In "Curious George: Bypassing the IT Guy ..."

Two less technical thoughts: (1) Bloglines displays whatever is in the feed from the site to which you have subscribed. Some feeds have only excerpts, but lots have full content. (2) At my office, they simply use the proxy setting in internet explorer to restrict access to certain sites. You can browse with an alternate browser, which won't pick up the automatic proxy configuration, or you can simply turn off the proxy in internet explorer's options after you boot up. This assumes, of course, that IT is not requiring use of the proxy to get to the web.

In "Transparent Screens. "

More at flickr.

In "Musical George:"

I like metacritic.


I think Wacom is one of the leading manufacturers of tablets. Their Intuos line of tablets starts at about $200 bucks, and comes bundled with Photoshop Elements and a few other pieces of software, which would be a good introduction to the more complex world of Photoshop. Here's an article on choosing a graphics tablet.

In "Just when you thought Coulter and Carlson could not get any stupider..."

The truly sad thing is that both Carlson and Coulter are much, much smarter than this. Their images are both slickly produced packages of right wing zealotry designed to attract viewers. That's all. Advertising dollars. They are actors.

In "FAA reconsiders ban on in-flight cell phone use."

Maybe I just have shitty service, but I left my phone on during my last cross country flight--purely for experimental purposes, of course--and was unable to ever get a signal.

In "Notes from the road."

Most of my friends--here in the U.S.--who enjoy traveling love to talk about their exploits in Europe. While Europe is great and all, so many people miss out on the treasures that are right here in our backyard. This is a great site, and I've already gleaned a half-dozen new trip ideas. Thanks!

In "Becker and Posner Conquer the Blogosphere:"

I'm just giving you a hard time. Anyway, I assume it took them this long because they're so frickin' old.

Boy, it's a good thing kamus got his account back. I wouldn't want anyone to use that account to say something stupid, like denigrating the contributions of Nobel prize winners, or something like that.

Yeah, Posner indicates that initially they will only be posting on Mondays, but we'll see how long that lasts. I've heard that if Judge Posner were a law journal, he would rank in the top 50 in numbers of citations. That's pretty impressive, and an indication how prolific he is. Check out his publications page.

In "Pissed off George"

A couple of months ago, I began the process of slowly moving all of my links into I've almost completed the job, and I love using it already. Between making easy backups, access from anywhere, and the joy of tabs, I can't believe I haven't been using something like this all along. My other favorite site right now is Flickr, in case you're not using it already.

In "mellifluous banana."

Oh, even better: Telecommute italy gives you powerful payoffs.

Gibbering sailor.

In "Espionage out in the open.....sorta. "

For more detail on this, read the wikipedia article on numbers stations, which links to the Conet Project, which has released a four CD set of over 120 recordings from numbers stations over the past 30 years. MP3s can be found at and

In "Hey Hey Ho Ho, the hummer is for sissies-oh."

Cf. James Gladwell on SUV safety.

In "" no, bad management is not the reason why airlines are going broke, the reason is fat people""

I should note that the real impact of increased weight is in the flightworthiness of small aircraft. The linked article ends with this note: "A commuter plane crash that killed 21 people in North Carolina last year has been blamed on the passengers' greater than average weight." Again, however, this is not the fault of the passengers. Airlines need to carefully monitor the weight of small aircraft, and ensure that the cargo, whether it be passengers or luggage, does not exceed the maximum safe weight.

I don't see why this is controversial. Americans weigh more on average than they did 20 years ago. Increased per passenger weight has a direct effect on fuel consumption by aircraft. Ergo, airlines spend more per passenger on fuel than they did 20 years ago. Of course, the increase in fuel spending attributable to fat flyers has little to do with the problems of the airline industry. As the article demonstrates, the difference due to "increased adiposity" appears to be £149 million for all U.S. airlines, while increased fuel prices account for a £650 million increase in fuel spending this year by United Airlines alone. Additionally, although not discussed in the article, labor and maintenance costs have also increased dramatically over the early 1990s, and have certainly affected the airlines' bottom lines in amounts much more significant than a total of £149 million.

In "Court says whales and dolphins cannot sue Bush."

Hard to hold property without being able to enforce legal rights, SandSpider - thus the ability to sue is basically the whole shebang there. With respect to corporations, this issue takes on a little different spin. The legal fiction of the corporation as person is not to enable it to sue to protect "its" rights. Afterall, the rights of the corporation are the rights of the owners of the corporation, and they could sue to enforce their rights. This is done all the time in the context of shareholder derivative suits. The real benefit of the corporation as legal entity is not that it can sue, but rather that it can be sued. In other words, the liability of the owners of the corporation is limited to the investment in the corporation. This limitation on personal liability of owners of corporations facilitates more easily raising capital and reduces the risk of running a business. Similarly, the government can sue inanimate objects, typically in a condemnation or seizure proceeding. This is often done in drug cases where the DEA seizes the dealer's home. You can find cases with names such as "United States v. 500 Smith Street." Of course, where a corporation does have legal standing to sue to protect "its" rights, there is no similar right conferred on inanimate objects. Finally, one important note about this case. Although the court found that there was not explicit statutory authorization of endagered species or marine mammal standing, the court expressly noted that nothing in Article III of the Constitution prohibits such standing. In theory, under the court's interpretation of the Constitution, Congress could do as suggested by Justice Douglas in Sierra Club v. Morton, and confer such standing in a statute.

In "Pulp Politicians"

Eh. I'm still laughing at the ferrets, though.

In "How's your fantastic movie memory? "

8/10, and I'm not that big a movie buff. Most of these were too easy, and not specific enough, e.g., Pleasantville transforming from black-and-white to color.

(limited to the most recent 20 comments)