Slashdot Mirror
Grubb for Congress. By Weblog.
An anonymous reader writes: "Wired is running a story about a (Libertarian) candidate for Congress in North Carolina whose platform explicitly supports P2P file-sharing activity. She's running against one of the big supporters of the Berman P2P hacking bill." The weblog community is all excited over her because she drank the Kool-aid.
Will she break the 5-vote mark?
Roving Web-Teleoperated Robot
Another useful link here. GeekPac are attempting to use the same tactic as the big corps by trying to raise funds to push some less corporate "influenced" candidates (read sock-puppets) into the parties.
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
Well... They almost got the link right...
0 .html
But, they linked to the 2nd page of the story..
For those too lazy to do it themselves or too stupid to realize it here's the link.
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,54693,0
'Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test' Tom Wolfe
In this case I think it just means buying into something, i.e. having her own weblog.
Spencer Ogden
The idea is not to do away with all legislation,
you're thinking of anarchy. Libertarianism seeks
to reduce legislation to the origional consitutional
roles or protecting the population from force and
fraud. The gub'ment does a piss poor job of most
of the stuff it's involved in. What's needed to
prevent exploitation and toxic dumps is to make sure
that the true cost is stuck to the entity making the
purchase. If you polute, you must pay to clean it up
and pass those costs on to your customers. Then
you'll have an incentive not to polute, or at least
come up with a cheap efficient way to clean it up.
I am a Libertarian
I don't believe in music piracy
I do believe in P2P.
I disagree with how the RIAA/MPAA is trying to solve their problem.
If you don't agree w/ me, reply. I agree w/ the idea of copyprotected music. It is a produced object. Something that has time and money invested to produce an item that really does have actual value. If I produced a song that I specifically did not want to give away for free, I would try to keep it off P2P networks. I would contact those who are sharing these files and explain that they don't have permission from me to distribute this.
Now, let me step back and say. I do understand fair use. If you purchase my CD and rip it to MP3 that's fine. You purchased the CD, you purchase the rights to listen to the music but, you did not purchase the rights to re-distribute my works in a way I don't see fit.
OK.. Now step forward again. Why don't I like the way the MPAA/RIAA is protecting their property. There are/have been laws on the books that protect the copyright holders rights to published works. These laws explicity spelled out the fair uses of these works as well as protecting the creators. These laws worked for years on end. The change in technology didn't change the laws. The change in technology didn't make these laws less effective. You could easily still bring suit against a P2P user for sharing your music under the current legal system, it's just harder to do. So instead of attempting to protect their rights the hard way they simply bought laws to help them. These laws(DMCA, etc.) are what I have a problem with.
I abhor the creation of laws that violate my rights in any way shape or form. It is not the purpose of government to pick and choose winners by passing favorable laws it is the purpose of government to protect my rights.
That wouldn't be a Libertarian issue. The quickest way to get a bunch of Libertarians arguing among themselves is to bring up intellectual property. Half of them will be against it, and half will be for it.
The phrase "drank the Kool-Aid" is a reference to the cults whose followers drank poisoned Kool-Aid to commit suicide, because they were true believers in the cult and its charismatic leader. So to "drink the Kool-Aid" means you believe enough to stake your life on that belief.
Probably a bit exaggerated when it comes to weblogs, which are hardly a life-or-death proposition; but still, it shows she believes enough in the collaborative technology to use it as the centerpiece of her campaign. (Not to mention the fact that as a Libertarian, she probably has only enough funds for her 56K modem Internet account to get the campaigning done!)
Read her weblog, and Grubb seems like an honest person, with great ideas and views. Enthusiastic. Libertarian. We need more of those kinda people...
Will work for bandwidth
libertarian = liberty from excess government?
Yes, that's the core idea. Less Gub'ment, more liberty.
A smaller government both oppresses the people less and co$t$ less.
Of course, NO incumbent will have anything good to say about such a concept.
Unfortunately this doesn't draw much largesse from big corporations looking for favors, which is today's primary source of campaign funding, so you won't see many Libertarians on TV, or doing well in many elections, either.
Get ahold of and check out the list of contributors to both candidates of any major political campaign. SURPRISE! The _same_ companies are hedging their bets by supporting _both_ sides! No wonder there's not a gnat's ass worth of difference between their policies!
Exceeding the recommended torque is not recommended.
Their, they're. There just mad cause your good at spelling alot of words. Theirs alot of ./ers that arent virsed in contractshuns, hahmonihms and grammer to.
Here, Here!
Enigma
Ok, I assume you meant to be talking about Jim Jones and the People's Temple.
Of course you are completely wrong in this coloquialism. It is not a reference to the People's Temple suicide pact but Tom Wolfe's Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test.
How am I so damn sure? Because Jim Jones and the People's Temple did not drink Grape Kool-Aid, but cyanide laced Flavor-Aid, a cheap Kool-Aid rip off.
Moral of this story: Do some research before making up facts.
What is music when you despise all sound?
I don't think "GeekPAC" is necessarily the best name one could've picked if you want to be taken seriously. What's wrong with something a little more professional, like say "TechPAC"?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I'll bite.
It isn't the legal system, it's our political system. It is outrageously expensive to run for office here. Even candidates for House seats -- like Grubb -- often spend 7-figure sums for advertising and other campaign publicity. Get into state-wide or national offices and the cost escalates. We can't seem to get our collective head around real campaign finance reform, and spend endless cycles of legislative energy talking it to death.
End result: If your running for office, or in office planning for the next campaign, the first thing on your mind is going to be paying for it. Whether or not that constitutes bribery is, I suppose, a matter of definition, but there's no argument that it influences politicians behavior to the detriment of the public.
As for lobbying: If you want a politician to pay attention to you, the first thing you have to do is get in front of his or her face. I.e., on the calendar and in the office. By and large, any organization or "movement" with one or a few specific interests it wants to push isn't going to sway votes in Washington unless they have an office in D.C. actively working on their behalf. (Yep, that's called "special interests".) Of course, when a there's a genuine groundswell of opinion shifting with a constituency on a particular issue, even novice politicians pay attention (or lose the next election.)
So... i agree with Plotkin and Lessig that if those opposed to the DMCA/RIAA/MPAA/Berman et al legislation don't start playing the game, there's little chance that many politicians will be moved to change their votes. They would if this issue becomes visibly important to the broad U.S. electorate, but that kind of awareness isn't there . Elections are still won on bread-and-butter issues. Copyright infringement isn't one of those issues.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Put her in the chair, we need to see what she is made of.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
This is called "Freedom(pat.pend)". Unfortunately it's too complicated and threatening to be palatable to most Americans, hence we see the domination of the Demicans and the Republicrats.
Parties aren't about freedom. They're about like minds gathering to achieve goals. The idea is that if you pick the group which is the closest to your personal ideals, you'll see more things that you want happeneing and less that don't (assuming that you get them in charge.)
Until we manage to change campaign finance & how votes are counted (instant runoff, anyone?), third parites are little more than issue-raisers for the two big ones--who promptly raise up and take sides on any issues with significant debate on it.
I am free to do whatever the hell I want, and vote for whomever I want--but the only way to get someone I want in political office is to find a bunch of other free individuals and get all of us to agree on who's the best person for the job--so we can get someone we can tolerate in instead of someone we despise.
It used to not work this way--for all of eight years, until George Washington refused to run again.
Well to me personally the difference is that the library has temporarily transferred the rights of listening to the music to the borrower. It can be clearly defined that when one person or entity has paid for the use of the music, and only one person or entity is using that music at any given time.
Software companies, even Microsoft, used to state in their standard EULA's that you were allowed to make several copies of their software as long as it was only being used in one location at any time. These allowances (which imho should be declared as implicit anyway) have now dissapeared from the EULA's -- possibly because the companies believe it's too hard or inefficient for them to enforce. Instead "independent" organisations like the BSA, the MPAA and the RIAA have been formed by the corporate cartels to crack down on and frighten by legal threats anyone doing what the company decides it doesn't like, under the guise of IP law and in a way that they hope will never be decided on at a court that actually matters.
A peer-to-peer information sharing network doesn't naturally have this transferral of rights, because the information isn't moved. It's copied. Letting someone else use it doesn't prevent you from using it at the same time. If you look at a typical peer-to-peer music sharing network, this is exactly what happens. A few people buy something, and their versions of it are duplicated and shared many times between many thousands of people, all of whom are using it simultaneously and independently when often very few people have actually paid for it. Irrespective of how right or wrong anyone might believe it to be, this is nothing like how a library works.
Grub for congress? Lilo works fine, damnit!
Bootloaders don't need shells, and they certainly don't need to run for congress, damnit!
Tthe going rate is about $10,000,000 per park.
That's what Bill Clinton charged the Phillipine coal producers in capmaign donations to lock up the single largest reserve of clean coal in the United States into a national park in Southern Utah, right before he shepparded legislation through congress requiring coal-fired power plants use cleaner coal.
-- Terry
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I didn't assume she was a libertarian until I heard about her... and everyone said she was. Yes I agree she could be more laissez faire about a few things, I thought so too after I read the blog. But, that is also the only thing I've read from Grubb.
Who is libertarian and who is not? I myself am a liberal to the most part, but I'm probably moving towards libertarianism more and more. Question is if there's a complete and absolute definition on what libertarianism is? To me, some libertarians seem to be less libertarians and more liberal, and some of them seem to be anarchocapitalists. I am pretty sure that if you ask two libertarians whether we should have a central government or not, one might say "yes" while the others say "no". Then even those who are for a central government will very likely have different ideas as to how big it should be and what authorities it should have. And what about intellectual property laws? It seems to me that some libertarians want IP laws, others do not.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that libertarians aren't identical copies of each other and their views may differ. But that thing about 6 months maternal leave is clearly NOT for the government to decide.
Will work for bandwidth
"...with great ideas and views"
Aren't you a wee bit nervous of a politician who makes statements like "The history of the Middle East is the history of oil".?
I am really worried about a politican who thinks history = 90 years. This feels so close to the views of the European 19th Century powers that believed that African history started when they colonised the continent. Don't forget the earliest cities in the world (Ur, Akkad..) are in Iraq, the birthplace of our civilisation; there is 5000 years of history there. The foundation of the USA started there...
Hmm, just because somebody can use a weblog doesn't mean they are all right.