Semi touche. I consider my anecdotal evidence to be empirical, because if someone were to study and quantify my behavior, they would find out exactly what I told you and what you substantiated, that generally people will do what people will do.

/nitpick

Apparently we both are. There’s only one name in the top 10, I haven’t heard all that frequently. The rest seem pretty common to me. What criteria are they using to determine if a name is “odd” or not.

Upshot is, now Amazon’s going to have to police the Kindle store to protect themselves, meaning potentially infringing works (and perhaps obscene works, not to mention libelous works) may never get a chance, or have to sign a few more things, or be vetted for review, etc.

An incredibly open system will now get less open.

Yay, bad reporting of the infringing nature of the original Orwell titles!

When I wrote #24, I hadn’t read #22, so I think my comment just duplicated some of what you had already said.

Good piece on the right’s unfortunate eagerness to quickly assign black hats and white hats in every global conflict. And not just because it quotes me.

You LIE! That was the only portion of the entire article that was arguable. The rest of it only proved Tim Fernholz is a kool-aid drinking idiot.

#16 Alex has already covered it but not only was Fernholz analysis of the russian v. georgian and the honduran situations mistaken and horribly mistaken, it wasn’t solely the american political right that was speaking out. The condemnation of the russian invasion and the Iranian governments response to the election protests were universal, and included obamas own secretary of state.

We elected a guy whose entire foreign policy experience lies in the fact that he could see canada from his house. Good thing he has that elite east coast education and speaks so eloquently or somebody might start to notice he doesn’t know wtf he’s doing.

#20 old

Amazon should not have the ability to remove books from the device once the books are purchased. People get het up because it is Orwell, and especially ‘1984? but if they look further, they will see that a publisher who did not have the rights to the works in question profited off selling the e-books, and Amazon stopped the selling and deleted all copies.

One would think that before the purchased copies could be retrieved from those who bought them, some kind of court action would be required. Unless, of course, customers granted that right to amazon as part of the contract they probably had to “sign” when they made the purchase, which is where I suspect they got the authority to do that. Amazon is saying they will never do that again, but I wonder if they’re going to change their purchase agreement accordingly.

In any case, digital media is definitely not “the same as buying a book only better”. As a former member of Music Match, which went belly-up and then Yahoo Music which following in the same footsteps, its become clear to me that what you think is a “purchase” may be no more than a DRM-governed rental, subject to the whims of the seller.

Amazon has done some other gooify things. When customers started leaving 1-star reviews of video games because of the extremely restrictive DRM, Amazon simply deleted all the 1-star reviews. When that caused an even worse shit storm, they reinstated them.

OK, I wouldn’t put all that much weight on it, to be sure, but it’s not an outrageous claim.

Recessions are due, at least in part (how much will depend on which school of economics you subscribe to and Larry’s pretty much a Keynesian and Keynes does indeed talk about “animal spirits”) on the way that people feel about the future. If we all individually decide that the future is sh*t and thus don’t invest or consume but save, then the future will indeed be sh*t.

If that was how we were all feeling and that mood has changed, that we think things are bottoming out, then we’ll save less and invest and consume more: and things will be less sh*t.

Yes, I agree, that’s a very crude explanation and searching for “economic depression” isn’t the most accurate of pointers. But that is the basic logic and the searches are an indicator, however trite or light.

Perhaps we should put this one with strong logic but weak empirical evidence?

Regarding the amazon.com item, I don’t believe anyone could even imagine a scenario that would make more of a statement about putting control of your library in the hands of someone else.

You are correct here.

Amazon should not have the ability to remove books from the device once the books are purchased. People get het up because it is Orwell, and especially ’1984′ but if they look further, they will see that a publisher who did not have the rights to the works in question profited off selling the e-books, and Amazon stopped the selling and deleted all copies. Amazon should have paid who ever does have the rights and the previous purchased copies should have stayed the property of whomever bought them, while Amazon stopped distribution. Who knows though, maybe the current rights holders wanted the copies deleted. Someone should ask Amazon, and ask the rights holders.

Actually, there is empirical evidence to support your personal anecdotal evidence. I don’t have a link, or remember all the details, but there was a NHTSA study (not sure, but I believe it was NHTSA) that studied the effects of speed limit changes on various roads. (I know, this doesn’t exactly address speed traps, but…)

Anyways, the study showed that raising the speed limit was correlated with a slightly lower accident rate and lowering the limit INCREASED the accident rate. However, the average speed remained relatively unchanged regardless of the posted speed limit. In other words, “I’m going to drive the speed I want to drive no matter what” is what most people will do. Artificially low speed limits, or even any speed limits at all, and their enforcement, will not increase safety, only increase revenue. Which is, of course, what they are designed to do.

Matt, I down-arrowed you because I am empirical evidence that your statement is false. I don’t give a shit where speed traps are, I’m going to drive the speed I want to drive no matter what. If I get a ticket, fuck it. Haven’t gotten one in 20 years. Knock on wood.

Matt’s point stands – cops can’t be everywhere. Regardless of whether the change in behavior that their presence or potential presence leads to is a good thing or a bad thing, knowing with good certainty which of the many places that they could be that they actually are (and thus which others of those places they aren’t) reduces the impact.

If “those traps really are in areas where speeding is particularly dangerous” it is not the case that “the aps are slowing people down in those same areas.” A general note “Watch your speed on Route 3, I’ve seen people pulled over every time I’ve used it in the past month” will slow people down; “The speed traps today are at Exit 27 and Exit 33″ or “The speed traps today are on Route 495″ does not except in those specific locations.

“Every time an international crisis of some magnitude comes along, mainstream Democrats led by President Barack Obama, and their allies among realist Republicans, initially offer careful statements, eschewing the bombastic rhetoric of the Bush administration.”
– So his side is mainstream and “realist.” Got it. I assume the article will make an attempt to prove this bold assertion.

“But had the United States followed conservative advice and turned a crisis into a full blown conflict . . .”
– So the Bush administration’s rhetoric was bombastic, except in the only example he gives to prove it.

“Obama, now president, issued a statement raising questions about the nature of the elections . . . But once again conservatives demanded stronger words and harsher condemnation . . . Obama appropriately sharpened his rhetoric as the Iranian regime escalated violence against demonstrators.”
– I guess only whacked out radicals thought that the Iranian regime that just stole an election would beat the hell out of protestors.

“A more ambiguous case comes in the form of the recent coup in Honduras, where the military removed President Manuel Zelaya from office after he persisted in pursuing an illegal constitutional referendum to gain additional time in office.”
– Wait, what’s ambiguous about that?

“There’s no question that Zelaya’s referendum was unwise and that he has been an ally to bombastically anti-American Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.”
– Bush and Chavez are both bombastic. I see what you did there.

“But supporting a military coup whose early actions have included severe restrictions of civil liberties is not in the best interests of international stability or democracy in Honduras — and plays right into Chavez’s critique of American hypocrisy. ”
– So it’s a military coup. Isn’t the article supposed to be about careful rhetoric and not jumping to conclusions? And we’re really supposed to take at face value that Chavez values talking points for his critique of America over an ally in the region?

“The Obama administration has called for a return to democratic process and the reinstatement of Zelaya . . . ”
– Oh, found the ambiguity.

“It’s also led conservative pundit Andy McCarthy . . .”
– Can I point out that Ezra Klein is an idiot and prove any point I want about liberals?

I thought I was for a more “careful” approach to foreign policy, but after that whargarbbl mess, I’m going to rethink that.

He provides data that refutes your assertion and this is your response? Really?