Have you ever heard either of them speak? Or looked into their various historical press releases? They are about as far apart as Earth is to the Horsehead Nebula.
McKinney used to be my rep. when I lived just outside Atlanta. I think you understate their differences.
Although it might be an appropriate analogy for the distance between Barr the religious conservative and Barr the Libertarian.
Actually, they are not. Car batteries are starter batteries - used to provide a short burst of high current (cranking amps in the car application). Deep cycle batteries are used to provide long steady power at constant voltage - like in marine applications, forklifts, golf carts, etc. This is the type of battery you would use for off-peak power storage, or for your solar / wind power array. You don't want to deep cycle your car battery, it will likely shorten it's life.
Could you (or anyone that thinks alike) please explain me the difference between paying a private health insurance and paying a universal system with your taxes??
Holy crap, that's easy. One is completely voluntary, the other is completely compulsory. Jeez....
A complete SDI system is what Reagan wanted; a comprehensive STRATEGIC (not tactical) defense system that could rid the world (actually just us) of nuclear terror.
Interesting post. Actually, what Reagan tried to accomplish was the complete elimination of the threat of nuclear weapons from the planet. He almost had an agreement with Gorbachev to eliminate all warheads from the US and Soviet arsenals. Much to the relief of the advisers on both sides, Gorbachev backed out at the last minute. I know, it kind of ruins your caricature - but the whole premise of SDI was that the technology behind the shield would be shared with the Soviets to eliminate the ICBM threat completely for both sides. Sort of the ultimate "trust but verify". Unfortunately even a purely defensive weapon like an anti-missile weapon can be used an an offensive strategy (first strike), so many in the Soviet government saw SDI the same way that many on the far left in the US did, despite the offer to share the technology if it ever should come to exist.
I heard a snippet of a speech by Reagan today about SDI and how we now finally have the missile defense stuff he proposed. They talked about him not realizing the difficulties and state of the art, at which I laughed a bit when, in the speech, he talked about it possibly taking 'into the next century'.
It was an NPR story, I heard it too and had the same reaction you did. The speech they played had him not only mention that it could well take into the next century, he specifically mentioned that the technical challenges were immense, but the state of the art had reached a point that it was time to begin trying to solve the problem by funding research. Pretty much everything they played supported the opposite conclusion to that offered by the NPR commentator. Funny.
7zip supports rar, arj, zip, 7z, cab, iso, etc. etc., and it is a free program, unlike winRAR or WinZip. And it works very nicely.
This is only partially true. 7zip supports 7z, ZIP, GZIP, BZIP2 and TAR fully. The other formats are "unzip" only. So no-go if you need to compress with RAR (the original thread). Too bad because RAR is amazing on database backups. I often get 90% + compression on multigig SQL server backups - much higher than zip or built in compression in backup utilities.
A true liberal doesn't ask you to fit any mold beyond "don't mess with my shit," but is too rare a beast to be found in any political discussion or election.
Oh, you're an old-school classic liberal, before the socialists grabbed the moniker. Yeah, we don't have those around here any more. And socialists don't go by that label either - they prefer to be called Progressives, because they are for progress! Funny that a country founded on Liberty has so few citizens interested in liberty these days.
OK flamebait. Since nobody had time to do sit-down interviews after the veep announcement, several networks re-ran long format interviews from her time as governor of Alaska. I stumbled on one while channel flipping one night before I knew who she was. She was talking about a wide range of topics, particularly energy policy when I stumbled on it. She was very impressive and deeply knowledgeable on the topic - which is unusual for an attractive woman sitting on a bearskin couch. So I sat through about 20 minutes of the hour-long interview, and although I'm not convinced that she holds positions that I can get on board with on some issues, claiming that "she can barely put together a grammatically sensical [sic] sentence" is stupid in the extreme - even without the made-up word. In fact it seems that the two most thoughtful and articulate (in the non-speech forum) people involved in this year's race are women. Clinton may give somewhat forced speeches, but she is terrific in sit-down interviews, as is Palin. Obama is the one who is much better in a prepared speach and appears to fumble for words in the unscripted format - probably looking for the perfect word to use rather than just speaking his mind. Actually, both of the old farts in the race are much better in the sit-down interview forum as well.
They had six months living in a house they knew they couldn't afford.
You think that's a free ride? Let's go over this again:
1. They have no home. Back to apartments for them. 2. They lost their savings. 3. They probably took on more debt. 4. Their ability to get new credit or make large purchases (e.g. a vehicle) is now stunted. 5. They have no hope of seeing another house for several years into the future. 6. Any long term plans they made are probably shot.
So how exactly is that a free ride? It sounds to me like they'll be paying a hefty price for quite a long time!
OK, I'll play too: 1. They didn't pay for the home so it wasn't theirs. 2. These are normally zero down loans, no savings invested. 3. Took on more debt... Huh? While probably true (if you can't handle credit in one situation, likely enough you can't handle it elsewhere) - it really isn't relevant to the free ride. 4. Bad credit - that's a consequence, but it doesn't benefit the person that loaned them the money, so still not involved in the free ride argument. 5. Yep, goes with 4. 6. Plans built on quicksand... still not relevant to the free ride.
The exact way that it is a free ride is that they agreed to pay X dollars to live in a house, then they didn't pay X dollars and continued living in the house. The entity that made the loan did not get paid what they were promised. They also get no benefit from any of the negative financial consequences that happen to the buyer. That is a free ride.
Now, outside of that transactions they may have had a lot of bad things happen to them financially. That doesn't really enter into the calculation. Maybe it would be simpler if we were not talking about a house. What about a nice silk dress instead? Let's say they promised a dressmaker $50 per month for a year for a nice custom made dress. The dressmaker delivers the dress as promised. The buyer accepts delivery and has a nice time wearing the dress to parties and gets lots of great compliments. The buyer never makes the promised payments. After about 6 months the dressmaker repossesses the dress. Can you see how that would be a free ride? Can you see how it is the dressmaker who is the aggrieved party?
Even if the party-goer has horrible financial luck and wound up in a tough situation and so couldn't afford the 50 bucks, it really doesn't change the calculus. She took advantage of the dressmaker for 6 months, and now the dressmaker is stuck with a dress that cannot be sold for anywhere close to the promised sum.
Holy crap, I gotta agree with that. I had a great vacation in Ireland (doing a B&B tour) but I would have been dead in the water without GPS. Most places there have no signs, and the signs that do exist require you to stop and carefully read. But what a great place - I highly recommend a getaway to Ireland. Just make sure you rent a good handling compact with a GPS - the roads are tiny, bumpy, closely bordered by stone walls and driven at breakneck speeds. (Ok, breakneck on these roads is ~100km/hr, maybe even only 60Km/hr).
Many of the best landmarks would be extremely difficult to find with a map. I visited some of the ancient dolmen in the Burren and the GPS took me right there. Even with GPS they were tough to spot - a pile of rocks in a field that is nothing but a bunch of rocks. With a map - wow, that would be tough.
Libertarianism is a "fringe" viewpoint. The fact that we're a little weird doesn't alter that. And the fact that we're a little weird doesn't alter the fact that it's the right philosophy. In fact, not wanting to order other people around and make them live their lives according to your beliefs is the ultimate in weird behavior.
Holy crap, somebody who understands that the constitution applies to the government, not the citizens! There's 4 of us left, we should form a club!
For the unwashed.... The constitution grants specific powers to the government. The people have ceded some of their rights to the government for the common good. Any and all powers not specifically granted to the government in the constitution are reserved to the people (or the states).
Unfortunately, just because it is true doesn't mean that's what happens. I doubt more than 40% of the current US government budget passes that test, not to mention the criminal statutes on the federal books.
I'm coming from the "land of the free" to one of those wacky socialist European countries.
I know it's hard for US residents brainwashed during the cold war, but socialism is not an alternative to freedom. Ceding control over your money to the state is the opposite of freedom. Controlling your money is much more restricting than making laws that restrict behavior, like outlawing homosexuality. Do you really think that laws can significantly impact private behavior? Now, what about confiscating your income and giving it back to you according to the government's priorities? How much control does that give them? How about a $2,000 annual subsidy to put in solar cells? Does that make it more likely that you'd put some of those on your roof? How about a $50,000 subsidy to live in a man/woman marriage? Think you might find a beard to cover up your gay relationship and get the 50k?
But your questions are absolutely not unanswerable, and are thousands of years too late to be at all novel. Typical student thinking. Hopefully you are still a student, because if not you missed the most important lesson of any university education.
Cool! Pony up then, let's hear the trivial answer to his logical contradiction. I love this stuff. I majored in philosophy for almost a whole semester, and almost declared a religion minor. Philosophical arguments are the best!
Sam Adams makes Utopias beer, which is over 25% alcohol. It sells for over $100 for a 24 ounce bottle, if you can find it. Strangely, it might be a good deal at that price, as the collectable bottles from the 2007 vintage appear to sell for over $300 on ebay.
Heh, next to the "phone cops" episodes, that was the funniest thing ever. Thanks for activating that brain cell. I probably haven't thought of that in 20 years.
Man, we're old. Remember when those old guys used to tell you how great Jackie Gleason was? Yeah, Les Nesman is older than that was. Dang.
"Oooh, I'm obtuse. 'An angle greater than 90 degrees. Rounded at the free end....'" - Les Nesman
No, the parent had it right. To quote some comedian or other: "People are stupid. A person is smart, but put them in a group - morons!" Put whatever label you want on it: herd mentality, mob mentality, popularity contest, least common denominator.... as the size of the group required to make a decision grows, the quality of that decision erodes.
Of course, there's plenty of studies to the contrary - look at the current fad of market based prediction tools - "the wisdom of crowds". Still, it runs counter to my experience. Small groups work well, committees are idiotic, millions of voters? please...
Cynthia McKinney.... wow. She was my congressman for a while. What can I say about that time? At least she's photogenic. Otherwise, we went unrepresented. Holy crap, I can't believe anyone would support her for local school board, let alone the president of the most powerful nation in the world. I guess the greenies are dropping all pretense, if they are nominating a straight up communist as their candidate. Also, while she was in congress I can't think of a single time she ever even mentioned an environmental issue. I must be wrong, because all politicians do at some point, but it sure isn't what defines her.
Now, if you really want to blame this on somebody, I hear your congressmen takes letters. Mine does, but he ignores them. Actually, even though he won't personally read it, they all have a staff that compiles statistics. They do in fact pay close attention to what their constituents are saying - as a group. So they'll get a list that says 47 letters against DCMA, 23 letters for HR-2984, etc. Your thoughtful and powerful argument in defense of limited copyright will get reduced to "1 against copyright extension".
I have been a part of several initiatives with congressional legislation, and I can tell you that they will absolutely pay attention if enough of their constituents are directly affected and contacting their offices. However, the case is often one of battling constituencies... lobbyists represent companies - but the companies employ lots of people. If those people believe their livelihood is threatened they might be more passionate about an issue than a larger number of people who want to pirate a CD.
Without question if a few thousand registered voters from each and every district showed up at their congressman's office and demanded a change like repealing the DCMA, there's nothing that a few well placed bucks from the industry lobbyists could do to stop the repeal. The fact is that not enough people really care about this issue to override the people who really care in the other direction because their job depends on it.
We managed to fight off the insurance industry lobby with only a few hundred employees and a few tens of thousands of dollars. Our entire industry probably wouldn't amount to a rounding error on their lobbyists expense account, yet by going directly to our representatives and showing them that people in their districts would lose their jobs if the big lobbyists got their way, we stopped them cold. It took a concerted effort by everyone in our industry for over a year, but our reps actually did listen. And the reps of the districts with lots of workers in the insurance industry? Well, they didn't listen to us so much.
They should put your post in the user manual for Slashdot. There's likely room alongside the "Important Memes" section that details how to post "jokes" that repeat one of the "Important Memes" while inserting a single word related to the topic at hand, lending relevance to your humor.
The video, shot by a WTXF-TV helicopter, shows three police cars stopping a car on the side of a road.
So are you suggesting we use news choppers for surveillance? That article has NOTHING to do with CCTV.
I can't agree with you there... the implication of his commentary is more of pervasive camera surveillance, not solely the issue of government cameras - although those are in a different category. The parent comment is pretty insightful - pervasive camera coverage could prevent abuses by authorities, but also could be used to control any sort of opposition movement. How much are you willing to give up to get security? It is a slightly different version of the old freedom vs security adage. In this version, you get some security from police abuse (in addition to security from the hooligans) in exchange for possible future loss of ability to resist much larger oppressions.
It seems I remember some rumors about the police disabling cameras in London when potentially embarrassing police operations were underway, so the dystopian future with misused surveillance is perhaps not so far off.
The point of the "Right to bare arms" was to enable the formation of a Militia to oppose an unjust government... do you really thing this is possible with small arms? If there are only ten of you.... uhm, no. If there are 300 million of you... absolutely.
McMartin is one of my favorite and infuriating examples. Another is the "Little Rascals Daycare" case from North Carolina. On one of the several Frontline specials about the case, a juror actually said that they didn't believe any of the specific charges, but there were so many charges that they felt they had to convict to protect the children. So they knew the people were innocent and they sent them away for life anyway, just to be safe. Wow. "Think of the Children" literally cost a couple of people their freedom for life. The (much) later reprieve doesn't change the fact that a large number of people in a democratically elected constitutional government were willing to submit to a mob mentality when simple logic tells us that there is zero chance that the allegations are true. See the Frontline website http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/innocence/etc/sum.html for more infuriating details.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't decide between Barr and McKinney?
Have you ever heard either of them speak? Or looked into their various historical press releases? They are about as far apart as Earth is to the Horsehead Nebula.
McKinney used to be my rep. when I lived just outside Atlanta. I think you understate their differences.
Although it might be an appropriate analogy for the distance between Barr the religious conservative and Barr the Libertarian.
Um.. car batteries are deep cycle batteries.
Actually, they are not. Car batteries are starter batteries - used to provide a short burst of high current (cranking amps in the car application). Deep cycle batteries are used to provide long steady power at constant voltage - like in marine applications, forklifts, golf carts, etc. This is the type of battery you would use for off-peak power storage, or for your solar / wind power array. You don't want to deep cycle your car battery, it will likely shorten it's life.
Could you (or anyone that thinks alike) please explain me the difference between paying a private health insurance and paying a universal system with your taxes??
Holy crap, that's easy. One is completely voluntary, the other is completely compulsory. Jeez....
Nah. Real geeks convert to hexadecimal before ROT-13 encrypting anything.
Wouldn't that be ROT-D?
A complete SDI system is what Reagan wanted; a comprehensive STRATEGIC (not tactical) defense system that could rid the world (actually just us) of nuclear terror.
Interesting post. Actually, what Reagan tried to accomplish was the complete elimination of the threat of nuclear weapons from the planet. He almost had an agreement with Gorbachev to eliminate all warheads from the US and Soviet arsenals. Much to the relief of the advisers on both sides, Gorbachev backed out at the last minute. I know, it kind of ruins your caricature - but the whole premise of SDI was that the technology behind the shield would be shared with the Soviets to eliminate the ICBM threat completely for both sides. Sort of the ultimate "trust but verify". Unfortunately even a purely defensive weapon like an anti-missile weapon can be used an an offensive strategy (first strike), so many in the Soviet government saw SDI the same way that many on the far left in the US did, despite the offer to share the technology if it ever should come to exist.
I heard a snippet of a speech by Reagan today about SDI and how we now finally have the missile defense stuff he proposed. They talked about him not realizing the difficulties and state of the art, at which I laughed a bit when, in the speech, he talked about it possibly taking 'into the next century'.
It was an NPR story, I heard it too and had the same reaction you did. The speech they played had him not only mention that it could well take into the next century, he specifically mentioned that the technical challenges were immense, but the state of the art had reached a point that it was time to begin trying to solve the problem by funding research. Pretty much everything they played supported the opposite conclusion to that offered by the NPR commentator. Funny.
7zip supports rar, arj, zip, 7z, cab, iso, etc. etc., and it is a free program, unlike winRAR or WinZip. And it works very nicely.
This is only partially true. 7zip supports 7z, ZIP, GZIP, BZIP2 and TAR fully. The other formats are "unzip" only. So no-go if you need to compress with RAR (the original thread). Too bad because RAR is amazing on database backups. I often get 90% + compression on multigig SQL server backups - much higher than zip or built in compression in backup utilities.
A true liberal doesn't ask you to fit any mold beyond "don't mess with my shit," but is too rare a beast to be found in any political discussion or election.
Oh, you're an old-school classic liberal, before the socialists grabbed the moniker. Yeah, we don't have those around here any more. And socialists don't go by that label either - they prefer to be called Progressives, because they are for progress! Funny that a country founded on Liberty has so few citizens interested in liberty these days.
OK flamebait. Since nobody had time to do sit-down interviews after the veep announcement, several networks re-ran long format interviews from her time as governor of Alaska. I stumbled on one while channel flipping one night before I knew who she was. She was talking about a wide range of topics, particularly energy policy when I stumbled on it. She was very impressive and deeply knowledgeable on the topic - which is unusual for an attractive woman sitting on a bearskin couch. So I sat through about 20 minutes of the hour-long interview, and although I'm not convinced that she holds positions that I can get on board with on some issues, claiming that "she can barely put together a grammatically sensical [sic] sentence" is stupid in the extreme - even without the made-up word. In fact it seems that the two most thoughtful and articulate (in the non-speech forum) people involved in this year's race are women. Clinton may give somewhat forced speeches, but she is terrific in sit-down interviews, as is Palin. Obama is the one who is much better in a prepared speach and appears to fumble for words in the unscripted format - probably looking for the perfect word to use rather than just speaking his mind. Actually, both of the old farts in the race are much better in the sit-down interview forum as well.
You think that's a free ride? Let's go over this again:
1. They have no home. Back to apartments for them.
2. They lost their savings.
3. They probably took on more debt.
4. Their ability to get new credit or make large purchases (e.g. a vehicle) is now stunted.
5. They have no hope of seeing another house for several years into the future.
6. Any long term plans they made are probably shot.
So how exactly is that a free ride? It sounds to me like they'll be paying a hefty price for quite a long time!
OK, I'll play too:
1. They didn't pay for the home so it wasn't theirs.
2. These are normally zero down loans, no savings invested.
3. Took on more debt... Huh? While probably true (if you can't handle credit in one situation, likely enough you can't handle it elsewhere) - it really isn't relevant to the free ride.
4. Bad credit - that's a consequence, but it doesn't benefit the person that loaned them the money, so still not involved in the free ride argument.
5. Yep, goes with 4.
6. Plans built on quicksand... still not relevant to the free ride.
The exact way that it is a free ride is that they agreed to pay X dollars to live in a house, then they didn't pay X dollars and continued living in the house. The entity that made the loan did not get paid what they were promised. They also get no benefit from any of the negative financial consequences that happen to the buyer. That is a free ride.
Now, outside of that transactions they may have had a lot of bad things happen to them financially. That doesn't really enter into the calculation. Maybe it would be simpler if we were not talking about a house. What about a nice silk dress instead? Let's say they promised a dressmaker $50 per month for a year for a nice custom made dress. The dressmaker delivers the dress as promised. The buyer accepts delivery and has a nice time wearing the dress to parties and gets lots of great compliments. The buyer never makes the promised payments. After about 6 months the dressmaker repossesses the dress. Can you see how that would be a free ride? Can you see how it is the dressmaker who is the aggrieved party?
Even if the party-goer has horrible financial luck and wound up in a tough situation and so couldn't afford the 50 bucks, it really doesn't change the calculus. She took advantage of the dressmaker for 6 months, and now the dressmaker is stuck with a dress that cannot be sold for anywhere close to the promised sum.
Holy crap, I gotta agree with that. I had a great vacation in Ireland (doing a B&B tour) but I would have been dead in the water without GPS. Most places there have no signs, and the signs that do exist require you to stop and carefully read. But what a great place - I highly recommend a getaway to Ireland. Just make sure you rent a good handling compact with a GPS - the roads are tiny, bumpy, closely bordered by stone walls and driven at breakneck speeds. (Ok, breakneck on these roads is ~100km/hr, maybe even only 60Km/hr).
Many of the best landmarks would be extremely difficult to find with a map. I visited some of the ancient dolmen in the Burren and the GPS took me right there. Even with GPS they were tough to spot - a pile of rocks in a field that is nothing but a bunch of rocks. With a map - wow, that would be tough.
That's funny! I didn't know that Satan lived in Andover, Mass. Apparently, he moved there in 1999 as this path shows:
Shortest path from bill clinton to satan
Bill Clinton
1999
Satan
2 clicks needed
Holy crap, somebody who understands that the constitution applies to the government, not the citizens! There's 4 of us left, we should form a club!
For the unwashed.... The constitution grants specific powers to the government. The people have ceded some of their rights to the government for the common good. Any and all powers not specifically granted to the government in the constitution are reserved to the people (or the states).
Unfortunately, just because it is true doesn't mean that's what happens. I doubt more than 40% of the current US government budget passes that test, not to mention the criminal statutes on the federal books.
I know it's hard for US residents brainwashed during the cold war, but socialism is not an alternative to
freedom
But your questions are absolutely not unanswerable, and are thousands of years too late to be at all novel. Typical student thinking. Hopefully you are still a student, because if not you missed the most important lesson of any university education.
Cool! Pony up then, let's hear the trivial answer to his logical contradiction. I love this stuff. I majored in philosophy for almost a whole semester, and almost declared a religion minor. Philosophical arguments are the best!
Sam Adams makes Utopias beer, which is over 25% alcohol. It sells for over $100 for a 24 ounce bottle, if you can find it. Strangely, it might be a good deal at that price, as the collectable bottles from the 2007 vintage appear to sell for over $300 on ebay.
Heh, next to the "phone cops" episodes, that was the funniest thing ever. Thanks for activating that brain cell. I probably haven't thought of that in 20 years.
Man, we're old. Remember when those old guys used to tell you how great Jackie Gleason was? Yeah, Les Nesman is older than that was. Dang.
"Oooh, I'm obtuse. 'An angle greater than 90 degrees. Rounded at the free end....'" - Les Nesman
No, the parent had it right. To quote some comedian or other: "People are stupid. A person is smart, but put them in a group - morons!" Put whatever label you want on it: herd mentality, mob mentality, popularity contest, least common denominator.... as the size of the group required to make a decision grows, the quality of that decision erodes.
Of course, there's plenty of studies to the contrary - look at the current fad of market based prediction tools - "the wisdom of crowds". Still, it runs counter to my experience. Small groups work well, committees are idiotic, millions of voters? please...
Cynthia McKinney.... wow. She was my congressman for a while. What can I say about that time? At least she's photogenic. Otherwise, we went unrepresented. Holy crap, I can't believe anyone would support her for local school board, let alone the president of the most powerful nation in the world. I guess the greenies are dropping all pretense, if they are nominating a straight up communist as their candidate. Also, while she was in congress I can't think of a single time she ever even mentioned an environmental issue. I must be wrong, because all politicians do at some point, but it sure isn't what defines her.
I have been a part of several initiatives with congressional legislation, and I can tell you that they will absolutely pay attention if enough of their constituents are directly affected and contacting their offices. However, the case is often one of battling constituencies... lobbyists represent companies - but the companies employ lots of people. If those people believe their livelihood is threatened they might be more passionate about an issue than a larger number of people who want to pirate a CD.
Without question if a few thousand registered voters from each and every district showed up at their congressman's office and demanded a change like repealing the DCMA, there's nothing that a few well placed bucks from the industry lobbyists could do to stop the repeal. The fact is that not enough people really care about this issue to override the people who really care in the other direction because their job depends on it.
We managed to fight off the insurance industry lobby with only a few hundred employees and a few tens of thousands of dollars. Our entire industry probably wouldn't amount to a rounding error on their lobbyists expense account, yet by going directly to our representatives and showing them that people in their districts would lose their jobs if the big lobbyists got their way, we stopped them cold. It took a concerted effort by everyone in our industry for over a year, but our reps actually did listen. And the reps of the districts with lots of workers in the insurance industry? Well, they didn't listen to us so much.
They should put your post in the user manual for Slashdot. There's likely room alongside the "Important Memes" section that details how to post "jokes" that repeat one of the "Important Memes" while inserting a single word related to the topic at hand, lending relevance to your humor.
So are you suggesting we use news choppers for surveillance? That article has NOTHING to do with CCTV.
I can't agree with you there... the implication of his commentary is more of pervasive camera surveillance, not solely the issue of government cameras - although those are in a different category. The parent comment is pretty insightful - pervasive camera coverage could prevent abuses by authorities, but also could be used to control any sort of opposition movement. How much are you willing to give up to get security? It is a slightly different version of the old freedom vs security adage. In this version, you get some security from police abuse (in addition to security from the hooligans) in exchange for possible future loss of ability to resist much larger oppressions. It seems I remember some rumors about the police disabling cameras in London when potentially embarrassing police operations were underway, so the dystopian future with misused surveillance is perhaps not so far off.McMartin is one of my favorite and infuriating examples. Another is the "Little Rascals Daycare" case from North Carolina. On one of the several Frontline specials about the case, a juror actually said that they didn't believe any of the specific charges, but there were so many charges that they felt they had to convict to protect the children. So they knew the people were innocent and they sent them away for life anyway, just to be safe. Wow. "Think of the Children" literally cost a couple of people their freedom for life. The (much) later reprieve doesn't change the fact that a large number of people in a democratically elected constitutional government were willing to submit to a mob mentality when simple logic tells us that there is zero chance that the allegations are true. See the Frontline website http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/innocence/etc/sum.html for more infuriating details.