Talking about advances in technology . . . They've just managed to create a new organically based micro processor from human flesh. But it takes a lot of power, which is a real downer. So far they can't talk any of the volunteers to stick their butt plugs into the 220w outlet. And the data lines come out of a really inconvenient orifice.
Check this out for fun: http://www.utah.edu/unews/releases/04/feb/spin.htm l
So many lawyers, so little time, and so many really funny lawyer jokes . . .
Some institutions change slowly. Law is one of them. Law is complex, convoluted, and contradictory, yet necessary to protect the rights of the individual against the tyranny of the majority and the powerful. But laws created to defend freedom and protect individual rights in one context must respond to changing circumstances. Population growth, technological advances in communication and transportation, the Internet, other technological and medical advances, changes in international law and the world configuration of power and influence, all have contributed to a vastly different world than the context out of which our fundamental laws derived. Key concepts must be revisited in the face of evolving values, changing circumstances, and threats to freedom.
Meaning relies on context and agreement: we agree about what something will mean, and the extent to which we share a common worldview is the extent to which we can understand each other. To understand oneself is difficult enough, to understand another who lives in a different culture with different values is extraordinarily difficult.
In a world where we want to converse cross-culturally, share our knowledge instantly, and develop a human environment free of poverty, cruelty, gross inequality and oppression, laws must adapt to defend these values. They are considered sacred to the human experience by many, but, sadly, not to all.
Law is not fractal. Scale matters, as does socio-political context. What we need are new laws that better reflect the new scale of human experience and interaction. When you have a lot of people wanting to do the same thing, conflict arises, and vultures circle to seek opportunities to exploit individuals in the face of confusion. Chaos benefits the exploiter to the same extent that the failure of privacy crushes individuality.
So laws of copyright and patent, once, at a much smaller population scale, and slower, more isolated communication context, seemed to be a means to protect the individual against the powerful. Otherwise every time a person thought of something and tried to develop it as a commodity, someone with more money or power would simply take it, and the originator would be left out in the cold.
But has not the Internet and other modes of instant world communication not heralded a fundamental change in the value we attach to property? Property as a means to well-being, happiness, and safety is valued less than the ability to communicate freely, share our knowledge, and overcome our differences. Property in this light is a by-product of freedom, not the means to it.
Property protection matters most in a small world of isolated societies and individuals; that world is gone. Freedom in the new world we live in is not about control of property, but permitting adaptability, flexibility, rapid dissemination and sharing of knowledge, and the means to be of service. It is not what we own, but how we can be of service that will define our wealth in this new age. So we must surrender property to a bygone age, and embrace the new basis of economics: service. It takes courage not to need to "own", but this is the only way forward. Patent law, based on this antiquated notion of property, must be shelved, and many of our socially-directed laws need to be revisited if we are to find the right way of defending our most sacred values of individual freedom, and the inalienable right to safety, life, and value.
Note: a general site for those wanting a quick definition of "patent" etc. - http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/w hatis.htm
I always wanted to be chased down the beach by a big bouncing transparent ball. I know, I'll take a really innovative TV series from the late 60's, steal the name and "prisoner" idea, change it completely, and dump everything that was cool about it; that is, "the arty, 'pop' feel." My guess is that the ball will be bouncing after the producer, or should we just wait until the "other ball drops"?
Slashdot Mirror
Talking about advances in technology . . . They've just managed to create a new organically based micro processor from human flesh. But it takes a lot of power, which is a real downer. So far they can't talk any of the volunteers to stick their butt plugs into the 220w outlet. And the data lines come out of a really inconvenient orifice. Check this out for fun: http://www.utah.edu/unews/releases/04/feb/spin.htm l
Damn! I thought that Giraffe was serious! Now it turns out she was just a plant to hook me in.
So many lawyers, so little time, and so many really funny lawyer jokes . . . Some institutions change slowly. Law is one of them. Law is complex, convoluted, and contradictory, yet necessary to protect the rights of the individual against the tyranny of the majority and the powerful. But laws created to defend freedom and protect individual rights in one context must respond to changing circumstances. Population growth, technological advances in communication and transportation, the Internet, other technological and medical advances, changes in international law and the world configuration of power and influence, all have contributed to a vastly different world than the context out of which our fundamental laws derived. Key concepts must be revisited in the face of evolving values, changing circumstances, and threats to freedom. Meaning relies on context and agreement: we agree about what something will mean, and the extent to which we share a common worldview is the extent to which we can understand each other. To understand oneself is difficult enough, to understand another who lives in a different culture with different values is extraordinarily difficult. In a world where we want to converse cross-culturally, share our knowledge instantly, and develop a human environment free of poverty, cruelty, gross inequality and oppression, laws must adapt to defend these values. They are considered sacred to the human experience by many, but, sadly, not to all. Law is not fractal. Scale matters, as does socio-political context. What we need are new laws that better reflect the new scale of human experience and interaction. When you have a lot of people wanting to do the same thing, conflict arises, and vultures circle to seek opportunities to exploit individuals in the face of confusion. Chaos benefits the exploiter to the same extent that the failure of privacy crushes individuality. So laws of copyright and patent, once, at a much smaller population scale, and slower, more isolated communication context, seemed to be a means to protect the individual against the powerful. Otherwise every time a person thought of something and tried to develop it as a commodity, someone with more money or power would simply take it, and the originator would be left out in the cold. But has not the Internet and other modes of instant world communication not heralded a fundamental change in the value we attach to property? Property as a means to well-being, happiness, and safety is valued less than the ability to communicate freely, share our knowledge, and overcome our differences. Property in this light is a by-product of freedom, not the means to it. Property protection matters most in a small world of isolated societies and individuals; that world is gone. Freedom in the new world we live in is not about control of property, but permitting adaptability, flexibility, rapid dissemination and sharing of knowledge, and the means to be of service. It is not what we own, but how we can be of service that will define our wealth in this new age. So we must surrender property to a bygone age, and embrace the new basis of economics: service. It takes courage not to need to "own", but this is the only way forward. Patent law, based on this antiquated notion of property, must be shelved, and many of our socially-directed laws need to be revisited if we are to find the right way of defending our most sacred values of individual freedom, and the inalienable right to safety, life, and value. Note: a general site for those wanting a quick definition of "patent" etc. - http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/w hatis.htm
I always wanted to be chased down the beach by a big bouncing transparent ball. I know, I'll take a really innovative TV series from the late 60's, steal the name and "prisoner" idea, change it completely, and dump everything that was cool about it; that is, "the arty, 'pop' feel." My guess is that the ball will be bouncing after the producer, or should we just wait until the "other ball drops"?