Slashdot Mirror

Even we at Fox News manage to get some lefties on the air occasionally, and often let them finish their sentences before we club them to death and feed the scraps to Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly. And those who hate us can take solace in the fact that they aren't subsidizing Bill's bombast; we payers of the BBC license fee don't enjoy that peace of mind.

Fox News is, after all, a private channel and our presenters are quite open about where they stand on particular stories. That's our appeal. People watch us because they know what they are getting. The Beeb's institutionalized leftism would be easier to tolerate if the corporation was a little more honest about it.

(Which also contains the peep about the Beep you wished for =)

"But figures from the US show that Apple, the dominant legal download business in Europe and the US, retains just 4 cents from each 99-cent (55p) track sale while 'mechanical copyright' holders - generally the record labels, who own copyright in the song's recording - take 62 cents or more. Music publishers take the rest - about 8 cents."

But what price is "fair"? Apple says it is 99 cents a song. Of this, Apple gets a sliver--4 cents--while the music publishers snag 8 cents and the record companies pocket most of the rest. Even though record companies earn more per track from downloads than CD sales, industry execs have been pushing for more. One option is a tiered pricing model, with the most popular tunes selling for as much as $3. After all, the music honchos reason, people pay up to $3 for cell-phone ring tones, mere snippets of songs.

Don't worry. Dupes of this story will be posted soon.

In the men time pick your favourite bushism here.

I don't think that /. is as much a unitary voting block as you think it is. At first glance it appears that /. is a direct split between the vocal pro-privacy, anti-war libertarians, and the pro-privacy, anti-war liberals, but I would hazzard to guess that at least a 3rd of /.ers are pro-war, pro-snooping conservatives.

And then there's us pro-privacy pro-war semi-libertarians. Right after 9/11, Donald Rumsfeld said: ""We have a choice: either to change the way we live, which is unacceptable; or to change the way that they live. And we chose the latter." I agree with that entirely, but it seems the Bush administration no longer does.

Any takers on this?

Plus I thought web2.0 implied the use of AJAX, youtube doesn't seem to use it.
Does it qualify as web2.0?

http://www.slate.com/id/2138951/ (in the article) does mention AJAX, but apparently it's not very important, because "Ajax without participation doesn't make for Web 2.0,"

Rerecording the songs--something that contracts typically allow artists to do after 20 years--puts Gang of Four in a strong bargaining position for negotiating a new deal with superior royalty rates.

Slate had a whack at this a very long time ago.

The bad news is that even 1-2% means that your vote doesn't matter.

Landsburg shows that even with a perfectly even state election (50/50 in NY), statistically speaking, you are more likely to be murdered by your mother

To quote: "If Kerry (or Bush) has just a slight edge, so that each of your fellow voters has a 51 percent likelihood of voting for him, then your chance of casting the tiebreaker is about one in 10 to the 1,046th power--approximately the same chance you have of winning the Powerball jackpot 128 times in a row...

The traditional reply begins with the phrase "But if everyone thought like that ... ." To which the correct rejoinder is: So what? Everyone doesn't think like that. They continue to vote by the millions and tens of millions."

Slate magazine said the same thing four months ago:

The Great Xbox Shortage of 2005
Xbox Economics, Part 2

Slate magazine said the same thing four months ago:

The Great Xbox Shortage of 2005
Xbox Economics, Part 2

Holy PR moves Batman!

Your first statement directly negates the entirety of your post.

Consider this. Could it be, just maybe, that it's purely PR that is telling us that the 'reasons we went to war in Iraq are false'? I think so. The MSM has had a hardon for Bush ever since he was a Texas Governor. This has been proven. Also consider that we are *not* privy to everything that the NSA and DIA have in their dossiers. Shit, we aren't privy to anything but what GWB *wants* to declassify to try to cover his arse.

But you know the funny frickin' part? A) Yes, Iraq was seeking Uranium in Niger... since 1996, and as recently as 2001. Christopher Hitchens just reiterated this once again, the facts that I have known since 2002. Anyone who paid any attention at all during the run up to the war knows that. It was common knowledge in the UN. But of course, the MSM won't tell you that.

B) The whole trailer bit? Oh yeah... that's fully wrong too. And I know this, because the story that the media is spinning right now, is NOT ABOUT THE SAME TRAILERS WE WERE STATING WERE MANUFACTURING WMD's. I have photographs saved at home of the original trailers, and the file footage and reporting they are doing today are NOT THE SAME ONES! Not even close. But again... let's make up more stuff to shoot ourselves in the dick. They've been pulling this shit since Korea, and like they are going to stop now. Truth in journalism...HAH! The original ones were dual use for processing chemicals. Not making hydrogen. The ones they are reporting on now were filled with sand. The original evidence brought before the UN, they were not, and were capable of creating Sarin, I believe. I'd have to go back and dig out all my stuff.

C) Those lovely WMDs that the Russians moved... I can go on and on and on. But they are somewhere in the world. They just don't disappear. Why is everyone forgetting about the labs we found in Southern Iraq that had just been emptied, and the Russian ships off the coast booking it to the Indian Ocean? And just what WERE Russian Special Forces doing with trucks in the desert heading North to Syria? The documentation is all out there gang... you just have to dig.

Now all of that being said, it doesn't mean we didn't handle the whole thing like amateurs. They did! Donnie should be at least reprimanded if not asked to step down. We didn't plan, we didn't prepare, and we sure as hell didn't know what we were getting into. Personally, I think GWB can't tell the difference between Iran and Iraq. And this has cost us in so many ways, it's not even funny. Just how on EARTH are we going to be able to garner support to stop that crazy mofo over in Iran?? We don't have any clout. Bush cried wolf. And he's dirtier than I can even think. But he is still Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces, therefore I support the efforts because they are out there on the front lines fighting the great fight. A fight that could very well mean our survival as a country... or worse. I'm angrier at the Bush Administration than ever, but not more than I ever was at the Clintoons for selling us out to the Chinese. I have begun to start to accept that the country doesn't belong to the people anymore, but to the frickin' elitest upperclass that thinks they know what's best when they can't even SPELL C-O-N-S-T-I-T-U-T-I-O-N. Because they don't have any.

Just my 2pence.

"Intelligence seems to be one of the few things the military doesn't overpay for - one Afghan spying on al Qaeda gets $15 for every successful mission."

So now "not helping the government" is a crime in and of itself?

Yes. Inaction, i.e. not actively helping the government, has now become a federal crime with a potential death sentence. (If the government says you are a terrorist)

An article with some info on the 'video window'

From the above article:

The most radical proposal is to eliminate the windowing system entirely. In this scenario, the studios would simultaneously release a title in theaters, video stores, and on pay-per-view, and the title would require only a single marketing campaign. The audience could then choose which format best fits its wallet and clock. Proponents of this plan envision that it will shift some part of the theater audience to either DVD (which has higher profit margins than theatrical distribution) or pay-per-view (which has higher profit margins than DVD). Even so, they hold that movie theaters will retain a core audience, since there will always be people who prefer the theater experience or who just want to get out of the house. The hitch here is that the popcorn economies of the multiplexes are extremely fragile. "We are in the people-moving business," a multiplex owner explains, "We make our real money moving customers to the popcorn stand." Since movie theaters have fixed costs, such as leases and interest payments, a relatively small dip in the traffic to the popcorn counters could make it impossible for them to remain open. Just a 6 percent drop in attendance in 2000-2001, for example, put most of the theater chains into bankruptcy.

'Part one' of the article and more interesting Hollywood artices here:

'Box Office'

'Insurance'

'Financing'

There are more at that site... most are good reads.

An article with some info on the 'video window'

From the above article:

The most radical proposal is to eliminate the windowing system entirely. In this scenario, the studios would simultaneously release a title in theaters, video stores, and on pay-per-view, and the title would require only a single marketing campaign. The audience could then choose which format best fits its wallet and clock. Proponents of this plan envision that it will shift some part of the theater audience to either DVD (which has higher profit margins than theatrical distribution) or pay-per-view (which has higher profit margins than DVD). Even so, they hold that movie theaters will retain a core audience, since there will always be people who prefer the theater experience or who just want to get out of the house. The hitch here is that the popcorn economies of the multiplexes are extremely fragile. "We are in the people-moving business," a multiplex owner explains, "We make our real money moving customers to the popcorn stand." Since movie theaters have fixed costs, such as leases and interest payments, a relatively small dip in the traffic to the popcorn counters could make it impossible for them to remain open. Just a 6 percent drop in attendance in 2000-2001, for example, put most of the theater chains into bankruptcy.

'Part one' of the article and more interesting Hollywood artices here:

'Box Office'

'Insurance'

'Financing'

There are more at that site... most are good reads.

An article with some info on the 'video window'

From the above article:

The most radical proposal is to eliminate the windowing system entirely. In this scenario, the studios would simultaneously release a title in theaters, video stores, and on pay-per-view, and the title would require only a single marketing campaign. The audience could then choose which format best fits its wallet and clock. Proponents of this plan envision that it will shift some part of the theater audience to either DVD (which has higher profit margins than theatrical distribution) or pay-per-view (which has higher profit margins than DVD). Even so, they hold that movie theaters will retain a core audience, since there will always be people who prefer the theater experience or who just want to get out of the house. The hitch here is that the popcorn economies of the multiplexes are extremely fragile. "We are in the people-moving business," a multiplex owner explains, "We make our real money moving customers to the popcorn stand." Since movie theaters have fixed costs, such as leases and interest payments, a relatively small dip in the traffic to the popcorn counters could make it impossible for them to remain open. Just a 6 percent drop in attendance in 2000-2001, for example, put most of the theater chains into bankruptcy.

'Part one' of the article and more interesting Hollywood artices here:

'Box Office'

'Insurance'

'Financing'

There are more at that site... most are good reads.

An article with some info on the 'video window'

From the above article:

The most radical proposal is to eliminate the windowing system entirely. In this scenario, the studios would simultaneously release a title in theaters, video stores, and on pay-per-view, and the title would require only a single marketing campaign. The audience could then choose which format best fits its wallet and clock. Proponents of this plan envision that it will shift some part of the theater audience to either DVD (which has higher profit margins than theatrical distribution) or pay-per-view (which has higher profit margins than DVD). Even so, they hold that movie theaters will retain a core audience, since there will always be people who prefer the theater experience or who just want to get out of the house. The hitch here is that the popcorn economies of the multiplexes are extremely fragile. "We are in the people-moving business," a multiplex owner explains, "We make our real money moving customers to the popcorn stand." Since movie theaters have fixed costs, such as leases and interest payments, a relatively small dip in the traffic to the popcorn counters could make it impossible for them to remain open. Just a 6 percent drop in attendance in 2000-2001, for example, put most of the theater chains into bankruptcy.

'Part one' of the article and more interesting Hollywood artices here:

'Box Office'

'Insurance'

'Financing'

There are more at that site... most are good reads.

An article with some info on the 'video window'

From the above article:

The most radical proposal is to eliminate the windowing system entirely. In this scenario, the studios would simultaneously release a title in theaters, video stores, and on pay-per-view, and the title would require only a single marketing campaign. The audience could then choose which format best fits its wallet and clock. Proponents of this plan envision that it will shift some part of the theater audience to either DVD (which has higher profit margins than theatrical distribution) or pay-per-view (which has higher profit margins than DVD). Even so, they hold that movie theaters will retain a core audience, since there will always be people who prefer the theater experience or who just want to get out of the house. The hitch here is that the popcorn economies of the multiplexes are extremely fragile. "We are in the people-moving business," a multiplex owner explains, "We make our real money moving customers to the popcorn stand." Since movie theaters have fixed costs, such as leases and interest payments, a relatively small dip in the traffic to the popcorn counters could make it impossible for them to remain open. Just a 6 percent drop in attendance in 2000-2001, for example, put most of the theater chains into bankruptcy.

'Part one' of the article and more interesting Hollywood artices here:

'Box Office'

'Insurance'

'Financing'

There are more at that site... most are good reads.

Given an alternative between buying the DVD and going to a theater, a person will choose what option gives them the best value for their money (external factors such as marketing bias aside). Home viewing of DVDs is more cost-effective in the long run, due to the high overhead of food sales at theaters and the ability to view the movie multiple times for one fixed cost.

What do theaters lose when DVDs are offered soon after the movie release? People will choose DVD over theater, and the theaters will go under. Even if theaters do manage to provide a better viewing experience (cell phones, sticky floors, and babies crying are clear detriments), they can't compete with a slightly worse product that costs a lot less.

What do studios gain by offering DVDs quickly? They don't have to split profits with anyone, and they don't have to deal with third party theaters cutting into their profits by showing ads. What's more, studios could stop releasing film altogether, and provide only straight-to-home-viewing-device products, eliminating theaters entirely. With the current state of technology, this may happen anyway, as more and more theaters become bankrupt.

Putting aside the question of whether invading was morally right, and the abominable postwar planning and strategy (or rather, complete and total absence of any postwar planning and strategy), this raises a very serious question: was the invasion (as opposed to the occupation we now find ourselves mired in) a good decision from a military standpoint?

The short, superficial answer is: yes, because we won. But the question is, did we win because the U.S. military is so much better than the Iraqi military, or because Saddam did some incredibly stupid things? Was Rumsfeld a strategic genius, or arrogant and stupid, and only saved by the fact that Saddam acted even more stupid- by hobbling his army, by not listening to his commanders, and worrying about coups and Shiite uprisings instead of the U.S. military?

Anyhow, it's a bit academic at this point- we're stuck with the outcome, and we're not going to be invading anyone else for a long time. But I think it's worth thinking about, so we draw the right lessons from the war. Kaplan, Slate.com's military columnist, wrote a piece about how the U.S. offensive was just a couple weeks away from grinding to a halt due to a lack of spare parts and supplies. http://www.slate.com/id/2103552/ If Hussein had done a few things differently- blown up some of the bridges into Bagdad, followed the Russian model and ceded territory to attack the supply lines with guerillas- he might have been able to slow Rumsfeld's light and lean military and inflicted some serious casualties.

you can have a decent life doing more humble mathematics.

Why do we have region codes? We pay $15US (or more) for a DVD here in the US. In China they sell pretty much the same DVDs (sometimes without the extra commentaries etc, what a big loss) for $2-$3US, a fraction of the cost we pay. Obviously, taking into consideration how much the average citizen of China makes, that's a lot for them. But relative to our $15+ DVDs, even if we had to not only buy the DVD in China but pay for shipping back here, it would be cheaper to buy it in China.

So basically, we have region codes to ensure the distribution model of the movie industry works without interference from us pesky consumers being able to expect a price reasonable to us while still being profitable to them. It allows them to choose who's wallets they can pick more without fearing the usual consequences of supply and demand. If we can only get DVDs from one place at one inflated price, we have to go that route.

Ask yourselves... if selling DVDs for $2-$3US was not profitable enough, why would they even bother selling DVDs at such prices in places like China? While you may be prompted to say "to fight back against piracy, they are willing to take a loss", but take a moment to think of all the logical flaws with that, including the fact that by lowering their prices they also make it cheaper for those that pirate there to make copies for even cheaper and still sell them for less than legit DVDs. They would simply get out of that market if selling DVDs at that price was a 'loss' to them. Much the same way Apple will get out of France if iPods become a loss there soon.

While CATO isn't a think-tank I tend to agree with on many issues, I found their take on DRM and such very insightful. The article was carried on /. yesterday but here is the link again in case anyone's interested. They have quite a few explanations and analogies, including a better explanation of why we have region codes than I've provided here.

No, that was just more spin from Condi Rice.

According to America's Role in Nation-Building: From Germany to Iraq, a new study by former Ambassador James Dobbins, who had a lead role in the Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo reconstruction efforts, and a team of RAND Corporation researchers, the total number of post-conflict American combat casualties in Germany--and Japan, Haiti, and the two Balkan cases--was zero.
Slate

And one "moron" like reporter (666905) raising interesting questions is worth a thousand anonymous cowards regurgitating the government party line.

None, at the moment, but that's not stopping them from looking into the possiility. There have been several recent "discussions" in Congress to pass bills that would allow the FCC (not Congress directly, but surely indirectly) to regulate cable content. It's not going to happen any time soon, but I believe that there is groundwork being laid right now.

http://penusa.org/go/programs/action-alert/241/4/f irst-amendment-updates
http://www.slate.com/id/2095398

I know that those articles are kind of dated. With Howard Stern off terrestrial radio, a lot of the censorship talk has quieted a bit in the last year, but I do believe that if this administration had its druthers, you'd see an end to free speech in any broadcast medium, whether it be radio, satellite, cable, or even (and this would be neigh impossible, but "they" would still love to see it) the Internet. It's a scary prospect, but we citiznes just need to keep our eye on the ball and stop getting upset when a boobie accidentally flashes on the screen.

Ok, then you can do without it. Seriously. Healthcare will be nationalized in this country, and it will be done in under 5 years, or there won't be healthcare. If you think the current system has a chance in hell of continuing as it is with out-of-control costs and nickel-and-dime co-pays and out-of-pocket expenses and add-on fees, you are out of your mind. Somehow, every other industrialized nation in the world manages a system like that, and you don't see those people flocking to the U.S. to stand in line for an MRI that will cost them $3000. In fact, what you're seeing now is U.S.ians flocking to other nations to buy drugs and even seek medical care overseas because it's too expensive at home.

I don't know what crack you're smoking when you equate single-payer healthcare with nothing more than "long lines" but you must be making a lot of money, or very young, or very healthy, because if you had worked for a living and needed medical care in the last 10 years, you would know that the system is currently in full-blown crisis mode. Hospitals are closing across the country because they can't pay their bills because the growing ranks of uninsured simply show up in the emergency room when they're sick, and then default on their bills. This shows up as higher costs for you, so I don't know what you expect to do. Maybe draw up a bill requiring physicians to default on their Hippocratic Oath.

And you might look around a little before you get off on your Bill O'Reilley-fueled rant -- the Democratic vision of what we need as a country is preferred over the Do-Nothing-But-Waste-Money Republican vision in poll after poll.

Today's "Slate" has a link to an older article about that.
It was, in fact, written by the guy who won it, so he may know
what he's talking about.

http://www.slate.com/id/2114925/

Great articles:

http://www.slate.com/id/2118819

http://www.slate.com/id/2124078

My fav:

http://www.slate.com/id/2123286

Great articles:

http://www.slate.com/id/2118819

http://www.slate.com/id/2124078

My fav:

http://www.slate.com/id/2123286

Great articles:

http://www.slate.com/id/2118819

http://www.slate.com/id/2124078

My fav:

http://www.slate.com/id/2123286

A simple, scalable, system.

As a writer who knows what you are talking about, I am impressed that you have had the patience to write up not only this but responses to all of your responders. I've given up on trying to educate slashdot people on the way the movie industry works. They always fall back on the chorus of "the stories suxx0rs, tell better stories" and the mod points come rolling in.

Familiarity sells, folks, whether it's familiar stories or stories made from familiar pieces. There isn't a lack of creativity in Hollywood, there's a systemic stifling of "risky" originality in favor of durable brands and franchises. Further reading.

Scalia is nothing more than a hypocritical shill for the Right. According to Scalia (who is supposedly a proponent of limiting Federal power), a State should have the power to imprison consenting adults for their private sexual behavior (Lawrence v Texas), however States do not have the power to regulate the drugs which may be prescribed within their borders (Ashcroft v. Raich).

It gets weirder than that. Hollywood exploits tax loopholes around the word to bring down the upfront investment in a movie to a fraction of its total costs. The linked article claims that even though Tomb Raider had a budget of $94 million that the studios only had to put up $7 million for it. Fortunately, the German government recently closed this same tax loophole that has fueled Uwe Boll's abysmal career.

Is it just me, or do you get the impression that the mob has easier to follow bookkeeping than a lot of corporate America today?

http://www.slate.com/id/2117309/

Considering Tomb Raider actually cost $7 million, $15 million is not small at all.

I don't think so. Movies used to make most of their cash at the box office, but now most don't break even until you add in DVDs and TV licensing. A recent Slate article did an analysis of the numbers.

The Defense Department spends TONS of money on military projects that have little relevance in the war on terror. Military spending is the #1 corporate subsidy that no one calls a subsidy. I'm sure a few Senators' districts get some payola out of it too.

"There were some GREAT lines like these: "They're starving the CHILDREN!" and "What about the CHILDREN?!" How Feinstein and Boxer continue to get reelected befuddles me, you'd think their screeching alone would be enough for most voter's heads to explode. I'd like to think that most of us out East just shake our heads in disbelief, but then there's Massachusetts to consider..."

Concern for the children. What an awful concept. There ought to be a law against that, darn it.

We'll call it:
The Jonathan Swift - No, Seriously Amendment.
or
The "Let Them Eat Cake" Act.

Better yet, considering who we have in office now, let's call it the "But if we think of the children, how will United Airlines eat?" Act or the "Forget the Children, What About BOEING?" Act?

Oh, I know. I have a better name for what your Republican pals espouse:

They've given America the landmark "Forget the children, Leave No Investor Behind!" Act.

My point was that Iraq probably would not have been invaded had it not been for 9/11, not that the rationale used for going in was justified. 9/11 changed the political climate enough to make the Iraqi invasion a possibility -- it would not have been possible beforehand.

(1) nobody claimed that Iraq had anything to do with the planning of 9/11. We do know that there were some contacts between some people in Iraq and some Al Quida members, but that's about it.

(2) I just can't understand why Hussein kicked all the inspectors out and basically acted like a big jerk if he didn't have any WMD. I don't know how you can say that Iraq was being cooperative -- heck, he kicked the inspectors out during the Clinton Administration, relying on the Lewinsky scandal to keep them out.

(3) Ritter isn't exactly the most trustworthy source -- see http://www.slate.com/id/2071502 for example.

If your sight is 20/40 or better, you can already get enhanced vision as high as 20/10 or 20/15 with Lasik. Some doctors even specialize in vision enhancement for professional athletes. Many golfers and baseball players (most notably Tiger Woods) have had their vision enhanced, with real results.

So why is Lasik ok while Steroids aren't (there's little or no medical evidence supporting the idea that steroids are harmful when used properly).

Here's an article that ran on Slate during the congressional hearings on steroid use - http://www.slate.com/id/2116858/ Buckle up, sports fans, there are all kinds of elective surgeries in the works to improve human performance. I guess as long as you don't inject yourself, anything goes!

I don't, but surprisingly, there's someone who does. In that article, a two-bit writer complains that, because you have to type in "apples" rather than "apple" to get the fruit (because of the computer), there's something fundamentally wrong with Google. It's good for a laugh, but not much else.

I read an article recently (which I think is relevant to the discussion) about why some hotels charge for internet service and why others give it away free.

http://www.slate.com/id/2135226/

It basically comes down to "what will the consumer pay." Some people will pay more than others for the exact same service. Either because they've got cash to burn, or because it is more valuable for them.

This is why

Please provide specific scriptural references from the New Testament of everything you just claimed. (Yes, I know the Ten Commandments are Old Testament.) Also, include the version of the bible you're reading, and information on the non-Christian Hebrew scholar's paper on the context and obvious meaning, which God conveniently let his "true" followers leave out of the bible.

Don't worry. I'll wait. And respond with lots of Hebrew scholars who believe, among other things, that Mary wasn't a virgin after all.

We can go round and round, but while we're doing that, someone is claiming that THEIR interpretation is correct, and killing people with any moral qualms. I find it hard to believe that a cult with well over 1600 sects has any bead on "one" truth.

There's a review of various energy drinks on Slate.com: http://www.slate.com/id/2126591/

Slate had a half decent article on energy drinks.

http://www.slate.com/id/2126591/

The writers favorite was Rockstar-- provides energy, doesn't taste that bad, no vitamin or caffeine headache.

Memoir writers walk a wavy line between reality and invention: What author James Frey and others said in 2003 about challenges to the truthfulness of his bestselling nonfiction memoir.

I agree with you on the publishers initial take. It seems, however, that even after a large number of discrepencies arose and were subsequently acknowledged by the publisher, they continued to push the book as a factual account. Actually, if you believe the facts as pushed in this article by slate: http://www.slate.com/id/2135069/?nav=tap3, the publisher could have called BS on the book as far back as 2003, which is way before Oprah recommended the book. The problem here isn't just check facts, but also acknowledging or at least investiagating the truth after reasonable doubt is raised. The publisher was just way to happy to continue to back this trash and collect money from this bullshit wanna be memoir then to add a simple disclaimer page to the beginning of the book. Screw Frey and screw the publisher.

Even though I might not have anything wise to add to this discussion I'd just like to thank you for speaking out and being honest. And most of all, for not posting as an AC. It really shows you've come to terms with what you've done -- no matter how bad or good it was, and I refuse to judge! But I admire you for this.

Perhaps you would like to see a law passed that imposes mandatory death penalty on all sex offenders where children are involved

Speaking of such laws is stupid. Even considering them is stupid, I have to agree. Some people do deal with stuff with anger and rage which I belive is simply wrong. If everyone would stop, count to 10 (or 10^10^100), and take a deep breath and a rational argument, this world would be a better place - e.g. no war on Iraq, no terror. After all, the same thing fuels it, hate and anger towards difference.

If someone is different, most people say: "Hey, let's burn him!". However bad and digsusting to my personal taste pedophilia may be, I think that it does not excuse the broadnes of the laws passed by this verdict. Ok, so children are involved, but, it's really a matter of personal taste -- some people like mature women/men. Yes, I know, they have the ability to discern between good and bad, wrong or right, etc. and children don't. Personally I think possesion and viewing (or burning for that matter) should not be illegal, but making pedophile material should be.

If rational arguments were chosen and thought put into this matter it would easly be observable that by stoping the production, one can stop the possesion, but not the other way around. Because If he or she is already making it, there's a good chance they won't stop just because nobody wants to look at them anymore. What matters is that they are having fun.

Anyway, back to my point on difference. We judge the muslim world because they have certain habits and laws. Some people (read Bush) want to attack them because he doesn't understand that not everybody is a "west texan girl". And so on...

Well, my point in this post would be, that everybody should think really hard before doing anything that migth end up hurting somebody (or blowing up a whole nation). This includes the judges! They are not above the law, even though they might impose it.

Lott has been pretty thoroughly discredited as a researcher.

This is an ineresting article:
http://www.slate.com/id/2078084/

And here is a U Chicago class that actually uses his work as an example of poor research:
http://harrisschool.uchicago.edu/Academic/syllabi/ PP481HS451.pdf (warning PDF)

Finally, the guy is rather nuts - he's admitted to creating an online fan persona to rally supoort for himself online:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8884-200 3Jan31?language=printer

I'd recommend not raising John Lott as an authority, it reflects poorly on your ideas regardless of their merit.

Then again, civil liberties progressives were ok with crackdowns by Clinton and Janet Reno, so hypocrisy goes both ways.

"Right now, copper is sending a message that is being transmitted by plenty of other data, but that many analysts find difficult to digest: Despite all the tensions, despite the huge imbalances in trade and capital flows, despite all the world's apparent economic troubles, the global economy continues to grow at a steady and impressive pace."