Slashdot Mirror

In fact, it's likely that the Luddite ban of DDT prompted by Rachel Carson's mendacious book has killed more people over the years than even forced ingestion of large amounts of DDT ever could. Perhaps with West Nile spreading, people will rethink using it.

Copyright law as it is in America today is invalid. It has long been devoid of any useful purpose. Corporate powers like Disney lobbied to mutate and pervert copyright law into the abomination that it is today.

Decentralized filesharing has finally given the people (you know, the same people that copyright is supposed to serve the best interest of?) a chance to strike back at an outdated and corrupt system, and there are a lot of people who are scared about that. You can't make it go away with laws, and you can't just outlaw all technology that could possibly be used to "Infringe on copyrights". Where does it end if you did? VCR's CD/DVD burners, tape recorders, PEN AND PAPER, all have the capacity to infringe on copyright. It has to end now. Nothing short of a complete re-working of copyright law, with the spirit of the original idea will be enough.

I don't see how you can view the repulican party as good for "individual freedom" in any sense of the word.

That was my point, they're not. And Kerry is no better. I'll be reluctantly voting for Bush only because there's no credible alternative.

John Kerry's Monstrous Record on Civil Liberties

DADLE (D-Ala,D-Leu-enkephalin), an opium-like drug that triggers hibernation in ground squirrels and human cells.

The only danger is that addicts sleeping through the pain (or -- horrors! -- feeling ANY pleasure during treatment) would probably upset the religious freaks who are in charge of the tax-and-spend drugwar, and will be, no matter which side wins.
me

John Kerry's Monstrous Record on Civil Liberties

John Kerry's Monstrous Record on Civil Liberties

John Kerry's Monstrous Record on Civil Liberties

From this link:

"Turns out Woody Guthrie lifted the melody of "This Land is Your Land" essentially note-for-note from "When the World's on Fire," a song recorded by country/bluegrass legends, The Carter Family, ten years before Guthrie wrote his classic song. Here's a short snippet (380k mp3) of the song (the song can be found on the box set, The Carter Family: 1927-34). You don't need to be a musicologist to hear what we're talking about.

Now we've got nothing against Woody's borrowing. In fact, it's a part of the "folk process" that Woody himself championed. I can't imagine that The Carter Family minded.

But in the letter threatening copyright litigation over JibJab's animated political parody, "This Land," Ludlow's lawyer goes out of his way to attack JibJab for copying "the entire melody, harmony, rhythm and structure of the [sic] Mr. Guthrie's song."

Er, sorry there Ludlow, but actually, the entire melody, harmony, rhythm, and structure of "This Land is Your Land" doesn't belong to you. And I'd like to think Mr. Guthrie would never have claimed credit for them, if he were still alive to ask."

You make some good points. Here is a good article on Kerry, the Patriot Act, and civil liberties. Not meant to bash Kerry, but just put things into perspective.

A lot of what you write is either false or nonsense.

US foreign policy has done great harm in the Middle East, especially its policy regarding Israel, and the economic sanctions against Iraq (which killed a half a million children).

First of all, Iraq was under UN sanctions, not US sanctions.
Second, to the extent that the Iraqi people suffered under the sanctions, it was largely Saddam's doing as he siphoned off enormous amounts of money from the oil for food program to build up his military and build his opulent palaces. I hope that it isn't going too far to hold him accountable for stealing the money intended for food, medicine, and other essentials which Saddam then used to try and buy North Korean missiles? Or is that wrong? Doesn't the national government of dictators have any responsibility for its actions that adversely effect the people? Oh, and that figure of 500,000 children is a fiction as well.
Third, I think that most informed people realize that it enrages some Arabs, including those living in Palestine, that we do not stand idlely by while they commit Genocide, a stated goal of several Palestinian organizations, but the Jews have been put through one real genocide in the last century (6,000,000 documented killed in one country alone, oppression and pograms in others), don't you think that is enough? The Palestinians could have had peace at Oslo, but Araft couldn't have peace unless it was built upon the bodies of the Jews. The whole situation can largely be reduced to: If the Arabs stop fighting there will be peace, if the Jews stop fighting there will be no more Jews.

Mounting anger in the Middle East fuels terrorism, and our government uses this to justify the Patriot Act, the rights violations perpetrated in the name of the "War on Terror", and to excuse ..... etc. etc. etc.

That is quite a parade or horribles you have there. You are fundamentally mistaken if you believe that there is more than a couple of Arab nations which the US could teach much of anything about torture to. When it comes to Abu Ghraib, what we did was childs play compared to what Saddam did. Saddams minions amputated limbs, filled massed graves, starved children, threw people into shredding machines, and all manner of other atrocities. Although it may seem to be too fine a point to some, Saddam authorized, encouraged, and rewarded his torturers. Torture of the most vicious kind was state policy under Saddam, and Saddam was know to have participated from time to time. The US is investigating and punishing those who abused and performed acts of torture. Any claim of moral equivalence is wrong and foolish. The idea that this is either a plot to, or will lead to, the US being a "fascist state" is farcical.

On the path that it is on, our government can never hope to end terrorism. It will only learn how to effectively terrorize its own citizens. Our founders offered a different path: with checks and balances to keep our government in line, and the kind of respect for the independence of other countries that would allow us to make peace with all the peoples of the Middle East, thereby depriving the terrorists of the hatred and anger that fuels them. Without popular support, terrorists become unpopular criminals that anyone would turn in.

You fundamentally misunderstand the problem. Completely. The problem with Al Qaeda is that we are not a Muslim nation. Read bin Laden's letter to America to see his demands. There will be no peace with them, we have two choices: 1. Become a Muslim nation and put in place all of the laws and practices that he demands, or 2. Subdue or otherwise kill the majority of the terrorits until they lose their taste for war against the US.

Check this story out. At least (slowly) read the second paragraph, it is hilarious! And for more serious analysis, read further.

Paul B.

Historically, this has not been true... VHS/Betamax is a classic example

VHS won because it had a longer recording length. Folks wanted that more than they wanted marginally better picture quality. Considering the average quality of TVs at the time, most probably wouldn't have been able to tell the difference on their own TVs.

And for those who haven't seen the keyboard story beaten to death (why Dvorak rightfully died), check out this, or if you have a short attention span, this.

Historically, this has not been true... VHS/Betamax is a classic example

VHS won because it had a longer recording length. Folks wanted that more than they wanted marginally better picture quality. Considering the average quality of TVs at the time, most probably wouldn't have been able to tell the difference on their own TVs.

And for those who haven't seen the keyboard story beaten to death (why Dvorak rightfully died), check out this, or if you have a short attention span, this.

The problem is really with subliminal messages in games, and when they try to represent "real" life, like when you raise taxes in Sim City. Sure you can also see political messages in all media that you see/read/listen. Its better to bring the biases upfront so everyone can judge for himself.

Locus , the professional news and reviews monthly of written science fiction.

Asimov's Science Fiction , the science fiction's premiere fiction magazine (also where I've sold most of my stories). F&SF would be the runner-up.

I used to read The Weekly Standard as well as National Review, but let my subscription lapse when I found myself falling rurther and further behind. Reason is also worth looking at.

I look forward to Reason magazine every month. They even had a /. article about them a few months back when they produced a personalized version of their magazine for every subscriber.

I also like Imprimis. It's a little strong in it's opinions but I enjoy the quality of the articles.

Everything I subscribe to was on the list:
The Economist
Reason
Science News

But there are some really intriguing ones on that list. I was tempted.

I forgot to include this link for an article that I mentioned "Right or Wrong? Obscene gloating over US failures in Iraq" By Cathy Young

On free spreech- the not publishing trial information before the trial is over is a difference (+1 for the US). On the other hand Canadians get to use strong language or show nudity on broadcast TV without pixelation or 3 million dollar fines (+1 for Canada). [And equal rights = the right to go topless in Ontario (+lots for Ontario)]

Freedom of the Press is a secondary consideration? It is one of their Fundamental Freedoms: "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication" (explicit freedom of thought- that's spiffy).

Canadians aren't required to carry identification at all times, or to identify themselves on demand: better than the US on that regard (+1 Canada).

Anyways, from a Webster's 1913:

'1.totalitarian - characterized by a government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control; "a totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul"- Arthur M.Schlesinger, Jr.'

Bu$h administration officials were quoted in the Washington Post as stating they thought out sourcing was good for the economy

I know the current President gives us ample reasons to criticize him, but give him credit when he happens to get something right.

In this case, he happens to be right.

The current issue of Reason magazine arrived in my mailbox yesterday with a cover story titled "10 Truths About Trade: Hard facts about offshoring, imports, and jobs" that unimpeachably presents the facts: Offshoring is not a threat to high-tech employment; challenging, high-paying jobs are becoming more plentiful, not less; offshoring creates new jobs and boosts economic growth; and the popular myth that the US economy is running out of jobs has been with us a very long time -- and has always been untrue. It won't be on line for another month, so you'll have to get it from a news stand if you want to read it.

I'm out of work too, and it's not due to offshoring (I'm a network administrator); it's due to conditions caused by brainless politicians who don't understand economics.

Bush (43) is not responsible for the recent recession from which we're now in recovery; that recession started during Clinton's term, just as the recovery eight years earlier started during Bush (41)'s term. I, too, would like to see Bush (43) out of office; unfortunately, the alternative offered to us by the Democrats will be an order of magnitude worse if he wins.

He had the courage to face communism and speak of it bluntly with its right name: communism was the evil empire.

Of course those who once who said the USSR would last forever now say its fall was fore-ordained and Reagan had little to do it. And the Eurotrash will still hate him for saving them from a political system they always secretly admired more than their mediocre, bourgeoisie democracies. But the truth is winning out, even as they wonder down in Berkeley and in Paris why the former-Warsaw Pact countries follow Washington instead of Brussels.

www.reason.com, judging from the subj of your message... ;-)

Agreed with everything else you said though. And let them call us "libertarian freaks" rather than "dirty hippies"... ;-)

Paul B.

http://reason.com/9606/Fe.QWERTY.shtml

In summary, the main reason why VHS succeeded was that it was superior because it had longer recording times. Betamax was crippled because the original tapes could not hold a whole movie.

Did the Institute for Justice's "eminent domain" ad remind anyone else of the beginning of H2G2? I guess a hyperspace bypass isn't that bad of an eminent domain abuse compared to building a limousine garage for that Vogon, Donald Trump.

Reason's cover didn't quite get ashcroft's house correctly. It should be this pic (or big 1800x1500 version). Not as scary when they know your work location and not your house.

(from this cryptome eyeball - it is a lot of data since it covers 4 places, please don't slashdot)

But even more than Moore's documentary, I hope more and more images and video keeps coming out of Iraq in regards to the abuse, torture, rape and slaughter of Iraqi citizens, most of whom are guilty of no crime. That more than anything is Bush's legacy, his mark upon the world and truly the images that best define our Fascist Leader and his doctrines.

InstaPundit.com has been posting links to other prison abuse stories. For some reason, these aren't getting as much attention in the mainstream media ("all Abu Ghraib, all the time").

Maybe the French, Germans, Arabs, public employees unions, California Attorney General, and their apologists should take note.

May 22, 2004

PRISON MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS AND A DYSFUNCTIONAL CULTURE OF ABUSE in the California prison guards' union.

posted at 03:53 PM by Glenn Reynolds

May 21, 2004

SOMEONE TELL 60 MINUTES about this secret underground prison:

'It starts off by being stripped naked in front of 10 police officers including two women, gratutious humiliation is used to break you down.' '... worst jail that you can possibly imagine.' 'Not even a hole to go to the bathroom. You have to piss against a wall and you sleep in piss on the concrete floor.' The torture victim demands 'the immediate shutdown of this secret underground prison'. It's not at Abu Ghraib, it's in Marseille, France.

No doubt Ted Kennedy will be condemning it soon.

posted at 07:41 PM by Glenn Reynolds

May 21, 2004

MORE STORIES OF ARAB PRISONERS BEING ABUSED:

ARAB prisoners beaten and tortured, innocent bystanders killed by gunfire - another damning human rights report.

But the difference this time is that the violence is being perpetrated not by coalition forces in Iraq, but by the Palestinian Authority, and the victims are its own people.

The report, partly funded by the Finnish government, claims Palestinian cities are in a state of near anarchy, with people on the payroll of Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority (PA) blamed for 90 per cent of gangland violence.

It highlights numerous incidents of torture of prisoners and refers to the killing of civilians in gunbattles between Palestinian factions.

It is another blow for Mr Arafat's organisation, which was recently accused of misusing 134 million of European Union funds. Mr Arafat was accused of signing cheques to people linked with terrorist activity.

I'm sure Ted Kennedy will have comments.

posted at 09:55 AM by Glenn Reynolds

May 18, 2004

IRAQI EMIGRES ON ABU GHRAIB: This is interesting:

Hadi Kazwini is an Iraqi engineer who moved to Australia in 1997 and lives in Sydney with his wife and three children. He is amazed at the gullibility of those Australians who have taken the Arab response to the photos at face value.

This sort of brutality goes on all the time, it is happening now in jails right through the Middle East, he says. But of course there are no photos. This is selective outrage.

Kazwini believes that the behaviour revealed by the photos is awful and the US soldiers involved should be punished. But he says some of the Iraqi prisoners shown were Saddam's killers and torturers. They have been responsible for far worse violations of human rights than the Americans.

Where is the outrage about this, he asks. I haven't seen

He's in statistics, and judging by some of the critisism he's gotten from other people in that area, not a very good one either.

Case Against Scientifically Honest Bjorn Lomborg Dismissed

The Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty abetted a vicious ideological environmentalist smear campaign against Bjorn Lomborg by declaring two years ago that his excellent book The Skeptical Environmentalist , was "objectively dishonest." Naturally this accusation hit the headlines. However, in December, 2003, the Danish Ministry of Science and Technology overturned the DCSD kangaroo court's decision and sent it back to them. On futher reflection the DCSD members have now decided that perhaps they'd been a bit hasty and have completely dropped the matter (see press release below).

Press Release
March 12, 2004

Scientific Dishonesty Committee Withdraws Lomborg Case

The Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) today announced it would not reopen the case concerning Bjørn Lomborg's book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist".

In December 2003 The Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation completely rejected the DCSD finding that "The Skeptical Environmentalist" was "objectively dishonest" or "clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice".

The Ministry, which is responsible for the DCSD, found that the committee's judgment was not backed up by documentation and was "completely void of argumentation" for the claims of dishonesty and lack of good scientific practice.

The Ministry invalidated the original finding and sent the case back to DCSD, where it was up to the committee to decide whether to reopen the case for a new trial.

"The committee decision is as one would expect," Environmental Assessment Institute director Bjørn Lomborg said today. "More than two years have passed since the case against my book was started. In that time every possible stone has been turned over, yet DCSD has been unable to find a single point of criticism that withstands further investigation."

"DCSD have reached the only logical conclusion. The committee has acknowledged that the former verdict of my book was invalid. I am happy that this will spell an end to what has been a very distasteful course of events," Bjørn Lomborg said.

The DCSD translated their first judgment into English. Today's announcement is only available in Danish.

No word of an apology nor headlines declaring Lomborg vindicated.

He's in statistics, and judging by some of the critisism he's gotten from other people in that area, not a very good one either.

Case Against Scientifically Honest Bjorn Lomborg Dismissed

The Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty abetted a vicious ideological environmentalist smear campaign against Bjorn Lomborg by declaring two years ago that his excellent book The Skeptical Environmentalist , was "objectively dishonest." Naturally this accusation hit the headlines. However, in December, 2003, the Danish Ministry of Science and Technology overturned the DCSD kangaroo court's decision and sent it back to them. On futher reflection the DCSD members have now decided that perhaps they'd been a bit hasty and have completely dropped the matter (see press release below).

Press Release
March 12, 2004

Scientific Dishonesty Committee Withdraws Lomborg Case

The Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) today announced it would not reopen the case concerning Bjørn Lomborg's book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist".

In December 2003 The Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation completely rejected the DCSD finding that "The Skeptical Environmentalist" was "objectively dishonest" or "clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice".

The Ministry, which is responsible for the DCSD, found that the committee's judgment was not backed up by documentation and was "completely void of argumentation" for the claims of dishonesty and lack of good scientific practice.

The Ministry invalidated the original finding and sent the case back to DCSD, where it was up to the committee to decide whether to reopen the case for a new trial.

"The committee decision is as one would expect," Environmental Assessment Institute director Bjørn Lomborg said today. "More than two years have passed since the case against my book was started. In that time every possible stone has been turned over, yet DCSD has been unable to find a single point of criticism that withstands further investigation."

"DCSD have reached the only logical conclusion. The committee has acknowledged that the former verdict of my book was invalid. I am happy that this will spell an end to what has been a very distasteful course of events," Bjørn Lomborg said.

The DCSD translated their first judgment into English. Today's announcement is only available in Danish.

No word of an apology nor headlines declaring Lomborg vindicated.

He's in statistics, and judging by some of the critisism he's gotten from other people in that area, not a very good one either.

Case Against Scientifically Honest Bjorn Lomborg Dismissed

The Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty abetted a vicious ideological environmentalist smear campaign against Bjorn Lomborg by declaring two years ago that his excellent book The Skeptical Environmentalist , was "objectively dishonest." Naturally this accusation hit the headlines. However, in December, 2003, the Danish Ministry of Science and Technology overturned the DCSD kangaroo court's decision and sent it back to them. On futher reflection the DCSD members have now decided that perhaps they'd been a bit hasty and have completely dropped the matter (see press release below).

Press Release
March 12, 2004

Scientific Dishonesty Committee Withdraws Lomborg Case

The Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) today announced it would not reopen the case concerning Bjørn Lomborg's book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist".

In December 2003 The Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation completely rejected the DCSD finding that "The Skeptical Environmentalist" was "objectively dishonest" or "clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice".

The Ministry, which is responsible for the DCSD, found that the committee's judgment was not backed up by documentation and was "completely void of argumentation" for the claims of dishonesty and lack of good scientific practice.

The Ministry invalidated the original finding and sent the case back to DCSD, where it was up to the committee to decide whether to reopen the case for a new trial.

"The committee decision is as one would expect," Environmental Assessment Institute director Bjørn Lomborg said today. "More than two years have passed since the case against my book was started. In that time every possible stone has been turned over, yet DCSD has been unable to find a single point of criticism that withstands further investigation."

"DCSD have reached the only logical conclusion. The committee has acknowledged that the former verdict of my book was invalid. I am happy that this will spell an end to what has been a very distasteful course of events," Bjørn Lomborg said.

The DCSD translated their first judgment into English. Today's announcement is only available in Danish.

No word of an apology nor headlines declaring Lomborg vindicated.

He's in statistics, and judging by some of the critisism he's gotten from other people in that area, not a very good one either.

Case Against Scientifically Honest Bjorn Lomborg Dismissed

The Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty abetted a vicious ideological environmentalist smear campaign against Bjorn Lomborg by declaring two years ago that his excellent book The Skeptical Environmentalist , was "objectively dishonest." Naturally this accusation hit the headlines. However, in December, 2003, the Danish Ministry of Science and Technology overturned the DCSD kangaroo court's decision and sent it back to them. On futher reflection the DCSD members have now decided that perhaps they'd been a bit hasty and have completely dropped the matter (see press release below).

Press Release
March 12, 2004

Scientific Dishonesty Committee Withdraws Lomborg Case

The Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) today announced it would not reopen the case concerning Bjørn Lomborg's book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist".

In December 2003 The Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation completely rejected the DCSD finding that "The Skeptical Environmentalist" was "objectively dishonest" or "clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice".

The Ministry, which is responsible for the DCSD, found that the committee's judgment was not backed up by documentation and was "completely void of argumentation" for the claims of dishonesty and lack of good scientific practice.

The Ministry invalidated the original finding and sent the case back to DCSD, where it was up to the committee to decide whether to reopen the case for a new trial.

"The committee decision is as one would expect," Environmental Assessment Institute director Bjørn Lomborg said today. "More than two years have passed since the case against my book was started. In that time every possible stone has been turned over, yet DCSD has been unable to find a single point of criticism that withstands further investigation."

"DCSD have reached the only logical conclusion. The committee has acknowledged that the former verdict of my book was invalid. I am happy that this will spell an end to what has been a very distasteful course of events," Bjørn Lomborg said.

The DCSD translated their first judgment into English. Today's announcement is only available in Danish.

No word of an apology nor headlines declaring Lomborg vindicated.

but you are assuming that paternity must actually be established, through genetic testing or having the man's name listed as the father on the birth certificate. Reason Magazine had an article on this recently: "Injustice by Default: How the effort to catch "deadbeat dads" ruins innocent men's lives"

Yeah, but that would mean retyping all of the documents... this is another of the side affects of running a Dead Tree Tyranny

To be honest, I have no idea how many current documents are kept primarily in electronic form (making a simple text replacement possible), but I doubt its very many.

I don't want to dwell on constitutional analysis, because our view has never been that civil liberties are necessarily coextensive with constitutional rights. Conversely, I guess the fact that something is mentioned in the Constitution doesn't necessarily mean that it is a fundamental civil liberty.

I don't want to dwell on constitutional analysis, because our view has never been that civil liberties are necessarily coextensive with constitutional rights. Conversely, I guess the fact that something is mentioned in the Constitution doesn't necessarily mean that it is a fundamental civil liberty.

Perhaps while the ACLU is in court that could pick up a copy of the Bill of Rights, not their edited 9 adm one, one that has all the adms in it.

Gun Groups Take Aim at Database
04:45 PM Dec. 01, 1998 PT

.....

The [National Rifle Association] claims that federal law requires the agency to destroy all records immediately after checking a prospective gun buyer's name against its list of people not permitted to purchase weapons.

If the NRA wins in court, the Justice Department will no longer keep personal records, but the FBI's computer will continue to process names before permitting gun purchases -- a system that has other gun-rights groups crying foul.

.....

The Justice Department first proposed storing information on gun purchases for 18 months for audit purposes but recently shortened that to six months following a public outcry.

"The department determined that the general retention period for records of allowed transfers in the NICS Audit Log" should be six months, the agency said in a 30 October statement. It also said that "such information may be retained for a longer period if necessary."

Keeping personal information on file is absolutely necessary, said Nancy Hwa, spokeswoman for the advocacy group Handgun Control.

"We've always favored having a system of licensing and registration in the first place. We should treat guns like cars. If people want to buy [a gun] they should be trained in its use."

Privacy advocates should wake up to the threat of databases of gun owners, said Lisa Dean, vice president of the conservative Free Congress Foundation.

"Privacy groups should take a stand. It's critical that privacy groups look beyond the gun-control issue and start looking at exactly what this is going to mean to them in the future," Dean said. "This is numbering and tracking citizens."

Liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Privacy Information Center have not opposed the FBI's plan to record personal information about gun buyers. EPIC director Marc Rotenberg likened the plan to driver licensing, adding that privacy safeguards should be in place.

our view has never been that civil liberties are necessarily coextensive with constitutional rights. Conversely, I guess the fact that something is mentioned in the Constitution doesn't necessarily mean that it is a fundamental civil liberty.

Come on people...we are supposed to be nerds that know stuff. Mod the parent DOWN FOR FUD!

Look at the sources for crying out loud...

Heres an artice on Reason.com that gives you the real story about DU.

It ISN'T harmful, it isn't radioactive (conversly its used as radiation shielding on many medical devices), in fact 99% of it will pass through your body via urin in less than 48 hours.

Maybe radiation levels were raised because a bomb blew up a nuclear materials storage facility from a hospital, or illegal weapons cache...Fscking leftists and their nuclear FUD.

Reason is a great magazine, btw. I really enjoy it, and suggest you check out their online site. It has every article the dead-tree version does, just a month later. I still get the print version just because I like to support such a great mag and the cover art is usually worth having around in print format (like a dominatrix dressed Rupert Murdoch... oh the nightmares!).

Most subscribers will receive an issue that features four cover pages of intensely personalized information, a demonstration of bleeding-edge technology that may one day allow for mass-customized and hyper-individualized print publications (btw, pace the Times' headline, our monthly print circulation totals about 55,000).

So it's not just the cover...

-bs

As for showing John Q. Public how powerful these systems are... You should try reading some of the stuff on privacy at Reason's website. Often times, the stuff there is (believe it or not) more insightful than the stuff posted here!!!

I don't think the average Reason subscriber will be all that surprised that their house is on the cover. I'll even bet that a good portion DO have the post office or a PMB or other mail drop circled.

-bs

How will these robots be routed around wilderness areas generated by the California Wilderness Protection Act?

Wasn't the Barstow to Vegas motorcycle race cancelled due to declaration of these same wilderness areas? How is DARPA ensuring these vehicles aren't going to run over some tortoise?

Dont' get me wrong, as I'm no tree-hugger. However, it seems the Wilderness protection act only applies to people who cannot afford a congressman...

I'm not the original poster, but he's dead serious about police stopping people and simply taking their money.

For example, police seized $57,000 from three men on the assumption it was drug money. The men claimed it was to buy a shrimp boat, and the police chief was later charged with planting drugs in their car, and convicted of malfeasance - article (Note how in this story police are quoted as refusing to identify the laws that were broken, claiming that to do so would stop people from breaking the laws and limit police's ability to pull people over.)

Based on examples, it seems like police in the US can seize whatever they feel like, even if they recognize the owner is completely innocent. If someone borrows your car and the police find a joint on him at a traffic stop, they can take your car on the spot, and simply never give it back to you.

I generally like the police - my favourite uncle is a detective-sergeant - but not all policemen can be trusted to be judicious with power. The law exists to protect the individual, and the law is failing.

Deputy Dove

So close...so very close. Perhaps a few more monkeys...a few more bananas...

Not "Who are you?". But "Show me your papers!".


A little more menacing than Sergeant Schultz, but I still see him saying that. Take a look at my journal for some practical ideas under these circumstances. FWIW, I think that there may have been enough (clearly, IMHO) for a Terry stop. Beyond that, the tape doesn't really show anything else is warranted. Unfortunately, the rights of the accused are not a high priority for the Rehnquist court.

Under most circumstances, acting up during a Terry stop would get him arrested. The problem here is that the cop wasn't smart enough to nail him for something like disorderly conduct.

More importantly, I think the videotape makes this case. I couldn't find a link at the site for the case (or obtain info from the pleadings that are not downloading right now) which dealt with the source of teh video. I presume it is from the police cruiser as part of a standardized "record all traffic stops" policy?

In thousands of stops every day, there isn't any tape. In the jurisdictions where I practice, there is generally no videotape of stops. I think it would really put the clamps on the police to open up what they do to the light of day although it protects both the accused (from some types of police misconduct) and the police (from allegations of misconduct/abuse).

On an unrelated note, I gather that you are the same John Gilmore (Sun) who filed the amicus brief (through counsel) and the same John Gilmore as this person?

GF.

"High technology and heavy capital use cannot be subordinate to the ebb and flow of market demand. They require planning and it is the essence of planning that public behavior be made predictable--that is be subject to control."

The smartest, most hard-working programmer on the planet would still have his ass kicked by Brad Miller on the basketball court. Likewise, you don't have to be lazy or dumb to have your industry outpaced by another country. The US makes good movies, Germany makes good cars, Costa Rica grows good coffee, India makes good software. None of that's the result of a globalisation conspiracy. Sure, China's $300 billion in foreign reserves helps keep the dollar strong. But do you think that even with a weak dollar we could produce knick knacks as efficiently as the Chinese?

Cutting yourself off from international commerce is suicide. The most economically isolationist countries are the most wretched: North Korea and Belarus, for example. I don't want to follow their pattern. Your point about federalism is interesting, but probably too big of a topic to delve into here.

I like Home Depot, and I know people who have enjoyed working there. Some things scale well (like hardware and book stores), others (like craft & pet stores) seem better suited for mom & pop. Home Depot provides a lot of good services that mom & pop could never afford (e.g. huge stock of rental tools, home repair clinics, self-checkout counters).

Have you ever played Sims? A sim needs to regulate his hunger, comfort, energy, fun, social contacts, etc. Pure consumerism by itself won't make a sim happy. Buying your sim a large screen TV and pool table will keep his "fun" meter high, but if his "social" meter is bottomed out he'll still be miserable. I don't think that's too far from reality; Will Wright based Sims on David Friedman's "Economics of Everyday Life." Consumerism is hollow by itself. But, in context, buying stuff lets us furnish ourselves "a social and a personal identity."

P.S. Have you ever read the Poul Anderson story "The Last of the Deliverers"? Our discussions reminds me of it.

And here's a blatant karma whoring link for more info on Ali G:

http://reason.com/0306/cr.js.studied.shtml

Nathan

As prohibition is enforced, drug prices increase. The more they increase the more prohibitionist related violence occurs. Remember "the greater the risk, the greater reward". Some addicts would sell out their own mother to get the money to get high. No law against and no price too high it will turn the tide. Prohibition has never worked and never will.

An experiment in Bern, Switzerland a few years ago showed something very interesting. The Govt sold pharmaceutical grade heroin to addicts for ~$5USD. They received counseling and a clean needle before they injected. What happenned? Property crimes dropped by 80%. Violent thefts also dropped by over 50%. Decrease the price and remove the criminal supply chain gets you great results.

As for the marijuana claims, think about this: how many people do you know that went nuts from consuming cannabis, became violent from consuming cannabis or "moved on" to hard drugs solely because of it? I'm guessing the number is zero. Marijuana doesn't kill but marijuana prohibition does.

I've sung this song too many times before. Read this. In the end you've been sold on the idea prohibition works by those who most profit from it, the Govt and LEOs. I'm sorry, but you are flat out wrong. I think you weren't trolling but truly believe what you said, which makes it all the sadder. Might I suggest reading Reason's view on drugs?

Get the facts about marijuana and the true cost of prohibition.

I don't think there's any doubt that Standard Oil brought prices down while increasing quality and output. All the complaints were from their competitors, not their customers; quite the opposite of a real monopoly.

That predatory pricing is a myth isn't so controversial. Like many political issues, it's often a case of a special interest claiming government protection for their narrow interests, while pretending that it's for the sake of the general public. Netscape complained about Microsoft giving IE away for free, but I didn't hear complaints from any consumers.

"See, when the government spends money, it creates jobs; whereas when the money is left in the hands of taxpayers, God only knows what they do with it. Bake it into pies, probably. Anything to avoid creating jobs."

It's nuts to assume that throwing money at some new boondoggle will help the economy. Yeah, throwing money into space might employ people. Or alternately, you could employ a lot of people in the hole-digging industry if the government simply funded a giant industry to dig holes and fill them up again. Why not do that? See the parent poster's link.

If I understand your viewpoint it's that consumers are helpless victims of advertising. What happened to all the dot-coms that ran brilliant ads during the Super Bowl a few years ago? Pets.com had that great sock puppet spokesman - they should have cornered the market.

Dell MP3 players are cheaper, but they're not as stylish. The Dell DJ is clunky - the iPod is svelte. Apple isn't bamboozling people with sexy iPod ads; style has a legitimate value for a product you carry around with you.

The failing of a "superior" product is often the fault of a competing product with a better value. Betamax had a clearer picture than VHS, but Sony's refusal to license Beta meant VHS was a better product. Beta was the superior technology - VHS was the superior product. QWERTY versus Dvorak keyboards is another popular example, but Dvorak's superiority has been debunked.

Starbucks didn't go from one store in Seattle to 7,200 stores around the world without a commitment to quality coffee. They didn't ride the wave of the gourmet coffee craze. They got that wave rolling. Starbucks success is the result of hard work and gutsy risk-taking by its founders. In the words of Nation's Restaurant News, "Simply put, Starbucks spends only about $5 million or so on advertising, but it's gotten a remarkable return on its investment by creating a cult following among coffee drinkers."

My tastes are a little more gourmet than McDonald's. But McDonald's has a product with wide appeal: it's cheap, it's consistent, it's exactly what the man on the street wants. If McDonalds sold eggplant sandwiches with goat cheese, they wouldn't be successful. You and I may not personally like it, but the Big Mac is a superior product. It hasn't been foisted on hapless consumers through ubiquity or ballyhoo.

I can't think of a single example of a company that has thrived in the long term with a weak product and strong marketing.