summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/old/published/Webmonkey/Monkey_Bites/2007/03.19.07/Mon/elsewhere.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'old/published/Webmonkey/Monkey_Bites/2007/03.19.07/Mon/elsewhere.txt')
-rw-r--r--old/published/Webmonkey/Monkey_Bites/2007/03.19.07/Mon/elsewhere.txt18
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 18 deletions
diff --git a/old/published/Webmonkey/Monkey_Bites/2007/03.19.07/Mon/elsewhere.txt b/old/published/Webmonkey/Monkey_Bites/2007/03.19.07/Mon/elsewhere.txt
deleted file mode 100644
index 6f0f7fc..0000000
--- a/old/published/Webmonkey/Monkey_Bites/2007/03.19.07/Mon/elsewhere.txt
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,18 +0,0 @@
-Elsewhere on Wired:
-
-* Listening Post's Eliot Van Buskirk has some [choice quotes from a SXSW panel with Iggy Pop][1] (and all I got was microformats?): "American Indians and bellydancers -- those were influences too. I was really interested in Stone Age people in college."
-
-[1]: http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/03/iggy_pop_takes_.html "Iggy Pop and the Stooges Take the Stage"
-
-* 27B Stroke 6 tells us what we all know, but don't want to admit, the FBI lied, knew it lied, is probably still lying and doesn't give a damn by most accounts. [According to Luke O'Brien][2]: "Senior officials at the FBI alerted the bureau beginning in 2004 to legal problems with national security letters, but the bureau ignored or downplayed the warnings and continued to spy on Americans using methods of questionable legality, according to reports coming to light throughout the media yesterday and today."
-
-[2]: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/03/fbi_knew_spying.html "FBI Knew Spying Was Illegal in 2004, Did Nothing"
-
-* Table of Malcontent's John Brownlee [digs deeper into John Hargrave's claim][3] that he pranked Super Bowl. What happens when you build it and nobody notices?
-
-[3]: http://blog.wired.com/tableofmalcontents/2007/03/was_the_super_b.html "Was The Super Bowl Pranked?"
-
-* Regina Lynn at Sex Drive Daily [reports][4] on an article about the future of sex in which one James Hughes argues: "the two most important developments in the technological control of sex are both already occurring; first separating sex from physical contact, and then establishing our control over our sexual feelings altogether..." Regina politely refuses to dismiss the good Dr Hughes outright which is where I step in, that hypothesis Doctor, is a load of crap. Next.
-
-[4]: http://blog.wired.com/sex/2007/03/bleak_outlook_f.html "Bleak Outlook for Sex, Predicts Bioethicist/Sociologist"
-