Slashdot Mirror

Well, he's not alone in being affected financially by the market. There's a story in the Washington Post about it's effect on (pre) IPO'd tech workers.

Since I religiously spend all my money on equipment and booze I have no such worries....:-)

Then again, they also published this editorial by Robert Samuelson, who trots out all the "Microsoft hasn't hurt anyone" nonsense typically spouted by people who believe that the words "Microsoft", "innovative", and "software" can truthfully be used in the same sentence.

Then again, they also published this editorial by Robert Samuelson, who trots out all the "Microsoft hasn't hurt anyone" nonsense typically spouted by people who believe that the words "Microsoft", "innovative", and "software" can truthfully be used in the same sentence.

Has Microsoft been the subject of this DOJ attention in part because they didn't pony up to the administration as certain Silicon Valley firms did?

See this article about his remarks.

Anyone have a transcript of the whole thing?

The article was mentioned in this slashdot post, and here is the actual article

However, the Pinkerton decision-makers have to realize that children live very different lives from the rest of us. In real life, legal protection is subordinate to common practice. Thus, a middle school student who is verbally or physically abused by peers is, by the laws of the schoolyard that prevail, not entitled to any protection from teachers, police, or the court system.

Now, this snippet of argument might lead one to think that I support the idea of adding the authority of a third (private, disinterested) party into the Schoolyard Corpus of Law.

But I do not. At least, I do not support Pinkerton's current version of the law. I think Pinkerton has been seduced by sunny blond girls and boys* linking hands, praying, weeping, singing songs about the violence in schools, vowing to fight intolerance and embrace all students. But the reality is this:

While the popular boys and girls may feel a grain of love and tolerance for their fellow students in the face of monstrous crimes, they fall, soon enough, into their old patterns, which range from simple exclusion by these sunny blond people to the commission of absolute atrocities against the rest of the schoolyard.

Haven't you wondered why you only ever saw cheerleaders linking hands with other cheerleaders in these media pictures? It's because the goths, geeks, and nerds know that the above italicised paragraph is a truism that cannot be affected by any number of Anti-Violence Singalongs. Diversity in the workplace has no analog in schools.

So, what is the solution? W.A.V.E. America is not the solution, in its current form. Here is a list of my concerns about this program.

1. In one breath, the Pinkerton site speaks of "responsibility", and in the next, allows children to duck responsibility by calling anonymous tips in on their fellow students.
   • Pro: If there were a danger to the student of being injured somehow if their name was released in conjunction with an investigation into a fellow student, then anonymity protects them.
   • Con: The right to know and face one's accuser is critical! The accuser's right to safety does not outweigh the rights of the accused. This has been proven over and over in our system of justice. If the student who calls the W.A.V.E. line believes they are in danger, then they are entitled to protection, not anonymity. Pinkerton probably has a division that could protect them (you know, razor for free, charge for the blades and all that). Students need to call the police, not W.A.V.E., if they are in so much danger that they cannot give their name.
2. What happens as the result of a call? A report is sent to school administrators. The school then has the responsibility to act on all tips -- anonymous or otherwise.
   • Pro: At least we don't have a corporation deciding which kids are troublemakers and which kids are being unfairly reported. Theoretically, the school administrators should be informed enough to gauge the difference and act fairly.
   • Con: Yeah right. W.A.V.E. strengthens the status quo by putting the power right back in the hands of the people that enforce a pecking order. What will the school do if a goth calls in and reports that the quarterback has been leaving dead animals in her locker again? Same as always - nothing at all, because school administrators virtually never act against the interests of the powerful or the popular**. When the opposite occurs, and the quarterback's girlfriend calls in to say the goth is threatening to blow away the football team, all hell will break loose. Maybe Pinkerton should be given a mandate to protect the innocent, even the freaky. (Yes I know -- it would be against every mandate in this country to hand over power/justice to a company whose responsibility is to make money. Not that there's anything wrong with that. The Pinkerton officials just need to be aware that a corporation absolutely cannot maximize profits and justice at the same time.)
3. Resolve, Respect, and Responsibility***. You mean, as defined by Pinkerton. Or as defined by your teachers. Or as defined by your local police. You probably don't mean, as defined by yourself, after much critical thinking and reading. For example:
   • Responsibility in the context of W.A.V.E. probably includes upholding the law of the land without ever questioning its fitness or justice.
   • Resolve means that when someone makes fun of your breasts, you tell an adult, preferably someone in charge like an administrator. When the administrator does nothing, you call W.A.V.E., who sends a report to the administrator. What do you do after that? *shrug* Beats me. Besides, W.A.V.E. might not even take your call if all you have to report is a silly little bit of sexual harassment.
   • Respect means knowing where you stand in the school hierarchy, and not stepping out of line in your daily interactions with other students. It probably doesn't mean demanding that 17 year old felons be put in jail regardless of their athletic scholarship.

There is just so much more I could address. If there'd been more notice, I would have asked Pinkerton if I could fly out as well. For instance, the mission statement that states that they are dedicated to "tomorrow's workforce" implies exclusion on their part -- poets and beatniks be damned, we're just protecting the future cubicle occupiers because as a company it would be irresponsible of us to protect anything beyond our own interests.

Anyway...to anyone that has read this far...thanks for listening to my admittedly long opinion on this matter!!

-- Amanda

*I bear no responsibility for the Aryan resemblance to Hitler youth. Associating violent jock gangs with Hitler youth might be valid, but it's still cheap and self-serving.
** Dissecting Columbine's Cult of the Athlete
***From the Pinkerton site

----------

Dissecti ng Columbine's Cult of the Athlete

Which is a fairly good analysis of the fact that the administration at Columbine seemed to tolerate and encourage violence among the students. (Especially the ones who were involved in athletics.). It's basically a serious version of the Onion story.

Incidentally, I don't think that the Columbine murderers were geeks, really. I think that a good portion of the media/political establishment decided to label them as such because it serves their agenda. For instance, geeks are always complaining about things like the DMCA and they know more about computers than members of Congress. Not surprising that the government favors the image of geeks as dangerous social outcasts with scores to settle. They did the same thing with hippies after the Manson murders. It seems like the two murderers got some of the same lenient treatment from the school as some of the athletes, if the Washington Post story is to be believed.

For example, in the story referenced above in this post, it is noted that the two Columbine murderers had committed felony burglary before they went on their killing spree, which would seem to be more germain than the fact that they modded levels for Doom. Most people, however, only ever hear about Doom. Also, Columbine isn't the only one of these attacks, how come Jonesborough is never mentioned? Could it be that the details of the Jonesborough incident don't fit a useful profile? In fact, I pretty sure that a careful analysis of Jonesborough wouldn't yield it as a "geeks vs. jocks" situation at all.

According to WashP ost Msft is still going to build a web browser into the 'os' - (so thpppppt!! Take that you mean ol' judge) - whoppee. Clinton was impeached and still probably gets all the 'comfort girls' he wants in the office. You can't 'punish' a popular person, no matter what 'crimes' they committed, why that'd be a public outrage! Obviously the judge is at fault here, and Msft stock will eventually recover and soar on to new heights. Indeed, it may be a good time soon to buy msft stock!

Saying that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer is drivel, there's no evidence for this, and as a matter of fact, I would have to say that on the whole the standard of living has done nothing but increase, I know mine has.

That's because you're rich. So am I, and not complaining, but to say you aren't is pure drivel. And speaking of drivel, here's an article for you. I couldn't find the official study, but I know it's out there. Anyone?

In the US we take care of our poor as well, we just tend to do it without being forced to by the government.

justis, what America do you live in? This doesn't look like the one I do.

Not to put you off too much, but back up your position with *somthing*.

Oh, and the government did pay for(part of) my education. But the only reason I got the loans was that they knew I could pay them back, with interest.

--

Conversely, groups whose members tend to go their own way wind up without much influence-- witness the Auto Workers, where the leadership stayed with the Democrats while the rank and file turned out for Reagan.

If geeks can show that they are both coherent and effective as a political force, politicians will come begging to be the voice of the geeks.

Interesting side note: yesterday's Washington Post carried this column by their pollster about a study of the way the White House and Congress use public opinion research in forming policy. Long story short: they don't. Only lobbyists and activists matter when it comes to making policy; the polls are just used to decide how to market the policies.

Somehow I doubt it...

The self-proclaimed inventor of the Internet avoided all courses in mathematics and logic throughout college...

but I'll just put it here.

There's an article in the Washington Post about Marc Ewing (of RedHat fame), his wife, and the billion dollars they're now challenged with giving away.

It's a very interesting read in any case, but especially because of the financial success so many in the Free software community have been enjoying.

but I'll just put it here.

There's an article in the Washington Post about Marc Ewing (of RedHat fame), his wife, and the billion dollars they're now challenged with giving away.

It's a very interesting read in any case, but especially because of the financial success so many in the Free software community have been enjoying.

First off intellectual property has no "rich history". It pratically has no history past a few hundred years, and the original copyrights were granted by kings to publishers in return for not badmouthing the monarchy - hardly a lofty foundation. Infact, note that copyrights came after periods like the renissance rahter than before.

You're partly right, partly wrong. As the Britannica article on copyright law points out, copyright did develop the way you said, and only became "modern" in 1710. It is striking, of course, that the spread of a specific technology (the printing press) and its eventual ubiquity was what drove copyright law to develop as it did - just as new technologies are forcing us to evaluate it anew.

But you're incorrect if you believe that the only intellectual property law is copyright. In fact, the Amazon dispute is about patents, not copyright. And patent laws go back at least to 1421 (again, read the appropriate Britannica article for yourself). I think a tradition at least 5.8 centuries old deserves some respect, but that may be just a personal blemish on my part.

It's sorta like arguing that slavery was a great thing because of all the wealthy plantations it created, but it was other forces driving America into the future.

I usually hate it when people use slavery as a metaphor, but you make an interesting argument. I see what your saying; my argument is a little circular. (So, too, is part of Katz's argument, where he says that "Corporations... exclude ... 'non-commercial' voices." Well, of course, because once they bring on a new "voice" it becomes, by definition, commercial.)

I suppose in some sense my argument about the rich history of invention and creation we have had under intellectual property protections is unknowable (at best) or circular (at worst). Yet I think I'll stick with it, having had firsthand experience with a publishing firm that worried every day about the integrity of the databases it published. If those databases were pirated (as they have been, on occasion), without strong copyright protection, the company lost money. If it happens again, the company will probably stop making the databases - and everyone, including the pirate, loses out in the end.

Also, copying is not theft - it might be illegal, but it is just not theft in the true sense of the word. The people who created are not deprived of their original work in any way. They may be deprived of a monopoly over other prople's purchasing habits...

That's pretty much the point Katz was trying to get across in that passage where he quoted Lessig ("If I tell you an idea, you have not deprived me of it"). But, unfortunately, it is incomplete. When you illegally copy a copyrighted work, you have deprived someone of something other than a mere monopoly. (In fact, it is the technology, not the "pirate" or "thief," which is responsible for revoking the monopoly.) The thing you have deprived the creator of is the potential to earn profit. We have to balance creators' needs against consumers', and Katz (and you) seem to tip the scale unfairly toward consumers.

For them copying may be good as it "gets the word out" and provides free advertizing.

There is certainly some truth in that. However, it is too narrow. Musicians are not the only people protected by intellectual property laws. If Stephen King's new book, which is to be published at midnight tonight over the Internet, is pirated and passed around freely by e-mail and mirrored on dozens of web sites, the copying will certainly be free "advertising" for King, but he will lose money. Maybe he would stop publishing online. If that happened, everyone would lose out in the end, including the people who got to read it for free.

I do agree with you that "theft" is too strong a word; as someone may or may not have hundreds of illicit MP3s stored on his computer (shhhh! the RIAA might be listening!) I certainly don't like considering myself a thief or pirate. (Actually, I kind of would like to be a pirate, although without the trite patch or the fruity parrot.) But we are living in an age when the pace of technological change makes us all accept a degree of uncertainty, ambiguity and fuzziness of terminology. So I don't mind all that much.

A. Keiper

The problems mentioned by Bill Joy in his interview point out how poorly informed he is. Anyone who has been in the computer industry as long as he has, should know enough to "read the manual(s)" before offering uninformed opinions. The problems regarding nanotechnology run amok have been discussed for many years in the sci.nanotech newsgroups as well as at conferences for the Foresight Institute's Senior Associates. The basic solutions involve making "safe" (e.g. reviewed, open source) designs available while at the same time developing defenses against nanotech run amok. The Extropy Institute's Mailing List Archives, for example, contains recent discussions about encouraging the availability of "almost anything" manufacturing boxes (similar to Star Trek "replicators"), while discouraging the availability of "everything" boxes.

Diamondoid or saphire based molecularly assembled nanobots used in medical applications will greatly exceed the capabilities in of "biobots" built on existing genetic machines (DNA, enzymes, bacteria, cells, etc.) because they are stronger, can pack the "code" more densely, and can have more complex programs than the rather "ad hoc" designs that nature has provided us with. Most of the first volume of Nanomedicine is devoted to determining exactly what the physical limits will be on power, communication, mobility, etc. Most of the applications will be discussed in Volumes II and III.

Joy may be right that the technology poses a threat to the "human species", but that begs the question of "Why would you want to run on obsolete hardware?". Anyone who understands even a little astronomy knows that galactic hazards doom biological human forms to death at some point. Only those humans who choose to upload have any hope of living the trillion or so years that seems quite feasible. So while the hopes for biochemical humans are rather dismal even with Nanomedicine, the long term prospects for humanity, based on what nanotechnology allows are quite good indeed.

As far as nanotechnology background material goes, the best (nontechnical) source is Engines of Creation. Other references can be found in Eric Drexler's CV.

Genomic (and anti-genomics) Links [To Top]

Mapping the Icelandic Genome. "An Anthropology of the scientific, political, economic, religious, and ethical issues surrounding the deCode Project and its global implications." Contains useful pointers.

Indigenous people's coalition against biopiracy.

The Human Genome Diversity Project as explained by Stanford Professor and posted on the U.N. website.

Various UN reports on the Genome question.

An Outline : Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP) Background.

Cultural Survival has issue 20.2 (sum 1996) dedicated to 'Genes, People, and Property' issues.

The archive for discover magazine. Nov. 1994 issue has a few articles about genome and diversity.

The gene letter. The Nov. 96 issue has an HGDP article.

High school lesson plan for teaching students about the HGDP.

"The Gene Wars: Science, Politics, and the Human Genome." An excellent book review with bibliography and online resources.

National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) has a Bibliography Page about the HGP.

Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) of the HGP.

The Human Genome Diversity Project: Scientific, Social and Ethical Issues .

A list of articles from Native-L mailing list, listing all articles related to HGDP posted to the list.

Six papers given at various genome-related conferences. Topics include:

*"Why Human Genetics is a Social Science"
* "Racism, Eugenics, and the Burdens of History"
* "Scientific and Folk Idea About Heredity"
* "The Spectrum of Human Variation"
* "The Human Germ-Plasm Project: Eugenics in the 1920s and the 1990s."

Native net letter to HGDP scientists.

Pilot Projects for a Human Genome Diversity Project - Special Competition.

Molecular Anthropology Symposium at Stanford.

Seeds of Destruction. A must read for anyone who eats french fries or is concerned with genetically modified crops.

Also see Patents and Jumpstations.

Comics [To Top]

Angels of Health/Medicine Cartoon by Quino. Here is another one of a dis-orderly girl.

Patent$ and Thing$ [To Top]

An Upside article discussing patents and its history. Very informative.

Gene Patents and Bioethics.

6,000 human gene patents sought in BBC News and also the Washington Post.

American Society of Human Genetics Position Paper on Patenting of Expressed Sequence Tags.

of course the list is continually updated, ... hope this helps, bobbaqATyouknowHOO

The intense focus on the idea of introducting nanobots into the body for the purpose of medicine is the sort of thing Bill Joy warns about in an article reported on Slashdot earlier today.

I paged through all ten chapters of the Nanomedicine article and I failed to find a single instance of the possible dangers of nanobots-run-amok, or the chance that a malevolent force could use them as a weapon. Without a consciousness that the technology could go wrong, or that it could be used for evil, Joy asserts that progress for the sake of progress could have dire consequences.

For more info check out this article

Still, even if "fossil fuels" are not as scarce as we thought, they do make a mess of the atmosphere.

This is most definitely not about copyrighting maps. This is about filings for patents on DNA sequences that represent putative genes with putative functions, based on no experimental evidence whatsoever. Celera filed 6,500 of these in October (see Washington Post article), and my guess is that the number has increased since then. There is a good reason for the 'squabbling' between public and private ventures. Patenting DNA sequence is absurd and will most certainly be a hindrance to the research community!

Here's another article on the Washington Post about the merger.

Also in the current Washington Post, columnist Robert J. Samuelson argues the case for sales taxes on items sold over the net.

He says that the present tax exemption is like a government subsidy for e-commerce businesses, and tends to promote waste, since inefficient e-businesses may still have a lower end price for the consumer. Hence there is an unfair penalty for brick-and-mortar businesses that may be more efficient but have to pay taxes.

Also in the current Washington Post, columnist Robert J. Samuelson argues the case for sales taxes on items sold over the net.

He says that the present tax exemption is like a government subsidy for e-commerce businesses, and tends to promote waste, since inefficient e-businesses may still have a lower end price for the consumer. Hence there is an unfair penalty for brick-and-mortar businesses that may be more efficient but have to pay taxes.

I did not renew my newpaper subscription after it became clear that I get the same news every day, and a day earlier, on the online versions of CNN, the Washington Post, and the Spiegel. Frankly, I'd like these businesses to survive, at least online, and I worry about their ability to continue when people like me no longer buy the paper editions. But I just can't get around the fact that the Internet versions are free and are significantly more timely.

I do buy the paper in situations where I can't get to the Internet, like when I ride the train to work in the morning, and I still enjoy it. Longer, more in-depth reports can make a paper more worthwhile than a collection of articles on the Net.

It's sometimes claimed that books will become obsolete, but I'm sure they won't, because paper probably will always be a much better medium for delivering information than a computer screen with its damnable scroll bar. You can't scribble notes in the margin on your screen; you can't jam your thumb and index finger into two places you want to save; you can't fold it up and stick in your pocket and take it with you to the john. But newspapers will always have the great weakness of being a day behind.

Newspapers may have to become more like magazines to survive -- they'll need to publish longer, more researched articles with more depth than the daily news. These pieces will need more time to develop, hence requiring a weekly or monthly publication schedule rather than daily. But then, weekly and monthly magazines are already there, so the daily paper may really be on its way out.

We mustn't forget, however, that very many people still have no Internet access, and it will last a few years before the Internet is as universal as, say, television. That might keep the papers alive for a while.

The thing that really gets me is that this guy things that the Roman Senate convened in Athens, Greece. is this just proof that i don't need to send my kids to school to get them jobs? "Its OK Billy, so you failed out of the third grade. You can still write columns for the Washington Post."

It's probably too late for Billy, my friend, since he already has your dumbass genes. :-)

The article never stated that the Roman Senate conviened in Athens, but that the hangwringing was taking place in Athens. And its entirely probable that the Greeks would have pestered the Roman Senate, since they were a part of the Roman Empire.

I don't know if they made an error in the timeline or not, thou. I don't know if Greece was part of RE by 276 BC or not.........

here .

Is it mere coincidence that the fortune at the bottom of the page read, "the only person who got his work done by Friday was Crusoe"?

There are several aspects the make IT an around the clock experience: 1) training. When I went into electronics 25 yrs ago they said, "this is such a fast changing field that you're going to be in school the rest of your working days". 2) Access to mission critical servers and workstations: in many cases the only chance you get to do maintenance on servers etc. is at 4AM in the morning or early Sundays. Most of us just can't 'leave work behind' when you exit the building - we're often working on long projects and I get lots of insirations in the middle of the night or early morning, and keep a pad by the bed to jot down ideas. Yet, with all that, I resent the fact that we're often treated like factory laborers! I can't stand supervisors who want you to punch in a 7:30, be focused and creative for precisely 2 hours, take a 10 minute break, then back to the "THINK!" tank. Maybe if these managers could actually organize with effecient specilization and division of labor one could crank out code like a machine shop all tooled up for a production run, but anything that's already that mechanized is already obsolete and not worth persuing, it ain't bleeding edge!

Bozorro the swashbuckling clown

The Washington Post has an article saying that the FBI is preparing to question several suspects in the case.

Washing ton Post
BBC News

you can read the review in Style here.

-Laplace

"Top postal officials expect that any Internet-based ventures will require partnerships with the private sector in order to succeed. They have met with a number of companies, including America Online."

At that point, for the majority of Americans, what communications channel would not be owned by AOL? Head over here for the rest.

From the article Cloak-a nd-Dagger on the web:

While it isn't going to work with America Online any time soon, versions are on the way for Macintosh computers and operating systems such as Linux and Microsoft NT.

"Moderation is good, in theory."
-Larry Wall

Earlier this month the New York Times (it's not online anymore) and the Washington Post reported that researchers in Connecticut and Japan cloned six calves from skin cells taken from the ear of a bull and stored for months in the lab. A long ways away from cloning?! The interesting points are that they used skin cells, from a male, and stored them for a long period of time.

Click Here

You said:

That's the joy of controlling the market, the consumer CAN'T go someplace else. Don't like CNN, try Headline News, oops same company, how about MSNBC, doh!, how about FoxNews, hmmm, new bikinis.

I say:

Don't like those -- try the BBC or the Washington Post or the New York Times or just hit Yahoo or Google and find any of thousands of other sources.

I don't see the problem...

Tadas

Here is a link to an appreciation of the life and work of Don Martin: The Guy Who Drew Outside the Lines

I don't know if anybody reads day-old SlashDot threads, but today's Washington Post has an article about Congressman Frank Wolf trying to get this reversed.

Don't know if he reads SlashDot, maybe it was the Rush Limbaugh crowd that made him jump so fast, but it certainly is quick response.

I don't know if anybody reads day-old SlashDot threads, but today's Washington Post has an article about Congressman Frank Wolf trying to get this reversed.

Don't know if he reads SlashDot, maybe it was the Rush Limbaugh crowd that made him jump so fast, but it certainly is quick response.

Check here for the Post's version.
http://www.washing tonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A955-2000Jan3.html

From my front-row perspective, we put waaay too much time and money into fixing the Y2K problem. But it was a problem. If we had done nothing, things would not be so bright and cheery as they are.

Neutron

You will never get those two hours and fifteen minutes of you life back

Don't make the same mistake I did, I beg you

For a longer review try this one

Okay first of all, i DO think that Bezos was a good choice. If you read the magazine, the award is for whoever had the biggest impact on the news, it's not necessarily sayin they're good or bad. Time wanted to make a symbolic gesture symbolizing the internet and Bezos was an okay choice, since as they point out, he's the head of a zillion dollar company that doesn't make money.

On the other hand, being as it's the end of the century, I think they should have made THE INTERNET the person of the year. From their point of view it would have looked more "hip" or whatever they're trying to be and they'd get way more publicity (not that they don't get enough about this every year anyway).

From our point of view, it would have maybe given some reinforcement to the fact that the internet is not a huge mall, but actually facilitates genuinely good things. The fact that some slashdot posters are saying stuff like "the IPO should be person of the year" is sad, it's like all the people who used to be proud of being geeks for the right reasons (oops, that's a loaded thing to say:) are now proud of being geeks because it might make them rich. I was hoping that kind of thinking wasn't so rampant here, but I guess it is.

V. Stinky

Professor Graeme Clark developed the bionic ear, also called the Cochlear Implant, in the 1970s.

My wife has one of these. With tiny electrodes planted in her cochlea, a woman who without it would have trouble hearing a 747 landing on her can hear at a pretty serviceable level.

The Washington Post has an interesting article about rich vs. poor medicine, with the rich being U.S. pharmaceutical companies and the poor being Africans with AIDS. African countries could manufacture AIDS treatment drugs for much cheaper than they could buy them from U.S. companies, but doing so would subject them to sanctions. So "closed-source" medicine lets people die who we might save. (On the other hand, without the money from sales the drugs probably not have been developed yet, so not allowing medicines to be patented might mean even more people die.)

There was a great three-part article in the Post last year about privacy in the digital age (really the lack thereof). Acxiom figured prominently into the story.

Most notably, the article said that Acxiom, in a nod to self regulation, allows consumers to opt out of the database. While I agree that opting-in is far preferrable for consumer rights, at least make the most of the current system (assuming you give them the benefit of the doubt that they'll do what they say). The company said that only 300 people had opted out prior pre-1998(!)

I actually went through the trouble to follow up on this after reading the article, and found out how to do it. Send them an email with your name and snail mail address and they send you a pretty package with a form to fill out and send back to them. Costs a stamp, but I'm of the opinion that these mega-snoops have too much to loose by getting busted directly violating what they say they'll do - so I had them take me out.

How about a ./ effect that spills over to snail mail?

Dissecti ng Columbine's Cult of the Athlete

That January, during one of their nocturnal pranks, Harris and Klebold were arrested on juvenile charges of felony burglary for stealing from a van. They got the lightest sentence available: a diversion program, with the charges expunged after 10 months of counseling and community service. -- quote from the linked article

Law Enforcement's blunder here, that tougher enforcement could've stopped this crime, is never mentioned when the subject comes up. We are led to believe that it was just two morbid, non-violent kids who secretly planned this and never let on. The police could've stopped them, but didn't. These are the incompetents we trust to "profile" our kids? Maybe if we were paid more attention to the kids who actually commit crimes rather than lumping the law abiding kids in with them, we'd have even better luck picking the kids who are likely to run amock.

The New York times reports that both sides agreed to the Posner appointment in chambers. That means they can't object later. The Washington Post also reports the interesting fact that Judge Jackson has appointed Harvard Prof. Larry Lessig, briefly a special master in the case, to "advise" him.

Alas, neither report tell us what kind of mediation it will be. Presumably, though, not the sort where parties have to accept the mediator's decision. Apparently the order will be published on Monday.

Having sitting judges accept appointments as mediators or arbitrators is common in the UK. It is very rare in the US, and probably would be unacceptable if the appointing authority were anyone other than another judge. It's certainly unorthodox.

As for Posner, while something of a sceptic about regulation, his jurisprudential writing is strong on the obligation of judges to follow Congressional intent. Indeed, he even suggested (playfully?) in one writing that maybe judges should interpret statutes like the securities and anti-trust laws more expansively, because the Congresses that passed them [controlled by Democrats!] desired expansive constructions, but that laws passed by more recent Congresses [controlled by Republicans!] might be read narrowly due to the different tenor of modern Congresses...

In person, Posner is very different from what you would expect from his energetic writing style. Quiet, almost sweet, very interesting, could be someone's favorite uncle or maybe grandfather. Lots of fun to have lunch with.

I am mystified at some of the comments so far.

Some of you are saying that Gore went to MS to imply that he supports them in the anti-trust case, presumably to get campaign donations. Excuse me, but can you read? He tried to avoid commenting on the subject, but the general remarks that he did make indicate that he is not on Microsoft's side. Here's another article at the Washington Post that makes this point more clearly.

The most I think you can criticize him for IMO is his unwillingness to speak out more clearly on the case, but the argument can be made that the Vice President should reserve his comments on a pending lawsuit. And it did take some nerve for him to show up there, seeing as how he is second in charge of an administration whose DoJ is their opponent. To be sure, Al Gore is about as exciting as watching paint dry, but this is one of the most gutsy things he's done since taking on Ross Perot. (Of course, that doesn't say much for his Vice Presidency so far.)

Here's the other thing I don't get: Some of you are all upset and surprised at the idea that the White House might have any role at all in this lawsuit. I'm embarassed to have to explain something that ought to be obvious, but the DoJ is a part of the executive branch and as such reports to the President. You can be certain that at some point while the DoJ was investigating MS and considering a lawsuit, Janet Reno briefed Bill Clinton on what was up. If he had insisted that they knock it off, it wouldn't have happened. At the very least, he didn't do that; and there may have been extensive discussions in the White House about the consequences of the trial. Indeed, Clinton probably asked Gore what he thought about it, particularly considering that it might affect Gore's presidential campaign.

If you don't think it should be that way, what in the world do you want as an alternative? Do you think that the Department of Justice shouldn't be under the ultimate control of an elected official? Sorry, but that's crazy.

I am mystified at some of the comments so far.

Some of you are saying that Gore went to MS to imply that he supports them in the anti-trust case, presumably to get campaign donations. Excuse me, but can you read? He tried to avoid commenting on the subject, but the general remarks that he did make indicate that he is not on Microsoft's side. Here's another article at the Washington Post that makes this point more clearly.

The most I think you can criticize him for IMO is his unwillingness to speak out more clearly on the case, but the argument can be made that the Vice President should reserve his comments on a pending lawsuit. And it did take some nerve for him to show up there, seeing as how he is second in charge of an administration whose DoJ is their opponent. To be sure, Al Gore is about as exciting as watching paint dry, but this is one of the most gutsy things he's done since taking on Ross Perot. (Of course, that doesn't say much for his Vice Presidency so far.)

Here's the other thing I don't get: Some of you are all upset and surprised at the idea that the White House might have any role at all in this lawsuit. I'm embarassed to have to explain something that ought to be obvious, but the DoJ is a part of the executive branch and as such reports to the President. You can be certain that at some point while the DoJ was investigating MS and considering a lawsuit, Janet Reno briefed Bill Clinton on what was up. If he had insisted that they knock it off, it wouldn't have happened. At the very least, he didn't do that; and there may have been extensive discussions in the White House about the consequences of the trial. Indeed, Clinton probably asked Gore what he thought about it, particularly considering that it might affect Gore's presidential campaign.

If you don't think it should be that way, what in the world do you want as an alternative? Do you think that the Department of Justice shouldn't be under the ultimate control of an elected official? Sorry, but that's crazy.

Mark Murray, Microsoft spokesman, recently gave an interview in which he said that the Findings of Facts "do not have any weight or bearing on any other lawsuit" until the judge issues his final ruling. Is this true? [link to the Mark Murray article]