On Wednesday I attended a hearing in Felten vs. RIAA, the lawsuit filed by Professor Felten, other Princeton researchers, and USENIX against the RIAA, SDMI, Verance, and the Department of Justice. As you already know, the judge dismissed the case. But taking a look at the hearing might provide some insight into how the judicial system works.

Globalism ought to be a counterforce, democratizing the world and spreading technological and economic equality. Too often, it isn't. Take, for example, the corporatist American and European companies happily selling blocking software to countries like China and Saudi Arabia so their governments can pervert the Net to deny their citizens basic freedoms. This is a significant blow to the notion that technology will forge a more open world. And it might not be all that distant a threat. We have plenty of zealots and fanatics right here, all itching for a model way of blocking a free Net.

An open information society is inevitable. I was a little surprised last week to receive a forwarded e-mail from Junis, who lives in a small town 35 miles southwest of Kabul. This weekend, a movie theater and video store opened up again in Kabul (renting Independence Day), Afghan TV cranked up, and so did the Net. Americans understand all too well that our techno-driven culture produces wonders and dangers, but it's one of the most popular social and political forces in the world. Passion for pop culture relentlessly undermined repressive governments like Poland, East Germany and the former Soviet Union. The world, it turns out, really is porous now. Technology and information will squeeze through every closed nook and crevice. The Taliban never made a dent in the attachment this Afghan programmer and his friends had for it.

It's been impossible to avoid the hype on this film. Even if you avoid TV, the whole web has been bursting with bits, ranging from eBay to CNN.com. The AOL Time Warner conglomerate demands that you watch this movie. And you know what? So do I. Just watch out for all the strange people at the theater wearing cloaks and pointy hats. I thought Star Wars had freaky fans.

(Third of a series). Globalism is the biggest idea in the world right now. The French call it Mondialisation, the Germans say Globalisiening and throughout much of Latin America, it's called globalizacion. WTO talks and demos are underway in Japan this week. Even though globalism has many humanist advocates, much of what we used to call the political left hates it. So do religious fundamentalists and extremists like the Taliban, who equate it with godlessness and blashphemy. I've been writing about it for years, and got more than 2,000 responses and e-mails about it from some columns here last week, but you know what? I still couldn't tell you exactly what it is. "It's the biggest evil facing the world," e-mailed JDRow. "It's the only hope the world really has," messaged a professor from Amherst. Neither could say what it was. Can you?

If the Matrix successfully fused sci-fi, film noir and martial arts movies, maybe The One will end the shameless, non-stop ripoffs of the martial arts/ balletic combat sequences Neo brought to the big screen for the mass audience. This movie features not one but two Jet Li's, from parallel dimensions (sound familiar?), drop-kicking one another all over the galaxy, and both are stupefyingly boring. People who dodge bullets in slo-mo are getting to be so commonplace they're tiresome. And while we're at it, isn't it high time, so long as we're zipping people around via particle beams, to find a fresher weapon than the .9mm pistol that spews all those hot, clinking cartridges all over the place? Even passionate martial arts movie lovers can skip this one without regret, though two or three of the fight sequences were first rate. (Spoilage warning: plot discussed, not ending.)

Yes ladies and gentleman Pixar is back with its latest full length computer animated film, Monsters, Inc. And I braved crappiest theater in all of holland to see it opening night. My review follows, and although I've tried hard not to give any spoilers, I'll give away a few things that hopefully won't hurt anything for you. But the short review is that I liked it, but if you've read enough of my reviews, you know that I love eye candy kids movies, so be warned.

ruebarb writes "At 5pm last night, I proceeded to unwrap my shrinkwrapped Civization III box (purchased at EB) - I had spent the last two weeks broke and playing the old Civ II just for entertainment, so I've got the experience of that fresh in my memory. I went to bed at 3am 8 hours later...yikes." I've attached his review below - I've been playing it, and it is amazing. Not a revolutionary change, but definitely a big evolutionary change.

(Last of two parts): Is globalism as relentlessly evil and corrupt a force as all those nasty demonstrations in Seattle and Milan would suggest? Anti-globalists sometimes seem to confuse corporatism with globalism, lumping in all sorts of issues under one term. There are plenty of economists and social scientists who maintain that globalization -- including the spread of new information and business technologies -- can not only be a great force for good, but in some forms represents the only feasible cure for global poverty and inequality. They also argue that political leaders have to meet more, not less, about these problems.

Over the last few months, I've had a number of AskSlashdot questions about quiet computers, what hardware to get, and other items for assembling a mega-machine that won't knock the roof off. I've put the finishing touches on my own mega machine -- if you're looking at doing the same thing, or are just curious about the hardware involved, you can find out about what I built.

(First of two parts). Globalism is one of those notions much kicked around and little understood, shrouded in hysteria and knee-jerk cant. People with a host of grievances against technology, multinational corporations and capitalist democracies have made globalism a dirty word, at the same time that many social scientists and economists argue that the equitable spread of technology and a free-market economy is the planet's best hope. Either way, September 11 makes it clear that globalization - pitting fundamentalism against cosmopolitan tolerance - is one of the most important issues in our lifetimes.

Dare Obasanjo writes: "XML has become a pervasive part of significant segments of software development in a relatively short time. From file formats to network protocols to programming langauges, the influence of XML has been felt. I have written an overview of XML schemas, XML querying languages, XML-Enabled databases and native XML databases. Below is a shortened version of the article." Obasanjo's original OODBMS article has been updated to reflect more of the disadvantages between picking an OODBMS over an RDBMS.

The idea that lunatics in asylums are the only really sane people in this crazy world has become a staple of American movies, from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest to Girl Interrupted to K-PAX, a surreal, at-times-charming and curiously detached psychological drama starring Kevin Spacey and Jeff Bridges about the complex relationship between a self-proclaimed alien and an alienated psychiatrist. Spoilage warning: plot is discussed, but not ending. The film is more timely than it could possibly have intended to be.

In the last week or two, some of the media and political institutions responsible for providing clarity and coherent information appear to be unraveling under the stress of coping with terrorist attacks, especially the anthrax problems, casualties and resulting hysteria. One striking trend: technology has spawned too much instant and unfiltered media. This new, mostly screen-driven strain of Hypermedia are becoming a health and civic hazard all of their own, transmitting huge amounts of data and misinformation and fear along with real news. Learning how to cope with this Hypermedia -- especially in a crisis -- is now as critical to survival as combatting terrorism.

Big stories change media. Radio's high-water mark was World War II, and TV news came of age after John F. Kennedy's assassination. Elvis and his death gave birth to modern mass-marketed tabloid media. Increasingly, it appears the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon and the shooting war that began last night have made more distinct another evolutionary leap in information: the Net is emerging as our most serious communications medium and clearly the freest and most diverse. Conventional journalists are still obsessed with hackers and pornographers; still fuss about whether the Net is safe or factual. But increasingly, they steer readers to their websites for more in-depth information and conversation. When I appeared on a public radio program recently, the interviewer asked me to comment on reports that the Net was the source of epidemic "misinformation" about the terrorist attacks. The question was almost startlingly retro.

Political figures and military analysts are lining up on talk shows to caution Americans that this will be a different kind of war, protracted, costly, secretive. But recent military confrontations have taught Americans to expect conflicts primarily waged by machines -- wars without real sacrifice. This war began with dreadful, although geographically localized, civilian sacrifice. But those greenish nighttime pictures are already pouring out of Kabul and Kandahar, along with the precision-bomb photos, and satellite shots of training camps and military outposts. Most Americans are convinced that technology -- GPS targeting systems, thermal imaging, new intelligence retrieval systems, pilotless drone reconnaisance aircraft, high-altitude bombers, special forces equipped with goggles than can see into caves -- will carry the day for us. Will it? What can technology really do for us in this new war?

The first hour of Training Day showcases a great actor strutting his stuff in a surprising film with an original premise. Denzel Washington (Det. Alonzo Harris) is amazing as a rogue LAPD narc who's turning his new rookie partner Jake Hoyt (Ethan Hawke) to the dark side. But, inexplicably and sadly, the movie suddenly falls right off the cliff, degenerating into a dumb, improbable, almost cartoonishly violent mess. Spoilage warning: plot is discussed, but not ending.

Technology is the momma of the modern workplace, its creator, from the Industrial Revolution to the blessedly short-lived dot.com era. It has re-shaped work, making it cleaner, more mobile and flexible, safer -- but much less secure. Jobs now change as often as the market fluctuates, as mergers and takeovers shift the landscape, as the market bumps up and down, as marketing tracks our desires and dislikes, needs and whims. Technology makes it possible for companies to shift jobs all over the world, and redefine themselves in weeks and months. Qwest tossed 4,000 workers two weeks ago. The very idea of job security seems a casualty of the tech-driven global economy, with its continuous down-sizing, changing ownership and management goals, lateral strategies and evolving needs. Now we add terrorist attacks and a recession. The new corporate work ethic is change -- measured, defined and executed by corporate hierarchies. Do they owe anything to the people they dump?

We need a broader discussion about the tech world's growing and sometimes simplistic anxieties about free speech, privacy and other civil liberties in the wake of last Tuesday's attacks. It's been suggested that while thousands have lost their lives, millions more are in danger of losing certain rights because of the new wiretapping and surveillance authority the Justice Department is seeking. Those are valid worries. But there is a new reality in the post-World Trade Center world, one that now may have to balance some rights against others and prepare for aircraft-bombs, biological and chemical attacks,and horrific assaults on civilians. As bad as it was, it could have been much worse. I'm not sure I'm ready to tell those kids whose parents didn't come home last week that they and others down the road just have to suck it up because people may be unwilling -- even temporarily -- to lose any measure of privacy.

As noxious as Washington talk shows generally are, this weekend's were significant. Watching all of the Talking Head shows out of D.C., I struggled to decipher the particular meaning, language and codes of that city's inhabitants. George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Dick Cheney and others were on the tube all weekend, and they seemed to be sending the same signals and saying something important. They were talking about a "new kind of war," one that re-emphasized human analysis and intelligence gathering, but also offered a central role for many involved in security technology, from electronic ID to surveillance. They were not talking about Desert Storm, but something radically different. As usual, the media offered much rhetoric, few details. And there are substantial concerns about privacy and civil liberties. People are wondering how this new kind of war might work, what it might look like. Some of you might have some ideas.