New possibilites form as old possibilites pass away. No more psionics or FTL travel or cold wars but there's must more realistic internet/computer technology and more biological/genetic possibilites than anyone ever dreamed of in the old days. Try "Rainbow's End" from Vernor Vinge (older than Gibson AFAIK) for ther former or "Nothing Human" by Nancy Kress if you want futures that walk the line between hopeful and depressing without involving magic. I'm sure there are others I'm not thinking of, too. I would say the pickings for original thought are doing fine, and it has nothing do with age... Gibon's probably just not that into it anymore.
Before you go making assumptions... figuring out what's cultural and what's biological can be tricky.
People used to think that with our near neighbors, the Chimps, the females never cheated. Then they found the female chimpanzees were biologically adapted to sneak off and have sex with chimps from other tribes, to broaden the gene pool. So you have female chimps biologically wired to sleep around... how long before they find the same traits in humans?
Who knows, but it seems just as likely that men have a biological need to control female sexuality (to make sure the child is theirs in an era before paternity tests) while the men sleep around, and that women have a biological need to control male sexuality (to make sure he doesn't run off with another woman) while THEY sleep around. Evolution may be that the one with the most control and the most ability to sleep around, male or female, is the winner. We happen to live in a male dominated society, though, so our culture has invented the "walk of shame" to give men an edge.
You say, "Morals are public things, and a respect for a civilization demands that they be enforced."
I say, "We live in a rationale, free and modern society and a respect for OUR civilzation demands that outdated or unjust morals be questioned and challenged. Otherwise, we'd still be practicing such civilized and moral behavior as slavery and beheadings."
If every bombing in a tel aviv market was followed by food aide and investment in the economic development in palestine, or the bombings in tel aviv stopped and the Isrealis were faced with throngs of unarmed people marching without resistance at their checkpoints and accepting the violence of the isreali military.... the result would be apping the will to fight out of the other side, rather than reinforcing it.
I agree with your first point about history not mattering that much, but your second point sounds pretty naive, my pragmatist friend. Israelis sending economic aid to Palestine after a bombing would clearly cause more bombings, since that would be an economic incentive for bombings. Likewise, the Israelis are not stupid so a peaceful march on their barricades would clearly result in the marchers being pushed back with non-lethal force.
You are pre-supposing, based on your examples, that this is one country. Germany could be unified because both East and West viewed themselves as one country and welcomed the idea. Ghandi and Martin Luthor King Jr. worked because they the inhabitants all viewed themselves as part of one country. Although my knowledge of Indian history is sketchy, in Ghandi's case, the British occupiers agreed that it was not their country in the end. That's something the Israelis will never do, since they have no place else to go and cannot live in a Palestinian state. Also, in India's case, the part of the country that did not see themselves as part of that country split off to form Pakistan (setting Kashmir aside for a moment). So there you also have a "two state solution"... which is what usually happens when two people do not seem themselves as one.
During the first intifada in the late 80s, the Palestinians were able to make a great impact on the Israelis with labor strikes. Also, they could march because there were no walls. Now there is a big wall between the two people, and the Isrealis no longer use Palestinians for labor, they bring in guest workers from places like China.
At this point, the analogy is more like if millions of Mexicans massed on the American border and tried to press through. The US government would not just let them in because they were marching peacefully - they would be pushed back. So these are two separate countries, with one occupying the other, but two separate countries still.
However, as countries or as political movements, your Ghandi point leads me to my point... the biggest problem is the lack of quality leadership on the Palestinian side. Don't get me wrong, the Israelis lack quality leadership, but not anywhere near as bad. Neither the corrupt Fatah or the crazy Hamas (crazy in the sense of being more interested in not recognizing your enemy's right to exist rather than the welfare of your own people), well, they got problems.
The Palestinians don't need to march for peace... if they were organized enough to march they would already have a leadership in place that could go to the negotiating table, finish what was started at Camp David and Taba, and, with enough money (for compensating settlers, economic development, border security, etc.) the whole thing could be over in a week.
Yes, I'm responding to what might be flamebait, but I think its important to note that, actually, Hitler held Gays in pretty much the same regard as he held Jews. 12 Million "defectives" were killed in the Holocaust, and "only" around half of them were Jews (although Jews suffered an additional loss due to the cultural/genocidal implications in addition to the absolute numbers killed).
From the Southern Poverty Law Center:
"In fact, while the number of homosexuals who died in the Holocaust does not approach the number of Jewish or Gypsy victims, the historical record shows that between 50,000 and 100,000 men were arrested for homosexuality (or suspicion of it) under the Nazi regime. They were routinely sent to concentration camps and marked with a pink triangle on their prison garb.
They were not systematically exterminated. But huge numbers are believed to have died in the work camps, along with an untold number of homosexual Jews, Gypsies and other "defectives" who were sent to extermination camps."
2) It is not really appropriate to compare our friends on the far right to Hitler any more than it is to compare our friends on the far left to Stalin, who (if not as dramatically) killed millions for his own warped vision and paranoia. I am not a fan of "W" (and judging by the election returns, few Jews or Gays are, either), but he's really not even in the same category as Hitler. Comparing things to Hitler is a waste of time, almost always inaccurate, and just waters down notions of evil in an unhealthy way - which was probably Godwin's point.
The article says one version of this is a factory option in Europe. In the U.S. they disabled the feature because they are concerned about violating federal rules regarding reporting of gas mileage. I guess because its a variable based on consumer behavior (whether they plug it in or not), perhaps? Anyway, their answer to why its not a factor option is federal rules...
They seem very uneasy with the concept of plugging in car. As anyone who has witnessed firsthand attempts to deploy an emerging technology to the masses, I can understand why. For the masses, you gotta' keep it real simple. Early adopters can handle this sort of thing, but for everyone else it just leads to confusion - especially when you're plunking down $20K plus...
Its not just movies and books... even more this is the direction of music...
I read something last year that said pop stars in China had basically given up making money from direct sales because of all the piracy. Some relied on concert sales, but others would find a corporate sponsor for their song. Since advertising can just be ripped out, they would right the song about the product. Like if it was a love song, they'd be sure and mention their love of Pepsi. Come think of it, isn't this what Celine Dion tried to do for Chrysler here in the U.S.?
Integrated product placement is the wave of the future... but its easier to do in IP, which has very little innate value and great advertising potential, then in manufactured goods.
Still, perhaps we'll reach a day when every item has product placement in it or on it, and is thus free. Expensive products will be advertised on cheaper products, and more expensive products will be advertised on merely expensive products. Of course, that advertising budget has to come from somewhere, so in the end of the day you will have to turn over your entire salary to one company's really expensive product that spirals down the proceeds to everything else you would normally have pay for but now get for free with advertising on it. I'm betting that company will be Microsoft...
Yes, I know, and I agree with you.. Centralized planning always looks good on paper, but, as the Soviets proved, never seem to work out in the real world.
I was more commenting on the Telco' Act of '96, though, which was supposed to give us the best of all possible worlds - private industry competition between carriers WITHOUT having to build a second (or third) national telecom infrastructure. They key, though, was that it required effective regulation of the industry, and what resulted instead was a massive orgy of lobbying and a bunch of conflicting court rulings, and in the end the building of the second and probably third telecom infrastructure.
It was an excellent point about the space program, though - maybe you can just never have too much infrastructure. Someone will always come along with a clever way to fill that pipe or make some use of it.
Broadband over Powerlines (already rolling out in some areas of the country) will be the the third form of broadband into the home. Your energy company should be able to offer phone, internet, and even cable service. Since Satellite competes with cable for video service, that's another competitive front. As long as the phone companies are laying fibre to the home (SBC is doing this as well, by the way) to compete with cable, they should add on a line so they can compete with the energy companies, too.
Overall, I think all this competition is good, but when third world countries say they hate American wealth, you have to wonder about a country that is so wealthy and yet so bad at regulating itself that it is easier for us to build three or four identical national infrastructures (at huge expense) to achieve the same purpose than to plan effectively. So finally we get may get decent broadband - a utility that should have been available ten years ago. Aren't we ranked like fifteenth in the world now for providing broadband internet?
ThinkSecret doesn't even have to lie. They just have to compartmentalize their information. They can get the info from someone who is not an apple employee, and that person can get it from an apple employee. That way ThinkSecret can honestly say they didn't get it from an Apple employee, and don't know who the employee is.
I imagine this is the sort of thing that will happen in the future, anyway. Smart anonymous sources will establish their credentials, and then leak information, but remain anonymous.
Like it or not, agree with it or not, the US Constitution is based on the principle of limited and restricted government. The founding fathers were in essence libertarians. They did not fear private business, but considered government to be very dangerous, however necessary it might be. I don't care how much you twist it, you won't be able to wring out any restrictions on private businesses from it.
Like it or not, agree with it or not, the US Constitution WAS based on the principle of limited and restricted government. It still is to a certain extent, since the states fight back. Also, I agree with you that the Founding Fathers were very libertarian. However, they've been gone a long time and in the meantime there's been a lot of extra amendments added beyond the bill of rights, and a lot of Supreme Court interpretation - not to mention the natural complexity that simple things take on in the context of modern life.
My point was that all of this talk of the 1st Amendment/Bill of Rights only restricting government has, due to the 14th Amendment and various congressional interventions and Supreme Court interpretations - especially relating to the commerce clause - got about a thousand loopholes for specific situations, and whether or not a blogger can be protected from being fired through labor law or whistle blower law or 14th amendment rights or corporate law or state law completely depends on the specifics of the individual situation. Replying "1st amendment doesn't apply to private companies" is likely as inaccurate as the person originally saying "I should be able to blog whatever I want and never get fired."
I mean truly privatize, and not merely contract out government services.
Even if government truly privatizes, Courts have ruled that private companies acting like a government are still bound by certain restrains. For instance, if a mall holds itself out as a public place it cannot easily expel people for free expression. Private schools (truly private - not charter schools) still have minimum standards they have to follow. Government gets involved in a lot of other ways, too. The hotels workers in San Francisco held a short strike to express their displeasure with management. Management kicked them out entirely and wouldn't let them back in. The goverment has ordered the hotels to let them back in for I think its 60 days for a "cooling off" period.
So, to summarize, I believe I disagree with you. Whether or not we like it, government can and does restrict private business in pretty much any way it wants - although of course it may later pay a price at the ballot box.
Blowing the whistle to the press works when the government is involved. If you are blowing the whistle on a corporation, its probably better to just go tell the goverment.
without an established publishing institution behind blogs, I doubt whistle blowing cases will succeed
It occcurs to me that if a Court grants the Apple bloggers the same rights to protect their sources that "real" journalists have, then that could be considered a precedent in treating a blog like a real established publisher would be treated.
In the long term, I think it is inevitable that at least some blogs will be treated like established publishers, but it may be awhile.
It would be interesting to see a survey of how many established news sources are open to criticism of their own new organization by their own journalists.
What you said is true for the 1st Amendment, but completely ignores its application to states - and other government entities as well as some corporate behavior - through the 14th amendment. (prohibiting the deprivation of life, LIBERTY, or property without due process of law). The 14th amendment is of course much broader.
The 14th amendment and freedom of speech have been applied to corporations- specifically malls, private universities, utilities and such. Usually when a corporation, such as a mall, behaves like a part of the government and does the work the government is supposed to do. Then it has to at least partially observe a citizen's rights, like the freedom of assembly (although it varies by circuit, state, etc.). Otherwise goverments could privitize everything, ignore the bill of rights, and get away with murder (most likely literally, in some cases).
Case in point: During our recent presidential election, there were one or two cases of companies firing people for their political views. This would not happen to government employees, such as a teacher, since government is held to greater scrutiny. It probably also couldn't happen to a teacher at a charter school, even though the school is a private corporation.
The main issue here seems to be not about freedom of speech... but about your right to your job. You don't have a guaranteed right to your job IF your empoyment is at will. Although some whistleblower laws could protect you if what you are saying is in the public interest - maybe.
----
Your observation about your wife isn't necessarily always accurate either. A correct analogy to getting fired would be your wife filing for divorce. Calling her names in most states would be enough, with no fault divorce. However, if you had a covenant marriage like they now have in Louisiana you could, in theory, continue to call her names and she'd have to sit there and take it as long as it didn't become too abusive. Of course, she could say something nasty back to you, and you'd have to sit there and take that. I'm not 100% sure of the laws on covenant marriage, but that sounds about right.
The 1st Amendment's not really the amendment to look at.. free speech (and everything else) is usually applied to states, local entities, and sometimes corporations through the 14th Amendment, which prohibits the deprivation of life, LIBERTY, or property without due process of law... its much broader, and includes the "right to free speech" and most of the original bill of rights, as courts have interpreted it.
The 14th amendment and freedom of speech have been applied to corporations- specifically malls, private universities, utilities and such. Not because they are legal constructions, though. Only when a corporation, such as a mall, behaves like a part of the government and does the work the government is supposed to do. Then it has to at least partially observe a citizen's rights (although it varies by circuit, state, etc.). Otherwise goverment could privitize everything and get away with murder (literally, in some cases). Specifically, I'm thinking of malls that have had trouble prohibiting a right of free assembly.
I think the main issue here is not about freedom of speech... but lack of right to job. You don't have a guaranteed right to your job if your empoyment is at will. Although some whistleblower laws could protect you if what you are saying is in the public interest - in theory at least.
Hey, it's all theory until it gets before a judge.
It's only limited the way they've got it set up. There's no reason that, with today's technology, we couldn't split it up a hundred times more than it is. But then everyone could get a cheap radio station, and we wouldn't want that, would we?
no reason? mmhh... technologically, there's no reason, but politically and socially many good reasons.
Example: My grandmother, who is 92 and still going strong, but her eyesight isn't what it used to be. So she listens to the radio. This is a woman who has only the vaguest concept of what digital is, and if you tried to change the dial on her - well, bad things.
Note: One thing she does know how to do is vote. And she and her peers vote in far, far, greater number than my generation, who are too busy reading here and listening to MP3s or podcasting or video games or whatever we feel like. Any politician who would seriously suggest changing the current radio system would have to go through my grandmother first, and that's just not likely to happen.
Having said that, the FCC and "radio industry" is moving to digital radio (aka HD Radio) and it will at least create some more stations for those with digital receivers while at the same time leaving the old analog stations the way they are. This is the Ibiquity thing.
The old system took a few generations to build up, and it will take at least a few generations to break down. At some point, the FCC probably will become unnecessary, but not yet.
In the meantime, there's always Satellite Radio and Podcasting....
Re:The first out of the gate almost always loses
on
Can TiVo be Saved?
·
· Score: 1
I've got to agree with you here...
Remember when the big "on-line" services were Prodigy and Compuserve and AOL was smalltime? And then there was poor Netscape, crushed by Microsoft. Some bright, small company always puts in the initial R&D, and then a bigger player swoops in...
This reminds me some of @Home Corp., though. @Home had deals with the cable companies to provide their broadband internet service, but when the product was ready to go mainstream they pulled the contracts, took the technology, and did it themselves. Here they created enough excitement about TIVO to make sure it had investors and to keep them innovating, but when it comes time for the big rollout... see ya' suckers...
Since when the hell can you patent something that someone else has done and has been in the public domain for years, and copyright a name that's been in common use for years?
This is a TRADEMARK... there is no prior art - patent law doesn't apply here (and neither does copyright).
Think about Apple. The word "Apple" has been around forever. But if you started selling computers tomorrow that were cheap pieces of, well, you know, then Steve Jobs and his merry band of lawyers would be around tomorrow to shut you down. On the other hand, if you are a hobbyist who upgrades apple computers or an apple reseller or an apple gossip website, or you like fruit, then there is nothing he can do.
Trademark law exists to prevent marketplace confusion - so everything can only be named once for any particular product. Also, you don't even need to register. You automatically get trademark protection if you are the dominant player in the marketplace. However, if you are going to sue someone it helps (and in some cases may be necessary) to have registered trademark protection. But trademark protection really only lets you sue other commercial entities. So, as he said, he will not be suing hobbyists or the MAME creators.
Really, trademark law is not bad, although the way some ICANN arbitrators have administered it over the years leaves some questions in the domain name area. Still - its not completely messed up like patent law. Don't confuse the two...
On the contrary, I think they do it the other way around. They take whatever the news of the day is and use humor to point out flaws, general inconsistency, and at times ridiculousness. Its not that they don't show it if its not funny, but that they take what's shown, and make it funny.
Wit is an un-nerdy trait? Most of the time when I'm with regular folk, I have to tone down my humor. Nerd humor may be distinctive, but you can't say they don't have wit. Or, eh, maybe you can... I can't.
We obviously had very different classroom experiences. I can't say I got a lot out of it most days, but glad you got your money's worth...
Um, no.... sorry...
US privacy law only regulates financial or medical data, and even then you can only get them to stop using the data, not delete it. None of which would apply here.
EU data protection laws are much, much stricter...
However, the person could move to Italy and called and changed his address with the company, then since the company also operates in the EU they would perhaps comply. Interestingly, a lot of big companies keep multiple databases - one for the US and one for the EU - because the rules are so different.
You contradicted yourself: I agree with you that "Le Guin is a politically correct liberal anti-white apologist relic" but you made that a negative statement. If you view political correctness negatively, then you shouldn't be offended or care if she calls someone a honky. On the other hand, if you are politically correct, then you are almost by definition be a liberal and you should embrace, as you put it, "the very recent liberal apologia for the uneducated/gangsta segment of the black community" and allow her to use the word honky. It doesn't seem to make sense to have it both ways.
Maybe there is an age difference here? I don't know anything about the uneducated/gangsta community. I did, however, graduate quite recently from an extremely high end, liberal, and mixed race public university and everyone used racist slurs all the time, but only in the appropriate context. Describing one's own "group", or to close friends in certain situations, was alright. Speaking of other's negatively or behind someone's back was most certainly not.
With regards to your analogy, many blacks probably would be upset but the black writer you describe would probably get away with using the "n" word, although they might grimace and shake their heads in dismay. On the other hand, a white writer writing about whites using African tribal traditions who used the "n" word after her characters were turned into blacks for a BET audience would likely lead to much more vocal protest. This analogy is now stretched past the breaking point, so I apologize. My point is merely the speaker in question and context matter in almost any situation.
FYI - You wrote that racism is wrong in all contexts, and I certainly agree. My original post was not a moral stance. Again, I don't make these rules. I'm not sure who does, but its not me. I was merely providing a possible explanation for LeGuin's self-referential recism.
Well, she did say she only went public with her griping because in that Sci Fi Magaine article the producer represented that he thought he was being true to her work.
In a sense she wasn't as much griping about the show itself, but about the statement from the producers. Then she had to provide context and explanation as to why it wesn't true to her work.
Perhaps she figured she was had sold the Earthsea idea to them, but not the right for them to represent her endorsement of what they wound up with.
I doubt the producers care. Controversy = Good Publicity, ya' know.
I agree with your point, and you should point it out to her.
However, you are forgetting the well known exception to the racist term rule that allows one to use it on one's own race. Le Guin is herself white, and therefore can slur white people. Just like blacks use the "n" word, gays can use the "f" word, and, well, everyone else can use whatever they are using against their own kind. Don't ask me why this is so - in college I believe I heard something about reclaiming the term for yourself, self empowerment, etc.
Perhaps on the same vein, if someone on the schoolyard growing up called me a nerd, I got all offended. If someone on slashdot called me a nerd, I would take it as a compliment.
Again, I don't make the rules. Its a strange world, eh?
It does seem tacky for her to use it in print, though. Definitely borderline...
That Canadian bit is so old that nobody in Europe buys it anymore. Also, unless you know a fair bit about Canada you might not be able to pull it off. If nothing else, many if not most Canadians speak at least a bit of French, as do many Europeans and not many Americans, who tend toward Spanish as a second language - depending on what part of America and Europe you are in.
I was in Europe a lot the past year and when people asked where I was from I said San Francisco or Silicon Valley (it helps that I am in Silicon Valley, I guess). Even well meaning Europeans that like Americans are apt to give you a lecture these days on how you are screwing up the rest of the world - not just Iraq but also Kyoto and a host of other issues. Most Europeans know at least a few Californians or New Yorkers and have a favorable impression of them from past experience, and most know that we're not really happy with the federal government right now either. Usually I'd just get a sympathetic nod or maybe a joke or two about the Governator.
Also, I find that colloquialisms are a great ice-breaker. As long as you will take the time to explain them people find them fascinating. Also, if you spend any amount of time with Brits or have even seen an Austin Powers movie you know that British slang puts American slang to shame so you might learn something, too.
The short answer is yes, they have. It does not really pose any problem getting a Judge to sign-off. As long as a crime or civil violation has likely been committed. The Judge signing off on the subpeona is there to try and make sure the police or RIAA or whoever has done their homework (due diligence, they would call it in the business world) and to make sure that innocent people are not falsely accused. They are not there to protect the guilty or likely guilty. The "new" process reduces error, takes longer and is more expensive - it doesn't actually stop the end result.
If you want to stop the end result, you need to change the law - either by convincing a Judge (or actually many Judges) that the law is in violation of other more important laws (aka "unconstitutional") or by convincing the legislator to change the law itself.
If you are looking for someone within the legal system to take a moral stand instead of a legal one then the party you would normally look to would be the jury. Judges usually have a vested interest in preserving the law, and have a career to look after. That's why we have juries (when the system works as intended, of course!) It would be interesting to see if one of these cases ever came to trial, and it was a jury trial, what would happen. With the number of file traders in society, presumably there would be at least one file trader on the jury to hang it. With all the resulting bad publicity of a loss at trial, I presume that is why the RIAA is so eager to settle each case for significantly less than it would cost to tempt someone to try to take the matter to trial.
Bottom Line: Do not think you will be able to manipulate the legal system and get off on a technicality. For present purposes, the easiest way of not getting caught is not to upload files to public networks. Anything else, you are taking your chances. They may be infintesimally small chances, but they are chances.
You have the legal issues a bit misunderstood - the legel precedent is that ISPs can't be forced to reveal the name of the person behind an IP address unless they can show (likely with a judicial showing of probable cause) that its likely a copyright violation or crime occured.
This is kind of like telling the police they can't arbitrarily pull over cars, but have to suspect something first.
Unlike the previous system, which just required a signoff at the courthouse, this makes the process more expensive and lengthier (likely causing them to sue less people) and it helps weed out innocents and provides an independent check on the system.
However, if you are liable (if you've done the deed) your ISP will eventually have to turn over your real name and address under court order, and you will eventually have to either settle with them or go defend yourself in court.
Slashdot Mirror
New possibilites form as old possibilites pass away. No more psionics or FTL travel or cold wars but there's must more realistic internet/computer technology and more biological/genetic possibilites than anyone ever dreamed of in the old days. Try "Rainbow's End" from Vernor Vinge (older than Gibson AFAIK) for ther former or "Nothing Human" by Nancy Kress if you want futures that walk the line between hopeful and depressing without involving magic. I'm sure there are others I'm not thinking of, too. I would say the pickings for original thought are doing fine, and it has nothing do with age... Gibon's probably just not that into it anymore.
People used to think that with our near neighbors, the Chimps, the females never cheated. Then they found the female chimpanzees were biologically adapted to sneak off and have sex with chimps from other tribes, to broaden the gene pool. So you have female chimps biologically wired to sleep around... how long before they find the same traits in humans?
Who knows, but it seems just as likely that men have a biological need to control female sexuality (to make sure the child is theirs in an era before paternity tests) while the men sleep around, and that women have a biological need to control male sexuality (to make sure he doesn't run off with another woman) while THEY sleep around. Evolution may be that the one with the most control and the most ability to sleep around, male or female, is the winner. We happen to live in a male dominated society, though, so our culture has invented the "walk of shame" to give men an edge.
You say, "Morals are public things, and a respect for a civilization demands that they be enforced."
I say, "We live in a rationale, free and modern society and a respect for OUR civilzation demands that outdated or unjust morals be questioned and challenged. Otherwise, we'd still be practicing such civilized and moral behavior as slavery and beheadings."
I agree with your first point about history not mattering that much, but your second point sounds pretty naive, my pragmatist friend. Israelis sending economic aid to Palestine after a bombing would clearly cause more bombings, since that would be an economic incentive for bombings. Likewise, the Israelis are not stupid so a peaceful march on their barricades would clearly result in the marchers being pushed back with non-lethal force.
You are pre-supposing, based on your examples, that this is one country. Germany could be unified because both East and West viewed themselves as one country and welcomed the idea. Ghandi and Martin Luthor King Jr. worked because they the inhabitants all viewed themselves as part of one country. Although my knowledge of Indian history is sketchy, in Ghandi's case, the British occupiers agreed that it was not their country in the end. That's something the Israelis will never do, since they have no place else to go and cannot live in a Palestinian state. Also, in India's case, the part of the country that did not see themselves as part of that country split off to form Pakistan (setting Kashmir aside for a moment). So there you also have a "two state solution"... which is what usually happens when two people do not seem themselves as one.
During the first intifada in the late 80s, the Palestinians were able to make a great impact on the Israelis with labor strikes. Also, they could march because there were no walls. Now there is a big wall between the two people, and the Isrealis no longer use Palestinians for labor, they bring in guest workers from places like China.
At this point, the analogy is more like if millions of Mexicans massed on the American border and tried to press through. The US government would not just let them in because they were marching peacefully - they would be pushed back. So these are two separate countries, with one occupying the other, but two separate countries still.
However, as countries or as political movements, your Ghandi point leads me to my point... the biggest problem is the lack of quality leadership on the Palestinian side. Don't get me wrong, the Israelis lack quality leadership, but not anywhere near as bad. Neither the corrupt Fatah or the crazy Hamas (crazy in the sense of being more interested in not recognizing your enemy's right to exist rather than the welfare of your own people), well, they got problems.
The Palestinians don't need to march for peace... if they were organized enough to march they would already have a leadership in place that could go to the negotiating table, finish what was started at Camp David and Taba, and, with enough money (for compensating settlers, economic development, border security, etc.) the whole thing could be over in a week.
From the Southern Poverty Law Center:
"In fact, while the number of homosexuals who died in the Holocaust does not approach the number of Jewish or Gypsy victims, the historical record shows that between 50,000 and 100,000 men were arrested for homosexuality (or suspicion of it) under the Nazi regime. They were routinely sent to concentration camps and marked with a pink triangle on their prison garb.
They were not systematically exterminated. But huge numbers are believed to have died in the work camps, along with an untold number of homosexual Jews, Gypsies and other "defectives" who were sent to extermination camps."
2) It is not really appropriate to compare our friends on the far right to Hitler any more than it is to compare our friends on the far left to Stalin, who (if not as dramatically) killed millions for his own warped vision and paranoia. I am not a fan of "W" (and judging by the election returns, few Jews or Gays are, either), but he's really not even in the same category as Hitler. Comparing things to Hitler is a waste of time, almost always inaccurate, and just waters down notions of evil in an unhealthy way - which was probably Godwin's point.
They seem very uneasy with the concept of plugging in car. As anyone who has witnessed firsthand attempts to deploy an emerging technology to the masses, I can understand why. For the masses, you gotta' keep it real simple. Early adopters can handle this sort of thing, but for everyone else it just leads to confusion - especially when you're plunking down $20K plus...
I read something last year that said pop stars in China had basically given up making money from direct sales because of all the piracy. Some relied on concert sales, but others would find a corporate sponsor for their song. Since advertising can just be ripped out, they would right the song about the product. Like if it was a love song, they'd be sure and mention their love of Pepsi. Come think of it, isn't this what Celine Dion tried to do for Chrysler here in the U.S.?
Integrated product placement is the wave of the future... but its easier to do in IP, which has very little innate value and great advertising potential, then in manufactured goods.
Still, perhaps we'll reach a day when every item has product placement in it or on it, and is thus free. Expensive products will be advertised on cheaper products, and more expensive products will be advertised on merely expensive products. Of course, that advertising budget has to come from somewhere, so in the end of the day you will have to turn over your entire salary to one company's really expensive product that spirals down the proceeds to everything else you would normally have pay for but now get for free with advertising on it. I'm betting that company will be Microsoft...
I was more commenting on the Telco' Act of '96, though, which was supposed to give us the best of all possible worlds - private industry competition between carriers WITHOUT having to build a second (or third) national telecom infrastructure. They key, though, was that it required effective regulation of the industry, and what resulted instead was a massive orgy of lobbying and a bunch of conflicting court rulings, and in the end the building of the second and probably third telecom infrastructure.
It was an excellent point about the space program, though - maybe you can just never have too much infrastructure. Someone will always come along with a clever way to fill that pipe or make some use of it.
Overall, I think all this competition is good, but when third world countries say they hate American wealth, you have to wonder about a country that is so wealthy and yet so bad at regulating itself that it is easier for us to build three or four identical national infrastructures (at huge expense) to achieve the same purpose than to plan effectively. So finally we get may get decent broadband - a utility that should have been available ten years ago. Aren't we ranked like fifteenth in the world now for providing broadband internet?
I imagine this is the sort of thing that will happen in the future, anyway. Smart anonymous sources will establish their credentials, and then leak information, but remain anonymous.
Like it or not, agree with it or not, the US Constitution WAS based on the principle of limited and restricted government. It still is to a certain extent, since the states fight back. Also, I agree with you that the Founding Fathers were very libertarian. However, they've been gone a long time and in the meantime there's been a lot of extra amendments added beyond the bill of rights, and a lot of Supreme Court interpretation - not to mention the natural complexity that simple things take on in the context of modern life.
My point was that all of this talk of the 1st Amendment/Bill of Rights only restricting government has, due to the 14th Amendment and various congressional interventions and Supreme Court interpretations - especially relating to the commerce clause - got about a thousand loopholes for specific situations, and whether or not a blogger can be protected from being fired through labor law or whistle blower law or 14th amendment rights or corporate law or state law completely depends on the specifics of the individual situation. Replying "1st amendment doesn't apply to private companies" is likely as inaccurate as the person originally saying "I should be able to blog whatever I want and never get fired."
I mean truly privatize, and not merely contract out government services.
Even if government truly privatizes, Courts have ruled that private companies acting like a government are still bound by certain restrains. For instance, if a mall holds itself out as a public place it cannot easily expel people for free expression. Private schools (truly private - not charter schools) still have minimum standards they have to follow. Government gets involved in a lot of other ways, too. The hotels workers in San Francisco held a short strike to express their displeasure with management. Management kicked them out entirely and wouldn't let them back in. The goverment has ordered the hotels to let them back in for I think its 60 days for a "cooling off" period.
So, to summarize, I believe I disagree with you. Whether or not we like it, government can and does restrict private business in pretty much any way it wants - although of course it may later pay a price at the ballot box.
without an established publishing institution behind blogs, I doubt whistle blowing cases will succeed
It occcurs to me that if a Court grants the Apple bloggers the same rights to protect their sources that "real" journalists have, then that could be considered a precedent in treating a blog like a real established publisher would be treated.
In the long term, I think it is inevitable that at least some blogs will be treated like established publishers, but it may be awhile.
It would be interesting to see a survey of how many established news sources are open to criticism of their own new organization by their own journalists.
What you said is true for the 1st Amendment, but completely ignores its application to states - and other government entities as well as some corporate behavior - through the 14th amendment. (prohibiting the deprivation of life, LIBERTY, or property without due process of law). The 14th amendment is of course much broader.
The 14th amendment and freedom of speech have been applied to corporations- specifically malls, private universities, utilities and such. Usually when a corporation, such as a mall, behaves like a part of the government and does the work the government is supposed to do. Then it has to at least partially observe a citizen's rights, like the freedom of assembly (although it varies by circuit, state, etc.). Otherwise goverments could privitize everything, ignore the bill of rights, and get away with murder (most likely literally, in some cases).
Case in point: During our recent presidential election, there were one or two cases of companies firing people for their political views. This would not happen to government employees, such as a teacher, since government is held to greater scrutiny. It probably also couldn't happen to a teacher at a charter school, even though the school is a private corporation.
The main issue here seems to be not about freedom of speech... but about your right to your job. You don't have a guaranteed right to your job IF your empoyment is at will. Although some whistleblower laws could protect you if what you are saying is in the public interest - maybe.
----
Your observation about your wife isn't necessarily always accurate either. A correct analogy to getting fired would be your wife filing for divorce. Calling her names in most states would be enough, with no fault divorce. However, if you had a covenant marriage like they now have in Louisiana you could, in theory, continue to call her names and she'd have to sit there and take it as long as it didn't become too abusive. Of course, she could say something nasty back to you, and you'd have to sit there and take that. I'm not 100% sure of the laws on covenant marriage, but that sounds about right.
-------
For every rule, an exception, ya' know...
The 14th amendment and freedom of speech have been applied to corporations- specifically malls, private universities, utilities and such. Not because they are legal constructions, though. Only when a corporation, such as a mall, behaves like a part of the government and does the work the government is supposed to do. Then it has to at least partially observe a citizen's rights (although it varies by circuit, state, etc.). Otherwise goverment could privitize everything and get away with murder (literally, in some cases). Specifically, I'm thinking of malls that have had trouble prohibiting a right of free assembly.
I think the main issue here is not about freedom of speech... but lack of right to job. You don't have a guaranteed right to your job if your empoyment is at will. Although some whistleblower laws could protect you if what you are saying is in the public interest - in theory at least.
Hey, it's all theory until it gets before a judge.
no reason? mmhh... technologically, there's no reason, but politically and socially many good reasons.
Example: My grandmother, who is 92 and still going strong, but her eyesight isn't what it used to be. So she listens to the radio. This is a woman who has only the vaguest concept of what digital is, and if you tried to change the dial on her - well, bad things.
Note: One thing she does know how to do is vote. And she and her peers vote in far, far, greater number than my generation, who are too busy reading here and listening to MP3s or podcasting or video games or whatever we feel like. Any politician who would seriously suggest changing the current radio system would have to go through my grandmother first, and that's just not likely to happen.
Having said that, the FCC and "radio industry" is moving to digital radio (aka HD Radio) and it will at least create some more stations for those with digital receivers while at the same time leaving the old analog stations the way they are. This is the Ibiquity thing.
The old system took a few generations to build up, and it will take at least a few generations to break down. At some point, the FCC probably will become unnecessary, but not yet.
In the meantime, there's always Satellite Radio and Podcasting....
Remember when the big "on-line" services were Prodigy and Compuserve and AOL was smalltime? And then there was poor Netscape, crushed by Microsoft. Some bright, small company always puts in the initial R&D, and then a bigger player swoops in...
This reminds me some of @Home Corp., though. @Home had deals with the cable companies to provide their broadband internet service, but when the product was ready to go mainstream they pulled the contracts, took the technology, and did it themselves. Here they created enough excitement about TIVO to make sure it had investors and to keep them innovating, but when it comes time for the big rollout... see ya' suckers...
This is a TRADEMARK... there is no prior art - patent law doesn't apply here (and neither does copyright).
Think about Apple. The word "Apple" has been around forever. But if you started selling computers tomorrow that were cheap pieces of, well, you know, then Steve Jobs and his merry band of lawyers would be around tomorrow to shut you down. On the other hand, if you are a hobbyist who upgrades apple computers or an apple reseller or an apple gossip website, or you like fruit, then there is nothing he can do.
Trademark law exists to prevent marketplace confusion - so everything can only be named once for any particular product. Also, you don't even need to register. You automatically get trademark protection if you are the dominant player in the marketplace. However, if you are going to sue someone it helps (and in some cases may be necessary) to have registered trademark protection. But trademark protection really only lets you sue other commercial entities. So, as he said, he will not be suing hobbyists or the MAME creators.
Really, trademark law is not bad, although the way some ICANN arbitrators have administered it over the years leaves some questions in the domain name area. Still - its not completely messed up like patent law. Don't confuse the two...
Wit is an un-nerdy trait? Most of the time when I'm with regular folk, I have to tone down my humor. Nerd humor may be distinctive, but you can't say they don't have wit. Or, eh, maybe you can... I can't.
We obviously had very different classroom experiences. I can't say I got a lot out of it most days, but glad you got your money's worth...
One of the primary sources (possibly the primary source) of critical thinking and humor on TV today is the Daily Show.
Karma-wise, we're all on the same wavelength....
Um, no.... sorry... US privacy law only regulates financial or medical data, and even then you can only get them to stop using the data, not delete it. None of which would apply here. EU data protection laws are much, much stricter... However, the person could move to Italy and called and changed his address with the company, then since the company also operates in the EU they would perhaps comply. Interestingly, a lot of big companies keep multiple databases - one for the US and one for the EU - because the rules are so different.
Maybe there is an age difference here? I don't know anything about the uneducated/gangsta community. I did, however, graduate quite recently from an extremely high end, liberal, and mixed race public university and everyone used racist slurs all the time, but only in the appropriate context. Describing one's own "group", or to close friends in certain situations, was alright. Speaking of other's negatively or behind someone's back was most certainly not.
With regards to your analogy, many blacks probably would be upset but the black writer you describe would probably get away with using the "n" word, although they might grimace and shake their heads in dismay. On the other hand, a white writer writing about whites using African tribal traditions who used the "n" word after her characters were turned into blacks for a BET audience would likely lead to much more vocal protest. This analogy is now stretched past the breaking point, so I apologize. My point is merely the speaker in question and context matter in almost any situation.
FYI - You wrote that racism is wrong in all contexts, and I certainly agree. My original post was not a moral stance. Again, I don't make these rules. I'm not sure who does, but its not me. I was merely providing a possible explanation for LeGuin's self-referential recism.
In a sense she wasn't as much griping about the show itself, but about the statement from the producers. Then she had to provide context and explanation as to why it wesn't true to her work.
Perhaps she figured she was had sold the Earthsea idea to them, but not the right for them to represent her endorsement of what they wound up with.
I doubt the producers care. Controversy = Good Publicity, ya' know.
However, you are forgetting the well known exception to the racist term rule that allows one to use it on one's own race. Le Guin is herself white, and therefore can slur white people. Just like blacks use the "n" word, gays can use the "f" word, and, well, everyone else can use whatever they are using against their own kind. Don't ask me why this is so - in college I believe I heard something about reclaiming the term for yourself, self empowerment, etc.
Perhaps on the same vein, if someone on the schoolyard growing up called me a nerd, I got all offended. If someone on slashdot called me a nerd, I would take it as a compliment.
Again, I don't make the rules. Its a strange world, eh?
It does seem tacky for her to use it in print, though. Definitely borderline...
I was in Europe a lot the past year and when people asked where I was from I said San Francisco or Silicon Valley (it helps that I am in Silicon Valley, I guess). Even well meaning Europeans that like Americans are apt to give you a lecture these days on how you are screwing up the rest of the world - not just Iraq but also Kyoto and a host of other issues. Most Europeans know at least a few Californians or New Yorkers and have a favorable impression of them from past experience, and most know that we're not really happy with the federal government right now either. Usually I'd just get a sympathetic nod or maybe a joke or two about the Governator.
Also, I find that colloquialisms are a great ice-breaker. As long as you will take the time to explain them people find them fascinating. Also, if you spend any amount of time with Brits or have even seen an Austin Powers movie you know that British slang puts American slang to shame so you might learn something, too.
If you want to stop the end result, you need to change the law - either by convincing a Judge (or actually many Judges) that the law is in violation of other more important laws (aka "unconstitutional") or by convincing the legislator to change the law itself.
If you are looking for someone within the legal system to take a moral stand instead of a legal one then the party you would normally look to would be the jury. Judges usually have a vested interest in preserving the law, and have a career to look after. That's why we have juries (when the system works as intended, of course!) It would be interesting to see if one of these cases ever came to trial, and it was a jury trial, what would happen. With the number of file traders in society, presumably there would be at least one file trader on the jury to hang it. With all the resulting bad publicity of a loss at trial, I presume that is why the RIAA is so eager to settle each case for significantly less than it would cost to tempt someone to try to take the matter to trial.
Bottom Line: Do not think you will be able to manipulate the legal system and get off on a technicality. For present purposes, the easiest way of not getting caught is not to upload files to public networks. Anything else, you are taking your chances. They may be infintesimally small chances, but they are chances.
This is kind of like telling the police they can't arbitrarily pull over cars, but have to suspect something first.
Unlike the previous system, which just required a signoff at the courthouse, this makes the process more expensive and lengthier (likely causing them to sue less people) and it helps weed out innocents and provides an independent check on the system.
However, if you are liable (if you've done the deed) your ISP will eventually have to turn over your real name and address under court order, and you will eventually have to either settle with them or go defend yourself in court.
Did that help?