Things like the stock Market, or Clothes (more fashionable brands are more expensive) sustain the price differential for reasons that do not apply to music. In the case of stock people are willing to pay more for high-value stocks because they have high resale value. A blue chip stock that is valued up is likely to be sold for more (or at least as much) as you paid. This is not the case for digital music where songs have no real resale value. Indeed doing that would require restricting the number of times a song can be copied, licencing individual versions, etc. All of this seems both a) technically unlikely, and b) entirely artificial. Once a song is recorded you can mint of 1 copy or 1,000 without reducing the "value" of each individual song.
With fashion items like clothes, cars, etc the more expensive ones are also the rare ones, the ones that you purchase to have a symbol of wealth, status, etc. Once everyone has one it is no longer a symbol and fashion moves on. Again, this is not the case with digital music. Yes it is cool to listen to the same thing as your friends but CD's are not rare and fashionable in the same way that cars and clothes are. Cars and clothes represent more significant investments and as such add status. A 99 cent or even two dollar song won't do that especially once everyone pays for it.
This proposal falls down because there is not external valuation (be it economic value or status) that props up and legitimizes the extra price. Digital songs are not scarce, fashionable, nor can they really be 'resold'. While I would argue that it is possible to convince people to pay $1.01 for a popular song verus $0.99 for a less popular one, the variance won't be much more than that. Any huigher value and people will only be more encouraged to "share" the popular songs with their friends rather than pay more. But the instant the public perceives that prices are being "fixerd" or artificially inflated for a more popular song. Then they will stop playing the game.
Good point. I was a little overly-broad in what I said. The key thing is not to simply assume (or describe) a huge problem/population based soley on anecdotal evidence. This is what (in my experience) most most people/"news organizations" seem to do in these cases.
To me much of the hype surrounding Internet addiction, as with tyhe more salacious "porn addiction" fails to ask the qone essential question; what should we do about it? Most of the people I have seen crusading against such 'new' addictions come armed with preexisting (and often horrible) 'solutions' ranging from banning such things altogether, to restricting all porn to some specified 'ports', etc.
I remain skeptical about most of these stories. While I believe that there are some people who are obsessive-compulsive enough to be addicted to the internet, porn, gambling, etc, I doubt both the numbers being thrown around ("hudreds of thousands", "6-10%", "Millions") because most of them have been based upon bad science, or no science. In order to adequately grasp how widespread something is you have to sample randomly from the general population and see how many people are affected in a real way (I.E. according to some clinical, quantitative, and unabiguously-applied metric). Then you can start to talk about rates. All of the 'studies' that I have seen up to this point consist of interviews with self-identified 'victims' combined with some anecdotal estimates or outright assumptions about rates.
That having been said this story seems to be more upfront about it than most stating that there is little hard scientific evidence on the rates, amounts, etc. It also seems to shie away from letting any one "advocate" propose the sweeping issues that past articles have.
In my opinion, Even if the problem is 10% to 50% of the population I believe that 'national mandates' such as shunting porn to specific ports is not the solution. They have never worked in the past (e.g. Prohibition, the War on Drugs, banning prostitution, etc.) The solutuion as with any addiction is individual education and care. If your life has been ruined by addiction to anything then direct individual help (with recognition from your employer, friends, etc.) is what you need and I hope you get it. A law sending you to jail or installing a timer/filter on your computer is, in my opinion, not going to help.
One U.S. Supreme Court Justice once said (paraphrase) that the function of laws to protect children cannot be to make adults act like children or to treat them that way. In my opinion, laws that treat everyone like an addict do nothing to help real addicts, they only harm everyone else.
In another article this would be called a "nonlethal weapon". Do we really want a world where people deploy such things to drive select non customers away? Legal or not I find the idea of such a system being used not only insulting but sad.
I own no stock in tobacco and you sir are missing my point. However you made it for me later on so lets take your own words:
And when I hear about case after case of people who say they are addicted to porn, and sociologists and therapists are saying that it is addictive, well I think there is something there, more than just an anecdote.
In the 1950's there were case after case of doctors, therapists, etc. saying that smoking was not dangerous many of the same perople were endorsing the use of heroin "the housewife's friend". In the 1970's and 80's there were many people talking about underground demon cults none of which were found. In the 80's there were therapists, the newly recovered, etc talking about the "recovered memories" of abuse suppressed by possibly thousands of children. Most of these stories turned out to be bunk.
You don't need to watch someone jump out of an airplane to know that it isn't safe but then aghain many many people have done it over the years and died. I am not suggesting that the people who died of smoking related cancer before medical evidence proved it were nonissues. Do have the kindness to argue with what I do say not what I don't.
Here's an idea. Prove that is not. Why do you thing that you can just say that pornography is not addictive and get away with it.
No, I really don't need to prove that it is not addictive for two reasons:
a) I never asserted definitively that it wasn't, and
b) When proposing laws that curb everyone's behavior based upon the supposed addictive properties of some substance (and by extension the ancillary problems it may cause) the burden of proof is on those advocating the change not those opposing it.
Pornography has been around in one form or fashion for millenia. Much of what we consider today to be pornography was normal in past days and ages. In arguing that we have to alter our legal codes substantially we have to counter that past evidence in a meaningful way.
Anecdotal evidence doesn't work because you can always find some to support any side (see above). Similarly the argument that the internet "makes everything different" doesn't work because you have to show how things differ in a meaningful (non anecdotal) way.
It is imperitive that we be precise about what is and is not true and what an issue is, and is not before we embark on any crusade to attack it. Ill-formed, anecdotal notions of what a problem is or is not lend themselves only to bad solutions and greater, ancillary problems. Consider the drug war for example. The simplistic notion of a war has led us to focus on simple solutions (tougher sentences for first-time offenders and more restrictive "praphenalia" laws) and away from more complex, cheaper, and better, solutions (better drug education, treatment programs, etc.).
So to make my position abundantly clear; I do not believe that everyone can get addicted to porn nor do I belive that noone can. I believe that the extent to which it is and is not addictive/destructive and why is as yet unknown. No reliable unbiased studies (studies that sample randomly from the population not interview people who already consider themselves "addicts") have yet been done but I would support them being done. I do not support the measure proposed in the parent article because it is an ill-formed "solution" to an ill-stated problem and will, at best, do only harm. First and foremost I believe that preventing addictions, whether drugs, gambling, etc. rests in education. With respect to children this means serious parenting not stupid technical hacks.
As always, real information and discussion is far far superior to half-assed, unplanned, actions.
I will detail a few of my responses to your point but I would suggest a) not coming out of the gates like an asshat and b) not presuming that I am so biased as to not consider data. My very response to your claims was based upon the lack of substantiation.
Lats take these out of order:
e) Young minds don't know these are actors playing out fantasies for profit. That depends entirely on how the "young minds" are taught. If parents explain the unreality of it to their children then they will know. If they refuse to discuss it then yes, the kids will be entirely ignorant.
As pointed out by the parent post, which you apparently didn't read, a savvy IT guy has a nephew who was downloading hardcore porn in the same room with his mother with safeguards installed on the computer. If you believe that an 11 year old can discern what is normal when viewing hardcore porn, or isn't affected by hardcore porn, then you are deluding yourself.
A kid can be savvy about a lot of things and ignorant of others. You asserted that childen do not know about the profit angle. I argued that what makes the difference is education. You then responded by pointing out a child who was smart enough to download porn.
This is orthagonal to my point. Just because a child is smart enough to download porn means nothing about their comprehension level. Children can and should be educated about the nature of sex, porn, etc.
With respect to d) and "feminist/boy toys" a) Maureen Dowd does not speak fo everyone or even a majority. In my opinion you made a broad sweeping generalization about "feminists" and then used that as if it was an exact statement. It is not. I could just as easily claim that "conservatives are evil" or "liberals love beastiality" as I could present one or two vocal examples of each but that means nothing.
On a side note, the ACLU is not a feminist group, they are focused on defending the Bill of Rights. That has included, at times, defending the right of people like Sean Hannaty to broadcast his anti-feminist homophobic views.
With respect to "kids performing oral sex" I too have seen those stories, so what? This may sound extreme but hear me out. Ten years ago there were loads of stories about gangs operating in clean-cut suburban schools. Most of those stories proved to be exaggerated at best. Ten years before that it was stories about stanic cults among teenages, again exaggerated.
I do not consider the news media to be a source of valid occurance data. It is rare that the rate of stories about an act correlate with the rate of the act itself. To that end I seek long-term longitudinal data. The google link provided none that I saw.
with respect to this:
I would also point out that your assertion about educational phamplets: "Educational pamphlets don't help heroin addicts and they won't help porn addicts either." is way off. Yes some hardcore addicts ignore all else but that doesn't mean that all do. The ex heroin addicts that I have known are, in large part, walking educational phamplets themselves, and ten minutes discussion with one of them did more to illuminate the problems with heroin than any drug-free education I got as a child.
None of the drug addicts I have known have been reached by pamphlets. You only make my point by showing how much more effective talking to actual addicts is as opposed to drug-free pamphlets and D.A.R.E. t-shirts. Extend the same respect to "anecdotal" victims of porn addiction.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Nor is it clear what respect I was or was not extending. Thuought my entire post I was arguing for the primacy of education as a tool to deal with problems. In particular I was arguing that real educational solutions are the best bet.
With respect to the links that you did provide. None of them showed that this is a common phoenomenon or
Show me the hundreds of thousands of dead people then.
It may be the case that it is addictive, it may not. The point is that you cannot just say that and get away with it nor could you say the same thing about smoking. The difference w.r.t. smoking is that a) 50 years ago there was discussion about the health of smoking and b) general acceptance of the health risks were founded on data, not just anecdotes.
With respect to your assertions: a) Porn is addictive show me a valid study to that effect. I have seen anecdotal evidence trotted out time and time again but that no more proves the addictiveness of porn than does the anecdotes about exploding toilets prove the life-threatening nature of chili.
I would also point out that your assertion about educational phamplets: "Educational pamphlets don't help heroin addicts and they won't help porn addicts either." is way off. Yes some hardcore addicts ignore all else but that doesn't mean that all do. The ex heroin addicts that I have known are, in large part, walking educational phamplets themselves, and ten minutes discussion with one of them did more to illuminate the problems with heroin than any drug-free education I got as a child.
b) Kids today are experimenting with kinkier stuff Again, show me proof not anecdotes. While I will grant you that people seem more comfortable talking about kinkier stuff on TV than they were 50 years ago that proves nothing about what is actually happening.
50 years ago noone discussed pedophilia, or homosexuality on TV and both were occurring. There has been (to my knowledge) no evidence shown that the increased discussion has led to increased rates, or merely increased reporting/discussion.
c) The industry is getting more hardcore Again give me some average data. The last time I glanced at a Playboy (for the articles) was last week and the model in there was...Marylin Monroe. Playboy was celebrating the oldies not the awful hardcore days of the future.
d) Feminists choose to defend a women's right to demean herself instead of worrying about the affect on society when the younger generation grows up thinking being a boy toy is a good idea. That is a gross misstatement. There are many many people in this world who call themselves "feminists", just as there are many different "liberals", "conservatives", "Christians", "Muslims", etc. If one or even a thousand such women defend the "a women's right to demean herself" it a) doesn't mean that all "feminists" do and b) does not prove your point in any way.
e) Young minds don't know these are actors playing out fantasies for profit. That depends entirely on how the "young minds" are taught. If parents explain the unreality of it to their children then they will know. If they refuse to discuss it then yes, the kids will be entirely ignorant.
Until that time, filtering services with all their flaws, the off switch, and constant lectures are the only "firewalls" concerned parents can employ.
Again, I think that you are wrong. Filtering services do not work in any meaningful sense. They are too gross and too odious a solution. Many such services block medical information in the name of "protecting children" and all of them miss some porn (and on the internet's scale some is millions of hits).
In your post you referenced the ignorance and confusion of unprepared young minds being "reeled in" by pop-under ads. You also talked about addiction and made comparisons to heroin addiction. I think that you were being overly extreme in both cases. I recieve a lot of spam and more than my fair share of pop-ups. None of the spam has been that salacious. I've been offeres drugs and surgeries time and time again but never have I been presented with actual porn (e.g. a naked woman screaming "CUM ON ME" as one post put it) nor have I been "reeled in" in any way. I use pop-up blockers to deal with the annoyance and delete spam manually. That isn't the same as being "reeled in" or being forceably addicted to smack.
The difference in knowing when porn is fake and when drugs are bad is education, good, real, factually-driven education. Every child who has been lied to about the effects of drugs or the realities of porn is more at risk from both than the one that has been given the truth about the two. Any lie, soo
So far as I can tell, the essence of your study, and your conclusions rests on the following assumptions:
The set of requirements listed is a natrual one.
The schedule is a normal business schedule.
The method by which the components were selected, ordered, and applied was natural.
You state in your report that the requirements were developed after interviews with "leading CIO's, CTO's,..." Nowhere do you state who conducted those interviews and, crucially, how many of them had overlapping requirements. Similarly, you do not state how you selected the particular schedule of your study both in terms of the product-period that you examined and the feature schedule you considered.
Moreover, in appendix 5 of your study you show little overlap between the lists of popular component users. Many of the groups listed for one "popular solution" were not listed on another. Nor did you separate these lists by operating system. This give no indication whether the popular components are ever used in concert. Nor does it indicate how many groups are using each feature set or system. Nor even where these user numbers came from.
I bring these points up because they point to potential holes in your study that I am curious about. In particular:
If either Microsoft or Novell supplied either the requirements list and/or the upgrade schedule then the study is vulnerable to the assertion that they schose a schedule, time, etc that was most favorable to them.
If the most popular 'component' solution to any one task is used only by one group but not another then this may point to general incompatibilities between them. When making a purchasing decision I typically consider the current state of my system and potential compatibilities with future upgrades. If the components selected for either os are not typically used in concert then this raises the possiblity that the components have known incompatabilities that would keep them from being used together. In that event the system administrators would be installing packages that are not meant to go together and would not be selected by a real-world selection metric, and as a result faced unrealistic issues.
In your selection of "popular components" you focused on 3rd party solutions. Nowhere do you state whether you considered only commercial vendors of such solutions or open-source vendors as well. If you focused soley on commercial products that might mean that the system administrators were actually installing less popular, or less viable products on the linux side given the lower amount of such vendors for the Linux platform.
If the schedule of upgrades was not one used by many of the real world companies but again, an artificial one constructed as a superset, then the study is vulnerable to the charge that it used an unrealistic technical schedule for installing and testing components.
My question is, do you see these as issues? If not why not?
You note yourself, in your study that the sample is based upon 6 system administrators/systems. That number is, as you yourself note, too small to be considered definitive. That being the case I would argue that this makes the report viable not as a decisionmaking tool but a marketing tool. Were I a CIO I would feel unwilling to base my conclusions soley on a sample size of 6. What is your opinion on this? Do you expect further, more statistically-significant, work to take place? Or do you feel that this is not a problem?
Naturally occurring things can be patented just as easily as "constructed" ones. The article itself cites the commercial work of Craig Vetner who sequenced much of the human genome for commercial gain. His work allowed for things such as the human growth hormone to be patented. It is naturally occuring but still a patented item.
One primary example is Mr. John Moore who found out, after the fact, that his doctor had patented him without his knowledge. Moreover the courts ruled that he had no recourse save to sue his doctor for failing to inform him in advance that he was a hot property. The doctoer (or rather the large pharma company) still holds the patent. See here.
In the early 90's biotech companies engaged in a wave of patent-piracy wherin they sent people all over the world to snap up patents on naturally occuring but rare plants, seeds, animals, and yes, people. In some cases they then attempted to enforce their patents on the same groups they collected them from. Imagine being an indian farmer and being told that you suddently had to pay royalties to grow the exact same grain that you had always grown before because now monsanto owned it.
Moreover it isn't just the patents on the genes themselves, it is also the patents on their use. To take a related issue consider AZT. AZT was develioped by the U.S. government and then 'sold' under the Byah-Dole act. When it was discovered that the drug could be used to fight off HIV (Again U.S. Government work done at the NIH, and CDC, at Taxpayer expense) Glaxo filed a patent In Britain for their 'discovery' and then used that patent (via international IP agreements) to take control in the U.S. In a sense they performed a 'patent-elevation' attack to gain control of publicly funded discoveries in the U.S. via international agreements. Each new discovery made by anyone is patented to elevate their control still further until all anti-retrovirals infringe upon their territory. Thus it's not just the drug but, uses, dosages, etc. that they own. (see here).
Want to know why your insurance bills are high? It's not because of frivolous lawsuits against doctors. It's because of patents on medicines, uses, dosages, techniques, etc. Courtesy of IP your cold is now private.
Some of the benefits of this ubiquitous networked society include cheaper HIV treatments...
How?, Where? What will RFID tags do to make HIV drugs cheaper? When can we expect these revolutions? Who is working on them? Where in hell did this assertion come from? What does this have to do with "Cars that warn their owners when they develop a fault"? Mine already does that via dashboard lights?
Honestly, is this an article about the issues surrounding next-generation technology and the direction whe are heading or is just some free-association wishlist?
Lets look at the underlying issues. A UN body presents a report outlining privacy issues, health-and safety issues, and other looming crises that must be addressed now before ubiquitous sensors, and rfid tags become too commonplace to regulate effectively.
And what does the BBC do? They give us more padding than pudding and spend most of the article lauding the joys of ubiqquitous sensors ("better coffee") and the growth of RFID tags ("Wal-Mart made the chinese use them") than addressing or even framing the issues raised. And then whan they run out of filler factoids they make more pie-in-the-sky promises like the ones above.
This isn't an article, it's a lullaby: "don't worry about privacy, your bag will tell you when you forgot to shop at Wal-Mart."
Literature, especially Shakespear is about the power and joy of words, the fun that can be communuicated by language, the stirring of a good speech. Shekespear especially was a playwright whose words were meant to be spoken aloud not read on the page. Milton was a poet whose words were meant to stir the hearts in their full flower. Text messages by contrast are meant to get the key factoid ("*sq 11pm") across in the minimum spanm of time. The two are different things.
While I am all for the remixing of culture let's not pretend that "woun2mnkd" is the same as "woe unto the people of the earth." It is not, and the very difference lies in the words themselves their rythm, cadence, etc. Past attempts to reset literature into the modern vernacular have succeeded or failed to the extent that they produce something worthwhile. Resetting the words to a new place say a Nazi-Era Richard III work. Replacing all the dialogue with vastly-reduced snippets out of context fails. It doesn't fail because it isn't the cannon, but because it doesn't stand on its own.
I strongly suspect that for all those who already like the works so transcribed these messages will seem interesting, or cute. For those who do not they will be as interesting as reading all of Shakespear silently without even an image of the stage in your mind, that is, boring.
Personally the quotes themselves, divorced of context, mean nothing.
Actually, didn't you revolve so that you wouldn't need to pay taxes to England ? And now you pay them to Washington instead. The more things change;)...
People left Europe and came over to North America for religious freedom even before there was a United States of America.
A nonexistent state can not curtail anyones freedoms, so this is hardly surprising.
Both of you have it wrong (to one extent or another). What motivated many of the early european settlers to (what is now) The United States of America was the promist of religious freedom. England at the time was still enmeshed in the paris system whereby the government devolved to the individual Anglican Parishes. Everyone in the country was expected to a) belong to their local parish, and b) pay for its upkeep (as part of taxes). Additionally public office was typically restruicted to good anglicans.
While other sects such as the Quakers, Baptists, puritans, etc. were not always considered illegal there were waves of repression. It would be okay for a while to have meetongs (so long as your taxes were paid), and then some change in the winds would bring a crackdown/repression.
Armed with a desire to colonize the new world the British Crown was willing to charter the new colonies with some distinct religious freedoms. This meant that they could govern the colonies as they wished so long as the taxes were paid. To the British government this meant that they gained a) new colonies in an otherwize untaxable land, and b) the removal of some of their less-desirable subjects. At one point they also sent many a convict to the new world as a bond slave but that is a different story.
Some of the older colonies (e.g. Virginia) were Anglican and had a church although they faced a shortage of ministers because what good anglican minister would want to leave a decent living in England to come to Virginia before the invention of Air Conditioning? The French areas (e.g. Louisiana) were heavily Catholic. Pennsylvania was a large outpost of Quakers, and other 'puritan dissidents'. It was also the sole property of one William Pitt, an influential purtain, and the richest puritan of his day. King James II gave him the land in an effort to appease the puritans following the Second Civil War in England. Areas like Massachusetts were a stonghold of other puritan sects.
What is crucial is that in all of the colonies, the same repression took place (with the exception of Philidelphia which was the most liberal city of its day). In Massachusetts all members had to be part of a puritan church and were charged with its upkeep via taxes. Moreover only good church members could vote/run for public office, etc. This was also true in Virginia, Pennsylvania, etc. Sound familiar? Religious freedom to many of the original colonists meant a place where they could tell others how to worhip not a place where anyone could worship as they wished.
Ironically, Rhode Island was founded as a colony by dissidents from Massachusetts. They left the colony under persecution for their beliefs and founded their own land where they could tell others how to pray.
Even more Ironically Baptists (the religion of GW) were the original religious pariahs of this nation. They were not welcome anywhere and they were the only religious group that fought for a total abolishment of the church taxation, and the religious tests for public participation/office. Their modern descendents have strayed somewhat from this original call forgetting, apparently how many of their original leaders faced death and torture for supporting true religious freedom.
When the Constitution of the United States was written it was widely criticized both for its lack of religious language (Neither the God of Christ nor any god at all is invoked in it) but also for Article 6 Cl
Large content/network companies do nothing about spam or spyware. Indeed they stand in the way of many effective attempts to address the problem. Both Spam and Spyware become perceived as a problem. Then they step in with "consumer friendly download services" which offer to make downloads "safe" again perhaps for a price.
This is probably just the market at work but it's herd not to see the same business planning behind both decisions.
If they need to scan it optically in order to obtain the info, then why use RFID at all? Seriously, at best the only viable argument for RFID chips is that they might make those lines move a little faster. But noe, for sthe sake of security we have to a) have the passport open, and b) have it scanned by an optical scanner. At which point absolutely nothing is gained by using RFID.
To review:
RFID:
Can be scanned by anyone in a remote fashion (without holders knowledge).
Supposedly this means the end of lines at passport offices.
But, It necessitates countermeasures to ptorect it (tinfoil shield).
Said shield is unlikely to be perfect. If you hold it open in your hand (while waiting in line), open it to check it elsewhere, let it fall open in your bag, etc, it no longer helps.
To protect data said chip is encrypted requiring an optical scan to verify. Optical data is itself imperfect in that it too can be scanned, but now much closer.
Old Method:
Data is stored in human or machine readable form on the passport requiring optical scan.
Data cannot be efficiently scanned remotely (i.e. without the holder's knowledge).
But we end up waiting in long lines.
Am I the only one who is beginning to think that RFID is a problem in search of a different problem. This news today proves conclusively that nothing is gained by using the chips. They open up pointless security holes and provide not one bit of protection.
What's your approach to regulation? Explain, for example, the difference between you and Verizon in how you are approaching regulatory approval for Telco TV [digital-TV service offered by telecoms].
The cable companies have an agreement with the cities: They pay a percentage of their revenue for a franchise right to broadcast TV. We have a franchise in every city we operate in based on providing telephone service.
Now, all of a sudden, without any additional payment, the cable companies are putting telephone communication down their pipes and we're putting TV signals. If you want us to get a franchise agreement for TV, then let's make the cable companies get a franchise for telephony.
If cable can put telephone down their existing franchise I should be able to put TV down my franchise. It's kind of a "what's fair is fair" deal. I think it's just common sense.
Clearly this is a man who is comfortable with the idea of monopolies being granted to him (and not his competitors) and uncomfortable (even angry) about anyone figuring out how to compete with him. My read on this is that, given a choice between innovation and staying in a monopoly world where he is king he'll choose the latter.
Gabe over at PA made a rather insightful comment on the issue:
Yack
Wed, October 19 2005 - 11:33 AM by: Gabe
Tycho and I remain free men. The fact is that Jack actually sent the fax to everyone but the intended recipient at the Seattle PD. There were a lot of names to remember I don't blame him. I've received literally thousands of emails in the past couple days. They are all commending us for standing up to Jack the way we did. Most of them go on to ask what we can do as a community to stop him. I have to admit that is tempting. The more I think about it the more I think it might not be in our best interest. Let me explain.
You can certainly mail the networks he appears on. You can even send letters to their advertisers. You can contact the senators he speaks with and demand they ignore him. If enough of us do that sort of thing and we do it long enough they will eventually get the message and drop him just like the National Institute on Media and the Family did. Would that be a good thing? I'm not sure.
Jack is not special. He is not a unique snow flake as they say. He is just the latest vocal opponent of whatever is "corrupting" our youth at the moment. When my dad was growing up it was rock and roll devil music. Then it was comic books then movies and rap music. Today it's videogames. If we were to succeed in getting Jack blacklisted from the major news outlets someone else would simply take his place. Imagine him as an actor playing a part in a play. The point is that Jack Thompson is not important. If he were to be fired a new actor would simply take up the role. The same lines would still be delivered in the same way and the same audience would pay to see it. We are actually fortunate that the current actor is so impotent in his role. Imagine what might happen if some charming, efficacious attorney took his place. The more I consider it the more I think we may be lucky to have Jack playing the part of the alarmist. The alternative might be someone who is actually capable.
-Gabe out
The salient point is this; whatever happens to Jack someone else will step up to take his place. The Center for the Media and Family, perhaps, or some other group. It really doesn't matter. What does matter is that those people will be unlikely to make the same mistakes Jack did.
What this means for gamers (and all friends of sanity and free speech) is that the fight hasn't ended with Jack, or with the Parents Television Council, or anyone else. This was a battle, not the war. As groups such as the ACLU and the EFF have shown the fight for free speech is purpetual.
This isn't a doom and gloom thing. This is a long-term point. The way to protect our freedoms is to a) be vigilant and b) be organized. We can't watch Jack dry up and blow away and then go back to sleep thinking everything is hunky dory. Indeed Jack was probably doing more harm for his side than good. We have to be organized, by supporting the existing groups, forming our own, reading the news, and having our reps on speed-dial so that when someone serious comes to the table they face serious opposition.
In my opinion Jack's 15 minutes of fame is almost over. But that doesn't mean the threat has passed.
The Air Force Office of Scientific Research provided him with $500,000 in grants over the years for his research in cold plasmas.
Apparently some government funding is already present.
I will also point out, as others no doubt have, that most of the funding for basic research (especially medical research) in the United States comes from the U.S. Government. "The Marketplace" does little to no investement in the development of new drugs. Rather they focus on the marketing of existing drugs in new ways. Indeed two of the latest medical wonders AZT and Viagra were both developed by the U.S. Government and the subsequently sold to private companies for a pittance unter the terms of the Byah-Dole act. The massive cost of AIDS drugs is not about recuperating research costs (the U.S. Taxpayers already took care of that). It is about one company controlling a vital medicine that they neither developed nor cared forand charging people through the nose.
Your assertions that things will go nowhere if IP is not present misses the fact that the IP is not the motivating force for those doing drug development. U.S. Tax dollars fund the research not future profits. The profots go soley to the marketers not the inventors and they do not fund future research.
This is a case study of the intersection between Common Law and Statutory law. The notion of a "Journalistic Shield" has existed for some time. To the mind of the general public and many lawmakers, police officers, even special prosecutors 'journalists' serve a special function and are thus entitled to protection under the law. In the past this principle has been followed even at the Federal Level. Daniel Ellsberg the man who leaked the Pentagon Papers was punished, indeed someone nearly beat him to death on the steps of the Supreme Court building, but he was never convicted of treason nor was publication stopped. The Supreme Court, in its ruling, bowed to the common law notion that the information in the papers should have been available and that Ellsberg performed a public service by sharing it.
All of law is about principles and definitions. We do not wish to be murdered, and we think such acts are wrong so we enact a law saying that "(Murder -> Guilty) & (Guitly -> Punished)". The catch is that we then get to define "Murder". Murder itself is what is known as an open textured concept. Loosly speaking anytime I kill anyone it is murder. But! there are exemptions for cases where it was war, I was executing the person at the behest of the state, etc. For normative reasons the same act may or may not be 'murder'.
The fundamental challenge in law is in processing these concepts and dealing with them. Loosly speaking there are two approaches to this: Common Law and Statutory Law. The two are not incompatable, indeed most legal systems use both in different domains.
Common Law is that which is defined by general practice (public perceptions, the courts, and so on). A primary example of this (near to most/.'rs hearts is Fair Use). The concept of fair use has not been enshrined directly in any legal document (save obliquely in the Constitution). It has, however been defined over a number of years by caselaw. When asked about it people (even lawyers) describe it in terms of the open-textured concepts such as "educational purpose", or "personal use". In the past the coursts have happily ruled that playing a video for a class is an "educational use" but using an unlicenced copy of Photoshop to teach yourself is not. Similarly loaning a backup CD to your spouse is, to my knowledge, different than loaning it to a random stranger.
Statutory Law is that which is encoded by rulemaking bodies (Parliments, Congresses, etc.) The classic American example of this is the Tax Code which spells out in exacting detail what each and every thing is. A classic British example is the Nationality Act which defines who is, and is not a British Subject vis-a-vuis colonies, mixed parentege, etc. In statutory law it is necessary to spell things out explicitly as is being done here. A nice article at Lawmeme describes this as programming in the language Legal.
The point in which these two intersect is the definitions. In this case the goal is to define a 'journalist' or those who deserve the protection. What the authors are trying to do is to encode a common-law practice (that has yet to be set to paper) in a formal statutory way. The practical upshot of this is that they get to (if they want) to formalize the concept of a journalist. At present they seem to be tending towards the "someone who practices journalism" route, which is good. If they don't wish to overly specitfy things they could just punt (as they did with thje DMCA, and much biotech law) and write deliberately vague laws that are then up to the courts to decide.
The latter is not (in my opinion) entirely bad. In the case of the DMCA it has been bad but then the law was bad from the get-go. In the case of Biotech it is a cop-out by a congress too afraid of losing their jobs. In this case it might be good. When things are left up to
You are reading a great deal, nay way too much, into my post.
1) I do not believe that IBM's culpability leaves Adolph Eichmann, Adolph Hitler, or anyone else who purpetuated the Holocaust and/or Germany's military aggression innocent. The idea that I would let the Nazis off the hook just because IBM gave them the punchcard machines and more (see below) is ludocris.
2) No it is not a double standard. Yes Linus can change the licence and he hasn't. Take that up with him not me. IBM, however did more than just have a polish subsidiary. There is documentary evidence that they maintained it, and recived monies from it, throught the war well after Hitler had set his sights on the United States of America. I am not talking about nor blaming the people trapped in Poland and forced to work for the Nazi's. I am blaming the IBM execs who, like Henry Ford sought to profit from aiding Germany even as Germany attacked their home countries. Watson's family was not back in Poland, it was in the U.S.
3) RTFA! Really, if you want to criticize, read what I have said and linked to carefully not sloppily.
When content producers know that they can experiment with various protection approaches, they're more comfortable entering the online market. Also, investors are more inclined to fund such efforts. Imagine a world of unlimited digital content, packaged with a range of TPM at varying prices. In that world, consumers can purchase exactly the amount of use they need and not pay for more.
So if you're good kiddies and don't scare away the nice lovable megacorporations they might just be kind enough to expand their offerings a little here and there. But if you're bad and demand the rights guaranteed by law then they will take their britney-ball and go home. They don't need your money to stay in business and they don't need to be in the market at all they can just sit it out so give in and let them walk all over you. I you're lucky they'll leave somethign in your pockets after they take your wallet.
Secondly, is a more serious conflict of interest point: This guy is; "a vice president of The Progress & Freedom Foundation in Washington, D.C." The very group whose "Aspen Summit" he lauds as an example of the place from whence freedom and innovation (or progress) springs. Indeed most of his references seem to come from that summit or from affiliated groups. They specify on their site that they are a "market-oriented think-tank devoted to studying the digital revolution and its implications for public policy."
Interestingly they are open about some of their donors. While the MPAA (whose head Dan Glickman is refenced lovingly) isn't a supporter some of their members (Sony, Vivendi Universal, etc) are.
To me that makes his credibility as an outside commentator nil. It also calls into question the decisions of CNet editors who are basically giving this guy time to write a press-release for his group as "Commentary".
It's an interesting choice of example. What he is picking is based upon the assumption that selecting your court of appeals a) is a bad thing and b) that litigants shouldn't be doing it. Whether it produces beauty or not is a different issue. The WSJ has been on about this toppic for a while (mostly on the editorial pages) where they have supported the Bush Administration's efforts to prevent individuals from being able to choose what court they sue a company in.
According to them this process is detrimental to society because someone suing a corporation for fraud will "game the system" by suing in a corporate-unfriendly area rather than say, ina court where the company would win. The idea is that this unfairly impacts the Verizons and Microsofts of the world versus the little guys.
Notabley, they have never raised objection to the long corporate practice of writing all contracts with a specified domain of dispute in mind. If you sign a contract with MNBA bank for example you will arbitrate in Delaware, even if you signed the contract in Bangor. They do so because the laws of Delaware given them the greatest advantages. They can afford to set their staffs researching this, the single individual can't. Here the software is perhaps problematic because it enables everyone to see this info (for a fee) not just the big boys.
Slashdot Mirror
Things like the stock Market, or Clothes (more fashionable brands are more expensive) sustain the price differential for reasons that do not apply to music. In the case of stock people are willing to pay more for high-value stocks because they have high resale value. A blue chip stock that is valued up is likely to be sold for more (or at least as much) as you paid. This is not the case for digital music where songs have no real resale value. Indeed doing that would require restricting the number of times a song can be copied, licencing individual versions, etc. All of this seems both a) technically unlikely, and b) entirely artificial. Once a song is recorded you can mint of 1 copy or 1,000 without reducing the "value" of each individual song.
With fashion items like clothes, cars, etc the more expensive ones are also the rare ones, the ones that you purchase to have a symbol of wealth, status, etc. Once everyone has one it is no longer a symbol and fashion moves on. Again, this is not the case with digital music. Yes it is cool to listen to the same thing as your friends but CD's are not rare and fashionable in the same way that cars and clothes are. Cars and clothes represent more significant investments and as such add status. A 99 cent or even two dollar song won't do that especially once everyone pays for it.
This proposal falls down because there is not external valuation (be it economic value or status) that props up and legitimizes the extra price. Digital songs are not scarce, fashionable, nor can they really be 'resold'. While I would argue that it is possible to convince people to pay $1.01 for a popular song verus $0.99 for a less popular one, the variance won't be much more than that. Any huigher value and people will only be more encouraged to "share" the popular songs with their friends rather than pay more. But the instant the public perceives that prices are being "fixerd" or artificially inflated for a more popular song. Then they will stop playing the game.
Good point. I was a little overly-broad in what I said. The key thing is not to simply assume (or describe) a huge problem/population based soley on anecdotal evidence. This is what (in my experience) most most people /"news organizations" seem to do in these cases.
To me much of the hype surrounding Internet addiction, as with tyhe more salacious "porn addiction" fails to ask the qone essential question; what should we do about it? Most of the people I have seen crusading against such 'new' addictions come armed with preexisting (and often horrible) 'solutions' ranging from banning such things altogether, to restricting all porn to some specified 'ports', etc.
I remain skeptical about most of these stories. While I believe that there are some people who are obsessive-compulsive enough to be addicted to the internet, porn, gambling, etc, I doubt both the numbers being thrown around ("hudreds of thousands", "6-10%", "Millions") because most of them have been based upon bad science, or no science. In order to adequately grasp how widespread something is you have to sample randomly from the general population and see how many people are affected in a real way (I.E. according to some clinical, quantitative, and unabiguously-applied metric). Then you can start to talk about rates. All of the 'studies' that I have seen up to this point consist of interviews with self-identified 'victims' combined with some anecdotal estimates or outright assumptions about rates.
That having been said this story seems to be more upfront about it than most stating that there is little hard scientific evidence on the rates, amounts, etc. It also seems to shie away from letting any one "advocate" propose the sweeping issues that past articles have.
In my opinion, Even if the problem is 10% to 50% of the population I believe that 'national mandates' such as shunting porn to specific ports is not the solution. They have never worked in the past (e.g. Prohibition, the War on Drugs, banning prostitution, etc.) The solutuion as with any addiction is individual education and care. If your life has been ruined by addiction to anything then direct individual help (with recognition from your employer, friends, etc.) is what you need and I hope you get it. A law sending you to jail or installing a timer/filter on your computer is, in my opinion, not going to help.
One U.S. Supreme Court Justice once said (paraphrase) that the function of laws to protect children cannot be to make adults act like children or to treat them that way. In my opinion, laws that treat everyone like an addict do nothing to help real addicts, they only harm everyone else.
In another article this would be called a "nonlethal weapon". Do we really want a world where people deploy such things to drive select non customers away? Legal or not I find the idea of such a system being used not only insulting but sad.
In the 1950's there were case after case of doctors, therapists, etc. saying that smoking was not dangerous many of the same perople were endorsing the use of heroin "the housewife's friend". In the 1970's and 80's there were many people talking about underground demon cults none of which were found. In the 80's there were therapists, the newly recovered, etc talking about the "recovered memories" of abuse suppressed by possibly thousands of children. Most of these stories turned out to be bunk.
You don't need to watch someone jump out of an airplane to know that it isn't safe but then aghain many many people have done it over the years and died. I am not suggesting that the people who died of smoking related cancer before medical evidence proved it were nonissues. Do have the kindness to argue with what I do say not what I don't.
No, I really don't need to prove that it is not addictive for two reasons:
Pornography has been around in one form or fashion for millenia. Much of what we consider today to be pornography was normal in past days and ages. In arguing that we have to alter our legal codes substantially we have to counter that past evidence in a meaningful way.
Anecdotal evidence doesn't work because you can always find some to support any side (see above). Similarly the argument that the internet "makes everything different" doesn't work because you have to show how things differ in a meaningful (non anecdotal) way.
It is imperitive that we be precise about what is and is not true and what an issue is, and is not before we embark on any crusade to attack it. Ill-formed, anecdotal notions of what a problem is or is not lend themselves only to bad solutions and greater, ancillary problems. Consider the drug war for example. The simplistic notion of a war has led us to focus on simple solutions (tougher sentences for first-time offenders and more restrictive "praphenalia" laws) and away from more complex, cheaper, and better, solutions (better drug education, treatment programs, etc.).
So to make my position abundantly clear; I do not believe that everyone can get addicted to porn nor do I belive that noone can. I believe that the extent to which it is and is not addictive/destructive and why is as yet unknown. No reliable unbiased studies (studies that sample randomly from the population not interview people who already consider themselves "addicts") have yet been done but I would support them being done. I do not support the measure proposed in the parent article because it is an ill-formed "solution" to an ill-stated problem and will, at best, do only harm. First and foremost I believe that preventing addictions, whether drugs, gambling, etc. rests in education. With respect to children this means serious parenting not stupid technical hacks.
As always, real information and discussion is far far superior to half-assed, unplanned, actions.
Lats take these out of order:
A kid can be savvy about a lot of things and ignorant of others. You asserted that childen do not know about the profit angle. I argued that what makes the difference is education. You then responded by pointing out a child who was smart enough to download porn.
This is orthagonal to my point. Just because a child is smart enough to download porn means nothing about their comprehension level. Children can and should be educated about the nature of sex, porn, etc.
With respect to d) and "feminist/boy toys" a) Maureen Dowd does not speak fo everyone or even a majority. In my opinion you made a broad sweeping generalization about "feminists" and then used that as if it was an exact statement. It is not. I could just as easily claim that "conservatives are evil" or "liberals love beastiality" as I could present one or two vocal examples of each but that means nothing.
On a side note, the ACLU is not a feminist group, they are focused on defending the Bill of Rights. That has included, at times, defending the right of people like Sean Hannaty to broadcast his anti-feminist homophobic views.
With respect to "kids performing oral sex" I too have seen those stories, so what? This may sound extreme but hear me out. Ten years ago there were loads of stories about gangs operating in clean-cut suburban schools. Most of those stories proved to be exaggerated at best. Ten years before that it was stories about stanic cults among teenages, again exaggerated.
I do not consider the news media to be a source of valid occurance data. It is rare that the rate of stories about an act correlate with the rate of the act itself. To that end I seek long-term longitudinal data. The google link provided none that I saw.
with respect to this:
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Nor is it clear what respect I was or was not extending. Thuought my entire post I was arguing for the primacy of education as a tool to deal with problems. In particular I was arguing that real educational solutions are the best bet.
With respect to the links that you did provide. None of them showed that this is a common phoenomenon or
Show me the hundreds of thousands of dead people then.
It may be the case that it is addictive, it may not. The point is that you cannot just say that and get away with it nor could you say the same thing about smoking. The difference w.r.t. smoking is that a) 50 years ago there was discussion about the health of smoking and b) general acceptance of the health risks were founded on data, not just anecdotes.
a) Porn is addictive show me a valid study to that effect. I have seen anecdotal evidence trotted out time and time again but that no more proves the addictiveness of porn than does the anecdotes about exploding toilets prove the life-threatening nature of chili.
I would also point out that your assertion about educational phamplets: "Educational pamphlets don't help heroin addicts and they won't help porn addicts either." is way off. Yes some hardcore addicts ignore all else but that doesn't mean that all do. The ex heroin addicts that I have known are, in large part, walking educational phamplets themselves, and ten minutes discussion with one of them did more to illuminate the problems with heroin than any drug-free education I got as a child.
b) Kids today are experimenting with kinkier stuff Again, show me proof not anecdotes. While I will grant you that people seem more comfortable talking about kinkier stuff on TV than they were 50 years ago that proves nothing about what is actually happening.
50 years ago noone discussed pedophilia, or homosexuality on TV and both were occurring. There has been (to my knowledge) no evidence shown that the increased discussion has led to increased rates, or merely increased reporting/discussion.
c) The industry is getting more hardcore Again give me some average data. The last time I glanced at a Playboy (for the articles) was last week and the model in there was...Marylin Monroe. Playboy was celebrating the oldies not the awful hardcore days of the future.
d) Feminists choose to defend a women's right to demean herself instead of worrying about the affect on society when the younger generation grows up thinking being a boy toy is a good idea. That is a gross misstatement. There are many many people in this world who call themselves "feminists", just as there are many different "liberals", "conservatives", "Christians", "Muslims", etc. If one or even a thousand such women defend the "a women's right to demean herself" it a) doesn't mean that all "feminists" do and b) does not prove your point in any way.
e) Young minds don't know these are actors playing out fantasies for profit. That depends entirely on how the "young minds" are taught. If parents explain the unreality of it to their children then they will know. If they refuse to discuss it then yes, the kids will be entirely ignorant.
Again, I think that you are wrong. Filtering services do not work in any meaningful sense. They are too gross and too odious a solution. Many such services block medical information in the name of "protecting children" and all of them miss some porn (and on the internet's scale some is millions of hits).
In your post you referenced the ignorance and confusion of unprepared young minds being "reeled in" by pop-under ads. You also talked about addiction and made comparisons to heroin addiction. I think that you were being overly extreme in both cases. I recieve a lot of spam and more than my fair share of pop-ups. None of the spam has been that salacious. I've been offeres drugs and surgeries time and time again but never have I been presented with actual porn (e.g. a naked woman screaming "CUM ON ME" as one post put it) nor have I been "reeled in" in any way. I use pop-up blockers to deal with the annoyance and delete spam manually. That isn't the same as being "reeled in" or being forceably addicted to smack.
The difference in knowing when porn is fake and when drugs are bad is education, good, real, factually-driven education. Every child who has been lied to about the effects of drugs or the realities of porn is more at risk from both than the one that has been given the truth about the two. Any lie, soo
You state in your report that the requirements were developed after interviews with "leading CIO's, CTO's,
Moreover, in appendix 5 of your study you show little overlap between the lists of popular component users. Many of the groups listed for one "popular solution" were not listed on another. Nor did you separate these lists by operating system. This give no indication whether the popular components are ever used in concert. Nor does it indicate how many groups are using each feature set or system. Nor even where these user numbers came from.
I bring these points up because they point to potential holes in your study that I am curious about. In particular:
My question is, do you see these as issues? If not why not?
Dr. Thompson.
You note yourself, in your study that the sample is based upon 6 system administrators/systems. That number is, as you yourself note, too small to be considered definitive. That being the case I would argue that this makes the report viable not as a decisionmaking tool but a marketing tool. Were I a CIO I would feel unwilling to base my conclusions soley on a sample size of 6. What is your opinion on this? Do you expect further, more statistically-significant, work to take place? Or do you feel that this is not a problem?
Naturally occurring things can be patented just as easily as "constructed" ones. The article itself cites the commercial work of Craig Vetner who sequenced much of the human genome for commercial gain. His work allowed for things such as the human growth hormone to be patented. It is naturally occuring but still a patented item.
One primary example is Mr. John Moore who found out, after the fact, that his doctor had patented him without his knowledge. Moreover the courts ruled that he had no recourse save to sue his doctor for failing to inform him in advance that he was a hot property. The doctoer (or rather the large pharma company) still holds the patent. See here.
In the early 90's biotech companies engaged in a wave of patent-piracy wherin they sent people all over the world to snap up patents on naturally occuring but rare plants, seeds, animals, and yes, people. In some cases they then attempted to enforce their patents on the same groups they collected them from. Imagine being an indian farmer and being told that you suddently had to pay royalties to grow the exact same grain that you had always grown before because now monsanto owned it.
Moreover it isn't just the patents on the genes themselves, it is also the patents on their use. To take a related issue consider AZT. AZT was develioped by the U.S. government and then 'sold' under the Byah-Dole act. When it was discovered that the drug could be used to fight off HIV (Again U.S. Government work done at the NIH, and CDC, at Taxpayer expense) Glaxo filed a patent In Britain for their 'discovery' and then used that patent (via international IP agreements) to take control in the U.S. In a sense they performed a 'patent-elevation' attack to gain control of publicly funded discoveries in the U.S. via international agreements. Each new discovery made by anyone is patented to elevate their control still further until all anti-retrovirals infringe upon their territory. Thus it's not just the drug but, uses, dosages, etc. that they own. (see here).
Want to know why your insurance bills are high? It's not because of frivolous lawsuits against doctors. It's because of patents on medicines, uses, dosages, techniques, etc. Courtesy of IP your cold is now private.
I wasn't accusing the BBC of Right-Wing Bias or, for that matter Left wing bias. This is just bad reporting.
How?, Where? What will RFID tags do to make HIV drugs cheaper? When can we expect these revolutions? Who is working on them? Where in hell did this assertion come from? What does this have to do with "Cars that warn their owners when they develop a fault"? Mine already does that via dashboard lights?
Honestly, is this an article about the issues surrounding next-generation technology and the direction whe are heading or is just some free-association wishlist?
Lets look at the underlying issues. A UN body presents a report outlining privacy issues, health-and safety issues, and other looming crises that must be addressed now before ubiquitous sensors, and rfid tags become too commonplace to regulate effectively.
And what does the BBC do? They give us more padding than pudding and spend most of the article lauding the joys of ubiqquitous sensors ("better coffee") and the growth of RFID tags ("Wal-Mart made the chinese use them") than addressing or even framing the issues raised. And then whan they run out of filler factoids they make more pie-in-the-sky promises like the ones above.
This isn't an article, it's a lullaby: "don't worry about privacy, your bag will tell you when you forgot to shop at Wal-Mart."
Literature, especially Shakespear is about the power and joy of words, the fun that can be communuicated by language, the stirring of a good speech. Shekespear especially was a playwright whose words were meant to be spoken aloud not read on the page. Milton was a poet whose words were meant to stir the hearts in their full flower. Text messages by contrast are meant to get the key factoid ("*sq 11pm") across in the minimum spanm of time. The two are different things.
While I am all for the remixing of culture let's not pretend that "woun2mnkd" is the same as "woe unto the people of the earth." It is not, and the very difference lies in the words themselves their rythm, cadence, etc. Past attempts to reset literature into the modern vernacular have succeeded or failed to the extent that they produce something worthwhile. Resetting the words to a new place say a Nazi-Era Richard III work. Replacing all the dialogue with vastly-reduced snippets out of context fails. It doesn't fail because it isn't the cannon, but because it doesn't stand on its own.
I strongly suspect that for all those who already like the works so transcribed these messages will seem interesting, or cute. For those who do not they will be as interesting as reading all of Shakespear silently without even an image of the stage in your mind, that is, boring.
Personally the quotes themselves, divorced of context, mean nothing.
Both of you have it wrong (to one extent or another). What motivated many of the early european settlers to (what is now) The United States of America was the promist of religious freedom. England at the time was still enmeshed in the paris system whereby the government devolved to the individual Anglican Parishes. Everyone in the country was expected to a) belong to their local parish, and b) pay for its upkeep (as part of taxes). Additionally public office was typically restruicted to good anglicans.
While other sects such as the Quakers, Baptists, puritans, etc. were not always considered illegal there were waves of repression. It would be okay for a while to have meetongs (so long as your taxes were paid), and then some change in the winds would bring a crackdown/repression.
Armed with a desire to colonize the new world the British Crown was willing to charter the new colonies with some distinct religious freedoms. This meant that they could govern the colonies as they wished so long as the taxes were paid. To the British government this meant that they gained a) new colonies in an otherwize untaxable land, and b) the removal of some of their less-desirable subjects. At one point they also sent many a convict to the new world as a bond slave but that is a different story.
Some of the older colonies (e.g. Virginia) were Anglican and had a church although they faced a shortage of ministers because what good anglican minister would want to leave a decent living in England to come to Virginia before the invention of Air Conditioning? The French areas (e.g. Louisiana) were heavily Catholic. Pennsylvania was a large outpost of Quakers, and other 'puritan dissidents'. It was also the sole property of one William Pitt, an influential purtain, and the richest puritan of his day. King James II gave him the land in an effort to appease the puritans following the Second Civil War in England. Areas like Massachusetts were a stonghold of other puritan sects.
What is crucial is that in all of the colonies, the same repression took place (with the exception of Philidelphia which was the most liberal city of its day). In Massachusetts all members had to be part of a puritan church and were charged with its upkeep via taxes. Moreover only good church members could vote/run for public office, etc. This was also true in Virginia, Pennsylvania, etc. Sound familiar? Religious freedom to many of the original colonists meant a place where they could tell others how to worhip not a place where anyone could worship as they wished.
Ironically, Rhode Island was founded as a colony by dissidents from Massachusetts. They left the colony under persecution for their beliefs and founded their own land where they could tell others how to pray.
Even more Ironically Baptists (the religion of GW) were the original religious pariahs of this nation. They were not welcome anywhere and they were the only religious group that fought for a total abolishment of the church taxation, and the religious tests for public participation/office. Their modern descendents have strayed somewhat from this original call forgetting, apparently how many of their original leaders faced death and torture for supporting true religious freedom.
When the Constitution of the United States was written it was widely criticized both for its lack of religious language (Neither the God of Christ nor any god at all is invoked in it) but also for Article 6 Cl
Large content/network companies do nothing about spam or spyware. Indeed they stand in the way of many effective attempts to address the problem. Both Spam and Spyware become perceived as a problem. Then they step in with "consumer friendly download services" which offer to make downloads "safe" again perhaps for a price.
This is probably just the market at work but it's herd not to see the same business planning behind both decisions.
To review:
Am I the only one who is beginning to think that RFID is a problem in search of a different problem. This news today proves conclusively that nothing is gained by using the chips. They open up pointless security holes and provide not one bit of protection.
What a damned waste.
Clearly this is a man who is comfortable with the idea of monopolies being granted to him (and not his competitors) and uncomfortable (even angry) about anyone figuring out how to compete with him. My read on this is that, given a choice between innovation and staying in a monopoly world where he is king he'll choose the latter.
Welcome Back Ma Bell, we haven't missed you!
The salient point is this; whatever happens to Jack someone else will step up to take his place. The Center for the Media and Family, perhaps, or some other group. It really doesn't matter. What does matter is that those people will be unlikely to make the same mistakes Jack did.
What this means for gamers (and all friends of sanity and free speech) is that the fight hasn't ended with Jack, or with the Parents Television Council, or anyone else. This was a battle, not the war. As groups such as the ACLU and the EFF have shown the fight for free speech is purpetual.
This isn't a doom and gloom thing. This is a long-term point. The way to protect our freedoms is to a) be vigilant and b) be organized. We can't watch Jack dry up and blow away and then go back to sleep thinking everything is hunky dory. Indeed Jack was probably doing more harm for his side than good. We have to be organized, by supporting the existing groups, forming our own, reading the news, and having our reps on speed-dial so that when someone serious comes to the table they face serious opposition.
In my opinion Jack's 15 minutes of fame is almost over. But that doesn't mean the threat has passed.
Apparently some government funding is already present.
I will also point out, as others no doubt have, that most of the funding for basic research (especially medical research) in the United States comes from the U.S. Government. "The Marketplace" does little to no investement in the development of new drugs. Rather they focus on the marketing of existing drugs in new ways. Indeed two of the latest medical wonders AZT and Viagra were both developed by the U.S. Government and the subsequently sold to private companies for a pittance unter the terms of the Byah-Dole act. The massive cost of AIDS drugs is not about recuperating research costs (the U.S. Taxpayers already took care of that). It is about one company controlling a vital medicine that they neither developed nor cared forand charging people through the nose.
Your assertions that things will go nowhere if IP is not present misses the fact that the IP is not the motivating force for those doing drug development. U.S. Tax dollars fund the research not future profits. The profots go soley to the marketers not the inventors and they do not fund future research.
This is a case study of the intersection between Common Law and Statutory law. The notion of a "Journalistic Shield" has existed for some time. To the mind of the general public and many lawmakers, police officers, even special prosecutors 'journalists' serve a special function and are thus entitled to protection under the law. In the past this principle has been followed even at the Federal Level. Daniel Ellsberg the man who leaked the Pentagon Papers was punished, indeed someone nearly beat him to death on the steps of the Supreme Court building, but he was never convicted of treason nor was publication stopped. The Supreme Court, in its ruling, bowed to the common law notion that the information in the papers should have been available and that Ellsberg performed a public service by sharing it.
/.'rs hearts is Fair Use). The concept of fair use has not been enshrined directly in any legal document (save obliquely in the Constitution). It has, however been defined over a number of years by caselaw. When asked about it people (even lawyers) describe it in terms of the open-textured concepts such as "educational purpose", or "personal use". In the past the coursts have happily ruled that playing a video for a class is an "educational use" but using an unlicenced copy of Photoshop to teach yourself is not. Similarly loaning a backup CD to your spouse is, to my knowledge, different than loaning it to a random stranger.
All of law is about principles and definitions. We do not wish to be murdered, and we think such acts are wrong so we enact a law saying that "(Murder -> Guilty) & (Guitly -> Punished)". The catch is that we then get to define "Murder". Murder itself is what is known as an open textured concept. Loosly speaking anytime I kill anyone it is murder. But! there are exemptions for cases where it was war, I was executing the person at the behest of the state, etc. For normative reasons the same act may or may not be 'murder'.
The fundamental challenge in law is in processing these concepts and dealing with them. Loosly speaking there are two approaches to this: Common Law and Statutory Law. The two are not incompatable, indeed most legal systems use both in different domains.
Common Law is that which is defined by general practice (public perceptions, the courts, and so on). A primary example of this (near to most
Statutory Law is that which is encoded by rulemaking bodies (Parliments, Congresses, etc.) The classic American example of this is the Tax Code which spells out in exacting detail what each and every thing is. A classic British example is the Nationality Act which defines who is, and is not a British Subject vis-a-vuis colonies, mixed parentege, etc. In statutory law it is necessary to spell things out explicitly as is being done here. A nice article at Lawmeme describes this as programming in the language Legal.
The point in which these two intersect is the definitions. In this case the goal is to define a 'journalist' or those who deserve the protection. What the authors are trying to do is to encode a common-law practice (that has yet to be set to paper) in a formal statutory way. The practical upshot of this is that they get to (if they want) to formalize the concept of a journalist. At present they seem to be tending towards the "someone who practices journalism" route, which is good. If they don't wish to overly specitfy things they could just punt (as they did with thje DMCA, and much biotech law) and write deliberately vague laws that are then up to the courts to decide.
The latter is not (in my opinion) entirely bad. In the case of the DMCA it has been bad but then the law was bad from the get-go. In the case of Biotech it is a cop-out by a congress too afraid of losing their jobs. In this case it might be good. When things are left up to
You are reading a great deal, nay way too much, into my post.
1) I do not believe that IBM's culpability leaves Adolph Eichmann, Adolph Hitler, or anyone else who purpetuated the Holocaust and/or Germany's military aggression innocent. The idea that I would let the Nazis off the hook just because IBM gave them the punchcard machines and more (see below) is ludocris.
2) No it is not a double standard. Yes Linus can change the licence and he hasn't. Take that up with him not me. IBM, however did more than just have a polish subsidiary. There is documentary evidence that they maintained it, and recived monies from it, throught the war well after Hitler had set his sights on the United States of America. I am not talking about nor blaming the people trapped in Poland and forced to work for the Nazi's. I am blaming the IBM execs who, like Henry Ford sought to profit from aiding Germany even as Germany attacked their home countries. Watson's family was not back in Poland, it was in the U.S.
3) RTFA! Really, if you want to criticize, read what I have said and linked to carefully not sloppily.
given their work on the Holocaust. See also here and here.
So if you're good kiddies and don't scare away the nice lovable megacorporations they might just be kind enough to expand their offerings a little here and there. But if you're bad and demand the rights guaranteed by law then they will take their britney-ball and go home. They don't need your money to stay in business and they don't need to be in the market at all they can just sit it out so give in and let them walk all over you. I you're lucky they'll leave somethign in your pockets after they take your wallet.
Secondly, is a more serious conflict of interest point:
This guy is; "a vice president of The Progress & Freedom Foundation in Washington, D.C." The very group whose "Aspen Summit" he lauds as an example of the place from whence freedom and innovation (or progress) springs. Indeed most of his references seem to come from that summit or from affiliated groups. They specify on their site that they are a "market-oriented think-tank devoted to studying the digital revolution and its implications for public policy."
Interestingly they are open about some of their donors. While the MPAA (whose head Dan Glickman is refenced lovingly) isn't a supporter some of their members (Sony, Vivendi Universal, etc) are.
To me that makes his credibility as an outside commentator nil. It also calls into question the decisions of CNet editors who are basically giving this guy time to write a press-release for his group as "Commentary".
It's an interesting choice of example. What he is picking is based upon the assumption that selecting your court of appeals a) is a bad thing and b) that litigants shouldn't be doing it. Whether it produces beauty or not is a different issue. The WSJ has been on about this toppic for a while (mostly on the editorial pages) where they have supported the Bush Administration's efforts to prevent individuals from being able to choose what court they sue a company in.
According to them this process is detrimental to society because someone suing a corporation for fraud will "game the system" by suing in a corporate-unfriendly area rather than say, ina court where the company would win. The idea is that this unfairly impacts the Verizons and Microsofts of the world versus the little guys.
Notabley, they have never raised objection to the long corporate practice of writing all contracts with a specified domain of dispute in mind. If you sign a contract with MNBA bank for example you will arbitrate in Delaware, even if you signed the contract in Bangor. They do so because the laws of Delaware given them the greatest advantages. They can afford to set their staffs researching this, the single individual can't. Here the software is perhaps problematic because it enables everyone to see this info (for a fee) not just the big boys.