Or alternatively everyone could just show up like normal but without buying a ticket. How do you stop THAT many people in the middle of a desert?
By asking nicely and giving more than you are asking them to give up. Much like we keep telling the music industry to do. It actually works. It's pretty cool -- you should come some time.
Wow, it amazes me how many comments start or end with "I don't go to Burning Man, but I know how that community should work." No, you don't. You don't have any idea what Burning Man is.
People keep saying it's a public event in a public space. No, it is not. It is a private event on leased land.
People keep saying these are their photographs in question. No, for the most part they are not. When you take a picture of a non-public figure on private property without consent where the subject matter is primarily that person, you do not have full exclusive rights to that photograph -- it is not "yours" in the legal or moral sense. When you take a picture where the subject is primarily someone else's work of art, particularly on private property, you do not have full exclusive rights to that photograph -- it is not "yours" in the legal or moral sense. When TIVO misappropriated the Linux kernel, where were all you screaming, "This is TIVO's software!" No, it wasn't.
People keep saying they've never been, but they think it sucks now and used to be better. WTF?!? What would you say to someone who said, "I've never read Slashdot, but it's just a bunch of teenagers talking about Miley Cyrus, so it sucks."
Nearly fifty thousand people will haul everything it takes to survive for a week in one of the most barren and hostile environments on the planet in two weeks. You don't know shit about why we do it, and what we have to attempt to make it work. The United States legal and cultural systems are completely fucked and make it incredibly hard for Burning Man to work. Yet we still try, and we get pretty goddamned close to what we are trying to achieve. So until you've been there, until you've been through a four hour dust storm, watched it destroy half your camp, and come out smiling because that dust storm means you are home (and your in-camp DJs didn't drop the beat the whole time) -- you don't know what you are talking about.
It has been (and even continues to be) my normal course to follow the standard pattern. But given the opportunity that exists on this and some other forums to learn from intelligent, hard-thinking folks like yourself, I am trying to be better. I am happy that I managed it this time, and will continue to do my best.
If you decide to give Burning Man a try, drop by the ToneAge camp (or even join us) and ask for Bob -- we can try to solve gun control over a couple beers and some dirty beats.:)
What about my freedom to use MY works for MY purpose without some corporate ass coming along saying he owns MY work?
If you are taking pictures of yourself, or of your art installation, or of natural phenonena, or of things which are not themselves art, then it is YOUR work.
If you are taking pictures of someone else's art, then it is a derivative of someone else's work.
If you are taking pictures of a person who is not a public figure without a release, and the subject matter is substantially that person, then it is also not exclusively your work.
Not trying to ban cameras, or even publishing. Only trying to inhibit publishing that causes a greater loss of freedom to act than loss of freedom from its inhibition. It is an idealistic notion that cannot be achieved: Allowing photography and publication in general while inhibiting the kind of publication that would hurt the community is a ridiculous notion to attempt to put into practice. But, then, Burners in general are an idealistic bunch. We generally believe in attempting something better, even when failure is a foregone conclusion.
Having 47,000 people in the barren desert -- very little law, no water, no food, no commerce (except coffee, ice, and now electrolyte drinks), virtually no provided infrastructure at all -- it is a completely unrealistic idea. That's part of what makes it fun.
The fact that 47,000 people are willing to give it a go once a year, to run the experiment for a week and learn from it, implies that they are the sort who seek the ideal outcome. Freedom to photograph without the ability to damage the community is a good objective. Of course it is not realistic. No more than cleaning up corruption in DC is realistic -- but it is still worth trying. The objective is good, and testing different paths is good. And I hope they reject the DMCA path (in fact, I'll be putting it on the citizen survey that guides the next year's event), but I also hope they continue to try paths.
Giving up is perfectly reasonable. But then, as Shaw said:
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
Burning Man is, among many other things, a bunch of unreasonable people testing hypotheses about better society.
Aside: I'm not calling you a hypocrite any more than I am calling myself a hypocrite. I too believe in both perfect freedom and a world perfectly adapted to my views. Those things are in conflict. My goal is not for me to be perfect, I know I'm flawed (and you may be, but I am not trying to judge that). My goal is to explore my beliefs, find the ones that are in conflict, and try to resolve them. Some, like this and the gun control issue, are difficult for me. That is what makes them interesting to think about, and discuss.
And much as you see the freedom to live without fear as more important than the freedom to carry, I find the freedom to act without inhibition at Burning Man to be more important than the freedom to publish photographs of it.
So, what you're saying then, is that you support prohibition of the freedom to carry arms when it supports your freedom to live without fear. Sometimes, freedoms are in conflict, and one must choose which freedom is more important.
I totally dig what you are saying. But again, I have to say, I'm not advocating the means. I am saying the end is worthy. That the GPL is a good thing, despite the fact that it relies upon inhibiting freedom to achieve its goal. That anti-trust policies are a good thing, despite the fact that they inhibit the free action of corporations.
Another angle: One of the things they taught when I took concealed carry classes was to "not spook the horses." That you shouldn't let the general public see that you are carrying, because most of them won't understand. And if they don't understand, they will get spooked, and try to make you stop (usually with laws). That's one of the risks that Burning Man faces. We blow shit up, we run around naked, we have giant mechanical contraptions that could easily kill a person. We do it all safely, but the public wouldn't understand that. It would spook the horses, and they would try to make us stop.
How do you prevent that? How do you prevent the public from getting into nanny mode and shutting down Burning Man because they don't understand?
putting all burning man images under corporate ownership
Not all photographs, only the ones that violate the spirit of the city. Having the corporation make that decision is certainly less than ideal. A working alternative would be a good thing.
doesn't provide you any fucking protection
It provides some protection. Not 100%, but some. This might not even be a good solution, but that's not what I'm positing. I hate the DMCA, and I'd rather not see it used for anything, including this. Moreover I think it should be repealed and its original authors and everyone who voted for it should be put on trial for treason.
I am only saying the objective is a worthy one in some BRC citizens minds.
"i wish to dance around nude, free and open to the world... but i wish to control the freedoms of anyone who's eyes and cameras might see me"
Me personally? Actually not. I have no problem with eyes and cameras. I do have a problem with cockshirts, but even them I would not ban.
I have a problem with publication of the images without the consent of the people photographed.
This statement is misleading. Burning Man is a gated community that exists on public ground. It is not like a sidewalk on a city street. The event coordinators could prohibit all photography as happens at, for example, concerts in Central Park. So the implied rights infringement in your claim of "public ground" is false.
If you are concerned about the possibility that a picture of your naked carcass will be spread all over the internet, don't walk around naked in an area where people have cameras.
That is the inhibition to freedom in question. That the risk of having your photograph published inhibits your free action in a gated community.
Are you now inhibited because your mama might see you naked on the internet? Maybe, but the artists I respect don't much give a damn about what other people think
The artists you respect are a very limited subset of artists in general. Most artists have lots of things they do or don't do for lots of reasons. Most artists are bags of stormy and conflicting emotions that are the source of their genius. Certainly some of them do not want their pictures published on wanker websites.
Moreover, it's not just about the traditional artists. The people who make Black Rock City work include welders (mechanical and artistic), bartenders, chefs, carpenters, hackers, solar energy researchers, DJs, and a raft of others. Lots of those people don't fit your tiny mold of "artist" and many of them are quite inhibited about publication of their picture. Some of them go to Burning Man precisely because it is one of the few places in the world where they can be themselves without being made the subject of public judgment.
Do you not see the inhibition to freedom implicit in that statement?
The desire to be nude in a community where nudity is normal and the willingness to have one's picture published on a wanker website are different things. One freedom inhibits the other.
I'm not saying which is the more important freedom in general, but you must see that there is the possibility of a community which decides that the freedom to not wear clothes is more important than the freedom of a photographer to publish a picture of a person without their consent.
Don't like people taking pictures of you? Either A) Don't go out in public,
That is the inhibition to freedom in question. The desire to not wear clothes in a community that supports that behavior does not imply comfort with having one's picture published on a wanker website. If you allow the latter, you inhibit some of the people who would otherwise be free to engage in the former.
It becomes a question of which freedom is more important -- the freedom to publish photographs of a person without consent on a wanker website, or the freedom of the individual to choose whether to wear clothes in a gated community.
Also note: I think the term "public" is confusing here. The public can buy a ticket and attend Burning Man, but it is not public in the sense of a sidewalk on a city street. You can't just walk in any more than you can just walk in to a concert in Central Park. There are some idealist Burners who hop the fence, but it would be a rare case for such an idealist to also be an exploitative photographer.
or B) gather your courage and challenge each person who you catch taking your picture without your consent until the culture changes.
This definitely happens as well. The cockshirts face significant social pressure on the playa. But one can not -- and should not have to -- constantly watch everyone around to see if they have a camera.
There is a good reason for it. Burning Man permits all sorts of non-standard behavior, including nudity. For people to feel comfortable in such an environment, photography has to be limited. For the most part this is not a problem -- real Burners ask before taking a person's picture. But there is a bad element that goes to Burning Man; the tourists. They generally arrive on Thursday or Friday, camera in hand, and start snapping pictures.
Those pictures do two bad things: They inhibit people from acting freely, and they present the wrong image of Burning Man. It is not about nudity, but the daffy ducks with their cameras would make it look like it is; as they walk right past some of the most inspiring art in the world to snap a picture of a person who chose not to wear clothes that day. Keeping those pictures -- which misrepresent the event and are widely reviled by Burners -- off the Internet is a good thing.
I am a hard-core supporter of the EFF, but this time they are wrong to judge. Burning Man is a community with certain standards. Making sure Black Rock City remains free -- in both the legal and the psychological sense -- is one of them. Much like the GPL or anti-trust laws, sometimes freedom is best served by restricting behavior that inhibits freedom.
Judges swear an oath to the Constitution. Not to the nation, president, states, God, nor anything else.
Right on -- all agreed. In my own head I use "Nation" and "Constitution" as synonyms, since to me this nation is its principles (or, perhaps, is intended to be rather than "is"), but that is not how most people see it, and you are correct that I should be more precise.
Lately it seems that the big companies are getting affected by patent trolls more than the little guys (they have more money). And the big corps have enough political clout to push through patent reform laws. So if they are getting hammered like this, why aren't they lobbying for patent reform? Are they just not getting hit hard enough?
They have been. Microsoft has been pushing for changes that would dramatically increase the paperwork ballet that one must choreograph to get a patent. That would push independent inventors and small businesses out of the patent circle, and make it easier for companies on the scale of Microsoft, with their in-house legal departments, to use procedure to break the backs of patent trolls who get in their way. Patent trolls would be reduced to killing off independents and small businesses that are not capable of the complex legal ballet Microsoft proposes.
See, Microsoft is trying to fix the system (at least in the sense that the system will be even more fixed).
Actually, it was. It showed a fundamental understanding of the law and how it pertained to the ruling she made. She got it right. It sucks, and hard, but she got it 100% right.
There has to be a different answer than this. There must be a part of the government whose job it is to make sure law is rational. That seems like the sort of thing for the judicial to do. If she is not at fault then the entire judicial system is. This is not a rational law, and a system which does not correct irrational laws is broken.
As to her culpability: Did she state in her opinion that the law is irrational and should be changed but cannot be because the system is broken? Did she identify any possible path for the irrational law to be changed? If not, she is complicit in the broken system and should be judged just as harshly as the system itself. When the gatekeepers of justice fail to seek justice in favor of blind obedience to the letter of an unjust law, they are failing in their sworn duty to the nation.
The one internal ISP that continues to see significant traffic during those three weeks counts many government ministries among its clientèle.
This strikes me as a rather fundamental big red flag. When a government feels that otherwise public information is safe for government officials to view, but that the citizens must be forbidden from seeing it, there is a foundational problem.
We have a few such cases here in the United States (even outside the scope national security, which information is typically not "otherwise public"), but they are thankfully limited. We have done fairly well in this regard, and should continue to be diligent in fighting its spread.
There i'snt a *single* investor in the entire united states who would give money (I'm talking about serious money..) to a startup who *doesn't* want to patent whatever tech their business is going to produce.
I agree that is also true, and a problem. Investor money is concentrated in business models that can fabricate a barrier to entry. A healthy market would spread such money more broadly to include startups that simply fill a gap in regional supply, for example. There are, of course, many more examples than this of how the patent game has distorted the free market. But I am being too miserly with my praise -- I haven't really thought about this particular aspect as critique of the patent system, and I appreciate you pointing it out.
Also, given that the big corporates like Oracle, Sun, MS, Apple get sued on a daily basis, having a big patent chest is the best thing they can do to protect themselves.
This is one I have spent some time thinking about, and again I concur. The fact that the patent system as it is currently distorted creates a need for corporations to fabricate defensive portfolios is a significant source of economic friction. It is yet another reason to hate the game and it is often overlooked. It is pleasing to hear someone else point it out.
MS has over ten thousand patents and have *hardly* sued anybody
It is true that they rarely throw hard fouls. That does not change the fact that they are not opposing the badly distorted patent system. In fact they have invested extensively in lobbying to make it work better for them. For example, the increased paperwork requirements they have been pushing which favor corporations with in-house legal departments over independent inventors and small businesses.
(compared to the more litigious 'cool' company elsewhere in california)
Not sure which one you're referring to, Apple or Google (those seem like the most likely to be called "cool"), but I give them no quarter in their support of inefficient artificial barriers to entry either.
its just childish to single them out
Yes, it would be. I do not. It is good of you to help guide those in our community who apply double standards. Given that this thread was about Microsoft, though, I do not feel that posting on-topic was out of line.
(aside: you should have seen my fire-breathing rant about Apple's false testimony to the FTC in defense of their trust with AT&T, despite the fact that I own and love my Macbook, on my main mailing list -- but I digress)
But hey, its a free country..
Not always, but I have great respect for the sentiment.
:p
Awww, come on -- we're just getting to the good part of the thought process, after the initial conflict, where we seek our common ground. I think this stage is better marked with a:)
Being a nice customer simply doesn't pay anymore these days.
It pays sometimes. It pays in karma and even repeat customer goodwill when the company itself is nice.
OK, I know, that sounds like crazy talk -- nice companies?!? WTF am I smoking?!? But seriously, such companies do exist!
For one example, go see Cole Hardware on 4th between Mission and Market in San Francisco. Locally owned and operated for decades. They care about their customers, because they know their customers, and they have to be nice or their customers will go to Lowe's.
Of course, any megacorp run by MBAs will be deeply infected with the "corporations are supposed to be amoral" meme. It is a standard part of business school philosophy, and an MBA is required to be in the decision making offices.
But that doesn't mean all corporations are evil. Just most of the big ones and a lot of the small ones. That doesn't mean you have to never be a nice customer, it means there is a lot of potential relative value in finding companies whose profit is aligned with them being nice to you. Then you can be nice to them, and have less ulcers.
Obviously not possible for all products, but worth exploring where you can.
I also hate players who do not make an effort to make the game better.
This isn't pimping, it is our economy. Our ability to compete with other nations. If the so-called leaders of industry can't be bothered to defend the free market, they should be hated. That is the role of the silent hand of the free market, to withhold trade from such bad actors, until they reform or fail.
If we, the silent hand, do not correct them, either their friction will continue to impede the GDP, or the government will have to impose its inefficient regulation. Is it not better for us, the silent hand, to make a well-informed decision about our purchases? to make a decision which includes rational contemplation of the effect the corporation in question has on our national economy?
Should we, the silent hand of the free market, abdicate our economic responsibility in favor of a sing-song ditty used by basketball players to justify hard fouls?
This isn't a basketball game. It is the economic future of our nation. Given our influence both direct and indirect, it has a strong effect on the economy of the entire planet. Considering these issues seriously is our duty. If you don't want to participate, fine. But don't fault others for doing their duty to preserve the free market.
Thanks for the info -- I thought amphetamines posed similar risk as the harder drugs on the list, but must admit I have not done the research. I will reconsider my prejudice. Thanks!
In fact, Amazon's cloud infrastructure is far more distributed than most other individual companies infrastructure.
Perhaps you don't understand the term. Centralization is when large amounts of otherwise individual somethings are aggregated in a single something else. A bunch of individual somethings cannot be more centralized than a single something. Hmm, that definition is clumsy. Try reading this:
Slashdot Mirror
Or alternatively everyone could just show up like normal but without buying a ticket. How do you stop THAT many people in the middle of a desert?
By asking nicely and giving more than you are asking them to give up. Much like we keep telling the music industry to do. It actually works. It's pretty cool -- you should come some time.
Wow, it amazes me how many comments start or end with "I don't go to Burning Man, but I know how that community should work." No, you don't. You don't have any idea what Burning Man is.
People keep saying it's a public event in a public space. No, it is not. It is a private event on leased land.
People keep saying these are their photographs in question. No, for the most part they are not. When you take a picture of a non-public figure on private property without consent where the subject matter is primarily that person, you do not have full exclusive rights to that photograph -- it is not "yours" in the legal or moral sense. When you take a picture where the subject is primarily someone else's work of art, particularly on private property, you do not have full exclusive rights to that photograph -- it is not "yours" in the legal or moral sense. When TIVO misappropriated the Linux kernel, where were all you screaming, "This is TIVO's software!" No, it wasn't.
People keep saying they've never been, but they think it sucks now and used to be better. WTF?!? What would you say to someone who said, "I've never read Slashdot, but it's just a bunch of teenagers talking about Miley Cyrus, so it sucks."
Nearly fifty thousand people will haul everything it takes to survive for a week in one of the most barren and hostile environments on the planet in two weeks. You don't know shit about why we do it, and what we have to attempt to make it work. The United States legal and cultural systems are completely fucked and make it incredibly hard for Burning Man to work. Yet we still try, and we get pretty goddamned close to what we are trying to achieve. So until you've been there, until you've been through a four hour dust storm, watched it destroy half your camp, and come out smiling because that dust storm means you are home (and your in-camp DJs didn't drop the beat the whole time) -- you don't know what you are talking about.
Thanks! :)
It has been (and even continues to be) my normal course to follow the standard pattern. But given the opportunity that exists on this and some other forums to learn from intelligent, hard-thinking folks like yourself, I am trying to be better. I am happy that I managed it this time, and will continue to do my best.
If you decide to give Burning Man a try, drop by the ToneAge camp (or even join us) and ask for Bob -- we can try to solve gun control over a couple beers and some dirty beats. :)
What about my freedom to use MY works for MY purpose without some corporate ass coming along saying he owns MY work?
If you are taking pictures of yourself, or of your art installation, or of natural phenonena, or of things which are not themselves art, then it is YOUR work.
If you are taking pictures of someone else's art, then it is a derivative of someone else's work.
If you are taking pictures of a person who is not a public figure without a release, and the subject matter is substantially that person, then it is also not exclusively your work.
Not trying to ban cameras, or even publishing. Only trying to inhibit publishing that causes a greater loss of freedom to act than loss of freedom from its inhibition. It is an idealistic notion that cannot be achieved: Allowing photography and publication in general while inhibiting the kind of publication that would hurt the community is a ridiculous notion to attempt to put into practice. But, then, Burners in general are an idealistic bunch. We generally believe in attempting something better, even when failure is a foregone conclusion.
Having 47,000 people in the barren desert -- very little law, no water, no food, no commerce (except coffee, ice, and now electrolyte drinks), virtually no provided infrastructure at all -- it is a completely unrealistic idea. That's part of what makes it fun.
The fact that 47,000 people are willing to give it a go once a year, to run the experiment for a week and learn from it, implies that they are the sort who seek the ideal outcome. Freedom to photograph without the ability to damage the community is a good objective. Of course it is not realistic. No more than cleaning up corruption in DC is realistic -- but it is still worth trying. The objective is good, and testing different paths is good. And I hope they reject the DMCA path (in fact, I'll be putting it on the citizen survey that guides the next year's event), but I also hope they continue to try paths.
Giving up is perfectly reasonable. But then, as Shaw said:
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
Burning Man is, among many other things, a bunch of unreasonable people testing hypotheses about better society.
Aside: I'm not calling you a hypocrite any more than I am calling myself a hypocrite. I too believe in both perfect freedom and a world perfectly adapted to my views. Those things are in conflict. My goal is not for me to be perfect, I know I'm flawed (and you may be, but I am not trying to judge that). My goal is to explore my beliefs, find the ones that are in conflict, and try to resolve them. Some, like this and the gun control issue, are difficult for me. That is what makes them interesting to think about, and discuss.
And much as you see the freedom to live without fear as more important than the freedom to carry, I find the freedom to act without inhibition at Burning Man to be more important than the freedom to publish photographs of it.
So, what you're saying then, is that you support prohibition of the freedom to carry arms when it supports your freedom to live without fear. Sometimes, freedoms are in conflict, and one must choose which freedom is more important.
I totally dig what you are saying. But again, I have to say, I'm not advocating the means. I am saying the end is worthy. That the GPL is a good thing, despite the fact that it relies upon inhibiting freedom to achieve its goal. That anti-trust policies are a good thing, despite the fact that they inhibit the free action of corporations.
Another angle: One of the things they taught when I took concealed carry classes was to "not spook the horses." That you shouldn't let the general public see that you are carrying, because most of them won't understand. And if they don't understand, they will get spooked, and try to make you stop (usually with laws). That's one of the risks that Burning Man faces. We blow shit up, we run around naked, we have giant mechanical contraptions that could easily kill a person. We do it all safely, but the public wouldn't understand that. It would spook the horses, and they would try to make us stop.
How do you prevent that? How do you prevent the public from getting into nanny mode and shutting down Burning Man because they don't understand?
putting all burning man images under corporate ownership
Not all photographs, only the ones that violate the spirit of the city. Having the corporation make that decision is certainly less than ideal. A working alternative would be a good thing.
doesn't provide you any fucking protection
It provides some protection. Not 100%, but some. This might not even be a good solution, but that's not what I'm positing. I hate the DMCA, and I'd rather not see it used for anything, including this. Moreover I think it should be repealed and its original authors and everyone who voted for it should be put on trial for treason.
I am only saying the objective is a worthy one in some BRC citizens minds.
"i wish to dance around nude, free and open to the world... but i wish to control the freedoms of anyone who's eyes and cameras might see me"
Me personally? Actually not. I have no problem with eyes and cameras. I do have a problem with cockshirts, but even them I would not ban.
I have a problem with publication of the images without the consent of the people photographed.
on public ground
This statement is misleading. Burning Man is a gated community that exists on public ground. It is not like a sidewalk on a city street. The event coordinators could prohibit all photography as happens at, for example, concerts in Central Park. So the implied rights infringement in your claim of "public ground" is false.
If you are concerned about the possibility that a picture of your naked carcass will be spread all over the internet, don't walk around naked in an area where people have cameras.
That is the inhibition to freedom in question. That the risk of having your photograph published inhibits your free action in a gated community.
Are you now inhibited because your mama might see you naked on the internet? Maybe, but the artists I respect don't much give a damn about what other people think
The artists you respect are a very limited subset of artists in general. Most artists have lots of things they do or don't do for lots of reasons. Most artists are bags of stormy and conflicting emotions that are the source of their genius. Certainly some of them do not want their pictures published on wanker websites.
Moreover, it's not just about the traditional artists. The people who make Black Rock City work include welders (mechanical and artistic), bartenders, chefs, carpenters, hackers, solar energy researchers, DJs, and a raft of others. Lots of those people don't fit your tiny mold of "artist" and many of them are quite inhibited about publication of their picture. Some of them go to Burning Man precisely because it is one of the few places in the world where they can be themselves without being made the subject of public judgment.
Having such a place is a good thing.
don't like that? then don't get nude.
Do you not see the inhibition to freedom implicit in that statement?
The desire to be nude in a community where nudity is normal and the willingness to have one's picture published on a wanker website are different things. One freedom inhibits the other.
I'm not saying which is the more important freedom in general, but you must see that there is the possibility of a community which decides that the freedom to not wear clothes is more important than the freedom of a photographer to publish a picture of a person without their consent.
Don't like people taking pictures of you? Either A) Don't go out in public,
That is the inhibition to freedom in question. The desire to not wear clothes in a community that supports that behavior does not imply comfort with having one's picture published on a wanker website. If you allow the latter, you inhibit some of the people who would otherwise be free to engage in the former.
It becomes a question of which freedom is more important -- the freedom to publish photographs of a person without consent on a wanker website, or the freedom of the individual to choose whether to wear clothes in a gated community.
Also note: I think the term "public" is confusing here. The public can buy a ticket and attend Burning Man, but it is not public in the sense of a sidewalk on a city street. You can't just walk in any more than you can just walk in to a concert in Central Park. There are some idealist Burners who hop the fence, but it would be a rare case for such an idealist to also be an exploitative photographer.
or B) gather your courage and challenge each person who you catch taking your picture without your consent until the culture changes.
This definitely happens as well. The cockshirts face significant social pressure on the playa. But one can not -- and should not have to -- constantly watch everyone around to see if they have a camera.
so confiscate cameras. duh. end of problem
There are a lot of artist photographers who go to Burning Man. Those pictures are not the problem.
There are a lot of Burners who take pictures of art and of people who are happy to have their picture taken. Those pictures are not the problem.
you don't want to be seen naked in public, don't be naked in public.
They are not naked in public. They are naked in a gated community.
There is a good reason for it. Burning Man permits all sorts of non-standard behavior, including nudity. For people to feel comfortable in such an environment, photography has to be limited. For the most part this is not a problem -- real Burners ask before taking a person's picture. But there is a bad element that goes to Burning Man; the tourists. They generally arrive on Thursday or Friday, camera in hand, and start snapping pictures.
Those pictures do two bad things: They inhibit people from acting freely, and they present the wrong image of Burning Man. It is not about nudity, but the daffy ducks with their cameras would make it look like it is; as they walk right past some of the most inspiring art in the world to snap a picture of a person who chose not to wear clothes that day. Keeping those pictures -- which misrepresent the event and are widely reviled by Burners -- off the Internet is a good thing.
I am a hard-core supporter of the EFF, but this time they are wrong to judge. Burning Man is a community with certain standards. Making sure Black Rock City remains free -- in both the legal and the psychological sense -- is one of them. Much like the GPL or anti-trust laws, sometimes freedom is best served by restricting behavior that inhibits freedom.
Judges swear an oath to the Constitution. Not to the nation, president, states, God, nor anything else.
Right on -- all agreed. In my own head I use "Nation" and "Constitution" as synonyms, since to me this nation is its principles (or, perhaps, is intended to be rather than "is"), but that is not how most people see it, and you are correct that I should be more precise.
Lately it seems that the big companies are getting affected by patent trolls more than the little guys (they have more money). And the big corps have enough political clout to push through patent reform laws. So if they are getting hammered like this, why aren't they lobbying for patent reform? Are they just not getting hit hard enough?
They have been. Microsoft has been pushing for changes that would dramatically increase the paperwork ballet that one must choreograph to get a patent. That would push independent inventors and small businesses out of the patent circle, and make it easier for companies on the scale of Microsoft, with their in-house legal departments, to use procedure to break the backs of patent trolls who get in their way. Patent trolls would be reduced to killing off independents and small businesses that are not capable of the complex legal ballet Microsoft proposes.
See, Microsoft is trying to fix the system (at least in the sense that the system will be even more fixed).
Actually, it was. It showed a fundamental understanding of the law and how it pertained to the ruling she made. She got it right. It sucks, and hard, but she got it 100% right.
There has to be a different answer than this. There must be a part of the government whose job it is to make sure law is rational. That seems like the sort of thing for the judicial to do. If she is not at fault then the entire judicial system is. This is not a rational law, and a system which does not correct irrational laws is broken.
As to her culpability: Did she state in her opinion that the law is irrational and should be changed but cannot be because the system is broken? Did she identify any possible path for the irrational law to be changed? If not, she is complicit in the broken system and should be judged just as harshly as the system itself. When the gatekeepers of justice fail to seek justice in favor of blind obedience to the letter of an unjust law, they are failing in their sworn duty to the nation.
The one internal ISP that continues to see significant traffic during those three weeks counts many government ministries among its clientèle.
This strikes me as a rather fundamental big red flag. When a government feels that otherwise public information is safe for government officials to view, but that the citizens must be forbidden from seeing it, there is a foundational problem.
We have a few such cases here in the United States (even outside the scope national security, which information is typically not "otherwise public"), but they are thankfully limited. We have done fairly well in this regard, and should continue to be diligent in fighting its spread.
There i'snt a *single* investor in the entire united states who would give money (I'm talking about serious money..) to a startup who *doesn't* want to patent whatever tech their business is going to produce.
I agree that is also true, and a problem. Investor money is concentrated in business models that can fabricate a barrier to entry. A healthy market would spread such money more broadly to include startups that simply fill a gap in regional supply, for example. There are, of course, many more examples than this of how the patent game has distorted the free market. But I am being too miserly with my praise -- I haven't really thought about this particular aspect as critique of the patent system, and I appreciate you pointing it out.
Also, given that the big corporates like Oracle, Sun, MS, Apple get sued on a daily basis, having a big patent chest is the best thing they can do to protect themselves.
This is one I have spent some time thinking about, and again I concur. The fact that the patent system as it is currently distorted creates a need for corporations to fabricate defensive portfolios is a significant source of economic friction. It is yet another reason to hate the game and it is often overlooked. It is pleasing to hear someone else point it out.
MS has over ten thousand patents and have *hardly* sued anybody
It is true that they rarely throw hard fouls. That does not change the fact that they are not opposing the badly distorted patent system. In fact they have invested extensively in lobbying to make it work better for them. For example, the increased paperwork requirements they have been pushing which favor corporations with in-house legal departments over independent inventors and small businesses.
(compared to the more litigious 'cool' company elsewhere in california)
Not sure which one you're referring to, Apple or Google (those seem like the most likely to be called "cool"), but I give them no quarter in their support of inefficient artificial barriers to entry either.
its just childish to single them out
Yes, it would be. I do not. It is good of you to help guide those in our community who apply double standards. Given that this thread was about Microsoft, though, I do not feel that posting on-topic was out of line.
(aside: you should have seen my fire-breathing rant about Apple's false testimony to the FTC in defense of their trust with AT&T, despite the fact that I own and love my Macbook, on my main mailing list -- but I digress)
But hey, its a free country..
Not always, but I have great respect for the sentiment.
:p
Awww, come on -- we're just getting to the good part of the thought process, after the initial conflict, where we seek our common ground. I think this stage is better marked with a :)
Being a nice customer simply doesn't pay anymore these days.
It pays sometimes. It pays in karma and even repeat customer goodwill when the company itself is nice.
OK, I know, that sounds like crazy talk -- nice companies?!? WTF am I smoking?!? But seriously, such companies do exist!
For one example, go see Cole Hardware on 4th between Mission and Market in San Francisco. Locally owned and operated for decades. They care about their customers, because they know their customers, and they have to be nice or their customers will go to Lowe's.
Of course, any megacorp run by MBAs will be deeply infected with the "corporations are supposed to be amoral" meme. It is a standard part of business school philosophy, and an MBA is required to be in the decision making offices.
But that doesn't mean all corporations are evil. Just most of the big ones and a lot of the small ones. That doesn't mean you have to never be a nice customer, it means there is a lot of potential relative value in finding companies whose profit is aligned with them being nice to you. Then you can be nice to them, and have less ulcers.
Obviously not possible for all products, but worth exploring where you can.
don't hate the player hate the game
I also hate players who do not make an effort to make the game better.
This isn't pimping, it is our economy. Our ability to compete with other nations. If the so-called leaders of industry can't be bothered to defend the free market, they should be hated. That is the role of the silent hand of the free market, to withhold trade from such bad actors, until they reform or fail.
If we, the silent hand, do not correct them, either their friction will continue to impede the GDP, or the government will have to impose its inefficient regulation. Is it not better for us, the silent hand, to make a well-informed decision about our purchases? to make a decision which includes rational contemplation of the effect the corporation in question has on our national economy?
Should we, the silent hand of the free market, abdicate our economic responsibility in favor of a sing-song ditty used by basketball players to justify hard fouls?
This isn't a basketball game. It is the economic future of our nation. Given our influence both direct and indirect, it has a strong effect on the economy of the entire planet. Considering these issues seriously is our duty. If you don't want to participate, fine. But don't fault others for doing their duty to preserve the free market.
Thanks for the info -- I thought amphetamines posed similar risk as the harder drugs on the list, but must admit I have not done the research. I will reconsider my prejudice. Thanks!
hehe - yeah, very well said.
Pretty cool, hunh? I mean, wasteful, and a little stupid, but fascinating too, right?
Big sites have issues with DDOS attacks, period.
Big sites are another example of centralization.
Doesn't matter if they are cloud hosted or not.
I agree.
In fact, Amazon's cloud infrastructure is far more distributed than most other individual companies infrastructure.
Perhaps you don't understand the term. Centralization is when large amounts of otherwise individual somethings are aggregated in a single something else. A bunch of individual somethings cannot be more centralized than a single something. Hmm, that definition is clumsy. Try reading this:
http://www.12manage.com/methods_centralization_decentralization.html