Or more specifically, considering the very, very few people who actually have serious reactions to nuts, the serious reaction by restaurants and schools is nuts (har har).

The woman who was the first to successfully get a jury trial in a RIAA case lost. Even assuming they were able to prove that she had downloaded the files and left them in her share folder, the chances are she didn't know she was sharing what she downloaded and the RIAA has no way to prove actual damages, just theoretical. On that basis, they have no justification for the $200+ thousand award they recieved.

God knows they don't need any more encouragement, the lousy swindling bastards.

(H/T to Slashdot for the link)

The "War on Terror" is political spin initiated by President Bush to justify using "wartime" powers indefinitely. Just like the "War on Drugs", the war on terror will never end.

Nobody disagrees to giving a little leeway to our commander in chief during a clear and present need, but that's the point: a war on terror that lasts an indefinite amount of time is neither clear, nor present.

It's about danged time that someone in a high position finally dropped this marketing ploy where it belongs.

Schneier reports on a murder that was captured on a city camera system. He clearly thinks that such systems are pointless though the article seems to present it as being good (it caught a thief after all).

By using the worst possible scenario, however unlikely, it becomes easy to scare people into supporting something you personally want. When it comes to camera systems everywhere, remember this: absolute security can be acheived through absolute surveillance. This is true, but absolute surveillance also brings zero privacy and freedom.

Making it seem like giving up freedom for security is a marketing plot by those who falsely believe in a big-brother society. Bush has proven again and again that only with public review of the government can there truly be freedom.

cNet writes:

WASHINGTON–U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff on Thursday defended forthcoming national ID cards as vital for security and consistent with privacy rights.

From the article:

"Do you think your privacy is better protected if someone can walk around with phony docs with your name and your Social Security number, or is your privacy better protected if you have the confidence that the identification relied upon is in fact reliable and uniquely tied to a single individual?" Chertoff asked rhetorically.

Has anyone heard of "false dilema" before? This is where you are presented with two choices when there are actually many. One choice is always extremely horrible to make the other seem reasonable. An example could be, "Would you rather put RFID in your credit cards or have a horde of violent viking warriors destroy your home and burn your family?"

Use of "false dilema" is a sure sign of low intelligence or complete lack of respect for the audience.

There's more good stuff in the article, but I'll let you read it yourself. I want to end by saying this, we're supposed to trust a national card ID system when the same organization that gave us RFID passports? I don't think so.