Slashdot Mirror

You mean it wasn't George, Prince of Wales ?

Speak for yourself, goon! I'd say you're a closet McKinleyite if you're not willing to admit that the most important election of the 19th century was stolen by that blasted benevolent assimilationist! It's obvious the election was stolen using those new-fangled ink pen ballots manufactured by Ye Olde Diebold. At least one citizen understood that you can cast a vote with a piece of cold steel much more effectively than you can with a ballot!

Actually, it was from the Yellow Kid.

Members of my family where killed during britain and american bombers over Germany.

In that stuff, if you want to know.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdresden.ht m

Do I feel particulary insulted by people playing winston churchill as entertainement in WWII games ?

Not really.

Your portraying of hitler (true evil) versus darth vader (not true evil) is dishonest, because you pretend that it is due to the fact that darth vader is a fictional character.

The truth is uglier.

Hitler. Evil.
Slave Trader. Evil.
Churchill. Not Evil.
Sadam Hussein. Evil.
Weapon Trader. Not Evil.
Union Carbide. Not Evil.
Stalin. Evil.
Hiroshima. Not Evil.
Bill Gates. Not Evil.

Evil/Not Evil status is decided by who won the war (or what "social" practice dispeared).

What you are saying is that one should only be allowed to play the 'winning' side of history. I find this disturbing. In an 1984 sense.

Wait, so they wrote a law that defined two seperate concepts to be equal? Didn't we decide that this concept was illegal 50 years ago?

As I understand it, domestic partner status in California is available to any couple, regardless of the gender mix thereof. If so, it's legal. Stupid, perhaps redundant with marriage for heterosexuals, but legal.

The question of whether marriage is legal as it is presently described remains up for grabs. And, if I'm wrong about DP being open to both straights and gays, you're probably completely right. However, the DP law might provide enough of a safety valve and dissipation of political focus to delay the final resolution of this issue for a decade or two, since it provides the majority of what the majority of gay couples want-- the substance, if not the name, from the state, and nothing precluding them from using the name with their church, themselves, or their unbigoted neighbors. The current trend is that the younger someone is, the more likely they are to be tollerant to the idea of gay marriage. A two-decade delaying half measure might allow the political tide in this country to turn, and get rid of the half-measure by simplifying to one institution, open to all.

Myself, I think the state doesn't belong in the marriage business, merely in the "civil union"/"domestic partnership" business, but I'm a little strange, even for a Catholic; I believe that cases involving whether something is a marriage, or merely a domestic partnership, is something that may be decided by no mortal court. Religious authorities merely express advisory opinions as to what the ruling of that Final Court is thought likely to be.

Anyway, the current strange demographic trend (more conservative in personal behavior, but more liberal in tolerance of others) in the younger crowd may be one reason why the Republicans are using such desperate measures to pack the federal bench, and are drooling so hard over the prospects of putting up to three justices on the Supreme Court next term. I believe (as I have stated elsewhere in this discussion) that the Republicans have lost their sense of history. Though it might take a tremendous expendature of political capital, an extremist Supreme Court can be bludgeoned to a more moderate position if both President and Congress are united and sufficiently motivated. (Whether this is a good thing is questionable.)

The historic problem with this approach is also accountability - ballot stuffing (i.e. putting lots of extra paper ballots in the box) has always been a problem with paper ballots. If there are a suspicious number of votes in the box, how do you tell who put the extras in, which candidate they were voting for, etc?

There is a bit of info on this page about the problem. The parties used to actually force people to vote on coloured paper depending on who they were supporting, and they made the ballot box transparent - so they could always tell who you were voting for! Of course, if all the officials at a particular voting station were corrupt, then practically anything could happen.

And, while I agree that without the correct technology paper voting as it is used in the UK and Australia is a much better plan, it's not as though the British system hasn't been the home of massive electoral fraud over the years. Blackadder probably sums it up pretty well:

Political Commentator: And now it's time, I think, for a result, and tension is running very high here. Mr. Blackadder assures me that this will be the first honest vote ever in a rotten borough. And I think we all hope for a result which reflects the real needs of the constituency. And behind me...yes, I can just see the Returning Officer moving to the front of the platform.

Blackadder: As the Acting Returning Officer of Dunny-on-the-World...

Commentator: The acting Returning Officer, Mr. E. Blackadder, of course. And we're all very grateful, indeed, that he stepped in at the last minute, when the previous Returning Officer accidently brutally stabbed himself in the stomach while shaving.

Blackadder: I now announce the number of votes cast as follows: Brigadier General Horace Bolsom...

Commentator: Cheap-Royalty-White-Rat-Catching-And-Safe-Sewage-R esidents Party...

Blackadder: No votes.

Blackadder: Ivor Jest-ye-not-madam Biggun...

Commentator: Standing-At-The-Back-Dressed-Stupidly-And-Looking- Stupid Party...

Blackadder: No votes.

Blackadder: Pitt, the Even Younger...

Commantator: Whig...

Blackadder: No votes.

Commentator: Oh, there's a shock.

(Pitt the Even Younger turns to his mum and cries)

Blackadder: Mr. S. Baldrick...

Commentator: Adder Party...

Blackadder: Sixteen thousand, four hundred, and seventy-two.

(Cheers are heard.)

...

Commentator: And now, finally, a word with the man who is at the center of this bi- election mystery: the voter himself. And his name is Mr. E. Bla-- Mr. Blackadder, *you* are the only voter in this rotten borough...?

Blackadder: Yes, that's right.

Commentator: How long have you lived in this constituency?

Blackadder: Since Wednesday morning. I took over the previous electorate when he, very sadly, accidently brutally cut his head off while combing his hair.

Commentator: One voter; 16,472 votes. A slight anomaly...?

Blackadder: Not really -- you see, Baldrick may look like a monkey who's been put in a suit and then strategically shaved, but he is a brilliant politician. The number of votes I cast is simply a reflection of how firmly I believe in his policies.

Socialism has been bandied about unsuccessfully for quite some time now.

No, you're talking communism. All cited examples are dictatorships. Sweden is about the most socialist democratic country theres been - 100% health coverage for everyone, well distributed wealth, free education, 13 month pat/maternity leavy etc etc. Doesn't ruin the economy or it's players either. Read for more info.

So, if someone was holding your loved one, with a knife to their throat, how would you want the police to respond? With a hug?

Yes I am a pacifist. Where applicable. Hitler -> no alternative. Iraq (second and third times around) not necessary. Ex-Yugoslavia - should've been there before and better. My point was against police brutality, not violence. You can learn the subtle yet fundamental difference here.

Fascism bears a 180 degree resemblance to right wing ideology.

This educational site gives : "Mussolini's fascist one-party state emphasized patriotism, national unity, hatred of communism, admiration of military values and unquestioning obedience."

I count five out of five for Bush. But let's not get silly : there is no comparison possible again.

What I don't understand is why any peaceful person would ever want to carry firearms.

How arrogant and totalitarian of you

Ehm. No. I said I don't understand why. Nothing arrogant or totalitarian at all. And you've just completetly failed to convince me that there is any use. I think using firearms to pacify people around you is more totalitarian.

Maybe you need to live in a less dangerous place?

The notion of anonymity in one's reading habits reeks of someone who is too afraid of their peer group, and not the government.

No, the subject of this email is not intended to piss people off. Very simply, there have been numerous discussions recently about the comparison to Germany in 1925 and how the USA is progressing. As someone who loves what this country was founded on and was, as to what it has become. The comparison initially disgusted me.

I'd love to get some Germans in on this comment, the comments I've heard sound mostly like

"That's just how it began in Germany" in reference to the PATRIOT Act, the Iraq war, and now this abomination.

William L. Shirer wrote Rise and fall of the Third Reich . It's a big, dense work, but well worth reading. I had a hard time getting past the first few hundred pages, but from then on it hooked me.

Just about any decent used book store will have a copy in paperback. Lots of people try to finish it, but fail.

The parent poster is not arguing that witches == communisim == terrorism == fictional, but I'm sure you already know that.

The fact is, throughout history society has found a particular attribute to label certain people with, be it fictional or not, and persecute them based upon that.

Perhaps a little bit of history is in order ...

Salem Witch Trials

McCarthyism

And BTW, despite the reality of the existance of "witches", do note that 19 real people were slain in Salem because they were accused of being witches. Those deaths are just as real as any other.

Let's not rewrite history here: what made saturation bombing in Germany of military objectives in heavily populated civilian areas was the unmitigated attacks by Nazis for years on population centers in England with NO military value!

While it's true that V2s were obviously Hitler's "revenge" on England, you are being revisionist here. It's silly to claim V2 was justification for much anything -- planners of Dresden (and other) mass bombings would have had to be clairvoyant as V2s were first used in -44 (their predecessors, V1s, being used bit earlier). Google found this link if you want to know exact statistics of V1/V2 statistics and dates.

Also, while it's not very relevant whether significant german bomber attacks continued for just months (like they did) or for years (like you claim), for factual accuracy you may want to check duration of London blitz (which was the real reason for Allied anger, and caused more damage than V1/V2 combined), and contrast that to allied bombing raids from early -42 to late -45.

Using this might keep people from being able to use a camcorder too.

Don't bank on it. These guys are casting the net as far and as wide as they can. As far as they can tell, "foodsoft" is a code word inside an encrypted message that refers to the White House. And while they're puzzling over that one, whether for ill or for good, you can rest assured that they will be taking the fine-toothed comb to everything else, with results that you cannot know. Tinfoil hat talk? Certainly. But history has already provided way more than the standard two examples of a state gone overboard against its own citizens. It can, and it will, happen again. Budding tyrants rely on most people's distaste for history, as it allows them to maneuver for their own advantage in a much less restricted environment.

The Germans ocuppied Monte Casino after the Allies Bombed it General Bernard Freyberg, who was in charge of the infantry attack, asked for the monastery be bombed. Despite claims by troops on the front-line that no fire had come from the monastery, General Harold Alexander agreed and it was destroyed by the United States Air Force on 15th February, 1944. Once the monastery had been bombed, the German Army moved into the ruins. As Basil Liddell Hart pointed out later in his book The Other Side of the Hill the bombing "turned out entirely to the tactical benefit of the Germans. For after that they felt free to occupy the ruins, and the rubble provided mud better defensive cover than the Monastery would have been before its destruction. As anyone with experience of street-fighting knows, it is only when buildings are demolished that they are converted from mousetraps into bastions of defence." This was confirmed by the Abott of the monastry at the time and is now accepted by the majority of historians that there the monastry was unocupied until was bombed only those who weren't there seem to deny it.

you overlooked the fact that the FBI's subpoenas (even the secret ones) have to be reviewed by a judge and often a grand jury.

But what if they don't need a subpoena?

and perhaps most significantly, you seem unaware that the activities of the FBI are overseen by Senators and Representatives that you and I vote for

Oh sure, I trust the other branches of the Gov't to oversee the FBI.

The problem is that Congressional and Court oversight usually waits until things have gotten so far out of control that they can't duck their responsibility. By which time many innocent people have been hurt. I call the current stupidity in Iraq (ICRC pdf - sorry) as my first witness and Frank Church as my second.

Your significantly more paranoid friend (who has worked for two out of three branches of the Federal Gov't).

The current EU is the descendent of the European Coal and Steel Community created in 1952. Its creation was a reaction to WW2, hardly an example of "governments in Europe getting along just fine". It was the principal of ever closer union that lead from the ECSC to the EU.

Actually, while Ada Lovelace saw the potential of Babbage's Analytical Engine, her inspiration for this was Joseph Jacquard's punch-card-progammable Jacquard loom. Jacquards invention was also later copied as Hollerith's computer punched cards.

The distinctive characteristic of the Analytical Engine, and that which has rendered it possible to endow mechanism with such extensive faculties as bid fair to make this engine the executive right-hand of abstract algebra, is the introduction into it of the principle which Jacquard devised for regulating, by means of punched cards, the most complicated patterns in the fabrication of brocaded stuffs. It is in this that the distinction between the two engines lies. Nothing of the sort exists in the Difference Engine. We may say most aptly that the Analytical Engine weaves algebraical patterns just as the Jacquard-loom weaves flowers and leaves.

Lovelace on Jacquard

Jacquard loom

Jacquard loom output

I don't see humans competing with robots for jobs - I see them doing the jobs we don't want or shouldn't be doing, and creating more jobs for humans. This is perhaps one of the biggest misconceptions - that "Robots take jobs away". Robots help companies stay competitive (by helping produce better quality products at a lower cost, and allowing companies to meet the changing demands of customers); thus, robots help save jobs that otherwise may have been lost, and help create new jobs (although not always the same type of job).

This opinion flies against precedent. Humans already compete with machines for jobs - some might argue an early example being James Hargreaves' Spinning Jenny. This simple machine, and the more ambitious subsequent powered alternatives gave rise to significant conflicts of interest during the industrial revolution in the 18th century. These weaving machines certainly did take away jobs, and I see no reason why a similar pattern will not emerge again in future. It is self-evident that machines successfully competed for jobs in the past and won.

More interesting than the notion that jobs were "taken away" is that the technological advance radically changed the marketplace for labour. Few would argue today that our clothes should all be made by hand. The fact that jobs were "taken away" is simply not-relevant as it fails to take account of the wider context of employment and quality of life.

Wow, a little bit of history repeating.

I would not be so worried about the government collecting such information if it were not for the knowledge that they have tried to collect it in the past and used it in less than ethical ways.

Is it any wonder people are paranoid about them doing it again in the future or the people who defend some of the governments actions?

No Lebel.

I thought the post was hilarious, in a dark sort of way. I'm in my thirties, and I've used a bulk magnetic eraser. "die Nacht der langen Messer" The night of the long measurers? Is this another name for the night of long knives? (my German is REALLY rusty)

It doesn't matter too much -- and this isn't a flame -- but the Hurricane was a prop aircraft, not a jet. Looks superficially like a Spitfire (the other backbone fighter of the RAF at the time), but a Spitfire has a bulbous cockpit, the Hurricane's is straight. All about it here.

Surface Maglev has no future; the speed increase over conventionnal rail IS NOT WORTH IT for the added expense in relation to the time gained.

Maglev could have some chances in an evacuated tunnel, but the horrenduous infrastructure costs will see that it will not see the light of day...

The situation we're in now (USA/UK/*) isn't too different from the textile industry during the start of the Industrial Revolution. Back then, it took two or more weavers to operate a single loom. British companies were soon being undercut by Indian weavers. However, the English companies managed to remain competitive by improving productivity through automation. The use of power looms (via the steam engine) and the Jacquard looms allowed factory owners to have one weaver operate two looms instead of having three or more weavers in constant attendance. Today, only one technician is required to supervise 20 Jacquard looms.

Going back to the computer industry, and the only way we (as programmers/engineers) can compete is by moving up a level and trying to automate as much of the design process as possible, using techniques such as expert systems, code generators, intelligent compilers etc...

WWII was started by Pearl Harbor

The 1,000 jobs created by this plant are a far cry from the 100,000 that were killed on Feb 13-15, 1945. The city of dresden was basically annihilated by American and British allied forces in 3 days by 1250 sorties. They used a firebomb technique to make sure that they could kill as many people as they could. These were refugees, not Nazi soldiers. Bombing of Dresden

Well, let's start with the almost complete destruction of Battleship Row and go from there. Let's try the fact that we never attacked Japan before Pearl Harbor, no state of war was announced, no nothing. Fortunately, the USS Enterprise, an aircraft carrier, was away at the time of the attack.

Let's also keep in mind that General Curtis LeMay's 21st Bomber Command killed more people with firestorms than the nuclear weapons. Here's a quick timeline of firebombing in Europe, A good picture describing firebombing, Wiki of how Tokyo was firebombed, and the wonderful bomber that made this all possible.

I can't find the link now, but do you know why those cities were picked? Because they had manufacturing facilities. Heard of Mitsubishi? They built planes, and engines, and bombs. They had factories in/near those cities. Those were also military targets, as much so as Pearl Harbor. Or do you not know that a lot of civilians lived in Pearl Harbor as well?

To seek to 'know the very truth of each thing' is a tough road to travel, although I agree with you that it is the striving that can deliver us to our destiny, whatever that may be.

However, I think it is easy to propose a new kind of aristocracy, when you yourself are part of it. Plenty of wise, educated Aryan people agreed when Hitler said:

"Every manifestation of human culture, every product of art, science and technical skill, which we see before our eyes today, is almost exclusively the product of Aryan creative power"

Just food for thought...

Pixie

Well, yes and no - some phone booths (especially older ones) have doors for a reason, no? :) I realize that not everybody sees eye-to-eye on this issue, but my feeling is that privacy, and the sense of security that can come with it, is essential to the functioning of freedom of speech. It's important to be able to exchange ideas with trusted friends without having to worry about what other people would think. It's important to be able to post anonymously to a discussion forum and know that you won't be placed on some 'suspicious persons' list because you made the post from a library computer that was being monitored by the FBI as a part of some investigation that has nothing to do with you. It's important to be able to go to an internet cafe and (provided you're not already the subject of an investigation) write an email that says you think the US needs a new government because privacy, even in a public library's computer room, is a tangible guarantee that you won't be judged (in the criminal sense) for exercising your constitutional right to free speech. Of course, there ought to be sensible limits to a person's right to privacy, but my point here is that it's just as important to avoid overwhelmingly strong government surveillance as it is to avoid the opposite extreme, where the government is so totally paralyzed that it can't do anything.

Terrorist were using cell phones to avoid the FBI, when the FBI or other agency would get a wiretap on one of the numbers the suspect would just get a new cell phone, the government is just trying to keep up with technology and the tactics of the enemy.

Yes, this is a good point; roving wiretaps may be able to save lives, so in principle they are a good idea. What bothers me, however, is that (as far as I can tell) there aren't really any new checks to make sure that the government doesn't abuse its new power. It's my feeling that, any time the government's power is augmented, it's critical that somebody sits down and thinks through *exactly* what purpose the new power should serve, how such power might be abused, and what measures need to be taken to prevent such abuse. That simply didn't happen in the case of the patriot act; it was rushed through congress so fast that many lawmakers didn't even read it.

Most people would probably agree with the statement that law enforcement should only collect information about people when they have probable cause to suspect that person is guilty of a crime. Lots of red tape exists to prevent this rule of thumb from being violated, but thanks to the patriot act, a fair amount of that red tape has been cleared away. I guess what it boils down to is this: How much do you trust law enforcement agencies? If there were no mechanism to force them to comply with the stipulation that no probable cause means no investigation, do you think that they would follow that rule anyways? I know that this is a (very) old cliche, and I apologize for using it here, but power corrupts. Even if you do trust the current administration, if there aren't strong mechanisms in place to protect people's rights, then it's just a matter of time until some greasy little troll works his way into a position of authority and starts using his power to push people he doesn't like around.

Cheers,
-Bill

Well, yes and no - some phone booths (especially older ones) have doors for a reason, no? :) I realize that not everybody sees eye-to-eye on this issue, but my feeling is that privacy, and the sense of security that can come with it, is essential to the functioning of freedom of speech. It's important to be able to exchange ideas with trusted friends without having to worry about what other people would think. It's important to be able to post anonymously to a discussion forum and know that you won't be placed on some 'suspicious persons' list because you made the post from a library computer that was being monitored by the FBI as a part of some investigation that has nothing to do with you. It's important to be able to go to an internet cafe and (provided you're not already the subject of an investigation) write an email that says you think the US needs a new government because privacy, even in a public library's computer room, is a tangible guarantee that you won't be judged (in the criminal sense) for exercising your constitutional right to free speech. Of course, there ought to be sensible limits to a person's right to privacy, but my point here is that it's just as important to avoid overwhelmingly strong government surveillance as it is to avoid the opposite extreme, where the government is so totally paralyzed that it can't do anything.

Terrorist were using cell phones to avoid the FBI, when the FBI or other agency would get a wiretap on one of the numbers the suspect would just get a new cell phone, the government is just trying to keep up with technology and the tactics of the enemy.

Yes, this is a good point; roving wiretaps may be able to save lives, so in principle they are a good idea. What bothers me, however, is that (as far as I can tell) there aren't really any new checks to make sure that the government doesn't abuse its new power. It's my feeling that, any time the government's power is augmented, it's critical that somebody sits down and thinks through *exactly* what purpose the new power should serve, how such power might be abused, and what measures need to be taken to prevent such abuse. That simply didn't happen in the case of the patriot act; it was rushed through congress so fast that many lawmakers didn't even read it.

Most people would probably agree with the statement that law enforcement should only collect information about people when they have probable cause to suspect that person is guilty of a crime. Lots of red tape exists to prevent this rule of thumb from being violated, but thanks to the patriot act, a fair amount of that red tape has been cleared away. I guess what it boils down to is this: How much do you trust law enforcement agencies? If there were no mechanism to force them to comply with the stipulation that no probable cause means no investigation, do you think that they would follow that rule anyways? I know that this is a (very) old cliche, and I apologize for using it here, but power corrupts. Even if you do trust the current administration, if there aren't strong mechanisms in place to protect people's rights, then it's just a matter of time until some greasy little troll works his way into a position of authority and starts using his power to push people he doesn't like around.

Cheers,
-Bill

Here's a somewhat offbeat indirect reference (although I'm suspicious of the date, because a Committee report only a year later said "the substitution of inanimate for animal power, in draught on common roads, is one of the most important improvements in the means of internal communication ever introduced").

That gave me a name, Nicholas Wood, and this amusing-in-hindsight quote: "It is far from my wish to promulgate to the world that the ridiculous expectations of the enthusiastic specialists, that we shall see locomotives travelling at the rate of 12, 16, 18 or 20 miles an hour; nothing could do more harm towards their adoption, or general improvement, than the promulgation of sich nonsense." From this expert opinion, it's possible to adduce that the cluelessness of the people was indeed legendary. "Enthusiast" in those days carried connotations akin to "zealot" or possibly even "madman". (-:

I'm a bit busy, else I'd dig out the paper version and key a chunk of it in for you.

Or how about the illegal [as the WTO ruled] tarrif on Softwood lumber?

Same problem as above--Canada's socialist, anti-market subsidies propped up softwood lumber producers so they could dump their products in the US. Just like in the case being discussed, the US applied a corrective measure. If the Canadian industry can't handle a little competition, that's not our problem.

The point here is that the WTO has ruled that the Canadian government does not unfairly subsidize the softwood lumber industry. The Canadian softwood producers are not 'propped up' by 'socialist, anti-market subsidies'. Canada does use a different system (from the U.S.) for the sale of logging rights, but it is not intrinsically unfair. Unless, of course, you wish to make the assertion that the WTO is a bastion of 'leftist' and 'socialist' thinking.

Until recently, the Canadian dollar was at all-time historic lows against the U.S. dollar--consequently, Canadian products became cheaper (relatively) in the American market. Now, the Canadian dollar has jumped in value about fifteen percent in the last year or two--Canadian goods will become more expensive. We should also consider the possibility that the American softwood lumber industry is inefficient and uncompetitive, and should be subjected to market forces instead of hiding behind protectionist tariffs.

Yep. Leftists and socialists such as yourself think it's peachy for every country but the US to prop up uncompetitive industries, using far more nationalist propaganda than anything you'll ever see in US markets. But if the big, bad US of A, which probably sent soldiers to fight for your freedom to bitch at some point, tries to defend its own markets, oh, what a monster.

Hypocrite.

They were also fighting for their own 'freedom to bitch'. In case you're wondering, Canada too has paid in blood for the right of its citizens to bitch. Battles like Vimy Ridge and Ypres in WWI, and the Juno Beach landing in WWII are as well known to Canadians as events like Leyte Gulf or Pearl Harbor are to Americans. Feel free to discuss differences of opinion about international trade policy, but don't insult the millions of men and women in other countries who have also died for our freedom.

The United States is one of the world's largest markets. If it engages in unfair trade practices, it distorts commerce for the rest of the world. If it chooses to employ protectionist tariffs while purportedly supporting free trade...'hypocrite' indeed.

There are, of course, scientific guidelines behind any art form, such as the Golden Ratio, but this isn't one of them. While I am open to the possibility that there may be some universals in human narrative, I shudder to think that the commodified culture of Hollywood might impose its formulas on us like a mental template. Or is it too late?

Whenever Taylorism is applied to a creative endeavour, we get quanity over quality and the fears of General Ned Ludd and the Army of Redressers as well as Socrates become valid.

Dehumanized art is dead art.

More generally: what happens when technological advancements threaten the livelihood of various persons and/or business models?

There's the ever-popular luddites which spawned the term sabotage -- is it moral to destroy that which is thought to (or even really will) harm your livelihood? Is it defensible on grounds of self-defense/self-preservation, or is it indefensible technophobia and inflexibility/inability to adapt and ignorant short-sightedness?

Of course I'm intentionally skating around the obviously related *AA issues (MPAA, RIAA) and IP/copyright infringement, incessant extension of copyrights, etc.

But, I think this would be a fun way to start the discussion. Everyone knows about the *AA issues (well, most college students, at least). And, most will have a strong opinion on the isse one way or the other (see any /. article on *AA and IP/copyright).

But, not everyone is familiar with relatively ridiculous-sounding, but strongly-related historical episodes of things like throwing wooden shoes into a machine for fear of being replaced by it (sabots, see links above).

I, for one, would be amused to see how many students who would say stopping such a technological advancement (machinery) to keep some people in their devil-that-they-know occupations was silly and wrong (and short-sighted), and then be faced with quite a logical/moral delimma when IP/copyright laws are discussed in the same vein.

Granted, many students may be anti-RIAA/MPAA to begin with out of greed/ignorance and not really have given it much though, so you may have to find a few whose family members benefit from the *AA and IP/copytight extensions somehow to get a real reaction, but it would be enlightening to all nonetheless, IMHO.

I've got a great idea!

How about we push a bill through congress, and call it "The Alien Registration Act"? This act would make it illegal for anyone in the United States to advocate, abet, or teach the desirability of overthrowing the government. The law would also require all alien residents in the United States over 14 years of age to file a comprehensive statement of their personal and occupational status and a record of their political beliefs.

That would be a big step toward combatting terrorism.

Then we could get the House of Un-American Activies Committee to investigate, well, gee, just about everybody on that list. Maybe they could even start with members of the MPAA, since we all hate them, anyhow. We could follow them around, search their houses (without warrants), and ruin their lives. We could demand that they tell us who their associates are, ignore their pleas for respecting their first amendment rights, and imprison them if they give us answers we don't like. If they "name names", that should be good enough to do the same to those they name.

We could get the FBI to start maintaining a huge blacklist of people who we suspect maybe might be terrorists, and make sure that if anybody hires those people (even unknowingly), they get blacklisted, too. We could even get the FBI to spy on random citizens, and if they had even an inkling they maybe might be terrorists or something, we could ruin their lives too (hey, it's for the greater good, right?). We could especially target people who sound like the people we're at war with -- wouldn't that be great for the IT industry? No more Iraqis to steal our jobs! Hell, we could get them to arrest all the dark-skinned people who talk funny, too -- so we could get rid of all the Indians, Afghans, and Pakistanis who are stealing our jobs. That would be wonderful! (Who cares if they are immigrants or citizens or on H1 visas -- they're not the same as us, they don't deserve the same rights!)

We could also go after people with the same religion as those we're at war with, because they'd almost certainly have the same political beliefs.. and particularly go after those in the military. Hey, we already had one guy with a funny last name lob some grenades at our guys in Kuwait! So, we could use that incident as an excuse to lock up all the Muslims. Now we're talkin'!

Now, here's the tough question.... what kind of a person could we trust to start such a witch hunt? Maybe a senator from Wisconsin.... who are the senators from Wisconsin right now? I can't remember... but I remember that fifty years ago, it was a fellow named Joseph McCarthy .

Thank God for men like Eisenhower and Nixon. If it wasn't for them, half the country would probably be rotting in jail by now.

You, sir, deserve neither liberty, nor security.

Anti-personel launchers are (by some reports) considered inhumane (and thus illegal for warfare use). Personel rocket launchers, on the other hands have been around since at least the second world war (Allies called them bazookas. I always thought that Germans called them panzerhausers, but apparently they called them Panzerschreck.

It's very easy to get the mob to do stupid things, like elect the Nazis. I'm against pure democracy.

Logical falacy alert! Your example is incorrect: the Nazi party was never elected by a majority.

The development of the tank was plagued with setbacks and the original inventors were brushed off by the american war office, only to be adopted by the brits.

Even then, the program really didn't get started until after a lot of patriotic young men were were killed on the fields of the first world war.

If we believe the website (especially the third link in the slashdot article) then the solotrek flew, there are two prototypes capable of controlled hover (one of which is slightly damaged in a test flight accident due to a problem with the test rig and not the vehicle) and all of it is available for cash.

If there is a real need for a single occupant exosuit flyer (for instance, making insertions into urban areas and avoiding the whole black hawk down kinda scenario) then somebody will fund it.

Whether its the EU, some asian power who has engineers who work for nothing or Somebody Else.

If the next developer waits until after the solotrek team scatters, then the resulting machine will not be a solotrek. But then again a Panzer is not the tank envisiged by the engineers at the Holt Company USA either.

What would you trust more, a well developped and well researched almost 200 year old technology (the first steam train ran in 1804), or a new, extremely complex technology that has yet to carry it's first passenger???

The FBI is on occasion not above a little blackmail (especially the 3rd paragraph) They also like to keep tabs on the political opposition.

Seriously. You're paranoid...

No, just cynical. You're naive.

Because eventually they'd get to someone like me, who has nothing to hide.

But do you have nothing to lose?

It applies to the government, too. Everyone will be able to see exactly what the FBI and the CIA and the NSA are up to

How does this follow? Will the NSA publish their intercepts? No, open government is a great idea, but I doubt the U.S. government would open up voluntarily. If anything it has recently clamped down on information "because it might help terrorists".

I think our constitution needs another ammendment that says something along the lines of "No law shall be passed which denies an adult individual the right to perform an act which causes no harm to any individual other than the actor."

Good luck getting that through. After all there are states that still have sodomy laws on the books. And you want a constitutional amendment no less.

Fortunately, though, our first ammendment already covers the most important rights of all. As long as it stays intact and as well-defended as it is

The point is that you can, in practice, damage the first amendment without breaking it. All you need to do is make it clear to people that they may be free to speak up, but there will be consequences. This is the famous "chilling effect". The problem is that the consequences can be serious, but subtle enough that most people not affected will simply not care. A perfect example is the new airline watch list: e.g. if you are caught protesting missile defense, or the "School of the Americas", you can look forward to a strip search every time you want to fly in the U.S. Sure, it may not deter the hardcore activists, but it will help keep such opinions marginalized (there was an article in Salon.com recently but I can't find the link anymore).

I think a 100% open information society could have a lot of advantages.

This new government database is a long way from an open society. Your use of phrases like "information wants to be free" makes me think you understand that "knowledge is power". Now we have a case of the government collecting information; I don't think they should have the associated power, at least not without a helluva lot more oversight.

Companies who fire people for being gay are limiting their own selection of employees and making an unprofitable decision. Besides that, such actions tend to generate lots of negative publicity.

And has that kept the U.S. military from firing people for being gay?

Actually didn't the FBI used to be run by an obese gay midget?

Written like a true tr0ll!

Of course, I think you either don't drink at your own fountain, or you have a little lead in your pipes, if you know what I mean.

I would like to speculate for the crowd how well this coherent-sounding rhetoric would hold up while you were being tortured by a few CIA-trained SAVAK interrogators. Oh, that SAVAK. The American-backed Shah of Iran's security services. The people who were so bad the Ayatollahs looked great by comparison. In the words of Amnesty International, "No country in the world has a worse record in human rights than Iran." Under our puppet dictator, that is.

We are lovers of totalitarianism in the West, and we gave the Soviets excellent competition. I just gave you one Middle Eastern country. Press me, and I can respond a dozen times before I even get into to South America.

The western elite cared plenty about methods. And, the methods of the western "elite" in general did not use methods as evil as the Soviets. Certainly the western "elite" didn't use evil methods against their own people!

I want you to chant this a dozen times before you go to bed each night, and two dozen times in the morning. But you have no chance of catching up to the number of "insurgents" (now the term is "terrorists") our regime has murdered, generally by proxy, but often directly, before you die. Unless you're visiting Guatemala and get mistaken for a communist. Then you'll really miss the mark. Or start chanting a lot faster, one or the other.

Think I should be confused by the fact that I won't go to reeducation for my comments? Why should I? I'm intimately familiar with the recent history which allows me to speak unfavorably about capitalism, as well as the more recent history that seems eager to turn back the clock.

I don't really understand it myself, but I suppose the idiot's garden of denial about the exigencies of power and the behavior of western governments is powerfully attractive to some - actually, most - people. I think it has something to do with our pain threshold. Or maybe just those regular public education funding cuts.

Rock on, "mesocyclone." If you really believe what you are saying, someone as obviously wrongheaded as yourself will be in little danger of questioning your beliefs, and if not, you're even more likely to profess the same. Take my advice, though. Don't do too much traveling in the 3rd world.

Do you know *anything* about the history of the Maginot Line?

Try reading. It can't hurt.

Even though this is an article praising what they admit to be an amazing military blunder, kindly note the fatal flaws. They FAILED to realize that Germans could, get this, walk around the line.

Naturally, all the big immovable guns and firing positions were facing east.

So the Germans walked up from the west, and uh... knocked on the door, and the French surrendered.

There's a reason the French have that stereotype, you know. Let's not forget Vichy France, eh? As part of their deal, they disbanded the army, surrendered all French Jews, and the 1.5 million French troops that had already surrendered remained POW's.

Wow. This americunt knows a little history, instead of how to call people names, anonymously. I don't know why I bothered to write this, though. ;p

In April, 1920, Hitler advocated that the party should change its name to the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP). Hitler had always been hostile to socialist ideas, especially those that involved racial or sexual equality. However, socialism was a popular political philosophy in Germany after the First World War. This was reflected in the growth in the German Social Democrat Party (SDP), the largest political party in Germany.

Hitler, therefore redefined socialism by placing the word 'National' before it. He claimed he was only in favour of equality for those who had "German blood". Jews and other "aliens" would lose their rights of citizenship, and immigration of non-Germans should be brought to an end. (link)

Sheesh. If monorails were really so good, they would be all over the place. But 200 years (okay, 198) years after Richard Trevithick invented the steam locomotive (btw, the , birail systems are quite prevalent throughout the known universe).

Must be their inherent simplicity and stability, no? If you really look around, there aren't really much monorails...

The gravesites of Allied soldiers from WWI and WWII are lovingly cared for.

Except for The Somme, which is about to be paved for another airport for Paris. Nothing like paving over where a million soldiers died (no I'm not kidding, read the link).

Incidentally, I was incorrect to specify "Victorian" England as the epoch at hand - the child labor movement began in the early 19th century.