[...] if copyright was on the whole respected [...]
You're exactly right! If only those companies who specialize in distributing shiny discs and losing money on lots of smaller acts so they don't have to pay taxes, respected copyrights, then we'd have more than 0 works entering the public domain since 1923.
Yeah, I'm more than willing to give the robots a chance.
Yeah, I agree. Except, can't they make them fucking neutral? I don't want a robot to gossip with me, or share both ridiculous and flat-out untrue complaints.
But as to your list of SBC issues, it sounds like a slight amount of artificial intelligence would vastly outdo the crap job that humans are doing there.
To prove the concept. Also, I would imagine we'd need some sort of marketing campaign to grow interest. With those two example laws, I'd imagine we'd advertise to bee-keepers and gator wranglers around the nation, asking for their help in removing unconstitutional laws that are directed at their respective industries.
I don't have all the answers; there may be ways to do this that cost significantly less. Others have suggested that, rather than starting out throwing money at attorneys, we should instead begin when one person expresses interest (no donation, just interest) in removing a law, and write a letter to our congressperson and see what reaction we get.
Then, as more people "sign" the petition for that law's removal, we will forward those "signatures" to the legistator. There should be some (previously-defined) amount of time that, if we do not receive an adequate response, then we start throwing money at attorneys.
My interest right now is in creating the framework. My skills are heavy in Perl but light in Python and Ruby, so I'd prefer a Rails-type project that works under Perl. I've found Maypole, POE (Perl Object Environment) and a few others that I haven't investigated fully (Behavior, Rico, Prototype, script.aculo.us, others).
Getting back to your question, I think there might be interest from the EFF, ACLU, and similar organizations in removing ridiculous laws like these. And the government might even get into the game, since "Useless laws weaken the necessary laws" (Charles De
Montesquieu). (Not that I expect that last to happen; government's job is, generally, creating more government.)
Separately, we'll have nanotechnology within 20 years and we'll all be able to escape the gravity well (we'll also probably break up the planets so that there are no more energy-stealing gravity wells), so I'm not sure whether my efforts would be better rewarded starting this project, or simply continuing my education regarding nanotechnology (or just masturbating for 20 years, since the machines will be able to out-think me once we get to nano so why not enjoy the now?).
That said, right now this interests me and I've got 2 weeks to see what I can do to get started. If you'd like to help, shoot me an email. Cheers!
Hey thanks! Although I didn't mention it, I did wonder where it originated. I really liked Bill Maher's "Politically Incorrect" -- I remember one episode in particular from 10 years ago or so, where I was very impressed with David Lowery's communication skills and intelligence (he was the vocalist/front-man for Camper Van Beethoven, then later Cracker--and just now as I was looking up the spelling for his last name, I found news that Camper is back on tour!).
I have a project I'd like to start that I've been thinking about for a couple years. It sounds like you might be interested, based on your writings.
The basic idea is this: a web site where people can donate, and direct their donations towards a certain effort.
That's too general. Specifically, it will be donations towards the removal of laws. We would negotiate with attorneys and determine (ballpark) how much it would cost to challenge and remove a specific law (a law that the audience expressed interest in). Then we'd post that goal (20% higher, perhaps, in case of overruns) on the website, allowing the audience to send money towards the goal.
Once the goal has been reached, the attorneys will be paid and directed to initiate the challenge.
We would start with the simpler, more ridiculous laws, like bees can't fly less than 6' over city streets (a law obviously written because they had a bee-keeper they wanted out of town, and changing the zoning laws was a much larger effort--but now they're stuck with bugs in their code!). And another, about not being able to walk your pet alligator down some Florida street without a leash.
Using these victories as a base, I hope to be able to ultimately challenge the society-destroying laws: laws which criminalize behaviors that are consentual.
Eliminating the DMCA would be a good bid as well, and would probably garner many donations from the Slashdot crowd.
I'm on vacation now, so I can spend the next two weeks actively working on this idea. Let me know if you're interested in collaborating.
The Simpsons did a nice treatment of the recycling recently: the episode "The Italian Bob" where Homer (and family) go to Italy to bring back Mr. Burn's new car, the Lamorgotta Fastarossa (IIRC).
They meet Sideshow Bob, who is now mayor of a small town in Italy. They out him as an ex-con, and the Italian police look him up in their American convicts book.
They see Snake (forgot the heading), Mayor Quimby ("Drivus Drinkus"), a few others (?), then Peter Griffin ("Plagarismo"), then the dad from American Dad ("Plagarismo di Plagarismo"), and then Sideshow Bob (again, forgot the heading).
Psst, I just friended you. I don't see any other way to tell you. I've admired your sig for several months and have shared it with many. I really like the way you stated the obvious: when it's illegal to put one part next to another part, we're living in a police state.
It(sharing copyrighted files) is illegal(in the US I mean, but only if copyrighted), [...]
The music my brother puts up for download... is copyrighted. By him.
It's also completely legal for you to download it.
I realize what you were saying but you left out a few words; something like: "is illegal (in the US I mean, but only if copyrighted, and only if the copyright holder does not permit the download), [...]"
I feel I need to clarify the above sentence: absence of permission equals lack of permission; the copyright holder must specifically allow the download (or copying, to be precise, as the Grateful Dead have allowed live bootlegs for decades).
However, I'm not sure that the world wouldn't be a better place if there weren't some law that made it impossible for one person to amass more wealth in a few years than the average person would in 100 lifetimes.
Fortunately, such a law would basically make nanotechnology illegal.
How? In a few seconds, you could amass more wealth than the average person would have in 100 lifetimes (by harnessing the sun's output).
And, you'd also have 100 lifetimes (and infinitely more, until the stars burn out) to spend it in.
Spending any time, money, or other resources on "fixing" the legal system at this point in our existence is a waste of those resources: the legal system will never get to where it should be, before the technological system will make the legal system unimportant.
We're all going to the stars; the meek shall surely inherit the Earth!
Not only that -- I was also seriously disappointed to read this wasn't an article about removing the drug laws so that researchers could finally determine whether driving stoned was more or less likely to end up with you in an accident. Or at a KFC, or something. What was I saying?
Actually, his "grammar" was incorrect since it was spelled "grammer", so it could be argued that both his spelling and his "grammar" were incorrect, but his grammar was not.
The Times said it delayed publication of the report for a year because the White House said [...]
They knew about all this, and kept it from the American public for a year? "The White House" doesn't define the law, the legislators do. The White House has to follow that law like the rest of us (although they do have veto powers at the law's birth, if they let it pass they aren't above it).
I think both the Times and the White House should be put on trial, if anything comes out of the Congressional investigation.
What I find interesting is that actions like these (FTA):
Earlier this week, the
Pentagon said it was reviewing its use of a classified database of information about suspicious people and activity inside the United States after a report by NBC News said the database listed activities of anti-war groups that were not a security threat to Pentagon property or personnel.
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said that while it appears that some information may have been left in the database longer than it should have been, it was not clear yet whether mistakes were made. A written statement issued by the department implied -- but did not explicitly acknowledge -- that some information had been handled improperly.
tend to create the very people they want to capture in their database! If someone from that anti-war group knew that the government were keeping their information falsely and could do nothing else to remove it, they might consider blowing up the building housing the database.
Microsoft is NOT a monopoly? Who locks vendors into their software? Who tried to block other media players on their OS? Who committed numerous acts of perjury at their antitrust trial?
All: Who controls the British crown?
Who keeps the metric system down?
We do! We do!
Karl: Who leaves Atlantis off the maps?
Lenny: Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
Alien: We do! We do!
All: Who holds back the electric car?
Who makes Steve Gutenberg a star?
We do! We do!
Skinner: Who robs cavefish of their sight?
Homer: Who rigs every Oscar night?
All: We do! We do!
[...] but I also think that a part of the spectrum should be 'lent' to corporations simply because they've more resources to do cool stuff than joe user off the street.
Actually, since corporations have the rights but not the responsibilities of citizens, the government should only lend/lease the spectrum to citizens, who are then free to enter into negotiations with corporations.
However, if anything illegal is done using that spectrum, the citizen can go to jail.
It's about fucking time we start, somehow, making corporations accountable for their actions.
Re:I think spider robinson wrote a story like this
on
Why We Fight
·
· Score: 1
Heinlein has a particularly apt quote as well, which fits very nicely: "An armed society is a polite society."
Slashdot Mirror
You're exactly right! If only those companies who specialize in distributing shiny discs and losing money on lots of smaller acts so they don't have to pay taxes, respected copyrights, then we'd have more than 0 works entering the public domain since 1923.
Yeah, I agree. Except, can't they make them fucking neutral? I don't want a robot to gossip with me, or share both ridiculous and flat-out untrue complaints.
But as to your list of SBC issues, it sounds like a slight amount of artificial intelligence would vastly outdo the crap job that humans are doing there.
"Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead." - Benjamin Franklin
I don't have all the answers; there may be ways to do this that cost significantly less. Others have suggested that, rather than starting out throwing money at attorneys, we should instead begin when one person expresses interest (no donation, just interest) in removing a law, and write a letter to our congressperson and see what reaction we get.
Then, as more people "sign" the petition for that law's removal, we will forward those "signatures" to the legistator. There should be some (previously-defined) amount of time that, if we do not receive an adequate response, then we start throwing money at attorneys.
My interest right now is in creating the framework. My skills are heavy in Perl but light in Python and Ruby, so I'd prefer a Rails-type project that works under Perl. I've found Maypole, POE (Perl Object Environment) and a few others that I haven't investigated fully (Behavior, Rico, Prototype, script.aculo.us, others).
Getting back to your question, I think there might be interest from the EFF, ACLU, and similar organizations in removing ridiculous laws like these. And the government might even get into the game, since "Useless laws weaken the necessary laws" (Charles De Montesquieu). (Not that I expect that last to happen; government's job is, generally, creating more government.)
Separately, we'll have nanotechnology within 20 years and we'll all be able to escape the gravity well (we'll also probably break up the planets so that there are no more energy-stealing gravity wells), so I'm not sure whether my efforts would be better rewarded starting this project, or simply continuing my education regarding nanotechnology (or just masturbating for 20 years, since the machines will be able to out-think me once we get to nano so why not enjoy the now?).
That said, right now this interests me and I've got 2 weeks to see what I can do to get started. If you'd like to help, shoot me an email. Cheers!
Hey thanks! Although I didn't mention it, I did wonder where it originated. I really liked Bill Maher's "Politically Incorrect" -- I remember one episode in particular from 10 years ago or so, where I was very impressed with David Lowery's communication skills and intelligence (he was the vocalist/front-man for Camper Van Beethoven, then later Cracker--and just now as I was looking up the spelling for his last name, I found news that Camper is back on tour!).
The basic idea is this: a web site where people can donate, and direct their donations towards a certain effort.
That's too general. Specifically, it will be donations towards the removal of laws. We would negotiate with attorneys and determine (ballpark) how much it would cost to challenge and remove a specific law (a law that the audience expressed interest in). Then we'd post that goal (20% higher, perhaps, in case of overruns) on the website, allowing the audience to send money towards the goal.
Once the goal has been reached, the attorneys will be paid and directed to initiate the challenge.
We would start with the simpler, more ridiculous laws, like bees can't fly less than 6' over city streets (a law obviously written because they had a bee-keeper they wanted out of town, and changing the zoning laws was a much larger effort--but now they're stuck with bugs in their code!). And another, about not being able to walk your pet alligator down some Florida street without a leash.
Using these victories as a base, I hope to be able to ultimately challenge the society-destroying laws: laws which criminalize behaviors that are consentual.
Eliminating the DMCA would be a good bid as well, and would probably garner many donations from the Slashdot crowd.
I'm on vacation now, so I can spend the next two weeks actively working on this idea. Let me know if you're interested in collaborating.
They meet Sideshow Bob, who is now mayor of a small town in Italy. They out him as an ex-con, and the Italian police look him up in their American convicts book.
They see Snake (forgot the heading), Mayor Quimby ("Drivus Drinkus"), a few others (?), then Peter Griffin ("Plagarismo"), then the dad from American Dad ("Plagarismo di Plagarismo"), and then Sideshow Bob (again, forgot the heading).
Kelsey tip: you're not fucking talking about him! Fix your sig already.
Psst, I just friended you. I don't see any other way to tell you. I've admired your sig for several months and have shared it with many. I really like the way you stated the obvious: when it's illegal to put one part next to another part, we're living in a police state.
It's also completely legal for you to download it.
I realize what you were saying but you left out a few words; something like: "is illegal (in the US I mean, but only if copyrighted, and only if the copyright holder does not permit the download), [...]"
I feel I need to clarify the above sentence: absence of permission equals lack of permission; the copyright holder must specifically allow the download (or copying, to be precise, as the Grateful Dead have allowed live bootlegs for decades).
I see prisoners picking up trash on route 128 (not so much lately now that winter has started): slavery has never left.
Fortunately, such a law would basically make nanotechnology illegal.
How? In a few seconds, you could amass more wealth than the average person would have in 100 lifetimes (by harnessing the sun's output).
And, you'd also have 100 lifetimes (and infinitely more, until the stars burn out) to spend it in.
Spending any time, money, or other resources on "fixing" the legal system at this point in our existence is a waste of those resources: the legal system will never get to where it should be, before the technological system will make the legal system unimportant.
We're all going to the stars; the meek shall surely inherit the Earth!
Actually, it has everything to do with prurient gratification; just, simply, after-the-fact. ;-)
Um, yes? And I say that because I was taught to be ashamed of it from an earlier age than I can remember: THEY CUT THE FUCKING TIP OFF!
Not only that -- I was also seriously disappointed to read this wasn't an article about removing the drug laws so that researchers could finally determine whether driving stoned was more or less likely to end up with you in an accident. Or at a KFC, or something. What was I saying?
Now it's stretched even further. ;-)
They knew about all this, and kept it from the American public for a year? "The White House" doesn't define the law, the legislators do. The White House has to follow that law like the rest of us (although they do have veto powers at the law's birth, if they let it pass they aren't above it).
I think both the Times and the White House should be put on trial, if anything comes out of the Congressional investigation.
tend to create the very people they want to capture in their database! If someone from that anti-war group knew that the government were keeping their information falsely and could do nothing else to remove it, they might consider blowing up the building housing the database.
The idea of God tripping makes me think of the duck-billed platypus...
Even worse, some of them now have sound effects!
All: Who controls the British crown?
Who keeps the metric system down?
We do! We do!
Karl: Who leaves Atlantis off the maps?
Lenny: Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
Alien: We do! We do!
All: Who holds back the electric car?
Who makes Steve Gutenberg a star?
We do! We do!
Skinner: Who robs cavefish of their sight?
Homer: Who rigs every Oscar night?
All: We do! We do!
Which ultimately means "all your base are belong to the USA".
Actually, since corporations have the rights but not the responsibilities of citizens, the government should only lend/lease the spectrum to citizens, who are then free to enter into negotiations with corporations.
However, if anything illegal is done using that spectrum, the citizen can go to jail.
It's about fucking time we start, somehow, making corporations accountable for their actions.
Heinlein has a particularly apt quote as well, which fits very nicely: "An armed society is a polite society."
I agree. Use "tinkerer". 50% more syllables, and close to an elimination homonym!