Slashdot Mirror

Sounds like the time the British, concerned about the rising levels of malaria, used DDT to kill all the mosquitos in the Congo area.

Here's another example of the sort of screwup that occurs when we mess with the ecosystem: Cane Toads where introduced into Australia to eliminate some sort of insect pest. They are now the pest. They breed like rabbits and are poisonous.

I actually would not even grace it that much. Reality check (with statistics from Time/Newsweek etc):

Myth: The poor pay most of the taxes in America
Reality: The lower classes in america do not pay any taxes. As you go up, the tax burden goes up.

Just look at the tax cut. The bottom run of the tax scheme goes from 15%->10%, a 33% cut. The top rung goes from 36%->33% about a 9% cut. Further realize that only about ~120 million american's even pay taxes in the first place. The others actually get money back, even though they never paid anything.

Myth: But they just deduct everything.
Reality: Ever heard of the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax?)The AMT is an amount that you can not deduct under, and as usual, it is a very high number in the higher brackets.

Here is a good argument about the mostly liberal billionairs that spoke up. The wealthy are conservitive, but right now, no changes is a liberal position.

BTW, Boeing and Lockheed Martin are about to loose the JSF. GE did make a bonaza on the air market a few years back, but that's clinton's territory, the defense industry is getting ready for another round of base cuts, and budget cuts (Bush's new money goes to get our millitary people off of food stamps... yes you read that right).

BTW, the Economist has a pretty good write up.

BTW, one of the things that Bush is trying to do is get rid of the hump in the tax code between 20k and 27k where there is strangly a 31% tax, surrounding two 16-16% ranges. Oh... yes.. now I remember why that is there, so the poor stay poor.

As for the rest and the entire argument about "payroll taxes" thoose taxes are social security and medicare, programs that are completly seperate. If you don't like that tax, repeal Social Security ;-) (C'mon... I dare ya).

Why should there be a tax cut? The percent of the GDP that is being eaten is the highest it has ever been.

The obvious place to collect the money off the reading public is at the portal. The portal would collect a regular subscription and pay the content providers on a clickthrough basis. A secure cookie on the client machine tells the content providers that this particular client is a paid-up reader and to let them view the information. No secure cookie, no view. I'd like this because it would keep the portal editors on their toes to only link to good information. The price could vary too. $0.000005 for a verbose yet content free page, and perhaps a dollar or two for an informative essay of real value. The amount actually paid could perhaps be tied in some way to the current scoring system. Yes, you would then have to extend the slashdot scoring system to the pages to which you link, but that would be no bad thing. Hopefully we would then be able to read single articles on subscription sites such as The Economist's report on the Microsoft appeal as they would then be getting paid. Also it would give individual authors who create content a motivation to produce good work and keep it updated. I for one would put more effort into my little Notes for C Programmers if I thought that I was going to be paid for the work.

The Economist also includes a review of World War 3.0: Microsoft and its enemies by Ken Auletta. In comparing the two books, they say that "Mr Auletta gives a top-down view, placing the Microsoft trial in the broader context of the telecommunications, technology and media industries, [whereas] Mr Heilemann ... gives the bottom-up view from Silicon Valley ... Anyone looking for the behind-the-scenes story of the Microsoft trial will have to read both books to get the full picture. Mr Heilemann's account is the more entertaining and faster-paced of the two, whereas Mr Auletta's is more substantial."

The conclusion from the twin reviews is worth quoting:

[Both books portray] Microsoft officials as arrogant, foolish and politically naive in expecting to be able to best the American government in the same way that they crushed so many of their competitors. ... Whatever happens next ... it is clear that Microsoft should have settled the case years ago, when it had the chance. Ultimately, Microsoft's worst enemy proved to be neither the Department of Justice, nor its rivals in Silicon Valley, but itself.

_________________________________________
"Is it a book you would even wish your wife or your servants to read?" --prosecuting lawyer, for the British government, arguing against permitting publication of D. H. Lawrence's "Lady Chatterly's Lover" (1960)

The Economist also includes a review of World War 3.0: Microsoft and its enemies by Ken Auletta. In comparing the two books, they say that "Mr Auletta gives a top-down view, placing the Microsoft trial in the broader context of the telecommunications, technology and media industries, [whereas] Mr Heilemann ... gives the bottom-up view from Silicon Valley ... Anyone looking for the behind-the-scenes story of the Microsoft trial will have to read both books to get the full picture. Mr Heilemann's account is the more entertaining and faster-paced of the two, whereas Mr Auletta's is more substantial."

The conclusion from the twin reviews is worth quoting:

[Both books portray] Microsoft officials as arrogant, foolish and politically naive in expecting to be able to best the American government in the same way that they crushed so many of their competitors. ... Whatever happens next ... it is clear that Microsoft should have settled the case years ago, when it had the chance. Ultimately, Microsoft's worst enemy proved to be neither the Department of Justice, nor its rivals in Silicon Valley, but itself.

_________________________________________
"Is it a book you would even wish your wife or your servants to read?" --prosecuting lawyer, for the British government, arguing against permitting publication of D. H. Lawrence's "Lady Chatterly's Lover" (1960)

************************************************ ** *

>It is true that the NRA lobbies against every single gun restriction. They're believers in the slipperly slope thing. Give an inch, you lose a mile.

Isn't slippery slope usually considered a logical fallacy...? I know I don't want to ban all guns. That is defenitely a too severe infringement on personal rights. ...Of course, what I think doesn't really matter since I am not a US citizen. Aren't you glad? ;-)

I'm not sure about the Switzerland example. I have heard it mentioned several times, but never from a reliable source. I know that some NRA people have used Sweden as an example in similar arguments. Sweden has more guns per capita than the US, but less violent crime, they say. However, what they fail to meantion is that what we have are rarely assault rifles or even handguns, but hunting rifles.
Furthermore, the law says these must be
A) Securely locked, for instance in a safe
B) kept with a vital part removed, and
C) In a separate place from the ammunition

I'm not sure if it is a requirement to buy a gun, but to hunt, you have to have a hunting licence, and to get one of those you have to pass a pretty difficult test.

>There is one other main reason to be anti-gun: many anti gunners simply don't believe in the possibility or the right to self-defense. They prefer to rely on the police for everything, and they are trying to arrange it so that you have no other option. I find these people especially odious. Self-defense is a basic human right, and the best tool for it is a gun. Even if you don't think people should be allowed to carry guns, they should have the right to keep one at home.

I am sceptical that a gun is the best tool for self-defence. Did you read the article in the Economist? Of course, I don't believe that this is the final word or anything. I know Lott has sent a letter disputing the claims. But the Economist tend to do very well researched articles. I just don't see how having a gun is going to stop somebody from shooting me. If they know I might have a gun, isn't that just going to increase the likelyhood they make sure I don't get a chance to fire it, for instance by shooting me in the back without warning? If they have a knife at least I can run, but few people can outrun a bullet.

By the way, I grew up in a hunting family. My grandad, my dad and my brother hunted. My brother is now a cop. So I am not unfamiliar with guns. I have been out on several hunting trips, and while I never was present while an animal was killed, I did see the dead bodies and the butchering. I have also done target shooting, and when I did military service I learned to use a machine gun (model 1945...I was a radar operator. If the enemy ever got into the command central it would be short distance combat, so the guns would actually be ok, especially since they are light to carry. They gave the modern guns, AK4 and AK5, to the people who would be in the field). So I have some familiarity with guns and might even be said to have experienced the "gun culture".

I believe you mentioned somewhere in another post that you disapproved of too much sex in the media (or did I confuse you with somebody else?). That is such an alien concept to me. If you have to censor something, I really prefer that they allow sex (a natural, pleasure giving, life affirming act) and ban violence like they do in Sweden, instead of the other way around like in the US.

************************************************ ** *

And if you are really really lucky, you can even get to see them kill something. Then you will see first hand the real purpose of a gun, what a metal bit passing though living tissue at high velocity really does. It's really fun.

>I actually think they should teach kids about guns in school, kind of like what they do with cars. They should show videos of gunshot wounds, like they do with car crashes. They should teach you basic things like "don't point a gun at anyone."

Yeah! Maybe it could even teach them that "guns are really dumb things, we would be better off without them in everyday society".

BTW, here is an URL for you. Recent research has shown that guns do not deter crime, they cause it.

************************************************ ** *

So costly that NASA literally couldn't build a spare, so this is only a one shot deal.

<rant>

It is not particularly uncommon in this program. Was there a backup to the Service module which delayed the program two years? (The ICM could have been, sort-of, but was never built.) This led to the first two modules, Zarya and Unity, exceeding their 500-day lifetime in orbit; what would have happened if they had failed?

And what about the space shuttle? More than thirty shuttle flights are required to build the station; at a 1/450 estimated failure rate, according to the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, there is a 7-odd percent chance of another Challenger before it is completed - and the tight schedule surely is not going to help. If that happens, how does the program survive, with the Russians almost too broke to produce enough Soyuz even for the normal operation of the ISS?

That said, who won't be happy to learn that, according to NASA Watch, the Destiny lab's software wasn't even validated before launch? Or that there is a catch-22 with its avionics (computers and stuff need cooling to operate, but they need to be up to start the cooler systems)...

There is another issue: the project also depends on hundreds of hours of EVA (spacewalking), which the US lacks experience at. I don't have a reference handy, but IIRC one of the proposals to replace the space station Freedom program had been dismissed as too risky because it required way too much EVA time, and that was still less than what the ISS needs.

There is always the argument that the space program is indeed risky, but the prize is worth the game. I would agree with this, if the prize was space colonization, or at least common access to space. But this is not what NASA is after; see the jaundiced view they have about the Tito flight to ISS (set up by MirCorp and the Russians). According to the Space Frontier Foundation, " NASA is clueless about how to efficiently and fairly run this facility. They're not interested in anything but their own budget, people and programs." Space science, then? A manned facility is not really adapted to that (life support systems, people bouncing around, degrade the quality of microgravity) except for studying the effect of weightlessness on the astronauts themselves, which has already been done well enough on Mir.

There is an article from the Economist about the "waste of space" the ISS is.

</rant>

And yet, I crave for more coverage of the ISS operation, more pictures of the beautiful thing they are building up there... I was at my window a few minutes ago as the ISS was passing overhead (cloudy sky, didn't see anything but I tried), and I'm following the EVA thanks to the Spaceflight now live coverage. I can't help dreaming about that 2001 double wheel giant station, and what moved me most in recent years was reading old newspapers from around july20th, 1969. Go figure...

And while we are on the subject of plastics, this is also pretty cool. Instead of "lab on a chip" they are building a lab-on-a-CD. "The technology is already being exploited by Gyros, a spin-off created earlier this year by Amersham Pharmacia Biotech of Sweden. Gyros is betting that plastic compact discs are a better platform for future chemical and biological microdevices than are silicon chips. Apart from being much cheaper than silicon wafers, plastic discs are more compatible with biochemical substances. Also, embossing techniques for putting microstructures on a CD's surface already exist, so there is no need to reinvent the wheel."
In fact, the whole damn Technology Quarterly from The Economist is pretty damn interesting. I tried to get it submitted, but...(insert standard "Slashdot never posts my stories whine).

************************************************ ** *

And while we are on the subject of plastics, this is also pretty cool. Instead of "lab on a chip" they are building a lab-on-a-CD. "The technology is already being exploited by Gyros, a spin-off created earlier this year by Amersham Pharmacia Biotech of Sweden. Gyros is betting that plastic compact discs are a better platform for future chemical and biological microdevices than are silicon chips. Apart from being much cheaper than silicon wafers, plastic discs are more compatible with biochemical substances. Also, embossing techniques for putting microstructures on a CD's surface already exist, so there is no need to reinvent the wheel."
In fact, the whole damn Technology Quarterly from The Economist is pretty damn interesting. I tried to get it submitted, but...(insert standard "Slashdot never posts my stories whine).

************************************************ ** *

And while we are on the subject of plastics, this is also pretty cool. Instead of "lab on a chip" they are building a lab-on-a-CD. "The technology is already being exploited by Gyros, a spin-off created earlier this year by Amersham Pharmacia Biotech of Sweden. Gyros is betting that plastic compact discs are a better platform for future chemical and biological microdevices than are silicon chips. Apart from being much cheaper than silicon wafers, plastic discs are more compatible with biochemical substances. Also, embossing techniques for putting microstructures on a CD's surface already exist, so there is no need to reinvent the wheel."
In fact, the whole damn Technology Quarterly from The Economist is pretty damn interesting. I tried to get it submitted, but...(insert standard "Slashdot never posts my stories whine).

************************************************ ** *

-Overall cost of living by city
-Taxi fares
-The Big Mac index. This is useful to find out if a currency is overvalued more than being a cost of living indicator, but it's fun nonetheless.

-Overall cost of living by city
-Taxi fares
-The Big Mac index. This is useful to find out if a currency is overvalued more than being a cost of living indicator, but it's fun nonetheless.

-Overall cost of living by city
-Taxi fares
-The Big Mac index. This is useful to find out if a currency is overvalued more than being a cost of living indicator, but it's fun nonetheless.

The economist has a much better article here
You can't blame your power company for selling outside the state. They are being forced to sell power at a fraction of the cost, so naturally they want to minimize losses and sell as little as possible in CA. Don't forget that their stock holders could sue them for doing anything else.

... state officials deserve full blame, for they have found plenty of ways to discourage firms from building new power plants.

James Hoecker, chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, put it this way:

As disappointing as it may seem to some, we cannot "price cap" California out of a supply shortage....

California deregulated electricity in the hope of milking power companies. It cannot work like that. Here in Britain, as in Scandinavia, electricity deregulation has gone smoothly.

___________________________________________
"Plea se leave your values at the front desk" --sign posted in a Paris hotel

When the topics are technical, Slashdot has a really good signal/noise ratio. Smart things get modded up; stupid things get modded down and/or stomped on.

Here, though, we see what happens when it's a topic where people don't know much about. The volume is just as high, the opinions are just firm. But most people are just talking out their asses, and moderators are giving big points to Limbaugh-like rants without a scrap of fact in 'em.

Since this article already has enough opinion, I'll just stick to a few facts and some interesting links.

I live in San Francisco, so I've been following this closely. A very interesting site for the curious is the California Independent System Operator, an organization responsible for the long-distance high-voltage lines and the power that flows over them. They have a FAQ, a diagram that shows how the power flows, and an up-to-the-minute graph showing projected and actual power load. (I say we all pick a time tomorrow to turn off everything and see if we can make the graph drop.)

Personally, I use 100% renewable power from utility.com. (I actually pay less than others, but I'd happily pay more for my green preferences.) They are certified by Green-e, a non-profit that verifies the power content. (The typical mix for California uses only 12% renewables, with 20% coal, 20% large hydroelectric, 31% natural gas, and 16% nuclear. (Yes, large hydroelectric is counted separately; it's not considered very environmentally friendly these days.)

There are several good articles in the New York Times about all this, including one on following the money. There is also one on how Texas plans to do it differently. And as subscribers to The Economist know, California's deregulation was a pretty shoddy job compared to other utility deregulations around the world.

So those of you who lay the blame entirely on environmental regs from California's own special blend of fruits, nuts, and flakes should research a little further. You'll find a picture that's much more interesting and complex: political dithering, a lack of foresight, corporate greed, and plenty of plain old stupidity are involved.

On AOL-TW

On Vivendi and convergence

On AOL-TW

On Vivendi and convergence

From The Economist.

Look at this way. My C$50 will buy me about 20 loaves of bread here in Canada. Your US$50 will buy you around 30 loaves of bread in the US

What your talking about is called 'purchasing power parity' or PPP. In actuality, you could buy 35 loaves of bread for $C50 in Canada and 40 loaves of bread for $US50. This clearly show that the C$ is very under-valued in relation to the US$.

For a better comparison, check out the 'Big Mac Index' which examines the PPP for Big Macs in different countries.

--PCB

The "con" side was led by a fellow student. The student just kept repeating the same thing: "look at the evidence, then make up your own mind." I didn't take his advice. Instead, I assumed that if the WHO was advocating fluoridation so strongly, then it must be good. The majority of people seem to have thought the same: the "pro" side won the referendum.

In the last few years the official story on fluoridation has changed. Fluoridation might be far more dangerous than was supposed at the time of the referendum. Children's toothpaste is now with very low--or no--fluoride, for that reason. The safety level for adults is not really known. In fact, at the time of the referendum, little was actually known about fluoride safety levels. Yet the WHO claimed that its proposed level of fluoridation was certainly safe for everyone.

There is a good "con" site at http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/. This site is an important part of the campaign that has kept Britain 90% fluoridation-free.

I don't really know for sure, but I suspect that if the same situation existed today, the WHO would prevent a "con" website from going up under .health.

The WHO can make mistakes, there is lots of internal politics, and there is a great deal of conservatism in what is called "medical science". The WHO will face up to none of that on their own.

Another good example is with acupuncture. It is only in the last few years that proper experiments have been done, showing that stimulation of acupuncture points affects related areas of the brain. For example, stimulating the acupuncture point associated with hearing affects the part of the brain associated with hearing. And stimulating nearby skin has no effect. (There is an excellent summary article in The Economist here and another good summary from Britannica here ). Again, although the WHO might accept such sites now, they would likely not have done so ten or more years ago.

If the WHO really wants to encourage health, how about a special seal/label/badge that could be put on websites: "This cite certified by the World Health Organisation"? Such a seal would have many advantages, and avoid the main disadvantages, of a regulated .health TLD.

Let the free market decide!

And you think that ABC (Disney), CBS (?), and NBC (GE), are "real journalistic quality"?

You will never see scaremongering stories about the latest "nightmare drug" on slashdot, because slashdot isn't tied to big corporate interests.

We don't give a fuck about Jon Benet Ramsey, or care much about OJ simpson, and most of the US never gave much of a fuck either. Slashdot gives us stuff we care about, for the most part. Just because there are more Linux stories than you care to see, or maybe you hate Anime, doesn't mean that Slashdot won't eventually cover most of what is important to you.

Here is the bottom line. Have you seen much of anything about Carnivore on any major news outlet? Don't think think this is important to all of our collective futures? Yeah thats right. I thought so. Its a choice, truth or happiness, and I would give up liking everything I see on my news, for a little truth.

I guess that if you want Other People's Money, these People will always try to influence what you do with Their Money.

Yes. That is a unilateral statement which, if I have ever said, was meant in general and not specific terms. Not all corporations are evil. Corporations are organizations of men, and if those men are of good moral character, they cannot be evil. It is only when the men of these corporations persue the dollar that they do harm to society.

Show me more than hot air and I might be inclined to believe you. For now, any link is sufficient because I know most people who argue with me are too slothful to actually go through the effort of backing up their claims.

There's alot more facts in that "conjecture and opinion" article than has been put forward in this entire thread

True, but they'd have you believe they're a seperate country. And even if it is a small sample, it is still beats the opposition's comments (that would be you), which to date have been nothing more than chest beating.

This deregulation has been going on for several years. I've seen its impact, as have many other people. The deregulation started before the 'net was more than an idle curiosity and BBS' reigned supreme. If you shrink the time-frame enough, anyone can claim "nothing happened!" Look at the bigger picture here.

US West, now "QWest" in my area, has a 85 billion dollar market capitalization right now. I think they can divert a few thousand for contributinos to local politicians to keep this from happening.

If you could be more specific with what you are referring to (names of people, businesses, etc) it would assist me greatly.

The number of active phones passed 30 million in June(?). And yes, there are less than 60 million people in the UK. I found it amusing reading national geographic a coupla months ago, where they were going on about how 1/3 of the population of London had a mobile. I know they have a long lead time on the mag, but that figure must be about 18 months old. I think you could safely double that percentage. The growth in mobile usage in the UK has been largely in pay-as-you-go phones with no credit check or bills. This means that kids can buy them, and they do, a lot.
The economist had a n article last week that is worth a read. Its about the mess with the 3g licences in the US, where the frequencies allocated will clash with dozens of local TV stations. You haven't a hope, from the looks of things!

I agree: FCC and congressional screw-ups have made it the US unable to move wireless forward as fast as technology and consumer demand would have it. This Economist article discusses the spectrum shortage that is the main problem.

Battle of the airwaves

fff

See "Wired China" at The Economist.

Among other things the article demonstrates that Bill Clinton's dream of the Internet bringing democracy to China will face some serious challenges. Apparently the Communist leadership sees the Internet as a great way to keep tabs on people and to nip dissent in the bud.

See "Wired China" at The Economist.

Among other things the article demonstrates that Bill Clinton's dream of the Internet bringing democracy to China will face some serious challenges. Apparently the Communist leadership sees the Internet as a great way to keep tabs on people and to nip dissent in the bud.

The majority of SUV's I see are driven by a lady, with no passengers, on her way to work or wherever between the city and suburbs of Indianapolis. People love SUV's because of the commanding view of traffic while driving, plain and simple - Americans have always loved big cars, and demand that their politicians keep gas prices low enough to make them more convenient. Just check out the graph in this story and see how US gas taxes compare with other countries.

It is time for record companies to take the plunge and change their pricing and business models to reflect the new Internet environment. The success of Napster is both a response to, and an indictment of, their hesitations.

It is time for record companies to take the plunge and change their pricing and business models to reflect the new Internet environment. The success of Napster is both a response to, and an indictment of, their hesitations.

It cites Singapore and my own state of Victoria, Australia as having the only true working government portals in existence. Embarrassingly, I'd never even visited www.maxi.com.au, although I had heard of it ...

It cites Singapore and my own state of Victoria, Australia as having the only true working government portals in existence. Embarrassingly, I'd never even visited www.maxi.com.au, although I had heard of it ...

First of all, the Internet by railway venture is not using any public money as I recall. It can live off the money that poor users want to spend for Internet and telephone connections plus some donations.

For why the Internet is relevant for India in general, see this article. Many of the large players are moving into the Indian market. Why should the rural areas be cut out of this new part of society in India any more than here?

Being broken up would probably be one of the better things to happen to Microsoft: the individual companies could work more independently, their "top management" could focus on just one market, their stock prices would soar, and they would still end up dominating each market and cooperating.

And the buisnesses co-operating isn't necessarily a bad thing at all. Colluding to the exclusion of other buisnesses would be disasterous, but hopefully market forces and the threat of further regulatory action would prevent that.

Speaking of the Economist, they recently had an article about M$'s tactic of "embrace, extend and extinguish" with regards to open standards: this time Kerberos.

Probably nothing new to readers here, but it is nice to know that at least some of the press isn't totally clueless about M$'s tactics.

Speaking of the Economist, they recently had an article about M$'s tactic of "embrace, extend and extinguish" with regards to open standards: this time Kerberos.

Probably nothing new to readers here, but it is nice to know that at least some of the press isn't totally clueless about M$'s tactics.

The trouble with derivatives is that they're too damn clever. IANAA, but here's an excerpt from the Economist article Bill Parish mentions on his website. It includes a quote from Warren Buffett, who ought to know what he's talking about:

Some maintain that these numbers exaggerate the problem: there is genuine dispute over how best to calculate and account for the cost of executive options. But this is quibbling. Warren Buffett, a well-known American investor, put the case succinctly for tightening the rules on share-option schemes in the recent annual report of his investment company, Berkshire Hathaway. "Accounting principles offer management a choice: pay employees in one form and count the cost, or pay them in another form and ignore the cost. Small wonder then that the use of options has mushroomed," he observes. "If options aren't a form of compensation, what are they? If compensation isn't an expense, what is it? And, if expenses shouldn't go into the calculation of earnings, where in the world should they go?"

The Economist has an interesting article: When Life is More Interesting than Art about American Beauty, Hollywood, and the suburbs.

The Economist has an interesting article: When Life is More Interesting than Art about American Beauty, Hollywood, and the suburbs.

The article mentions the issue of legalization of drugs a couple of times, but doesn't go too far. If you're interested, read this article by The Economist magazine. Instead of just saying "war on drugs is bad," they actually present hard data and prove this point with great precision and accuracy. I got hooked up on The Economist after reading the article :)

This has all happened long ago! When motion pictures were invented at the turn of the century, patents were used by Edison and several large Eastern industrialists to try to dominate the creation and distribution of moving pictures.

It's rather odd, but the same Hollywood that now screams to expand it's protection via questionable IP laws, once was a group of lawless pirates ready to flee to Mexico if the Edison patent police showd up. This story in the millenial edition of The Economist talks breifly about Hollywood's checkered birth.

When an open source video streaming player gets under development, hopefully the project won't have to be run out of Uzbekistan to escape the Real/Microsoft/Apple patent police. If it is, though, thank Hollywood for the inspiration!

This has all happened long ago! When motion pictures were invented at the turn of the century, patents were used by Edison and several large Eastern industrialists to try to dominate the creation and distribution of moving pictures.

It's rather odd, but the same Hollywood that now screams to expand it's protection via questionable IP laws, once was a group of lawless pirates ready to flee to Mexico if the Edison patent police showd up. This story in the millenial edition of The Economist talks breifly about Hollywood's checkered birth.

When an open source video streaming player gets under development, hopefully the project won't have to be run out of Uzbekistan to escape the Real/Microsoft/Apple patent police. If it is, though, thank Hollywood for the inspiration!

• Too much money being spent in advertising
• Too little money spent on logistics
• The e-something mentality ( "The Internet is so hot that nobody will care" )

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