As far as I can make out he's a single issue candidate (that may be a bit unfair, but close enough) trying to get a seat in a first past the post democracy. In other words don't hold your breath.
Lessig himself is the author of Free Culture and one of the architects of the Creative Commons licence (although this isn't the issue he's running on, it's an anti-corruption ticket as far as I can make out).
He'd probably do well in a proportional representation system, as it is he has to convince a limited geographical area to give him more votes than any other candidate; this article is about him facing up to reality.
While I don't claim to have read what is "explained on the ActBlue page", I think it would be a good guess that anyone who contributed money agreed to this at the time. The man's a lawyer, he's not going to make that sort of mistake.
Maybe you're right, but I've always thought that ridicule is the best way to answer these kind of ploys. It is an insult to the reader's intelligence that this is meant to influence us, and I feel it should be pointed out.
Whenever I see Barrack Hussein Obama (and it's cropping up a lot in the discussion threads on newspaper sites), I have this image of someone sitting in front of their computer, awed by their cleverness and subtlety. It gives me a strong urge to prick that bubble.
Brown didn't have to seize power in a military coup, as our entirely undemocratic electoral system gave it to him anyway. No-one ever voted for him or his administration, other than whatever internal politics may have happened within his party.
He's an elected Member of Parliament, and supported by a majority in the Commons, which makes him Prime Minister. He could be turfed out tomorrow if he loses a motion of confidence, and parlimentary elections MUST take place by 2011.
His predecessor was elected on one of the smallest proportions of the popular vote in history,
OK, the first past the post system can throw out some weird results, and Labour does happen to get the best of them. Sixteen years of Tory government hints that this isn't a huge issue however.
and even then it was on the basis of a clear promise that he would serve a full term (and therefore that people were explicitly not voting for a party that would have Brown as leader before the next general election).
That is an issue of whether the Labour party has broken a commitment - this can be judged by voters at the next election or by MPs any time.
Well, unless you get on the Tube, anyway. Then it's OK for the police to shoot you, and face no real consequences.
That was horrendous I agree, and the investigation after it not a great deal better. That said, it did happen 1 day after an attempted suicide bombing of the tube, and 1 month after a successful one. If the police where ever going to overreact it was then.
Unless you're a long-standing member of the party and Holocaust survivor with the audacity to shout a one-word heckle during your party conference, in which case you must be removed by several heavies and then barred from re-entering as a terrorist threat.
And will later be featured on national news, and (even before that) receive a grovelling apology from the Home Secretary. The reason that one went away was because the apology was accepted - maybe it shouldn't been but as you said the chap was a lifelong Labour member, and he can make his own decisions.
Agree with you on the DNA thing, but you don't help your argument by starting off with a badly supported rant.
The troll mod will be for the reminder that his middle name is Hussein - a pathetic attempt to imply that Obama is either a closet Muslim or at the very least not a proper American.
All I can say is that I hope you are a minority in your country. I don't want you to be an Empire; far from it, but (unlike you it seems) I have a lot of hope for this world and these hopes coming to fruition *requires* the active involvement of the US.
So, the thing for the USA to do is classic British continental foreign policy - stay neutral to all world affairs, and occasionally meddle in things enough to pit other powers against each other.
God that's depressing. Do you not have any greater ambitions for your country than to emulate nineteenth century Britain?
I am saying that the USA should not be military allies with anyone. We should bring all of our troops home from everywhere, cut down the size of our army, and focus on trade. We can sit fat and happy behind a mountain of nukes and a missile defense system for our own national security, plus with a sufficient navy to guard our waters and an air force for our air.
Why is it that the US flips between muscular domination and extreme isolationism?
For fucks sake, lead the world. You're the only ones who can do it, if you would just make the effort to rally the free world to you there is nothing on Earth that can stand in the way of America and the ideals in represents.
If you have one group of people who are hungry for new songs to listen to, and another group of people who are willing to write songs in exchange for money, all you need to do is step back and let the market work.
Songs, yeah I can see that. However I challenge you to provide a business model which would allow big-budget movies to be made in a world without copyright. Can you imagine Peter Jackson pitching the Lord of the Rings? "I want enough money to hire New Zealand for a few years, please don't ask me about the revenue stream."
Now worse things could happen than it becoming impossible to make big-budget movies - allowing the content industry to regulate the computer industry being one of them - but I think we need to find some middle ground here.
That is a valid point of view. I don't agree with it, but it at least proposes a workable alternative to the current system.
However the alternative point of view is also legitimate: that copyrights should be granted on creative works, and that licences should be sellable by the rights holder. Thus creating an incentive for more, and bigger, works to be created.
You have to admit that your method will mean then end of big-budget movies, computer games etc. - anything that requires a large investment which is traditionally recouped by selling individual licences to consumers. The arts would become the preserve of amateurs and those working under the patronage of the rich.
The current system has worked very well prior to the internet. The problem is not that this model is evil, nor is the problem the internet. The problem is that the old model and the new technology are fundamentally incompatible, since copyrights are simply not enforceable in a world of filesharing without taking draconian measures.
A new model is needed, I doubt there have been many times in history when it has been more obvious that something has to change. But I don't think that either draconian enforcement or complete abandonment of copyright is likely to be the best solution. There are plenty of artists who want to get paid. There are plenty of people who are willing to pay for art. The basics are there, all that is needed is to figure out how to put them together.
I think you are undervaluing having a basic talent in this area, possibly because you have enough talent yourself that it doesn't seem anything special.
I've learnt the hard way that I have no ability whatsoever when it comes to the purely visual elements of designing a website. I've done it a couple of times because there was no one else - even following a couple of the points you mention, especially using a colour wheel. I've even thought I've done an ok job, but if I use the Wayback machine to look at old versions of my sites now, I wince. My lack of ability in this area extends beyond not being good at it, I simply can't seem to distance myself from my own work well enough to assess it fairly; and I've come to think this is probably the most crucial ability that makes a competent graphic designer.
Maybe you're right, if I really worked at it I could come up with something ok-ish - but really that's only going to happen if I absorb enough of the theory that I can essentially regurgitate a workable design, as you say "Conforming to these rules will add "punch" to your web pages, whether you understand the reasons for them or not."
Really it makes much more sense for me to get someone who does have the basic talent to do the initial design and colour scheme. Once I have that I can play around with it and tweak it for usability etc.
People I've worked with can knock out a design in an hour or two max that is of a quality that I'm never going to reach. Given how cheap it is to buy a ready made template or an hour or two of someone's time, and how important the visual design of a website is, trying to do it myself is a stupid false economy
Re:NOT the same old entrenched politics
on
Has Ron Paul Quit?
·
· Score: 1
[disclaimer: not a American]
I have to say that I actually support McCain's stance on Iraq - I'm not sure of his history on the issue but I do think that, given where we are now, trying to sort out the mess is a better course than trying to disengage as quickly as possible.
Iraq was IMO (and with the benefit of hindsight) a hideous mistake. But the surge does seem to have worked and things seem to be improving. I'm generally in favour of a Democrat getting the White House, but it does worry me that they will probably pull out of Iraq too quickly for domestic political reasons.
I think you're right. It's a interesting market since obviously customers, if they're are going to use an online service for games, want to do it all in one place. This makes the potential for Steam (which seems to be significantly ahead of it's competitors as far as I can see) huge - I can easily imagine Valve's profits from Steam dwarfing what they make from their own games in ten years or so.
ok, fair point, I'm generalising far more than I should.
I'm not actually an anti-Muslim xenophobe - I'm very much on the pro-immigration side of the debate that's going on in Britain, I'm strongly in favour of Turkish membership of the EU, and I'm happily adjusted to the fact that Britain is a multi-cultural society.
However it does really piss me off that it is actually dangerous in Britain to say certain things against Islam. This is certainly due to the actions of a relatively small number of extremists, but moderate Muslims have to accept some responsibility for what is done in the name of their faith. The condemnation of extremist acts is so nuanced and set around with explanations that 'apologists' sometimes seems a more appropriate word than 'moderates'.
For me it was the whole idiocy over the Danish cartoons. Months after they were originally published it suddenly became a massive issue, with people marching through the streets of London carrying placards saying "Behead those who insult Islam". I lost all sympathy, or any desire to be sympathetic with these "poor downtrodden Muslims" at that point. Freedom of speech is far far more important than someone's bruised religious sensibilities.
CNN's job is not to give you a balanced, clear, concise or even true view of the world.
I'm British, so what I'm being spoon-fed is more from the other side - politically correct one-way toleration that I'm frankly sick off. I don't respect the beliefs of Christians or Muslims - as an atheist I find them equally ridiculous. I object strongly to being coerced by violence into changing or hiding my opinions, and this is why I have a particular antagonism against Muslims.
Just because Christians have been forced to be a bit more sophisticated than killing Dutch filmmakers and trying to bully online encyclopedias doesn't mean they aren't every bit as fearful and hateful of freedom as their Muslim counterparts. They've just figured out the best way to go about it is to hire lawyers.
Lawyers aren't great, sure. But they're a hell of a lot better than armed mobs.
Couldn't agree more. Steam is getting all my business at the moment simply because I find online activation infinitely less annoying than playing hunt the CD.
First of all, what's wrong with such an implication?
Nothing, if that's what you are trying to say - I think the objection raised by the other poster to the word 'soul' was that he was specifically not saying that.
the idea of "personhood" or "soul" being an emergent property from a sufficiently complex brain does not at all necessitate a dualist philosophy in the least
It doesn't if you define 'soul' as you are doing, as basically a synonym for 'personhood', or 'consciousness'.
This is purely semantics, I only posted since agreed with the other poster's definition of soul and disagreed with yours. There isn't anything wrong with your definition apart from the fact that some people at least are going to read things you don't mean into it unless you keep explaining it.
What else would a soul be other than the "essence" of who you are, much like your consciousness, or, in some respects, your mind?
It wouldn't be something else, but a religious view would have it as something more, something separate, in some cases something that wil survive the death of the brain. If that is what you mean then fine, but if not then using the word 'soul' is IMO not as clear as using some of the alternatives that don't have these implications.
Well the word 'soul' is normally carries with it (to my mind at least) the concept that it is separate from your brain, so to say you have a soul would imply to me a dualist view of the mind at the very least.
Now you can define the word to not mean that, but I'm not sure how helpful it is to do so. Better to use a word like 'mind' or 'consciousness' if that is all you are referring to.
The mini is a bitch, and possibly the various Nanos aren't easy (really don't have an idea). But the full sized jobs have always been pretty easy change. Sonnet make third party ipod batteries which you can pick up cheaply - I'd think around 20 USD.
I mostly agree with you, but you leave out the fact that the cost of piracy to the copyright owner is *variable* depending on who copies it and why they do it.
I used to pirate software (games) all the time when I was a student and for a few years afterwards. Why? Because I didn't have the money to buy them. Did that hurt the rights holders? No, since I couldn't have bought them anyway.
These days I don't pirate games - I can afford to buy them, can't be bothered to worry about malware, and Steam and similar services make it more convenient to buy than pirate. And, you know, a lot of the games I'm buying are sequels to ones I pirated back in the day.
I'm not trying to pretend morality figures in this for me - like most people I suspect, I'm pretty much ammoral when it comes to copyright infringement - I still download illegal copies of movies and other things from time to time. Some of these I might well have bought if I hadn't downloaded them.
Slashdot Mirror
As far as I can make out he's a single issue candidate (that may be a bit unfair, but close enough) trying to get a seat in a first past the post democracy. In other words don't hold your breath.
Lessig himself is the author of Free Culture and one of the architects of the Creative Commons licence (although this isn't the issue he's running on, it's an anti-corruption ticket as far as I can make out).
He'd probably do well in a proportional representation system, as it is he has to convince a limited geographical area to give him more votes than any other candidate; this article is about him facing up to reality.
While I don't claim to have read what is "explained on the ActBlue page", I think it would be a good guess that anyone who contributed money agreed to this at the time. The man's a lawyer, he's not going to make that sort of mistake.
Maybe you're right, but I've always thought that ridicule is the best way to answer these kind of ploys. It is an insult to the reader's intelligence that this is meant to influence us, and I feel it should be pointed out.
Whenever I see Barrack Hussein Obama (and it's cropping up a lot in the discussion threads on newspaper sites), I have this image of someone sitting in front of their computer, awed by their cleverness and subtlety. It gives me a strong urge to prick that bubble.
He's an elected Member of Parliament, and supported by a majority in the Commons, which makes him Prime Minister. He could be turfed out tomorrow if he loses a motion of confidence, and parlimentary elections MUST take place by 2011.
OK, the first past the post system can throw out some weird results, and Labour does happen to get the best of them. Sixteen years of Tory government hints that this isn't a huge issue however.That is an issue of whether the Labour party has broken a commitment - this can be judged by voters at the next election or by MPs any time.
That was horrendous I agree, and the investigation after it not a great deal better. That said, it did happen 1 day after an attempted suicide bombing of the tube, and 1 month after a successful one. If the police where ever going to overreact it was then.
And will later be featured on national news, and (even before that) receive a grovelling apology from the Home Secretary. The reason that one went away was because the apology was accepted - maybe it shouldn't been but as you said the chap was a lifelong Labour member, and he can make his own decisions.
Agree with you on the DNA thing, but you don't help your argument by starting off with a badly supported rant.
The troll mod will be for the reminder that his middle name is Hussein - a pathetic attempt to imply that Obama is either a closet Muslim or at the very least not a proper American.
All I can say is that I hope you are a minority in your country. I don't want you to be an Empire; far from it, but (unlike you it seems) I have a lot of hope for this world and these hopes coming to fruition *requires* the active involvement of the US.
God that's depressing. Do you not have any greater ambitions for your country than to emulate nineteenth century Britain?
Why is it that the US flips between muscular domination and extreme isolationism?
For fucks sake, lead the world. You're the only ones who can do it, if you would just make the effort to rally the free world to you there is nothing on Earth that can stand in the way of America and the ideals in represents.
In other words, vote Obama '08. Please...
While this may well be true, the question is: how do you get out of Iraq?
Songs, yeah I can see that. However I challenge you to provide a business model which would allow big-budget movies to be made in a world without copyright. Can you imagine Peter Jackson pitching the Lord of the Rings? "I want enough money to hire New Zealand for a few years, please don't ask me about the revenue stream."
Now worse things could happen than it becoming impossible to make big-budget movies - allowing the content industry to regulate the computer industry being one of them - but I think we need to find some middle ground here.
That is a valid point of view. I don't agree with it, but it at least proposes a workable alternative to the current system.
However the alternative point of view is also legitimate: that copyrights should be granted on creative works, and that licences should be sellable by the rights holder. Thus creating an incentive for more, and bigger, works to be created.
You have to admit that your method will mean then end of big-budget movies, computer games etc. - anything that requires a large investment which is traditionally recouped by selling individual licences to consumers. The arts would become the preserve of amateurs and those working under the patronage of the rich.
The current system has worked very well prior to the internet. The problem is not that this model is evil, nor is the problem the internet. The problem is that the old model and the new technology are fundamentally incompatible, since copyrights are simply not enforceable in a world of filesharing without taking draconian measures.
A new model is needed, I doubt there have been many times in history when it has been more obvious that something has to change. But I don't think that either draconian enforcement or complete abandonment of copyright is likely to be the best solution. There are plenty of artists who want to get paid. There are plenty of people who are willing to pay for art. The basics are there, all that is needed is to figure out how to put them together.
I think you are undervaluing having a basic talent in this area, possibly because you have enough talent yourself that it doesn't seem anything special.
I've learnt the hard way that I have no ability whatsoever when it comes to the purely visual elements of designing a website. I've done it a couple of times because there was no one else - even following a couple of the points you mention, especially using a colour wheel. I've even thought I've done an ok job, but if I use the Wayback machine to look at old versions of my sites now, I wince. My lack of ability in this area extends beyond not being good at it, I simply can't seem to distance myself from my own work well enough to assess it fairly; and I've come to think this is probably the most crucial ability that makes a competent graphic designer.
Maybe you're right, if I really worked at it I could come up with something ok-ish - but really that's only going to happen if I absorb enough of the theory that I can essentially regurgitate a workable design, as you say "Conforming to these rules will add "punch" to your web pages, whether you understand the reasons for them or not."
Really it makes much more sense for me to get someone who does have the basic talent to do the initial design and colour scheme. Once I have that I can play around with it and tweak it for usability etc.
People I've worked with can knock out a design in an hour or two max that is of a quality that I'm never going to reach. Given how cheap it is to buy a ready made template or an hour or two of someone's time, and how important the visual design of a website is, trying to do it myself is a stupid false economy
[disclaimer: not a American]
I have to say that I actually support McCain's stance on Iraq - I'm not sure of his history on the issue but I do think that, given where we are now, trying to sort out the mess is a better course than trying to disengage as quickly as possible.
Iraq was IMO (and with the benefit of hindsight) a hideous mistake. But the surge does seem to have worked and things seem to be improving. I'm generally in favour of a Democrat getting the White House, but it does worry me that they will probably pull out of Iraq too quickly for domestic political reasons.
I think you're right. It's a interesting market since obviously customers, if they're are going to use an online service for games, want to do it all in one place. This makes the potential for Steam (which seems to be significantly ahead of it's competitors as far as I can see) huge - I can easily imagine Valve's profits from Steam dwarfing what they make from their own games in ten years or so.
Me too. I've thought about that but am prepared to take the risk. I really really hate CD checks.
ok, fair point, I'm generalising far more than I should.
I'm not actually an anti-Muslim xenophobe - I'm very much on the pro-immigration side of the debate that's going on in Britain, I'm strongly in favour of Turkish membership of the EU, and I'm happily adjusted to the fact that Britain is a multi-cultural society.
However it does really piss me off that it is actually dangerous in Britain to say certain things against Islam. This is certainly due to the actions of a relatively small number of extremists, but moderate Muslims have to accept some responsibility for what is done in the name of their faith. The condemnation of extremist acts is so nuanced and set around with explanations that 'apologists' sometimes seems a more appropriate word than 'moderates'.
For me it was the whole idiocy over the Danish cartoons. Months after they were originally published it suddenly became a massive issue, with people marching through the streets of London carrying placards saying "Behead those who insult Islam". I lost all sympathy, or any desire to be sympathetic with these "poor downtrodden Muslims" at that point. Freedom of speech is far far more important than someone's bruised religious sensibilities.
I'm British, so what I'm being spoon-fed is more from the other side - politically correct one-way toleration that I'm frankly sick off. I don't respect the beliefs of Christians or Muslims - as an atheist I find them equally ridiculous. I object strongly to being coerced by violence into changing or hiding my opinions, and this is why I have a particular antagonism against Muslims.
Lawyers aren't great, sure. But they're a hell of a lot better than armed mobs.
Not so sure about that. Or at least the 'up in arms' bit is only a figure of speech.
Say what you like about Christians (and I frequently do) but they do seem to take criticism and mockery a hell of a lot better than Muslims.
Can you imagine if Monty Python had set 'The Life of Brian' around Mohammed?
Someone would get killed.
Couldn't agree more. Steam is getting all my business at the moment simply because I find online activation infinitely less annoying than playing hunt the CD.
Nothing, if that's what you are trying to say - I think the objection raised by the other poster to the word 'soul' was that he was specifically not saying that.
It doesn't if you define 'soul' as you are doing, as basically a synonym for 'personhood', or 'consciousness'.
This is purely semantics, I only posted since agreed with the other poster's definition of soul and disagreed with yours. There isn't anything wrong with your definition apart from the fact that some people at least are going to read things you don't mean into it unless you keep explaining it.
It wouldn't be something else, but a religious view would have it as something more, something separate, in some cases something that wil survive the death of the brain. If that is what you mean then fine, but if not then using the word 'soul' is IMO not as clear as using some of the alternatives that don't have these implications.
Well the word 'soul' is normally carries with it (to my mind at least) the concept that it is separate from your brain, so to say you have a soul would imply to me a dualist view of the mind at the very least.
Now you can define the word to not mean that, but I'm not sure how helpful it is to do so. Better to use a word like 'mind' or 'consciousness' if that is all you are referring to.
Assuming McCain gets the Republican nomination, does this mean the next President of the US is going to be sane?
It's a somewhat radical concept for outsiders to get our heads around, but I have to say I think it's a good plan.
The mini is a bitch, and possibly the various Nanos aren't easy (really don't have an idea). But the full sized jobs have always been pretty easy change. Sonnet make third party ipod batteries which you can pick up cheaply - I'd think around 20 USD.
I mostly agree with you, but you leave out the fact that the cost of piracy to the copyright owner is *variable* depending on who copies it and why they do it.
I used to pirate software (games) all the time when I was a student and for a few years afterwards. Why? Because I didn't have the money to buy them. Did that hurt the rights holders? No, since I couldn't have bought them anyway.
These days I don't pirate games - I can afford to buy them, can't be bothered to worry about malware, and Steam and similar services make it more convenient to buy than pirate. And, you know, a lot of the games I'm buying are sequels to ones I pirated back in the day.
I'm not trying to pretend morality figures in this for me - like most people I suspect, I'm pretty much ammoral when it comes to copyright infringement - I still download illegal copies of movies and other things from time to time. Some of these I might well have bought if I hadn't downloaded them.