Late Night Reads

Late Night Reading – 2

This entry was posted in Constitution Late Night Reads Law on by

Barton Aronson, Findlaw, argues that the Washington State Supreme Court was wrong in saying that the police needed a warrant to utilize a GPS system to track a suspect.
Gosh, Spiderman has used a tracker for years so it must be ok.
On the other hand I can see ashcroft insisting that everyone must be trackable, tracked and all the data linked to his database. If the current law is uncertain or leans in the direction of not requiring a warrant then, perhaps, it should be tightened up and made clear that a warrant should be required.
Good Night!

Late Night Reading

This entry was posted in bush Constitution Economics Intellectual Property Late Night Reads on by

More D-Squared. This time on the microprobabily of micropayments. Which leads to:
Micropayments: First Clay Shirky and then Scott McCloud.
Reading Update (9/18): Kip, Longstory; shortpier, thinks micropayments for the right stuff will fly and suggests we also read Dirk Keppey’s supportive discussion at The Comics Journal.
Brian at Samizdata writes at leeennnnggth to suggest we all check out the new blog from the Adam Smith Institute. It may seem too free market for some but if they adhere to free market principles they will be an anathema to bush, et al.
Good Night!

Late Night Reading

This entry was posted in Economics Intellectual Property Iraq Late Night Reads on by

Tim Dunlop analyzes the post-war situation in Iraq.
Kos likes the latest NY Times Bestseller standings.
D-squared reviews the fall out from Cancun:

When push came to shove, the rich nations were not prepared to give an inch to the poor ones on agriculture unless they got their quid pro quo in the form of progress toward an agenda which has nothing to do with trade and everything to do with massively undermining the ability of democratically elected governments to set the terms on which the ownership of the means of production is decided.

Apparently it is getting more difficult for the public to access academic journals. This is not a good thing: check out Scientific American, The Invisible Adjunct and Relevant History who notes:

But just what is it that publishers think they’re protecting? Do they think that members of the general public could constitute a potential new revenue stream that can be tapped if only free public access to journals is eliminated? Were they thinking, “Gee, I would spend $9,000 a year for a subscription to Letters in Neuroscience, but since I can read it for free, I won’t”? And now they will?

Good Night!