As I've noted elsewhere, it's OK to argue for more intellectual diversity on faculties, and it's okay to complain about faculty members who bully students with different views. But the UCLA effort sloppily confuses the two and winds up looking like a blacklist, blowing its credibility in the process.
Nice history of RatherGate to date. And what's really nice is that it doesn't mention InstaPundit. Nor should it. I've written about this, but other blogs did all the heavy lifting. As I wrote earlier, the blogosphere has matured into a full-fledged system in which no node is of vital importance, which is a very good thing.
More here: "I took most of Thursday off, with only a passing reference to the forgery story. I stirred myself to blog a bit that evening, but by then the rest of the blogosphere -- especially the Power Line guys -- had done all the heavy lifting."
I'd certainly buy the Ricochet service. And I suspect that such broadbased Internet access would do more for homeland security than a lot of expensive government projects we'll see.
The paper doesn't actually call for a laissez-faire regime. In fact, the opening quote is from Leon Fuerth's speech (he was Al Gore's national security adviser) at the Foresight Institute last year, pointing out that people who wanted a laissez-faire regime for nanotech were living in a fantasy world. The paper actually suggests the experience with recombinant DNA as a model. This would be apparent had the poster spent some time reading the paper. Or even this excerpt.
As for overthrowing the government, well, that's actually the most common view of what the Second Amendment is about among professors of constitutional law who have written on the subject -- including people like Larry Tribe of Harvard, no libertarian. Though I don't really see what that has to do with nanotechnology.
The Bush Administration and the press had better be all over the RIAA and its Congressional sponsors. I can't think of a faster way to discredit the war on terrorism than opportunism like this.
THE CIA IS OBVIOUSLY BEHIND THIS
on
Bert Is Evil
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
It's a brilliant plot to convert bin Laden from a face of terror to a figure of fun in 12 hours, and it's worked. I hope somebody gets a big raise for this one.
They've gotten steadily worse. Some alternatives: Vitaminic and PeopleSound are pretty good, let you make CDs on an on-demand as-sold basis (though PeopleSound actually makes you mail them files on CD-R, no uploading) and let you charge for downloaded tracks.
AngryCoffee doesn't pay anything, but it's free and cool.
I'm extremely disappointed with MP3.Com, though. Every time they change their policies they get suckier.
I believe that it's interstate commerce because he used the "facilities of interstate commerce" (e.g., phone lines, etc.), which federal courts generally consider to be interstate commerce even if everything takes place within the same state.
Yeah, I know it's stupid, but I didn't write it. I'm just explaining it.
As usual, cracking down on honest people is a priority. It impresses the honest people (i.e., voters) that the authorities are on the job. If you only crack down on the bad guys, who notices?
There's no automatic relationship between freedom and security. Many times in American history, when we have suppressed freedom in wartime we have gained no additional security at all. For example, the interning of Japanese Americans didn't increase our security. Banning the teaching of German during World War I didn't increase our security. Hoover's FBI blackmailing didn't increase our security.
It is a serious error to assume that because sometimes increased security reduces freedom, anything that reduces freedom increases security. Things don't work that way.
MPAA Talking out of both sides of its mouth?
on
DivX;) Goes Legit
·
· Score: 1, Funny
Impossible. They're the heroes of American society, boldly struggling against the forces of evil.
Either that, or they're just a bunch of lying snakes. Your call.
As long as you don't go beyond what technology can reasonably accomplish, environmentally friendly processes are usually going to be more efficient. And more efficient processes are usually going to be cheaper, at least over the long term.
The problem is when you try to get too far ahead of existing technology. Then you wind up with kludged-together stuff that doesn't work right. A good example is the too-early adoption of electronic engine controls by Detroit in the 1970s. In principle, it was a great idea. In practice, the technology wasn't robust enough yet, and U.S. cars suffered reliability problems for years as a result.
(They're still behind Japanese and German cars, but not by much -- in fact, a crappy Chevy today is considerably more reliable than the "bulletproof" Toyotas of the late '80s.)
They just want you to think that they're horribly behind the times. They're actually already using quantum decryption, and laughing at your puny 256-bit PGP keys.
Nice to see that the good guys won. Now the big test: will these guys be as vigilant about protecting our privacy as they've been at protecting their own? At least they're aware of the issue.
Interestingly, on my InstaPundit.Com site, once I mentioned this issue I started getting a lot of traffic from the Administrative Office's domain. I wonder if they realized that I was watching them too?
The whole HDTV plan is a disaster. No one is buying HDTV (and, reports to the contrary, I don't think it looks significantly better, so I don't think anyone will). You can't force people to buy it, and you can't deploy it when no one has it.
It's a spectrum-hungry technology that no one really wants. Plus, it's a big selloff to companies that don't deserve the help.
Space tourism is clearly ready to become real. But I wonder if something a little less ambitious -- like, say, suborbital flights -- might not be a better place to start. And these "space hotel" stories have a history of being vapor.
On the other hand, the ISS is so screwed up, it's hard to believe that someone couldn't do better.
It'll be interesting to see how Kozinski's fellow judges react. If they can't be bothered to protect their own privacy, we can't trust 'em to protect ours.
If they drop the ball on this one, maybe we should move to an elected judiciary. I've always opposed that, but the federal courts aren't exactly covering themselves with glory (or independence) these days.
Slashdot Mirror
Bush sold this to the Democrats by telling them that it represents a "more European" approach to surveillance. Which is, largely, true.
Of course, the Europeans don't have the U.S. Constitution. But Congress seldom troubles itself with such problems.
Actually, the article specifically mentions this trend, with refs to the old Roland Juno and -- by way of contrast -- the new Alesis Andromeda.
As I've noted elsewhere, it's OK to argue for more intellectual diversity on faculties, and it's okay to complain about faculty members who bully students with different views. But the UCLA effort sloppily confuses the two and winds up looking like a blacklist, blowing its credibility in the process.
I've had good luck with an absolutely bare bones videoblogging setup, using a Sony digital still camera that shoots video with sound. And Adam Keipner did some interesting videoblogging from the Nanotech conference in Washington a couple of weeks ago. I think we'll see a lot more of this in the future.
More here: "I took most of Thursday off, with only a passing reference to the forgery story. I stirred myself to blog a bit that evening, but by then the rest of the blogosphere -- especially the Power Line guys -- had done all the heavy lifting."
Heh.
I'd certainly buy the Ricochet service. And I suspect that such broadbased Internet access would do more for homeland security than a lot of expensive government projects we'll see.
The paper doesn't actually call for a laissez-faire regime. In fact, the opening quote is from Leon Fuerth's speech (he was Al Gore's national security adviser) at the Foresight Institute last year, pointing out that people who wanted a laissez-faire regime for nanotech were living in a fantasy world. The paper actually suggests the experience with recombinant DNA as a model. This would be apparent had the poster spent some time reading the paper. Or even this excerpt.
As for overthrowing the government, well, that's actually the most common view of what the Second Amendment is about among professors of constitutional law who have written on the subject -- including people like Larry Tribe of Harvard, no libertarian. Though I don't really see what that has to do with nanotechnology.
Next they'll tell us we can't skip ahead to the conclusion when we read a book. Jeez.
I wouldn't put it past Hollings to try to slip this through as an amendment to antiterror legislation. RIAA has already tried this.
They're going to get sued a lot on this. And juries hate 'em now.
The Bush Administration and the press had better be all over the RIAA and its Congressional sponsors. I can't think of a faster way to discredit the war on terrorism than opportunism like this.
It's a brilliant plot to convert bin Laden from a face of terror to a figure of fun in 12 hours, and it's worked. I hope somebody gets a big raise for this one.
The WTC bombers communicated in the clear, because no one knew enough to intercept their stuff.
You have to know who to spy on before this stuff does any good. That takes Intelligence. And intelligence.
Both are in short suply.
They've gotten steadily worse. Some alternatives: Vitaminic and PeopleSound are pretty good, let you make CDs on an on-demand as-sold basis (though PeopleSound actually makes you mail them files on CD-R, no uploading) and let you charge for downloaded tracks.
AngryCoffee doesn't pay anything, but it's free and cool.
I'm extremely disappointed with MP3.Com, though. Every time they change their policies they get suckier.
I believe that it's interstate commerce because he used the "facilities of interstate commerce" (e.g., phone lines, etc.), which federal courts generally consider to be interstate commerce even if everything takes place within the same state.
Yeah, I know it's stupid, but I didn't write it. I'm just explaining it.
As usual, cracking down on honest people is a priority. It impresses the honest people (i.e., voters) that the authorities are on the job. If you only crack down on the bad guys, who notices?
There's no automatic relationship between freedom and security. Many times in American history, when we have suppressed freedom in wartime we have gained no additional security at all. For example, the interning of Japanese Americans didn't increase our security. Banning the teaching of German during World War I didn't increase our security. Hoover's FBI blackmailing didn't increase our security.
It is a serious error to assume that because sometimes increased security reduces freedom, anything that reduces freedom increases security. Things don't work that way.
Impossible. They're the heroes of American society, boldly struggling against the forces of evil.
Either that, or they're just a bunch of lying snakes. Your call.
I got two kittens a couple of weeks ago. I'm already out $500 in vet bills, food, cat toys, litter, etc., etc., etc.
I think my vet gets more per hour than my internist. And no insurance hassles.
Of course, he'll probably pick up robot repair as a sideline if this actually comes off.
As long as you don't go beyond what technology can reasonably accomplish, environmentally friendly processes are usually going to be more efficient. And more efficient processes are usually going to be cheaper, at least over the long term.
The problem is when you try to get too far ahead of existing technology. Then you wind up with kludged-together stuff that doesn't work right. A good example is the too-early adoption of electronic engine controls by Detroit in the 1970s. In principle, it was a great idea. In practice, the technology wasn't robust enough yet, and U.S. cars suffered reliability problems for years as a result.
(They're still behind Japanese and German cars, but not by much -- in fact, a crappy Chevy today is considerably more reliable than the "bulletproof" Toyotas of the late '80s.)
They just want you to think that they're horribly behind the times. They're actually already using quantum decryption, and laughing at your puny 256-bit PGP keys.
Nice to see that the good guys won. Now the big test: will these guys be as vigilant about protecting our privacy as they've been at protecting their own? At least they're aware of the issue.
Interestingly, on my InstaPundit.Com site, once I mentioned this issue I started getting a lot of traffic from the Administrative Office's domain. I wonder if they realized that I was watching them too?
The whole HDTV plan is a disaster. No one is buying HDTV (and, reports to the contrary, I don't think it looks significantly better, so I don't think anyone will). You can't force people to buy it, and you can't deploy it when no one has it.
It's a spectrum-hungry technology that no one really wants. Plus, it's a big selloff to companies that don't deserve the help.
Space tourism is clearly ready to become real. But I wonder if something a little less ambitious -- like, say, suborbital flights -- might not be a better place to start. And these "space hotel" stories have a history of being vapor.
On the other hand, the ISS is so screwed up, it's hard to believe that someone couldn't do better.
It'll be interesting to see how Kozinski's fellow judges react. If they can't be bothered to protect their own privacy, we can't trust 'em to protect ours.
If they drop the ball on this one, maybe we should move to an elected judiciary. I've always opposed that, but the federal courts aren't exactly covering themselves with glory (or independence) these days.