GAH. Accidental return sent the comment before it was done. Shouldn't slashdot set the default to be "preview" and not "submit"?:)
Just to take the other side:
Why should you be entitled to a better defense simply because you have more money? What about "equal protection under the law"? And it's very convenient to say, "Oh, but the poor don't produce enough... it's their fault." But maybe you got your money through unscrupulous or even illegal means. Being rich or being poor doesn't really say anything about your moral worth. Even hardworking people sometimes get hit with financial disaster.
You say "the State listens to taxpayers and doesn't fund defense attorneys well" because "they do nothing but defend scumbag criminals!" But by your own rules, they don't defend only "scumbag criminals" -- and everyone knows it because there are no alternatives. Do you really think that people would allow an unbalanced system to persist when they know that, if they ever get called into court, they will have to use those same lawyers? You see, here the holy "enlightened self-interest" argument of rabid free marketeers comes back to haunt them. If everyone's access to lawyers is only to the same pool of lawyers -- if you can't secure an advantage through material wealth -- then there is strong societal interest in having the system be fairer. It's the whole "veil of ignorance" thing.
You argue that the system would still be unbalanced since individual abilities are unbalanced (fair enough), and that there could be corruption because a person of influence could swing a better lawyer by suborning the process. Indeed. Of course, the process we actually have is unbalanced by design and leads to the same result -- and equal protection is equally a joke there. Faced with a choice between a system that does evil by a failure of its principles, and a system that does evil by proper execution of its principles... hmm, I think I'd rather the one where the imbalance is a corruption, rather than a feature, of the system.
Why should you be entitled to a better defense simply because you have more money? What about "equal protection under the law"? And it's very convenient to say, "Oh, but the poor don't produce enough... it's their fault." But maybe you got your money through unscrupulous or even illegal means. Being rich or being poor doesn't really say anything about your moral worth. Even hardworking people sometimes get hit with financial disaster.
You say "the State listens to taxpayers and doesn't fund defense attorneys well" because "they do nothing but defend scumbag criminals!" But by your own rules, they don't defend only "scumbag criminals" -- and everyone knows it because there are no alternatives. Do you really think that people would allow an unbalanced system to persist when they know that, if they ever get called into court, they will have to use those same lawyers? You see, here the holy "enlightened self-interest" argument of rabid free marketeers comes back to haunt them. If everyone's access to lawyers is only to the same pool of lawyers -- if you can't secure an advantage through material wealth -- then there is strong societal interest in having the system be fairer. It's the whole "veil of ignorance"
It also doesn't help that our election system only works with 2 parties
Historically, this is not true. Third parties have been strong (but regional) in US history. I saw an interesting article somewhere in the past week (and I can't remember where) that argued it is the growth of the federal government (relative to the states) that has channeled political influence into just two national parties.
There still is widespread support for intellectual property within the general population
Oh, I call BS on you. Within "the general population" there isn't even understanding of intellectual property, much less "widespread support". Ask your friends: How many of them realize they're criminals for taping the last episode of Friends and lending it to a friend? How many even know that you have to pay royalties for singing "Happy Birthday" in public, and how many of them think that's a good thing? How many understand that when their high school teacher photocopied articles for them to read, it was illegal? How many think "As long as I don't charge for it, copying is legal?"
If you're honest in the survey, you're going to find the answer is "a lot" -- indeed, probably most of them.
I'm a fan of the general population and, unlike a lot, I don't think they're intrinsically stupid or unfit to govern -- indeed, they probably are better than anyone we've got actually doing it. But on this issue, the public is woefully under-, mis-, and ill-informed.
OK. By the way, this is from less than two minutes of a Google search... it's particularly low-hanging fruit available to anyone who's open enough to actually, you know, look.
"Commercially available infant formulas now contain a nutritional enrichment ingredient that traces its existence to NASA-sponsored research that explored the potential of algae as a recycling agent for long duration space travel." (ref)
Ski wear: "The NASA association began back in the 1970s, when Comfort Products adapted astronaut protective clothing technology to ski boot design. Specifically, the company borrowed heating element circuitry that kept Apollo astronauts warm or cool in the temperature extremes of the Moon, and used it to create built-in rechargeable footwarming devices that were supplied to leading ski boot manufacturers." (ref, emphasis added)
"In 1965, Johnson Space Center contracted with the University of Minnesota to explore the then-known but little-developed concept of impedance cardiography (ICG) as a means of astronaut monitoring. A five-year program led to the development of the Minnesota Impedance Cardiograph (MIC), an electronic system for measuring impedance changes across the thorax that would be reflective of cardiac function and blood flow from the heart's left ventricle into the aorta... the cost of the thermodilution technique [the old, invasive way] runs five to 17 times that of IQ monitoring [the new, NASA-developed way]"(ref)
"GROUND PROCESSING SCHEDULING SYSTEM - Computer-based scheduling system that uses artificial intelligence to manage thousands of overlapping activities involved in launch preparations of NASA's Space Shuttles. The NASA technology was licensed to a new company which developed commercial applications that provide real-time planning and optimization of manufacturing operations, integrated supply chains, and customer orders" (ref)
"STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS - This NASA program, originally created for spacecraft design, has been employed in a broad array of non-aerospace applications, such as the automobile industry, manufacture of machine tools, and hardware designs."(ref)
"SCRATCH-RESISTANT LENSES - A modified version of a dual ion beam bonding process developed by NASA involves coating the lenses with a film of diamond-like carbon that not only provides scratch resistance, but also decreases surface friction, reducing water spots." (ref)
"MICROSPHERES - The first commercial products manufactured in orbit are tiny microspheres whose precise dimensions permit their use as reference standards for extremely accurate calibration of instruments in research and industrial laboratories. They are sold for applications in environmental control, medical research, and manufacturing."(ref)
"SOLAR ENERGY - NASA-pioneered photovoltaic power system for spacecraft applications was applied to programs to expand terrestrial applications as a viable alternative energy source in areas where no conventional power source exists."(ref)
"DIGITAL IMAGING BREAST BIOPSY SYSTEM - The LORAD Stereo Guide Breast Biopsy system incorporates advanced Charge Coupled Devices (CCDs) as part of a digital camera system. The resulting device images breast tissue more clearly and efficiently. Known as stereotactic large-core needle biopsy, this nonsurgical system developed with Space Telescope Technology is less traumatic and greatly reduces the pain, scarring, radiation exposure, time, and money associated with surgical biopsies."(
People have a right to set a price. Pay it and do not steal.
OK, as far as that goes. But people do not have eternal title to their intellectual creations, and in my opinion that principle is both good and necessary -- and it is under assault by the modern copyright regime.
Re:To point out the obvious (not a conspiracy theo
on
Star Wars on DVD
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Blockquoth the poster:
If they'd changed it so that Han blew up the Death Star, or C3PO defeated Darth Vader, then that would be one thing, but these are utterly utterly trivial things
Ah, another person who believes that "plot" is the point of literature. Han shooting first is a big deal. It establishes his character: He's not the "nice one". He's dangerous. He's also possibly someone willing to sell out Luke, et al. (It's the same reason for mentioning the spice dump -- making clear that Han is not above breaking a contract and running.) Later, his decision to flee Yavin with his loot make perfect sense, because we've already established he's not the nice one. His eventual return is then a progression of the character, the start, so to speak, of his redemption.
Now, in the SE, we have that Han shoots only out of self-defense. He's morally "clean" -- and totally uninteresting. He's not a rough and real character; he's just some smirking wannabe who acts the tough guy. His flight from Yavin is now incongruous while his return is logical but uninteresting.
It's as much as mistake to think that only major plot points define a movie as it is to think that only Great Men define history...
Sure music is overpriced and a lot is crap, but it's still stealing.
That's right. And we should resist the efforts of the theives who write those contracts and suck all the value out of music...
Oh, wait. You meant that copying music was still stealing, not that music itself is stealing (in addition to being overpriced and largely crap). Oopsie. That's a different argument.:)
However, there are plenty of situations where it's just not possible to avoid the only means of high-speed long-distance transportation available in this country.
Sorry. I don't feel the same as the parent poster, but he/she has got a point. You list several situations where you would "have" to fly (family in Hawai'i, dying mother, etc.) But you don't "have" to fly. You can forgo seeing your family. You can forgo visiting your dying mother. These are things you choose to do. The parent post is asserting, if this really mattered to you, you would forgo those things.
My take is, it's a question of cost and benefit. You want to see your family, who live in Hawai'i? Then, like it or not, that desire cedes some power to people who can make it happen... and they can associate a cost with it, including a cost of your privacy.
People who are doing something wrong, tend to get nervous when confronted with authority.
Um, people who are doing nothing wrong, also tend to get nervous when confronted with authority. That's the nature of authority. Everyone gets a little bit jumpier when the nice state trooper walks over to their car...
The Congress shall have Power to... provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
You can argue whether this actually enhances security but I don't think you can argue that most domestic flights are interstate in nature.
Just because you can't stop 100% doesn't mean you should'nt [sic] try.
No, it doesn't. But you have to make a rational cost/benefit analysis. How likely is your suggestion to make a difference? What other costs does it impose on a free and open society?
We must not get so wrapped up in protecting our society that we ourselves destroy the value of it.
On your phone bill or through your taxes elsewhere.
In which case, perhaps better on the phone bill. At least it's there and line-itemed, reminding people that the government is in fact tapping phone lines, etc. Otherwise it will just get hidden in the general fund.
On the other hand, as someone else pointed out, this is regressive. Maybe funding through income taxes would be better. It's a toss-up to me.
It is wrong to punish people for being successful.
It's wrong for "successful" people to pretend that they are that way only on their own merits and efforts. Everyone benefits from a stable society. Those with more, benefit more -- and probably disproportionately. Since they have more to lose, a stable society is more valuable to them. Therefore they should pay more.
Oh, wait. No one seems to be a believer in "capitalism" when confronted with the idea of taxes as payment for social goods. Suddenly then we don't believe in paying for what we get.
No, they're not. They aren't being prevented due to the content of the broadcast or their own political views. They were outbid. You might not like it but it isn't repression. It isn't repression when you aren't allowed to do whatever you want -- no matter how loudly scream the idiots who want to speed at 100 mph on city streets.
If you don't like the fact that NBC could buy an exclusive license, hey, OK. I'm hip with that. But it isn't "censorship".
Language matters. Words mean something. It's important to use the right ones.
The truth is still out there just slightly out of sight for the proles. If the Proles don't see it on Faux news it didn't happen,
That's still not censorship. If a people choose not to be informed, then it's their own damn fault that they're not informed. The mess in America is completely and totally a sign of how well democracy is functioning, because we get exactly the people we seem to want. There are alternative sources out there but people by and large don't both to find them.
You can't protect the people from themselves. Not only is it impossible but it is wrong: Who are you to impose your own order on them? That is where the danger starts. Of course you can be disgusted and upset with them -- I generally can't stand the way people in my country decide things, or allow others to decide for them -- but the only options you have are persistence, public speech, and education.
Luckily for me, I suppose, I continue to have an abiding faith in the fundamental soundness of the American people. It's a faith because I can't point to rational evidence for it, but I still feel it. We are sleeping, not evil, and I really feel it is not too long before we awake and take back our country and our culture from all the forces that have stepped into our self-induced daydream and taken over.
are you not censoring those that you don't like/don't pay you
I call logic foul! Very nicely done, how you conflate "don't like" and "don't pay" -- but that's invalid. You're missing the point, perhaps deliberately. Censorship means, stopping the messenger because you dislike the message. That's it. The IOC hasn't decided that they don't like Americans and so won't allow broadcast. They haven't said that the Olympics will somehow undermine society. They've said, "NBC paid us a boatload of money for exclusive rights in the US and we're respecting that agreement." It is not content-based! (Secondarily, it's also not state-imposed, so it's technically not censorship for that reason, too.)
Exclusive licensing is not censorship. It might still be wrong but it's not censorship. You don't get problems solved by mis-labelling them; in fact, you often entrench the problem further.
Anti-Americanism is the instinctive belief that nothing the US (or its citizens) can do no right. American jingoism is the instinctive belief that the US (or its citizens) can do no wrong. They're really the same thing; we see far too much of both these days; and they of course feed each other.
Just more proof that Enlightenment democracy is hard.
Nowadays it seems that the trend of wearing the skin of a deceased beloved company like a corporate Ed Gein is increasing in today's post-dot-com business climate.
Well, you're not allowed to cut off your enemy's head and carry it like a trophy anymore...
Where did these people come from? Generations of hard-working, industrious ancestors?
Just remember, though: You might be proof that your ancestors were well-adapted to their environment. You are not proof that you are well-adapted to your environment.:)
Also remember that evolution doesn't pick winners; it picks losers.
That you don't have that constant "hey, psst, remember, you need to do x!" reminder in your head, that you can't turn off.
Then clearly this research is circular. Until the gene therapy, the monkeys didn't get that littlle voice in their head. Now the scientists have put it in, creating stress that the monkeys would need to work to relieve. (If your theory is right.) Seems almost like drug addiction: Create the need, then supply the means to fulfill it.
Why is it that everyone seems to feel the need to compare the boogeyman of their choice to terrorists these days?
Because all the Communists folded or gave up.
In retrospect, I'm just amazed that it took ten years for the Powers that Be to uncover another bogeyman that would allow them to root-password the Constitution.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, we in the US already do such a bang-up job on health insurance, I'm sure this would be simple...
Just to take the other side:
Why should you be entitled to a better defense simply because you have more money? What about "equal protection under the law"? And it's very convenient to say, "Oh, but the poor don't produce enough... it's their fault." But maybe you got your money through unscrupulous or even illegal means. Being rich or being poor doesn't really say anything about your moral worth. Even hardworking people sometimes get hit with financial disaster.
You say "the State listens to taxpayers and doesn't fund defense attorneys well" because "they do nothing but defend scumbag criminals!" But by your own rules, they don't defend only "scumbag criminals" -- and everyone knows it because there are no alternatives. Do you really think that people would allow an unbalanced system to persist when they know that, if they ever get called into court, they will have to use those same lawyers? You see, here the holy "enlightened self-interest" argument of rabid free marketeers comes back to haunt them. If everyone's access to lawyers is only to the same pool of lawyers -- if you can't secure an advantage through material wealth -- then there is strong societal interest in having the system be fairer. It's the whole "veil of ignorance" thing.
You argue that the system would still be unbalanced since individual abilities are unbalanced (fair enough), and that there could be corruption because a person of influence could swing a better lawyer by suborning the process. Indeed. Of course, the process we actually have is unbalanced by design and leads to the same result -- and equal protection is equally a joke there. Faced with a choice between a system that does evil by a failure of its principles, and a system that does evil by proper execution of its principles... hmm, I think I'd rather the one where the imbalance is a corruption, rather than a feature, of the system.
Why should you be entitled to a better defense simply because you have more money? What about "equal protection under the law"? And it's very convenient to say, "Oh, but the poor don't produce enough... it's their fault." But maybe you got your money through unscrupulous or even illegal means. Being rich or being poor doesn't really say anything about your moral worth. Even hardworking people sometimes get hit with financial disaster.
You say "the State listens to taxpayers and doesn't fund defense attorneys well" because "they do nothing but defend scumbag criminals!" But by your own rules, they don't defend only "scumbag criminals" -- and everyone knows it because there are no alternatives. Do you really think that people would allow an unbalanced system to persist when they know that, if they ever get called into court, they will have to use those same lawyers? You see, here the holy "enlightened self-interest" argument of rabid free marketeers comes back to haunt them. If everyone's access to lawyers is only to the same pool of lawyers -- if you can't secure an advantage through material wealth -- then there is strong societal interest in having the system be fairer. It's the whole "veil of ignorance"
Historically, this is not true. Third parties have been strong (but regional) in US history. I saw an interesting article somewhere in the past week (and I can't remember where) that argued it is the growth of the federal government (relative to the states) that has channeled political influence into just two national parties.
Oh, I call BS on you. Within "the general population" there isn't even understanding of intellectual property, much less "widespread support". Ask your friends: How many of them realize they're criminals for taping the last episode of Friends and lending it to a friend? How many even know that you have to pay royalties for singing "Happy Birthday" in public, and how many of them think that's a good thing? How many understand that when their high school teacher photocopied articles for them to read, it was illegal? How many think "As long as I don't charge for it, copying is legal?"
If you're honest in the survey, you're going to find the answer is "a lot" -- indeed, probably most of them.
I'm a fan of the general population and, unlike a lot, I don't think they're intrinsically stupid or unfit to govern -- indeed, they probably are better than anyone we've got actually doing it. But on this issue, the public is woefully under-, mis-, and ill-informed.
"Commercially available infant formulas now contain a nutritional enrichment ingredient that traces its existence to NASA-sponsored research that explored the potential of algae as a recycling agent for long duration space travel." (ref)
Ski wear: "The NASA association began back in the 1970s, when Comfort Products adapted astronaut protective clothing technology to ski boot design. Specifically, the company borrowed heating element circuitry that kept Apollo astronauts warm or cool in the temperature extremes of the Moon, and used it to create built-in rechargeable footwarming devices that were supplied to leading ski boot manufacturers." (ref, emphasis added)
"In 1965, Johnson Space Center contracted with the University of Minnesota to explore the then-known but little-developed concept of impedance cardiography (ICG) as a means of astronaut monitoring. A five-year program led to the development of the Minnesota Impedance Cardiograph (MIC), an electronic system for measuring impedance changes across the thorax that would be reflective of cardiac function and blood flow from the heart's left ventricle into the aorta... the cost of the thermodilution technique [the old, invasive way] runs five to 17 times that of IQ monitoring [the new, NASA-developed way]"(ref)
"GROUND PROCESSING SCHEDULING SYSTEM - Computer-based scheduling system that uses artificial intelligence to manage thousands of overlapping activities involved in launch preparations of NASA's Space Shuttles. The NASA technology was licensed to a new company which developed commercial applications that provide real-time planning and optimization of manufacturing operations, integrated supply chains, and customer orders" (ref)
"STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS - This NASA program, originally created for spacecraft design, has been employed in a broad array of non-aerospace applications, such as the automobile industry, manufacture of machine tools, and hardware designs."(ref)
"SCRATCH-RESISTANT LENSES - A modified version of a dual ion beam bonding process developed by NASA involves coating the lenses with a film of diamond-like carbon that not only provides scratch resistance, but also decreases surface friction, reducing water spots." (ref)
"MICROSPHERES - The first commercial products manufactured in orbit are tiny microspheres whose precise dimensions permit their use as reference standards for extremely accurate calibration of instruments in research and industrial laboratories. They are sold for applications in environmental control, medical research, and manufacturing."(ref)
"SOLAR ENERGY - NASA-pioneered photovoltaic power system for spacecraft applications was applied to programs to expand terrestrial applications as a viable alternative energy source in areas where no conventional power source exists."(ref)
"DIGITAL IMAGING BREAST BIOPSY SYSTEM - The LORAD Stereo Guide Breast Biopsy system incorporates advanced Charge Coupled Devices (CCDs) as part of a digital camera system. The resulting device images breast tissue more clearly and efficiently. Known as stereotactic large-core needle biopsy, this nonsurgical system developed with Space Telescope Technology is less traumatic and greatly reduces the pain, scarring, radiation exposure, time, and money associated with surgical biopsies."(
OK, as far as that goes. But people do not have eternal title to their intellectual creations, and in my opinion that principle is both good and necessary -- and it is under assault by the modern copyright regime.
Ah, another person who believes that "plot" is the point of literature. Han shooting first is a big deal. It establishes his character: He's not the "nice one". He's dangerous. He's also possibly someone willing to sell out Luke, et al. (It's the same reason for mentioning the spice dump -- making clear that Han is not above breaking a contract and running.) Later, his decision to flee Yavin with his loot make perfect sense, because we've already established he's not the nice one. His eventual return is then a progression of the character, the start, so to speak, of his redemption.
Now, in the SE, we have that Han shoots only out of self-defense. He's morally "clean" -- and totally uninteresting. He's not a rough and real character; he's just some smirking wannabe who acts the tough guy. His flight from Yavin is now incongruous while his return is logical but uninteresting.
It's as much as mistake to think that only major plot points define a movie as it is to think that only Great Men define history...
Actually, that's been revised to "the intention of one day considering to possibly have WMD-related program activities"...
That's right. And we should resist the efforts of the theives who write those contracts and suck all the value out of music...
Oh, wait. You meant that copying music was still stealing, not that music itself is stealing (in addition to being overpriced and largely crap). Oopsie. That's a different argument.
Sorry. I don't feel the same as the parent poster, but he/she has got a point. You list several situations where you would "have" to fly (family in Hawai'i, dying mother, etc.) But you don't "have" to fly. You can forgo seeing your family. You can forgo visiting your dying mother. These are things you choose to do. The parent post is asserting, if this really mattered to you, you would forgo those things.
My take is, it's a question of cost and benefit. You want to see your family, who live in Hawai'i? Then, like it or not, that desire cedes some power to people who can make it happen
Um, people who are doing nothing wrong, also tend to get nervous when confronted with authority. That's the nature of authority. Everyone gets a little bit jumpier when the nice state trooper walks over to their car...
Hmmm. How about Article 1 Section 8?
You can argue whether this actually enhances security but I don't think you can argue that most domestic flights are interstate in nature.
No, it doesn't. But you have to make a rational cost/benefit analysis. How likely is your suggestion to make a difference? What other costs does it impose on a free and open society?
We must not get so wrapped up in protecting our society that we ourselves destroy the value of it.
In which case, perhaps better on the phone bill. At least it's there and line-itemed, reminding people that the government is in fact tapping phone lines, etc. Otherwise it will just get hidden in the general fund.
On the other hand, as someone else pointed out, this is regressive. Maybe funding through income taxes would be better. It's a toss-up to me.
It's wrong for "successful" people to pretend that they are that way only on their own merits and efforts. Everyone benefits from a stable society. Those with more, benefit more -- and probably disproportionately. Since they have more to lose, a stable society is more valuable to them. Therefore they should pay more.
Oh, wait. No one seems to be a believer in "capitalism" when confronted with the idea of taxes as payment for social goods. Suddenly then we don't believe in paying for what we get.
No, they're not. They aren't being prevented due to the content of the broadcast or their own political views. They were outbid. You might not like it but it isn't repression. It isn't repression when you aren't allowed to do whatever you want -- no matter how loudly scream the idiots who want to speed at 100 mph on city streets.
If you don't like the fact that NBC could buy an exclusive license, hey, OK. I'm hip with that. But it isn't "censorship".
Language matters. Words mean something. It's important to use the right ones.
That's still not censorship. If a people choose not to be informed, then it's their own damn fault that they're not informed. The mess in America is completely and totally a sign of how well democracy is functioning, because we get exactly the people we seem to want. There are alternative sources out there but people by and large don't both to find them.
You can't protect the people from themselves. Not only is it impossible but it is wrong: Who are you to impose your own order on them? That is where the danger starts. Of course you can be disgusted and upset with them -- I generally can't stand the way people in my country decide things, or allow others to decide for them -- but the only options you have are persistence, public speech, and education.
Luckily for me, I suppose, I continue to have an abiding faith in the fundamental soundness of the American people. It's a faith because I can't point to rational evidence for it, but I still feel it. We are sleeping, not evil, and I really feel it is not too long before we awake and take back our country and our culture from all the forces that have stepped into our self-induced daydream and taken over.
I call logic foul! Very nicely done, how you conflate "don't like" and "don't pay" -- but that's invalid. You're missing the point, perhaps deliberately. Censorship means, stopping the messenger because you dislike the message. That's it. The IOC hasn't decided that they don't like Americans and so won't allow broadcast. They haven't said that the Olympics will somehow undermine society. They've said, "NBC paid us a boatload of money for exclusive rights in the US and we're respecting that agreement." It is not content-based! (Secondarily, it's also not state-imposed, so it's technically not censorship for that reason, too.)
Exclusive licensing is not censorship. It might still be wrong but it's not censorship. You don't get problems solved by mis-labelling them; in fact, you often entrench the problem further.
Anti-Americanism is the instinctive belief that nothing the US (or its citizens) can do no right. American jingoism is the instinctive belief that the US (or its citizens) can do no wrong. They're really the same thing; we see far too much of both these days; and they of course feed each other.
Just more proof that Enlightenment democracy is hard.
Well, you're not allowed to cut off your enemy's head and carry it like a trophy anymore...
Um, what part of
don't you understand?
Just remember, though: You might be proof that your ancestors were well-adapted to their environment. You are not proof that you are well-adapted to your environment.
Also remember that evolution doesn't pick winners; it picks losers.
Then clearly this research is circular. Until the gene therapy, the monkeys didn't get that littlle voice in their head. Now the scientists have put it in, creating stress that the monkeys would need to work to relieve. (If your theory is right.) Seems almost like drug addiction: Create the need, then supply the means to fulfill it.
Oh. I guess it also sounds like marketing.
Because all the Communists folded or gave up.
In retrospect, I'm just amazed that it took ten years for the Powers that Be to uncover another bogeyman that would allow them to root-password the Constitution.