Julian Sanchez

Julian Sanchez, the author of this particular piece, threatened to quit the Cato Institute if the Koch brothers took control: http://www.juliansanchez.com/2012/03/05/cato-and-the-kochs-a-presignat… So yes, it is completely 100% fallacious to try to associate his piece with them and imply that this has any bearing on its worthiness.

Not the best criticism of Prometheus I've read by a long shot, I'd probably recommend this one if you're really interested: http://www.juliansanchez.com/2012/06/11/whats-wrong-with-prometheus-a-… The thing that actually annoyed me, though, was really at an allegorical level. The origonal myth of Prometheus was more something along the lines of "Progress is intrinsically dangerous", which is fair enough. But then the movie turns that into "Progress not paid for with sacrifice is evil"[1], and I found that rather annoying as a technologist who doesn't intend to die for his work. [1]http://cavalorn.livejournal.com/584135.html

Ahh yes please do go through my posts about how brains of women and men are not the same... might churn your stomach a bit. :) Again some logic please... the man who created the machines would not know how to run them? Since you love to quote wikipedia you could have scrolled down a little on the same page and seeen this - Allan G. Bromley, in the 1990 essay Difference and Analytical Engines, wrote,[71] All but one of the programs cited in her notes had been prepared by Babbage from three to seven years earlier. The exception was prepared by Babbage for her, although she did detect a 'bug' in it. Not only is there no evidence that Ada ever prepared a program for the Analytical Engine, but her correspondence with Babbage shows that she did not have the knowledge to do so. Blue plaque to Lovelace in St. James's Square, London In his PhD thesis, Bruce Collier, who went on to write a biography of Babbage, claimed: It would be only a slight exaggeration to say that Babbage wrote the 'Notes' to Menabrea's paper, but for reasons of his own encouraged the illusion in the minds of Ada and the public that they were authored by her. It is no exaggeration to say that she was a manic depressive with the most amazing delusions about her own talents, and a rather shallow understanding of both Charles Babbage and the Analytical Engine There is a google talk about Babbage's machines and the speaker also talked about Ada at the 36 min mark --…

I've always thought this is one of the more brilliant quotes concerning intellectual property rights/copyright, in response to those who feel that they "deserve" or are somehow entitled to the protection of IP rights: "Wise assessment of copyright policy should have nothing to do with how you feel about the person or entity who holds the right at any particular time, because copyright policy is not about identifying wonderful and meritorious people and ensuring—certainly not as an end in itself, anyway—that their income is proportioned to their intrinsic moral desert—or lack thereof. We are all the massive beneficiaries of millennia of accumulated human scientific knowledge and cultural output, and not one of us did anything do deserve a jot of it. We’re all just extremely lucky not to have been born cavemen. The greatest creative genius alive would be hard pressed to create a smiley faced smeared in dung on a tree trunk without that huge and completely undeserved inheritance. So banish the word “deserve” from your mind when you think about copyright. Nobody “deserves” a goddamn thing. (I say this, for what it’s worth, as someone who makes his living entirely through the production of “intellectual property.”) The only—the only—relevant question is whether a marginal restriction on the general ability to use information incentivizes enough additional information production over the long run to justify denying that marginal use to every other human being on the planet,…

Sure. Looking over the list, I'm reminded why I enjoy reading these people. Even when I disagree with them, it is obvious that they love their field. They have a lot of fun with it. There's a kind of joy found in doing something that you love and have devoted your life to that comes out in their writing. As a result, these writers make actual value judgments. They don't write sterile corporate prose guaranteed to offend no one. * Lawyers Guns and Money, global conflict, international relations, political science, some legal history: http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/ * The Monkey Cage, real political science by political scientists: http://www.themonkeycage.org/ * The Edge of the American West, mostly history professors but some philosophers too, but less academic than Crooked Timber: http://edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/ * Brad Delong, econ prof at UC Berkley; strong focus on economic history; leans left: http://delong.typepad.com/ * Tyler Cowen, econ prof at GMU, leans right: http://www.marginalrevolution.com/ * Marc Lynch, foreign affairs prof who talks about the middle east; unlike pretty much every middle east expert, he actually speaks Arabic and has some idea about what actual Arabs are talking about: http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/ * Matthew Yglesias, foreign policy, some economics and politics: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/ * Ezra Klein, health care and economic policy: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/ * Felix Salmon, a former bond trader…

https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2012/12/26/christmas-trilogy-2012-part-ii… http://www.juliansanchez.com/2012/10/16/much-ada-about-nothing/

What about the UVA rape case? Fabricated story, targeted a fraternity, lots of extralegal unpleasantness. Throughout, the hounding of those young men was carried out by people serenely confident that they were acting to protect young women's sexual freedom. Julian Sanchez has a nice write-up of a similar discussion: http://www.juliansanchez.com/2015/01/27/chait-speech/

There appears to be a lot of confusion, even from the experts, on what this exchange between Nadler and Mueller was all about: http://www.juliansanchez.com/2013/06/15/nadler-and-mueller-on-analysts…

I suggest watching the CSPAN video.I think they are talking about metadata. http://www.juliansanchez.com/2013/06/15/nadler-and-mueller-on-analysts…

IMPORTANT - regarding the 2-min video CNET bases its story on. http://www.juliansanchez.com/2013/06/15/nadler-and-mueller-on-analysts…

This article has a similar argument to “The Teleporter Library: A Copyright Thought Experiment”: http://www.juliansanchez.com/2011/07/11/the-teleporter-library-a-copyr… The comments on that blog post contain useful discussion of the argument. I especially agree with comment 18 on that blog post, http://www.juliansanchez.com/2011/07/11/the-teleporter-library-a-copyr… It argues that the only reason we find public libraries morally okay in the first place was because we couldn’t copy their work. So perhaps if hard drives were invented before physical books, public libraries would have radically different restrictions, or not exist at all.

This is not at all a new concept and has been discussed before [1]. [1] - http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/12/08/the-redactors-dilemma/

Julian Sanchez called this the Redactor's Dilemma: http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/12/08/the-redactors-dilemma/

Example: http://www.quora.com/User-Interfaces/Why-do-in-restaurant-reservation-… http://www.juliansanchez.com/2010/12/27/why-are-restaurant-web-sites-s…

This reminded me of the "one way hash" rhetorical technique. I'd actually forgotten that the term was coined in relation to climate change discussions. http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/04/06/climate-change-and-argumentati…

When I first read the title, I expected something about Joel Spolsky and was gearing myself up for a giant sigh. The actual piece was quite interesting (not that a piece about a box of Joel wouldn't be, I suppose), and contrasting that with my expectations made me realize just how well-branded certain names become within their particular niches. Consider, for instance, that for different groups, "PG" most likely means a company (Procter & Gamble), a movie rating, or some other industry-specific thing. Obviously this isn't a particularly novel realization; perhaps it's even an "outsight" [1]. But it did strike me as interesting just how primed I was to expect a particular association for the relatively common name "Joel" - and reminded me once more of the importance of stepping out of the proverbial cocoon once in a while. [1] http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/08/15/outsight/

Phew, glad I don't have to worry about any of the actual arguments or evidence then! [Edit] On second thoughts, sorry, too glib. I try to be a bit more thoughtful for the HN. The point I was getting at is that there's verifiable facts, data and arguments in the post. It would be a much more interesting discussion, one I could learn from, if people would tackle those. I'd also just read Julian Sanchez's piece on what he calls the 'oppositional morality' cognitive bias, the tendency to disbelieve evidence that The Others are using to push their conclusions: http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/10/12/oppositional-moralities-and-no…

Julian Sanchez has some thoughts on this at [1]: Legally speaking, the analysts don’t have carte blanche. In other words, this isn’t “warrantless wiretapping” so much as “general warrant wiretapping.” They can’t just tap any old call or read any old e-mail they strikes them as “suspicious.” They’ve got to be flagging content for interception because they believe it’s covered by a particular §702 authorization, and observe whatever “targeting procedures” the FISA Court has established for the relevant authorization.... None of that would be too surprising in principle: That’s the whole point of §702! It means analysts get discretion to decide what particular accounts fall under a very broad order. A key question, of course, is just what the checks in the process are. Can an analyst technically (if not legally) plug in any selector to start collecting on and just start getting material? Does anyone check their work before call and e-mail content starts flowing in? How closely are their error rates checked after it does? Again, legally, they don’t have a blank check, but it’s the details of the system architecture that determine whether you’d be able to tell the difference in practice. [1] http://www.juliansanchez.com/2013/06/15/nadler-and-mueller-on-analysts…