Why did my post get modded down? I thought the material I posted was relevant to the discussion. In fact, the misdemeanor charges discussed in the article I linked to were the same charges slapped on Shapeshifter.
I'm sorry about the run-on link...it didn't appear that way in the preview.
But Jebus...does a misplaced "ahref" result in "troll" status these days?
Recently, Kuro5hin hosted a
discussion that focused on sci-fi author S.M. Stirling's rabid reaction to concept of Freenet.
According to the K5 article, Stirling advocated the implementation of laws requiring that ID-tags
be affixed to data transversing the Freenet.
"I propose a law requiring a transparent tag showing origin and history on any file on any server, and that the file be immediately accessible on request. The authorities should develop and send out a "sniffer" intelligent agent program to detect files not meeting these criteria. Immediately shut down any server/node that doesn't reply properly. With really... severe... penalties for anyone owning hardware
harboring pirate files. Sufficient to make them take elaborate precautions not to do so."
Furthermore,
Stirling claims that he talked to the FBI, who told him that they have the ability to penetrate Freenet's anonymity. I suspect that either they were (a) blowing happy smoke Stirling's way, or (b) they were thinking of Carnivore catching the evil copyright violator's insertion at the ISP, before it actually enters
the Freenet.
To some extent, I can empathize with Stirling's fears as an author -- I wouldn't necessarily want someone to reproduce my copyrighted works with impunity and scatter to texts to the winds. However, I find Stirling's "draconian" (to use his own words) reaction unsettling.
I'm wondering about the possibility of Stirling's proposed restrictions to Freenet. Are such measures feasible (legally and technologically)?
According to the article, the troopers and
protesters were held on misdemeanor charges of obstructing the highway and conspiracy.
Assistant District Attorney Trevan Borum, who is one of the prosecutors in the cases, said the defense concerns about entrapment were groundless.
He said the troopers had not led any protests, but had responded to a request from demonstrators to join in the so-called "lock-downs" of an intersection.
I participated in several street blockades at R2K. I wasn't arrested (but was thrown in a paddy wagon for walking down a street the next day) Based on my experience, the troopers' claim that they "responded to a request" from protesters to join a blockade is specious. I seriously doubt that the 6 troopers simply plopped down in the street and linked arms with the demonstrators.
Each street blockade was composed of at least one "Affinity Group, (AG)" which had organized at least 24 hours prior to the actual sit-down. From my experience, no AG solicited recruits from passers-by during the blockades. Furthermore, each street blockade was planned through consensus of each of an AG's member. In other Words, they weren't spontaneous events as the Inquirer reporter seemed to assume.
So what probably occured was the troopers had infiltrated an AG, participated in planning meetings and strategy sessions and alongside "legitimate" protestors before the event. Hence, the entrapment argument proffered by defense attorneys representing the "real" protestors may have some merit.
- Check out the Philadelphia Independant Media Center (Philly IMC) for excellent coverage about the Philly R2K protest(articles, photos, video) from the non-corporate media.
- I wrote an article for Hackedtobits.com (the "Home of Irresponsible Journalism") about my personal experiences in Philly. A draft of this article was posted on Slashdot (Danger in the Big Blue Room). You can see the entire piece here
Seems like many members of the Slashdot community (known for their ferocious libertarian streaks) reflexively exhale with resentment at the mention of government regulation.
For the most part, I agree. Government regulation, in my mind, is characterized by bureacratic ineptitude, and is typically intrusive, unnecessary and burdensome.
However, let's put generalities by the wayside and discuss the case at hand based on it's inherent (de)merits. We're not talking about the latest incarnation of the Clipper Chip.
According to the aforementioned article:
Business groups, who have said the rule is based on unsound science, plan to mount a legal challenge.
Sound vs. "unsound" science. Sound familiar? This is a specious hallmark of corporate-funded public relations. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, oil companies, auto manufacturers and other mass polluters denied the existence of global climate change, which was scapegoated as "unsound" science.
Perhaps the business groups have a point that ergonomic reforms may come at a prohibitive cost (then again, business coalitions mumble the same disingenuous mantra when calls go up for any type of change from the status quo -- environmental, social et al).
I'm really interested in seeing exactly how requiring manual laborers to use lumbar-support belts constitutes unsound science.
Let me state first that I'm flattered you will remember me. Second, I'm not putting a gun to your head bro. Take a pause and several deep breaths.
My point wasn't that we should gratuitously deny American servicemen the latest technology. My point was that such technology -- specifically armed, airborne drones -- could easily be used to strip a layer of accountability from the mechanics of combat... in other words, could be used to sanitize killing. I never said the military should be prohibited from using armed airborne drones.
War is not about killing. War is about proving to the other guy that you mean business, and will stop at nothing to get what you want. If something is imporant enough for one soldier to die for, then it should be important enough for every citizen of his country to die for. Including you, Vergil. Anything less is a waste
of life.
Where to start. First, let's look at your romanticized notion of warfare in the context of recent American military involvements. To me, war is not justified by the placating tautology that, if one soldier can make a noble sacrifice on the front line, all citizens should be able to make a similar sacrifice. I like to think (and forgive me, perhaps I'm indulging in the luxury of speaking from the comfort of my terminal while you and your men sacrifice such simple comforts)that violent action initiated by a nation should be justified on it's own merits, and not by the hardships such action causes said nation's citizens. All to often I and other American citizens feel that our government's latest armed escapade is initiated for reasons that are less than noble. I think a soldier that dies due to a Washington policymaker's incompetance or ulterior motives is a squandrance of life. I don't agree with your assertion that the opposite is true.
In such a scenario, I don't believe that -- as you put it -- every citizen should be willing to die for a cause if one soldier risks his life for said cause. That's absurd. Put down your copy of Thus Spake Zarathustra for a second and recognize that some of us -- perhaps not you -- prefer to deliberate before locking-and-loading, lacing up our BDU's and leaping at the latest state-sponsored crusade.
By the way. I don't think you should be risking your neck in Kosovo. Maybe you think I'm a "traitor" for voicing my opinion, but it is my personal, humble opinion. I'm not exactly sure why the American government decided to commit troops there, but I'm fairly certain such a massive commitment of resources has accomplished precious little toward ending a thousand years of ethic strife.
Even though I disagree with you, I really do appreciate your well-thought out reply. Thanks.
I've noticed a disturbing trend when it comes to modern weaponry, war and the public's perception of both.
Recall the "conflict" (it wasn't formally a "war") in the Persian Gulf and the lavish media coverage fawning over the tricked-out American arsenal of depleted uranium, ship-launched cruise missiles and so-called "smart bombs."
I was in high school at the time, and remember well the glossy graphics in the corporate press extolling the efficiency of "fire-and-forget" rockets.
Later came a few insightful (but quickly forgotten) editorials criticizing America's "video game mentality" of combat.
Perhaps automated weapon systems are more efficient than those manned by humans. Maybe they'll even cut down on "friendly"
casualties, and, in the long run, shave some dollars off of our bloated defense budget.
What really concerns me ain't efficiency, or cost savings. It's accountability. I think many fail to realize that war -- whether conducted with knives or napalm, whether hand-to-hand or computerized -- is about killing. Smart bombs and fire-and-forget missiles abstract killing to a small blip on a phosphorescent screen far removed from the actual event.
Unmanned flying gunships, I'm afraid, are a step in the wrong direction.
I'm hardly a hardware expert... actually, I was an English major. So pardon my ignorance.
As I read over the aforementioned article, one question lodged in my brain: Where do the names for these chips come from?
The following monikers were mentioned in the article:
Morgan
Mustang
Athlon
Palomino
Clawhammer
I suppose the typical focus groups were convened, and chose names that connote speed, agility, and -- in the case of "Clawhammer" -- driving, forceful impact.
From the article: ``Compelled access like that ordered by the Broward County ordinance both penalizes expression and forces the cable operators to alter their content to conform to an agenda they do not set,'' the decision said.
Perhaps. However, look at the issue of penalizing expression from the flip side of the coin.
The article appropriately invoked the specter of the AOL-Time Warner merger. In the case of AOL/TW, a single corporate conglomerate will control 1. A considerable array of content and 2. a significant percentage of the U.S. cable infrastructure.
If the FCC/FTC fails to ensure that AOL/TW opens up its pipeline to competing ISP's, the corporation would be in a unique position to selectively discriminate against competing ISP's and content providers.
Committed access rate (CAR) is an edge-focused QoS mechanism provided by selected Cisco IOS-based network
devices. The controlled-access rate capabilities of CAR allow you to specify the user access speed of any given packet by
allocating the bandwidth it receives, depending on its IP address, application, precedence, port, or even Media Access
Control (MAC) address.
For example, if a "push" information service that delivers frequent broadcasts to its subscribers is seen as causing a high
amount of undesirable network traffic, you can direct CAR to limit subscriber-access speed to this service. You could
restrict the incoming push broadcasts as well as subscribers' outgoing access to the push information site to discourage its
use. At the same time, you could promote and offer your own or partner's services with full-speed features to encourage
adoption of your services, while increasing network efficiency.
In other words, a cable operator using Cisco's equipment will be able to selectively discriminate what content a consumer can view, slow down content originating from a competing content provider -- in the words of many Open Access proponents, transforming the "information superhighway" into a "digital toll-road."
Even if the ruling mentioned in this post is correct, I believe that the alternative to mandating open access will result in more significant penalties to free expression.
In my experience, the bigger the media conglomerate, the blander the product. According to the profit-tinted perspective of media corps, safe and simple is an axiom for succesful.
Consider, for instance, a sampler of Bertelsmann's magazine portfolio in the U.S.
American Homestyle
Family Circle
McCall's
Parents
YM
Although this post has generated many well-thought out and insightful comments, I think a discussion centering around the international validity and enforcement of copyrights has largely missed the point.
Regardless of which principality chooses to enforce copyrights, large corporate copyright holders have taken the initiative by employing "coded-in" architecture. Hence, traditional allowances that have kept the privelages of the copyright holder balanced with the public interest -- i.e. Fair Use-- may be hardwired out of the copyrighted product.
Take, for example, several MPEG layers currently in design. MPEG 21 (and I believe 4) comes with a nifty "Intellectual Property Management Layer" for "digital rights management."
Guess who's been busy championing this brand of fine-tuned copyright control?
Leonardo Chiariglione, executive director of the Secure Digital Music Initiative and a leader in the MPEG group, has been a main proponent of the MPEG-21 concept. SDMI is developing a generic architecture to handle security and digital rights management for Internet audio.
(from Electronic Engineering Times
article)
I think Lawrence Lessig's book Code (link to O'Reily review) clearly explains the consequences of allowing powerful, corporate copyright holders to create their own copyright policy through soft/hardware architecture.
The DTV-200, on the other hand, records full-quality HDTV programs to the computer's hard disc. It actually passes the
full MPEG bitstream to the drive. According to Newstead, an
hour's worth of 1080i HDTV occupies 7.7 Gigabytes of
space, or about 2.2 Megabytes per minute.
Interesting...
I'm surprised I haven't seen any mention of access control/ Intellectual Property protection mechanisms incorporated into this device.
The more this type of activity occurs, the easier it will be for the media to publish superficial, hysterical "exposes" on the ability of tech-savvy adolescents with overpowered software to meddle with the goals of more responsible folk... and the easier it will be for jingoist politicians to pass laws criminalizing the use of legitimate tools (debuggers, hex editors, etc.) thereby making life more difficult for us non-script kiddies.
On the other hand, I'm not issuing a blanket condemnation on all hacking. Just saying -- For Jebus' sake -- at least do it artfully.
The DeCSS experience shows that corporations and trade groups with vast financial resources and legal clout have no problem firing off unlimited barrages of form "cease-and-desist" letters to ISP's, universities, webmasters... etc.
Ultimately, I believe mirroring is a temporary solution to the copyright conundrum. It's high time a membership-based organization was formed -- kinda like the EFF of intellectual property -- to
protect valuable online resources from succumbing to the profit-driven proprietarization of the Internet.
I haven't studied dinosaurs since elementary schools. I remember learning that some dinosaurs -- especially the larger, foraging vegetarian ones -- had long necks to reach otherwise inaccessible foilage.
I wonder if the assertion mentioned in this post applies to some of the heftier dinosaurs, like the Brachiosaurus. If I remember correctly, the Brachiosaurus possessed an extremely long neck and was fond of submerging itself up to its head in water. According to this theory, the increased buoancy allowed the Brachiosaurus greater freedom of movement.
Here's a new twist on the Nader-Gore "vote swapping" scheme.
According to votepact.com: The idea behind votepact.com allows
dissatisfied Gore and Bush voters to
make a pact in pairs and both cast their
ballot for Nader (or any third party
candidate). This way voters don't affect
the balance between Gore and Bush, but
give TWO additional votes to the third
party candidate.
Sincerely,
Vergil
Targeting Corporate Critics
on
Patent Warfare
·
· Score: 3
The article fails to specify exactly how Mr. Aharonian infringed their patent.
According to the article, here's what the suit alledges Aharonian's transgressions are:
"He shamelessly, and oftentimes profanely, attacks [the] United States
government, specifically the Patent and Trademark Office, its
examiners and various public officials and private citizens," the suit
says. "He also purports to be an expert in patent law, though he has no
specialized training in the field, has not graduated from any law school,
is not admitted to practice before the Patent and Trademark Office and
is not authorized to practice law."
Say What? What the hell does attacking the bumblings of the USPTO and have anything to do with patent infringement?
I've met Mr. Aharonian before at a National Academy of Science conference on Intellectual Property, and had the opportunity to read his always entertaining email missives critiquing business method patents. He may be profane at times, but (in my opinion), he is one of the most articulate and analytical opponents of a fundamentally flawed patent system that continues to churn out limited, legally sanctioned monopolies on nebulous, specious and overly-broad business method "inventions" to the detriment of the public domain and true innovation.
I haven't seen the text of the lawsuit. But if the aforementioned article is accurate, it seems that Mr. Aharonian is being targeted by a slap suit (remember the McLibel trial in Britain?). Slap suits are typically frivolous attempts to silence critics of corporate interests by dragging them through an expensive, time-consuming and tortuous labyrinth.
FYI, Here is a recent Wired Magazine article about Aharonian and business method patents.
Aharonian's website is www.bustpatents.com. You can subscribe to his newsletter -- the Internet Patent News Service from this site.
Jon Katz is quite accurate in his assertion that politics -- once scorned by geeks as irrelevant, the lowbrow gibbering of hopelessly uninformed stuffed suits -- is becoming increasingly relevant to the coder.
As Katz is quick to point out, too many techies labor in an insular world which they believe orbits safely above the murky venacular of partisan politics. Such assumptions are delusional, at best.
Gore and Bush may not know what ICANN does, what reverse-engineering means, or the impact upon fair-use of anti-circumvention clauses. However, such topics have not escaped the attention of Microsoft and AOL-Time Warner and their legion of lawyers and lobbyists.
For example, look at UCITA (in Maryland and Virginia) and the DMCA. While some geeks chose to roll their eyes in disgust at the failure of government institutions and representatives to grasp the fundamentals of IP, the corporations (who essentially authored these provisions) rammed the obtuse and and over-reaching documents into law.
I can only think of a fistful of instances where geeks have taken to the streets to protest legislation that threatens their freedom and livelihood.
To appropriate a favorite phrase of Mr. Nader: If you don't turn on to politics, politics will turn on you.
The apparent cause of the pinwheeling fizzle was that the plastic foam guides that were
supposed to steer the rocket along the gondola's launch rails failed.
"We don't know what happened to the foam guides," Lajoie said. -- from the Wired article.
I'm not an engineer.
And as much as I admire the initiative of these citizen-rocketeers, it seems odd to me that a relatively expensive, technically-sophisticated missile travelling at a high-velocity was placed at the mercy of "plastic foam."
The decision of the arbitrators in this example seems to be warranted
I'm concerned, however, that present and future domain name disputes may be wrongly construed as "typo-squatting," regardless of the intention of the alleged offender. Although the term "typo-squatting" is appropriate in this case -- as the defendant capitalized on common mispellings -- I can see the potential for such a term to devolve into another jingo easily manipulated to trivialize the interests of small website operators regardless of legitimate intent/ fair use; another catchphrase to be leveraged by corporations intent on ammassing valuable domain real-estate.
My concern is magnified by the potential for disparate bargaining power among the parties in such a dispute -- i.e. fan site vs. multinational media conglomerate.
Anyone interested in perusing a compendium of past domain name disputes might want to check out the Consumer Project on Technology's (CPT) page on Selected Domain Name Disputes. This site describes in detail (and links to) relevant decisions made by the arbitrator.
I'm currently on leave from CPT, and will return in several weeks.
The logic of "tactical" or "strategic" voting is an absurdly specious affront to democracy.
Citizens should feel free to vote for the candidate that most represents their positions. Instead, we're seeing a spate of websites taking advantage of America's flawed and disparate Electoral College system.
Why should one citizen's vote be more/less valuable than another citizen's residing in a different state?
Clearly, proportional Electoral College representation (as opposed to the "winner-take-all" representation used by some states) would end any perceived need for vote-swapping.
I saw a Green Party t-shirt today that summed it succinctly: Vote your conscience, not your fear
Here's a cluebot article (Will Vote Trading Website Be Shut Down?) that briefly discusses the dubious legality of vote trading.
I had DARE in 7th grade. A police officer came into our classroom several times a week and lectured us about the perils of drug use.
I liked the guy, and I believed him. I won a DARE T-Shirt for writing the best anti-drug essay.
When I arrived at college, I had several lingering questions about drugs and the War upon them. I made a point to visit my school library's extensive collection of books on the subject and read just about every one. I discovered -- after reading first-hand accounts of dealers, chemists, psychologists, social workers and academic researchers -- that many of the sure-fire conclusions (like 'pot is bad b/c it is addictive') preached in DARE were highly inaccurate. I realized that DARE's logic was founded on the juvenile, rhetorical mantra that Drugs are Bad Because They Are Illegal. Drugs are Illegal Because They Are Bad.
For the first time in my life, it dawned upon me that if the government could blatantly tell lies to me under the pretext of "safety" and "education," the government could lie about other things.
I began to think critically about other government-supported "certainties." I began to question my government's motives, and found that many of its policies -- just like the War on Drugs -- were based on simple, hysterical jingoism.
I think drug education in public school is a positive thing. However, DARE is far from unbiased, informative drug education. DARE represents the intrusion of law enforcement and fundamentally unsound political policy into the American classroom.
arcades will be required to place games with violence or strong sexuality away from non-violent games, separated by a wall or curtain.
This is a laughably simplistic legislative "band-aid solution" for a much deeper problem -- as if throwing up artificial barriers will rid the adolescent mind of all vestiges of promiscuity and anger.
To the child, Curtains and Walls only further interest in the prohibited.
When I was a smaller Vergil, I was fascinated by what lay beyond curtains/ walls, and schemed endlessly to circumvent such barriers. To me, the object locked away was incidental to the gratification I received by overcoming the obstacles containing it.
I can imagine my younger self entering a video arcade and staring, entranced, at the bells and whistles bleeping and blinking from behind the black curtain.
Even more interesting is this proposal's attempted segregation of video games according to violence. What 13-year old would want to squander a quarter on a non-violent arcade game, anyhow?
Of course, a consumer that has purchased a mass-market software product could never hope to sue to software publisher for shoddiness (at least according to the sage authors of UCITA).
End-User-License-Agreements governing the use of mass-market software usually contain this type of clause (this one is from MS's Internet Explorer):
"DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, MICROSOFT AND ITS SUPPLIERS... HEREBY DISCLAIM... ALL WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS, WHETHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY (IF ANY) WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF OR RELATED TO: TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, LACK OF VIRUSES, ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF RESPONSES, RESULTS, LACK OF NEGLIGENCE OR LACK OF WORKMANLIKE EFFORT, QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION, AND CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION. THE ENTIRE RISK ARISING OUT OF USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THE OPERATING SYSTEM COMPONENTS AND ANY SUPPORT SERVICES REMAINS WITH YOU."
In other words, MS isn't responsible for any faults associated with IE -- you are. Specifically, MS (and software publishers that use similarly worded EULAS) is not responsible for: 1. Ensuring that IE is not infected by viruses, 2. Selling a product that corresponds to description (i.e. a web browser that really is a web browser), 3. Selling a product that functions as it is supposed to (i.e. a web browser that really functions as a web browser), 4. Ensuring that MS products are of sufficient quality and fit to be sold (covered by the all-important implied warranty of merchantability
Also, notice that MS attempts to disclaim all Express Warranties. An express warranty is created when a vendor makes a factual assertion or promise about a product to a consumer. The express warranty guarantees that such assertions are reflected in the product. For instance, if a software publisher representative (at a trade show)stood on a table and proclaimed "My product can accomplish X!", an express warranty would be created that the product must be able to accomplish X.
Corporations can sue other corporations over breach of implied/express warranties and shoddy workmanship. Consumers, on the other hand (esp. after the proliferation of industry-sponsored laws like UCITA) do not have the same luxury.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry about the run-on link...it didn't appear that way in the preview.
But Jebus...does a misplaced "ahref" result in "troll" status these days?
Sincerely,
Vergil
According to the K5 article, Stirling advocated the implementation of laws requiring that ID-tags be affixed to data transversing the Freenet.
"I propose a law requiring a transparent tag showing origin and history on any file on any server, and that the file be immediately accessible on request. The authorities should develop and send out a "sniffer" intelligent agent program to detect files not meeting these criteria. Immediately shut down any server/node that doesn't reply properly. With really... severe... penalties for anyone owning hardware harboring pirate files. Sufficient to make them take elaborate precautions not to do so."
Furthermore,
Stirling claims that he talked to the FBI, who told him that they have the ability to penetrate Freenet's anonymity. I suspect that either they were (a) blowing happy smoke Stirling's way, or (b) they were thinking of Carnivore catching the evil copyright violator's insertion at the ISP, before it actually enters the Freenet.
To some extent, I can empathize with Stirling's fears as an author -- I wouldn't necessarily want someone to reproduce my copyrighted works with impunity and scatter to texts to the winds. However, I find Stirling's "draconian" (to use his own words) reaction unsettling.
I'm wondering about the possibility of Stirling's proposed restrictions to Freenet. Are such measures feasible (legally and technologically)?
Sincerely,
Vergil
According to an article in today's Philadelphia Inquirer, at least 6 state troopers were arrested at while blockading an intersection.
According to the article, the troopers and protesters were held on misdemeanor charges of obstructing the highway and conspiracy.
Assistant District Attorney Trevan Borum, who is one of the prosecutors in the cases, said the defense concerns about entrapment were groundless.
He said the troopers had not led any protests, but had responded to a request from demonstrators to join in the so-called "lock-downs" of an intersection.
I participated in several street blockades at R2K. I wasn't arrested (but was thrown in a paddy wagon for walking down a street the next day) Based on my experience, the troopers' claim that they "responded to a request" from protesters to join a blockade is specious. I seriously doubt that the 6 troopers simply plopped down in the street and linked arms with the demonstrators.
Each street blockade was composed of at least one "Affinity Group, (AG)" which had organized at least 24 hours prior to the actual sit-down. From my experience, no AG solicited recruits from passers-by during the blockades. Furthermore, each street blockade was planned through consensus of each of an AG's member. In other Words, they weren't spontaneous events as the Inquirer reporter seemed to assume.
So what probably occured was the troopers had infiltrated an AG, participated in planning meetings and strategy sessions and alongside "legitimate" protestors before the event. Hence, the entrapment argument proffered by defense attorneys representing the "real" protestors may have some merit.
Sincerely,
Vergil
- I wrote an article for Hackedtobits.com (the "Home of Irresponsible Journalism") about my personal experiences in Philly. A draft of this article was posted on Slashdot (Danger in the Big Blue Room). You can see the entire piece here
Sincerely,
Vergil
Would data stored on board an orbiting server be subject to the jurisdiction of an earthbound nation?
Sincerely,
Vergil
For the most part, I agree. Government regulation, in my mind, is characterized by bureacratic ineptitude, and is typically intrusive, unnecessary and burdensome.
However, let's put generalities by the wayside and discuss the case at hand based on it's inherent (de)merits. We're not talking about the latest incarnation of the Clipper Chip.
According to the aforementioned article:
Business groups, who have said the rule is based on unsound science, plan to mount a legal challenge.
Sound vs. "unsound" science. Sound familiar? This is a specious hallmark of corporate-funded public relations. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, oil companies, auto manufacturers and other mass polluters denied the existence of global climate change, which was scapegoated as "unsound" science.
Perhaps the business groups have a point that ergonomic reforms may come at a prohibitive cost (then again, business coalitions mumble the same disingenuous mantra when calls go up for any type of change from the status quo -- environmental, social et al).
I'm really interested in seeing exactly how requiring manual laborers to use lumbar-support belts constitutes unsound science.
Sincerely,
Vergil
I think you misunderstood my position.
Let me state first that I'm flattered you will remember me. Second, I'm not putting a gun to your head bro. Take a pause and several deep breaths.
My point wasn't that we should gratuitously deny American servicemen the latest technology. My point was that such technology -- specifically armed, airborne drones -- could easily be used to strip a layer of accountability from the mechanics of combat ... in other words, could be used to sanitize killing. I never said the military should be prohibited from using armed airborne drones.
War is not about killing. War is about proving to the other guy that you mean business, and will stop at nothing to get what you want. If something is imporant enough for one soldier to die for, then it should be important enough for every citizen of his country to die for. Including you, Vergil. Anything less is a waste of life.
Where to start. First, let's look at your romanticized notion of warfare in the context of recent American military involvements. To me, war is not justified by the placating tautology that, if one soldier can make a noble sacrifice on the front line, all citizens should be able to make a similar sacrifice. I like to think (and forgive me, perhaps I'm indulging in the luxury of speaking from the comfort of my terminal while you and your men sacrifice such simple comforts)that violent action initiated by a nation should be justified on it's own merits, and not by the hardships such action causes said nation's citizens. All to often I and other American citizens feel that our government's latest armed escapade is initiated for reasons that are less than noble. I think a soldier that dies due to a Washington policymaker's incompetance or ulterior motives is a squandrance of life. I don't agree with your assertion that the opposite is true.
In such a scenario, I don't believe that -- as you put it -- every citizen should be willing to die for a cause if one soldier risks his life for said cause. That's absurd. Put down your copy of Thus Spake Zarathustra for a second and recognize that some of us -- perhaps not you -- prefer to deliberate before locking-and-loading, lacing up our BDU's and leaping at the latest state-sponsored crusade.
By the way. I don't think you should be risking your neck in Kosovo. Maybe you think I'm a "traitor" for voicing my opinion, but it is my personal, humble opinion. I'm not exactly sure why the American government decided to commit troops there, but I'm fairly certain such a massive commitment of resources has accomplished precious little toward ending a thousand years of ethic strife.
Even though I disagree with you, I really do appreciate your well-thought out reply. Thanks.
Sincerely,
Vergil
Recall the "conflict" (it wasn't formally a "war") in the Persian Gulf and the lavish media coverage fawning over the tricked-out American arsenal of depleted uranium, ship-launched cruise missiles and so-called "smart bombs."
I was in high school at the time, and remember well the glossy graphics in the corporate press extolling the efficiency of "fire-and-forget" rockets.
Later came a few insightful (but quickly forgotten) editorials criticizing America's "video game mentality" of combat.
Perhaps automated weapon systems are more efficient than those manned by humans. Maybe they'll even cut down on "friendly" casualties, and, in the long run, shave some dollars off of our bloated defense budget.
What really concerns me ain't efficiency, or cost savings. It's accountability. I think many fail to realize that war -- whether conducted with knives or napalm, whether hand-to-hand or computerized -- is about killing. Smart bombs and fire-and-forget missiles abstract killing to a small blip on a phosphorescent screen far removed from the actual event.
Unmanned flying gunships, I'm afraid, are a step in the wrong direction.
Sincerely,
Vergil
As I read over the aforementioned article, one question lodged in my brain:
Where do the names for these chips come from?
The following monikers were mentioned in the article:
Morgan
Mustang
Athlon
Palomino
Clawhammer
I suppose the typical focus groups were convened, and chose names that connote speed, agility, and -- in the case of "Clawhammer" -- driving, forceful impact.
'Else someone at AMD has a severe horse fetish.
Sincerely,
Vergil
``Compelled access like that ordered by the Broward County ordinance both penalizes expression and forces the cable operators to alter their content to conform to an agenda they do not set,'' the decision said.
Perhaps. However, look at the issue of penalizing expression from the flip side of the coin.
The article appropriately invoked the specter of the AOL-Time Warner merger. In the case of AOL/TW, a single corporate conglomerate will control 1. A considerable array of content and 2. a significant percentage of the U.S. cable infrastructure.
If the FCC/FTC fails to ensure that AOL/TW opens up its pipeline to competing ISP's, the corporation would be in a unique position to selectively discriminate against competing ISP's and content providers.
To better illustrate this the consequences of Closed Access, consider a well-known white paper from Cisco released in 1999 called Controlling Your Network - A Must for Cable Operators.
The Cisco paper includes such gems as this:
Committed access rate (CAR) is an edge-focused QoS mechanism provided by selected Cisco IOS-based network devices. The controlled-access rate capabilities of CAR allow you to specify the user access speed of any given packet by allocating the bandwidth it receives, depending on its IP address, application, precedence, port, or even Media Access Control (MAC) address. For example, if a "push" information service that delivers frequent broadcasts to its subscribers is seen as causing a high amount of undesirable network traffic, you can direct CAR to limit subscriber-access speed to this service. You could restrict the incoming push broadcasts as well as subscribers' outgoing access to the push information site to discourage its use. At the same time, you could promote and offer your own or partner's services with full-speed features to encourage adoption of your services, while increasing network efficiency.
In other words, a cable operator using Cisco's equipment will be able to selectively discriminate what content a consumer can view, slow down content originating from a competing content provider -- in the words of many Open Access proponents, transforming the "information superhighway" into a "digital toll-road."
Even if the ruling mentioned in this post is correct, I believe that the alternative to mandating open access will result in more significant penalties to free expression.
Sincerely,
Vergil
Consider, for instance, a sampler of Bertelsmann's magazine portfolio in the U.S.
American Homestyle
Family Circle
McCall's
Parents
YM
Sincerely,
Vergil
Regardless of which principality chooses to enforce copyrights, large corporate copyright holders have taken the initiative by employing "coded-in" architecture. Hence, traditional allowances that have kept the privelages of the copyright holder balanced with the public interest -- i.e. Fair Use-- may be hardwired out of the copyrighted product.
Take, for example, several MPEG layers currently in design. MPEG 21 (and I believe 4) comes with a nifty "Intellectual Property Management Layer" for "digital rights management."
Guess who's been busy championing this brand of fine-tuned copyright control?
Leonardo Chiariglione, executive director of the Secure Digital Music Initiative and a leader in the MPEG group, has been a main proponent of the MPEG-21 concept. SDMI is developing a generic architecture to handle security and digital rights management for Internet audio.
(from Electronic Engineering Times article)
I think Lawrence Lessig's book Code (link to O'Reily review) clearly explains the consequences of allowing powerful, corporate copyright holders to create their own copyright policy through soft/hardware architecture.
Sincerely,
Vergil
Interesting ...
I'm surprised I haven't seen any mention of access control/ Intellectual Property protection mechanisms incorporated into this device.
Sincerely,
Vergil
On the other hand, I'm not issuing a blanket condemnation on all hacking. Just saying -- For Jebus' sake -- at least do it artfully.
Sincerely,
Vergil
The DeCSS experience shows that corporations and trade groups with vast financial resources and legal clout have no problem firing off unlimited barrages of form "cease-and-desist" letters to ISP's, universities, webmasters ... etc.
Ultimately, I believe mirroring is a temporary solution to the copyright conundrum. It's high time a membership-based organization was formed -- kinda like the EFF of intellectual property -- to protect valuable online resources from succumbing to the profit-driven proprietarization of the Internet.
Sincerely,
Vergil
I wonder if the assertion mentioned in this post applies to some of the heftier dinosaurs, like the Brachiosaurus. If I remember correctly, the Brachiosaurus possessed an extremely long neck and was fond of submerging itself up to its head in water. According to this theory, the increased buoancy allowed the Brachiosaurus greater freedom of movement.
Sincerely,
Vergil
According to votepact.com:
The idea behind votepact.com allows dissatisfied Gore and Bush voters to make a pact in pairs and both cast their ballot for Nader (or any third party candidate). This way voters don't affect the balance between Gore and Bush, but give TWO additional votes to the third party candidate.
Sincerely,
Vergil
According to the article, here's what the suit alledges Aharonian's transgressions are:
"He shamelessly, and oftentimes profanely, attacks [the] United States government, specifically the Patent and Trademark Office, its examiners and various public officials and private citizens," the suit says. "He also purports to be an expert in patent law, though he has no specialized training in the field, has not graduated from any law school, is not admitted to practice before the Patent and Trademark Office and is not authorized to practice law."
Say What? What the hell does attacking the bumblings of the USPTO and have anything to do with patent infringement?
I've met Mr. Aharonian before at a National Academy of Science conference on Intellectual Property, and had the opportunity to read his always entertaining email missives critiquing business method patents. He may be profane at times, but (in my opinion), he is one of the most articulate and analytical opponents of a fundamentally flawed patent system that continues to churn out limited, legally sanctioned monopolies on nebulous, specious and overly-broad business method "inventions" to the detriment of the public domain and true innovation.
I haven't seen the text of the lawsuit. But if the aforementioned article is accurate, it seems that Mr. Aharonian is being targeted by a slap suit (remember the McLibel trial in Britain?). Slap suits are typically frivolous attempts to silence critics of corporate interests by dragging them through an expensive, time-consuming and tortuous labyrinth.
FYI, Here is a recent Wired Magazine article about Aharonian and business method patents.
Aharonian's website is www.bustpatents.com. You can subscribe to his newsletter -- the Internet Patent News Service from this site.
Sincerely,
Vergil
As Katz is quick to point out, too many techies labor in an insular world which they believe orbits safely above the murky venacular of partisan politics. Such assumptions are delusional, at best.
Gore and Bush may not know what ICANN does, what reverse-engineering means, or the impact upon fair-use of anti-circumvention clauses. However, such topics have not escaped the attention of Microsoft and AOL-Time Warner and their legion of lawyers and lobbyists.
For example, look at UCITA (in Maryland and Virginia) and the DMCA. While some geeks chose to roll their eyes in disgust at the failure of government institutions and representatives to grasp the fundamentals of IP, the corporations (who essentially authored these provisions) rammed the obtuse and and over-reaching documents into law.
I can only think of a fistful of instances where geeks have taken to the streets to protest legislation that threatens their freedom and livelihood.
To appropriate a favorite phrase of Mr. Nader:
If you don't turn on to politics, politics will turn on you.
Sincerely,
Vergil
"We don't know what happened to the foam guides," Lajoie said. -- from the Wired article.
I'm not an engineer. And as much as I admire the initiative of these citizen-rocketeers, it seems odd to me that a relatively expensive, technically-sophisticated missile travelling at a high-velocity was placed at the mercy of "plastic foam."
Sincerely,
Vergil
I'm concerned, however, that present and future domain name disputes may be wrongly construed as "typo-squatting," regardless of the intention of the alleged offender. Although the term "typo-squatting" is appropriate in this case -- as the defendant capitalized on common mispellings -- I can see the potential for such a term to devolve into another jingo easily manipulated to trivialize the interests of small website operators regardless of legitimate intent/ fair use; another catchphrase to be leveraged by corporations intent on ammassing valuable domain real-estate.
My concern is magnified by the potential for disparate bargaining power among the parties in such a dispute -- i.e. fan site vs. multinational media conglomerate.
Anyone interested in perusing a compendium of past domain name disputes might want to check out the Consumer Project on Technology's (CPT) page on Selected Domain Name Disputes. This site describes in detail (and links to) relevant decisions made by the arbitrator.
I'm currently on leave from CPT, and will return in several weeks.
Sincerely,
Vergil
Citizens should feel free to vote for the candidate that most represents their positions. Instead, we're seeing a spate of websites taking advantage of America's flawed and disparate Electoral College system.
Why should one citizen's vote be more/less valuable than another citizen's residing in a different state?
Clearly, proportional Electoral College representation (as opposed to the "winner-take-all" representation used by some states) would end any perceived need for vote-swapping.
I saw a Green Party t-shirt today that summed it succinctly:
Vote your conscience, not your fear
Here's a cluebot article (Will Vote Trading Website Be Shut Down?) that briefly discusses the dubious legality of vote trading.
Sincerely,
Vergil
I liked the guy, and I believed him. I won a DARE T-Shirt for writing the best anti-drug essay.
When I arrived at college, I had several lingering questions about drugs and the War upon them. I made a point to visit my school library's extensive collection of books on the subject and read just about every one. I discovered -- after reading first-hand accounts of dealers, chemists, psychologists, social workers and academic researchers -- that many of the sure-fire conclusions (like 'pot is bad b/c it is addictive') preached in DARE were highly inaccurate. I realized that DARE's logic was founded on the juvenile, rhetorical mantra that Drugs are Bad Because They Are Illegal. Drugs are Illegal Because They Are Bad.
For the first time in my life, it dawned upon me that if the government could blatantly tell lies to me under the pretext of "safety" and "education," the government could lie about other things.
I began to think critically about other government-supported "certainties." I began to question my government's motives, and found that many of its policies -- just like the War on Drugs -- were based on simple, hysterical jingoism.
I think drug education in public school is a positive thing. However, DARE is far from unbiased, informative drug education. DARE represents the intrusion of law enforcement and fundamentally unsound political policy into the American classroom.
Sincerely,
Vergil
This is a laughably simplistic legislative "band-aid solution" for a much deeper problem -- as if throwing up artificial barriers will rid the adolescent mind of all vestiges of promiscuity and anger.
To the child, Curtains and Walls only further interest in the prohibited.
When I was a smaller Vergil, I was fascinated by what lay beyond curtains/ walls, and schemed endlessly to circumvent such barriers. To me, the object locked away was incidental to the gratification I received by overcoming the obstacles containing it.
I can imagine my younger self entering a video arcade and staring, entranced, at the bells and whistles bleeping and blinking from behind the black curtain.
Even more interesting is this proposal's attempted segregation of video games according to violence. What 13-year old would want to squander a quarter on a non-violent arcade game, anyhow?
Vergil
End-User-License-Agreements governing the use of mass-market software usually contain this type of clause (this one is from MS's Internet Explorer):
"DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, MICROSOFT AND ITS SUPPLIERS ... HEREBY DISCLAIM ... ALL WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS, WHETHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY (IF ANY) WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF OR RELATED TO: TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, LACK OF VIRUSES, ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF RESPONSES, RESULTS, LACK OF NEGLIGENCE OR LACK OF WORKMANLIKE EFFORT, QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION, AND CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION. THE ENTIRE RISK ARISING OUT OF USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THE OPERATING SYSTEM COMPONENTS AND ANY SUPPORT SERVICES REMAINS WITH YOU."
In other words, MS isn't responsible for any faults associated with IE -- you are. Specifically, MS (and software publishers that use similarly worded EULAS) is not responsible for:
1. Ensuring that IE is not infected by viruses,
2. Selling a product that corresponds to description (i.e. a web browser that really is a web browser),
3. Selling a product that functions as it is supposed to (i.e. a web browser that really functions as a web browser),
4. Ensuring that MS products are of sufficient quality and fit to be sold (covered by the all-important implied warranty of merchantability
Also, notice that MS attempts to disclaim all Express Warranties. An express warranty is created when a vendor makes a factual assertion or promise about a product to a consumer. The express warranty guarantees that such assertions are reflected in the product. For instance, if a software publisher representative (at a trade show)stood on a table and proclaimed "My product can accomplish X!", an express warranty would be created that the product must be able to accomplish X.
Corporations can sue other corporations over breach of implied/express warranties and shoddy workmanship. Consumers, on the other hand (esp. after the proliferation of industry-sponsored laws like UCITA) do not have the same luxury.
ph33r UCITA.
-Vergil