Lois Boland, director of international relations for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, said that open-source software runs counter to the mission of WIPO, which is to promote intellectual-property rights.
"To hold a meeting which has as its purpose to disclaim or waive such rights seems to us to be contrary to the goals of WIPO," she said.
Is is just me or does this sound like a clear-cut case of regulatory capture?
According to the articles the WIPO was going to convene the meeting to discuss, among other things, open source and the intellectual property regime. Given the past history of the WIPO I think that we can safely assume that the meeting would not have brought free health-care for all or any other such socialist lunacy [sarcasm]. So what is the issue?
Is he just rushing to stem the tide of open-source before it began, working to protect his corporate masters? Or, is it the case that the meeting was about more than opensource as one quote suggested. Either way it worries me.
The U.S. constitution grants patents, trademarks and copyrights for a limited time, with the stated goal of promoting innovation. Shouldn't the USPTO be doing what it can to promote such innovation including welcoming attempts to discuss the law openly? Shouldn't those of us who pay his salary demand that he support such a public discussion.
I thought it was interesting that both sides in this fight (the FTC Chief Vs. the current Bills) are treating anonymity as a problem. The FTC Chief stated it outright while the existing bills (according to the article) attack the "crime" of sending anonymous e-mail. Depending upon how that is worded that could make any and all remailers, anonymizers and other tools illegal within the U.S.
That scares me greatly.
Is reducing the rate of spam by.01% really worth our right to anonymity?
How many beatings really occur in the classroom (or even on school grounds) anyway? I am sympathetic to the idea that we should stop cheating and bullying but I don't see any way in which this would help. In the case of cheating, one would need to take the time to constantly review the tape evidence in order to ensure that cheating did not occur. This becomes a time issue, how much time to already overworked teachers and principals have?
As to bullying, In my experience such things occur most often outsiede of the school or in places that these cameras will not cover (one camera per toilet?) Or, it occurs in public but the bullies don't care. In either case I don't think that these will help.
While I agree that we should have an adequate amount of oversight for teachers and students I think that this is excessive to the point on stupidity.
I believe that the public has a right to information about how the teachers are doing. These cameras will not help that in any way. If they are made available to the public then the teachers and students will be unable to work simply knowing that everyone is watching. If it is restricted to the principals then it is, at best a medium for review blackmail, and at worst an vehicle for back-seat teaching.
In my experience the LAST message that you ever want to send to your employees is that you do not trust them. Employees who feel micromanaged, or spied upon rarely if ever do decent work and typically suffer from a high degree of burnout. Given that most teachers are overworked as it is, the last thing that we want to do is waste money on an expensive insult such as this.
I also believe in taking reasonable measures to monitoring students. I believe that in-loco-parentis (when it is reasonably restrained) is logical. I do believe that students are entitled to privacy in the showers and I believe that any teacher or principal who acts otherwise needs to be fired.
But, students are already (in most schools) heavily monitored. Between existing closed-circuit cameras, teachers, principals, assistant-principals, security-guards, and (most importantly) their peers students are rarely if ever, truly alone. Most of them are keenly aware of this and that alone acts as much of a deterrent as anything ever would. Keep in mind that the action at columbine was monitored by a CCTV system, and that the system did not stop Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. At best this would add a pointless level of paranoia and serve as a further insult to the students.
In my experience perpetually delivering the message that you do not trust someone has a way of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. At best these cameras will tell the students (yet again) that they are not trusted by the school, and will make the school/prison comparison even more complete. At worst they will serve to alienate the students more by showing them that the district would rather spend money on cameras than additional teachers, supplies, or programs.
I also doubt that these cameras would provide any more security. Studies of the CCTV systems that have been put in place in England show little if any benefits. Those studies have shown that the deterrence factor is minimal. They have also shown that the people running the cameras (who only have a finite amount of time to look) tend to focus their time on minorities, women, and people they "are already watching" in which case, the money spent on the cameras, and the support staff provided no more security than existed before.
I support all reasonable methods to improve our school systems and in my opinion, this doesn't qualify.
As I understand it, the date of the election is still up in the air. Whenever that occurs, the winner will still face the general election in 2006. That gives the winner roughly two years (barring a second recall) in which to work before facing another election.
Is that really a sufficient amount of time to repair (or make a positive dent in) California's budget problems? If so, how do you plan on doing that?
I would think that the line to take when arguing is this: Infrastucture such as trains (the great railway monopolies that were granted in the U.S.), roads (The Interstate Commerce Commission), (I am sure that Non U.S. examples exists as well) etc. All help to promote commerce by making commerce possible. The existence of free internet software has helped the internet age, and all the associated businesses thrive. By arguing in that way as opposed to the "it's just the right thing dammit" manner you can make a bigger splash with economy-minded people.
Having watched the SSSCA (now CBDTPA) run through the paces this makes perfect sense. If you have a bill that you want to sell, wrap it in the current craze so that anyone who passes it can claim that "they have worked on X" where X is the issue dujour.
If your College/University has a law school then you might be able to look there for advice. If the university has such a school then it is possible that they may have one or two professors who can advise you in this matter. Unlike the School's Legal staff they are not bound to protect the school in the same way.
I would still be wary when approaching them, you don't want one of them to cause trouble any more than any other. But it might be a good direction to turn.
I am neither asserting that there are no limits on speech (Shouting fire in a crowded theatre being the best example), nor that there shouldn't be any. My point was and remains (even after reading your helpful link) that what limits there are should be carefully crafted and brought only in cases where a clear and present danger to the public exists.
I argue this for three reasons. Firstly, as your own link points out ideas about sexuality are political and affect the way that we as a society treat each other. No speech is "purely" apolitical.
Secondly that simply voting away things that we (or worse children) don't like would condemn us to removing many good (but unpleasant) ideas or topics from discussion. Moreover the rules would be subject to changing political fortunes possibly diverging radicaly from one election to the next. How would we do as a society if we never discussed the holocoust or worse, the part that many U.S. companies and individuals played in supporting it? There are those who would do what they could to hide it.
Moreover, what incentive would I as a writer have to produce a challenging book such as Lolita or The Grapes of Wrath if I thought that It might land me in jail after the next election? One could certainly make an argument that Lolita feeds into fantasies about pedophelia but I would still argue that the novel itself should be allowed to exist.
Thirldy, we as a society have (as I mentioned in my last post) built a great deal of our public identities around sexul mores (I am not saying that we are alone on this). If a pure electorate was allowed to ban any speech that is generally thought to be harmful or unpleasant than many important things would be hidden, and many groups would be denied access to the public sphere. Homosexuals are one example but here is another one, desegregationists.
Consider that, at one time caucasians and African-Americans were not allowed to appear on the same stage at the same time. Historians have shown that images of black men as sexual predators fed into the lynchings and still do feed into our politics (look up Willie Horton for one example). There were times when the thought of integrated couples would have been met with revulsion in this country and it still is in many areas. Alabama only repealed their ban on interracial marraiges in 2000. I submit to you that the door swings both ways. It is possible (though unlikely) that we might acheive a ban on images of predatory black men that feed into the kind of politics that surrounded Willie Horton. But it is as much or more likely that many states would (even today) ban or severely bar any book depicting interracial couples for fear of offending some thus erecting more arbitrary barriers.
Make no mistake, I am revolted by much of the crap that is out there. But I think that turning our public discourse on any subject over to the results of any single election is the worst of all possible solutions.
Free speech, and the accomptying freedoms of religion are not soley about politics, and pornography is not apolitical. Sex, how we have it (consider the Mormons), if we have it (some early American communities banned it outright), what we think about it, and who we have it forms a foundation of our "way of life" as you put it.
Consider the issue of women's liberation. in the 1800's, even in the 1950's the expectation was that women were meant to stay in the home and have children because that was their lot in life. Sex, issues such as homosexuality, etc were not discussed. As a result the nature of public life, and of politics was different.
If you want a more palpable idea consider the issue of homosexuality. Until recently it was illegal in Texas (and still is in many other areas). Banning homosexuality and the discussion of it allows for homosexuals to be denied access to the public sphere (unless they hide who they are). That in turn changes politics. Even in the early 1980's Man conservatives were able to stymie research into AIDS and public health initiatives dealing with it by arguing that "it was a homosexual disease" and therefore didn't affect "the rest" of us. It was only through the gorwing realization that heterosexuals were contracting it in increasing numbers combined with a growing homosexual lobby that brought it to the forefront.
To take a non-sex issue, consider the muslim religion. For many muslims wearing beards and turbans is part of their religion or at least their culture. Should we ban those, as well as the public call to prayer because they remind many people (uncomfortably) of 9/11? After all the freedom of religion still stands, we are merely banning something that gives them "pleasure".
I say no, the right to dress as such and walk freely without hiding who you are is a necessary part of this country. It is also very very political. To deny people the right to dress as they want for fear of offending others is to deny them the right (again as with homosexuals) to access the public (and thus political) sphere on their own terms. To do so would skew the public debate in this country by making it possible for one group to oust another or at least limit their public presence (and thus influence) on the most subjective of grounds, that of comfort.
With regards to your comments about children. We have laws to protect them. The constitutional definition of obscenity is very narrow and should remain that way. In the case of Jesus, he sold the materials to an adult. If they wound up in the hands of a child then the adult who bought them would have been the one giving them. Moreover the supreme court has held (correctly in my view) that the function of laws to protect children cannot be to force adults to act like them. If we have the right to ban things that may reach children then adults can never yhave a public conversation about adult issues such as sex, AIDS, WAR, and so on.
There are a great deal of things that make me uncomfortable including LEgend of the Overfiend (the comic book that Jesus was arrested for selling) but I am willing to give up my ability to ban them in echange for the agreement that they not ban me.
As easy as the nee-jerk answer feels I believe that it is the wrong one.
I can if their efforts to do so end up doing as much (or more) harm than good. Unfortunately IMHO, schools are still stuck (for many reasons) in the one-size fits all model of factories, and I see it acausing more problems than it fixes.
Moreover, I see it causing confution. Teaching a kid to show up on time to a meeting is different than forcing them to "follow the mean path" and trying to make all of the kids, read, think, and behave in the same way. There are plenty of schools that do a good job combining independent thought with deadlines and, as a result, producing kids who are capable of being creative an organized.
As to 'the birght kid' hiring 'the not so bright kid' that makes sense. No one person can do everything, and 'the birght kid' has the right idea, find someone who is willing to, capable of, doing what you don't want to do so you can do what you are best at. That shows that he is 'the bright kid'.
My understanding is that the issue is not collation of public data so much as the abuse of private data. There a re many laws on the books that restrict the feds from collecting and sharing some types of information (medical records, purchase records, etc.) without some form of judicial oversight. The goal was to erect firewalls between say the IRS's and the FBI and to prevent the growth of TIA-like systems.
However, there are few if any restrictions on the private sector. This is why most of us receive so much junk mail. In recent years, the FBI and others have begun sidestepping their restrictions by turning to private companies to collect and aggregate data for them.
My understanding of this law is that they want to attack that very issue, government sidestepping the very necessary restraints that we have placed on it.
Prediction: If we completely Privatize space then in 20 years we will have amillion orbiting Motel 6's, no tax on the harmful pollutants that rickets produce, and still not know where black holes come from, or whether life existed on Mars. We will, however have mining operations there.
Rather than all of us benfitting from space research I predict that any and all discoveries will be kept to the wealthy playboys themselves leaving the rest of us out in the cold.
In order for the rich guys to profit from their discoveries, they'll need to make them available to the rest of us. NASA has no vested interest in making space accessible to the ordinary person, but an enteprenuer building an orbital hotel would.
No, not really, to take one example consider AZT and the AIDS crisis in Africa. Rather than making the drugs availible to the bulk of the world the companies that own them are pricing them for the wealthy markets alone. They are availible but only on their terms and most of the people that would benefit from them simply *can not have them*.
Besides where does the benifit from cspace come, New drugs, ner materials and research into the origins of the universe or orbiting McDonalds resteraunts? Persoanlly I favor real research over a motel 6 in space. If the companies want to build it let them, fine but don't let them stand in the way of those doing the real beneficial work.
Let's not forget that Columbus didn't sail on his donated dimes for curiousity alone, he did it for wealth.
A fine example of the profit motive encouraging exploration. And there are no Indians on Mars.
No not really, he discovered a new continent full of people, new plants, new animals, and spent all of his time looking for gold. Hardly an example of purely benificial exploration.
While you might argue that we all (eventually) benefited from the phone's existence the mere fact that it came from a private source changes how it behaved and how we benefit. To take one example, consider AZT and the current crop of AIDS drugs. They were produced using publicly funded medical research and private sponsorship. They are currently the private property of a handful of companies. Because of that those companies are free to restrict the sale of the drugs and to raise their prices beyond what many AIDS sufferers around the world can afford.
Yes the sufferers that can afford the drugs get help. And years from now when the patents expire the rest of the world can get help too but for right now, they are not really helping everyone.
The problem with the government space program is that government has a monopoly. They aren't driven to innovate.
Prove it. So far as I can tell from the ISS, attempts to produce the reusable launch vehicles NASA has been and still is innovating.
Let's say rich people start wanting to blast themselves into space. Well, even if you are rich, we are still talking about quite a bit of money. There would be great competition for cheaper, reusable launch vehicles (something NASA is having trouble with). Imagine if we imposed a tax to counter the environmental effects of a launch (something NASA just ignores), then our space program gets more environmentally friendly.
The competition for such launch vehicles already exists and is growing. Many many countries and companies want to get into space and are investing in the technology to do so. Eliminating NASA from space would make no difference.
The U.S. just passed a tax cut that specifically benefitted the wealthy while shafting the poor (the child tax credit was denied to anyone making less than 30k per year). Do you really think that the government of such a country would levy a tax on space travel if only the rich do it?
Would rich people that risk big money on new things reap big rewards if they suceed? Of course. Thats what risk taking is about. But everyone could be a risk taker. There would be highly-speculative corporations for space exploring that anyone could invest in, with high-risk, but potentially reward. It would not be unlike bio-tech stocks.
In the world of IMClone, Enron and others where we are just coming off of the internet stock bubble I am dubious that high-risk stocks are a benefit.
Finally, we could end some of the missions of no value except political or international appeal (John Glenn back into space... why again?). With solid economic drivers, either there are good reasons (which could include high-earning tourists with money, or research for potential new drugs or inventions), or the enterprise wouldn't do it.
I will grant you that Glenn's mission was a pure publicity stunt but I seriously disagree with the assertion that NASA doesn't run any studies of economic importance. Recent Shuttle missions (and the ISS itself) have carried many economically beneficial missions to test new materials, study cancer, and make other gains. It isn't all Glenn.
All in all, America is the most profit-driven country, and the most innovative (as measured by patents awarded, scientific nobel-prizes, and other similiar distinctions). What's wrong with extending what has worked for us this far into space?
You are going to have to prove that we are "the most innovative." And that that innovation is solely due to the profit motive. Somehow I doubt that so broad a claim can be made or that we can reasonably argue that the profit motive has always helped us.
According to recent reports the East German Stasi (secret police) had roughly one informant for every six people. Many of those informants whether they knoe it or not were informing on other informants. Ironically the number of informants actually ended up artificially inflating some of the anti-government groups.
In the end they had no way to sort through it all, they didn't need to. Just the knowledge that anyone and everyoue around you from priests to doctors to lovers and children were spying kept people in check. Fear-driven self-censorship was more effective and more doable than overt identification and elimination of suibversives. Yes the hard-core spies were still there but the average citizen was too scared to breathe.
In a heavily camerad, tapped, and traced society with a government that resists most if not all public inquiry, I predict that fear alone will be more effective than the analysts ever would. I also suspect that that's what Ashcroft is thinking.
Ironically, as the Stasi found out, real subvursives will still continue to appear.
But if this attempt goes as badly as their lawsuit against Jim Henson Productions (creators of the Muppets) then they probably won't get far.
The film Muppet Treasure Island includes a character named "spaam" the leader of the Pig Pirates. Hormel got an injusnction against the use of their name but then lost it Ultimately the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in the U.S. concluded:
" Henson's use of the name "Spa'am" is simply another in a long line of Muppet lampoons. Moreover, this Muppet brand of humor is widely recognized and enjoyed. Thus, consumers of Henson's merchandise, all of which will display the words "Muppet Treasure Island," are likely to see the name "Spa'am" as the joke it was intended to be."
More importantly, the resources necessary to go into space are tremendous, and the potential gains quite high. If we abandon scientific research to private enterprise then all of the gains will be relaized *for* said enterprises. Rather than all of us benfitting from space research I predict that any and all discoveries will be kept to the wealthy playboys themselves leaving the rest of us out in the cold.
People may argue that NASA hasn't been big lately but NASA has been far from silent. The ISS has been a location for research in many arenas including cancer, and the development of technologies for space has led to new technologies being availible here on earth. Do you think that the solo billionaires like gates are going to share all of their discoveries with the rest of us? Somehow I'm dubious that a man who spends his life in the prusuit of wealth could be relied upon to share the benifits of that wealth fairly with the rest of us.
Let's not forget that Columbus didn't sail on his donated dimes for curiousity alone, he did it for wealth. I'd hate to see space treated in the same way. At least government space programs are required to share their output with the taxpayers.
I don't think that AC's point was that she would be taking "our" side. I think that AC was suggesting that she was putting up a front of being reasonable for her own purposes. In a sense she is attemtping to get the public to agree with the RIAA by toning down their inasnity and making it sound palatable not by actually changing their minds. Or hers.
If you read the NewsHour questions that were posted on/. you'll see the same thing. The RIAA Lawyer ket saying "WE LOVE INNOVATION... but..." in an effort to make their stance seem more plausible and palatable.
In a sense, if AC is right then she is attempting to pull the same "we are fair and balanced, they all lie to you" line that Fox News runs.
Slashdot Mirror
Whoops, Boland is a She, my bad.
Is is just me or does this sound like a clear-cut case of regulatory capture?
According to the articles the WIPO was going to convene the meeting to discuss, among other things, open source and the intellectual property regime. Given the past history of the WIPO I think that we can safely assume that the meeting would not have brought free health-care for all or any other such socialist lunacy [sarcasm]. So what is the issue?
Is he just rushing to stem the tide of open-source before it began, working to protect his corporate masters? Or, is it the case that the meeting was about more than opensource as one quote suggested. Either way it worries me.
The U.S. constitution grants patents, trademarks and copyrights for a limited time, with the stated goal of promoting innovation. Shouldn't the USPTO be doing what it can to promote such innovation including welcoming attempts to discuss the law openly? Shouldn't those of us who pay his salary demand that he support such a public discussion.
Perhaps we should contact the USPTO generally or Lois Boland in specific:
But perhaps I'm just too naive.
I thought it was interesting that both sides in this fight (the FTC Chief Vs. the current Bills) are treating anonymity as a problem. The FTC Chief stated it outright while the existing bills (according to the article) attack the "crime" of sending anonymous e-mail. Depending upon how that is worded that could make any and all remailers, anonymizers and other tools illegal within the U.S.
.01% really worth our right to anonymity?
That scares me greatly.
Is reducing the rate of spam by
How many beatings really occur in the classroom (or even on school grounds) anyway? I am sympathetic to the idea that we should stop cheating and bullying but I don't see any way in which this would help. In the case of cheating, one would need to take the time to constantly review the tape evidence in order to ensure that cheating did not occur. This becomes a time issue, how much time to already overworked teachers and principals have?
As to bullying, In my experience such things occur most often outsiede of the school or in places that these cameras will not cover (one camera per toilet?) Or, it occurs in public but the bullies don't care. In either case I don't think that these will help.
While I agree that we should have an adequate amount of oversight for teachers and students I think that this is excessive to the point on stupidity.
I believe that the public has a right to information about how the teachers are doing. These cameras will not help that in any way. If they are made available to the public then the teachers and students will be unable to work simply knowing that everyone is watching. If it is restricted to the principals then it is, at best a medium for review blackmail, and at worst an vehicle for back-seat teaching.
In my experience the LAST message that you ever want to send to your employees is that you do not trust them. Employees who feel micromanaged, or spied upon rarely if ever do decent work and typically suffer from a high degree of burnout. Given that most teachers are overworked as it is, the last thing that we want to do is waste money on an expensive insult such as this.
I also believe in taking reasonable measures to monitoring students. I believe that in-loco-parentis (when it is reasonably restrained) is logical. I do believe that students are entitled to privacy in the showers and I believe that any teacher or principal who acts otherwise needs to be fired.
But, students are already (in most schools) heavily monitored. Between existing closed-circuit cameras, teachers, principals, assistant-principals, security-guards, and (most importantly) their peers students are rarely if ever, truly alone. Most of them are keenly aware of this and that alone acts as much of a deterrent as anything ever would. Keep in mind that the action at columbine was monitored by a CCTV system, and that the system did not stop Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. At best this would add a pointless level of paranoia and serve as a further insult to the students.
In my experience perpetually delivering the message that you do not trust someone has a way of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. At best these cameras will tell the students (yet again) that they are not trusted by the school, and will make the school/prison comparison even more complete. At worst they will serve to alienate the students more by showing them that the district would rather spend money on cameras than additional teachers, supplies, or programs.
I also doubt that these cameras would provide any more security. Studies of the CCTV systems that have been put in place in England show little if any benefits. Those studies have shown that the deterrence factor is minimal. They have also shown that the people running the cameras (who only have a finite amount of time to look) tend to focus their time on minorities, women, and people they "are already watching" in which case, the money spent on the cameras, and the support staff provided no more security than existed before.
I support all reasonable methods to improve our school systems and in my opinion, this doesn't qualify.
As I understand it, the date of the election is still up in the air. Whenever that occurs, the winner will still face the general election in 2006. That gives the winner roughly two years (barring a second recall) in which to work before facing another election.
Is that really a sufficient amount of time to repair (or make a positive dent in) California's budget problems? If so, how do you plan on doing that?
I would think that the line to take when arguing is this: Infrastucture such as trains (the great railway monopolies that were granted in the U.S.), roads (The Interstate Commerce Commission), (I am sure that Non U.S. examples exists as well) etc. All help to promote commerce by making commerce possible. The existence of free internet software has helped the internet age, and all the associated businesses thrive. By arguing in that way as opposed to the "it's just the right thing dammit" manner you can make a bigger splash with economy-minded people.
Having watched the SSSCA (now CBDTPA) run through the paces this makes perfect sense. If you have a bill that you want to sell, wrap it in the current craze so that anyone who passes it can claim that "they have worked on X" where X is the issue dujour.
The way the game is played.
Thank you!
If your College/University has a law school then you might be able to look there for advice. If the university has such a school then it is possible that they may have one or two professors who can advise you in this matter. Unlike the School's Legal staff they are not bound to protect the school in the same way.
I would still be wary when approaching them, you don't want one of them to cause trouble any more than any other. But it might be a good direction to turn.
I am neither asserting that there are no limits on speech (Shouting fire in a crowded theatre being the best example), nor that there shouldn't be any. My point was and remains (even after reading your helpful link) that what limits there are should be carefully crafted and brought only in cases where a clear and present danger to the public exists.
I argue this for three reasons. Firstly, as your own link points out ideas about sexuality are political and affect the way that we as a society treat each other. No speech is "purely" apolitical.
Secondly that simply voting away things that we (or worse children) don't like would condemn us to removing many good (but unpleasant) ideas or topics from discussion. Moreover the rules would be subject to changing political fortunes possibly diverging radicaly from one election to the next. How would we do as a society if we never discussed the holocoust or worse, the part that many U.S. companies and individuals played in supporting it? There are those who would do what they could to hide it.
Moreover, what incentive would I as a writer have to produce a challenging book such as Lolita or The Grapes of Wrath if I thought that It might land me in jail after the next election? One could certainly make an argument that Lolita feeds into fantasies about pedophelia but I would still argue that the novel itself should be allowed to exist.
Thirldy, we as a society have (as I mentioned in my last post) built a great deal of our public identities around sexul mores (I am not saying that we are alone on this). If a pure electorate was allowed to ban any speech that is generally thought to be harmful or unpleasant than many important things would be hidden, and many groups would be denied access to the public sphere. Homosexuals are one example but here is another one, desegregationists.
Consider that, at one time caucasians and African-Americans were not allowed to appear on the same stage at the same time. Historians have shown that images of black men as sexual predators fed into the lynchings and still do feed into our politics (look up Willie Horton for one example). There were times when the thought of integrated couples would have been met with revulsion in this country and it still is in many areas. Alabama only repealed their ban on interracial marraiges in 2000. I submit to you that the door swings both ways. It is possible (though unlikely) that we might acheive a ban on images of predatory black men that feed into the kind of politics that surrounded Willie Horton. But it is as much or more likely that many states would (even today) ban or severely bar any book depicting interracial couples for fear of offending some thus erecting more arbitrary barriers.
Make no mistake, I am revolted by much of the crap that is out there. But I think that turning our public discourse on any subject over to the results of any single election is the worst of all possible solutions.
Free speech, and the accomptying freedoms of religion are not soley about politics, and pornography is not apolitical. Sex, how we have it (consider the Mormons), if we have it (some early American communities banned it outright), what we think about it, and who we have it forms a foundation of our "way of life" as you put it.
Consider the issue of women's liberation. in the 1800's, even in the 1950's the expectation was that women were meant to stay in the home and have children because that was their lot in life. Sex, issues such as homosexuality, etc were not discussed. As a result the nature of public life, and of politics was different.
If you want a more palpable idea consider the issue of homosexuality. Until recently it was illegal in Texas (and still is in many other areas). Banning homosexuality and the discussion of it allows for homosexuals to be denied access to the public sphere (unless they hide who they are). That in turn changes politics. Even in the early 1980's Man conservatives were able to stymie research into AIDS and public health initiatives dealing with it by arguing that "it was a homosexual disease" and therefore didn't affect "the rest" of us. It was only through the gorwing realization that heterosexuals were contracting it in increasing numbers combined with a growing homosexual lobby that brought it to the forefront.
To take a non-sex issue, consider the muslim religion. For many muslims wearing beards and turbans is part of their religion or at least their culture. Should we ban those, as well as the public call to prayer because they remind many people (uncomfortably) of 9/11? After all the freedom of religion still stands, we are merely banning something that gives them "pleasure".
I say no, the right to dress as such and walk freely without hiding who you are is a necessary part of this country. It is also very very political. To deny people the right to dress as they want for fear of offending others is to deny them the right (again as with homosexuals) to access the public (and thus political) sphere on their own terms. To do so would skew the public debate in this country by making it possible for one group to oust another or at least limit their public presence (and thus influence) on the most subjective of grounds, that of comfort.
With regards to your comments about children. We have laws to protect them. The constitutional definition of obscenity is very narrow and should remain that way. In the case of Jesus, he sold the materials to an adult. If they wound up in the hands of a child then the adult who bought them would have been the one giving them. Moreover the supreme court has held (correctly in my view) that the function of laws to protect children cannot be to force adults to act like them. If we have the right to ban things that may reach children then adults can never yhave a public conversation about adult issues such as sex, AIDS, WAR, and so on.
There are a great deal of things that make me uncomfortable including LEgend of the Overfiend (the comic book that Jesus was arrested for selling) but I am willing to give up my ability to ban them in echange for the agreement that they not ban me.
As easy as the nee-jerk answer feels I believe that it is the wrong one.
I can if their efforts to do so end up doing as much (or more) harm than good. Unfortunately IMHO, schools are still stuck (for many reasons) in the one-size fits all model of factories, and I see it acausing more problems than it fixes.
Moreover, I see it causing confution. Teaching a kid to show up on time to a meeting is different than forcing them to "follow the mean path" and trying to make all of the kids, read, think, and behave in the same way. There are plenty of schools that do a good job combining independent thought with deadlines and, as a result, producing kids who are capable of being creative an organized.
As to 'the birght kid' hiring 'the not so bright kid' that makes sense. No one person can do everything, and 'the birght kid' has the right idea, find someone who is willing to, capable of, doing what you don't want to do so you can do what you are best at. That shows that he is 'the bright kid'.
I read a study on the site. It said that file sharing will:
- make you have bad breath.
- Be uncool.
- Make all the pretty girls date other guys.
- Cause your head to explode.
- lead to the end of democracy as we know it.
- Help the darkness of communism spread across the land crushing the spirit freesom, of God Mom and Apple Pie under it.
The study was based upon the best research that Money could buy. It even closed with an informed quote from Britney Spears and and Britttany Murphy: That sold it to me."For the very bright kids, school matters little: they will always be entreprenurial"
Should we really be punishing them though?
My understanding is that the issue is not collation of public data so much as the abuse of private data. There a re many laws on the books that restrict the feds from collecting and sharing some types of information (medical records, purchase records, etc.) without some form of judicial oversight. The goal was to erect firewalls between say the IRS's and the FBI and to prevent the growth of TIA-like systems.
However, there are few if any restrictions on the private sector. This is why most of us receive so much junk mail. In recent years, the FBI and others have begun sidestepping their restrictions by turning to private companies to collect and aggregate data for them.
My understanding of this law is that they want to attack that very issue, government sidestepping the very necessary restraints that we have placed on it.
Prediction: If we completely Privatize space then in 20 years we will have amillion orbiting Motel 6's, no tax on the harmful pollutants that rickets produce, and still not know where black holes come from, or whether life existed on Mars. We will, however have mining operations there.
No, not really, to take one example consider AZT and the AIDS crisis in Africa. Rather than making the drugs availible to the bulk of the world the companies that own them are pricing them for the wealthy markets alone. They are availible but only on their terms and most of the people that would benefit from them simply *can not have them*.
Besides where does the benifit from cspace come, New drugs, ner materials and research into the origins of the universe or orbiting McDonalds resteraunts? Persoanlly I favor real research over a motel 6 in space. If the companies want to build it let them, fine but don't let them stand in the way of those doing the real beneficial work.
No not really, he discovered a new continent full of people, new plants, new animals, and spent all of his time looking for gold. Hardly an example of purely benificial exploration.
Yes the sufferers that can afford the drugs get help. And years from now when the patents expire the rest of the world can get help too but for right now, they are not really helping everyone.
Prove it. So far as I can tell from the ISS, attempts to produce the reusable launch vehicles NASA has been and still is innovating.
The competition for such launch vehicles already exists and is growing. Many many countries and companies want to get into space and are investing in the technology to do so. Eliminating NASA from space would make no difference.
The U.S. just passed a tax cut that specifically benefitted the wealthy while shafting the poor (the child tax credit was denied to anyone making less than 30k per year). Do you really think that the government of such a country would levy a tax on space travel if only the rich do it?
I will grant you that Glenn's mission was a pure publicity stunt but I seriously disagree with the assertion that NASA doesn't run any studies of economic importance. Recent Shuttle missions (and the ISS itself) have carried many economically beneficial missions to test new materials, study cancer, and make other gains. It isn't all Glenn.
You are going to have to prove that we are "the most innovative." And that that innovation is solely due to the profit motive. Somehow I doubt that so broad a claim can be made or that we can reasonably argue that the profit motive has always helped us.
You are
Source for some of the info I mentioned:
here
According to recent reports the East German Stasi (secret police) had roughly one informant for every six people. Many of those informants whether they knoe it or not were informing on other informants. Ironically the number of informants actually ended up artificially inflating some of the anti-government groups.
In the end they had no way to sort through it all, they didn't need to. Just the knowledge that anyone and everyoue around you from priests to doctors to lovers and children were spying kept people in check. Fear-driven self-censorship was more effective and more doable than overt identification and elimination of suibversives. Yes the hard-core spies were still there but the average citizen was too scared to breathe.
In a heavily camerad, tapped, and traced society with a government that resists most if not all public inquiry, I predict that fear alone will be more effective than the analysts ever would. I also suspect that that's what Ashcroft is thinking.
Ironically, as the Stasi found out, real subvursives will still continue to appear.
The film Muppet Treasure Island includes a character named "spaam" the leader of the Pig Pirates. Hormel got an injusnction against the use of their name but then lost it Ultimately the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in the U.S. concluded:
See here here and good o'l google for more info.
Lest we forget Hormel does sell Spam brand Boxer Shorts in the Adult Apparel section of their spamgifts catologue.
More importantly, the resources necessary to go into space are tremendous, and the potential gains quite high. If we abandon scientific research to private enterprise then all of the gains will be relaized *for* said enterprises. Rather than all of us benfitting from space research I predict that any and all discoveries will be kept to the wealthy playboys themselves leaving the rest of us out in the cold.
People may argue that NASA hasn't been big lately but NASA has been far from silent. The ISS has been a location for research in many arenas including cancer, and the development of technologies for space has led to new technologies being availible here on earth. Do you think that the solo billionaires like gates are going to share all of their discoveries with the rest of us? Somehow I'm dubious that a man who spends his life in the prusuit of wealth could be relied upon to share the benifits of that wealth fairly with the rest of us.
Let's not forget that Columbus didn't sail on his donated dimes for curiousity alone, he did it for wealth. I'd hate to see space treated in the same way. At least government space programs are required to share their output with the taxpayers.
I don't think that AC's point was that she would be taking "our" side. I think that AC was suggesting that she was putting up a front of being reasonable for her own purposes. In a sense she is attemtping to get the public to agree with the RIAA by toning down their inasnity and making it sound palatable not by actually changing their minds. Or hers.
/. you'll see the same thing. The RIAA Lawyer ket saying "WE LOVE INNOVATION ... but..." in an effort to make their stance seem more plausible and palatable.
If you read the NewsHour questions that were posted on
In a sense, if AC is right then she is attempting to pull the same "we are fair and balanced, they all lie to you" line that Fox News runs.
Irvu.
Because the press release made no mention of Star Trek, Phasers or "battlefields of the future". They only mentioned "plasma valves".
It's so refreshing somehow.