So they are fighting the politicizing of science and engineering by creating a political group? And yes, a 527 is a political organization whether they admit it or not. Oh sweet irony:)
If I had mod points you would have gotten one for being first to point this out.
But I think the slashdot headline is intentionally ironic and a bit misleading. They aren't trying to take politics out of science. They are trying to inject more rigorous scientific debate into politics. When you form a group "dedicated to electing politicians" this isn't about staying out of politics or keeping politicians out of science. It may be another indication of the factioning of American politics, but it is no different than any other political advocacy group trying to get across a particular point of view and supporting candidates that agree with you or will in turn support your cause.
So about a 7 times improvement in price and performance, a healthy improvement, but considering that the Fiber Optic should be giving us Gigabit speeds if it is dedicated to Internet for no greater operating costs than copper, well I think it is understandable to be dissappointed that they are holding so much bandwidth back.
Essentially, they are giving us less than a couple percent of the new capacity for Internet communications and keeping the rest so they can sell add on services. Comparing what we are getting to what we had before is not good enough. We should be seeing far greater advances in broadband Internet. I am very much a libertarian, but it seems that people are not getting a good payback for the money we are investing in this and it is time for government intervention.
A libertarian approach would simply be to let whomever wants to provide a better service access to the right of way to run their fiber. The economy is being held back because this important new public infrastructure is being misallocated to make a quick buck putting entertainment before communication The costs of running fiber is coming down, so there is no reason to think that promoting real competition with the 3 companies that can offer the best service for consumers being given access to utility poles and underground rights of way. And if some company comes along that offers a better more economical service, then the 4th company should be allowed to run fiber also and then the least economical service should be required to take up their cable or forfeit it within a certain amount of time.
Either that or we need to have serious regulations about what services are offered on these lines. This is the public right of way that they are using, not merely their own private property, no person or company should be given a monopoly or effective monopoly on the public right of way without the government specifying what service is to be provided.
maybe they could bounce a laser off the roof/window of the jeep and listen that way.
I think the point was to be in an open air vehicle so the wind noise would drown out the conversation. So there would be no window or roof to bounce a laser off of. Though this sounds a lot like the cone of silence from "Get Smart" where the participants couldn't even hear the conversation themselves.
The commercial radio stations that play music we don't like, and shove commercials down the ears of listeners, AND screw payola out of artists... also do pay their licensing fees to the people of the United States.
I would rather they didn't pay a licensing fee. Having a FCC license has become just another type of property, rather than the temporary right to exclusive use of a public space that it should be seen as. Having this become yet another government slush fund has skewed and corrupted the system with government more concerned about getting its license fees than other considerations. If there was no fee, then the FCC would be more likely to consider the service that station was providing to the community rather than just whether or not the company could write a big check.
As a web user, I prefer it like that, but I can understand the point of view that permission should be actually granted, not just assumed
It comes down to fair use, not permission. If the copying is done as a fair use, then there is no assumption of permission and honoring a robots.txt is just a courtesy not some legal requirement.
It's not money that's being tossed around here. It's power.
I wouldn't be so quick to put your finger on either money or power. Sometimes people just react to authority without thinking for themselves. Look at the Millgram Experiment. Otherwise normal people can do things that are beyond reason when they are given prior instructions from some authority figure.
The problem with bureaucrats (just like everyone else) is often a much more insidious a form of corruption. They actually might believe what they are doing is reasonable, even when it can clearly be shown to be overly complicated, expensive and vulnerable to being compromised compared to simpler methods. And there reasoning could be as simple as 'that's what I was told'. We all do it. We are told something that is untrue and in restrospect completely unreasonable, problem here is that they really do want to make elections run more smoothly and be easier on the old ladies that end up running the polling stations. And they have been told by diebold and the like that the rest of us are merely luddites and our concerns are unwarranted. Which has a ring of truth to it.
It is going to take more authority figures to come out and say electronic voting has some fundamental flaws when there isn't a paper trail and a paper backup. And the economics of electronic voting should only be considered if you take into account the need for both of those things.
I think if Michael Dell or Steve Jobs or somebody that had some authority, in some people's minds, were to come out and say what thousands of other well respected people have already said then maybe the message could get through. But there are many trade shows, many voting machine industry symposiums, many flashy ads and pointed sales pitches to get past for the people that run elections for a living.
So yes it is a type of corruption, but not the money in a paper bag kind. It is just hard to convince someone of something was they have been told over and over again to believe otherwise.
Some people probably do think about making it harder for people to vote and easier to rig elections. But they are not the problem, it is the people that follow them or listen to them that need to have their minds changed with reason.
It's easier to make accusations of cheating when you lose instead of accepting responsibility. This is one of the reasons I hate politicians so much. "Oh, we lost... So the other guys MUST be cheating!"
This is a lot more serious than just hating slimy politicians. The integrity of the voting process is the main reason we don't resort to threats and violence to get what we want out of government. If there is no belief in the integrity of voting, then there is no law.
Trained urban planners often don't get a seat at the development table; what makes you think local governments would care about what ordinary laypeople think?
I think the correct answer is that they won't care what they think. But they might care about what they can show them in a 3D or 2 dimensional model. If a picture is worth a thousand words, a 3d picture that you can "fly" through is at least worth a thousand and one words.
Why does 2+3 = 5? Because we said it does...not because it is universally true.
Wouldn't it be universally true because it is consistent with what has been defined? That is precisely what is so useful about mathematics in science, it is not dependent on observation, but merely needs to be consistent with simple rules that have been defined. In science, mathematics is used as a reference system.
Certainly mathematics started as a way to describe real world phenomena, but its definition is no longer linked to those phenomena. Take Riemann versus Euclidean geometry, both are true in the sense that they are consistent with their own rules and both have been useful as reference systems for different scales of observation.
Or take a different example, you put 2 cows in one ends of the barn, put another 3 cows in after that, but 6 cows come out the other side. Doesn't mean that 2 + 3 doesn't equal 5, because that is what the definition of the mathematical rules still calls for. But you might needs some new rules, or you might need another reference such as time, or maybe you had better check the barn first next time you make your observation.
While commendable when the only good option is "None Of The Above" Down Under, there are other countries where this is extremely dangerous for the democratic process.
So, what is your solution? Vote for someone you don't want I suppose? Best of the worst?
How about simply add a box for "abstain" and a line for a write in candidate? It unnerved me greatly when in 2000 the democrats took it as evidence of voting irregularities, when certain offices had no votes. I took it to mean that people just didn't like the opitions that were presented. I think an "abstain" box would eliminate this confusion and prevent a blank ballot being used to commit fraud. Also, a write-in candidate should always be easy to provide, otherwise it is not very deomcratic.
Yes, I doubt this is a primary reason. I've been researching setting up a small non-profit and as long as lobbying is just a small portion of the activities (not sure of the exact percentage) then you can lobby Congress. Just can't speak out for or against a particular candidate, unless you make it clear it is not in your official capacity as an officer or director of a non profit.
Really, it seems that the ability to fund companies that are helping people seems most compelling. Imagine a person comes up with a technology that has the potential to help billions of people, but which would supplant another technology which is very profitable. If there is a company willing to step in and fund such a startup, that is certainly worth having to pay some taxes each year.
t's a lesson about company A (Verizon in this case) subbing out an important business segment to company B (Microsoft, the promise-anything, and ship whatever company). If something is THAT important to your business, dammit, get it done yourself!
It is very common for a software project to fail the first time around. Often a combination of uncertain requirements, inexperienced developers and bad management combine to make it nearly impossible to succeed the first time around. As long as Verizon learned the lessons from Microsoft's failure then this was a very smart plan. Outsource the failure part, then learn from the mistakes so your own development team gets a shortcut to success.
But why shouldn't youtube pay for it like everyone else?
They are trying to arrange for it. But doesn't this problem arise from individuals uploading content that has copyrighted music in it? As an Internet Service Provider there is a procedure for dealing with copyrighted material being posted to a website. It is called a take down notice. Youtube should immune to damages as long as it is following the DMCA procedure. It is the individuals that use copyrighted materials without appropriate permission who are the ones the studios should be going after, unless YouTube is indemnifying them somehow.
These should all be legal in the confides of your own home. But what should be illegal is you trying to make money and selling your hacks/modchips.
No.
As long as there is a legal use for DRM Circumvention, then the devices should be legal to sell.
We don't throw Xerox sales reps in jail just because their technology could be used to infringe on copyright.
Copyright law struck a balance between the rights of creators to benefit from their work and the ability of the public to benefit from the work once it was published. And it balances the Freedom of expression rights of both the original creator and those that would make use of the original work in a derivative work. The concept is fair use. Enshrining DRM into law without allowing for reliable ability to make fair use of content throws fair use out the window and undermines the foundation of copyright law. DRM lets the content producer have it both ways and effectively invalidates the time limited provisions of copyright law.
In the US, prohibitions on DRM circumvention are unconstitutional because they violate Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 which allows congress "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"
Anti DRM circumvention laws violate this provision, "securing for limited times", because the legal effect is to allow authors or their delegates to control copying far beyond any expiration of copyright.
As far as I am aware the most of the challenges so far to the DMCA have focused on peripheral issues. Whereas they should be focusing on the lack of any type sunset provision for legal use of DRM. Congress certainly has the right to allow DRMs use, but if it legally and effectively prohibits copying well beyond the expiration of copyright, then the law is quite clearly unconstitutional as well as unwise.
Your post neatly summarizes (one of) the problems I have with Libertarians. You have absolutely ZERO sense of proportion. Everything is black or white. Either someone is innocent, or they're the worst criminal in the history of mankind. There is no middle ground.
I assumed when he was saying that we are all criminals, that he meant that we all from time to time break the letter of some law and that it is therefore very bad to have computers judging us. The death penalty comments were from others. Generally the laws that we break day to day are considered "misdemeanors" and carry light punishments, such as violations of traffic laws, or littering, or disturbing the peace and such.
I don't think this is a particularly libertarian concept, simply common sense that the nature of the crime and not merely the category of crime should be considered both in the sentencing and judgement. That said we have far too many laws which are only punished at the discretion of police, judges, politicians etc. And normalizing the sentences for those crimes is a laudable goal, because it decreases the chance for corruption, favoritism, racism and other "isms". I'm libertarian, but I support this chinese experiment in justice because of its potential to reduce corruption, but I would suggest that it should only be used to guide sentences imposed by judges not to impose them itself. It should also be made available to the public along with the final sentence, so that people may judge the fairness of the courts. There should always be room for discretion in judging violations of law, but laws should not be so numerous and unavoidable as to make living within the law unachievable by good intentioned individuals.
Corporations do shitty things to increase their profit margins! Shocking, I know! Come on, do people honestly believe that Google is some sort of sintly organization? Their goal - no, their legal responsibility - is to maximize the profit of their shareholders. Same as any other company. Get over them already.
And they can only maximise their profits in unethical ways? That seems not only cynical, but plain wrong. Business is about business relationships, you want to be as trustworthy and consistent as possible, otherwise you have the potential to scare off both customers and other business relationships. Yes power usually corrupts even the noblest of intentions, but to imply that maximising profits is incompatible with ethical behavior right from the start is not a redeemable point of view.
Plus, may I be the first to say, that putting online all books that have been banned at one time and at one place in human history would be a very huge work and probably would result in a digitalization of the entire litterature.
I believe digitization of our entire literature is the goal. Think big.
The problem with the UNDHR is that it has no teeth, it is never enforced. There is a lot of wonderful stuff in it that even the US government violates, it doesn't mean a thing.
How could it be enforced? In this example China is perfectly within the letter of the treaty to make laws it considers "meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare"
And as for it being a democratic society, China has elections in case nobody noticed. Like the Soviet Union they are largely uncontested party appointments, but China can point to the US and say the same thing.
For electronic voting, that means you have enough provisional ballots to do the entire election if needed. It means you have a physical (paper or other non-alterable type) record. There's nothing wrong with electronic voting, except that the people who are implementing it appear to be morons.
And there you go. Any process should be designed for its intended users not some abstract ideal. If your users are morons, or of below average inteligence (meaning half the population) then don't add complexity for what looks like to me very little added benefit. It doesn't take forever to count ballots by hand. And making certain there were a certain number of people per thousand ballots would make sense and maybe it would stop big cities from understaffing polling places.
Perhaps elections workers should be run like jury duty? Just have a random draft of people and make sure they can count.
The set-top box is looking pretty nice (component and HDMI video output). Makes me wonder if it has the horsepower to decode HD material. If so, then it may work it's way to the top of my wishlist when it's released.
I'd also be interested in the types of peripherals that might get released for this. Maybe have CableCARD 2.0 and/or over the air HDTV tuner as a peripheral? Then you have the ultimate little box for all your tv needs.
Or maybe they just jump right to OpenCable which would keep peripheral costs down and allow them to integrate cable or satellite content.
That last one (#11) is my favorite. Kind of open ended, eh? Frankly, it'd be absurd to ask anyone to censor dynamically changing information such as a Wiki with those kinds of rules.
Thanks for that list. I think the whole thing is pretty damn open ended... so basically in china you can't say anything critical of the government, can't say anything critical of any 3rd party or "disturb the social order". You basically can't express an opinion that would be at all controversial.
And it all is okay under the so called Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Sure you have Article 19:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
But then you go ahead and follow it up with the disclaimer in Article 29:
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
Chinese censorship is perfectly in line with Universal Declarations of Human Rights. Which is the problem. You can't say that people have a freedom and then give blanket cover for governments to take away those freedoms with whatever laws they see fit.
Chinese censorship, along with any other censorship you can think of, are perfectly justifiable under Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That is the problem with the Declarations.
The purpose of a "Bill of Rights" is to have a succinct higher law which supercedes other laws when they are in conflict. Not a law which bestows rights as obligations on people, but to recognize those things which the government must not do to its people. Not to put together a feel good document that can be trashed whenever a government decides that "morality, public order and the general welfare" require it. Think of how many times the US constitution has been used by the courts to strike down Federal and State Laws, and think of what you would be able to write on this website if they hadn't.
If that treaty was a dog it would have very little bark, no bite and certainly wouldn't hunt.
One big difference is that the government doesn't just "kidnap" people all the sudden and hide them away without telling anybody where they are, there's due process and the accused can defend themselves against the accusations. Um, I mean, unless the President doesn't feel like it.
I think the original point is well put, when agents of the government arrest people there is likely a period of time where there has been no prior process and no announcement. So, say the police arrest someone for observing them commit some relatively minor offense and then release them the next day. The action and effect is the same as if I saw someone do something I did not like and kidnapped them and released them the next day. The difference is that it is government agents working within a set of predefined rules doing the former example and an individual using their own arbitrary rules in the later example.
The word kidnap and arrest really describe the same actions, but connotate a different context. Unfortunately, under some governments the police and other agents are given arbitrary powers of arrest and the difference between arrest and kidnapping becomes merely the identity of the person doing the action.
Actually, that's technically pulling an Occam, as it's a variation on Occam's Razor [wikipedia.org]. Yeah, yeah, Holmes said it like that, but Occam's razor is generally thought to be the foundation for Holmes' theory. Er...Doyle's theory, as it were.
Regardless of party discuss issues, discuss problems, do something... Standing from the rooftops screaming that such n' such is an "asshole" may get you short term attention, or even elected. But it's not solving the issues.
Geez... How about I start a website to discuss the creation of laws at the state local and federal level?
Slashdot Mirror
So they are fighting the politicizing of science and engineering by creating a political group? And yes, a 527 is a political organization whether they admit it or not. Oh sweet irony :)
If I had mod points you would have gotten one for being first to point this out.
But I think the slashdot headline is intentionally ironic and a bit misleading. They aren't trying to take politics out of science. They are trying to inject more rigorous scientific debate into politics. When you form a group "dedicated to electing politicians" this isn't about staying out of politics or keeping politicians out of science. It may be another indication of the factioning of American politics, but it is no different than any other political advocacy group trying to get across a particular point of view and supporting candidates that agree with you or will in turn support your cause.
You do realize thats for a commercial connection?
k agesandprices/packagesandprices.htm
I think he is talking about the 30Mb downstream 5Mb upstream connection for residential, which is a big jump in price from the 15/2 price
Compare that to a T1
Yes, their business service is a lot better than a T1, with a 5 Mbps/5 Mbps with static IP for $209.95/month:
http://www22.verizon.com/content/businessfios/pac
So about a 7 times improvement in price and performance, a healthy improvement, but considering that the Fiber Optic should be giving us Gigabit speeds if it is dedicated to Internet for no greater operating costs than copper, well I think it is understandable to be dissappointed that they are holding so much bandwidth back.
Essentially, they are giving us less than a couple percent of the new capacity for Internet communications and keeping the rest so they can sell add on services. Comparing what we are getting to what we had before is not good enough. We should be seeing far greater advances in broadband Internet. I am very much a libertarian, but it seems that people are not getting a good payback for the money we are investing in this and it is time for government intervention.
A libertarian approach would simply be to let whomever wants to provide a better service access to the right of way to run their fiber. The economy is being held back because this important new public infrastructure is being misallocated to make a quick buck putting entertainment before communication The costs of running fiber is coming down, so there is no reason to think that promoting real competition with the 3 companies that can offer the best service for consumers being given access to utility poles and underground rights of way. And if some company comes along that offers a better more economical service, then the 4th company should be allowed to run fiber also and then the least economical service should be required to take up their cable or forfeit it within a certain amount of time.
Either that or we need to have serious regulations about what services are offered on these lines. This is the public right of way that they are using, not merely their own private property, no person or company should be given a monopoly or effective monopoly on the public right of way without the government specifying what service is to be provided.
maybe they could bounce a laser off the roof/window of the jeep and listen that way.
I think the point was to be in an open air vehicle so the wind noise would drown out the conversation. So there would be no window or roof to bounce a laser off of. Though this sounds a lot like the cone of silence from "Get Smart" where the participants couldn't even hear the conversation themselves.
The commercial radio stations that play music we don't like, and shove commercials down the ears of listeners, AND screw payola out of artists... also do pay their licensing fees to the people of the United States.
I would rather they didn't pay a licensing fee. Having a FCC license has become just another type of property, rather than the temporary right to exclusive use of a public space that it should be seen as. Having this become yet another government slush fund has skewed and corrupted the system with government more concerned about getting its license fees than other considerations. If there was no fee, then the FCC would be more likely to consider the service that station was providing to the community rather than just whether or not the company could write a big check.
Spectrum is too valuable to sell.
As a web user, I prefer it like that, but I can understand the point of view that permission should be actually granted, not just assumed
It comes down to fair use, not permission. If the copying is done as a fair use, then there is no assumption of permission and honoring a robots.txt is just a courtesy not some legal requirement.
It's not money that's being tossed around here. It's power.
I wouldn't be so quick to put your finger on either money or power. Sometimes people just react to authority without thinking for themselves. Look at the Millgram Experiment. Otherwise normal people can do things that are beyond reason when they are given prior instructions from some authority figure.
The problem with bureaucrats (just like everyone else) is often a much more insidious a form of corruption. They actually might believe what they are doing is reasonable, even when it can clearly be shown to be overly complicated, expensive and vulnerable to being compromised compared to simpler methods. And there reasoning could be as simple as 'that's what I was told'. We all do it. We are told something that is untrue and in restrospect completely unreasonable, problem here is that they really do want to make elections run more smoothly and be easier on the old ladies that end up running the polling stations. And they have been told by diebold and the like that the rest of us are merely luddites and our concerns are unwarranted. Which has a ring of truth to it.
It is going to take more authority figures to come out and say electronic voting has some fundamental flaws when there isn't a paper trail and a paper backup. And the economics of electronic voting should only be considered if you take into account the need for both of those things.
I think if Michael Dell or Steve Jobs or somebody that had some authority, in some people's minds, were to come out and say what thousands of other well respected people have already said then maybe the message could get through. But there are many trade shows, many voting machine industry symposiums, many flashy ads and pointed sales pitches to get past for the people that run elections for a living.
So yes it is a type of corruption, but not the money in a paper bag kind. It is just hard to convince someone of something was they have been told over and over again to believe otherwise.
Some people probably do think about making it harder for people to vote and easier to rig elections. But they are not the problem, it is the people that follow them or listen to them that need to have their minds changed with reason.
It's easier to make accusations of cheating when you lose instead of accepting responsibility. This is one of the reasons I hate politicians so much. "Oh, we lost... So the other guys MUST be cheating!"
This is a lot more serious than just hating slimy politicians. The integrity of the voting process is the main reason we don't resort to threats and violence to get what we want out of government. If there is no belief in the integrity of voting, then there is no law.
Trained urban planners often don't get a seat at the development table; what makes you think local governments would care about what ordinary laypeople think?
I think the correct answer is that they won't care what they think. But they might care about what they can show them in a 3D or 2 dimensional model. If a picture is worth a thousand words, a 3d picture that you can "fly" through is at least worth a thousand and one words.
Why does 2+3 = 5? Because we said it does...not because it is universally true.
Wouldn't it be universally true because it is consistent with what has been defined? That is precisely what is so useful about mathematics in science, it is not dependent on observation, but merely needs to be consistent with simple rules that have been defined. In science, mathematics is used as a reference system.
Certainly mathematics started as a way to describe real world phenomena, but its definition is no longer linked to those phenomena. Take Riemann versus Euclidean geometry, both are true in the sense that they are consistent with their own rules and both have been useful as reference systems for different scales of observation.
Or take a different example, you put 2 cows in one ends of the barn, put another 3 cows in after that, but 6 cows come out the other side. Doesn't mean that 2 + 3 doesn't equal 5, because that is what the definition of the mathematical rules still calls for. But you might needs some new rules, or you might need another reference such as time, or maybe you had better check the barn first next time you make your observation.
Unless you are rich. In that case, you probably aren't paying any taxes anyway.
If you are rich, it means that you haven't paid your taxes yet.
While commendable when the only good option is "None Of The Above" Down Under, there are other countries where this is extremely dangerous for the democratic process.
So, what is your solution? Vote for someone you don't want I suppose? Best of the worst?
How about simply add a box for "abstain" and a line for a write in candidate? It unnerved me greatly when in 2000 the democrats took it as evidence of voting irregularities, when certain offices had no votes. I took it to mean that people just didn't like the opitions that were presented. I think an "abstain" box would eliminate this confusion and prevent a blank ballot being used to commit fraud. Also, a write-in candidate should always be easy to provide, otherwise it is not very deomcratic.
considering how many "non-profits" lobby congress
Yes, I doubt this is a primary reason. I've been researching setting up a small non-profit and as long as lobbying is just a small portion of the activities (not sure of the exact percentage) then you can lobby Congress. Just can't speak out for or against a particular candidate, unless you make it clear it is not in your official capacity as an officer or director of a non profit.
Really, it seems that the ability to fund companies that are helping people seems most compelling. Imagine a person comes up with a technology that has the potential to help billions of people, but which would supplant another technology which is very profitable. If there is a company willing to step in and fund such a startup, that is certainly worth having to pay some taxes each year.
t's a lesson about company A (Verizon in this case) subbing out an important business segment to company B (Microsoft, the promise-anything, and ship whatever company). If something is THAT important to your business, dammit, get it done yourself!
It is very common for a software project to fail the first time around. Often a combination of uncertain requirements, inexperienced developers and bad management combine to make it nearly impossible to succeed the first time around. As long as Verizon learned the lessons from Microsoft's failure then this was a very smart plan. Outsource the failure part, then learn from the mistakes so your own development team gets a shortcut to success.
But why shouldn't youtube pay for it like everyone else?
They are trying to arrange for it. But doesn't this problem arise from individuals uploading content that has copyrighted music in it? As an Internet Service Provider there is a procedure for dealing with copyrighted material being posted to a website. It is called a take down notice. Youtube should immune to damages as long as it is following the DMCA procedure. It is the individuals that use copyrighted materials without appropriate permission who are the ones the studios should be going after, unless YouTube is indemnifying them somehow.
These should all be legal in the confides of your own home. But what should be illegal is you trying to make money and selling your hacks/modchips.
No.
As long as there is a legal use for DRM Circumvention, then the devices should be legal to sell.
We don't throw Xerox sales reps in jail just because their technology could be used to infringe on copyright.
Copyright law struck a balance between the rights of creators to benefit from their work and the ability of the public to benefit from the work once it was published. And it balances the Freedom of expression rights of both the original creator and those that would make use of the original work in a derivative work. The concept is fair use. Enshrining DRM into law without allowing for reliable ability to make fair use of content throws fair use out the window and undermines the foundation of copyright law. DRM lets the content producer have it both ways and effectively invalidates the time limited provisions of copyright law.
In the US, prohibitions on DRM circumvention are unconstitutional because they violate Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 which allows congress "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"
Anti DRM circumvention laws violate this provision, "securing for limited times", because the legal effect is to allow authors or their delegates to control copying far beyond any expiration of copyright.
As far as I am aware the most of the challenges so far to the DMCA have focused on peripheral issues. Whereas they should be focusing on the lack of any type sunset provision for legal use of DRM. Congress certainly has the right to allow DRMs use, but if it legally and effectively prohibits copying well beyond the expiration of copyright, then the law is quite clearly unconstitutional as well as unwise.
Your post neatly summarizes (one of) the problems I have with Libertarians. You have absolutely ZERO sense of proportion. Everything is black or white. Either someone is innocent, or they're the worst criminal in the history of mankind. There is no middle ground.
I assumed when he was saying that we are all criminals, that he meant that we all from time to time break the letter of some law and that it is therefore very bad to have computers judging us. The death penalty comments were from others. Generally the laws that we break day to day are considered "misdemeanors" and carry light punishments, such as violations of traffic laws, or littering, or disturbing the peace and such.
I don't think this is a particularly libertarian concept, simply common sense that the nature of the crime and not merely the category of crime should be considered both in the sentencing and judgement. That said we have far too many laws which are only punished at the discretion of police, judges, politicians etc. And normalizing the sentences for those crimes is a laudable goal, because it decreases the chance for corruption, favoritism, racism and other "isms". I'm libertarian, but I support this chinese experiment in justice because of its potential to reduce corruption, but I would suggest that it should only be used to guide sentences imposed by judges not to impose them itself. It should also be made available to the public along with the final sentence, so that people may judge the fairness of the courts. There should always be room for discretion in judging violations of law, but laws should not be so numerous and unavoidable as to make living within the law unachievable by good intentioned individuals.
Corporations do shitty things to increase their profit margins! Shocking, I know! Come on, do people honestly believe that Google is some sort of sintly organization? Their goal - no, their legal responsibility - is to maximize the profit of their shareholders. Same as any other company. Get over them already.
And they can only maximise their profits in unethical ways? That seems not only cynical, but plain wrong. Business is about business relationships, you want to be as trustworthy and consistent as possible, otherwise you have the potential to scare off both customers and other business relationships. Yes power usually corrupts even the noblest of intentions, but to imply that maximising profits is incompatible with ethical behavior right from the start is not a redeemable point of view.
Plus, may I be the first to say, that putting online all books that have been banned at one time and at one place in human history would be a very huge work and probably would result in a digitalization of the entire litterature.
I believe digitization of our entire literature is the goal. Think big.
The problem with the UNDHR is that it has no teeth, it is never enforced. There is a lot of wonderful stuff in it that even the US government violates, it doesn't mean a thing.
How could it be enforced? In this example China is perfectly within the letter of the treaty to make laws it considers "meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare"
And as for it being a democratic society, China has elections in case nobody noticed. Like the Soviet Union they are largely uncontested party appointments, but China can point to the US and say the same thing.
For electronic voting, that means you have enough provisional ballots to do the entire election if needed. It means you have a physical (paper or other non-alterable type) record. There's nothing wrong with electronic voting, except that the people who are implementing it appear to be morons.
And there you go. Any process should be designed for its intended users not some abstract ideal. If your users are morons, or of below average inteligence (meaning half the population) then don't add complexity for what looks like to me very little added benefit. It doesn't take forever to count ballots by hand. And making certain there were a certain number of people per thousand ballots would make sense and maybe it would stop big cities from understaffing polling places.
Perhaps elections workers should be run like jury duty? Just have a random draft of people and make sure they can count.
The set-top box is looking pretty nice (component and HDMI video output). Makes me wonder if it has the horsepower to decode HD material. If so, then it may work it's way to the top of my wishlist when it's released.
I'd also be interested in the types of peripherals that might get released for this. Maybe have CableCARD 2.0 and/or over the air HDTV tuner as a peripheral? Then you have the ultimate little box for all your tv needs.
Or maybe they just jump right to OpenCable which would keep peripheral costs down and allow them to integrate cable or satellite content.
That last one (#11) is my favorite. Kind of open ended, eh? Frankly, it'd be absurd to ask anyone to censor dynamically changing information such as a Wiki with those kinds of rules.
Thanks for that list. I think the whole thing is pretty damn open ended... so basically in china you can't say anything critical of the government, can't say anything critical of any 3rd party or "disturb the social order". You basically can't express an opinion that would be at all controversial.
And it all is okay under the so called Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Sure you have Article 19:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
But then you go ahead and follow it up with the disclaimer in Article 29:
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
Chinese censorship is perfectly in line with Universal Declarations of Human Rights. Which is the problem. You can't say that people have a freedom and then give blanket cover for governments to take away those freedoms with whatever laws they see fit.
Chinese censorship, along with any other censorship you can think of, are perfectly justifiable under Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That is the problem with the Declarations.
The purpose of a "Bill of Rights" is to have a succinct higher law which supercedes other laws when they are in conflict. Not a law which bestows rights as obligations on people, but to recognize those things which the government must not do to its people. Not to put together a feel good document that can be trashed whenever a government decides that "morality, public order and the general welfare" require it. Think of how many times the US constitution has been used by the courts to strike down Federal and State Laws, and think of what you would be able to write on this website if they hadn't.
If that treaty was a dog it would have very little bark, no bite and certainly wouldn't hunt.
One big difference is that the government doesn't just "kidnap" people all the sudden and hide them away without telling anybody where they are, there's due process and the accused can defend themselves against the accusations. Um, I mean, unless the President doesn't feel like it.
I think the original point is well put, when agents of the government arrest people there is likely a period of time where there has been no prior process and no announcement. So, say the police arrest someone for observing them commit some relatively minor offense and then release them the next day. The action and effect is the same as if I saw someone do something I did not like and kidnapped them and released them the next day. The difference is that it is government agents working within a set of predefined rules doing the former example and an individual using their own arbitrary rules in the later example.
The word kidnap and arrest really describe the same actions, but connotate a different context. Unfortunately, under some governments the police and other agents are given arbitrary powers of arrest and the difference between arrest and kidnapping becomes merely the identity of the person doing the action.
Actually, that's technically pulling an Occam, as it's a variation on Occam's Razor [wikipedia.org]. Yeah, yeah, Holmes said it like that, but Occam's razor is generally thought to be the foundation for Holmes' theory. Er...Doyle's theory, as it were.
ya well... no shit, Shirlock.
Regardless of party discuss issues, discuss problems, do something... Standing from the rooftops screaming that such n' such is an "asshole" may get you short term attention, or even elected. But it's not solving the issues.
Geez... How about I start a website to discuss the creation of laws at the state local and federal level?
openlaws.com