The article regarding Kazaa demonstrates that if our system of intellectual property law further ossifies, we are at serious risk of innovation going overseas.
True creativity is generally the result of the liberal borrowing and reworking of earlier ideas--and contemporary ones--in a new fashion.
Locking up mindshare may cost the US its intellectual leadership in the long run.
The problem is that our legislative leaders are driven by money and a lazy reliance on lobbyists, not principle. Howard Coble is a perfect example of this. I have to say I'm embarrassed that he represents my congressional district. How he became head of an important congressional committee on IP--when he represents a manufacturing district that is losing textile and tobacco jobs--is either an example of the Peter Principle in operation, or a testiment to the fact that those who have a vested interest in the continuing drive to own all information don't want anyone who really understands the issues overseeing legislation.
This article doesn't cite anything that supports the idea that listening to compressed audio injures hearing. I've read the article twice now, and even allowing for the author being German, I don't see any mechanism described that would make sense. Best I can figure, the author is suggesting that not having inaudible frequencies in compressed audio somehow detrains us to hear them with..what result?
If cutting out inaudible frequencies damaged hearing, we would all already be deaf, given that virtually all computers have long used a restricted audio range. We've been in the era of digital audio for some time now.
Tintinnitus is much more likely the result of excessive VOLUME than the result of excessive sound compression. If you turn up those headphones to 10, yeah, you might start to have hearing problem.
This little piece of pseudo-science will, given the tendency of the internet to publicize the sensational and ridiculous as much as the factual and useful, have its fifteen minutes of fame. Ignore it, it is baloney.
This was a close call for me. I see two different ways of answering what my "favorite" sci-fi universe is.
The first is to say "this is the universe that I'd most like to live in." The winner for me, hands down, would be Poul Anderson's Polesotechnic League. This is the world of Nicholas Van Rijn and the merchant princes of interstellar space.
Why do I like this "alternate future" so well? Frankly, it is some of the best-written and most well thought-out space opera I've come across. And yes, I ENJOY space opera. Hard sci-fi bores me. I enjoy thinking-man's adventure stories. If I want somebody's take on "reality", I'll pick up a copy of Scientific American. Poul Anderson's stories have interesting characters, and fascinating plots. The tales of the Polesotechnic Leagure are part of Anderson's future history series, and a good sample of that entire series can be had by reading The Earth Book of Stormgate. Or just pick up a copy of Trader to the Stars at your used bookstore. Anderson also has the Dominic Flandry series about a future Terran Empire (after the League). I like Star Wars, but frankly, Anderson does it better.
A second way to answer the question is to say "this is the universe that I think captures human future history best." That is, which sci-fi universe gives the better window on humankind's future, and so reflects on the present? Without a doubt, for me, that future vision is Frank Herbert's Dune. Long after we tire of our toys, long after the glitter and promise of technology has dulled, eternal questions regarding our place in the universe will remain. Religion, not technology, will define the human condition, and the limits of human potential, not the potential of our technology, will be the true final frontier. We will still be asking what it means to be human, no matter how our technology advances. Most sci-fi futures seem to disregard the centrality of religion and culture in human affairs. Herbert didn't make that mistake.
Slashdot Mirror
The article regarding Kazaa demonstrates that if our system of intellectual property law further ossifies, we are at serious risk of innovation going overseas.
True creativity is generally the result of the liberal borrowing and reworking of earlier ideas--and contemporary ones--in a new fashion.
Locking up mindshare may cost the US its intellectual leadership in the long run.
The problem is that our legislative leaders are driven by money and a lazy reliance on lobbyists, not principle. Howard Coble is a perfect example of this. I have to say I'm embarrassed that he represents my congressional district. How he became head of an important congressional committee on IP--when he represents a manufacturing district that is losing textile and tobacco jobs--is either an example of the Peter Principle in operation, or a testiment to the fact that those who have a vested interest in the continuing drive to own all information don't want anyone who really understands the issues overseeing legislation.
This article doesn't cite anything that supports the idea that listening to compressed audio injures hearing. I've read the article twice now, and even allowing for the author being German, I don't see any mechanism described that would make sense. Best I can figure, the author is suggesting that not having inaudible frequencies in compressed audio somehow detrains us to hear them with..what result? If cutting out inaudible frequencies damaged hearing, we would all already be deaf, given that virtually all computers have long used a restricted audio range. We've been in the era of digital audio for some time now. Tintinnitus is much more likely the result of excessive VOLUME than the result of excessive sound compression. If you turn up those headphones to 10, yeah, you might start to have hearing problem. This little piece of pseudo-science will, given the tendency of the internet to publicize the sensational and ridiculous as much as the factual and useful, have its fifteen minutes of fame. Ignore it, it is baloney.
If you want to go after the supposed plaintiff, you would use champerty, the vexatious stirring-up of lawsuits.
Yes, only an attorney can be a "common barrato".
This was a close call for me. I see two different ways of answering what my "favorite" sci-fi universe is. The first is to say "this is the universe that I'd most like to live in." The winner for me, hands down, would be Poul Anderson's Polesotechnic League. This is the world of Nicholas Van Rijn and the merchant princes of interstellar space. Why do I like this "alternate future" so well? Frankly, it is some of the best-written and most well thought-out space opera I've come across. And yes, I ENJOY space opera. Hard sci-fi bores me. I enjoy thinking-man's adventure stories. If I want somebody's take on "reality", I'll pick up a copy of Scientific American. Poul Anderson's stories have interesting characters, and fascinating plots. The tales of the Polesotechnic Leagure are part of Anderson's future history series, and a good sample of that entire series can be had by reading The Earth Book of Stormgate. Or just pick up a copy of Trader to the Stars at your used bookstore. Anderson also has the Dominic Flandry series about a future Terran Empire (after the League). I like Star Wars, but frankly, Anderson does it better. A second way to answer the question is to say "this is the universe that I think captures human future history best." That is, which sci-fi universe gives the better window on humankind's future, and so reflects on the present? Without a doubt, for me, that future vision is Frank Herbert's Dune. Long after we tire of our toys, long after the glitter and promise of technology has dulled, eternal questions regarding our place in the universe will remain. Religion, not technology, will define the human condition, and the limits of human potential, not the potential of our technology, will be the true final frontier. We will still be asking what it means to be human, no matter how our technology advances. Most sci-fi futures seem to disregard the centrality of religion and culture in human affairs. Herbert didn't make that mistake.