It is not clearly a parody, and is effectively putting words into the mouth of the body it's
targetting.
Putting offensive words in people's mouth is a good definition of parody. Have you watched late night shows lately?
Besides, if the words are so offensive that you know they couldn't have been said by the WTO, then it is a clear parody. Alternatively, if you are not sure that it is the parody then either
the words are not really so offensive
You believe that the WTO can make such offensive comment in earnest.
In the second case this isn't just parody but world class top of-the-line fscking Jonathan Swift kind of parody.
The Supreme court had the wisdom to see that
overruling an 8-1 decision of a fairly conservative court will do no good to its
own, already fairly shaken, reputation.
It's good news because it means that the finding
of fact are now the official undisputable truth as
far as all US courts are concerned.
But there's a long way to go before we see anything good coming from the case. It is too soon to party and too soon to despair.
Perl is a language that stood out because of the way it came to be. It differs from others by the careful balancing of ideosyncrecy and shameless emulation. The guiding principles were always practicality ( making simple things easy)
and linguistic metaphors ( $_ means 'it', @ is to $ as plural to singular, : is like the adverbial 'ly' in english, etc.).
The fact that Perl succeded so well is proof that these design principles were right, despite the legions of naysayers.
Now Larry Wall leads Perl into the unknown by trying a bolder iteration of the same principles. He may well fail, either because the world of computing has changed or because these principles have reached their ceiling. But he is doing the right thing. Innovation doesn't come from trying to keep everyone happy.
To all those naysayers, Perl 5 is there, stay with it and be happy.
The only real difference is that some of you (mostly in the US) have pulled your heads _out_ of the sand and started to realise what's going on in the world.
Oh so TRUE!!!!
I wish I had mod points for you.
If the FBI announces that terrorists had a hotmail account, there will be a clamour to ban anonymous hotmail accounts. But we know the terrorists used boxcutters and jets and nobody says we should stop using boxcutters or jets.
THe problem with privacy is that it is a issue of principle that has little mainstream appeal. Most people are too damn boring to care about anybody reading their correspondence. It is the odd one out, the "perverse", the non-conformist, the politically marginal, etc. that will be hurt most.
The change of mood after September 11 just enhances a fundamental problem: marginal concerns are marginal. To those who cared about privacy, the attack should make no difference. If privacy is really important, it cannot be surrendered any more than air-travel can be surrendered.
Dunno, but I am proud to be part of the new Titanium Elite. I had one of my teeth replaced with a titanium implant. The Doctor said it was an "upgrade".
Now, if someone annoys me, I simply bite.
In this case, the FTC made the an initial decision. This decision will be reviewed by the court. The court decision will be reviewed by congress and congress decision will be reviewed by voters.
If you go there and run their javascript, that's a choice that you make.
According to your logic, if I invite a plumber to fix my sink, I cannot call the police if he starts emptying my refrigerator. If I enter a restaurant, the owner is free to poison me. etc. Doesn't it make sense to use common sense and see that all privileges that we grant each other when we willingly engage in transactions are limited and assume a trust that they will not be abused?
As you say, this isn't a perfect world. That is why the requirement that regulation be perfect is pointless. People mess up everything, and society stumble along by a myriad of checks and balances.
regulation does work. For example, the streets are not covered with litter and dog poo, and none of my neighbors remodel their appartment during the night. Of course, there are failures and problems, because as you said, the world isn't perfect.
There is no such contract. You speak of a illusion, a ghost, if you will.
An implicit contract exists in every human transaction, and becomes legally binding whenever the courts say so. Of course, judges can and do err. To prevent such "imperfection" your seem to want to to ban human judgement.
Code is speech
Yes, and code also does stuff. That is why it is the business of the courts to decide which speech is protected and in what circumstances. Your all or nothing attitude doesn't fly and never will.
Period. End of story
No, the story just begins, the story of making distinctions and bringing human intelligence to bear on life.
Sooner or later that FTC will shut down a site a majority of people doesnt think is "abusive"
And then someone will appeal the decision and the courts will decide whether the rights of the minority have been somehow inapropriately curtailed. And if the court will judge wrongly, you and me can demonstrate in Washington until we get politicians to appoint smarter judges.
And in the end, it still isn't perfect. Because nothing is, not even the technological shiboleth.
The only reason I have a window is to allow me to see what is outside. Does it give you permission to stand in front of my window and make lewed or threatening gestures? Stores allow customers to come inside and handle their wares. Does this make shoplifting legal?
The implicit contract between web-user and web-server operator is that the latter takes control of the browser for the purpose of showing the former something that he or she may conceivably want to see. Ignoring this contract is an abuse. What is wrong in a government agency tracking and prosecuting abuse?
Why does the govenment regulates cleaning your dog poop from the street? Can't we have Dupont invent a tarmac that disolves it?
Why does the government regulate noise? Can't you invest in better insulation for your home?
The reason is simple. It is cheaper to have a cop fine one thousand offenders than to have one billion consumers invest is an expensive technological solution.
The issue here is not innovation but nuisance. What is bad about nuisance, by definition, is that it forces you to chose between suffering it and paying something to get rid of it. An innovation that removes a nuisance does not improve your quality of life. It merely restores it.
Thus having a free arm race between nuisance makers and anti-nuisance solution makers is a waste of intelligence and money that are better spent on something that actually makes life better. That is something every town council understands, and that is why nuisance is regulated.
The only difference here is that the internet allows people to be a nuisance from a greater distance. That makes it apropriate for federal rather than local regulation.
Being that I am a control freak, and I have a lot of no standard stuff creeping over the original installation, I don't trust automated upgrade ( on Mandrake.) I install to a separate partitions/s, then I create backup configuration directories (/etc_bk etc.) and then I selectively move configuration files (and other non standard files) from the old installation.
I am sure there is a smarter way, but I haven't figured it out yet. If you want to upgrade you can also clone your system onto a new partition/s and then upgrade one partition/s and proceed from there.
But I'm not sure embracing C# is
the best way to "stick it to Microsoft"...
But why should the language matter? Is there any reason not to create.NET bindings for c++, or even scheme and Perl? That could make the clone better than the original.
Before you are modded down, buddy, let me cheer you up. I once read an article about Greenspan, who was, as you might know, one of her groupies. Supposedly, she didn't like him at first, because, get this, she thought he was "a social climber". Ha Ha Ha!! What sweet ironie, and then her groupie becomes the chief governmental officer regulating the economy. LOL.
so I do know what I'm talking about when I
say that Rand was evil.
I don't know if she's evil, but her books are just infantile. They appeal to teenagers at that certain point in their life when they feel that every authority figure is out there to get them. People get to read her at that stage and get hooked. I wish they were reading "Mobby Dick" or something else that can plausibly be described as literature instead.
You know, I was about to bash them for the ridiculous interpretation of Nietzsche. But you hit the nail on its head. The Nietzcheans got Nietzsche just as you'd expect a bunch of people who spend way too much time at the gym would get Nietzsche.
Maybe, just maybe, Nietzsche's mental collapse happened when one of the Nietzcheans went back through time to meet him.
It seems you don't understand the concept of punitive damages at all. You seem to think that the purpose of the "lottery" is to compensate, whereas in fact its purpuse is to regulate.
Suing is expensive and stressful. Suppose an HMO routinely denies care or offers substandard care in a form that causes $50,000 damage per case (in pain, lost revenues, etc). Very few people would sue, because of lack of awareness, the high legal costs, the stress and the uncertainty. Suppose 1% sues, and suppose the denial of care results in saving $3000 ( for the HMO). The HMO is likely to continue denying care because the cost of settling with the 1% who sues is less that the saving over the 99% who don't.
The old fashioned way of dealing with this problem is to have government regulators overseeing how HMOs operate. The problem with that oversight is that it is cumbersome and expensive. Because HMO have all the information that regulators need whereas the regulator has very little, it would be more efficient if HMOs regulated themselves. But why should they?
Punitive damage, of course! Punitive damage is a tool for privetizing regulation. It gives private lawyers incentives to track corner-cutting, and indirectly, it gives HMOs an incentive to exercise oversight over themselves. That should be theoretically cheaper.
As I see it, there are only three possible positions. Either you are against beaurocratic regulation and in favor of punitive damages (because of efficiency consideration), or you favor direct beaurocratic regulation ( God knows why), or you favor shafting the consumer ( a popular political credo these days.)
Punitive damage exist to solve a the economical problem of regulation, not to make lawyers or clients rich.
While lawyers get rich from punitive damage awards, I cannot see why it is more offensive than executives getting rich from downsizing their companies. The Republican tirade against evil lawyers is mind-numbingly hypocritcal, given that the first and foremost job of lawyers in our society is to protect property rights.
It may be helpful if judges explained this to juries, and if juries where guided by the law to award punitive damages in such a way as to minimize the total social cost of non-compliance (rather that coming with figures that merely express their personal revulsion). But that is another matter.
Even assuming that it would be possible to get read of economical scarcity, you have to remember that our psychological and soial make-up are designed for scarcity. We are driven towards our personal goals by the scarcity of what we desire. And we are forced to interact with others by the same scarcity. If we get rid of real scarcity, we will create an artificial one that will allow us to exist. Some people say we already did.
Not so fast, (IANAL), circumvention devices are to free speech what guns are too the second ammendment. Both the second ammendment and the first are not absolute. The courts have to balance the constitutional interests they create against other interests, for example, the interests of law and order, property rights, innovation, etc.
One could make an argument that gun makers do not merely facilitate the second ammendment, they make it happen. You cannot have a meaninful right to bear arms if guns do not exist. On the other hand, banning circumvention devices does not vacate the first ammendment, it merely reduces its scope, which is permitted if there's "good" reason.
This is casuistry, but casuistry is what lawyers do for living. At bottom, the complexity of the world makes sures that any position on the issue can be argued in a principled way. The winning argument is the argument that has either more money, or more people ready to raise hell.
I don't want to say that your argument by analogy isn't good. Only that good arguments rarely win on their own.
When a corporation leaves the law behind, the best thing to do is to open criminal prosecutions against the individuals who made the corporate decisions.
"Killing" a corporation sounds tough, but in fact, its only non-symbolic effect is financial. Whereas many criminal corporate acts call for stronger penalties, which by definition cannot be imposed on a legal fiction.
On the other hand, the death penalty should be given a lethal injection rather than "expanded", even in jest.
The prosecution will probably refuse to deal with Hanson unless he returns, but maybe if he became very rich some future president will pardon him;-(
Seriously, it now boils down to hitting a Canadian judge who is pissed off enough about the US to risk embarassing the Canadian government by granting asylum to a US citizen, and thus implying that it is possible to be persecuted in the US. Oh, the Horror, the Horror! What next, a crimes against humanity case against Henri Kissinger at the Hague?
First and foremost, time shifting require the same quality as the original. DeCSS is about DVD, but the precedent will come haunting us with HDTV and other boadcasting models in the future.
DeCSS is also useful to evade country codes, which is also a fair use issue and also requires a same as original quality.
Even when quality can be inferior, it cannot be noticeably inferior without denting significantly into fair use right. The degradation introduced by xeroxing a book or using a VCR or tape is acceptable, because these techniques were at the background of the present legal situation. mandating degradation beyond that ( like shooting the signal with a camera ) should be seen as watering down fair use.
Indeed, and I decided to reply even though by now the audience is probably very small:-)
Markets will produce what people will consume. If people want good discusions they are likely to get them. But very few people want them.
All your points are true but you make a faulty assumption and buy to easily into what is not science but fudge.
You assume that the social benefits of a good news service is proportional to the number of people watching it. This is true of the economic benefits to the producer, but the social benefit is not proportional but follows a pattern of quickly diminishing returns. A News program seen by 20 Million people may generate twice the revenues of a news program seen by 10 million. But the additional benefit to society is not twice as big but far less. That is because a news program affects lots of people who don't watch it. First, there are informal networks of oral information distribution through friends, relatives, co-workers, etc. Some people, who care about the news more than others, tend to be trend-setters and information providers in their local networks. Second, other producers of intellectual goods use the news as raw material -- comedians, interviewers, filmmakers, sitcom writers, teachers, etc. Third, policy makers pay attention to the news and are alert to any description that affects their own image. In addition, even people who do not pay regular attention to the news care very much about getting good information in moments of crisis--war, disaster, etc. But it is impossible to have one level of regular service of low quality and then expect the same infrastructure to provide high quality under stress. By disseminating information well beyond its direct consumers, thus elevating the level of all policy debate, and by keeping government alert, quality journalism positively affect the quality of life of everyone. That is why journalism has been traditionaly ( in liberal thought, liberal as in Mill, not as in Clinton ) seen as the forth branch of government. Because of this difference in cost/benefit analysis, expecting markets to create good journalism just because markets respond to what people want to watch is guaranteed to fail, as producers will maximize their audience rather than the social benefits of good journalism ( which is connected to audience size but isn't proportional to it). In the nineteenth and early twentieth century that was not a major problem because the market for news was elitist and only the elites participated in policymaking. Thus, there was not such a dissonance between the economic benefits and the social benefits of news production. Today, the juncture of television and universal franchise requires new solutions.
Now, we have two alternatives. We can try to find creative solutions to this problem or we can resign ourselves to living in a word where many of the most important decisions that affect our lives are made in a cloud of ignorance, and in a way that easily allows this ignorance to be manipulated for unholy purposes. I believe that very little in the current glory of our civilization has been achieved because people simply accepted their fate. But there were always those who advocated exactly that, because it suited them.
The economists who wrote the letter want us to forget that there are other problems except those they can solve. Econo-speak fashions a language which, when used consistently, makes problems that are not easily expressed in that language disappear. They perform a role similar to that of the medieval theologian, whose language was designed to reconcile people to their measly fate. It is not that their theories are wrong, but that they capture (as all scientific theory must) a particular aspect of reality. When their expertise is used to stifle political discussion rather than to foster technical discussion, i.e., when the limitations of the theory is forgotten, it is then used as ideology and is no more scientific than medieval theology. The post that started this thread captured this disinginiousness well by the astute observation that the public interest appears in double quotation marks. Your suggestion that anthropologists and sociologists make alternative solutions doesn't seem to be very fair. First, they do not receive the same deferential and uncritical adulation by today's politicians the way economists do ( had Clinton had an anthropologist in the cabinet, Russia wouldn't have been in the mess it is in now). Second, I believe scientists can be responsible citizens, and should be taken to task when they use their expertise ideologically, beyond their proper scientific boundaries. If you have a hammer, you believe all the world's problem are nails. But if you are a scientist, you should have the integrity to acknoweldge that and warn the people you advise that some problems don't respond well to hammering.
Unless you're referring to the Florida Supreme Court, this is just nonsense. The result they reached is the only possible result that is consistent with the last 100 years of administrative law and the last 150 of election law.
OK, So you are one of the 4.5 people who read Bush s. Gore and thought it was a milestone of legal interpretation rather than a shoddy attempt--so shoddy it is unsigned-- to cover the naked partisanship of five blatant abusers of judicial power. Good for you, for the rest I recommend reading this.
Curious. You cite the two leading candidates for the worst cases to ever come down from the court. And no, I don't mean for the results reached, but for the flagrant abuse of judicial power used to reach the conclusion in both cases.
I agree with you that Roe vs. Wade was way out of line. But Dred Scott is a typical case of the Supreme Court protecting people from governmental interference ( in ths case, protecting Missouri slaveholders from Illinois/Federal laws that free fugitives ). The opinion of Chief "Justice" Tamey is one you would probably like, sohere are two quotes from it, with all the fanfare about the original meaning of the constitution, judicial restraint and the usual conservative boogahoo:
It is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political or law-making power; to those who formed the sovereignty and framed the Constitution. The duty of the court is, to interpret the instrument they have framed, with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted.
No one, we presume, supposes that any change in public opinion or feeling, in relation to this unfortunate race, in the civilized nations of Europe or in this country, should induce the court to give to the words of the Constitution a more liberal construction in their favor than they were intended to bear when the instrument was framed and adopted. Such an argument would be altogether inadmissible in any tribunal called on to interpret it. If any of its provisions are deemed unjust, there is a mode prescribed in the instrument itself by which it may be amended; but while it remains unaltered, it must be construed now as it was understood at the time of its adoption. It is not only the same in words, but the same in meaning, and delegates the same powers to the Government, and reserves and secures the same rights and privileges to the citizen; and as long as it continues to exist in its present form, it speaks not only in the same words, but with the same meaning and intent with which it spoke when it came from the hands of its framers, and was voted on and adopted by the people of the United States. Any other rule of construction would abrogate the judicial character of this court, and make it the mere reflex of the popular opinion or passion of the day. This court was not created by the Constitution for such purposes. Higher and graver trusts have been confided to it, and it must not falter in the path of duty.
At least we know where Scalia learned his rhetoric.
If you insist that it is the case of blatant abuse of judicial power. I am ready to hear your argument, unless you want to hide behind your "pay me for my professional opinion" crap.
I fear that hear we would have to expand this discussion into the full field of philosopy... The central question is weather or not markets (ie people making voluntairy agreements) are a better way of finding the public good (some composition
of individual goods) or weather a government (institution with a monopoly on the use
of force) democraticaly choosen is best. And in particular which is a better mechanism for the broadcast spectrum. This is a huge topic which ultimatly must be decided (as far as truth is concerned) on the basis of empirical evidence. I believe the markets are clearly better and you do not. But the ability to discuss the public good is
not at issue, what is at issue is the process for acting. The good has been discussed since before the radio spectrum was discovered, the discusion can not be controled by government or any private orginization.
Obviously, the issue is philosophical, but your description of it misses the point. Market cannot find the public good because that is not their purpose. Well regulated markets allocate resources better and more efficiently than either beaurocrats or unregulated markets. This is well documented in economic theory and well supported with evidence. However, it is a question of public good whether, in any particular situation, efficient resource allocation is the most important goal or whether other goals should take precedence. This is a political decision and markets can find the best political answer no better than steam engines can cure cancer -- this is no mere 'market failure' which can be corrected by regulation, it is a category mistake. We could have a market in babies that will allocate the best babies to the richest parents. That would eliminate a lot of inefficiencies and may even dispense with the cumbersome financial aid system at universities. Yet we chose not to do it from purely political reasons. The democratically (or not) chosen government is not a method of finding the public good either, it is a method of governing, i.e. implementing, and at time proposing, political decisions, including decisions about which markets to encourage and which to supress. The only method of finding the public good I am aware of is discussion, i.e. the unfettered exchange of ideas via means of communication.
Because of this you would expect a suggestion about the best way to allocate the spectrum to be mostly concerned not with the efficiency of resource allocation but with the oppeness and comprehensiveness of the public discussion that will result. It seems to me that the quality of the news, for example, is more important to a democratic society than the efficient transition to HDTV. I don't know how the new proposal will affect the quality of the news. Given the present dismall state of affairs, the change might even be for the better. But it is instructive that the authors couldn't care less. For them the only question is efficiency and growth. THAT is the problem, not markets vs. planning.
Finally, your assertion that the discussion cannot be controlled is simply not true. The very fact that most Americans are unaware of the complex machinations that drive the FCC's decisions, because it is a subject never covered in depth by the news ( or simply never covered), is proof that the discussion can be controlled. Yes, this control has its limits, so you are right in that nobody can have absolute control of the flow of information. Unfortunately, the question is not whether absolute control is possible, but whether too much control is possible.
I am not advocating any particular solution. I don't like the FCC. I have no faith in the US government as a democratic institution. And I think markets are efficient resource allocators. I don't know why you decided that I am against markets and for planning by central government. I am for open discussion and wide dissemination of public information, and the "experts" who are close to the FCC's ears aren't. That is my only beef.
Slashdot Mirror
Putting offensive words in people's mouth is a good definition of parody. Have you watched late night shows lately?
Besides, if the words are so offensive that you know they couldn't have been said by the WTO, then it is a clear parody. Alternatively, if you are not sure that it is the parody then either
- the words are not really so offensive
- You believe that the WTO can make such offensive comment in earnest.
In the second case this isn't just parody but world class top of-the-line fscking Jonathan Swift kind of parody.jurisdictionality: the quality of belonging to a particular jurisdiction
globalisation: the gradual decoupling of transaction costs fom both distance and jurisdictionality.
Yep, I just invented this up. For you to judge if if it makes any sense
overruling an 8-1 decision of a fairly conservative court will do no good to its
own, already fairly shaken, reputation.
It's good news because it means that the finding
of fact are now the official undisputable truth as
far as all US courts are concerned.
But there's a long way to go before we see anything good coming from the case. It is too soon to party and too soon to despair.
Perl is a language that stood out because of the way it came to be. It differs from others by the careful balancing of ideosyncrecy and shameless emulation. The guiding principles were always practicality ( making simple things easy) and linguistic metaphors ( $_ means 'it', @ is to $ as plural to singular, : is like the adverbial 'ly' in english, etc.).
The fact that Perl succeded so well is proof that these design principles were right, despite the legions of naysayers.
Now Larry Wall leads Perl into the unknown by trying a bolder iteration of the same principles. He may well fail, either because the world of computing has changed or because these principles have reached their ceiling. But he is doing the right thing. Innovation doesn't come from trying to keep everyone happy.
To all those naysayers, Perl 5 is there, stay with it and be happy.
Oh so TRUE!!!!
I wish I had mod points for you.
If the FBI announces that terrorists had a hotmail account, there will be a clamour to ban anonymous hotmail accounts. But we know the terrorists used boxcutters and jets and nobody says we should stop using boxcutters or jets.
THe problem with privacy is that it is a issue of principle that has little mainstream appeal. Most people are too damn boring to care about anybody reading their correspondence. It is the odd one out, the "perverse", the non-conformist, the politically marginal, etc. that will be hurt most.
The change of mood after September 11 just enhances a fundamental problem: marginal concerns are marginal. To those who cared about privacy, the attack should make no difference. If privacy is really important, it cannot be surrendered any more than air-travel can be surrendered.
Dunno, but I am proud to be part of the new Titanium Elite. I had one of my teeth replaced with a titanium implant. The Doctor said it was an "upgrade".
Now, if someone annoys me, I simply bite.
In this case, the FTC made the an initial decision. This decision will be reviewed by the court. The court decision will be reviewed by congress and congress decision will be reviewed by voters.
If you go there and run their javascript, that's a choice that you make.
According to your logic, if I invite a plumber to fix my sink, I cannot call the police if he starts emptying my refrigerator. If I enter a restaurant, the owner is free to poison me. etc. Doesn't it make sense to use common sense and see that all privileges that we grant each other when we willingly engage in transactions are limited and assume a trust that they will not be abused?
regulation does work. For example, the streets are not covered with litter and dog poo, and none of my neighbors remodel their appartment during the night. Of course, there are failures and problems, because as you said, the world isn't perfect.
There is no such contract. You speak of a illusion, a ghost, if you will.
An implicit contract exists in every human transaction, and becomes legally binding whenever the courts say so. Of course, judges can and do err. To prevent such "imperfection" your seem to want to to ban human judgement.
Code is speech
Yes, and code also does stuff. That is why it is the business of the courts to decide which speech is protected and in what circumstances. Your all or nothing attitude doesn't fly and never will.
Period. End of story
No, the story just begins, the story of making distinctions and bringing human intelligence to bear on life.
Sooner or later that FTC will shut down a site a majority of people doesnt think is "abusive"
And then someone will appeal the decision and the courts will decide whether the rights of the minority have been somehow inapropriately curtailed. And if the court will judge wrongly, you and me can demonstrate in Washington until we get politicians to appoint smarter judges.
And in the end, it still isn't perfect. Because nothing is, not even the technological shiboleth.
The implicit contract between web-user and web-server operator is that the latter takes control of the browser for the purpose of showing the former something that he or she may conceivably want to see. Ignoring this contract is an abuse. What is wrong in a government agency tracking and prosecuting abuse?
Why does the government regulate noise? Can't you invest in better insulation for your home?
The reason is simple. It is cheaper to have a cop fine one thousand offenders than to have one billion consumers invest is an expensive technological solution.
The issue here is not innovation but nuisance. What is bad about nuisance, by definition, is that it forces you to chose between suffering it and paying something to get rid of it. An innovation that removes a nuisance does not improve your quality of life. It merely restores it. Thus having a free arm race between nuisance makers and anti-nuisance solution makers is a waste of intelligence and money that are better spent on something that actually makes life better. That is something every town council understands, and that is why nuisance is regulated.
The only difference here is that the internet allows people to be a nuisance from a greater distance. That makes it apropriate for federal rather than local regulation.
Being that I am a control freak, and I have a lot of no standard stuff creeping over the original installation, I don't trust automated upgrade ( on Mandrake.) I install to a separate partitions/s, then I create backup configuration directories (/etc_bk etc.) and then I selectively move configuration files (and other non standard files) from the old installation.
I am sure there is a smarter way, but I haven't figured it out yet. If you want to upgrade you can also clone your system onto a new partition/s and then upgrade one partition/s and proceed from there.
But why should the language matter? Is there any reason not to create .NET bindings for c++, or even scheme and Perl? That could make the clone better than the original.
Hwat we gardena linux leodhan, in gardagum.
Before you are modded down, buddy, let me cheer you up. I once read an article about Greenspan, who was, as you might know, one of her groupies. Supposedly, she didn't like him at first, because, get this, she thought he was "a social climber". Ha Ha Ha!! What sweet ironie, and then her groupie becomes the chief governmental officer regulating the economy. LOL.
so I do know what I'm talking about when I say that Rand was evil.
I don't know if she's evil, but her books are just infantile. They appeal to teenagers at that certain point in their life when they feel that every authority figure is out there to get them. People get to read her at that stage and get hooked. I wish they were reading "Mobby Dick" or something else that can plausibly be described as literature instead.
You know, I was about to bash them for the ridiculous interpretation of Nietzsche. But you hit the nail on its head. The Nietzcheans got Nietzsche just as you'd expect a bunch of people who spend way too much time at the gym would get Nietzsche.
Maybe, just maybe, Nietzsche's mental collapse happened when one of the Nietzcheans went back through time to meet him.
Suing is expensive and stressful. Suppose an HMO routinely denies care or offers substandard care in a form that causes $50,000 damage per case (in pain, lost revenues, etc). Very few people would sue, because of lack of awareness, the high legal costs, the stress and the uncertainty. Suppose 1% sues, and suppose the denial of care results in saving $3000 ( for the HMO). The HMO is likely to continue denying care because the cost of settling with the 1% who sues is less that the saving over the 99% who don't.
The old fashioned way of dealing with this problem is to have government regulators overseeing how HMOs operate. The problem with that oversight is that it is cumbersome and expensive. Because HMO have all the information that regulators need whereas the regulator has very little, it would be more efficient if HMOs regulated themselves. But why should they?
Punitive damage, of course! Punitive damage is a tool for privetizing regulation. It gives private lawyers incentives to track corner-cutting, and indirectly, it gives HMOs an incentive to exercise oversight over themselves. That should be theoretically cheaper.
As I see it, there are only three possible positions. Either you are against beaurocratic regulation and in favor of punitive damages (because of efficiency consideration), or you favor direct beaurocratic regulation ( God knows why), or you favor shafting the consumer ( a popular political credo these days.)
Punitive damage exist to solve a the economical problem of regulation, not to make lawyers or clients rich.
While lawyers get rich from punitive damage awards, I cannot see why it is more offensive than executives getting rich from downsizing their companies. The Republican tirade against evil lawyers is mind-numbingly hypocritcal, given that the first and foremost job of lawyers in our society is to protect property rights.
It may be helpful if judges explained this to juries, and if juries where guided by the law to award punitive damages in such a way as to minimize the total social cost of non-compliance (rather that coming with figures that merely express their personal revulsion). But that is another matter.
Even assuming that it would be possible to get read of economical scarcity, you have to remember that our psychological and soial make-up are designed for scarcity. We are driven towards our personal goals by the scarcity of what we desire. And we are forced to interact with others by the same scarcity. If we get rid of real scarcity, we will create an artificial one that will allow us to exist. Some people say we already did.
One could make an argument that gun makers do not merely facilitate the second ammendment, they make it happen. You cannot have a meaninful right to bear arms if guns do not exist. On the other hand, banning circumvention devices does not vacate the first ammendment, it merely reduces its scope, which is permitted if there's "good" reason.
This is casuistry, but casuistry is what lawyers do for living. At bottom, the complexity of the world makes sures that any position on the issue can be argued in a principled way. The winning argument is the argument that has either more money, or more people ready to raise hell.
I don't want to say that your argument by analogy isn't good. Only that good arguments rarely win on their own.
When a corporation leaves the law behind, the best thing to do is to open criminal prosecutions against the individuals who made the corporate decisions.
"Killing" a corporation sounds tough, but in fact, its only non-symbolic effect is financial. Whereas many criminal corporate acts call for stronger penalties, which by definition cannot be imposed on a legal fiction.
On the other hand, the death penalty should be given a lethal injection rather than "expanded", even in jest.
Seriously, it now boils down to hitting a Canadian judge who is pissed off enough about the US to risk embarassing the Canadian government by granting asylum to a US citizen, and thus implying that it is possible to be persecuted in the US. Oh, the Horror, the Horror! What next, a crimes against humanity case against Henri Kissinger at the Hague?
On the other hand, the odds are against him.
Becaese, AS I SAID IN THE ORIGINAL POST, the argument about the interalation btw fair use, DMCA and copy quality is not limited to DVD.
DeCSS is also useful to evade country codes, which is also a fair use issue and also requires a same as original quality.
Even when quality can be inferior, it cannot be noticeably inferior without denting significantly into fair use right. The degradation introduced by xeroxing a book or using a VCR or tape is acceptable, because these techniques were at the background of the present legal situation. mandating degradation beyond that ( like shooting the signal with a camera ) should be seen as watering down fair use.
Indeed, and I decided to reply even though by now the audience is probably very small :-)
Markets will produce what people will consume. If people want good discusions they are likely to get them. But very few people want them.
All your points are true but you make a faulty assumption and buy to easily into what is not science but fudge.
You assume that the social benefits of a good news service is proportional to the number of people watching it. This is true of the economic benefits to the producer, but the social benefit is not proportional but follows a pattern of quickly diminishing returns. A News program seen by 20 Million people may generate twice the revenues of a news program seen by 10 million. But the additional benefit to society is not twice as big but far less. That is because a news program affects lots of people who don't watch it. First, there are informal networks of oral information distribution through friends, relatives, co-workers, etc. Some people, who care about the news more than others, tend to be trend-setters and information providers in their local networks. Second, other producers of intellectual goods use the news as raw material -- comedians, interviewers, filmmakers, sitcom writers, teachers, etc. Third, policy makers pay attention to the news and are alert to any description that affects their own image. In addition, even people who do not pay regular attention to the news care very much about getting good information in moments of crisis--war, disaster, etc. But it is impossible to have one level of regular service of low quality and then expect the same infrastructure to provide high quality under stress. By disseminating information well beyond its direct consumers, thus elevating the level of all policy debate, and by keeping government alert, quality journalism positively affect the quality of life of everyone. That is why journalism has been traditionaly ( in liberal thought, liberal as in Mill, not as in Clinton ) seen as the forth branch of government. Because of this difference in cost/benefit analysis, expecting markets to create good journalism just because markets respond to what people want to watch is guaranteed to fail, as producers will maximize their audience rather than the social benefits of good journalism ( which is connected to audience size but isn't proportional to it). In the nineteenth and early twentieth century that was not a major problem because the market for news was elitist and only the elites participated in policymaking. Thus, there was not such a dissonance between the economic benefits and the social benefits of news production. Today, the juncture of television and universal franchise requires new solutions.
Now, we have two alternatives. We can try to find creative solutions to this problem or we can resign ourselves to living in a word where many of the most important decisions that affect our lives are made in a cloud of ignorance, and in a way that easily allows this ignorance to be manipulated for unholy purposes. I believe that very little in the current glory of our civilization has been achieved because people simply accepted their fate. But there were always those who advocated exactly that, because it suited them.
The economists who wrote the letter want us to forget that there are other problems except those they can solve. Econo-speak fashions a language which, when used consistently, makes problems that are not easily expressed in that language disappear. They perform a role similar to that of the medieval theologian, whose language was designed to reconcile people to their measly fate. It is not that their theories are wrong, but that they capture (as all scientific theory must) a particular aspect of reality. When their expertise is used to stifle political discussion rather than to foster technical discussion, i.e., when the limitations of the theory is forgotten, it is then used as ideology and is no more scientific than medieval theology. The post that started this thread captured this disinginiousness well by the astute observation that the public interest appears in double quotation marks. Your suggestion that anthropologists and sociologists make alternative solutions doesn't seem to be very fair. First, they do not receive the same deferential and uncritical adulation by today's politicians the way economists do ( had Clinton had an anthropologist in the cabinet, Russia wouldn't have been in the mess it is in now). Second, I believe scientists can be responsible citizens, and should be taken to task when they use their expertise ideologically, beyond their proper scientific boundaries. If you have a hammer, you believe all the world's problem are nails. But if you are a scientist, you should have the integrity to acknoweldge that and warn the people you advise that some problems don't respond well to hammering.
In the spirit of old-fashioned discussion :-)
OK, So you are one of the 4.5 people who read Bush s. Gore and thought it was a milestone of legal interpretation rather than a shoddy attempt--so shoddy it is unsigned-- to cover the naked partisanship of five blatant abusers of judicial power. Good for you, for the rest I recommend reading this.
Curious. You cite the two leading candidates for the worst cases to ever come down from the court. And no, I don't mean for the results reached, but for the flagrant abuse of judicial power used to reach the conclusion in both cases.
I agree with you that Roe vs. Wade was way out of line. But Dred Scott is a typical case of the Supreme Court protecting people from governmental interference ( in ths case, protecting Missouri slaveholders from Illinois/Federal laws that free fugitives ). The opinion of Chief "Justice" Tamey is one you would probably like, sohere are two quotes from it, with all the fanfare about the original meaning of the constitution, judicial restraint and the usual conservative boogahoo:
It is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political or law-making power; to those who formed the sovereignty and framed the Constitution. The duty of the court is, to interpret the instrument they have framed, with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted.
No one, we presume, supposes that any change in public opinion or feeling, in relation to this unfortunate race, in the civilized nations of Europe or in this country, should induce the court to give to the words of the Constitution a more liberal construction in their favor than they were intended to bear when the instrument was framed and adopted. Such an argument would be altogether inadmissible in any tribunal called on to interpret it. If any of its provisions are deemed unjust, there is a mode prescribed in the instrument itself by which it may be amended; but while it remains unaltered, it must be construed now as it was understood at the time of its adoption. It is not only the same in words, but the same in meaning, and delegates the same powers to the Government, and reserves and secures the same rights and privileges to the citizen; and as long as it continues to exist in its present form, it speaks not only in the same words, but with the same meaning and intent with which it spoke when it came from the hands of its framers, and was voted on and adopted by the people of the United States. Any other rule of construction would abrogate the judicial character of this court, and make it the mere reflex of the popular opinion or passion of the day. This court was not created by the Constitution for such purposes. Higher and graver trusts have been confided to it, and it must not falter in the path of duty.
At least we know where Scalia learned his rhetoric.
If you insist that it is the case of blatant abuse of judicial power. I am ready to hear your argument, unless you want to hide behind your "pay me for my professional opinion" crap.
Obviously, the issue is philosophical, but your description of it misses the point. Market cannot find the public good because that is not their purpose. Well regulated markets allocate resources better and more efficiently than either beaurocrats or unregulated markets. This is well documented in economic theory and well supported with evidence. However, it is a question of public good whether, in any particular situation, efficient resource allocation is the most important goal or whether other goals should take precedence. This is a political decision and markets can find the best political answer no better than steam engines can cure cancer -- this is no mere 'market failure' which can be corrected by regulation, it is a category mistake. We could have a market in babies that will allocate the best babies to the richest parents. That would eliminate a lot of inefficiencies and may even dispense with the cumbersome financial aid system at universities. Yet we chose not to do it from purely political reasons. The democratically (or not) chosen government is not a method of finding the public good either, it is a method of governing, i.e. implementing, and at time proposing, political decisions, including decisions about which markets to encourage and which to supress. The only method of finding the public good I am aware of is discussion, i.e. the unfettered exchange of ideas via means of communication.
Because of this you would expect a suggestion about the best way to allocate the spectrum to be mostly concerned not with the efficiency of resource allocation but with the oppeness and comprehensiveness of the public discussion that will result. It seems to me that the quality of the news, for example, is more important to a democratic society than the efficient transition to HDTV. I don't know how the new proposal will affect the quality of the news. Given the present dismall state of affairs, the change might even be for the better. But it is instructive that the authors couldn't care less. For them the only question is efficiency and growth. THAT is the problem, not markets vs. planning.
Finally, your assertion that the discussion cannot be controlled is simply not true. The very fact that most Americans are unaware of the complex machinations that drive the FCC's decisions, because it is a subject never covered in depth by the news ( or simply never covered), is proof that the discussion can be controlled. Yes, this control has its limits, so you are right in that nobody can have absolute control of the flow of information. Unfortunately, the question is not whether absolute control is possible, but whether too much control is possible.
I am not advocating any particular solution. I don't like the FCC. I have no faith in the US government as a democratic institution. And I think markets are efficient resource allocators. I don't know why you decided that I am against markets and for planning by central government. I am for open discussion and wide dissemination of public information, and the "experts" who are close to the FCC's ears aren't. That is my only beef.