NASA Plans to Read Terrorist's Minds at Airports
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020817-704732.htm
This just strikes me as being so ridiculously bizarre. We are truly
beginning to blur reality with science fiction. Makes me think of  Minority
Report (although PKD realized this future decades ago). Especially
concerning (or intriguing?) is the revelation that "the agency is
developing brain-monitoring devices in cooperation with a commercial firm,
which it did not identify".
http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork

No, hits=-7.8 required=5.0
	tests=AWL,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,KNOWN_MAILING_LIST,NOSPAM_INC,
	      QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,RCVD_IN_MULTIHOP_DSBL,
	      RCVD_IN_UNCONFIRMED_DSBL,REFERENCES,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,
	      T_URI_COUNT_0_1,USER_AGENT_MOZILLA_XM,X_ACCEPT_LANG
	version=2.50-cvs

Owen Byrne wrote:
> What a load of crap. Politics are somehow more muddy now?  I'd say that
> its considerably
> clearer - the vast majority of people feel disenfranchised, and the
> common practice of
> putting protestors in boxes is done usually to hide them from TV
> cameras, visiting dignitaries,
> etc, further exacerbating those feelings.
> "Unpeaceably disrupting political rallies" is now usually done by police
> with riot gear and pepper spray.
>
> We had a good one here a month or so ago - a few people peaceably
> strayed from the permit area,
> which was nearly a mile from the site of the meeting of finance
> ministers held here (the motorcade drove
> by it for about 10 seconds), and were immediately gassed,  beaten and
> arrested. Not very muddied at all.
What does that exactly have to do with the statement that
distruption of peacable political assembly has become
a common practice disruption tool?  It's an observation
not a judgement, comment, approval.  You've focused on the
word "muddy" to use it in a different context than the one
I posted.
Maybe the distinction I was trying to make was too subtle and
I was trying to be too clever with my writing this morning.
Let me summarize the important parts of my post for you: I
have a premise that there is a difference between free and protected
speech and action.  I think O'Neill on his soapbox doesn't
understand the distinction.
All better?
Greg