Slashdot Mirror

Many of the comments here are condemning the article submitter for wanting to give to giving money to open-source projects, saying that he should instead give money to, say, starving orphans in Africa or South America. I think people would do well to read a recent op-ed in the NY Times (commentary in WorldChanging) by a former Peace Corps worker in Africa about why just dumping money in poor countries isn't such a good thing. Some quotes:

It seems to have been Africa's fate to become a theater of empty talk and public gestures. But the impression that Africa is fatally troubled and can be saved only by outside help - not to mention celebrities and charity concerts - is a destructive and misleading conceit. Those of us who committed ourselves to being Peace Corps teachers in rural Malawi more than 40 years ago are dismayed by what we see on our return visits and by all the news that has been reported recently from that unlucky, drought-stricken country. But we are more appalled by most of the proposed solutions.

I am not speaking of humanitarian aid, disaster relief, AIDS education or affordable drugs. Nor am I speaking of small-scale, closely watched efforts like the Malawi Children's Village. I am speaking of the "more money" platform: the notion that what Africa needs is more prestige projects, volunteer labor and debt relief. We should know better by now. I would not send private money to a charity, or foreign aid to a government, unless every dollar was accounted for - and this never happens. Dumping more money in the same old way is not only wasteful, but stupid and harmful; it is also ignoring some obvious points.

If Malawi is worse educated, more plagued by illness and bad services, poorer than it was when I lived and worked there in the early 60's, it is not for lack of outside help or donor money. Malawi has been the beneficiary of many thousands of foreign teachers, doctors and nurses, and large amounts of financial aid, and yet it has declined from a country with promise to a failed state. ...

When Malawi's minister of education was accused of stealing millions of dollars from the education budget in 2000, and the Zambian president was charged with stealing from the treasury, and Nigeria squandered its oil wealth, what happened? The simplifiers of Africa's problems kept calling for debt relief and more aid. I got a dusty reception lecturing at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation when I pointed out the successes of responsible policies in Botswana, compared with the kleptomania of its neighbors. Donors enable embezzlement by turning a blind eye to bad governance, rigged elections and the deeper reasons these countries are failing. ...

Bono, in his role as Mrs. Jellyby in a 10-gallon hat, not only believes that he has the solution to Africa's ills, he is also shouting so loud that other people seem to trust his answers. He traveled in 2002 to Africa with former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, urging debt forgiveness. He recently had lunch at the White House, where he expounded upon the "more money" platform and how African countries are uniquely futile.

But are they? Had Bono looked closely at Malawi he would have seen an earlier incarnation of his own Ireland. Both countries were characterized for centuries by famine, religious strife, infighting, unruly families, hubristic clan chiefs, malnutrition, failed crops, ancient orthodoxies, dental problems and fickle weather. Malawi had a similar sense of grievance, was also colonized by absentee British landlords and was priest-ridden, too. ...

Africa has no real shortage of capable people - or even of money. The patronizing attention of donors has done violence to Africa's belief in itself, but even in the absence of responsible leadership, Africans themselves have proven how resilient they can

Signing orders that violated the US Constitution? How's that?

In the past two days, George W Bush has publically confessed to hundreds of counts of wiretapping.

Wiretapping without a court order is a flagrant violation of state and federal laws. And more importantly, it violates the fourth amendment to the US Constitution, something Bush theoretically swore to uphold.

Bush says this is acceptable, because he did it in support of the "war on terrorism". By that same reasoning, police officers can make warrantless searches during the "war on drugs". This reasoning is a justification for vigilantism: you can freely break the law if you've got a good reason, and are too strong for the police to stop you.

Last I checked they were warranted by the Patriot Act.

They were not, but it doesn't matter: an act of Congress does not have the authority to override the US Constitution.

Perhaos because they have the ambition, patience, imagination and resources to be effective.

feeding the third world should be of greater importance

"The most famous health campaign..started with Rockefeller money was the drive, begun in 1907, to rid the rural American South of hookworm.

Called "the germ of laziness" because it caused anemia and made victims lethargic and dull-witted, hookworm afflicted up to a third of Southerners. "A lot of people would say, 'you've got to reduce poverty to get rid of hookworm.' But the Rockefellers said, 'You don't need a 20-year intervention. You can use shoes." The Rich, Sometimes, Are the Best Medicine

Maybe he should outsource the gaming to China.

the us can't spy on its people directly so you have a third party do the spying for you, then they turn over any info found!

• White House keeps dossiers on more than 10,000 'political enemies'
• Bush Defends Secret Spying (reg. req.)
• NSA uses ECHELON against US citizens

Even though it was voted against, Bush has stated that he will continue to authorize illegal phone taps and other forms of spycraft on US citizins. NYTimes article here He was, in fact, filled with rage at the tresonous liberal media who dared to leak the fact that he is authorizing such illegal activities in the first place, and that they may well have murdered innocent people through their deplorable actions. :)

This comes right on the heels of the use of torture being approved by the Bush-McCain agreement. Although on its surface it appears to ban the use of torture by US personnel, it in fact grants them 100% immunity from any problems that may arise from the use of torture, under the constraint that they must have reason to believe that such torture is an order. Standing orders are any and all means are authorised, therefore, this law grants immunity from prosecution or court martial to any US troops or CIA agents who with to torture or execute to gain information. Finally, the house and senate have both backed a measure that will make evidence gained through torture admisable in court, as well as holding people, both citizins and not, indefinatly without trial, and without access to a lawyer.

So there you have it. Bush is overriding the Judicial branch and issuing warrants himself, torture is legal, and evidence tortured out of a suspect is admissible in court, you have no right to a speedy trial, nor to confront witnesses. What a week! Ammendments lost this week: I, IV, V, VI, VIII.

Of course the recent NYTimes bombshell story about Bush authorizing survellience of US Citizens, contrary to law, is making big-time news this weekend.

But did anyone see this report on MS-NBC only a few days earlier?

This has to reach a breaking point right? Or do the American people just continue to bend over and take it?

From the NY Times today: "[Frist] took the tactical step on Friday of switching his vote at the last minute to side with the backers of the filibuster, a maneuver that allows him to bring the measure up for consideration again. After the vote, he said he would do so." NYTimes reg req

Mr. Frist also voted "no" in the end, but in a purely parliamentary maneuver to allow him to try to bring up the bill again.

Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) was the only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act the first time around and rallied the opposition this time. Senator Feingold spent the week blogging on the floor fight at TPM Cafe.

Just a heads up, I found this NY Times article much more informative than that 1Up 'piece.' http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/technology/16ele vation.html?

Wrong. Read today's NY Times.

It's in paragraph 36 or 37. The FISC judge resisted wiretaps based on where certain information came from.

It probally had something to with this. We losing the war on terror, not winning it. It has nothing to do with how many terrorist we kill, but everything with giving away our civil liberties for the illusion of security. We need to put a leash on this government. With Iraq war, spying on US citizens without warrant, and torture, this administration has taken the 9/11 to far and drag every decent thing this country use to represent in the mud. I am definately paying attention 2006 and 2008 elections. I am holding my representatives accountable for this.

"Google, which prides itself on the purity of its search results, agreed to give favored placement to content from AOL throughout its site, something it has never done before."

The beginning of the end, if true.

They were competing directly with Microsoft. MS was in the same building during the tense negotiations.

D

First AOL has lost nearly 6 MILLION customers since 2003, bringing their total subscriber base close to 20 million, down from about 26.5 million in late 2002. Their numbers will exponentially decrease as cable, DSL, VoIP and numerous other broadband technologies both mature and become more stablilized, therefore bringing in more customers. This is inevitable.Dial up is dead. As a side note, these 9.95 dial up NetZero conglomerates are riding the same wing, milking a dying technology to the very end, to get rich quick or get as much profit as they can before they will not be able to sustain a lucrative business with little or no customer base.

Secondly, why does google want to associate themselves with a company that is has been and is under class action lawsuits for unethical business practices, such as billing people even after they cancelled their subscriptions , double-billing schemes and recent news of their underhandedness at the expense and personal well-being of customers. If you think this is just nonsense go over to the gripe Logs and here to read what people are saying -- some pretty amazing and maybe surprising stories. I am sure there are sub-links to other stories from there.

Lastly, about AOL's so called "exclusive" content.. what is so exclusive about it? What information does google not have for free out on the web for users that AOL has? Is it worth 5%?? It just seems like AOL is buying old garbage waiting to be thrown out on trash day. The AOL for broadband scheme is a complete and utter joke. First off AOL doesnt offer broadband, they just offer their neat little toy interface to go along with your broadband connection.. and all that for $9.95...and for what?

Can someone shed some light?

Perhaps this NY Times article will satisfy your skepticism. http://nytimes.com/2005/12/16/technology/16cnd-aol .html

from a nytimes article on the subject: "Google, which prides itself on the purity of its search results, agreed to give favored placement to content from AOL throughout its site, something it has never done before."

i dont know if this means that google will be changing search results, but if it does, this is a pretty drastic philosophy change, and something that seems to bode extremely negatively for googles future

First, they're not allowed to torture people anymore...

Given that it appears to be passing unvetoably, the Pentagon has simply changed the manual.

And declared the new version classified.

Yes, this is bad, but I wonder why no-one really seems to care that Craig Venter used his own sperm for Celera's attempt on the human genome. Oh, and FWIW IAAGS (I Am a Genome Scientist) (That link above is a coralised link to this NYT article).

Oh man, fuck Christmas.

Seriously - are you kidding me with this "There's a war on Christmas" bullshit? FOX News wasn't raking in enough cash already from all the Christmas commercials for Kill 'em All Barbie and Girls Gone Wild Brand Toddler Gear ? They had to start publishing books about some bogus attack on Christianity? And who did they pick to lead this particular charge?

John fucking Gibson. This guy has wiener written all over him.

Bill O'Reilly gets all the credit as the biggest nutcase in FOXville, but Gibson really deserves his own special wing in the happy house. This motherfucker's embedded assignment reads "Up Karl Rove's ass."

What makes him such a dick? I mean, besides making a fortune by screaming hysterically about how oppressed Christians are by the other twenty percent? How about advocating bombing countries that don't vote the way we want in their own elections? Way to encourage democracy, fuckhead. And maybe he was kidding when he wished, on air, that the French had gotten the 2012 Olympics instead of the Brits so the terrorists would "blow up Paris," but it might have been just a touch over the top to call for it again on the day of the London train bombings. Classy move, asshole.

And really? That's just scratching the fucking surface. Anyone remember who was responsible for the bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma City? John does: Iraq. And speaking of Iraq, Gibson thinks Rove deserves a fucking medal for outing that CIA agent. And, like any good reporter, he wanted to burn the Florida ballots after his buddy Bush got "elected" rather than, I don't know, count them? "Is this a case where knowing the facts actually would be worse than not knowing?" That right there is why sometimes it's useful for journalists to go to, what do you call that fucking place? Oh yeah, journalism school.

And now he's all worked up about Christmas being stolen. What is this, the fucking Fairytale Network? It's a national fucking holiday and we're spending gobs of our hard-earned tax dollars on wreaths and lights for your special Santa day. But these bastards are all "But they call them Holiday trees!" Here's a clue: no, they fucking don't. Ok, maybe in a couple places, like on FOXNews.com and at the White House, but if Christmas is under attack, I'm Kris fucking Kringle.

And guess who's stealing Christmas, according to Gibson. Go on -- guess. "A cabal of secularists, so-called humanists, trial lawyers, cultural relativists, and liberal, guilt-wra

Most kids learn about gravity. 99.9% of people have seen astronauts in space floating around. Tons of people have at least seen space-flicks such as Apollo 13, with a high G launch.

As for the great ruck of ordinary Americans, they are merely uninterested in, or perhaps bored by, science. Only one in five has bothered to take a physics course. Three out of four haven't heard that the universe is expanding. Nearly half, according to a recent survey, seem to believe that God created man in his present form within the last 10,000 years. Less than 10 percent of adult Americans, it is estimated, are in possession of basic scientific literacy.

It's not just a matter of accuracy, but of how exhaustive they are. Does Britannica have these articles?

- $100 laptop
- ASIMO
- Vonage
- OpenDocument

I take every piece of information with a grain of salt. If I want to know something, I try to find a primary source. Just because something is called CNN, Britannica, or NYTimes doesn't mean you should trust their information blindly.

Supposedly, Wikipedia is no good because it's not accountable. Oh, and Brittanica is? From their terms of use:

Limitation of Liability: IN NO EVENT SHALL BRITANNICA, ITS DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, SHAREHOLDERS, PARENTS, SUBSIDIARIES, AFFILIATES, AGENTS AND LICENSORS, OR CONTENT PROVIDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO THE USE, INABILITY TO USE, PERFORMANCE OR NONPERFORMANCE OF THE SERVICES, EVEN IF BRITANNICA WAS PREVIOUSLY ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES AND REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SUCH DAMAGES ARISE IN CONTRACT, TORT, UNDER STATUTE, IN EQUITY, AT LAW, OR OTHERWISE.

Indemnification: To the fullest extent permitted by law, you agree to indemnify and hold Britannica, its directors, officers, shareholders, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, and licensors harmless from and against all losses, expenses, damages, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, arising out of the use or unauthorized copying of the Services or any of their content, the violation of these Terms of Use or any applicable laws or regulations.

All of this news, on the heels of the latest admission of "going to war with faulty information" from theWhite House.

The president embraced the decision to go to war - faulty intelligence notwithstanding - as both good and necessary in an age of terrorism.

While conceding lapses in American intelligence - "It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong" - he said that intelligence agencies of other countries had come to similar conclusions, and that in any event the United States' information-gathering apparatus was being retooled.

non-expiring reg free link

New York Times Link Generator

If /. editors were better, they would make these links.

Or here, D. Pogue does a good job of explaining how this camera has a different potential audience than a point and click or a DSLR.

This Page has links to 78 different articles, one per idea.

I like how they talk wistfully about that great, stomach churning invention from 2005: "In Vitro Meat."

Ah, yeah, remember In Vitro Meat?

No? Neither did I.

It's because that article was published the same day (Dec. 11th, 2005).

I'm not sure a contemporaneous story could have "helped make 2005 what it was," at best it could be "helping to make 2005 what it is."

IV Meat is still worth a read though, it's a cyberpunk fantasy come true.

In Vitro Meat (free BugMeNot required).

this story has nothing to do with the news... This is in the Ny Times Magazine http://www.nytimes.com/pages/magazine/.

Anyone who reads my post's knows I'm pro MS, but I don't belive for a minute that MS sites have almost double Yahoo. The MS sites get about 114 million, not over 180 million like this report says. If that report were accurate, combined with the AOL deal, MS would have the most lucrative Advertising network the internet has ever seen.

This report also contradicts some stats (that I think are more inline with the truth) published by the NY Times and Associated press for the month of september.

Here are the numbers:
Yahoo = 123 million
AOL = 119 million
Microsoft = 114 million
Google = 87.6 million

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/11/06/business/ao l.php [iht.com]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/07/technology/07aol .html?hp&ex=1131426000&en=ca8853d306a6b3e5&ei=5094 &partner=homepage [nytimes.com]

http://washingtontimes.com/business/20051113-11344 1-2245r.htm [washingtontimes.com]

http://www.smartmoney.com/stockwatch/index.cfm?sto ry=20051115 [smartmoney.com]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/10/arts/10star.html ?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1134234111-qM+OBZTgCE9+jbFl687Dv g

Must read.

Smedley is a liar and a thief. I'd normally never say that, but in his case, it's true.

Well, more than just a PhD, Google has, like, an army of Ph.D.'s! So you damn bet it's "Doctor Google" for you!

Yeah, I know...He's the 'i' in one of the endzones in Giants Stadium.

But seriously, the NY Time article, "All Roads Lead to Cities, Transforming India," http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/07/international/as ia/07highway.html states in one section "Workers earn about $2,400 a year - nearly five times the average per capita income - and sometimes more." Sounds like we can export one more thing India...Trade Unions!

Ahhh, nothing like a call to strike, goons busting on picket lines, scabs getting shot to get the blood pumping!

Well my ankle grabbing fan-boy friend you are a fool. I will concede his numbers weren't 100%, but his point was. And realistically his numbers were close enough. Google is still dwarfed by the big boys, as you will see when I post the numbers below.

For the record he didn't say "search" he said "visitors". Advertisers don't just care about search cowboy. We are talking about revenue streams and market sizes. AOL may be 3% of the search market (according to your numbers) but they are 12% of Google's revenue (according to the links below). Looks like search isn't the end all and be all is it cowboy?

I'm just so sick of you cocky little troll like fan boys thinking you know something, but all you really know is how to download porn in your mom's basement.

Here are the numbers:
Yahoo = 123 million
AOL = 119 million
Microsoft = 114 million
Google = 87.6 million

Here is the math for ya:
AOL + MSN = 237 million
Yahoo = 123 million
Google 87.6 million

My sources are abundant from New York Times, Associated Press, to international papers. Here are 4 for you to check out, but there are PLENTY more.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/11/06/business/ao l.php

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/07/technology/07aol .html?hp&ex=1131426000&en=ca8853d306a6b3e5&ei=5094 &partner=homepage

http://washingtontimes.com/business/20051113-11344 1-2245r.htm

http://www.smartmoney.com/stockwatch/index.cfm?sto ry=20051115

It's funny that you guys rip on Microsoft so, but at least Bill Gates is doing a buttload of good in the poorest area's of the world. (Notice that Brin and Page used "doing good" as an excuse to buy a Boeing 737)

The interesting points in this are (a) it's appearing in The Gray Lady, which gives it a certain weight over a mere web post, and (b) it's coming from someone in the music business, even if a small-time player, vs. one of us tech-types simply bemoaning the eee-vuls of DRM.

The NYTimes had a quote the other day where Spielberg proves he doesn't get it. "The medium will come of age, he said, 'when somebody confesses that they cried at Level 17.'"

A.) Who numbers levels in this day and age?

B.) Ah yes, because painting will never be good until people cry when they see Guernica.

C.) Games are known not to induce any emotions whatsoever. That's why gamers are known to be so passive and unexcited, "Oh, I win? That's good I guess. Well, so long as my pulse isn't pounding, I guess it's time for a nice nap."

You're right, games are more about rhythm than 'story' or whatever. Games have stories, but that doesn't mean that games should use stories the way movies do than the fact that movies have sound means that all movies should be Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band. Games are trying to do something different. Deal with it, yo!

Here's the next NYT article following that Mile by Mile article from the other day: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/05/international/as ia/05highway.html Here's the accompanying audio slideshow: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/khtml/2005/12/05/i nternational/20051205_HIGHWAY_FEATURE.html

Here's the next NYT article following that Mile by Mile article from the other day: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/05/international/as ia/05highway.html Here's the accompanying audio slideshow: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/khtml/2005/12/05/i nternational/20051205_HIGHWAY_FEATURE.html

John Perry Barlow (lyricist, but he has other claims to fame outside the Dead) was not happy. In this story he blames it on the drummers (Mickey Hart and Bill Kreutzmann). The NYT quoted him as having had a "pretty heated discussion" with Weir, guitarist and his songwriting partner. Robert Hunter (Jerry Garcia's lyricist) was reportedly not happy either but is silent.

I'm just disappointed, that's all.

Merck spends over 60% of their budget on Marketing, mostly in telling the middle and upper classes what designer drugs they should ask their doctor about, as well as random kickbacks for doctors to prescribe their brand exclusively.

Damn straight they do! Do you think all those hot little cheerleaders come cheap?!

randy

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/30/technology/30lic ense.html?pagewanted=print

The New York Times had an article on the impact of the revision called "Overhaul of Linux License Could Have Broad Impact."

some quotes:

"Industry analysts estimate that the value of hardware and software that use the Linux operating system is $40 billion."

"The revision process promises to be intriguing because of the man behind the G.P.L., Richard Stallman, the founder of the Free Software Foundation.

The G.P.L., according to Mr. Stallman, is an effort to use copyright law to protect what he calls the "four basic freedoms of software" - the unrestricted right to use, study, copy and modify software. The license also requires that any modifications be redistributed with the same unrestricted rights. "

"For Microsoft's part, Steven A. Ballmer, its chief executive, has called the G.P.L. a 'cancer.'"

The NY Times (reg req and all) has a story covering this that seems worth reading. They say RMS is a "person of emphatic views".

Not all newspapers are behind the times. I'm fortunate to have worked for the Web sites of two news companies that really "get it" -- the Lawrence Journal-World in Lawrence, Kansas, and the Washington Post.

The Journal-World's Web sites (including http://www.ljworld.com/ and http://www.lawrence.com/ allow comments on every story. Readers can have their own weblogs, and the site makes intensive database apps, on deadline, for all sorts of stuff -- like a database of every little-league game (e.g. http://www2.ljworld.com/game/2005/fields/langston_ hughes/). FWIW, the operation has been covered by the New York Times and NPR.

Similarly, washingtonpost.com is quite good. We just launched Post Remix, which encourages developers to put together apps with our RSS feeds. Check it out.

A famous newspaper provided us with the easy recipe to survive in the internet (Subscription required).

The BBC article only discusses the egg donations made by his research assistants. Here are some excerpts from a longer piece in the New York Times (reg req) which describe a different problem:

"His world reputation is now expected to suffer a major dent over his admissions that he lied to an international scientific journal over eggs obtained in what many see as an ethically murky manner. [...] Roh Sung Il, the administrator of MizMedi Hospital in Seoul, disclosed at a news conference on Monday that during 2002 and 2003, he made payments of $1,400 to each woman who donated eggs. Egg donation is an unpleasant procedure that involves a week of daily hormone shots, culminating with the extraction of eggs through a hollow needle. "For those who go through discomfort and sacrifice, it seemed natural to give some money as compensation," Dr. Roh told reporters. [...] Dr. Hwang said he had wondered why the hospital had become a regular source of eggs, while other hospitals were having difficulties. "I raised the matter, but Roh Sung Il, the administrator of MizMedi Hospital in Seoul, said that there were no problems in the procurement process and I did not raise the issue afterwards," he told reporters. After the ethical scandal flared this week, dozens of women in Dr. Hwang's Internet fan club have sent e-mail messages volunteering their eggs.

Confirming the other longstanding rumor, South Korea's Health Ministry said Thursday that an ethics investigation at Seoul National University had found that the two junior scientists had given their own eggs for research. But it said those donations had not violated ethics guidelines because they were voluntary.

As the scientists' egg donations were neither "coerced or coaxed" nor "aimed at making profit," there has been "no violation of ethics guidelines," Choi Hee Joo, a Health Ministry spokesman, told reporters before Dr. Hwang's announcement.

In May 2004, Nature raised ethical questions concerning the origin of Dr. Hwang's eggs. At the time, Dr. Hwang denied that researchers in his team had donated their own eggs to his research.

In an interview last May, he said all eggs had been harvested from volunteers without payment.

According to Dr. Hwang... who has already proven himself a less-than reliable source, since he's admitted to lying about the issue of paying for ova. Who, if he is guilty of misconduct, has a great deal to gain from pleading ignorance and pinning the blame on others. Furthermore, if he's guilty and he goes down, he probably takes a lot of people with him, and it does a major blow to the prestige of South Korea's medical research program, so there would be a strong incentive for other people to back up his version of events whether it's true or not. Anyhow, who knows I suppose... but something just doesn't smell right to me. Part of it is the way this whole thing is being handled- first a graduate student comes out and says she donated eggs, then she retracts the statement, but now we find out a year later this kind of stuff was going on? This smacks of coverup- not candor. It does not inspire confidence in the Good Dr.

It'd be nice to think that scientists weren't capable of being corrupted, but the truth is they are as human and as fallible as anyone else. That's another reason I tend to doubt his version of the facts. Maybe that's cynical, but on the other hand, it's only cynical if it's wrong. Anyhow, if you'd like to take a look at the facts yourself, here's a couple of other articles.

First, _Nature_'s take on it (man I wish I could be a fly on the wall in the _Nature_ office right now) http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051121/full/438405 a.html. Second, the NYTimes.com: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/25/international/as ia/25clone.html

... a dupe. Although TFA back then called the device an "Electronic Silencer" it seems to be the same product.

But I think the caption for this picture should be "Cohen meets future self" http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/11/23/bus iness/film.span.jpg

Here's another spin on the same story. Interesting reading two stories from two different media outlets and leaving with two totally different impressions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/23/technology/23fil m.html

And a wildly xenophobic culture could be another reason.