This is true for most of Western Europe, I would say. I'm not sure if it is actually reasonable, but very explicit nationalism still triggers memories of certain regrettable events in our not-that-distant past. I don't think I am exaggerating when I say many Europeans find the amount of flag-waving and anthem-singing that's on display in the US frankly shocking.

Well, actually I would guess that the nerd association with Doctor Who is rather less pronounced than, say, everything Star Trek.

The anniversary episode was a major event here in Europe, for instance, certainly extending well beyond geekdom. Maybe that is different in the US.

But back to the Torchwood spin-off, I don't think I'd seen it referred to here /. so I guess I just presumed it hadn't been a thing in the US.

I'm not sure the TORCHWOOD reference will mean much to the /. crowd. It should though, excellent series!

I thought that church republicans effectively took over, you know, the republicans -- over the course of the 80s/90s? More specifically weren't those evangelical church republicans? Then it should not really be surprising that subsequently emerging factions within that party reflect this situation, seems to me.

So, if that is accurate, the plan is to bribe the crooks in Congress, in a one-time deal with -- let's not kid ourselves -- a small grassroots movement, out of accepting bribes and career prospects from multinational conglomerates over the mid- to long-term future?

Good luck with that. Seriously, I support the goal but this seems pointless. Would love to be wrong here.

Your panties aside, the whole problem here is that NSA is using "national security" as reason for a whole bunch of other things. Like economic, diplomatic and industrial espionage. Which is definitely not the NSA's job, no matter how liberally we interpret their mandate. Expand the acronym, there's a bit of a hint in there.

Explain to me why spying on, say, Angela Merkel or the entire Copenhagen or G20 summits is related to US national security and maybe I'll see your point.

You are probably correct that other countries do similar things (China and Russia come to mind) but you seem to be clueless to the difference in scale.

Finally, your sig: you disbelieve AGW arguments because you think Al Gore is a hypocrite? You're right about that last bit, but the conclusion, to put it mildly, does not follow.

You're saying Sony are Too Big to Boycot? And I'm the idiot?

Anyway, I was actually just questioning GP's assertion that us geeks have any kind of influence over such things. And while I happily concede that the sony rootkit example is not the best possible one, it came to mind because after that one I personally stopped believing this assertion.

Doesn't mean I won't speak out if someone asks me a tech question, just that I don't actually expect them to be persuaded or disuaded, as the case may be, because of anything I said.

Ah, so that is why after the rootkit debacle all my non-technical friends followed my advice and started boycotting Sony.

Oh wait, they didn't.

Even if you were right, which I respectfully deny, it would not justify the secrecy of these negotiations.

And if this is not immediately obvious, there's the fact that we only have even the slightest idea of what's in there is due to leaks. If these proposals are so fantastically wonderful for all concerned, why this selective secrecy -- to include the corps, but not the people?

The version I've seen contains gems such as "importing US natural gas into the EU will be considered in the public interest by default", in combination with all kinds of wording that's obviously aimed at outlawing publicly sponsored alternative energy research...

I hope this will go the way of ACTA. But then they'll just come up with a new attempt, and so on until we relent or otherwise fail to protest it to death.

Ah, well, sorry if I came off as a bit snarky -- your original post mentioned "reading" and clearly that is no substitute for actually experiencing. Anyway, apparently they did not do much for you, still I wouldn't presume to make blanket statements about what they might do for others.

I would never recommend using entheogenic substances to anyone who wasn't very curious and confident. Having said that, those who've never tried it can not possibly know just what is and isn't bullshit about the effects. I'm not a believer in supernatural or magical things, but nevertheless some of these substances have allowed me to learn valuable lessons about myself and in one case basically cured a mild phobia. Like GP says, there can be real benefits (and dangers) to this kind of mind annealing.

The harmala component in ayahuasca is there (mostly) to facilitate ingestion, yes, but DMT can be used without it when smoked or snorted (which I think was the original use, powder processed from yopo bark).

Anyway, it might be a regional thing, but my impression is that to the extent that is to be found at all, "DMT" here in the EU refers to synthetic stuff meant to be smoked in a base pipe, and probably is not the 5-MeO-DMT variant found in ayahuasca. Is this use of the terms different in the US?

Mescaline can come from peyote, of course, but also from San Pedro. The effects are reported to be distinct, to some extent, due to the various other components in either plant. Which presumably make both slightly different from synthetic mescaline. I can't actually say this from personal experience though, these things are not at all commonplace or easy to procure where I'm at.

I'm not sure GP was talking about pot, but probably about psychedelic drugs like LSD, mescalin, psilocybin, ayahuasca, DMT and so on. But even for pot I'm sure that, while there certainly are some who use it strictly as recreation, there are also those who achieve real insights under its influence.

Or he might be an international observer, to whom the American "left" seems rather far to the right of what they would normally consider the left wing, or even the center for that matter.