I'm not so much bothered by the idea that people might buy expensive, ass-hurting chairs in order to impress others as I am bummed out by the notion that anybody could be impressed by such a purchase in the first place.

Part of me thinks that the widespread "what a dumb piece of crap" reaction is part of the art, if not its intent.

Dammit, I just came from the Albert Hofmann comment thread, where I indicated that I hope Hofmann is jamming with Hendrix. This is definitely not what I had in mind.

Peace out, dude. Hope you're jamming with Hendrix now.

If the idea of somebody poking around your personal files offends you -- or your employer, who perhaps has plenty of trade secrets to conceal -- consider taking Truecrypt for a spin.

Of all the stupid, pointless cases to prosecute, why this? What good could it possibly serve?

I wonder how his "you can't argue with science" philosophy jibes with the prevailing views Republicans hold on global warming and evolution.

Put a drop of water on your hand, like this, see! And it rolls down this way! But, but, but -- but wait! Try it again! Works differently! The water goes somewhere else! There's all these tiny hairs on your hand! So -- you can't -- you don't know! That's called chaos! It's why dinosaurs can never be safely trapped in a theme park! That and the hubris of man!

At least, that's chaos theory as I understand it.

Carl Sagan did something like this in one of his later books -- a long list of things that he had been wrong about. Makes for interesting reading.

I wonder what the overall effect would be if a significant number of people were to pose in a recreation of somebody else's childhood photo. Would anybody notice? In other words, how much do we look like our childhood selves?

Paperless office, indeed.

Can any legal beagles here define "the prurient interest" in the context of the Miller Test? It seems interesting that concept of "prurient interest" is (seemingly) completely divorced from that of the producer and that of the consumer. Just whose prurient interests have to be appealed to here?

Under vehicle accidents, there are tallies for drivers, passengers, and "unknown" victims -- which seems to mean that a known number of people were killed in a crash but it wasn't obvious how many drivers and how many passengers there were.

I'm puzzled at the small number of outlier cases which generate an "unknown" victim. If a crash kills four, and everybody is thrown from the vehicle, you'd have one driver and three passengers dead, regardless of whether or not you knew who was driving.

Oh, never mind, I think I just figured it out: if one of the four becomes a vegetable in the above situation, but doesn't die, you might never learn which of the four vehicle occupants was driving.

Thank you for allowing me to think out loud.

Wow, that's really cool. I saw this book in the McSweeney's store yesterday but hadn't realized how neat the cover is -- the picture didn't really do it justice.

For those that are interested, an excerpt from Michael Chabon's proposed script for Spider-Man 2 is currently on the front page of McSweeney's, and the entire thing can be downloaded as a PDF. Get it now if you want it: "As far as we know, this script hasn't been seen anywhere else, and it won't be seen here for long."

Linky linky!

Space travel is super sweet.

Some quick googling turned up an article that described how the Allman Brothers Band and Cheap Trick were suing Sony for 30% royalties on digital downloads, rather than the 4.5 cents per d/l that they were receiving. So the artists may not be pushing for sync licensing rates, but rather for some other licensing rate that pays less than fifty percent but more than a paltry 4.5 cents per song.

Remy, if it's "very debatable" that iTunes downloads constitute a sale and not a license, why might you think that the customer owns his or her copy of the work rather than licenses it? I have a hard time understanding the concept of owning something that I can't resell.

That's a good question, Teresa. I don't track the advertisers on other sites/publications very closely, but I doubt that those advertisers have a track record that's much better than Microsoft.

Much of what I read is online content, and AdBlock prevents me from seeing most ads. In dead-tree advertising, I've seen everything from companies with decent track records (e.g., Patagonia) to companies with terrible track records (e.g., any oil company). The deluge of advertising in print media gets to be a bit of a blur. The first appearance of the Windows sponsorship logo, prior to its getting blacklisted by AdBlock, took me by surprise and seemed to me unique, even though paid links are nothing new or rare -- but it seemed novel to me, which is one of the reasons that I originally commented.

Except for BoingBoing, I haven't made any unsolicited comments on advertising. One of the reasons I did comment here was in hopes that I might eventually read a more candid statement about advertising, which isn't something that I'd expect to see from a stodgier publication or website.

Thanks for your tolerance with my posts. I know that sometimes the meaning can get lost in poorly worded comments, so I really apologize if it seems like I'm somehow suggesting that BoingBoing's credibility or integrity is damaged by the MS ads. I certainly don't think that's the case.

Talia, agreed, there are far worse companies. The reason I'm commenting on MS is that a lot of what they do cuts to the heart of the issues that I see discussed on BoingBoing frequently. I do realize that there are a plurality of views among the posters, and the views espoused by one poster aren't necessarily shared by all of them, but it makes me wonder what kind of actions a company has to take before their advertising dollars aren't welcome at BoingBoing.

Crunchbird, you're right, these are not "Really Serious Issues." I'm just wondering what kind of sentiments Boingers have when it comes to accepting advertising dollars from corporations with questionable track records. Obviously there's a tacit acknowledgment that MS is not evil enough to refuse their money, but I'd like read what they have to say rather than infer their feelings on the issue.

Teresa, I'm honestly sorry that I raised the issue in this thread. In part because I'm running AdBlock, I didn't realize that there had been additional MS-sponsored posts since the first one, and I'm guessing that you've read a lot of tired anti-MS comments in previous threads. Had I realized that there had been other sponsored posts, I wouldn't have said anything. But please don't suggest that Microsoft -- or anything -- takes up too much room in my head on the basis of just three posts across two stories.

Crunchbird -- was there ever a statement like that? As far as I know, the response was basically, "We've always accepted advertising, and advertising doesn't influence content."

What Microsoft does seems incongruous with a lot of the editorial content I see on BoingBoing. It's actually a response of something along the lines of "We don't think they're that evil" that I'd like to see -- something that clears up where they stand. Even a statement like "We have to eat, too," gets the point across much better than "We've always had advertising."

I apologize if I missed such a statement in the past. It would seem that I've been overlooking recent Windows Mobile-sponsored posts as well, so it wouldn't surprise me.

I realize that I'm likely beating a dead horse here, and I'm sincerely sorry if any of this sounds rude.

Talia -- thanks for the comment. Apparently AdBlock prevents the "sponsored by Windows Mobile" image from appearing, but does not block the sponsored link. The net effect appears to show a sponsored link without revealing the sponsorship.

Disabling AdBlock "fixes" the problem. Sorry for any confusion caused by my previous comment.

It looks like this post is another of the Microsoft-sponsored variety? I had commented previously on the Microsoft sponsorship, and I think the comment is worth repeating here:

What are the values that Microsoft demonstrates in the course of conducting its business, and are they consistent with those held by BoingBoing contributors?

If those values are not shared by BoingBoing contributors, could somebody please explain why BoingBoing nevertheless might feel comfortable running advertising for Microsoft?

It would be nice to know that the links to live.com are sponsored.

This is completely awesome, in a glad-I-didn't-grow-up-during-the-worst-of-it kind of way. It's pretty amazing how there was never a literal, collective pants-shitting in America.

The constant threat of global nuclear annihilation sort of makes the perceived threat of terrorism seem less severe by comparison. When did America turn into a bunch of 'fraidy cat wimps? Why does the notion of collapsing buildings and hijacked airliners terrify us more than the idea that civilization could be wiped out?

Ho ho. For anybody who's interested, some kind soul has posted the entirety of The Day After, split into many parts, on YouTube.

This reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Homer gets a gun and starts using it as a tool that can open beers for him (among other things).

I thought that people this dumb were a joke. Guess I was wrong.

"There is no suffering or conflict because we will live in some typically solipsistic frat boy's wet dream. Count me out."

No suffering? No conflict? Future looks bright to me, brah.

#8 and #9 -- thanks for the answer. I knew that Dulles is quite a ways outside of DC but didn't know that the other airport was outside city limits as well. Makes sense now that I think about it; there's not really any suitable location in DC proper. Thanks for entertaining my silly question.

I originally read "Leslie Hall iPhone snaps" as meaning that Ms. Hall's iPhone had somehow snapped in half.

I'm not sure what good it is does to inform the reader that an iPhone was used to take these pics. The brand and model of phone doesn't really seem relevant to the rest of the post. I'm sure I sound like an epic dork just mentioning this, but what the heck ...

Seems like this gun never should have been unholstered.

On a side note, DC has (or had, not sure what the current status is) a handgun ban. Are/were pilots allowed to fly into DC with handguns? Any pilots out there who can comment?

Sincerely,

Gun owner

Interesting to see the amount of coverage that UK papers devote to Australia compared to the US ... they sure do like reporting on goings-on down under.

This has been looming on the horizon for a while now and seems unlikely to go away any time soon. For those of you who are really, really want to know more, the Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics has a pretty detailed report on their website:

http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/issues/pharmacotherapy.html

NOTE: One of the download links on the page is broken. To read the report, click on the rectangular "Download" button to the left of the broken link. Actually, just for good measure, here's an actual link to the PDF download:

http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/pdf/Pharmacotherapy%202004.pdf

A wealthy heiress dedicates her life to sex, inebriants, and fashion, and we wallow in some good old-fashioned schadenfreude when she gets hauled off to jail.

The son of a millionaire businessman grows up to be a fashionista who's dedicated his life to sex and inebriants. He gets denied entry to the US, and suddenly we can't wait to read his book.

Huh.

Hm hm hm.

Yo ho ho number 10:

Here's the great big leap between installing the shah and 9/11:

-> When Iran told proto-BP to take a hike, we gave Iran's democratically elected government the boot and gave them the Shah

-> The turned out to be a jerk who tortured "enemies of the state."

-> Torture fueled anti-Shah sentiment in Iran

-> The Ayatollah rode this anti-Shah sentiment to power in '79. The Iranian revolution was as anti-torture as it was pro-religion.

-> America hates the Ayatollah ... so we back Saddam Hussein.

-> It turns out that Saddam gets too big for his britches, and we have to invade Iraq.

-> After forcing Iraq out of Kuwait, the US leaves troops in Saudi Arabia, which is seen as an occupation of the holy land, which really pisses off Bin Laden (causing the former anti-Soviet US-backed "freedom fighter" to turn against the West), and begins to swell jihadi ranks.

-> We all know what happens next.

So there you have it: A Canadian who knows his history.

Something tells me that anyone dumb enough to try this isn't going to be smart enough to learn from their mistake.

Airships have a knack for enhancing photographs by virtue of their presence. This reminds me of some photos I saw a while back of a blimp that had been brought down during an atomic test ... I was able to find the photos online after a quick search:

http://airminded.org/2007/05/06/airship-vs-a-bomb/

Click on the photos for high-res versions.

I was amazed at how much easier local news videos are to stomach without the presence of a "reporter."

Also, that robot is awesome.

I think this is as much about content protection about as it is about shutting down projects like Gnash, which aims to be an open-source equivalent to Adobe's Flash player/plugin. Adding DRM to Flash makes it more difficult for Gnash to reach feature parity and gain a foothold, which helps Adobe maintain control of the Flash format (the specs to which are only available to those who promise never to implement a competing Flash player).

DRM: Not just anti-consumer and anti-standards, but also anticompetitive.

@13

Solarcel, thanks for the comment. I saw a trailer with the word "UREA" spray painted on the side in three-foot tall letters at O'Hare several years ago. Thanks for clearing up one of the little mysteries that's been haunting the back of my mind.

Is that a slight lisp that Jim Jones has? Listening to the start of the tape, where he talks about impending catastrophe, I couldn't help but think that he sounded a bit like Rudy Giuliani might sound after gobbling a handful of assorted pills.

Not sure I want to listen to the whole thing all the way through, though.

According to the court order:

"Dynadot shall immediately clear and remove all DNS hosting records for the wikileaks.org domain name and prevent the domain name from resolving to the wikileaks.org website or any other website or server other than a blank park page, until further order of this Court."

Even though this prevents the wikileaks.org link from working, it doesn't actually take down the site: everything is up and running at 88.80.13.160.

Thank you dude on Slashdot for pointing this out!

A couple of quick questions:

What are the values that Microsoft demonstrates in the course of conducting its business, and are they consistent with those held by BoingBoing contributors?

If those values are not shared by BoingBoing contributors, could somebody please explain why BoingBoing nevertheless might feel comfortable running advertising for Microsoft?

The reason that the Microsoft sponsorship throws us into a tizzy isn't because of advertising per se, but because we don't think that the values demonstrated by Microsoft are consistent with those held by the contributors to (or readers of) of BoingBoing. Maybe we're wrong, but we haven't seen any explanation that really addresses those underlying questions that I asked.

Hopefully this comment doesn't come off as abrasive or rude -- I mean it as a compliment when I say that I think a lot of readers here have high standards for the folks at BoingBoing.

The cynic in me wants to know...
Can anyone point to any evidence that a barrage of phone calls and/or email has led to a politician changing their mind on a vote?

The cynic in me wants to know: how much time did you spend writing that response, and could that time have been better spent by calling your congressional representative?

More to the point, though, I can give you an example of how effective a barrage of phone calls can be on this very issue. The Senate version of this bill was originally slated for a vote late last year. However, after Chris Dodd's office was buried in an avalanche of calls and email on the subject -- calls prompted by a call to action posted on Glenn Greenwald's blog at Salon -- he attempted to table the bill. When Harry Reid initially refused to honor Dodd's request, Dodd threatened a fillibuster, and so Reid relented. All because his office was inundated with calls. While things are looking grim for us now, it was a temporary victory.

By the way, most of those politicians who were up in arms over Janet Jackson's boob appearing for a split second during the Super Bowl a few years ago? They couldn't care less about the tiniest glimpse of a single breast. But they did care about all of the calls and letters that they received social conservative groups called on their members to make a stink. Making a token crackdown on "indecency" was an easy way to score political points.

Participatory democracy requires participation beyond just voting in order to be truly effective. As long as progressive causes bow out of the "participatory" aspect of participatory democracy, we cede ground to those who would move our society and our country backwards. So, please pick up the phone. Thanks.

Thanks to everybody who's called in already.

There was a comment in the MSFT-bashing thread asking how many of those who had bothered to post a complaint about the MS Mobile sponsorship were planning on calling their congressional reps about the retroactive immunity. After all -- really -- isn't a blatant violation of our constitutional rights much more important than where Microsoft spends its advertising dollars?

To whoever posted that comment: thank you. It provided that last little bit of motivation I needed to get up off my ass and show my opposition against something that really matters. Hell, it's the first time I've ever called my representative's office, and it was so painless that I fully intend to call in again the next time Congress is poised to pull some boneheaded maneuver.

If you had time to complain about the MS Mobile sponsorship, do yourself a favor, put your money where your mouth is, follow the link, and phone your representative in Washington. Do it today. It's super easy. The phone call took me less than 90 seconds.

And seriously, what person without 90 seconds to spare reads BoingBoing anyway?

What the heck, I'll join the chorus of those grousing about the Microsoft sponsorship. Here's hoping that it's money wasted on their part.

For what it's worth, MS is also the top sponsor of OSCON 2008, but as far as I know that hasn't changed the conference's scope and intent in any meaningful way.

If the Microsoft sponsorship is here to stay, can we please have Microsoft sponsor Cory's long delayed "Switching to Ubuntu" post?