Ditto. What's especially outrageous is many of these papers are from major public funding -- either directly through grants or through public tax-supported universities. The papers I'm often interested in are carried out on public lands (National Parks, forests etc.). Yet the research derived from taxpayer supported researchers is locked up behind paywalls. I have no problem using Sci-Hub. It's an outstanding service though, that said, I access via VPN and always scan any papers I download...

Campers: did any of you actually look at the folders or data? Everyone seems to assume this is legit. Hard to believe it is. A Russian state-sponsored hacker -- known to be trying to influence US election -- releases supposed files with names like "Pay to Play" and others showing donations as percentage of what donors supposedly got in TARP funds. Really?? This is a really bad, absurdly clumsy, Boris and Natasha skit. Even assuming the Clinton Foundation somehow takes bribes, do you really think they'd set it up so blatantly?? Also, if you actually understand how their foundation works, you'd find this is even more absurd. C'mon people, show a little healthy skepticism.

I've worked for the feds for 44 years. This is absurd. You're just another racist moron spewing nonsense. Back to your cave.

Campers: Unlike everyone commenting here, my wife and I actually have an ACA policy we signed up for through Covered California. No problem whatsoever in the sign up. We kept the same doctors we'd always had. Our premiums went from about $11,000/year on an income of $33,000 -- and an out of pocket max of $5,200 -- to $1,000/year and $2,200 out of pocket. While many of you rant about subsidized health care for us poor and unwashed, I've not noticed any other solutions to the problem offered here other than stepping over the sick and injured on the way to your tech job that has a health care plan. I'm sure we'll now see bankruptcies as a result of health care debt go down as well as other benefits to society. Think of it as a new federal highway system or disaster relief -- both government programs that work incredibly well. I also notice a lot of grousing that somehow the critical number of ACA signups is to reduce the numbers of uninsured. That's definitely important and the number of uninsured is clearly going down. But the other benefit are people, like my wife and I, who can finally afford health care. That's the overall idea and it's working. Move on people.

I know. It's pretty weird what we American types pack. I try to convince my wife that Europe's been getting tourists for about 2,000 years; that we can find both soap and motels without too much problem but she insists on having a reservation every night and a mountain of luggage... .

But the real problem is the changing nature of tech. Sure, the glasses record, but does a lot of other things. Which means there's legitimate reasons to wear them other than recording (his prescription lenses at the top of the list...). A camera on a tripod, for instance, would have been clear probable cause for confiscation and questioning.The PC here is really shaky. That is, does an officer (fed or whoever) have reason to believe that a crime is being committed? Maybe. But then they have to fairly quickly determine if they can carry their questioning further. That's where this breaks down. Two hours (as reported) plus yanking him out of the theater seems just on the edge of what's permitted by law and court decisions. You can only detain a person long enough to determine if a crime is being or has been committed. He was willing to show right away that one was not (illegally recording). (See Terry Stop: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...). There's mixed case law here but on a vehicle stop, 20 minutes is the outer limit of how long an officer can hold someone while doing a wants & warrant check or even waiting for a drug search dog. Also, as has been pointed out correctly, he could/should have asked if he was being charged and was he free to leave? The answer almost certainly would have been yes, he could leave.

Well that's kinda dumb. Where, exactly, would you live? Somalia?

Maybe simplistic, but worth more analysis. It's not just tech & the Internet, but a lot of events have come together to wipe out the industrial base of the country and took the relatively high paying jobs that came with them. Sure, there's a bunch of engineering jobs out there to take some of the slack but there are far fewer concentrations of high paying tech -- and tech assembly -- jobs out there: the Detroit's and Pittsburgh's etc. that created a broad middle class. Those jobs paid enough so people could buy the stuff they made, buy a house, pay taxes to build schools and infrastructure. That's collapsed and the jobs created for too many are low-end McBurger jobs which the government actually has to subsidize by paying food stamps, medicare etc., so they can pay such low wages and still be able to survive on the margins of the economy. I'm not sure that a model where we're all paid for the information/data we provide on the Internet is viable (it would seem it would just generate more noise and reduce whatever payments might be possible -- I mean, to make money, you'd just start pushing stuff out there. How many cat videos before a critical mass is reached and the market collapses like Dutch Tulips of the 1600s?). But all of the money increasingly concentrating in the top 1% or .01% has to come back somehow -- better pay for low end jobs is probably the best. People have to be able to afford to buy stuff (useless though it may be); and have to be able to afford homes and pay taxes. That's what's collapsed and what Lanier seems to be looking for a solution to.

I don't think it's all that hard to determine what sources to trust and which not. At the moment the much-reviled mainstream media uses actual journalistic standards -- the reports have sources for the information, where they can they identify the sources. Where they can't, they ID them as anonymous, but there's actually someone who served as a source and several editors who trust the reporter to have accurately reported and represented that source. There are usually two levels of editor who guide the writing and make sure of the sources. Large publications employ a fact checker who makes sure the names are spelled right and other factoids. Those standards developed slowly (compared to journalism of, say, the 1700s -- a kind of Fox news for journalism (heh, heh, heh -- OK, that shows my bias...). Which is all to say that, with some experience of comparing the reading of articles, magazines & newspapers over time, we come to know who we can trust and that standards are in place to back the information given. We may not agree with the slant or bias, but the facts are generally agreed upon. In spite of standards and protocols being in place, the vast information output of the Internet is not at that stage yet. I can think of only a few Internet-only publications that meet those standards (and even then I'm not sure -- but let's say Slate, Wired and perhaps a few others). The rest is caveat emptor. Because they don't have the revenue, they can't afford the levels of experienced editing, fact checking etc. So I tend to use these two information sources for very different things. The print world for news and analysis of events. The Internet world for crowd sourced type stuff: reviews of books, gizmoes, very fast reporting of events (but with the full knowledge I'm only seeing raw footage which may have its own bias and who's source I don't know if I can trust to be a representation of events). Still, very often dramatic, compelling and worth watching. Just not useful for considered analysis of events. That may change with time but Internet reporting will require more money to support the infrastructure to ensure reliable information. George

This is spot on. I was involved in a case of law enforcement officers years ago. The case was decided in their favor on most all of these criteria. They were required to be within 10 minutes of their patrol vehicle, parked at home. They had to have their uniform and duty gear ready to go. When "on call" they could no have alcohol. etc. As pointed out, the more restrictive the on call was, the more likely it was going to be viewed as work. Several officers collected over $70,000 for 5 years of abuse. The agency involved wanted 24 hour coverage but was unwilling to pay for it. They now have officers on regular shifts with full coverage. The other good comment here, amongst all the static, is that the benefits we do enjoy (40 hour work week; overtime; health coverage; off on Sat/Sun or compensated for working -- Sunday anyway) were all hard-won victories of unions. Most certainly not the tender concern of business owners, though there are some who recognize that if you treat employees well, you get better production. George

Not really. Fredrick Law Olmstead (who designed Central Park and others), though he obviously wasn't aware of specific "cognitive" advantages of nature vs. urban settings, was a strong advocate of nature as a refuge from urban life. This was part of a whole 19th century movement (Emerson, Thoreau, Muir & the Transcendentalists) that advocated not only urban parks as necessary to the mental health of those living there, but National Parks as well. From all reports, urban living then was far worse than now and parks perhaps even more necessary.

I don't know about mad-cat, but we fill out an incident report. In addition, we have protocols on removal for the darts (cleaning the wound, etc.). We also are retrained every year (I think a 4 hour course -- can't remember) and practice firing it. We don't necessarily take the victim to a hospital unless it's suggested because of other factors (drugs on board, injury as a result of the arrest etc.). In addition, we're required to test it (without the cartridge!) at the beginning of each shift to make sure it's fully charged. g.