Slashdot Mirror

The american textile industry was jump-started by stiff tariffs on imports, 25% in 1816.
In the beginning, factories produced coarse cloth for the domestic market, not finished goods. Reader's Companion to American History The concentration of industry, trade and finance in the North would have dire consequences for the slave-holding South.

How about encouraging the "patient" to go outside or do something constructive, instead of coercing him into repeating a mindless task for no real reward. [...]
I have no objection to psychotropic drugs and behavioral treatments when used judiciously to relieve real suffering or addiction. But using these tools to homogenize children to the societal norm is absolutely repugnant. How we can get through to these deranged teachers, parents, and psychiatrists?

As somebody with ADD who has tried the meds and benefited from them, I can't bring myself to be quite as outraged as you.

I agree that what is probably going on is using drugs to adapt a minority to the modern society we've built for ourselves. But most people do that, albeit to a lesser extent. Try to find an office without a coffeepot. And look at the number of people who regularly have a drink after work.

I think the real culprit here is our evolutionary history: for a long time we were hunter-gatherer nomads, but we went through a farming period where staying in one place and leading a rote-filled, obedient, crappy life was the ticket to success. And we can't complain too much, as it gave us the infrastructure necessary to build up the industry that has freed 99% of the population from farm work.

Now things are changing again. Taylorism is dying out. Now we can stop being machines or computers. Indeed, given how different creative work is, we have to drop the old habits. I think part of that will be an educational system that is much better suited to people with ADD, and more difficult for people genetically inclined to be obedient sheep. It will take decades, and a lot of work, but I think we'll get there.

In the meantime, the notion that you would have to be on drugs to put up with traditional schools or cube-farm jobs is a nice bit of ironic truth.

The new-aged GOP is actually a very old American party: It's the Jacksonian party. Their core values haven't really changed (there's no mention of slavery, and they talk about the Arab Terrorists instead of the Indians, but that's just sematics).

Likewise, in the music industry, there is an overabundance of acts willing to sign on the dotted line with record companies to contracts which many underinformed idiots on slashdot somehow believe to be "unfair to the artist."

It's simply statistics; in a society of a few billion people it's easy to find a few dozen photogenic people per year (0.000001%) who will sign up. And yes, it is unfair, see this and this). For both the artists who are signed and the vast majority (99.9%+) who are not. The arts industry makes huge money, almost none of which goes to the artists.

---

It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work.
It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.
Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.

Repeatedly, in The Detroit News and in other media, the term "white flight" was used to describe the exodus that led to the city's white population decline from 1,545,847 in 1950 to 116,599 today, or 12.3 percent of Detroit's current population., which backs up White flight

"The loss of pedestrian-scale villages caused a loss of community connection. People no longer know their neighbors and rarely walk unless they place a high value on exercise."

"Although a few expensive items, such as pianos and sewing machines, had been sold on time before 1920, it was installment sales of automobiles during the twenties that established the purchasing of expensive consumer goods on credit as a middle-class habit and a mainstay of the American economy."

This is in addition to the economic dependence on foreign oil, environmental impact of pumping massive amount of CO2 into the air, and the health problems caused by these supposedly freedom loving people driving. The only "freedom" given by the car is being free to spend hours in gridlock because you choose to live far away enough from your job and think public transportation is for commoners. In very few instances is the car anything more than a glorified, highly visible status symbol.

As for it providing a life away from home and work, how exactly is it doing that, seeing as how nearly everywhere people drive to is a popular area, not Big Sur. Driving instead of taking the bus isn't freedom, it's laziness.

Some interesting articles I found looking up friendly fire:

Reader's Companion to Military History
World War 2 Friendly fire
Amicide (Study by US Military)
CBC Article on friendly fire in Iraq

You raise a good point that there are far too many friendly fire incidents in our military. I would venture to say it is due to overworking the individual soldier and not a lack of competence. Also friendly fire has been around for a long time and will never fully disappear, it is a fact of war.

My grammar is crap and if someone were to look over even this post I'm sure I've made a few glaring mistakes, but I do find it humorous to open your comment with "your" when "you're" is more appropriate.

Did you miss the part where I said "including being colonized"?

I don't doubt the Sami are people, but are they a distinct nation?

The Sami, in some places spelled "sammi" though with other variations of spelling, I wouldn't say are so much a distict nation as much as they are part of a group of interrelated peoples. They are related to the Lapps which is a derogitory term, Lapps call themselves Samek or Sambe, and range from northwestern Russia to Norway and Sweden. Also related are the Inuit of Iceland and northern Canada and Alaska. Because these people are spread over a broad area they have formed their own dialects and customs. Here's a link to a pdf on Artic languages from UNESCO, Artic Languages: An Awakening. It's quite large at 446 pages and more than 2MB. Here are more links:

• An introduction to the Sami people
• The Sami in Finland
• The Sami and Lapland
• The Kola Sami in Russia
• INUIT CIRCUMPOLAR CONFERENCE
• Eskimo (Yupik/Inupiat/Inuit)

Apparently part of the secret is that private contracts and generally accepted accounting principles don't have to have anything to do with each other (according to the link). Leading to some pretty creative techniques -- I like the Interest section in particular.

This kind of reminds me of Albini's paper on the recording industry, although I'm under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that the movie industry treats its people better.

When the Hatch Act was passed in response to rampant New Deal corruption, the kind of government contracting that exists now did not exist -- or they would have been included. But then if they had existed then the US would have lost WW II.

The US is the longest running continuous government in the modern world.

yep ;)

Only a fool believes this.

Bush did lower Tax. Other taxes had to go up because we could not AFFORD to lower governement payments.

But even if you are talking about total taxes, (which you clearly did NOT refer to originally), you are VERY wrong. Governments have in the past lowered net taxes. MANY times. It just takes a lowering of services to go with it.

The classic example of this happens just after a war, when the services lowered is national Defense. After WW II there was a significant tax lowerage, which lasted until the Korean war.

Instead of pulling crap out of thin air, try doing some research first. Start at this web site for more information about real tax cuts.

I'm not quite clear on what you mean by "lightweight" since the evolution of the US up to around 1900 is probably the most significant advance in democracy since Athens first started doing it more than 2500 years ago. Second, if France had done it right the first time, they wouldn't be using Republic version 5.0.

America is a newcomer in the area of creating and maintaining democratic government, and there is no support for the view that America's gun policies are responsible for the current existence of democracy in the US, in particular since attitudes towards guns and gun ownership were altogether different around the time of the American revolution.

Well, democracy among Old World immigrants in the US started almost 400 years ago from the establishment of pilgrim colonies in Massachusetts (excluding the remarkable Iroquois Confederacy which started in the 15th century and may be the oldest "participatory democracy" on Earth). That's far longer than most European countries.

I think you are right about the effect of easy importation. NYC's gun control is obviously ineffective when places as nearby as Vermont have unlicensed concealed carry, but Britain, as an island nation, seems to have resisted wholesale inward smuggling of guns and inward diffusion of gun-friendly culture until recently. The UK success appears to have been the result of banning guns early, and being an island. Globalization does not bode well for it.

Congress and public opinion did. Had he succeeded in getting Congress to pass the law, though, it would have all been quite constitutional. Bad idea, but constitutional.

I for one hope that they succeed with this tack. Why? Because if they succeed it will be relatively easy to apply the Sherman Anti-Trust provisions against RIAA itself and take it down for good. Don't believe me? Read it for yourself. History of the AntiTrust Movement

It is my belief that they are running headlong into a direct challenge with the very foundation of these and subsequent acts, "the Sherman Antitrust Act (1890). Its first two provisions made illegal "every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce...". How can anyone say that forcing the Universities to sign up for Napster under the threat of lawsuits is not a violation of this act?

Looks like NS Savannah is available.
It's cheap, at 1$ per year. Yes, really.

Since the dawn of sporting events, sports have been designed around the viewer, not the player.

That's ridiculous. All sports (except for pitiful commercial mutant creations like arena football) were originally played for the fun of the players. It took nearly forty years of widespread amateur play before the first pro baseball league was formed. I think that's all that's lacking here: time. As computer gamers grow up and games become more accepted (and spectator-friendly), it'll happen. Not that I consider it a good thing.

Yes. Let's not forget about what radical politics has brought to this world. Things like the 8 hour work day, women's right to vote, the Civil Rights movement, etc. That's just last century.

Take it back two or three and you have radicals taking on the Britsh Empire to found their own country, the birth of the labor movement, abolitionism of slavery, etc.

The funny thing is that so much of radical history has taken place in the United States, yet we try so hard to forget it. Example: Why don't we celebrate Labor Day in May like the rest of the world?

Another question: Why is anyone that challenges the status quo labeled as a "leftist" that is unable to critically think? Why is it that officially sanctioned "propaganda" that supports that status quo is viewed as balanced - and other views are not?

Your comments also just go to show "leftist" is relative. Frankly, I don't find Michael Moore all that radical or even "leftist". He's just getting some discussion going on regarding the current travesty that goes by the name of "War on Terror" and which I would bet - is funneling cash into the pockets of Bush's handlers and their cronies. I think its a pretty important dialogue we should all be having - irrespective of our political views.

You may not like what Michael Moore has to say - I haven't seen it so don't even know what he is saying - but at least see the movie for yourself and talk about it with people rather than trivializing it through a few select quotes from movie critics. Based on your selection, should I also label you as a right-winger that is outrageously manipulative in your quote selection?

Perhaps you would like to go back to the early 20th century when children were worked 14+ hour days, and people were treated like machines (oh, wait, that second one hasn't changed much). If it weren't for Unions, chances are that you would be working a miserable, low wage job, and the country would be entirely in the pockets of the rich by now. You have quite a bit to be grateful for, it's too bad that you don't realize it.

Child labor
Simply put, organized labor had little to do with the end of child labor. See, for instance, Houghton-Mifflin's Reader's Companion to American History. While organized labor was certainly involved in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (which implemented a sweeping federal solution) child labor advocates had been working on the issue (including passage of two laws by Congress that were overturned by the Supreme Court) since the 1880s. Their appeal to Eleanor Roosevelt, and her subsequent influence, were crucial to including child labor in the FLSA. To the extent that this was a union issue, it was because the unions recognized that a) children worked cheaper, and b) couldn't legally sign a yellow card (a parent or guardian would have to). Organized labor, even today, is generally hostile to child workers--routinely arguing for an increase in the minimum wage, not because it would have any impact on a union member, but because it drives up the price of cheap teenaged labor, making it less competitive.

And let's not get all ga-ga about the unions
While unions have certainly been instrumental in fighting corporate villains, unions have certainly been guilty of their own evils as well. Two words: "Longshoremen" and "Teamsters." Organized crime figured out a long time ago that managing the assets of a union was a substantially better way to steal money than holding up banks--the Teamsters' Central States Pension Fund was plundered by the Mob and its union leadership cronies, with absolutely zero concern for the workers they claimed to represent.

And it isn't just crime
Sometimes the union behaves just like the Big Business they claim to oppose. Case in point: in the early 1980s Mack Truck was faced with an aging assembly plant in Allentown, Pennsylvania, and wanted to build a new assembly plant in Lehigh County. They bargained with the affected union locals, and came to an agreement that gave the (struggling) company givebacks on wage rates, but gave the employees job security. However--the UAW rules required that any local bargain could not be voted on by the local membership--it could only be approved by the national union. And the UAW management decided that if they approved the Mack deal, they would find themselves in a bad position in upcoming negotiations with Caterpillar. The result: the Mack bargain was rejected--and the union repeatedly refused to let the union members (who strongly backed the deal) vote on it. Mack subsequently built the plant in Winnsboro, SC, outside the jurisdiction of the union locals. They offered jobs in Winnsboro to any Plant 5C employee who wanted to take the position--but at non-union rates, with no job guarantees. Some workers made the move (and subsequently organized the plant in Winnsboro, but at substantially lower rates). Most just lost their jobs. And the upcoming negotiations with Caterpillar? That became one of the longest, nastiest strikes in late 20th century American labor history--and the union lost.

Bottom line: UAW executives (who, incidentally, continued to earn six-figure salaries) forced thousands and thousands of union families out of work, into the cold, in the worst job market since the Depression.

Unions have, in some places, in some circumstances, been a very positive influence. But they had scant influence on child labor, and there have been many circumstances where they have done real damage to the very people they claim to represent.

Quite true. But it didn't use to be this way. Time was when running a big company involved actual decision making. Maybe we need to bring back the robber barons?

Okinawa is a different issue, I doubt that if not for North Korea being so close that we would still be in the area. Yes, a strong military presence is "needed" for colonizaton, but a big one is a demand for taxes from the local population to finance it and provide a "little" profit.

These were not "little issues" at the time, there were great public debates, editorials, and many many discussions. Many people objected to those conquests, and the drain on taxes that being a "good" conquer demanded. Kinda like Iraq, what did we sink in that hole, I am not sure of the running total, but it must be north of a HUNDRED AND FIFTY BILLION US DOLLARS by now, and we don't even plan on staying (well maybe a big base in the desert in western Iraq, but I think that we'll pull back to Quatar and Kuwait). That is the reason why, it costs too much money! The reasons for going into Iraq were (to say the least) a strech, but I much perfer it the low grade war that continued after the UN expelled Iraq from Kuwait.

Bing, Bing, Bing, opps, your half right. I was going to say more than 150 years (California), but I thought of the Spanish American War) as a gotcha. One of the conquests of that war, the Phillipies could arguably be called a colony. But if you consider colonization to include "importing" population with an eye on keeping the place then Guam or Puerto Rico.

This seems measuremade for 'dumb' drones that swim (or rather fly) around in the big blue ocean and collects data, but I wonder; could this technology be used for larger, manned crafts too? One possibility is a even more stealty military submarine* - possible with a more conventional propulsionsystem in adition to the ability to fly - but more civilian applications seems possible too. Perhaps giant cargovessels** and supertankers, pulling energy out of the seawater (RTFA) and cruising under the busy sealanes?

_*) Submarines are plenty stealty already...
**)The cargocarreing submarine is not a new idea, the germans launced Deutchland, and later the idea has resurfaced several itmes.

Even if it's just anecdotal, remember that Al Capone was jailed for tax evasion - and that was well before the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Try this for a primer. And, trust me, there are other ways to tax than just income tax. I don't know about your state, but my income taxes don't go to schools; my property tax does. Just because the US hasn't had income tax for its entire history doesn't mean the govenrent wasn't collecting other forms. How do you think we paid for, let's say, defending ourselves in the War of 1812? What do you think Jefferson used for the Louisana Purchase? And do you think the Russians just gifted Alaska to us? All of that is due to tax dollars that were sitting in the government's coffers.

Remember, the main crux of our revolution was not that we were being taxed. The Founding Fathers did not disagree with taxation in, and of, itself. It was the lack of representation while being overly taxed (much more than British citizens) that angered them, not taxation.

Obviously, your schools are some of the ones in question. Again: think about what you are speaking of before saying something.

. . . then why don't you explain it, hot shot?

See my earlier comment just above in the thread, "hot shot". I'm now guessing you never took a history class and never read about the evils of ward bosses, vote buying, poll taxes, or why we have our current (secret ballot) system - flawed as it is. You need content? Here's a dribble, but a history book focusing on national politics would be better. Y'know, at first, I thought you were just trolling.

Federal spending is not what makes the United States a great country. The American Experiment was not an experiment with strong central power; that had been done for years and was the very thing the American Revolutionaries were escaping. The United States constitution was constructed to balance the needs for some federal power (the Articles of Confederation gave it almost none!) while serverly restricting the excercise of those powers.

I could not disagree with you more with regard to a new amendment abolishing the 9th and 10th amendments that Congress holds in such disdain. Instead, I am for a return to Federal constitutionally correctness and the ouster of those Representatives and Senators that fail to live up to their oaths of office. What does "promoting national growth and standards" conflict with a small, constitutionally correct Federal government? I'm somewhat bothered by government "promoting growth" of any fashion; should not a liberated people be left to achieve what they can imagine? How did the United States ever survive the Nineteenth Century without the programs of the New Deal or the Great Society? Remember: the "General Welfare Clause" is in the preamble, not Article I.

For what it's worth, I'm for the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment, as it silenced the voice of the States in Federal Government, giving power to the People that was originally intended for States to hold.

In exchange for their valuable services, they got official permission from their government to act in such manner: these were the "letters of marque".

Maybe the Open Source community should do something similar? Yes, Burst's behavior may look like patent privateering. But it is directed against the enemy. This can't be all bad ;-)

The first amendment was originally considered to cover political speech. The early writings of the constitutional framers particularly in the federalist papers will confirm this. Subsequently the courts have generally held that political speech is more protected than other forms of speech, like advertising. If free speech were universally protected then there would be no room for disclosure laws as applied to marketing. Take advertisements for prescription drugs, these ads must include side effects and must be accurate and not make claims which these drugs can not provide.

The other point to remember about the first amendment is it limits *Congress's* power to enact laws that abridge free speech. The subsequent amendment (the 14th) that many quote as applying these restrictions to the states is somewhat ambiguous and has a mixed bag of rulings from the courts on how to apply it to the states. The supreme court has been on a states rights tilt recently so they interpret the meaning of the 1st amendment in terms of how it is applied by the 14th to the state of Texas and decided that the pornography laws in Texas do not abridge the rights of free speech as pornography in the eyes of the courts and the law is considered worthless speech or speech of very little value. What constitutes pornography has changed over time but basically it has always been considered any sexually explicit material of little or no political, scientific or artistic worth.

If this comic book had portrayed president having sex with an intern and as a result having some sort of impact on the legal landscape then maybe an argument could have been made this is indeed political speech and therefore entitled to the highest level of protection.

While I generally hold that adults should be allowed to make their own choices there are consequences to the choices each individual makes each of which impacts the rest of society to varying degrees. It is our collective will as expressed through the political system to decide what choices we as a whole will tolerate. Here is an excellent link about the results of generally available pornography.

I suppose you've never heard of the Whiskey Rebellion, the Nat Turner Rebellion, Nat Bacon's Rebellion, Shay's Rebellion, and countless others (including that whole revolution thing in 1776).

We have a proud history of inciting violent revolts on this side of the pond!

I suppose you've never heard of the Whiskey Rebellion, the Nat Turner Rebellion, Nat Bacon's Rebellion, Shay's Rebellion, and countless others (including that whole revolution thing in 1776).

We have a proud history of inciting violent revolts on this side of the pond!

Thank you for backing up the parent point, "snow pony". Three women mentioned for 2002, none of whom I've heard of, only one of which has a technical position (the other two are "manager" and "CEO").

You really do need to look further into the history of those "managers and CEOs" instead of taking a cheap shot obviously based the limited amount of information you could gleam from a single web page.

Julie Estrin (CEO of Packet Design) holds a B.S. Degree in Math and Computer Science from UCLA and an M.S. in Electric Engineering from Stanford University.

Dr Caroline Kovac holds a Ph.D in Chemistry; and was the head of IBM Research efforts in computational biology.

Like most people of recognition; they have moved up the corporate ladder into executive positions through thier experience and drive.

There is very little publicity of most female technical leaders except when grandstanding takes place (and most people have learned to see through that dribble anyways). You mentioned Lovelace and Hopper. Both notable women of computing; but considering the time period they come from - I think trying to label them as an alternative to feminism when the feminist movement had not even undergone it's major revival until Hopper was well into her 50s (and Lovelace was deceased for over a centuary) to be a touch out of context don't you think?

I do love how you labelled me as a feminist when merely trying to give you an informed opinion. Gynophobic are we? I am the last person I would consider to be a feminist. However I also know I am a highly technically minded individual; the company I work for recognises this year after year and relies on my skills to solve technical problems.

I do my job and do it well. I don't go running around and demand recognition for my work. You might just find there are many quiet achievers such as myself in the world. Considering you took the time to actually list a few noteworthy technically minded women from history; is it that hard to conclude that there are women like them still around?

Hmm, don't have one of my books around, but it mentioned some of the things that affect the rate of C14 in the atmosphere, and how much is absorbed.

Yes, this is well known and calibrated for. This is due to the way that C14 is formed. I believe that if you see a date written as BCE it is calibrated, whereas bce isn't (or maybe round the other way, I can't remember off the top of my head.

Are there any websites of good science lit that undergo a good peer review process? I agree that this is essential to filter rubbish.

To my knowledge there isn't (unless you belong to a university with a online subscription to a scientific journal). Your best bet, when checking up articles is head over to your nearest university and raid their library. While not peer reviewed, a academic textbook can be execellent in get a good overview of a particular field.

As for fraud from the ICR, what are you talking about? Honest mistakes? Evolution has had it's fair share of red herrings, so using that logic I could reject evolution on the basis that scientists have given fraudulant data and red herrings.

No, I'm not talking about honest mistakes. I'm talking about fraud. One on the most well known creationists, Duane Gish, has a very bad habit of having claims refuted to him, and then ignoring the refutation and making false claims to his audiences (who are ususally not particularly scientifically literate). An example of this can be found here.

Anyway, if you have any good websites on information for learning more about physics, chemistry and biology I would appreciate it. Also any sites that publish good quality science lit.

This is differcult, as you've named a pretty massive field, and whereas my chemisty knowledge is pretty good (I'm doing a PhD in it), I wouldn't the best judge on physics and biology.

But ignoring all that, here goes:

The best site on evolution and creationism from a scientific perspective is talk origins.

A site which may interest you is this one from the Christian Geologists, who find that their faith is fully compatible with science. Another interesting geogogy link is this one (it has, to my knowledge, no religon in it).

Answers In Science appears to have a ton of interesting links.

I'm not sure if this is exactly what you where after. If it's general science, then I'll have to know more about your science background to even know where to start looking.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,

Clem

I find it rather laughable that Jack Valenti says "...because making movies is so expensive, only two in 10 films ever retrieve their production and marketing investment from domestic theatrical exhibition." The problem I have is that Hollywood is notorious for cooking the books... take for instance the concept of "Net Profit". Take a look at here for a page that shows how Hollywood calculates "net profit" so that a movie like Coming to America can show no profit.

Don't stop at those two pages... look here or here or here... or if you don't mind reading a PDF file, try here

(Don't blame me... Slashdot is screwing up my links!)