.D. rbook "AT" pobox.com

I would say that there're not completely exlusive, but they're very close. In The Demonization of Piracy, Jessica Litman says that all sorts of things we are used to doing with media that like sharing music with friends, singing "Happy Birthday", etc., always used to be simply "legal but unauthorized uses" (a paraphrase, her original words make more since) I take this to mean that the two concepts are not mutually exclusive as long as the copyright cops only go after the big infringers. It used to be that the line here was well-defined (the "big infringers" were publishing houses making money off someone else's work, the small people were college kids), but now the line is extremely gray, if not nonexistant. This echos what RMS said in his rant on copyright that got Slashdotted a while back.

In my view, the problem is not mainly whether the two are exclusive, but in codifying in law how that exclusivity will play out. There is a paper by Jonathan Rouch called The Rise of Antisocial Law which talks about this problem of trying to codify everything, which is pervading the legal and governmental system today (I think that's a lot of what causes all the stupid-patent stuff that shows up here). It used to be that fair use was not codified, but that people generally respected the traditional intent of copyright (to provide a time-limited incentive for authors, scientists, etc to create. Under that model (and in the pre-Napster world), fair use (small scale infringement) was tolerated and generally left alone. But now, in the post-Napster world, the dominant copyright model has moved to an economic basis, of squeezing every last bit of revenue out of the consumer as possible .(although it doesn't work for most of us - I don't particularly want to pay $18 for a CD that's 5 years old, but if the price were $6, I'd probably sure as hell buy more than 3 times the amount of music)

In addition to this shift, there has been a shift toward more and more finely codified, explicit laws (see above), and the "copyrighted industries" have become much more agressive, no doubt becase they see their IP protections primarily as monetary assets, and not in the way the Founding Fathers did, as incentives, but not neccessarily as permanent "lock-boxes" (to use an over-used phrase from the 2000 campaign)

Thus, when the United States joins a treaty organization, it holds NO AUTHORITY over us.We abide by our treaty obligations because they are the domestic law of our land, and because our elected leaders have judged that the agreement serves our national interest. But NO treaty or law can EVER supercede the one document that all Americans hold sacred: The U.S. Constitution.

Critics, particularly those from the United States, stress the negative impact allowing treaty law to supercede domestic law would have on the constitutional balance of power and the federal checks and balances. Ultimately, as one observer note, they believe that allowing "treaty law to be superior to federal legislation (let alone to the constitution) to be dangerous to the idea of democracy and democratic representation of individuals."

Corporations have grown because they have proven more efficient at marshalling resources (natural, human, intellectual, etc) at accomplishing specific tasks. However, one should not confuse efficiency with their corporate mission. If you look at the Salvation Army, by corporate standards it is very efficient at raising funds (solicitating from financial stakeholders) and providing social services to the needy. In spite of the flak oil companies get in the environmental domain, they have managed to get the cost of gas cheaper than equivalent volume of bottled water (in some places). Technology is a key enabler, at least the persuit of the holy dollar forbids the practice of killing off your customer (though the cigarette companies had a good go at this) unlike the Statism/Nationalistic movements of previous centuries which essentially applied technology for imperalistic motives.

What technology is good for is that economic efficiency leads to a growing leisure class. Back in the middle ages, only the theocracy retained wealth (selling indulgences to a captive audience has got to be the ultimate business plan) which led to serious abuses and thus Reformation and resulting separation of church and state. However, instead of independently wealthy merchants indulging their star-gazing hobby, now you have amateur astromony and radio clubs everywhere open to any member of hte pulbic with time and interest. In the Renaisance, only the wealty offspring of nobles could travel, now anyone can hop on a plane and pick up new exotic diseases :-). Electric lights used to be status symbol, now we think nothing of burning kilowatts keeping PCs on 24 hours a day.

While the technological tangibles can be somewhat predicted (if not the timing), social movements and beliefs are entirely unpredictable as these heralds permanent shifts of power. Our concept of humaness has continually expanded over the centuries. From colonial times where signs like "no dogs or chinese allowed" proliferated, to slavery was considered "normal" because the bible gave dominion of beasts and subhumans to forthright Christians, to granting women the vote and equal rights, to today's soul searching to restore native rights (e.g. dispute of Terra Nullus in Australia leading to the legal system granting aboringinal preownership although the resulting land rights and associated wealth is still contested). Thus good SF story-tellers have an eye for detail (George Lucas and Star Wars based on Vietnam era, Gulliver Travels, Dibert, 1984, etc) and amplify these social traits as a means of warning about potential consequences.

Will nano-, bio-, info-, change anything? Possibily but it is predicated on having an equitable educational system that encourages talent to success regardless of the originating class. Here corporatism is not well-suited because ultimately a profit-oriented institution plays only a peripheral role in creating a civil society (except as bully-boy target). Ultimately it comes down to a sense of identity. Who are you? Are you an American (national), Hacker (profession), Trekkie (fandom) Nikie (pop culture) or Mr Average Joe Blogg? Here is where branding does make a perceptable difference as nobody wants to be Mr/Miss Joe/Jane Blogg and megacorporations offer ready-made lifestyles to go, irregardless of the underlying reality. Americana (ie all the gung-ho patrotism/mythology) is now replaced with so many subgroups that the media companies have given up on the concept of mass communications and just caters towards them all, whether it is paganism or gun-tottering 15 minutes of infamy. You want your own genuine Star Trek phaser (set to stun of course), then sooner or later someone will combine the right intellectual knowhow (combination of laser + sonics?), ally with the production studio and make appropriate merchandising agreements. Why go to the effort of figuring out what the consumer wants when you can define a cultural ikon/universe and associated salable do-dackys whether it is Nike Air Jordans or the magical Walt Disney MickeyLand theme. While individual artists struggle for attention and are lost once they retire, a corporation is brutally efficient at sustaining an idea forever, perhaps beyond the point of relevance. However, if an individual can step outside the hustle-and-bustle, they can realise they can make an informed-choice and consciously alter their habits (pruchasing, behaviour, voting, etc) to reinforce their values. Individual free will and ideas cannot be contained by government or corporations forever unless it is so oppressive (theough legal red-tape or simply attention congestion) that it has other negative backlashes.

So what is the point, I suppose
- technology leads to economic efficiency
- average lifetime leisure options increases
- give more time to indulge in social reflection
- while tech is an enabler, creating the necessary creative chaos for change, it is still up to individual actions (e.g. Tim Berners-Lee vs Bill Gates) to follow their belief system and perhaps illuminate a previously unknown choice for others to follow.

OpenSource and /. are just one player in the game of determining how business and social interaction is conducted in the future, whether technology scares away the general public (Frankenfood) or whether it can be made acceptable (e.g. Japanese titanium golf clubs, I believe they were the first to use it outside warplanes). Will it prove better or worse than existing corporatism? Only time and the passion of individuals (e.g. RMS, Linux clubs, DVD court appearance) can determine this. Everything comes back down to the individual and whether they are willing to follow a course of actions consistent with their values and beliefs.

LL

Corporations have grown because they have proven more efficient at marshalling resources (natural, human, intellectual, etc) at accomplishing specific tasks. However, one should not confuse efficiency with their corporate mission. If you look at the Salvation Army, by corporate standards it is very efficient at raising funds (solicitating from financial stakeholders) and providing social services to the needy. In spite of the flak oil companies get in the environmental domain, they have managed to get the cost of gas cheaper than equivalent volume of bottled water (in some places). Technology is a key enabler, at least the persuit of the holy dollar forbids the practice of killing off your customer (though the cigarette companies had a good go at this) unlike the Statism/Nationalistic movements of previous centuries which essentially applied technology for imperalistic motives.

What technology is good for is that economic efficiency leads to a growing leisure class. Back in the middle ages, only the theocracy retained wealth (selling indulgences to a captive audience has got to be the ultimate business plan) which led to serious abuses and thus Reformation and resulting separation of church and state. However, instead of independently wealthy merchants indulging their star-gazing hobby, now you have amateur astromony and radio clubs everywhere open to any member of hte pulbic with time and interest. In the Renaisance, only the wealty offspring of nobles could travel, now anyone can hop on a plane and pick up new exotic diseases :-). Electric lights used to be status symbol, now we think nothing of burning kilowatts keeping PCs on 24 hours a day.

While the technological tangibles can be somewhat predicted (if not the timing), social movements and beliefs are entirely unpredictable as these heralds permanent shifts of power. Our concept of humaness has continually expanded over the centuries. From colonial times where signs like "no dogs or chinese allowed" proliferated, to slavery was considered "normal" because the bible gave dominion of beasts and subhumans to forthright Christians, to granting women the vote and equal rights, to today's soul searching to restore native rights (e.g. dispute of Terra Nullus in Australia leading to the legal system granting aboringinal preownership although the resulting land rights and associated wealth is still contested). Thus good SF story-tellers have an eye for detail (George Lucas and Star Wars based on Vietnam era, Gulliver Travels, Dibert, 1984, etc) and amplify these social traits as a means of warning about potential consequences.

Will nano-, bio-, info-, change anything? Possibily but it is predicated on having an equitable educational system that encourages talent to success regardless of the originating class. Here corporatism is not well-suited because ultimately a profit-oriented institution plays only a peripheral role in creating a civil society (except as bully-boy target). Ultimately it comes down to a sense of identity. Who are you? Are you an American (national), Hacker (profession), Trekkie (fandom) Nikie (pop culture) or Mr Average Joe Blogg? Here is where branding does make a perceptable difference as nobody wants to be Mr/Miss Joe/Jane Blogg and megacorporations offer ready-made lifestyles to go, irregardless of the underlying reality. Americana (ie all the gung-ho patrotism/mythology) is now replaced with so many subgroups that the media companies have given up on the concept of mass communications and just caters towards them all, whether it is paganism or gun-tottering 15 minutes of infamy. You want your own genuine Star Trek phaser (set to stun of course), then sooner or later someone will combine the right intellectual knowhow (combination of laser + sonics?), ally with the production studio and make appropriate merchandising agreements. Why go to the effort of figuring out what the consumer wants when you can define a cultural ikon/universe and associated salable do-dackys whether it is Nike Air Jordans or the magical Walt Disney MickeyLand theme. While individual artists struggle for attention and are lost once they retire, a corporation is brutally efficient at sustaining an idea forever, perhaps beyond the point of relevance. However, if an individual can step outside the hustle-and-bustle, they can realise they can make an informed-choice and consciously alter their habits (pruchasing, behaviour, voting, etc) to reinforce their values. Individual free will and ideas cannot be contained by government or corporations forever unless it is so oppressive (theough legal red-tape or simply attention congestion) that it has other negative backlashes.

So what is the point, I suppose
- technology leads to economic efficiency
- average lifetime leisure options increases
- give more time to indulge in social reflection
- while tech is an enabler, creating the necessary creative chaos for change, it is still up to individual actions (e.g. Tim Berners-Lee vs Bill Gates) to follow their belief system and perhaps illuminate a previously unknown choice for others to follow.

OpenSource and /. are just one player in the game of determining how business and social interaction is conducted in the future, whether technology scares away the general public (Frankenfood) or whether it can be made acceptable (e.g. Japanese titanium golf clubs, I believe they were the first to use it outside warplanes). Will it prove better or worse than existing corporatism? Only time and the passion of individuals (e.g. RMS, Linux clubs, DVD court appearance) can determine this. Everything comes back down to the individual and whether they are willing to follow a course of actions consistent with their values and beliefs.

LL

However, this is predicated upon a number of factors, chief among them that world-wide trends will follow the path laid out by us in the first world.

Here's how it has worked here: at around the turn of the century, our life spans here started to go way up; then we all started to get better educated and most of us started putting off having kids til later in life. Then in the middle of the century, women all of a sudden got sick of hanging out at home cleaning up and cooking. So they all went off to college and got jobs, and all of a sudden first-worlders stopped having kids, cause we were all too busy getting smart, getting rich, and having protected sex.

Try to imagine this scenario in India/China/Malawi/Nigeria.

There is no middle class of any substantial size (>20%/population) in any of these countries, and there won't be anytime soon. Therefore the populations will not start shrinking anytime soon. Therefore, when American population has shrunk to 100m, (which it will, barring unforseen catastrophes), most of the world will still be accelerating into a hell-hole of environmental destruction and continued overpopulation.

Yes, there are positive scenarios out there, but no, they are not realistic unless there is a fundamental shift in the way the first world deals with the third world (i.e. reduces exploitation in favor of assistance).

Also, please note that most of the prophets of a smaller world are working for extreme right-wing foundations. The slashdot cited article was by the American Enterprise Institute (radical free market types) and the article I cited was by somebody from the Hudson Institute (very conservative think tank)

That doesn't mean they are wrong, it just means they are all coming from a similar ideological perspective, which, despite protestations to the contrary, CAN affect how science is interpreted.