Fewer armaments don't necessarily mean more stability. The outcome of a chess match where both sides have all their pieces is far less clear than one where one side has two pawns and the other one. There are many scenarios in the latter case where one side can predict victory with 100% -- which would certainly encourage them to play the game for high stakes. I am more interested in the plausible nuclear endgame scenarios than I am in the number of cities we could level with the initial force. That endgame analysis is the one that is going to deter people. The likelihood of someone "going for it" diminishes as the likely endgame states become more clearly and more convincingly bad, and as the diversity of strategic viewpoints convinced of those states grows. You don't have "enough" until the other guy knows damn well you'll have enough no matter what he does. That endgame analysis is currently completely unacceptable to either side. So why would we mess with that? Because there isn't much strategic tension between the US and Russia _today_? No one would have predicted such relations 25 years ago, and I doubt anyone can predict the situation 25 years from now. Russian behavior in Georgia, Chechnya and Eastern Europe hardly suggests they're abandoned their ambitions. I'm sure they have a similar opinion of our activity in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The US and the Soviets had constructed a reasonably stable strategic position by the 70s and 80s, which is something of a miracle given the frightfulness of these weapons. I think we'd better be pretty careful before we completely dismantle that. It isn't as if anyone will forget the construction of atom bombs.

"In any case, the purpose of the artist, which is artistic merit, has no legal force at all."

I'm not a lawyer, but I think you're just trying to sound like one. You sound overly certain of some overly general statements to support of an absurd proposition. You're telling me that a half-decent lawyer couldn't find some basis in law to protect a Picasso rendition of Mickey Mouse? Baloney. The "critical commentary" clause you allow would probably serve.

And almost all culture production derivative of Disney wouldn't involve ripping off Disney's digits in the first place. Someone would be shooting something with their own camera. The legal situation generally has nothing to do with DRM.

"But Disney wrote the law, so how can you ignore them?"

By not buying their stuff.

"the net effect of all these local optimizations across society is not globally optimal" Says you. I daresay that any image Picasso stole from Pinocchio would be so radically revised as to escape the Mouse's copyright. I don't think you know what you are talking about. Now, if you are trying to persuade me to dislike DRM, and to buy accordingly, you're preaching to the choir. If you trying to say we should outlaw DRM -- buzz off. I don't want you controlling my movies anymore than than I do Disney. I can already ignore Disney. If you write the law, I can't ignore you. And I'd like to retain the right do so, at my option.

> Currently there are rules governing the posting of *official* House of Reps material . . .

> It says *nothing* about prohibiting posting of opinions by house members on any web site. Nothing.

That depends on the meaning and interpretation of *official*, doesn't it?

I don't know what the Administration Committee is up to. But bear in mind that nowadays a successful censor would have to control speech without announcing they are controlling speech. The American Constitution was an innovation in methods for the prevention of the abuse of power, but it would be foolish to imagine that those who would abuse power (eg, anyone holding it) won't come up with counter-innovations of their own. There is more safety in norms and methods that can't be abused by anyone than in presuming we can identify the abusers and keep them out of power. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."