Slashdot Mirror

MS wouldn't know innovation if it bit it on their collective asses.

Windows Media Technology is a solid system. WMT is a better live video stream than RealMedia (at least up until RealMedia 8, but I'm still evaluating that recent release).

And I hate to say it, but MFC is one of the better low-end fast-prototyping programming systems I've ever seen.

where were you when Standard Oil was broken up?

Yeah, Standard Oil was terrible - it expanded outputs enormously, innovated continuously, and generally lowered prices for consumers. The price of kerosene dropped from 50 cents per gallon to six cents per gallon from 1860 to 1890. There were 147 competing independent oil refineries when Standard Oil was broken up.

With Microsoft, at least there is the suggestion that there might be some innovation held back. Standard Oil just made oil cheaper and more available.

Most anti-trust decisions were anti-consumer. Such as the American Tobacco Company, broken up despite a decrease in cigarette prices. US Steel dropped steel prices the decade before it was indicted for monopoly activities. Alcoa was indicted for monopolizing the primary ingot aluminum business, despite the fact that there were plenty of scrap aluminum recyclers, and Alcoa reducing the price of aluminum by 90%.

Please read Antitrust Policy: Reform or Repeal for more information.

Are you implying that everyone has the same intelligence? If so, you are sorely mistaken, and if not, then there is no bubble to pop, since some people must be smarter than others, and therefore constitue an "intelligencia"

1. You can make a reference to a couple metrics(IQ and SAT scores), invalidate them, and then vaguely use them out of their basic context(scholastic performance prediction.) This is invalid. BTW...the average score is SUPPOSED to be 900. If its not, the curve is off.

IQ is more of a measure of ability to learn rather than specifically a prediction of future scholastic performance. And granted, even barring that, I could see how both metrics would be interpreted as such, regardless, the ability to do well in school is a sign of inteligence. If you are just plain dumb, you probably wont do too geat in school, and your IQ and SAT scores would reflect this, and thus your general intelligence, I fail to see your point.

2. If you were as intelligent as you assumed yourself to be, you wouldn't have put (sp?) next to a simple word like choir. Who's in the middle of the SAT pool?

You assumed that I was smart, I made no such assumption, I freely admit that I can and will make mistakes, such as the spelling of Choir. I assume that since you point this out youve never made a spelling error in your entire life.

3. It doesn't take a genius, or even a relatively bright person(ibid) to read slashdot. It is a website. It does not use an extraordinary level of complex grammar or concepts.

This is true, but only if youve been in the computer industry for several years, or are an avid computer geek, some of the following words and acronyms found on todays main page: GPL, GNOME, BSD, Linux, domain name registy, Self Timed ARM provides low power consumption. Ask Joe Six pack on the street what any of those things means and youll get a big HUH? So dont tell me that slashdot doesnt have complex concepts or confusing words to the average american.

4. It is truly entertaining that such an individualist such as yourself uses a report from ABC as evidence of the general populace's opinion, and thus ignorance. Furthermore, there are plenty of intelligent people who see the break up of Microsoft as treating a symptom and placating the currently irritated.

who would you rather I quoted from? the Cato Institute? Theyre against the breakup too. ABC is perfectly capable of performing a survey. Also, just because somone is intelligent, doesnt mean that theyre "awake" as Katz puts it.

I didn't write the law, so don't blame me for the bad news. As I tell all my friends: "You don't have to like the law, you just have to obey it." And then they usually realize there are way too many laws infringing on their natural rights, so I point them to places like CATO or the national Libertarian Party website.

If you disagree with what Microsoft is doing, perhaps you should tell your representatives in congress that a rewrite of intellectual property laws are in order. Ranting about it on Slashdot doesn't further your cause. Getting politically active does.

Actually, America is historically among the LEAST generous country in the world. From A deposition given to the house of representatives "Congressional support for relief and development assistance remains low, and the United States has now fallen behind Japan, Germany and France in terms of actual dollar amounts of assistance given to less developed nations. As a percentage of GNP, we now spend less on helping the poor overseas than any other of the world's 21 wealthiest nations. Last year, one-fourth of all U.S. foreign aid went to high-income nations, at a per capita expenditure of over $5 per person for the 638 million people living there. In contrast, the 3 billion living in the world's poorest countries received the equivalent of only 96 cents per person. Of this assistance, almost half went to military or security assistance. In overall terms, less than one percent of the Federal budget is spent on foreign aid, and less than half of that goes to development and humanitarian programs that help millions of the world's poorest people. This situation is deeply regrettable for a prosperous and powerful nation with the means and opportunity to make a tremendous difference in the lives of impoverished peoples and countries."

Also much of the aid given by the US is actually inapropriate, either dumping of food unwanted in the US, destroying local agriculture or linking aid with helping the US's military interests

people who want to describe themselves as Libertarian like to talk a good game, but when the rubber meets the road they tend to retreat to comfortable conservative positions.

In fact, the Libertarian Party Platform has the following to say about "Sexual Rights":

"We believe that adults have the right to private choice in consensual sexual activity.

"We oppose any government attempt to dictate, prohibit, control, or encourage any private lifestyle, living arrangement or contractual relationship.

"We support repeal of existing laws and policies which are intended to condemn, affirm, encourage, or deny sexual lifestyles or any set of attitudes about such lifestyles."

Libertarians do not generally oppose "corporatism" -- on the contrary, they tend to support completely unrestrained free-market activity.

Libertarians support the free market ... and the free market is not served when government gives favors to corporations, nor when it manipulates them to assail the private behavior of their employees.

And by your own admission, the fact that only "some" libertarians oppose the patent system only reinforces this point: why do not all libertarians oppose it, as an outrageous intrusion into individual liberty? Why is it not a fundamental part of the Libertarian Party platform?

Because the Libertarian Party is chiefly about economic liberty, with civil liberties as an afterthought, if they are addressed at all.

Let's go to the news page. Here I see nine news articles, of which three pertain to privacy, two are tax issues, one is gun-rights, one pertains to the right to breastfeed an infant, one to hate-crime laws, and one to an attempt by government to regulate circuses out of existence. By Libertarian standards (under which the rights to keep and bear arms and to raise one's child are civil liberties) again we have a significant majority of civil-liberties over economics issues.

[Raymond] doesn't deny the importance of the breakup of AT&T -- he simply dismisses it as irrelevant since he views it as immoral. (Two wrongs don't make a right, he argues, as "AT&T was a creature of regulation." That's not quite a complete history, but it was not paternity that was at stake in my argument: The question was what cut the lock that AT&T had on innovation in telecommunications, not what created it.)

But the AT&T monopoly was created by the U.S. Government, via -- that's right -- regulation. Those interested in this history can see it online:

Here is a good history.

So, after a point maybe you are right -- maybe the only solution was to use the government to force some outcome on old AT&T. But to say this justifies "regulation" is analogous to cranking up your radio because you have your TV on so loud you cannot hear it. I trust the analogy is not lost on you.

Contract law, rightly limited property rights, antitrust law, the breakup of AT&T: These, I suggested, were regulations that had done good.

You takes your terms, and you makes your argument. As long as you are clear that essentially any governmental action is "regulation", then I suspect you will find a lot of people that think some "regulation" might be OK.

But if you restrict regulation to meaning something more like what is in Merriam Websters, then you are going to find some of us in the libertarian camp parting ways with you. The rule of law, property rights and other human rights -- these are one thing. Government fiat is another. Most people, I hope, can tell the difference. By conflating the two, you weaken your argument.

Who is liable?
by tcd004
You said that this: "allows information to be published and read without fear of censorship because individual documents cannot be traced to their source..."
I'm all for an open forum for free speech, but this seems almost reckless. In most venues of speech, accountability for someone's words is fundamental. The Internet has opened up the possiblity of free speech without accountability to a small degree, and look at what has happened.

From a historical perspective, anonymity has played a vital roll in the creation of this country! All of the talk about porn and warez seems to be very US/UK biased. Think for a moment that maybe the benefits of FreeNet aren't for the democratic 1st world countries, but for every other country on this planet. Yes, kidde porn will be on it. Yes, warez will be distributed on it. But the social and political exchanges that would become possible far outweigh the porn/warez factor. Think outside the US circle. A while ago Slashdot posted a great article by Jonathan D Wallace, Nameless in Cyberspace: Anonymity on the Internet. It's a great piece on the historical importance of anonymity. Here's the intro:

Proposals to limit anonymous communications on the Internet would violate free speech rights long recognized by the Supreme Court. Anonymous and pseudonymous speech played a vital role in the founding of this country. Thomas Paine's Common Sense was first released signed, "An Englishman." Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison, Samuel Adams, and others carried out the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists using pseudonyms. Today, human rights workers in China and many other countries have reforged the link between anonymity and free speech.

If you're always worried about kiddy porn and warez, you're missing the bigger picture.

In the past I naively thought that all corporate CEOs, like myself, believed in free markets, without interference from government. However, some of them wish to use the power of the state for their own short term material gain. These are the people that commonly bribe congress to harass a competitor of theirs or to pass regulations that infringe of the basic freedoms of consumers. These people would like to legislate that everyone by law has to give them several thousand dollars a year. In effect, they want a share of the government's power and they are willing to pay for it.

I agree with you, that this is harmful to society. In the long run I believe this sort of behavior will be harmful for corporations as well. Only with the freedom to choose can our economy and society truly progress. A great article explaining why Silicon Valley should not normalize relations with Washington D.C. is available at Cato's website. I think we may have disagreements on the exact source of the evil. I don't feel that corporations, or any free associations of man, are inherently evil. It is these free associations which allow us to cooperative and progress as a species. Evil comes when individuals or groups of individuals acting in concert decide to use force to achieve their aims. At this point they infringe upon the right of others to live in a world free from violence where they can pursue their own aims. Therefore corporations, recording associations, etc. are not inherently evil. They are just free associations of man. Some individuals within these organizations are seeking to use force to gain what they desire.

If these ideas interest you you might want to check out some libertarian web sites.
Stuart Eichert

In the past I naively thought that all corporate CEOs, like myself, believed in free markets, without interference from government. However, some of them wish to use the power of the state for their own short term material gain. These are the people that commonly bribe congress to harass a competitor of theirs or to pass regulations that infringe of the basic freedoms of consumers. These people would like to legislate that everyone by law has to give them several thousand dollars a year. In effect, they want a share of the government's power and they are willing to pay for it.

I agree with you, that this is harmful to society. In the long run I believe this sort of behavior will be harmful for corporations as well. Only with the freedom to choose can our economy and society truly progress. A great article explaining why Silicon Valley should not normalize relations with Washington D.C. is available at Cato's website. I think we may have disagreements on the exact source of the evil. I don't feel that corporations, or any free associations of man, are inherently evil. It is these free associations which allow us to cooperative and progress as a species. Evil comes when individuals or groups of individuals acting in concert decide to use force to achieve their aims. At this point they infringe upon the right of others to live in a world free from violence where they can pursue their own aims. Therefore corporations, recording associations, etc. are not inherently evil. They are just free associations of man. Some individuals within these organizations are seeking to use force to gain what they desire.

If these ideas interest you you might want to check out some libertarian web sites.
Stuart Eichert

This will no more stop undesired activities than phone traces or postal violations. Why? There are plenty of open terminals at the library that any creep could use or corrupt. People with knowhow will always be able to wiretap, listen, immitate and abuse. This ability will only grow as computer size shrinks.

Nope, this looks like another power grab for the Federal govenment. For an interesting view of motives visit CATO.

Along those lines, I recommend Richard Epstein's Simple Rules For a Complex World.

History has shown us that ALL regulations have thwarted innovation. Look at when the government granted AT&T a monopoly on phone service. Look at regulation of cable television, airline industry, electricity. When deregulation came innovation(and lower prices) took off. The government only acts in their own self interest to keep themselves in power. Never be suckered into believing that they "regulate" in order for the good of the citizenry. If you'd like to read more about regulation take a look at the articles at The Cato Institute, Reason magazine, and The Regulation Homepage. And yes I agree with you that the question is incredibly loaded.
Stuart Eichert

Well, it's no less hypocritical and no different than the UN's current stance on the advocacy of drug-legalization:

But some drug warriors favor even more repressive measures. The most ominous proposal comes from the United Nations. The UN's International Narcotics Control Board's 1997 report called on member states to criminalize opposition to the war on drugs. Citing the 1988 UN Convention Against Illicit Trafficking in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, the INCB claimed that all governments are obligated to enact laws that prohibit "inciting" or "inducing" people to use illegal drugs. If such a vague restriction on freedom of expression were not odious enough, the INCB contends further that member governments are also obligated to ban speech that "shows illicit drug use in a favourable light" or any advocacy of "a change in the drug law."

This is from "Collateral Damage: The Wide-Ranging Consequences of America's Drug War" by Ted Galen Carpenter in a paper for the Cato Institute. The whole text can be found here.

This is a difficult point. However it is probably more related to Civil Asset Forfeiture law, rather than the 5th amendment. Cato has some great articles on asset forfeiture and how US citizens have basically given up their property rights. I would argue that Kevin's files are his own intellectual property , in whatever form, and that he has a right to have them returned to him. Keeping the files, because they might have something "BAD" in them, is the assumption of guilt. With the exception of the IRS all federal agencies must assume you are innoncent until proven guilty. By the government's logic they can seize all of my property and hold it indefinitely until I tell them everything they want to know. I thought that was called "extortion".
Stuart Eichert

Some Cato Institute refs:

Too Many Sanctions
A Chance to Rethink Sanctions
Stuck in Sanctions
Time to Stop Sanctioning the World

Some Cato Institute refs:

Too Many Sanctions
A Chance to Rethink Sanctions
Stuck in Sanctions
Time to Stop Sanctioning the World

Some Cato Institute refs:

Too Many Sanctions
A Chance to Rethink Sanctions
Stuck in Sanctions
Time to Stop Sanctioning the World

I can send a one ounce letter 3-day fedex any time, so what the heck are you talking about? I believe it's called "economy 3 day" delivery or such.

I'm talking about the Private Express Statutes. No private entity in the United States may deliver a package for less than $3 or a letter for less than twice the cost of the United States Postal Service's price.

UPS offers a "Three Day Select" service, but skirts this law by requiring a minimum billing weight of one pound. FedEx offers the "Express Saver" service, which is three days. For a letter envelope weighing one ounce, FedEx in fact charges the legal minimum amount; UPS charges more. Of course, I did select "own packaging" when I priced it at UPS, so that might have raised the price. I'm on a slow link, so I don't want to retry. (Low Bandwidth Mode Slashdot all the way!)

All I said was that they'd like to have their cake (profits from easy deliveries) and eat it to (not have to deliver to or from less profitable areas)

I've never heard of a location UPS or FedEx wouldn't come to for package pickup. You just have to pay the fee. And yet, a lot of people in this country, mythology aside, do not get home delivery or pickup from the post office. If you do in fact live in Nowhere, AR, you'll probably have to drive to a dropoff box or the post office to send something or pick up a letter. As for dropoff, if the sender pays for it, UPS and FedEx will go virtually anywhere in the world and and hand-deliver it. The PO tends to leave yellow notes that ask you to drive to the nearest PO and pick up your package...during regular business hours, naturally.

Show me a plan that fedex has to deliver the mail even if they go bankrupt and I'll support letting them do first-class mail.

Well, aside from the insurance you can get on any package you send by FedEx or UPS, if either goes backrupt, you could go to court to recover your property. I'm willing to admit that there'd be complications if either (incredibly successful in the real-world) company went under, though we'd actually have warning in the real world and be able to avoid a foundering mail carrier. I'd like to see a plan that forced the USPS to deliver its packages as reliably and with as few losses as UPS and FedEx, and with a money-back guarantee if it's as much as a minute later than the quoted time of delivery.

Here's a good analysis of some of the flaws of the USPS.

On 2 January 1882 the Standard Oil Trust was formed. Attorney Samuel Dodd of Standard Oil came up with the idea of a Trust. A Board of Trustees was set up and all the Standard properties were placed in its hands. Every stockholder received 20 Trust certificates for each share of Standard Oil stock and all the profits of the component companies were sent to the nine trustees who determined the dividends. The nine Trustees elected the directors and officers of all the component companies. This allowed the Standard Oil to function as a monopoly since the nine Trustees ran all the component companies. Later, Standard pioneered the Holding Company which had the same effect as a board of trustees.

As an example of the aggressive acts of monopolies and the tactics used by those with a large market share to drive smaller competitors, that can't be subsumed out of business, how about undercutting:

"the industries accused of becoming monopolies during the congressional debates on the 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act all dropped their prices more rapidly than the general price level fell during the 10 years before the Sherman Act.(6)". Amusingly this piece of evidence comes from the Cato Institute in a paper which purports to show the opposite .

I see that it was necessary to break up Bell into smaller companies,

Bell was a government-created and government-protected monopoly.

So, you only object to being enslaved and oppressed and denied choice if it's by the government? I think this is where I disagree with many libertarians. As far as I'm concerned, being screwed by big business is just as painful as by the government. So the question is how to stop both. I'm probably even less tolerant of interference in my life than you are by what you say, but in your visceral reaction to the word "government" you are embracing an evil just as, if not worse. Cheers, Crush

Steve Case has broached the limits of a free market economy? Give me an extrra-large break, will you? Steve Case has brought the Internet into the homes of millions of Americans who would have otherwise be essentially shut out. Admittedly, AOL leaves much to be desired, but that's the whole point: We have a choice not to use them.

History is filled with liberal-minded, anti-competitve journalists like you Jon. Remember Ida Tarbell and her absolute ridicule of John Rockefeller? Hmm...something sounds familiar.

"The corporate move to acquire information, online and off, is a civic and an Internet menace." What the hell does this mean, Jon? Is there something wrong with "aquiring" information? Please...

"There hardly exists a free and independent journalistic culture off-line anymore..." Well, then get off your butt and create one. I'm sure Steve Case didn't sit at home complaining about how there was no easy way for Americans to get connected to the Internet. He got off his ass and did it, and now he is being vilified for doing so.

"Wal-Mart, Blockbuster Video, Staples, Toys R Us, Starbucks, Disney and now, AOL/Time-Warner, rule our world." Ironically, you're last statement is the one that strikes the most happiness and hope in my heart. Big business and competitive enterprise are allowed to grow free in our country. This has led to values that were almost unthinkable decades ago. People today live like kings compared to people of the 18th and 19th century. Business super-heros like Sam Walton, Walt Disney, Steve Jobs, Steve Case, Bill Gates, and Michael Milken have created values where non previously existed, have expanded the quality of life and have brought prosperity and happiness to our great country.

Take your anti-competitive psuedo-journalism and stick it, Katz.

IIRC, Browne has stated that one of his first steps would be the pardoning of all people in jail for victimless crimes.

There are also many, many executive orders he would be able to immediately suspend. The current stance on encryption? That's implemented by an executive order. A lot of "law" these days is created on a whim by the President. Exec. Orders are supposed to be for Mr Prez to issue directions on how to carry out congressional law. Problem is, when the laws are as vague and complex as they are, those EOs become powerful weap^H^H^H^Htools in the hands of the supreme executive.

I, personally, would sleep easier with a Lib president -- I think libertarian ideas on foreign policy are worth implementing. There was a paper at Cato a while back on how our tendency to intervene raises our risk of terrorist attacks (found it here).

And, I don't think anyone would expect real change with just a third-party Prez. It would be interesting to see the results of a mid-term congressional election though.

IIRC, Browne has stated that one of his first steps would be the pardoning of all people in jail for victimless crimes.

There are also many, many executive orders he would be able to immediately suspend. The current stance on encryption? That's implemented by an executive order. A lot of "law" these days is created on a whim by the President. Exec. Orders are supposed to be for Mr Prez to issue directions on how to carry out congressional law. Problem is, when the laws are as vague and complex as they are, those EOs become powerful weap^H^H^H^Htools in the hands of the supreme executive.

I, personally, would sleep easier with a Lib president -- I think libertarian ideas on foreign policy are worth implementing. There was a paper at Cato a while back on how our tendency to intervene raises our risk of terrorist attacks (found it here).

And, I don't think anyone would expect real change with just a third-party Prez. It would be interesting to see the results of a mid-term congressional election though.

I'd really like to know what competitive salary and benefits the Air/SpaceForce (who I believe have wrestled the prize of tech-defense from the others) will offer to attract talented people from industry. Given that the insurance and big 5 accounting firms are snatching up people with half a clue about network security would the military be competitive? Perhaps they would appeal to old fashioned patriotism (which excludes all the imported talent from India/China/etc) but essentially they are trying to convince the defense firms (who do most of the balls-busting code on real-time systems) to give up their engineers. I've heard a rumor that the national labs are chock a block full of talented programmers but its hard to see them giving up 6 figure incomes and a cushy academic style job to babysit the defense system. Better still for their talents to go into a good robust design.

Fundamentally I would ask the fundamental question to what extent is a heavy-hardware offensive-oriented force necessary. While it's nice to had some muscle to back up world posturing, there are many other demands for public funds (education, health, legal aid, etc). The point about computers is that it reduces transaction costs and according to transaction economic theory, the key factors are price, opportunity and safeguards. With improved information (which includes laws, social habits, conventions, etc), safeguards can be reduced thus decreasing the price/cost for everyone. If CNN can identify potential conflicts and make world opinion unplatable for tin-pot dictators, perhaps there is less need for the iron fist and more for velvet diplomacy (not that I'm accusing the US of being particularly talented in this area either).

Anyway, if people are interested in outside opinions, take a look at Cato's policy analysis, or foreign studies to broaden your views on defense matters.

LL

I'd really like to know what competitive salary and benefits the Air/SpaceForce (who I believe have wrestled the prize of tech-defense from the others) will offer to attract talented people from industry. Given that the insurance and big 5 accounting firms are snatching up people with half a clue about network security would the military be competitive? Perhaps they would appeal to old fashioned patriotism (which excludes all the imported talent from India/China/etc) but essentially they are trying to convince the defense firms (who do most of the balls-busting code on real-time systems) to give up their engineers. I've heard a rumor that the national labs are chock a block full of talented programmers but its hard to see them giving up 6 figure incomes and a cushy academic style job to babysit the defense system. Better still for their talents to go into a good robust design.

Fundamentally I would ask the fundamental question to what extent is a heavy-hardware offensive-oriented force necessary. While it's nice to had some muscle to back up world posturing, there are many other demands for public funds (education, health, legal aid, etc). The point about computers is that it reduces transaction costs and according to transaction economic theory, the key factors are price, opportunity and safeguards. With improved information (which includes laws, social habits, conventions, etc), safeguards can be reduced thus decreasing the price/cost for everyone. If CNN can identify potential conflicts and make world opinion unplatable for tin-pot dictators, perhaps there is less need for the iron fist and more for velvet diplomacy (not that I'm accusing the US of being particularly talented in this area either).

Anyway, if people are interested in outside opinions, take a look at Cato's policy analysis, or foreign studies to broaden your views on defense matters.

LL

Nameless in Cyberspace: Anonymity on the Internet

I'm a Cato sponsor. Depending on one's sponsorship level (read: donations), we receive these. Cato publishes these sorts of briefings all the time. Typically they try to cover issues of the day from a libertarian/free-market perspective. The Internet is a hotbed of both libertarian and statist/regulatory action. Recent relevant briefings cover important policy issues like the need for strong cryptography, non-American encryption products, and the negative effect of corporate welfare on Silicon Valley.

There's an awful lot in the world of regulation that has nothing to do with tech. Cato is at the forefront of exploring free-market alternatives to social security, term limits, welfare reform, and lots and lots of other important topics. As a person closely involved with technology, I'm not always up on these other issues. Cato briefings provide some intellectual ammunition when these non-tech things come up. Lots of people with a libertarian bent come at it from other perspectives - like, say, a pro-laissez-faire-business or a free trade focus. They might not have thought privacy and anonymity issues through. I'm not influential, but maybe some of the people I talk to are. At worst, Cato papers tend to be well thought out and researched; suitable for distribution to and consumption by people who need an alternate viewpoint. Like my congressman.Who really needs one.

I assume Cato sends these to relevant policymakers too; I don't know. Cato staffmembers show up all the time on the political talk show circuit, op-ed columns, etc.

I'm a Cato sponsor. Depending on one's sponsorship level (read: donations), we receive these. Cato publishes these sorts of briefings all the time. Typically they try to cover issues of the day from a libertarian/free-market perspective. The Internet is a hotbed of both libertarian and statist/regulatory action. Recent relevant briefings cover important policy issues like the need for strong cryptography, non-American encryption products, and the negative effect of corporate welfare on Silicon Valley.

There's an awful lot in the world of regulation that has nothing to do with tech. Cato is at the forefront of exploring free-market alternatives to social security, term limits, welfare reform, and lots and lots of other important topics. As a person closely involved with technology, I'm not always up on these other issues. Cato briefings provide some intellectual ammunition when these non-tech things come up. Lots of people with a libertarian bent come at it from other perspectives - like, say, a pro-laissez-faire-business or a free trade focus. They might not have thought privacy and anonymity issues through. I'm not influential, but maybe some of the people I talk to are. At worst, Cato papers tend to be well thought out and researched; suitable for distribution to and consumption by people who need an alternate viewpoint. Like my congressman.Who really needs one.

I assume Cato sends these to relevant policymakers too; I don't know. Cato staffmembers show up all the time on the political talk show circuit, op-ed columns, etc.

I'm a Cato sponsor. Depending on one's sponsorship level (read: donations), we receive these. Cato publishes these sorts of briefings all the time. Typically they try to cover issues of the day from a libertarian/free-market perspective. The Internet is a hotbed of both libertarian and statist/regulatory action. Recent relevant briefings cover important policy issues like the need for strong cryptography, non-American encryption products, and the negative effect of corporate welfare on Silicon Valley.

There's an awful lot in the world of regulation that has nothing to do with tech. Cato is at the forefront of exploring free-market alternatives to social security, term limits, welfare reform, and lots and lots of other important topics. As a person closely involved with technology, I'm not always up on these other issues. Cato briefings provide some intellectual ammunition when these non-tech things come up. Lots of people with a libertarian bent come at it from other perspectives - like, say, a pro-laissez-faire-business or a free trade focus. They might not have thought privacy and anonymity issues through. I'm not influential, but maybe some of the people I talk to are. At worst, Cato papers tend to be well thought out and researched; suitable for distribution to and consumption by people who need an alternate viewpoint. Like my congressman.Who really needs one.

I assume Cato sends these to relevant policymakers too; I don't know. Cato staffmembers show up all the time on the political talk show circuit, op-ed columns, etc.

I'm a Cato sponsor. Depending on one's sponsorship level (read: donations), we receive these. Cato publishes these sorts of briefings all the time. Typically they try to cover issues of the day from a libertarian/free-market perspective. The Internet is a hotbed of both libertarian and statist/regulatory action. Recent relevant briefings cover important policy issues like the need for strong cryptography, non-American encryption products, and the negative effect of corporate welfare on Silicon Valley.

There's an awful lot in the world of regulation that has nothing to do with tech. Cato is at the forefront of exploring free-market alternatives to social security, term limits, welfare reform, and lots and lots of other important topics. As a person closely involved with technology, I'm not always up on these other issues. Cato briefings provide some intellectual ammunition when these non-tech things come up. Lots of people with a libertarian bent come at it from other perspectives - like, say, a pro-laissez-faire-business or a free trade focus. They might not have thought privacy and anonymity issues through. I'm not influential, but maybe some of the people I talk to are. At worst, Cato papers tend to be well thought out and researched; suitable for distribution to and consumption by people who need an alternate viewpoint. Like my congressman.Who really needs one.

I assume Cato sends these to relevant policymakers too; I don't know. Cato staffmembers show up all the time on the political talk show circuit, op-ed columns, etc.

As a libertarian, I find nothing inconsistent with caring about the poor, promoting social welfare, being generous in spirit as well as materially and in supporting libertarian policies. Most libertarians believe what they do on the basis of sound economic theories supported by empirical studies, sound logic, and critical examination. More importantly, most libertarians support those ideas based upon responsible moral convictions. If I didn't firmly believe that the best way to support the poor was to eliminate welfare, I would never in good conscience advocate such a policy. If you want to know why libertarians support the ideas that they do - look at the arguments, don't just presume that we're all just a bunch of selfish, greedy, heartless (insert your favorite insult here). If you insist on pronouncing judgements, at least do it in an intellectually responsible manner and not simply dismiss the ideas without at least hearing them out.
www.cato.org
www.fee.org
www.perc.org
www.cei.org
www.lp.org
www.free-market.net
www.reason.org

The possibility bothers the Cato Institute ("22 years of promoting public policy based on individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace").

Here's a link to their report Warrior Cops: The Ominous Growth of Paramilitarism in American Police Departments. (This links the summary page. You can download the whole report there. Warnings: (1) There's a LOT of reading (14 pages), and (2) it's in PDF format.)

The possibility bothers the Cato Institute ("22 years of promoting public policy based on individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace").

Here's a link to their report Warrior Cops: The Ominous Growth of Paramilitarism in American Police Departments. (This links the summary page. You can download the whole report there. Warnings: (1) There's a LOT of reading (14 pages), and (2) it's in PDF format.)

Regardless of whether or not you feel that injesting animal hormones is safe can you honestly say that it this is fair? Is it really the responsibility of the WTO to decide that it knows what is best for the health of the European people?

Well, yes, the WTO should be allowed to tell the EU to halt the import ban. If the EU wants to require that all imported US beef is labelled as such and include a warning about the possible health risks, thats a whole seperate issue. But the point of the WTO is free trade, which is beneficial to everyone involved. The WTO helps consumers in any member nation by driving prices lower for any traded goods. An import ban causes prices to rise, since there is a lower quantity of the good available for trade. With greater quantity available, prices fall, and consumers win. If hormone-treated beef is labelled as such, you will find a segment of consumers who are willing to pay a premium for the non-treated beef. So the cattle ranchers in the EU and the US win also - they all get to sell their beef. The WTO has done nothing to the detriment of citizens of the EU with that decision. In fact, everyone involved in the trade of beef between the EU and the US, plus consumers in the EU, is better off directly because of the WTO decision.


While you're mentioning greenpeace, etc., let me suggest a few places to go for a more economically aware perspective of the situation.

The Cato Institute
The Economist
and
The Adam Smith Institue


itachi

For those of us who aren't breaking into our New Year's Champagne stash, here's a few links showing that there are still a few intelligent, freedom minded folks out there. They just don't happen to work for the DOJ.
A moral basis for defending MS.
and a factual one.

Disclaimer: I, nor any family or friends of mine, have any interest in the outcome of the case.

Here's an interesting link to Cato on the MS antitrust case.

Typing Errors in Reason magazine.

Network Effects, Path Dependence and Lock-In

DISMAL SCIENCE FICTIONS Network Effects, Microsoft, and Antitrust Speculation

The following was written with implicit sarcasm tags:

All the social problems with Alcohol and cigarettes went away when they were made legal. It should work just the same with cannabis.

1. Cigarettes (nicotine) have never been illegal in this country (USA). Smoking is prohibited in certain situations, but not nicotine. So no fair conclusions can be drawn here.

2. The sale and consumption of alcohol (ethanol) were prohibited in the USA for a while, and caused many, many problems which I won't attempt to summarize here -- they are too numerous. But read some of these pages:

   • Prohibition: The Drug War, Page One
   • Alcohol Prohibition Was a Failure
   • Marijuana and Alcohol Prohibition

Prohibition of any drug is not only a violation of human rights and an Orwellian interference with privacy -- it's also deadly. We need to stop the drug war now.

Try the Cato Institute.

The ACLU has proven to me that they do not stand for the things that their name would suggest. They have a very juvenile and misguided notion of "rights" which leads them into supporting some pretty gnarly things.

IMVAO...(why be humble?)

This is nothing new.

"Most people don't know it, but the government can take people's homes, cars, and money without charging them with a crime--and the burden of recovery is on the owners!" -- Forfeiting Our Property Rights: Is Your Property Safe from Seizure? by Representative Henry J. Hyde

Mostly due to the War on Drugs, forfeiture laws have become unconstitutional. Law enforcement agencies in the U.S. have many incentives to keep property:

• - They get to KEEP it if you are found guilty, which allows them to fund themselves through asset forfeiture. The middle/upper middle class are often targetted more often as "suspects" because they have more assents which law enforcement can use/auction off than the poor, and can't afford the million-dollar lawyers which the rich can.
• - The legal system in the U.S. currently holds the opinion that "property can be responsible for the crime." We all know that it is the user of the computer, or the car, or the gun, or the expensive yacht who is at fault for the crime-- these are all just tools. But law enforcement and the justice system do not currently hold that opinion. They believe the property is just as evil as the criminal, and the property must be proven innocent also. (Otherwise they get to keep it and fund themselves, as above.)
• - The current social & justice system opinion is that guilty parties must be stripped of their livelihood (including any property they own which they might enjoy/have purchased with ill-gotten gains) -- whereas the more rational approach, and the more successful approach, is rehabilitation.

Until the laws are changed prohibiting the law enforcement agencies from keeping property they seize, it comes down to this: police target a "suspect" with "nice" assets and seize the property for themselves, sometimes liquidating it even before trial, and even if the suspect is proven innocent.

I suggest reading some of the excellent articles at fear.org, Forfeiture Endangers American Rights Foundation. There are many problems with the current system which must be reformed.

Yes, they can take your stuff, all they need is a warrant -- which can be very easy to get. And then the burden is on YOU -- how do YOU demonstrate that the property is innocent of a crime. But it gets worse than that. Sometimes they LOSE TRACK of your property (because law enforcement seizes a lot of property) and you are unable to get it back. Like I said before, a lot of this has to do with bad laws passed by politicians trying to "get tough on the War on Drugs":

For more than 200 years, the federal government has had the authority to take property through forfeiture. Beginning about 1980, the number and value of seizures started growing dramatically as law enforcement agencies began relying more heavily on forfeiture to fight drug traffickers and other organized crime figures. The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 expanded the government's seizure authority and established forfeiture funds within the departments of Justice and the Treasury.\1 Recently, asset forfeiture laws were expanded to cover crimes associated with money laundering and certain financial institutions-related offenses. Collectively, enforcement actions associated with these changes have resulted in the value of Justice's and Treasury's seized property inventories growing from a reported $33 million in 1979 to almost $2 billion in 1994.

THE PROBLEM

As asset forfeiture programs grew in the 1980s, our attention was focused primarily on the management of seized and forfeited property. We found that property was not being properly cared for after it was seized, resulting in lost revenue to the government when the property was sold. Much has been accomplished in this area since the 1980s. However, some significant problems remain with seized property management, and continued oversight is necessary. Also, the departments of Justice and the Treasury continue to operate two similar but separate seized asset management and disposal programs without plans for consolidation, despite legislation requiring them to develop a plan to consolidate postseizure administration of certain properties.\2

In recent years, interest in the asset forfeiture programs has extended beyond asset management to questioning whether forfeiture laws are applied appropriately and effectively and consideration of how forfeiture proceeds should be used.

-- from The Schaffer Library of Drug Policy, Asset Forfeiture Programs.

I suggest everyone in the U.S. join the libertarian party in an effort to return to more constitutional principles.

There probably were many astronauts who died in space whose deaths were never revealed to the public. Who knows how many astronauts/cosmonauts died prior to the first _televised_ landing?

The people probably would not stand for sending men to perish on the moon on the taxpayers' bill - it's not good public relations. Nixon's speech would have been the best propaganda to ensure NASA's bloated budget had the mission failed.

Anonymous Bovine

true liberty - http://www.lp.org
real public policy - http://www.cato.org

I usually disagree with the Cato Institute, but every so often, their views will mesh with mine. The anti CDA essay NEW AGE COMSTOCKERY: EXON VS. THE INTERNET is a good example.