3) If enough people pay an artist or programmer for producing something so that the artist or programmer keeps producing, it does not matter how many people experience the work of art without paying the artist because the work is already produced and the use of the work does not deprive anyone of anything.
This is self serving sophistry, not philosopy or economics.
Let's put your statement in economic terms. You seem to be envisioning a supply curve where the supply of certain creative works (music, books, games) becomes inelastic beyond a certain point. That is not plausible. Let me explain.
Clearly, if nobody pays for creative works, fewer works will be produced. This means that supply is at least somewhat elastic. Yet you are saying that once a certain level of demand has been met, people experiencing the work for free does not deprive anyone of anything. Whether or not they pay for the product, the supply is unchanged. This represents a completely inelastic supply curve where artists supply the same creative output regardless of the compensation they receive for their works.
This flies in the face of everything that is known about free market economics, and you have claimed it without a shred of supporting evidence.
It doesn't have anythign to do with theft at all, because it is impossible to steal a service, which is what programming and other forms of "art" are. Now, you can steal a painting because that is a scarce good, but you cannot steal the image itself.
So, for example, let's say I contract a programmer to write some code for me. I promise to pay $50,000 on delivery. He delivers the product, and I do not pay him. You are saying that this is not theft, because it is impossible to steal a service?
Piracy is NOT hurting the Gaming industry. Their lack of ability to make a game that people want is.
This argument would only hold water if piracy were not occuring. Piracy is occuring because people want to play the games without paying for them. The mere fact of piracy shows that there is demand. The fact that the demand is being sated by theft rather than purchase shows that the game industry is being hurt financially. It really is that simple.
If the game industry is not producing anything you want to play, then don't play. The fact that your needs are not being met does not justify anyone resorting to piracy.
Why? Because, every time I try them out, whether downloading it 'yo ho ho and a bottle of rum'-style, or at a friend's, I end up hating it. I'll play it halfway through, put on god mode, type 'give all' or equivalent, play a few more levels, then type exit in console, uninstall, and delete.
There's your problem, dude. There's no better way to spoil a game than play it in god mode. Of course you won't have good memories of a virtual world which offers no challenges. Maybe instead of blaming the industry, you should try playing the game the way it's intended to be played.
I have to say, it's no suprise that the kind of person who can justify shortcuts like piracy are also the ones who then rely on shortcuts like cheating when they play the games. The person you're really cheating is yourself since you end up hating your own recreational activities.
I trade for a living, though technically speaking I don't day trade.
I agree that you need more money. You can't trade stocks with $1000, even as a hobby. The costs will eat you alive.
I disagree with all the people recommending web-based brokers like Scottrade. If you are serious about trading there's really just one way to go, a direct access broker like Interactive Brokers. They are light years ahead of the web brokers in technology and trading costs are much lower, $1 commissions on up to 200 shares. You can also trade just about any financial instrument in the Western world from one account. You will learn much more about trading using a real direct access platform.
so it's not a troll at all to say I expect Microsoft to switch too as their monopoly erodes.
Microsoft sells software. IBM, HP, and SGI sell hardware. I hope you can appreciate why the economics of switching to a free operating system would affect them differently.
Just don't try to stop me from leaving with a bunch of bureaucratic BS in the process.
No problem. I promise I will limit my bureaucratic obstructionism. All I'll do is vote against using my tax dollars to fund your fantasy fufillment, unless you come up with justifications that make sense, rather than the absurd pretense that you are furthering the survival of the human race.
You are comparing the safety of the Earth to the safety of the moon, when you should be comparing the safety of the Earth with the safety of being on both. The odds of something killing everybody on both the Earth and the moon MUST be lower than the odd of something killing everybody on just the Earth.
Granted, but you are completely ignoring cost. Any policy decision involves both costs and benefits. If your policy goal is the survival of the human race, the rational measure of success is the greatest chance of survival per dollar spent. If you estimate that spending $100B here on Earth can give you a 90% chance of ensuring that a self-sufficient colony survives 1000 years after a cataclysmic event, while spending $1T on the moon can give you a 10% chance of achieving the same goal, then obviously the former is a better use of resources, regardless of folk wisdom concerning eggs and baskets.
(While I pulled those numbers out of a hat, I believe they are plausible order-of-magnitude estimates.)
Clearly there are other, better reasons to establish a presence on the moon. But even if we are going there anyway, that does not necessarily change the economics of the situation. Long-term self sufficiency is an extremely challenging goal that would vastly increase the cost of any space program. Unless survival is the primary goal of space exploration, it will be extremely difficult to justify the added cost in the forseeable future.
If you really want to reduce this discussion to egg-and basket analogies, the solar system has one basket (i.e. a nice place to put eggs) in a pretty decent fireproof safe (i.e. our atmosphere). By comparision the moon is a blender right on the edge of the counter. So yes, if the goal is survival, I'm going to keep the eggs in the basket, thank you very much.
You think I'm exaggerating? Consider what it would take to destroy human life on earth. Gigaton planetery impacts, total thermonuclear war, incredibly virulent virus outbreak. Now think about what it would take to destroy human life on a permanent moon colony. A few softball sized asteroids, one nuclear weapon, a computer virus in the control system, or just one determined saboteur. Life on the moon would be so much more vulnerable and fragile than life on earth that any serious, quantitative comparison would need scientific notation.
Anyway, how does being on the moon help? Build the exact same sealed, self sufficient, vacuum-proof moon colony, but build it deep in some mountain on Earth. It will be better off in every way being on the Earth than it would be on the moon, even after a nuclear war or virus outbreak or gigaton impact. If you want more baskets, build a couple of them. If you're still worried, build them bigger and stronger and safer than you ever could on the moon.
The bottom line is that the moon provides no advantage for human survival. If survival is your only goal, there's no reason to go there.
Any obstacles we overcome will provide valuable insight and knowledge to our technology. Exploration is one of the BEST ways to learn new things, historically.
I couldn't agree more. We should explore in order to invent new technology and discover new ideas. That's the real reason we need a space program.
Why use false justifications (survival) that do not withstand the most casual scrutiny, when the real justifications (exploration) stand quite well on their own?
How about the K-T event that killed off the dinosaurs?
It left the earth with an atmosphere, gravity, surface water, and very reasonable surface temperatures by solar-systems standards. It was nice enough for mammals, for god's sake!! Certainly a lot better than the moon.
Look at it this way. Imagine you're a consultant to the dinosaurs. They want to know how to survive a K-T event. What are you going to recommend? Space travel? A moon base? Is that really the best, most cost effective survival tactic? If I were your dinosaur boss, I'd fire your ass just for mentioning it.
If the K-T event were really an asteroid that directly exposed the mantle of the Earth to the vacuum of space (even briefly), do you really think you could survive such an impact from inside an Earth-based survival shelter?
Well, not a direct hit, certainly. So build a couple of them. Remember, bases on other planets can get hit by asteroids too. Any reasonable goal for a human-survival program -- redundancy, survivability, robustness, etc -- can be met far better here on Earth than anywhere else in the solar system.
What about scenarios (like massive asteroid impact) where the danger isn't what state the Earth will be left in, but rather the problem of surviving the event itself?
How big of an asteroid are we talking about? Unless it is big enough to literally fracture the earth itself, there are certainly going to be lots of room on the earth that are still a lot nicer than the moon. Also, remember, the moon has no atmosphere so a moon colony is considerably more vulnerble to asteroid impact than we are here on earth. An asteroid the size of a baseball could conceivably end human life in a moon colony.
How about we land in earnest and setup a permanent base, really hedging humanities bets against any astronomical catastrophe short of a supernova.
I can't believe how often otherwise intelligent people make this argument despite its palpable absurdity.
Can you describe a physically plausible catastrophe that would leave the Earth even less hospitable to human life than the moon? Remember, the moon has virtually no atmosphere, virtually no water, a sixth of a gee of gravity, and daily temperature swings of 200+ degrees Celsius.
Even if we somehow fucked up our planet that badly, consider how much better survival facilities could be built here on Earth when you're not shelpping everything across gravity wells at tens of thousands of dollars a kilo.
When something that comes out is so good that it shakes up the entire industry, complaining about it will get you nowhere.
Here's the thing: he's not complaining. He's simply observing that WoW is dominating the PC game market at present. As such, he's probably right.
If you actually read the article, you'll see that he's making a candid and respectful comment about a competitor. I'm sure he's not happy that there's such a potent competitor drawing attention away from his game, but there isn't a trace of sour grapes in his actual comments as quoted. He's not saying WoW is a shitty game, in fact he's quoted saying WoW is "...such a compelling MMO game."
In response to such refreshing candor, you start casting wild and unsupported apersions, that he is a complainer, that he considers himself above casual gamers (despite designing a game specifically for them), that he doesn't understand WoW's success. What's your beef with the poor guy?
I will start taking arguments like Hawking's seriously when someone can describe to me a plausible scenario that would leave the entire Earth less hospitable to human life than the next most desirable real estate in the solar system.
Until then, such arguments strike me as nothing more than pitifully transparent rationalization for sci-fi fantasies.
Then maybe people would take the threat of a planet killer serious enough to get a properly funded space program going so a some of us could get off planet (like me).
Do you really think colonizing other planets is a rational and proportional response to this sort of threat?
If so, can you describe a plausible "planet killer" threat which would make Earth so inhospitable to human life that you'd actually be better off somewhere else in the solar system?
Seems like blatently dangerous and illegal activity is endorsed by the industry (shooting people; blowing things up; etc) - while perfectly legal stuff (wasn't the sex in the GTA mod consentual?) ends up being shunned and forbidden.
I agree that this seems quixotic from an adult perspective. When it comes to raising children, however, I think it makes a great deal of sense. It's not about legality, it's about parenting. Game ratings aren't intended for adult players, they are for children and their parents.
The only sensible defense for transgressive behavior in computer games is that it is fantasy. It is not part of this world, but rather an invented world where different behavior is allowed. The crucial skill that children need to have before they take part in the game world is the ability to distinguish acceptable behavior in the game from acceptable behavior in the real world.
At what age should parents start teaching their children about violence and its boundaries? Probably about as soon as the child can make a fist or start pulling hair, just a few months old.
At what age should parents start teaching their children about sex and sexual boundaries? For the most part, not until they are approaching puberty. At that point the child has already been coping with violence and its behavioral boundaries for about a decade.
Parents can reasonably expect teen or preteen children to place violent games and violent behavior in the proper context, That's definitely not true for sexually explicit games and sexually explicit behavior. That's a simple consequence of biology.
I know it doesn't make sense for adult consumers, but these ratings obviously aren't intended for adult consumers.
I accept that freedom includes the freedom for people to apply stupuid DRM schemes.
Good. You seem to want to disagree with me, but I think you just agreed with me.
You need to explain why I should be denied the freedom to produce, provide, or use technology (specifically the circumvention or removal of DRM) in a way some people might not like.
I can't explain that, because I don't think you should be denied that freedom. I completely agree with you that DMCA is an egregious violation of our rights. Nothing in my post said otherwise.
If the parent had attacked DMCA I wouldn't have said a word. I posted because they were attacking DRM which is the wrong target.
The real danger is that you can commit a crime and pretty much flush any evidence, if you're in a position of power to create and delete keys to it.
I think it's quite ironic that the same technolibertarians who defend private use of strong encryption suddenly sit up and take note of the disruptive impact of technology when it is used against them. The above quote sounds like it could have been written by law enforcement in support of key escrow cryptosystems like Clipper.
The "threat" here is simply the availability of powerful encryption technologies. The way to manage the threat is as consumers, by deciding what technological limitations we are willing to accept along with the content we purchase, rather than categorically denying the rights of content providers to use strong encryption on their own content.
It's disconcerting that people so well versed in their own freedoms forget that other people have freedoms too, including the freedom to use technology in a way we might not like.
Yes, as it happens, both you and your source (Wikipedia) are wrong. Wikipedia is great but don't mistake it for authoritative.
Here is a discussion from December '04, eight months before Katrina, observing the shortfall in Saudi light crude deliveries and the subsequent effect on the spread between Arab light and heavy grades:
So the phenomenon that Wikipedia associates with Katrina was about a year old at the time. That is actually more worrisome in terms of peak oil, since Gulf of Mexico rigs can be repaired but it's not clear whether the Saudis can materially increase their light crude production.
On Sunday, September 18, 2005, two weeks after Katrina, Saudi Arabian oil minister Ali al-Naimi told reporters that they had 1.5 million barrels per day of spare capacity and "absolutely no" demand for it. Of course the surplus capacity was Arab heavy grade.
A few days earlier the Saudi crown prince was quoted as follows:
"The current rise in oil prices does not stem from a shortage in crude oil supplies but is due to, as everyone knows, to increased demand for products and a shortage in refining capacity"
Since there is more than enough supply of heavy crude in the market, the reason Katrina caused a price spike was its effect on refining capacity and infrastructure, not on production.
You two are talking past each other. Peak oil means that production rates can no longer increase and we enter a shortage. It does not mean that we have run out of oil, or are anywhere near running out of oil. I would certainly expect that there will be significant proven oil reserves in 1000 years. It may be fantastically expensive to recover, it may be produced at very low rates, and we may not even be drilling for it because we have cheaper alternatives. Yet it will still be there.
You have both the timing and the facts wrong. Saudi Arabia has always (so far) been able to deliver as much heavy, sour crude as the market demands. What suprised the oil markets was that the Saudis failed to meet demand for light crude. This happened in mid-to-late 2004, not 2005, and was responsible for the sharp rise in the long term (2010) light crude futures at that time.
In the wake of Katrina, we heard a lot of rhetoric from Saudi Arabia about the shortage of worldwide refining capacity (not producing capacity). This could equally be described as a shortage of light crude since the real challenge is upgrading all the heavy crude the Saudis want to send us.
The article used the phrase in a more literal sense rather than the figurative meaning it took on by analogy with early stagecraft.
"Deus ex machina" literally means "God from the machine." The article envisions Google creating a machine with emergent properties (if not exactly Godlike). The analogy with Greek drama is tangential to their meaning.
Slashdot Mirror
3) If enough people pay an artist or programmer for producing something so that the artist or programmer keeps producing, it does not matter how many people experience the work of art without paying the artist because the work is already produced and the use of the work does not deprive anyone of anything.
This is self serving sophistry, not philosopy or economics.
Let's put your statement in economic terms. You seem to be envisioning a supply curve where the supply of certain creative works (music, books, games) becomes inelastic beyond a certain point. That is not plausible. Let me explain.
Clearly, if nobody pays for creative works, fewer works will be produced. This means that supply is at least somewhat elastic. Yet you are saying that once a certain level of demand has been met, people experiencing the work for free does not deprive anyone of anything. Whether or not they pay for the product, the supply is unchanged. This represents a completely inelastic supply curve where artists supply the same creative output regardless of the compensation they receive for their works.
This flies in the face of everything that is known about free market economics, and you have claimed it without a shred of supporting evidence.
It doesn't have anythign to do with theft at all, because it is impossible to steal a service, which is what programming and other forms of "art" are. Now, you can steal a painting because that is a scarce good, but you cannot steal the image itself.
So, for example, let's say I contract a programmer to write some code for me. I promise to pay $50,000 on delivery. He delivers the product, and I do not pay him. You are saying that this is not theft, because it is impossible to steal a service?
Piracy is NOT hurting the Gaming industry. Their lack of ability to make a game that people want is.
This argument would only hold water if piracy were not occuring. Piracy is occuring because people want to play the games without paying for them. The mere fact of piracy shows that there is demand. The fact that the demand is being sated by theft rather than purchase shows that the game industry is being hurt financially. It really is that simple.
If the game industry is not producing anything you want to play, then don't play. The fact that your needs are not being met does not justify anyone resorting to piracy.
Martin
Why? Because, every time I try them out, whether downloading it 'yo ho ho and a bottle of rum'-style, or at a friend's, I end up hating it. I'll play it halfway through, put on god mode, type 'give all' or equivalent, play a few more levels, then type exit in console, uninstall, and delete.
There's your problem, dude. There's no better way to spoil a game than play it in god mode. Of course you won't have good memories of a virtual world which offers no challenges. Maybe instead of blaming the industry, you should try playing the game the way it's intended to be played.
I have to say, it's no suprise that the kind of person who can justify shortcuts like piracy are also the ones who then rely on shortcuts like cheating when they play the games. The person you're really cheating is yourself since you end up hating your own recreational activities.
Martin
I trade for a living, though technically speaking I don't day trade.
I agree that you need more money. You can't trade stocks with $1000, even as a hobby. The costs will eat you alive.
I disagree with all the people recommending web-based brokers like Scottrade. If you are serious about trading there's really just one way to go, a direct access broker like Interactive Brokers. They are light years ahead of the web brokers in technology and trading costs are much lower, $1 commissions on up to 200 shares. You can also trade just about any financial instrument in the Western world from one account. You will learn much more about trading using a real direct access platform.
so it's not a troll at all to say I expect Microsoft to switch too as their monopoly erodes.
Microsoft sells software. IBM, HP, and SGI sell hardware. I hope you can appreciate why the economics of switching to a free operating system would affect them differently.
Martin
Just don't try to stop me from leaving with a bunch of bureaucratic BS in the process.
No problem. I promise I will limit my bureaucratic obstructionism. All I'll do is vote against using my tax dollars to fund your fantasy fufillment, unless you come up with justifications that make sense, rather than the absurd pretense that you are furthering the survival of the human race.
Martin
You are comparing the safety of the Earth to the safety of the moon, when you should be comparing the safety of the Earth with the safety of being on both. The odds of something killing everybody on both the Earth and the moon MUST be lower than the odd of something killing everybody on just the Earth.
Granted, but you are completely ignoring cost. Any policy decision involves both costs and benefits. If your policy goal is the survival of the human race, the rational measure of success is the greatest chance of survival per dollar spent. If you estimate that spending $100B here on Earth can give you a 90% chance of ensuring that a self-sufficient colony survives 1000 years after a cataclysmic event, while spending $1T on the moon can give you a 10% chance of achieving the same goal, then obviously the former is a better use of resources, regardless of folk wisdom concerning eggs and baskets.
(While I pulled those numbers out of a hat, I believe they are plausible order-of-magnitude estimates.)
Clearly there are other, better reasons to establish a presence on the moon. But even if we are going there anyway, that does not necessarily change the economics of the situation. Long-term self sufficiency is an extremely challenging goal that would vastly increase the cost of any space program. Unless survival is the primary goal of space exploration, it will be extremely difficult to justify the added cost in the forseeable future.
If you really want to reduce this discussion to egg-and basket analogies, the solar system has one basket (i.e. a nice place to put eggs) in a pretty decent fireproof safe (i.e. our atmosphere). By comparision the moon is a blender right on the edge of the counter. So yes, if the goal is survival, I'm going to keep the eggs in the basket, thank you very much.
You think I'm exaggerating? Consider what it would take to destroy human life on earth. Gigaton planetery impacts, total thermonuclear war, incredibly virulent virus outbreak. Now think about what it would take to destroy human life on a permanent moon colony. A few softball sized asteroids, one nuclear weapon, a computer virus in the control system, or just one determined saboteur. Life on the moon would be so much more vulnerable and fragile than life on earth that any serious, quantitative comparison would need scientific notation.
Anyway, how does being on the moon help? Build the exact same sealed, self sufficient, vacuum-proof moon colony, but build it deep in some mountain on Earth. It will be better off in every way being on the Earth than it would be on the moon, even after a nuclear war or virus outbreak or gigaton impact. If you want more baskets, build a couple of them. If you're still worried, build them bigger and stronger and safer than you ever could on the moon.
The bottom line is that the moon provides no advantage for human survival. If survival is your only goal, there's no reason to go there.
Any obstacles we overcome will provide valuable insight and knowledge to our technology. Exploration is one of the BEST ways to learn new things, historically.
I couldn't agree more. We should explore in order to invent new technology and discover new ideas. That's the real reason we need a space program.
Why use false justifications (survival) that do not withstand the most casual scrutiny, when the real justifications (exploration) stand quite well on their own?
Martin
How about the K-T event that killed off the dinosaurs?
It left the earth with an atmosphere, gravity, surface water, and very reasonable surface temperatures by solar-systems standards. It was nice enough for mammals, for god's sake!! Certainly a lot better than the moon.
Look at it this way. Imagine you're a consultant to the dinosaurs. They want to know how to survive a K-T event. What are you going to recommend? Space travel? A moon base? Is that really the best, most cost effective survival tactic? If I were your dinosaur boss, I'd fire your ass just for mentioning it.
If the K-T event were really an asteroid that directly exposed the mantle of the Earth to the vacuum of space (even briefly), do you really think you could survive such an impact from inside an Earth-based survival shelter?
Well, not a direct hit, certainly. So build a couple of them. Remember, bases on other planets can get hit by asteroids too. Any reasonable goal for a human-survival program -- redundancy, survivability, robustness, etc -- can be met far better here on Earth than anywhere else in the solar system.
There are tons of benefits of truly having a segment of life (not just us, but our flora and fauna as well) off planet.
Perhaps. Survival is not one of them.
The obstacles only make it an even better idea.
How so?
What about scenarios (like massive asteroid impact) where the danger isn't what state the Earth will be left in, but rather the problem of surviving the event itself?
How big of an asteroid are we talking about? Unless it is big enough to literally fracture the earth itself, there are certainly going to be lots of room on the earth that are still a lot nicer than the moon. Also, remember, the moon has no atmosphere so a moon colony is considerably more vulnerble to asteroid impact than we are here on earth. An asteroid the size of a baseball could conceivably end human life in a moon colony.
Martin
How about we land in earnest and setup a permanent base, really hedging humanities bets against any astronomical catastrophe short of a supernova.
I can't believe how often otherwise intelligent people make this argument despite its palpable absurdity.
Can you describe a physically plausible catastrophe that would leave the Earth even less hospitable to human life than the moon? Remember, the moon has virtually no atmosphere, virtually no water, a sixth of a gee of gravity, and daily temperature swings of 200+ degrees Celsius.
Even if we somehow fucked up our planet that badly, consider how much better survival facilities could be built here on Earth when you're not shelpping everything across gravity wells at tens of thousands of dollars a kilo.
Martin
When something that comes out is so good that it shakes up the entire industry, complaining about it will get you nowhere.
Here's the thing: he's not complaining. He's simply observing that WoW is dominating the PC game market at present. As such, he's probably right.
If you actually read the article, you'll see that he's making a candid and respectful comment about a competitor. I'm sure he's not happy that there's such a potent competitor drawing attention away from his game, but there isn't a trace of sour grapes in his actual comments as quoted. He's not saying WoW is a shitty game, in fact he's quoted saying WoW is "...such a compelling MMO game."
In response to such refreshing candor, you start casting wild and unsupported apersions, that he is a complainer, that he considers himself above casual gamers (despite designing a game specifically for them), that he doesn't understand WoW's success. What's your beef with the poor guy?
I will start taking arguments like Hawking's seriously when someone can describe to me a plausible scenario that would leave the entire Earth less hospitable to human life than the next most desirable real estate in the solar system.
Until then, such arguments strike me as nothing more than pitifully transparent rationalization for sci-fi fantasies.
Martin
Then maybe people would take the threat of a planet killer serious enough to get a properly funded space program going so a some of us could get off planet (like me).
Do you really think colonizing other planets is a rational and proportional response to this sort of threat?
If so, can you describe a plausible "planet killer" threat which would make Earth so inhospitable to human life that you'd actually be better off somewhere else in the solar system?
Martin
Seems like blatently dangerous and illegal activity is endorsed by the industry (shooting people; blowing things up; etc) - while perfectly legal stuff (wasn't the sex in the GTA mod consentual?) ends up being shunned and forbidden.
I agree that this seems quixotic from an adult perspective. When it comes to raising children, however, I think it makes a great deal of sense. It's not about legality, it's about parenting. Game ratings aren't intended for adult players, they are for children and their parents.
The only sensible defense for transgressive behavior in computer games is that it is fantasy. It is not part of this world, but rather an invented world where different behavior is allowed. The crucial skill that children need to have before they take part in the game world is the ability to distinguish acceptable behavior in the game from acceptable behavior in the real world.
At what age should parents start teaching their children about violence and its boundaries? Probably about as soon as the child can make a fist or start pulling hair, just a few months old.
At what age should parents start teaching their children about sex and sexual boundaries? For the most part, not until they are approaching puberty. At that point the child has already been coping with violence and its behavioral boundaries for about a decade.
Parents can reasonably expect teen or preteen children to place violent games and violent behavior in the proper context, That's definitely not true for sexually explicit games and sexually explicit behavior. That's a simple consequence of biology.
I know it doesn't make sense for adult consumers, but these ratings obviously aren't intended for adult consumers.
Martin
I accept that freedom includes the freedom for people to apply stupuid DRM schemes.
Good. You seem to want to disagree with me, but I think you just agreed with me.
You need to explain why I should be denied the freedom to produce, provide, or use technology (specifically the circumvention or removal of DRM) in a way some people might not like.
I can't explain that, because I don't think you should be denied that freedom. I completely agree with you that DMCA is an egregious violation of our rights. Nothing in my post said otherwise.
If the parent had attacked DMCA I wouldn't have said a word. I posted because they were attacking DRM which is the wrong target.
Martin
I agree completely. However, by your argument, the problem is clearly DMCA, not DRM technology. That's a very important distinction.
Martin
The real danger is that you can commit a crime and pretty much flush any evidence, if you're in a position of power to create and delete keys to it.
I think it's quite ironic that the same technolibertarians who defend private use of strong encryption suddenly sit up and take note of the disruptive impact of technology when it is used against them. The above quote sounds like it could have been written by law enforcement in support of key escrow cryptosystems like Clipper.
The "threat" here is simply the availability of powerful encryption technologies. The way to manage the threat is as consumers, by deciding what technological limitations we are willing to accept along with the content we purchase, rather than categorically denying the rights of content providers to use strong encryption on their own content.
It's disconcerting that people so well versed in their own freedoms forget that other people have freedoms too, including the freedom to use technology in a way we might not like.
Martin
That $2.50 per gallon is the production cost of biodiesel, not the retail price.
The apples to apples comparision is $1.50 or so for diesel at the refinery.
Martin
Yes, as it happens, both you and your source (Wikipedia) are wrong. Wikipedia is great but don't mistake it for authoritative.
s h/printer_10003311.shtml
0 5/09/15/oil_over_65_us_stock_dip_stirs_worry?mode= PF
Here is a discussion from December '04, eight months before Katrina, observing the shortfall in Saudi light crude deliveries and the subsequent effect on the spread between Arab light and heavy grades:
http://www.mcdep.com/MR41228.pdf
So the phenomenon that Wikipedia associates with Katrina was about a year old at the time. That is actually more worrisome in terms of peak oil, since Gulf of Mexico rigs can be repaired but it's not clear whether the Saudis can materially increase their light crude production.
On Sunday, September 18, 2005, two weeks after Katrina, Saudi Arabian oil minister Ali al-Naimi told reporters that they had 1.5 million barrels per day of spare capacity and "absolutely no" demand for it. Of course the surplus capacity was Arab heavy grade.
http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publi
A few days earlier the Saudi crown prince was quoted as follows:
"The current rise in oil prices does not stem from a shortage in crude oil supplies but is due to, as everyone knows, to increased demand for products and a shortage in refining capacity"
http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/20
Since there is more than enough supply of heavy crude in the market, the reason Katrina caused a price spike was its effect on refining capacity and infrastructure, not on production.
Martin
Er, no. Nobody in oil geology thinks that.
You two are talking past each other. Peak oil means that production rates can no longer increase and we enter a shortage. It does not mean that we have run out of oil, or are anywhere near running out of oil. I would certainly expect that there will be significant proven oil reserves in 1000 years. It may be fantastically expensive to recover, it may be produced at very low rates, and we may not even be drilling for it because we have cheaper alternatives. Yet it will still be there.
Martin
You have both the timing and the facts wrong. Saudi Arabia has always (so far) been able to deliver as much heavy, sour crude as the market demands. What suprised the oil markets was that the Saudis failed to meet demand for light crude. This happened in mid-to-late 2004, not 2005, and was responsible for the sharp rise in the long term (2010) light crude futures at that time.
In the wake of Katrina, we heard a lot of rhetoric from Saudi Arabia about the shortage of worldwide refining capacity (not producing capacity). This could equally be described as a shortage of light crude since the real challenge is upgrading all the heavy crude the Saudis want to send us.
Martin
The article used the phrase in a more literal sense rather than the figurative meaning it took on by analogy with early stagecraft.
"Deus ex machina" literally means "God from the machine." The article envisions Google creating a machine with emergent properties (if not exactly Godlike). The analogy with Greek drama is tangential to their meaning.
Martin