Slashdot Mirror

a subject that can be felt on both sides is divided into Democrat and Republican. It is not that simple. In case you haven't noticed, they have both screwed us over. They both have their price. I thought his post was good, no matter which way he leaned. And from what I read, he did stick to the topic. And please don't tell me you're crying about his references to the Iraqi occuaption. In the few references he made to it in his post, I believe he was correct. If you don't think so, then feel free to take a look at the estimate of how much it's going to cost to occupy and rebuild Iraq. Oh...that's right, you can't because the initiative to get the administration to reveal how much it would cost was voted down by the same people you appear to support in your post.

Talk about off-topic... :)

Anyways, this is not something that can be divided into left and right. If the corporations really were here for us, they would have found a way to legitimize P2P and compensate the artists for it. But they haven't and are serving people billion-dollar lawsuits to show their gratitude for us being their customers. Something is going to happen, regardless. Maybe these corporations that are way out of control will be put on a leash, maybe people who divide things into democrat and repupblican will realize it's not that easy.

They might sign away 49% of their custody and send you to a Behavioral Modification Center offshore in Jamaica staffed by uneducated/uncertified people who will "restrain" you into submission.

They'll guaranteed you're kids will come back saying, "I love you mama" while giving you a pretty flower, just like the kids on Maury!

Of course, they might have specifically advertised the £5-for-a-CD-of-music service

Indeed they did

Read this:

AP article on Canada

Note well this statment:

more Canadians have emigrated to the United States than vice versa - the 2001 figures were 5,894 Americans moving north, 30,203 Canadians moving south.

Parent was referring to fuel costs as reason for axing Concorde. Maintenance is ususually expensive

So far as I know, it has NEVER shown a profit, so I take your contention with a large grain of salt. I'd love to see a citation if you happen to have one. I'd like to be proven wrong! I think it's a great aircraft.

There are a few third parties references to BAsaying that the service had been profitable (e.g. here and here), but I can't find an authoritative reference for you. Old copies of the company annual report stated this, but I can only find the current report online.

In any case, "profit" here means in the accounting sense of making a profit during one year, not lifetime profit including development costs. Frankly, I don't care: we could afford it and it was worth doing.

Wanker.

Is that an insult? Haven't you heard the latest news?

Helping hand in cancer fight

If youre concerned about psychopaths in management read this article and google for the author of Bully in Sight, Tim Field.

Bad example. One thing Salon's not gonna avoid is bankruptcy.

The New York Times digital edition does not have the same problems that Salon does.

Of course, maybe the Grauniad is not the best place for an article about inaccuracies.

Speak for yourself. The New York Times is loaded with so many innacuracies that Slashdot looks like a well researched, well written news hub.

When they won't let you vote in the first place. The most chilling aspect of what happened in Florida had nothing to do with fraudulent votes, it was the widespread disenfranchisement of minority voters by their very own government.

Here is why I think Howard Dean can be elected:

1. He's swinging to the left in the primary to enegize the base. His anti-war, (almost) univeral health care, anti tax cuts for the rich, and pro civil unions stance will ensure that the liberal Democrats and some Greens will throw their support behind them.

2. Then, for the general he'll move to the center (much the way Bush did in 2000) by saying emphasizing (1) his position on the budget (he's a deficit hawk), (2) his position on education: special ed. is a huge unfunded mandate and the so-called, yet underfunded, "No Child Behind" takes rights away from municipalities, and (3) his states' right approach to gun control will help him in winnable western states (New Mexico, Colorado, and maybe Montana).

3. The way the economy is going, it might be *the* issue in the election, helping any Democrat.

4. National security: maybe not Dean's strong suit, but he can emphasize his first responder credentials (as both a physician and a Governor), blast Bush for not fully funding homeland security, and maybe even attack him on the Iraq decision (new poll show public support quickly eroding).

5. Meanwhile, Republicans are "misunderestimating" Dean's ability to do the above four, thus catching them off-guard and winning the "low expectations" game in the media.

6. I'll stop there even though the list goes on (use of Internet, perceived as straight-shooter, etc.)

Anyway, it's *way* too far out to say that someone can't be elected. So much happens in so little time in politics.

I don't see what good that huge military is doing for us. I don't see any planes being flown into buildings in Canada, Sweden or any of those other countries. If you have a huge military, you're not just going to have them sitting on their asses, getting ready to defend the country. You're going to put it to use. And that starts trouble of it's own, with backlashes of it's own. So your need for increased defense is fed by the the tool you use for defense.

Or maybe I'm just wrong. Maybe it's because those other countries have "fewer liberties" then we do (one wonders where you get such facts given the current political climate, new legislation, invasion of civil rights and transformation of media outlets into mouthpieces in the US, [an interesting article that I read today being here actually, while it's not totally related]). Maybe that's why we have to live under the fear of the terrorism level rainbow. Because after all, that's why this all happens. "They hate our freedom", right?

Scientology is based on space aliens attacking earth and cave men flying space ships to fight them.

Iran Hostage crisis ---> Started under Carter. Ended under Reagan.

Actually it started in 1953 when Eisenhower ordered the CIA to overthrow the popularly elected (as in a real democratic election) prime minister of Iran, Mossadegh, by pushing Reza Pahlava, the Shah, to expel him. Riots ensued, the Shah fled, the CIA put the riots down, brought the Shaw back, and trained SAVAK; who went on to earn Amnesty International's award for "worst human rights record on the planet" in 1976. That's the year Carter was elected, he didn't take office 'till 77. I'm not sure how you can imply he was responsible for the revolt in 79 to overthrow a brutal and repressive regime.

As for Reagan's illustrious involvement in the hostage crisis: He traded weapons to the Ayatollah Khomeini, the forces of darkness, to secure their release. Even Reagan admitted it. A very clever move, now known as the October Surprise, which was significant in defeating Carter.

Star Wars ---> Dreamed up in the 70's continues today. Even Clinton continued to fund it.

"When President Reagan first issued his challenge to America's scientific community to find a defense against ballistic missiles..." Clinton did continue funding, but then Clinton governed as a moderate republican, unfortunately.

Grenada ---> Warehouses full of Soviet weapons seized just before the 'rebellion' was to start. Talk to 82nd airborne vets about what they found and saw before you think it was a joke.

Greneda was no joke for the Grenadines. They had made the mistake of electing Maurice Bishop who, alas, was mildly socialist. CIA destabilization began shortly thereafter under Carter in '79, actually, but given the animosity and outright betrayal of Carter by the UberRight in the defense organization (Ollie et al, see above), it's not clear he knew anything about it. Given that Grenada was a managed news event, you should be careful of any "news" you read about it, and the dangerous weapons they had. Remember pfc Lynch's "Rescue."

War on drugs ---> Bush Sr., Nancy was "Just say No to drugs." Not to mention drug use DID decline through the end of the 80's and early 90's. The war is 'lost' because we (people and government) lost focus not because it could not be won.

US prohibition has quite a long history, all of it embarrassing. Reagan did declare the "War on Drugs," but what that really meant, and continues to mean is difficult to ascertain. One thing is for sure, it is not about helping people. Mentioning Gary Webb's careful and exceptionally well documented journalism runs contrary to the charade, but the evidence is strong that under Reagan the CIA was supporting the sale of cocaine in the US to fund the Contras after congress confronted the CIA's arms sales underwritten funding.

Central America ---> What part? And no fair bringing up Nicaragua. You already have Iran-Contra on the list. And if you thing the Sandinistas were better than the Contras you're frikin' nuts.

The difference is the Sandinistas were the popularly elected government and the Contras were the private army of Samoza, evacuated, rearmed, retrained, and reinserted

Iran Hostage crisis ---> Started under Carter. Ended under Reagan.

Actually it started in 1953 when Eisenhower ordered the CIA to overthrow the popularly elected (as in a real democratic election) prime minister of Iran, Mossadegh, by pushing Reza Pahlava, the Shah, to expel him. Riots ensued, the Shah fled, the CIA put the riots down, brought the Shaw back, and trained SAVAK; who went on to earn Amnesty International's award for "worst human rights record on the planet" in 1976. That's the year Carter was elected, he didn't take office 'till 77. I'm not sure how you can imply he was responsible for the revolt in 79 to overthrow a brutal and repressive regime.

As for Reagan's illustrious involvement in the hostage crisis: He traded weapons to the Ayatollah Khomeini, the forces of darkness, to secure their release. Even Reagan admitted it. A very clever move, now known as the October Surprise, which was significant in defeating Carter.

Star Wars ---> Dreamed up in the 70's continues today. Even Clinton continued to fund it.

"When President Reagan first issued his challenge to America's scientific community to find a defense against ballistic missiles..." Clinton did continue funding, but then Clinton governed as a moderate republican, unfortunately.

Grenada ---> Warehouses full of Soviet weapons seized just before the 'rebellion' was to start. Talk to 82nd airborne vets about what they found and saw before you think it was a joke.

Greneda was no joke for the Grenadines. They had made the mistake of electing Maurice Bishop who, alas, was mildly socialist. CIA destabilization began shortly thereafter under Carter in '79, actually, but given the animosity and outright betrayal of Carter by the UberRight in the defense organization (Ollie et al, see above), it's not clear he knew anything about it. Given that Grenada was a managed news event, you should be careful of any "news" you read about it, and the dangerous weapons they had. Remember pfc Lynch's "Rescue."

War on drugs ---> Bush Sr., Nancy was "Just say No to drugs." Not to mention drug use DID decline through the end of the 80's and early 90's. The war is 'lost' because we (people and government) lost focus not because it could not be won.

US prohibition has quite a long history, all of it embarrassing. Reagan did declare the "War on Drugs," but what that really meant, and continues to mean is difficult to ascertain. One thing is for sure, it is not about helping people. Mentioning Gary Webb's careful and exceptionally well documented journalism runs contrary to the charade, but the evidence is strong that under Reagan the CIA was supporting the sale of cocaine in the US to fund the Contras after congress confronted the CIA's arms sales underwritten funding.

Central America ---> What part? And no fair bringing up Nicaragua. You already have Iran-Contra on the list. And if you thing the Sandinistas were better than the Contras you're frikin' nuts.

The difference is the Sandinistas were the popularly elected government and the Contras were the private army of Samoza, evacuated, rearmed, retrained, and reinserted

But the 12 aircraft carriers are fucking awesome to have when it comes time to destroy some country for allowing the a terrorist mastermind to operate there in freedom.

Holy shit US $5 billion, thats a lot of bread.

Townshend escapes child porn charges

"After a four-month investigation, London's Metropolitan police said that Townshend "was not in possession of any downloaded child abuse images," but had accessed a site containing such images in 1999."

We might have extradition treaties with the UK, but to invoke it [...] would completely overrun law enforcement offices

Hardly. Since our home secretary signed away our rights on Extradition issues with the US, all the US authorities have to do is specify whom they would like extradited, and under our new treaty obligations, we have to hand them over. the defendant is not permitted to waste US time and resources by having the extradition questioned in a british court, is not allowed to waste US time and resources by demanding access to any evidence which might exist against him/her, is not allowed to waste US time and resources by expecting a prima facie case to be presented at all.

US demands, we get shipped off to the US, end of story. Hardly a legal burden at all, since there's no legal component to the whole process.

Rather elegantly, this means it's now possible for a UK citizen to go all the way from freedom to the death-chamber at Guantanamo without the tedious and expensive involvement of a single Judge, let alone a Jury. I suspect it's probably now *harder* to extradite someone from the next State than from the UK.

TomV (prole, Airstrip One)

"UK Parliament Clears Govt of Misleading on Iraq" - Reuters/Washington Post.

"Campbell cleared by MPs over Iraq dossier" - Daily Telegraph.

"Dossier report clears Campbell" - The Guardian.

"Iraq weapons claims criticised" - BBC headline.

• With a network of five cameras on each court, linked into complex computer technology used to analyse the movement and behaviour of the ball, Hawk-Eye will allow the BBC's commentary team to replay shots through 360 degrees, examine players' choice of shot selection and
• look at contentious line calls.

• From 2nd link: Hawk-Eye uses dedicated cameras to track the players and ball with high accuracy. Principally, this is used to provide the conclusive answer to whether a ball was in or out. Hawk-Eye takes the skid and compression of the ball into account and can achieve accuracies of up to 2-3 mm. As well as resolving the controversial incidents, Hawk-Eye also brings a new range of statistics which have never previously been available. These help to analyse the strengths & weaknesses of each player and provide a fresh insight into the game.

Would the testing help in this situation?

1. Bell Did not invent the telephone.
2. While you might argue that we all (eventually) benefited from the phone's existence the mere fact that it came from a private source changes how it behaved and how we benefit. To take one example, consider AZT and the current crop of AIDS drugs. They were produced using publicly funded medical research and private sponsorship. They are currently the private property of a handful of companies. Because of that those companies are free to restrict the sale of the drugs and to raise their prices beyond what many AIDS sufferers around the world can afford.
   
   Yes the sufferers that can afford the drugs get help. And years from now when the patents expire the rest of the world can get help too but for right now, they are not really helping everyone.

3. The problem with the government space program is that government has a monopoly. They aren't driven to innovate.

   Prove it. So far as I can tell from the ISS, attempts to produce the reusable launch vehicles NASA has been and still is innovating.

4. Let's say rich people start wanting to blast themselves into space. Well, even if you are rich, we are still talking about quite a bit of money. There would be great competition for cheaper, reusable launch vehicles (something NASA is having trouble with). Imagine if we imposed a tax to counter the environmental effects of a launch (something NASA just ignores), then our space program gets more environmentally friendly.

   The competition for such launch vehicles already exists and is growing. Many many countries and companies want to get into space and are investing in the technology to do so. Eliminating NASA from space would make no difference.
   
   The U.S. just passed a tax cut that specifically benefitted the wealthy while shafting the poor (the child tax credit was denied to anyone making less than 30k per year). Do you really think that the government of such a country would levy a tax on space travel if only the rich do it?

5. Would rich people that risk big money on new things reap big rewards if they suceed? Of course. Thats what risk taking is about. But everyone could be a risk taker. There would be highly-speculative corporations for space exploring that anyone could invest in, with high-risk, but potentially reward. It would not be unlike bio-tech stocks.

   In the world of IMClone, Enron and others where we are just coming off of the internet stock bubble I am dubious that high-risk stocks are a benefit.

6. Finally, we could end some of the missions of no value except political or international appeal (John Glenn back into space... why again?). With solid economic drivers, either there are good reasons (which could include high-earning tourists with money, or research for potential new drugs or inventions), or the enterprise wouldn't do it.

   I will grant you that Glenn's mission was a pure publicity stunt but I seriously disagree with the assertion that NASA doesn't run any studies of economic importance. Recent Shuttle missions (and the ISS itself) have carried many economically beneficial missions to test new materials, study cancer, and make other gains. It isn't all Glenn.

7. All in all, America is the most profit-driven country, and the most innovative (as measured by patents awarded, scientific nobel-prizes, and other similiar distinctions). What's wrong with extending what has worked for us this far into space?

   You are going to have to prove that we are "the most innovative." And that that innovation is solely due to the profit motive. Somehow I doubt that so broad a claim can be made or that we can reasonably argue that the profit motive has always helped us.

8. 
   
   You are

Doesn't matter. Friedman is a working journalist employed by a prominent, mainstream news organization. Bias matters, whether it's in his books, columns, speaking engagements or anywhere else in the public sphere. You can't cherry-pick, then turn around and honestly claim he isn't biased.

You seem to misunderstand the definition of the word "reporting" as it's used by journalists. As they use it, reporting is a process. Whether it's for a news article, a column, an editorial, or even a book, reporting is the process they go through to collect and balance information so they can present it to an audience.

RobertFisher: A good op-ed column should generate thought-provoking discussion and debate, which (as evident from the discussion in this thread and by your own account) is precisely what Friedman's column is doing.

I guess you missed the major points of my post, which I prominently summarized so there would be no confusion. Here they are again:

A good journalist:

1. Gets his facts right.
2. Gets her facts right.
3. Gets facts right.
4. Gets good, knowledgeable sources.
5. Writes well.

To be unambiguously clear, my previous post is concerned with facts and their accuracy. That is the most fundamental aspect of good journalism, again, whether it's for a news article, a column, an editorial, or even a book. Anyone who doesn't meet this basic standard is, by definition, a hack.

Any hack who makes facile arguments based on gross oversimplifications, errors, inaccuracies or misrepresentations is, by definition, a simplistic hack.

It's a given that a good column should generate discussion and debate. But the assumption is that the debate is about the substantive elements of the column -- arguments based on accurate facts.

The Friedman column in question is riddled with inaccuracies and obtuse claims. The discussion and debate surrounding it is not about the ideas expressed, it's about the lack of factual accuracy and the claims he then makes.

By any measure, it's not a good column.

I also did not say that a news article "should not generate controversy," as you wrote. I completely disagree with you. Some of the best news stories generate controversy. The Watergate scandal is one example. The Kuwait baby incubator story from Gulf War I is another. A lot of award-winning stories are ones that generate controversy.

RobertFisher: "Apparently the people who hand out Pulitzers (who should know a thing or two more about journalism than you) seemed to agree that Friedman's news reporting set the standards for oustanding journalism on two separate occassions."

I think the Pulitzer committee should know more about journalism than any single individual, too. But they've been known to give Pulitzers to people who didn't deserve them. One prominent example was Washington Post reporter Janet Cooke's 1981 Pulitzer for a fabricated story. She returned the prize.

Another example is the 1932 Pulitzer awarded to the New York Times' Walter Duranty for his reports from the Soviet Union. It's now known that he deliberately ignored the Ukrainian famine of the 1930s, and that his reports were outright propaganda for the Communists. Even the New York Times has distanced itself from Duranty's Pulitzer, yet the award remains unrevoked.

There's more on Cooke and Duranty in the Columbia Journalism Review.

Finally, why do you feel the need to resort to ad hominem attacks to build your case? I didn't attack you personally, so why do you impugn m

Known as the naturalistic fallacy, the problem of deriving norms from nature is very old indeed. It has to do with the impossibility of translating 'is' language (how things are) into 'ought' language (how things ought to be).

Another story from The Guardian here ...And if your interested in another or Darpa's projects which might fall under the YRO category: here

"Kaiko is designed to float to the surface and emit a tracking signal if its tether is broken. Although searchers briefly detected the beacon, they were unable to locate the probe and suspected it has either drifted off site or sunk to the bottom."

I am not privy to the design plans, but somehow this whole episode reeks of a malfunction of some failsafe system. I find it difficult to conceive of some design engineer not hedging his bets against something as inevitable as a severed tether.

Another poster noted RF being lossy underwater. My guess would been to place piezoelectric sonar transducers on the hull and ping them in the event the sub considered itself lost. It wouldn't take that much energy, but if you knew what kind of racket you were listening for, it would stand out from the normal oceanic noises.. kinda like those old war sub stories of marooned submariners taking a wrench and tapping out the morse code for SOS on the steel hull of the submarine.

Wow. Thanks for your international interest JBN.

It would be very helpful if you could send emails or faxes to MEPs. Your non-EU citizenship can be used as a positive, i.e.:
"As an American, I see first hand how software patents hurt innovation and competition in a software industry. Start ups find it hard to enter the market when they can be threatened with costly patent lawsuits and investors are nervous about giving funding to a company when they know that a deeper bank account will likely draw the attention of Intellectual Propertly law firms"

There is a listing of all EU MEPs at:
http://wwwdb.europarl.eu.int/ep5/owa/p_meps2.repar tition?ipid=0&ilg=EN&iorig=home&imsg=

Good arguments for talking to non-techs can be found at:
(RMS and Nick Hill, longish)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4683640,00. html
(and a short one from me:)
http://www.electronicsweekly.com/issue/inview.asp? vpath=/articles/2003/05/28/view02.htm

If you only speak english, stick with the UK and Ireland. Many EU citizens are already talking with their MEPs, your emails or faxes would be a great reinforcement.

Ciaran O'Riordan

Must say I feel quite sorry for you if you think calling bullshit on Harry Potter is elitist.

Matter of fact; most people who read Harry Potter don't read much else. If they did, they might've discovered that there is more to this thing called literature than the tripe that is hyped on low brow tv.

Most things that are very popular are utter crap. Peoples taste are very different, so when a pheomenon like Harry Potter springs up, you can be sure that there are external factors that count, not the actual quality of the work.

Within 72 hours of The Order of the Phoenix being published my partner and I had both read it cover to cover; I'm currently reading it for the second time. She's 39 and I'm 47; we have no children. We've both read all of the Harry Potter books, the first long before it was filmed. There are somewhere between five and ten thousand novels in this house - we both read a lot.

J K Rowling's work is not 'bullshit'. It's not, in my opinion, great literature either, but it is superb and highly imaginative story telling, tightly plotted and compellingly told and stands repeated reading.

There are two particular things I can point to which indicate that the Harry Potter phenomenon is something genuine in terms of literature. The first is, of course, that the first Harry Potter book came out from a small independent publisher with no fanfare at all. The whole snowball effect was entirely by word of mouth, at least until The Philosopher's Stone was filmed. Up to that point there were no external factors - no marketing, no colateral - so that only the intrinsic quality of the work could have made it one of the biggest best sellers of all time.

The other thing is that, in the UK, the publishers brought out an 'adult binding' of the Harry Potter books because they found that adult readers were embarrassed to be seen reading a "children's book" on public transport. This had never been done before for any other "children's book"

Both the original binding and the 'adult binding' of several Harry Potter books have separately been on the best sellers lists in Britain for years, and an individual Harry Potter book has been the best selling book in Britain for three of the last four years (in 2001, Harry Potter books took the top four places on the best sellers list). At this moment, Harry Potter books are first, second, eighth, ninth, seventeenth, and twenty-second on The Guardian's best sellers list. That's right, six places for five books. The second place, after the "children's binding" of Order of the Phoenix is the "adult binding" of the same title. Given that many adults will have the "children's binding" (we have) this indicates that roughly as many adults as children are reading the book.

Furthermore, apart from The Order of the Phoenix, all the Harry Potter books have Booktrack Platinum Awards for selling over a million copies within five years in Britain. Only six other books have ever won this award.

Harry Potter isn't a 'flash in the pan' success. It's a solid, consistent success over a period of years. It's a series of children's books, but it has sold well to adults. Its success long predates its marketing and is still out of all proportion to the amount of marketing effort it receives.

Of course, popularity is, as you say, no indicator of aesthetic merit. However, this degree of popularity sustained over this long indicates something, and it doesn't indicate hype because the popularity (at least in Britain) predates the hype, not the other way around. Yes, it's easy to appear superficially cool by rubbishing Rowling's work. But unless you have some alternative explanation for this degree of popularity, your shallowness and lack of

Must say I feel quite sorry for you if you think calling bullshit on Harry Potter is elitist.

Matter of fact; most people who read Harry Potter don't read much else. If they did, they might've discovered that there is more to this thing called literature than the tripe that is hyped on low brow tv.

Most things that are very popular are utter crap. Peoples taste are very different, so when a pheomenon like Harry Potter springs up, you can be sure that there are external factors that count, not the actual quality of the work.

Within 72 hours of The Order of the Phoenix being published my partner and I had both read it cover to cover; I'm currently reading it for the second time. She's 39 and I'm 47; we have no children. We've both read all of the Harry Potter books, the first long before it was filmed. There are somewhere between five and ten thousand novels in this house - we both read a lot.

J K Rowling's work is not 'bullshit'. It's not, in my opinion, great literature either, but it is superb and highly imaginative story telling, tightly plotted and compellingly told and stands repeated reading.

There are two particular things I can point to which indicate that the Harry Potter phenomenon is something genuine in terms of literature. The first is, of course, that the first Harry Potter book came out from a small independent publisher with no fanfare at all. The whole snowball effect was entirely by word of mouth, at least until The Philosopher's Stone was filmed. Up to that point there were no external factors - no marketing, no colateral - so that only the intrinsic quality of the work could have made it one of the biggest best sellers of all time.

The other thing is that, in the UK, the publishers brought out an 'adult binding' of the Harry Potter books because they found that adult readers were embarrassed to be seen reading a "children's book" on public transport. This had never been done before for any other "children's book"

Both the original binding and the 'adult binding' of several Harry Potter books have separately been on the best sellers lists in Britain for years, and an individual Harry Potter book has been the best selling book in Britain for three of the last four years (in 2001, Harry Potter books took the top four places on the best sellers list). At this moment, Harry Potter books are first, second, eighth, ninth, seventeenth, and twenty-second on The Guardian's best sellers list. That's right, six places for five books. The second place, after the "children's binding" of Order of the Phoenix is the "adult binding" of the same title. Given that many adults will have the "children's binding" (we have) this indicates that roughly as many adults as children are reading the book.

Furthermore, apart from The Order of the Phoenix, all the Harry Potter books have Booktrack Platinum Awards for selling over a million copies within five years in Britain. Only six other books have ever won this award.

Harry Potter isn't a 'flash in the pan' success. It's a solid, consistent success over a period of years. It's a series of children's books, but it has sold well to adults. Its success long predates its marketing and is still out of all proportion to the amount of marketing effort it receives.

Of course, popularity is, as you say, no indicator of aesthetic merit. However, this degree of popularity sustained over this long indicates something, and it doesn't indicate hype because the popularity (at least in Britain) predates the hype, not the other way around. Yes, it's easy to appear superficially cool by rubbishing Rowling's work. But unless you have some alternative explanation for this degree of popularity, your shallowness and lack of

Sure do. Ironically*, I read it at the Guardian's website! (about halfway down) I second the recommendation.

*Sorry about that.

fixed link

What we really need are 'kill' 'xkill' 'ckill' killer programs for clippys (and, hopefully, clippies).

On the same vein, instant "sleeep" irradiators for all these "intelligent" helpers popping up everywhere. ( Dibs ! *I* got dibs on calling that program / system / method "Alurac". Ok ?!" :).

When the Hectors, Skynets, HALs, etc. start bossing you through those neat-o wearable intracranial implants, well, don't say you were not warned. Besides, I do *not* want anything external controlling my intraviagra implant system ("From root to cortex. Hitting all the right spots!"). There is absolutely *no* need for some stupid, er, "intelligent" machine deciding that my attitude towards it is too cool and aloof and that I never take it anywhere anymore and that I never enjoy it like I used to.... etc. and so on... :)

Of course, the system might "intelligently" and helpfully stop you from remembering it. For your own convenience, and to keep you any unecessary stress, naturally. All via that "oh so useful" hippocampus memory-control chip. Such as in here , or here , or, or , etc.

All I have to say is... Hail Tesla ! :)

And, quote from The Observer:
In a move that has taken the Russian pirate disk world by storm and infuriated traditionalists and copyright lawyers, Puchkov has completely changed the script, turning the 'good' characters, like Frodo, into bumbling Russian cops, and the 'bad' Orcs into Russian gangsters.

The new, irreverent version of The Lord of the Rings is set in Russia. Frodo Baggins is renamed Frodo Sumkin (a derivative from the Russian word sumka, or bag). The Ranger, Aragorn, is called Agronom (Russian for farm worker). Legolas is renamed Logovaz, after a Russian car company famed for its Ladas. Boromir becomes Baralgin, after a Russian type of paracetemol.

Gandalf spends much of the film trying to impress others with his in-depth knowledge of Karl Marx, and Frodo is cursed with the filthy tongue of a Russian criminal.

Gendalf is actually a Pendalf, where PENDAL is a jargon equivalent for English "ass kick".

PS
Of course, I'm Russian. ;)

Later he throws in this little paranoia bit about "Do you really want your car's tires broadcasting your every move?" What's that about? He knows they don't "broadcast" and that you'd have to be within several feet to monitor. You already have a frickin license plate on your car, so who cares?

Trancievers in every street light...
London would be the first city to implement it.

how long will it take for commercial "scanners" to come around, so you can locate the chip and neutralize it?

How long will it take for DMCA-like laws that make that practice illegal?

I can't WAIT for the day when I just walk out the door with a cart full of stuff and it's automatically taken out of my checking account. that would well be worth someone being able to count how many hammers I buy in a month.

Yes, and I can't wait for organised crime to automatically skim a lil' bit off the top of all our checking accounts as we walk past 'em.
Not much, just a few bucks per person, walk around in a crowd and you'd make a few thousand dollars in minutes...

• IBM had an AT&T SysV 'viral' license
• IBM subcontracted microsoft to provide (let's not go into the details) an OS for their first PCs
• Therefore the SysV license 'virally' spread via the PC-DOS contract to cover PC-DOS
• IBM further co-developed the early versions of OS/2 with microsoft
• Thus 'all' of microsoft's OS experience is 'derived' from their co-operation with 'virally tainted' IBM. (remember that SCO appear to claim that IBM were entirely incapable of writing OS software until they had access to sysV UNIX source, which obviously has the ring of, er, ?)
• Thus (look, did I ever say these guys weren't clinically deranged?) ALL microsoft OS's, from PC-DOS through to Windows Server 2003, are, in the greedy twinkling eyes of SCO, 'derived works' of AT&T UNIX as covered by its purportedly 'viral' license, and therefore the rightful property of SCO.

I wasn't commenting on the orignal claims of 170,000, I was commenting on the /.er's claim that only a few were stolen, so in that context, yes it is the part that struck me.

The
Guardian reports "33 major items and around 2,000 minor works have gone". So to use the 33 number as the "real" number of items stolen is almost as bogus as the original claim (an exageration factor of 65 compared to a factor of 81 for the original claim). Over 33 major pieces and 2,000 pieces minor pieces from a museum in the birthplace of civilization is NOT inconsequential however it may relate to the original claim. Civilization is not about to be reborn again anytime soon so there is no replacing those items. Toss the numbers around however you'd like, there was a significant loss.

The analogy to Iraqi stolen treasures may be misplaced. While initially there were reports that thousands, or, as Maddog says, "a lot of them were removed from the world," later reports in the NY Times and Wall Street Journal put the number of verified pieces missing at 25 in one piece I read and 33 in another.

It turns out that the museum staff stored hundreds and thousands of pieces in their homes, and more valuable pieces had been stored in bank vaults since the first Gulf War. I don't have the Times/WSJ links, but a quick google search turned up this article and this article confirming those basic findings. The later article does mention larger numbers for "minor" pieces, whatever that means.

(On second thought, maybe the analogy holds: lots of sound and fury about stolen IP, followed by findings that very little was taken...)

--LP

Anyway, I realize the speech was about something else and this quote was probably selected because of its topical nature (or the reporter's leanings), but the story has been well disproven as a falsehood seized upon by the media in their frenzy to discredit the US and the UK. I'm surprised to see the "thousands and thousands" version of the story, intended to swing public opinion against the Iraq war, still being referenced.

"These treasures were created over tens of thousands of years, and all of a sudden, because of the lack of foresight of a few greedy people, a lot of them were removed from the world," he said. "The world has to decide whether or not to send in troops to guard this free and open-source software, to protect it for the world's use."

Even The Guardian has backed off of the earlier story.

If you want a right-wing source instead of a left-wing source, try WorldNetDaily which was published more than a month before the Guardian one (it helps to use multiple sources).

And even if the original version of the story had been true, I could really care less about some museum pieces compared to the lives of the US and UK military, the Iraqi people, the Kurds, etc.

Ask Eminem. His album was prereleased via P2P and went straight to #1... notice he isn't whining about P2P cutting into his sales.

I thought I heard him complaining and saying he wanted to beat them up?

The Paris-based daily (Le Monde) reported that a third of French people want Saddam Hussein to win the war, while another third do not feel they are on the same side as Britain and America. Overall disapproval for the war is at 78% ...

"France's decision to use the veto against any further Security Council resolution has in effect disarmed the United Nations instead of disarming Iraq." - a UK Member of Parliament, March 18, 2003

Here is a quote:

Among its graduates are many of the continent's most notorious torturers, mass murderers, dictators and state terrorists. As hundreds of pages of documentation compiled by the pressure group SOA Watch show, Latin America has been ripped apart by its alumni.

I recommend reading the whole article. It's from a very highly respected British newspaper.

Everything you believe about the USA is false. It used to be all true about the freedom loving nation, up to around the 50s, but after that things went sour and everyone put their heads in the sand and sought out to ignore anything nasty that their country does. Schools began to teach less and less about things that put their country in a bad light, instead focusing on the prowd and admiral things (e.g. the declaration of independance). For example, did you know that the population of the Native Americans was reduced from around 20 million to half a million in the space of 50 years? Ethnic cleansing perhaps? Another holocaust? The figures are similar, but hardly anyone knows about it.

I believe that countries should teach children about the bad things they have done, in order to prevent similar things happening in future. However, the American phsyce is that of someone who can do no wrong, and that is a very dangerous situation.

Sorry, I'm not trolling or being anti-US, but that's the way it is. I'm in the UK, and my government is just as bad. We talk of Saddam bombing the Kurds, but Winston Churchill did the exact same thing in 1920s. We supplied crackpots like Saddam with powerful WoMD. Popular history has a very selective memory.

So that makes this sort of thing alright then? ;-)

Joking aside, terrorism is terrorism. I'm sure there are many Saudi's that want the US out of their country, and they believe that terrorism is a way to do it. Exactly the same scenario and neither is morally acceptable.

So Cuba didn't have missiles?

Yeah, they did have missiles, however the USA also had missiles in Turkey at the time. The Soviets wanted to put missiles on Cuba to even the playing field, remember this is before the days of ICBMs and nukes had a relatively short range. Turkey could strike Moscow, Cuba could strike Washington. The big lie about the Cuban Missile Crisis is that no one knew about the Turkey missles except the relevant governments. The deal that led to us all being alive today was hinged on the mutual removal of both Turkey and Cuban missiles. The US kept the Turkey part of the deal secret and for 30 years proclaimed that they managed to get an "overly agressive" Russia to back down.

I'm saying he was going to become a part of the Soviet Bloc from the beginning.

If so, he would have used their support from the begining. It took a long time for him to reach power, including several failed revolutions.

At first, he was a really good leader. Not all dictators are arseholes! Like most politions though, he became corrupt with power. However, you shouldn't let your US-taught racism to automatically assume all things "socialist" are evil. There are many socialist states in Europe that are fairing much better than Capitism is, in terms of business and standard of living.

Remember, socialism != communism and communism != Stalinism. Only the last one is the one you should fear.

I don't think you're taking this seriously enough.

According to this article today's Guardian, pirates killed or injured 145 people at sea in the first three months of this year. There are calls for the Royal Navy to station warships in the affected areas, to protect trade routes.

So you see, piracy is an ongoing and deadly threat... oh wait... *reads thread again*... Somebody seems to have started using the word "piracy" to mean "copyright violation". What an odd thing to do.

Interestingly, the German geovernment...

The US government isn't any saint when it comes to stifling free speech. The only difference is that the US government does it in an underhand way using whatever tactics it can to bully or coherce to get what it wants, rather than by using laws. Which is better? At least with laws it is out in the open and gets discussed in a transparent manner.

A worrying development: Bush's government are trying to coherce NGOs to promote positive views of the government and the USA, saying that NGOs (that's Non-Governmental Organisations) are just another arm of the government. Read more here:

Now Bush wants to buy the complicity of aid workers

More incidents like these

The summary is that the new technology will enable Hollywood to crush all competition, small and large. Through closed "standards" they will control who can use the projection equipment and what it plays and when. Because no local copy exists, it will all be under the control of the current big movie makers. By using a an industry body like the DVD consortium, they can make sure that no one but them has access to the secret format the projectors use and keep projection equipment so high, no one can afford to have anything but them. So, it will be there way or the highway. No mix and match and no competition except from complete independetnts who will be hobbled by a lack of equivalent quality equipment.

It's the same old story since media was invented, patent, legislate, collude and screw everyone you can. Nasty My prediction is that the DMCA will be used to prevent people from making free projectors the same way it's being used to keep people from modding their xbox or refilling toner cartidges.

The summary is that the new technology will enable Hollywood to crush all competition, small and large. Through closed "standards" they will control who can use the projection equipment and what it plays and when. Because no local copy exists, it will all be under the control of the current big movie makers. By using a an industry body like the DVD consortium, they can make sure that no one but them has access to the secret format the projectors use and keep projection equipment so high, no one can afford to have anything but them. So, it will be there way or the highway. No mix and match and no competition except from complete independetnts who will be hobbled by a lack of equivalent quality equipment.

It's the same old story since media was invented, patent, legislate, collude and screw everyone you can. Nasty My prediction is that the DMCA will be used to prevent people from making free projectors the same way it's being used to keep people from modding their xbox or refilling toner cartidges.

the projection of the ball isn't going to be greatly altered during the next metre