Get some federal Marshalls to walk up to that idiot's house in California, knock (or kick down the door). Have them tell that idiot that Obama is asking him to get on the phone to Google and issue a takedown notice. (Evidently he's been cowering in fear and is regretting his actions). It's his copyrighted property no?

This may/will not stop the rioting but will remove one problem. And it will show those idiots in the middle east that the U.S. is doing everything (legally) permissible to protect their "sacred" religion.

I mean code is code so the same tactics could be used to make an artificial virus evade the immune system right?

Would it work? Probably not.

Would it be plausible enough to write a sci/fI book or movie? Maybe.

I'm trying hard (seriously) to think of any over-regulated markets that caused significantly more costs than benefits. Do you have any examples?

On the other hand, the recent financial crash, plunging most of the world into a "Great Recession" with tens of trillions of dollars of lost output and probably hundreds of millions of people (worldwide) being thrown out of work is a pretty good example of what lax regulation in a number of sectors (banking, real estate) can do. Are you sure you're not letting your ideology get in the way of the facts?

All I'm saying is in the choice between Somalia and Norway (okay Singapore) I know which way I'd prefer to err on.

Imagine reviews that you actually COULD trust.

How much would that be worth to you? Especially for a big ticket item (like a computer or car). Not to mention the hassle of looking for the item, comparing it against the alternatives, and (for physical items) going to the store or arranging shipping and delivery. True, for small items (candy? Cheap e-books?) it may not be worth it but you get the picture.

There already ARE "review police". It's called truth in advertising laws and especially for medical claims they are damned important (no more "quack" cures).

I live as an ex-pat in Vietnam where there is very little of this sort of policing going on and so I must buy all my drinking water and NEVER eat "street" food like the locals. Not with a 70%(!) infection rate of parasitic worms from improperly washed/prepared food (the locals take a pill every 6 months to kill them off).

There was a Nobel prize in Economics given (I forget which year) to an economist who realized that, unlike classical market theory, that INFORMATION WASN'T FREE and managed to put it into the equations. So yes, getting good information isn't free and in all cases it won't be worth it. But in many cases it will be and that will need regulations.

Well here's something that those tea-partiers and libertarians don't want to hear.

The "R" word. REGULATION

Unless you want to live in Somalia, you should realize that there IS an important role for government beyond just self-defense and essential services (like police, fire, waste management). MARKETS need to be REGULATED, with binding rules and penalties for the offenders.

Don't take it from me, just read up on Adam Smith who called it "The Tragedy of the Commons". (If you don't know who he is, may I suggest you take a basic class in Economics? Hint: he's not a friend of Karl Max).

Of course Mr. Smith was writing about a simpler time in the18th century; the "commons" he was referring to was that used by grazing cows. So in our MUCH more compex world, it stands to reason that we need a MUCH more sophisticated regulatory system to prevent people like Enron (remember them?) and more recently, investment banks and rating agencies (paid by the people they rate!) from gaming the system. In addition, since more of our commerce is going on-line (yay for shopping in our bathrobes!) regulation needs to follow.

Unfortunately Romney and crew (who benefit the most from the lack of regulation) are going to try to convince you otherwise. For example they really don't want to restrict the ability of billionaires to dominate elections with their money (alright I guess if you're a billionaire, I'm not. Welcome to the 1920s, age of the robber barons). Also, as slashdotters well know, they really don't want to cut down on a corporation's right to regulate Internet traffic (bye bye net neutrality).

I'd tell you how much he's personally benefitted but he doesn't seem to be disposed to releasing his financial records. Still that hasn't kept some forensic analysis of what he has released from turning up some interesting things:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/business/in-romneys-tax-return-clues-in-foreign-taxes.html?ref=politics

By that I mean, they are like slashdotters (kinda geeky). Especially the foreman (also, not mentioned, is the claim he was a juror on several civil trials previously and has a couple of kids).

(Here's some commentary from Reuters and CNet. Also remember, BOTH APPLE AND SAMSUNG VETTED THEM, and were able to remove whomever they wanted; I understand Apple got rid of a Google employee).

Reuters and CNet have interviewed members of the Apple / Samsung patent trial jury who awarded Apple over $1 billion in damages over patent infringement claims against Samsung.

Reuters spoke with jury foreman Velvin Hogan who explained that they found Apple's arguments persuasive about the need to protect innovation. Furthermore, Hogan says it was "absolutely" clear based on Samsung executive testimony that the infringement was purposeful.

In the CNet interview with another Apple v. Samsung juror, Manuel Ilagan reiterated that it was "clear there was infringement". When asked for specifics, he said:

"Well, there were several. The e-mails that went back and forth from Samsung execs about the Apple features that they should incorporate into their devices was pretty damning to me. And also, on the last day, they showed the pictures of the phones that Samsung made before the iPhone came out and ones that they made after the iPhone came out. Some of the Samsung executives they presented on video [testimony] from Korea -- I thought they were dodging the questions. They didn't answer one of them. They didn't help their cause."

Both jurors claim that their decision was deliberate and not rushed. According to Ilagan, the process was helped by the experience within the jury pool. Hogan, the jury foreman, had previously worked as an engineer and holds a patent himself. Meanwhile, others on the jury were said to also have engineering and legal experience.

In determining the award amount, Hogan reports that they felt Apple's demands of $2.75 billion was "extraordinarily high", especially taking into account the uncertainty in Apple's ability to have sold significantly more iPhones due to component supply constraints. That said, Hogan told Reuters they did want a send a message.

"We didn't want to give carte blanche to a company, by any name, to infringe someone else's intellectual property," Hogan told Reuters a day after the verdict.

Velvin Hogan, foreman of the nine-member panel, told the court during jury selection last month that he spent seven years working with lawyers to obtain his own patent, one covering “video compression software,” a hobby of his.

Hogan said he worked in the computer hard-drive industry for 35 years at companies including Memorex Corp., Colorado- based Storage Technology Corp. and Massachusetts-based Digital Equipment Corp.

“If there is one juror who seems more clearly knowledgeable than the others, the jury will often look to that person to help them work through the issues, and perhaps elect him foreman,” Mark Lemley, a Stanford Law School Professor, said yesterday in an interview.

The jury in federal court in San Jose, California, also included a mechanical engineer, an aspiring software engineer and a woman who worked for National Semiconductor Corp. While the interests and professional backgrounds of those jurors reflect the Silicon Valley pool from which the panel was drawn, another juror works at a cycling shop and one panelist didn’t go to college and works in construction, according to court transcripts. Seven of the nine panelists said they had never served on a jury before.

Considering that Samsung, just ONE CONGLOMERATE, generates 20% of the entire country of Korea's GDP, I hardly think the judge(s) would be capable of being impartial.

Korean's are quite "feisty" (I've got some blood). I've been in numerous protests in Seoul where students would fight the police for days over some perceived fault by the U.S. Demonstrations by striking workers quickly become violent.

... from his buddy Donald Trump who recently claimed:

“Massive combined inoculations to small children is the cause for big increase in autism spread shots over long period and watch positive result.”

That's almost as bad as Akins "legitimate rape" comment (note: Romney's running mate co-authored the anti-abortion bill by the Republicans.). If you think this thinking is restricted to "just" a potential senator and vice-president please note the Republican platform REMOVED the clause allowing for abortions in case of Rape or Incest.

Judge them not (just) by what they say but what they do.

From the Samsung posting...

By the way, how much of the following do you agree/disagree with? If there is a high correlation between all of these perhaps, for everyones sake, we could just shorten disagreements by separating people into two groups. No judgement here, it just would save everyone a lot of time.

Thinks Evolution is just a theory
Thinks Global Warming is not real/is a conspiracy
Thinks Obama is a socialist
Thinks Obama is a muslim
Thinks Obama was not born in the United States
*New* Thinks Obama will hand over sovereignty of U.S. to U.N. (Lubbock county judge)
*NEW* THINKS VACCINES CAUSES AUTISM (DONALD TRUMP)
*New* Thinks "legitimately raped" woman are biologically capable of preventing pregnancy (inherent in Republican Party Anti-Abortion Platform)
Thinks cutting government spending during a severe recession/depression is the appropriate thing to do
Thinks the U.S. health care system is the best in the world which justifies it costing twice as much as the next major country (Germany) while neglecting millions
Thinks Apple products are markedly inferior to the alternatives
Thinks Samsung didn't copy Apple

So, if people sort themselves into two groups say one called "Republicans" and the other say "Democrats" and would identify themselves as such, we could save everyone a lot of grief.

I'm sure you've seen this (but if you haven't it's pretty funny). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YciM_54HzZk

At about 1:04 they talk about the Samsung "Smart Tutors". I thought this was part of the parody! Now I'm wondering how much of the rest of the video is true.

By the way, how much of the following do you agree/disagree with? If there is a high correlation between all of these perhaps, for everyones sake, we could just shorten disagreements by separating people into two groups. No judgement here, it just would save everyone a lot of time.

Thinks Evolution is just a theory
Thinks Global Warming is not real/is a conspiracy
Thinks Obama is a socialist
Thinks Obama is a muslim
Thinks Obama was not born in the United States
*New* Thinks Obama will hand over sovereignty of U.S. to U.N. (Lubbock county judge)
*New* Thinks vaccines cause autism (Donald Trump)
*New* Thinks "legitimately raped" woman are biologically capable of preventing pregnancy (inherent in Republican Party Anti-Abortion Platform)
Thinks cutting government spending during a severe recession/depression is the appropriate thing to do
Thinks the U.S. health care system is the best in the world which justifies it costing twice as much as the next major country (Germany) while neglecting millions
Thinks Apple products are markedly inferior to the alternatives
Thinks Samsung didn't copy Apple

So, if people sort themselves into two groups say one called "Republicans" and the other say "Democrats" and would identify themselves as such, we could save everyone a lot of grief.

"Yang has made about $200,000 working on this lawsuit" for Samsung

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/samsung-says-it-patented-iphones-best-features-before-apple/

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2122

Also, as far as prior art goes, when the New York Times asked a bunch of futurists what they would propose for the time capsule they were building for the year 2000 (this was for the millenial issue), Jaron Lanier (I think) suggested that information be DNA encoded and put into cockroaches. The thinking was that they were indestructible and still be ubiquitous in a thousand years.

No mechanism for preventing copying errors was described though so it would likely be like that game of "telephone" where each person orally conveys to the next a message but many many times (worse). How many cockroach generations would there be in a thousand years? Also the radioactivity from the Armageddon(s) would likely speed up mutations!

The government here is afraid that its hold on power is weak and that it lacks/is losing legitimacy. After the Vietnam war of course, the government was all powerful and seen as the victorious savior of the country (against the world's greatest power no less!).

Now, more than a generation later, with a youthful population that was mostly born after the war those memories are fading.

So the government mainly tries to keep things stable while it quietly plunders (through corruption) the country. It tries to defuse tensions by being very tentative with its actions; when some farmers killed some police who were reappropriating their land, the central government first hauled the local police/officials into court to charge them with illegal trespass (or something like that). Then they got the farmers. Laws are usually first proposed (I think) and then, depending on the reaction, implemented (or not). It can make for a confusing regulatory situation.

This of course, is very unlike China which rules with an iron fist. They put down a huge number of violent "incidents" (protests involving more than 500 people) every year. This allows them to push through projects at a mindboggling speed (need a neighborhood cleared for a highway or polluting factory? No problem!) The stakes are very very high in China and they're playing for keeps.

Getting back to the Vietnamese government: censorship is done out of insecurity that it will allow enough people to mass together (I guess this is always the case). Their blocking of some social media though is surprisingly weak, many Vietnamese friends I know use Facebook and access YouTube constantly, so there doesn't seem to be a "Great Firewall of Vietnam". Then again due to rising prosperity tensions weren't too bad(?) so maybe they haven't needed to really enforce it (these sites have been blocked from time to time). So actually I don't think censorship is as bad, as say China. (See below the post about indirect criticism of the government on traditional media).

Unfortunately for the government, the economy is really tanking now and they don't seem to have an external enemy they can focus the public's attention on. Their one great international dispute is with China over the Spratly and Paracell Islands (and the rest of the "South China" sea). However, unlike their previous war with China in the 70s, they are going to their heads handed back to them on a platter if they escalate this militarily (the Chinese are now, by far, the dominant regional military power).

With a very large gap between rich and poor (I see Rolls Royces, Bentlys and Maybachs here which, after tax can cost up to a million US in a country with a per cap income of about 1K per year), and a depressed economy, the government may welll start to really censor social media.