tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post3766550531223421084..comments2024-03-27T23:12:08.917-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Politics: Break away from the usual "axis"! David Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-7697578031568817102017-09-05T12:41:51.022-07:002017-09-05T12:41:51.022-07:00And for one more grin, I just saw the answer to la...And for one more grin, I just saw the answer to last week's puzzler on <i>Car Talk</i>.<br /><br />http://www.cartalk.com/puzzler/what-do-these-famous-people-have-common<br /><br />Q: What do these famous people have in common? Ulysses S. Grant, Rudyard Kipling, Woodrow Wilson, Grover Cleveland, and Calvin Coolidge.<br /><br />A: They are best known by their middle names.<br />Hiram Ulysses Grant (he added the "S" for Simpson later on in later in life), Joseph Rudyard Kipling, Thomas Woodrow Wilson, Stephen Grover Cleveland and John Calvin Coolidge.<br /><br />I wonder if there are any modern examples that you can think of. ;)A.F. Reynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-32788883109735001852017-09-05T11:43:04.492-07:002017-09-05T11:43:04.492-07:00Just for grins, I was watching a segment on CBS...Just for grins, I was watching a segment on CBS' <i>Sunday Morning</i> this last weekend on the 50th anniversary of the Black Panthers. Bobby Seal, one of the founders of the organization, echoed one of your themes.<br /><br /><i>Cowan asked, "When kids come up and ask your advice today about guns, you tell them?"<br /><br />"You don't need guns today," Seale replied. "The cell phone is the best piece of technology we got to observe cops. You can have an international cop watch program without a gun."</i><br /><br />Cameras, not guns, from a former Blank Panther! Who knew? :)<br /><br />https://www.cbsnews.com/news/power-to-the-people-the-rise-of-the-black-panthers/A.F. Reynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-12065568449150767022017-09-05T11:21:17.879-07:002017-09-05T11:21:17.879-07:00Dr. Brin: "then [the 6th Amendment compulsory...Dr. Brin: <i>"then [the 6th Amendment compulsory witness clause] should be taken to mean “I have a right to record and access any truth that might exculpate me or prevent powers from abusing me."</i><br /><br />You do in fact have that right, and it's nearly universal...when you're charged with a crime. But it does not extend to any right to manufacture and produce 'evidence' outside a criminal context. <br /><br />Lawyers, like scientists, don't always get to be 'creative' with their use of the facts and law as they exist. Our job (when acting as lawyers) is seldom to make new law: we gotta work with what exists now, and hope that with a gentle nudge or two, things may change. While I like the creativity in the approach, I dread the "criminality" implication of extending the 6th because we should NOT live in a world where our every interaction with the government is perceived as defending ourselves from potential criminal charges it might bring against us.donzelionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991849781932619746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-59514322245119599402017-09-05T11:21:16.572-07:002017-09-05T11:21:16.572-07:00FDR wasn't a "traitor to his class."...FDR wasn't a "traitor to his class." He SAVED his class from guillotines.<br /><br /><br />onward<br /><br />onward<br /><br /><br />David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-26231362360201754552017-09-05T11:16:45.361-07:002017-09-05T11:16:45.361-07:00Alfred: "Peasant revolts are pretty common i...Alfred: <i>"Peasant revolts are pretty common in Western European history,"</i><br /><br />Indeed, BUT most peasant revolts (and every 'successful' one) were themselves backed at critical junctures by at least some 'nobles.' The idea of 'limiting nobles' was always intricately linked to nobles calculating their own interests vis-a-vis other nobles. THAT limits the power of nobles far more effectively than the pitchfork crowd.<br /><br />What makes the Renaissance special, and the Enlightenment even more special, and the Labor movement among the most special of them all was the concept that the 'nobles' who sponsored uprisings were less important than the process of limiting their power and factional interests. HOW nobles are limited is more important than THAT they are limited. The beauty of 'government capitalism' (that is, capitalism with a strong government operating behind the scenes) is that capitalists MAY dedicate their achievements to advancing further social good - sometimes willingly, sometimes through coercion (though seldom coercion comparable to what they deploy against their own employees) - often unwittingly. We do that primarily when we perceive potential 'usefulness' for each person - even, the sons of bastards and 'whores' (Hamilton) can rise up to make our world better.donzelionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991849781932619746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-33731291715062848632017-09-05T11:06:29.020-07:002017-09-05T11:06:29.020-07:00Louis XIV threatened the lives of nobles who did n...Louis XIV threatened the lives of nobles who did not come to Paris. He made elaborate king-worship rituals for them to perform. English nobles generally snubbed the king.<br /><br />donzellion “In all criminal prosecutions..." can and generally is applied to evidence that MIGHT be applicable in some future criminal prosecution. If it were interpreted in the broad way that 1st amendment rights are now interpreted, then it should be taken to mean “I have a right to record and access any truth that might exculpate me or prevent powers from abusing me.<br /><br />You know that’s the only reasonable interpretation and we are heading that way, thank God.<br />David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-72965868436389928842017-09-05T10:43:24.352-07:002017-09-05T10:43:24.352-07:00Dr. Brin: (just returned from a trip to an interne...Dr. Brin: (just returned from a trip to an internet free zone)<br /><br /><i>"Only... I blame the good side's lawyers! They base their arguments for sousveillance on the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment and sometimes the Fifth... when it is in fact the under-appreciated SIXTH Amendment that most clearly protects the citizen against abuse by authority."</i><br /><br />We've gone over this one. Here are the limitations on the Sixth:<br /><br />(1) <i>In all criminal prosecutions..."</i><br />Meaning that the power to compel witnesses applies when one is criminally prosecuted. For ordinary interactions with government, or when someone ELSE is criminally prosecuted, it does not apply. In civil trials, one doesn't have an unrestricted power to compel witnesses. In non-trials, one doesn't have any power to compel witnesses. For most of us, 'non-trials' constitute 99%+ of our lives.<br /><br />(2) <i>"...to be confronted with the witnesses against him..."</i><br />In some cases, one can 'confront' a video the same way one 'confronts' a living, human witness. Often, one cannot. <br /><br />(3) <i>"...to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."</i><br />It wasn't until Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) that this was interpreted to mean "counsel will be appointed if one cannot obtain it" - and even then, that only means in criminal trials (no free counsel in civil, immigration, or other legal contexts). That's despite wording that suggests counsel SHOULD be available (and often, isn't) - for most of our history, the meaning was that the courts cannot prevent a person from having an attorney, not that (in certain limited settings) one automatically gets an attorney. I point that out to underscore the limited extension of the 6th, and hint at why it alone is an unreliable basis for a universal right intended to apply in all contexts to all persons involved in sousveillance (whether they are charged with a crime or not).<br /><br />We are better off trying to extend the 1st, 5th, or even the 2nd to apply in this context: we want a 'universal' right, not one that only begins to apply when the government threatens you with prison.donzelionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991849781932619746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-84274279854815743722017-09-05T07:31:00.379-07:002017-09-05T07:31:00.379-07:00Paul SB:
Pretty much all of Eastern Europe were m...Paul SB:<br /><i><br />Pretty much all of Eastern Europe were more similar to France than England or Holland,<br /></i><br /><br />I remember reading once that when the Nazis were relocating Jews to the concentration camps, they used very different tactics depending on whether the group was from Eastern or Western Europe. The easterners were used to being threatened by authorities, so the Nazis would just round them up and move them along with guns and snarling dogs and such. For the westerners, who were more used to dealing with authorities in a more egalitarian manner, the Nazis would be obsequious, almost as if they were butlers, footmen, and chauffeurs providing a <b>service</b>, until the victims were lured into a situation they could not escape from.<br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-65121292679518280562017-09-05T05:59:14.444-07:002017-09-05T05:59:14.444-07:00Alfred,
Your wife has very useful advice here:
&...Alfred,<br /><br />Your wife has very useful advice here:<br /><br />"...I like the rationalizations and will forgive them for being men of their times. My wife points out that I am too... of this time. 8)"<br /><br />Something we all need to do our best to be aware of. More specifically, most people are products of their young adulthood, from their high school years to about age 25, when their lobes are fully wired up. It helps to take everything we think with a grain of salt (some of us need buckets) because of how easily our thinking gets fossilized in a particular time. Generally the ideas we are most sure of and get most emotional about are the ones we most need to examine with this in mind.<br /><br />As far as odd ducks go, I think you have that one backwards. Pretty much all of Eastern Europe were more similar to France than England or Holland, as were Prussia, Bavaria, Bohemia, the various principalities of Italy (where most of the lords weren't even on the peninsula most of the time, because they were mostly French of Spanish, and Spain as well. Nobles tend to extract, impoverish and oppress because they can, and because they feel superior to those they exploit. France may have been a bot more extreme than some others, but was hardly an exception. Revolts tend to happen not when things are at their worst, but when expectations are rising faster than change. French people had England and Holland right next door, so French merchants could bring back tales of different lands where things were a bit better and French nobility suffered in the comparison.Paul SBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-30114076880966352362017-09-05T02:44:51.261-07:002017-09-05T02:44:51.261-07:00Hi Tony
The British Nobles and King encouraged arc...Hi Tony<br />The British Nobles and King encouraged archery<br />That is a bit of a two edged sword - it gives you a useful weapon when waging war but it gives the common folk something of an edge - you have to be a bit more careful how you treat a village of archers duncan cairncrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14153725128216947145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-75643155425024056472017-09-04T23:32:05.059-07:002017-09-04T23:32:05.059-07:00When did the dichotomy you describe between French...When did the dichotomy you describe between French and English nobles arise? One common theory is that the decimation of the French nobility at Agincourt had a lot to do with subsequent problems.Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-57945874780840150342017-09-04T22:43:53.184-07:002017-09-04T22:43:53.184-07:00Interesting reason the British made revolution in ...Interesting reason the British made revolution in gradual phases and never completely. French nobility built their mansions in Paris to be close to the king and just extracted wealth from their estates and hence were purely hated in both places. English patricians built their mansions in the country and snubbed filthy shabby London. Their peasants saw them in boots wading around, managing the estates and meeting the tenants. Result was far, far less resentment of the nobles in BOTH city and country and British country folk marched and dies for their lords, while French peasants chopped theirs to bits.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-64204369888657175752017-09-04T22:08:52.676-07:002017-09-04T22:08:52.676-07:00@Larry | I've always felt the French of that t...@Larry | I've always felt the French of that time were the odd ducks of the region. Their nobility came closer to absolute power and they seemed to think of all activities as political activities which re-enforced the model. They weren't unified, though, and there was a definite 'enlightenment' presence there. One of the biggest, actually. Because of the power their nobility had, though, the Enlightenment took a different, more bloody course there. England got off light with an early 20 year period of civil wars and then an ouster of the Stuarts when they seemed to forget the earlier lesson. Much less blood, though their neighbors weren't so lucky.<br /><br />The beheadings in France included way more than the nobility. They went and did what the English considered (a century earlier) but then shied away from the actual deeds. The Englightenment's general anti-church stance comes from France mostly.<br /><br /><br />Regarding how the Founders died, you'll probably just feed into my lack of great concern for wealth inequality. It can be quite a challenge to preserve one's extreme wealth for one's children. We see people get filthy rich now and then, but fail to notice that their portfolios are VERY far from diversified. They can get filthy poor about as fast until they fix that problem... and many don't.<br /><br />But yah. Many of them died much poorer. The world went through a fantastic change in that era and the value of agricultural land did not hold up. Such land in North America was never worth the phenomenal sums of money it was in old Europe, but it was easy to bet incorrectly here and many did. A slave was typically valued at the price a man would earn in wages over 12 years, so when that value crashed a few decades later it showed another bad bet. None of that matters, though, when considering motivations for the Founders to rebel. Many of them were rich men with no way to purchase representation in Parliament. The games they could play in England weren't available to them in the Colonies. Still... I like the rationalizations and will forgive them for being men of their times. My wife points out that I am too... of this time. 8)Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-6519742809509537782017-09-04T18:18:10.832-07:002017-09-04T18:18:10.832-07:00Alfred Differ:
You prompted Larry to refer to Dic...Alfred Differ:<br /><i><br />You prompted Larry to refer to Dickens as if his fiction was a decent representation of history. Dickens wrote propaganda and far too many people fail to realize this.<br /></i><br /><br />Ouch. Ok, fair point about fiction. But you then go on to describe England when I was using the example of immediately pre-Revolution France. Did the French aristocracy <b>not</b> have that sort of arrogant power which eventually led to their beheadings?<br /><i><br />Jefferson was no yeoman farmer. Washington was a rich dude. So was Franklin. Yes... even Adams.<br /></i><br /><br />Washington <b>married</b> rich (as did Hamilton). I've heard that John Hancock was either the richest or the second-richest man in the colonies. I've also heard that most of the wealthy founding fathers (including Hancock, though <b>not</b> Hamilton) <b>died</b> in poverty.<br /><br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-38510177569806224192017-09-04T17:47:06.775-07:002017-09-04T17:47:06.775-07:00@Steven | For those below them, they had nearly ab...@Steven | <i>For those below them, they had nearly absolute power in dictating rents and calling up tenants for warfare. The only restraints were preventing rebellion by lesser nobles under them and keeping the peasants alive. (I exaggerate, of course)</i><br /><br />Oof. You do worse than exaggerate. You prompted Larry to refer to Dickens as if his fiction was a decent representation of history. Dickens wrote propaganda and far too many people fail to realize this.<br /><br />There were places in Eastern Europe where the nobles had the kind of absolute power you describe, but that was generally NOT the case in Western Europe. Read some actual history and especially recently-dated economic history and you'll encounter a less simplistic version. For example, English nobles were often hemmed in by common law. The power they DID have was still quite large and often enough to game the system against those below them, but it was far from being absolute. The lower classes in England had a seriously bad attitude against tyrants of any kind for several centuries and one does not have to descend to the lowest of them to find them. Look up Cromwell's family and work out which class he was in.<br /><br />As for the American Founders, you might want to take another look at them and ask which class they were in too. It is admittedly a mix, but if you take the wealth estimates we have for some of them and scale them up to a modern 21'st century scale, you'll find some of them were filthy rich. It's not unreasonable to argue that they rationalized their participation in a rebellion with concepts from a popular social philosophy (liberalism of the time), but also managed to defend their wealth from peers who had representation in Parliament when they did not. Jefferson was no yeoman farmer. Washington was a rich dude. So was Franklin. Yes... even Adams.<br /><br />Leveling of the playing field appeared on the field of battle over a century before our revolution when the English civil wars occurred. The people who wanted that were literally called 'levelers.' Many saw the idea as incredibly radical and abhorrent. Along with all the other 'nut-cases' unleashed in that 20 year era, so much of what we think of as part of the American Experiment can be traced to them including the reactionary response that led a coalition to track down a son of the beheaded King and re-instate him. Surely that would save them! Nah. The ideas percolated and the next Stuart knew darned well he faced limits.<br /><br /><br />Peasant revolts are pretty common in Western European history, but what is much more common are limits faced by Nobles. We imposed STRONGER limits and wrote the nutty Leveler idea into our Constitution. We are far from the first to impose stronger limits, though. The Dutch had them too... before the English.<br />Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-4455121291183097562017-09-04T17:17:04.390-07:002017-09-04T17:17:04.390-07:00@Paul451 | That's a concentration of power you...@Paul451 | <i>That's a concentration of power you're happy with?</i><br /><br />No. It makes my skin crawl. However, there are many other options that risk bowel movements instead. 8)<br /><br />I just finished reading what you placed at the end of the previous thread, so I’ll summarize things a bit.<br /><br />1. You’ve obviously thought about the nationalization a lot more than I have, therefore, I’ll retreat a bit and complain only about my partial understanding of your partially articulated idea. Since no one expect you to write a book on it and post it here, I’m basically admitting that this kind of debate will cause us to talk past each other unless we are willing to write more or meet face-to-face.<br /><br />2. It would appear we both agree on the need to break the profitability of the illegal trade. Possibly because of the other illegal/immoral things they are willing to do? If so, I’m applauding over here. On this, I AM willing to use force, but I suspect the minimum needed doesn’t involve much more that removing incentives.<br /><br />3. If I had to make a choice between doing nothing and doing it your way, I’d pick your way in less than a heartbeat even with my partial understanding of your partial articulation. The way we do things now is the worst possible way I can imagine it working. Literally. The Worst I Can Imagine. That isn’t the choice, though. I’ve seen decriminalization of MJ on our California ballot a couple of times. My choice has been FOR or AGAINST. A number of libertarians get worked up over this stuff, but that’s not what draws me to them. I think we need to flex and consider alliances with people who see things your way or else face a long future of having no decent choices.<br /><br />4. (Regarding efficient, optimal markets and their magical appearance after non-market approaches are ended) I tend not to put the words ‘efficient’ and ‘market’ in the same sentence if I can help it. I come at this as a physicist a lot of the time and ‘efficient’ has a special meaning to us. Work done/Heat input. The market isn’t an engine of any kind let alone one where we can define efficiency. I know the economist have a definition, but I don’t think much of it. It focuses upon transactions clearing and not the ‘work’ being done. ‘Optimal’ doesn’t belong in the same sentence as ‘market’ for a similar reason. Particular individuals with particular goals can define ‘work’ and ‘optimal’, but markets are ecosystems OF individuals and groups. When my fellow libertarians put these terms together, my mind just glitches on the non-sequitur. <br />Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-90977429968366099052017-09-04T16:27:29.503-07:002017-09-04T16:27:29.503-07:00Out to scam someone somewhere, it looked like. A p...Out to scam someone somewhere, it looked like. A public service to bust him.Jumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-6576882520430478012017-09-04T15:00:32.772-07:002017-09-04T15:00:32.772-07:00Thanks guys. Though I've found it hard to pars...Thanks guys. Though I've found it hard to parse how the fellow was actually harming me. Still, I complained.<br /><br />David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-76496511350286703622017-09-04T06:43:17.565-07:002017-09-04T06:43:17.565-07:00How'd you even find the identity-thief site? W...How'd you even find the identity-thief site? Which is also a crime the malefactor is committing in a way. Also alert the Red Cross, who may be going to dispense funds to the scammer.Jumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-90754439821328064352017-09-04T04:54:11.391-07:002017-09-04T04:54:11.391-07:00Just Google translated the dutch spam site, and it...Just Google translated the dutch spam site, and it turns out its a host for links intended to help you raise your search results on Google. Which is what spammers are doing when they post here. So spamming an SEO site to SEO the SEO site.Paul451https://www.blogger.com/profile/12119086761190994938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-72523787675186073862017-09-04T04:48:22.207-07:002017-09-04T04:48:22.207-07:00"(That said, of the DMCA compliance mechanism...<i>"(That said, of the DMCA compliance mechanisms I've looked at, that's a really badly designed report system.)"</i><br /><br />Wow, just had a look at google's, and it actually manages to be worse.Paul451https://www.blogger.com/profile/12119086761190994938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-67116145003211848852017-09-04T04:43:12.554-07:002017-09-04T04:43:12.554-07:00[Dutch spam?]
--
David,
Re: Facebook photo copie...[Dutch spam?]<br /><br />--<br /><br />David,<br />Re: Facebook photo copier.<br /><br />You can file a copyright complaint via <a href="https://www.facebook.com/help/contact/634636770043106?helpref=faq_content" rel="nofollow">https://www.facebook.com/help/contact/634636770043106?helpref=faq_content</a>.<br /><br />That's part of their DMCA requirement, so they can't ignore it if you report it properly. (That said, of the DMCA compliance mechanisms I've looked at, that's a really badly designed report system.)<br /><br />However, they are required to pass on your complaint <b>and contact details</b> to the accused party, so you might want to use an email/address that you don't mind being public (for eg, your lawyer or agent.)<br /><br />If you don't get a response to the online-form, the snail mail address to send a written DMCA take-down notice is:<br /><br />Facebook, Inc.<br /><i>Attn: Facebook Designated Agent</i><br />1601 Willow Road<br />Menlo Park, California 94025<br />650.543.4800 (phone)<br />650.560.6293 (fax)<br />ip@fb.com<br /><br />But then the burden is on you to properly format the DMCA notification.<br /><br />Have fun.<br /><br /><br />[If you're curious, I got there via "Help" (at the bottom of the page), then "Policies and Reporting" at the top. Then "Copyright" from the drop down. Then the link in "How do I..." under "Reporting Copyright Infringement on Facebook".]Paul451https://www.blogger.com/profile/12119086761190994938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-49565331927423842242017-09-04T01:12:02.737-07:002017-09-04T01:12:02.737-07:00Nice post keep it up
Linky.nl - Gratis links plaa...Nice post keep it up<br /><br /><a href="https://www.linky.nl" title="Linky.nl - Gratis links plaatsen, aanmelden en toevoegen." rel="nofollow">Linky.nl - Gratis links plaatsen, aanmelden en toevoegen.</a>Salim Digital Marketinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11170953171356322983noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-82491422426465162362017-09-03T20:01:00.086-07:002017-09-03T20:01:00.086-07:00Hamish,
No biggee. I was tired last night and did...Hamish,<br /><br />No biggee. I was tired last night and didn't read it until this morning. NBD.<br /><br />Larry,<br /><br />That Jack London might have written a work of corporate dystopia over a century ago doesn't surprise me one bit. That was the time of J.P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, Cornelius Vanderbilt, Andrew Carnegie, need I go on? Then there's "The Jungle," Veblen's "Theory of the Leisure Class," Herbert Spencer's distortion of biology erroneously called Social Darwinism, the Gilded Age. The Ludlow Massacre wasn't until 1917, so a bit later, but that was just a more blunt expression of the belief system that makes those lucky enough to be born into wealth or to claw and murder their way into wealth a higher-order race than the rest of us. America has only come close to living up to its ideals in the few decades after WW II when prosperity was not hoarded by minuscule fractions of the populace, and even then the McCarthy Era was a huge blotch on those vaunted ideals. Paul SBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-89690992648016763092017-09-03T19:57:24.615-07:002017-09-03T19:57:24.615-07:00Talking about 50 years
I have just found a paperba...Talking about 50 years<br />I have just found a paperback - a quartet of novellas set 50 years in the future<br />It was published in 1992 - about 2042 <br />We are now exactly half of the way there!<br /><br />I'm sure that I read it back in the 90's but I intend re-reading now at the halfway mark!duncan cairncrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14153725128216947145noreply@blogger.com