Of course, on the same note just because you didn't get cancer doesn't mean you weren't harmed. If I drink pesticide I may or may not get a disease, but I'm probably going to get very sick anyways.
This isn't 'machine learning' but you know what would be nice? The ability to toggle a page fullscreen with no navbar, buttons, toolbars, etc. Just a scrollbar and an unobtrusive button to toggle things back to normal. Screen landscape is valuable to me.
The article was put out by the Business Software Alliance, a political lobbying group for the software industry which has been responsible getting through the government things like remote disabling of software and legal right of software companies to disclaim all damages in excess of the software purchase price using the shrink wrap liscense.
They claim 'losses' of 29 billion. This assumes that if piracy didn't occur, they would have made an extra 29 billion dollars. But this isn't true. The article notes that most of this figure comes from countries like China, the Ukraine, and Vietnam, areas where most people would have trouble purchasing software at the regular purchase price.
Also, this article blames P2P networks. Given, P2P networks are used for piracy. But they're not the reason for piracy in countries like China, where you can buy software CDs on the street for under $1. Kill the P2P networks, you'll still have piracy in these countries. The incentive to sell CDs on the cheap is too high and China doesn't really want to eliminate software piracy. What incentive does it have?
Of course, those who do purchase their software might have a stake in eliminating piracy. After all, everyone wants the operating costs of their competitors to be higher.
Even if folks here were artists or authors, I don't think that would have a huge effect on their stance. There is some small consolation that piracy hurts large industries. Small programs aren't pirated as much and they're harder to find. If you do find them, it's less likely you can find a crack for them. Same with small musicians.
Of course, this isn't an excuse for piracy, but lets be clear about exactly who it hurts; the largest corporations in the music and software industries.
And there is piracy going on on the other side of the fence. I bought windows XP, microsoft frontpage and MS Office. I've had each of these programs remotely disabled, despite the fact that I PAID for them. This is piracy every bit as much as IP infringement. When the US government allows the patenting of naturally occuring genes, this is theft from the public domain. Nobody has a right to own these things that they're claiming to possess. Same with copyright extension. It was intended originally to remunirate creatives for their work. Now it's been extended so that what should be public domain is held in private hands indefinitly.
And with the passage of UCITA, software vendors are now able to disclaim all liability for their products that extend beyond the purchase price and enforce shrinkwrap liscenses that you didn't get to read before purchase. They are also able to prevent you from reselling your 'liscense.' A similar thing happened at the beginning of the century, when the publishing industry tried to prevent used book sales. The sales were eventually allowed to proceed.
You're right that people are greedy. Some of these people, unfortunatly, are well connected and funding very powerful organizations. They've used their own dirty tricks to get and keep their power. Why do you think certain songs are played repetitivly on the radio? (I'd provide a link, but I'm lazy right now). MS got out of a government antitrust trial with a punishment that was actually a reward; donating software to schools, so the kids would know how to use/buy MS products. There are dozens more examples. I'm sure you can think of a few.
Frankly, I'm tired of seeing a quality decried when average people possess it, but lauded when businesspeople use it to make money. If breaking the rules, abusing distrobution methods for illicit personal benefit and taking whatever you can get are to be decried in the American public, they should also be decried in the businesses that practice these same tactics, and who use their influence to avoid competing on a level playing field.
1. Disney may lobby, but if others take advantage of an unfair law they passed that hurts me just as much. So yes, content providers who enforce old copyrights are in the same boat as Disney.
You keep repeating that infringing on the copyright of new movies results in loss of revenue. This is central to your point, but you've done nothing at all to back it up except repeat it. You can take it as an article of faith if you like, but considering that IP infringement requires a calculation of damages, the claim that downloading a movie correlates with loss of revenue could use some proof to back it up.
After all, watching a movie in the theatres doesn't mean you won't buy the DVD. Lots of my friends do this. VCRs didn't destroy the movie industry as was predicted.
2. Of course the industry cares that they lost me as a customer. That's why they're against piracy in the first place. They think it makes them lose customers and dilutes the value of their IP. If they didn't think this, they wouldn't be against piracy because they don't lose anything materially (except possibly in terms of brand dilution) when someone pirates IP. Or perhaps they're worried about people getting used to downloading video over the net and getting their entertainment that way.
3. MPAA is not a person. It's an organization that supports the interests of people. It's not unfair to say which people. If you want to 'be technical' because 'you don't like me' fine. It's unpersuasive.
Besides, the notion that IP infringement is theft has no legal basis. IP infringement is IP infringement. It is no more theft than performing an acrobatic act without a license is stealing from the government.
4. Viacom and Blockbuster http://www.forbes.com/2001/03/30/0330 winner.html
Paramount and Blockbuster have the same parent company. Blockbuster made close to 5 billion last year. The first distribution channel I could find.
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/1998/April/182.htm.h tm l
If you want actual studios, Cineplex Odeon and Sony have merged. Cineplex brought in 500 million in 1996.
That's just a small slice of the industry. A merger is about as locked in as you can get.
5.As far as criticisms of M. Moore, there was an article just a day ago on Slashdot on the topic. I figured you'd seen it. Maybe not. The response: Jack Valenti, the outgoing president of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), said: "We are proud that American films continue to enjoy immense popularity around the world but the need for copyright protection in the digital age is crucial to the preservation of our most prized trade asset.
"Piracy is having a dramatic impact on the creators and copyright owners of this nation, and its defeat depends largely on the commit ment and resolve of the entire industry.
Article seem to flip flop on the Studio's official stance. One has them enraged, the next tacitly ascenting. I'll wait till things cool down a bit to find out where they stand. It seems clear they don't want people messing with their opening numbers, though.
6.http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=moral from websters.
Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
Of course, I should thank you since you're really making my point for me here. If copyright infringement is theft, it becomes a moral issue. If it isn't (i.e. it's simply behavior that is punished because it violates conventions for a profession) then it's an ethical violation.
7. Previously, there seemed to be indications that Lions Gate was going along with what Mr. Moore says. I don't know if they lack the means to prosecute or what their formal position is. It was shitty for Michael Moore to do if he didn't ask them. Some earlier articles seemed to imply that he had their tacit compliance, but it seems that might not be the case.
Actually, he was pointing out a flaw in your analogy. Intellecutal property is not real property and copying it is not 'theft.' It is intellectual property infringement, which is treated differently under the law for very valid reasons.
Your meaning, of course, was that just because a store can 'afford' to be stolen from, stealing from it is still not justified. His point was that, unlike real theft, intellectual property infringement can sometimes be of monetary benefit to the 'injured' party, a crucial point since damages for intellectual property infringement are based largely on harm done due to the infringement.
You never really addressed his point that some forms of IP infringement can be helpful to the injured party. Calling an argument 'outdated' doesn't really carry any force unless you can give some point to explain why the argument is 'outdated.' In the cases of small bands and niche markets, free publicity is crucial and these folks aren't too strict about enforcing their IP rights, out of self interest. Of course, with major bands and large movies it's less important since these folks can buy their publicity wholesale and don't want alternate means of distribution that could compete with their theaters and video stores, whom they have a snuggly relationship with.
I'll give you one example (among many). I make Anime Music Videos. I do this by ripping material from DVDs and turning them into music videos. Because of this hobby of mine, I've spent about $150 on obscure DVDs in the past few years. I've gotten hooked on a series or two (try Wolf's Rain) from watching pirated dvds online.
you wouldn't really do that because disagreeing with the fact that breaking intellectual property laws is healthy for commerce would require you to be illogical and therefore irrelavent.
5 negatives in one sentance. All I have to say is Wow! (Or maybe 'huh?')
I work manufacturing, but I read about other absoultely non-manufacturing related industries to know more, hence my reading/.
You want a fucking cookie? I guess that's why you have such a wonderful vocabulary and charming personality, eh? Your post deserves to be modded down as flamebait, but I'll take that bait.
I don't care how money is distributed or how rich or poor theatres are as long as laws stay the same. When folks start lobbying to increase the length of copyright, effectivly stealing from the public domain, I get upset. Companies have a right to profit from their work, but copyright never was real property.
And companies can keep doing what they do, but people are going to complain. Some people are even going to stop watching. Me, I don't even watch TV anymore (threw the damn thing out) because almost all the shows worth watching were off the air. I don't miss it.
Stuidos can try and argue that filesharing hurts their profits and shouldn't be done by anyone. But people are going to call them on their bullshit and some are going to develop alternate business models and new distrobution channels. And if you've sunk billions into hooking yourself up with theatres around the country and deals with video rental stores, change is threatening.
You can go into a book store and read the magazines. People still buy them. Studios exercising their rights are one thing. But criticizing Michael Moore for encouraging downloading of his movie is just asinine. What right do these people have to tell others what they can do with their products. That's where their true hippocracy is outed. Suddenly, it's immoral not to make as much money as you can? Suddenly it's immoral to share your work or release it into the public domain. It isn't. But the notion of getting even legal movies via the internet is threatening to people who own video stores and theatres. Otherwise, studios would take a 'live and let live' approach to this kind of distrobution.
Criticizing people who encourage downloading of their product which they own is idiotic. The success of such products, in spite of downloading, is informative. The notion deserves the ridicule it attracts.
No sexual harassment lawsuits No labor strikes No complaints from handling things that smell bad No danger from needlesticks or infections Less possibility of contamination from outside sources or recontamination from things like cell phones Easier to sterilize than live personel More privacy
Unfortunatly, robots have been known to beat up old people and steal their medicine. And once they have you, you can't get away because robots are very strong. Fortunatly, they're coming out with insurance for people who are worried that they might become the victim of robots.
... a minor flaw that allows the robots to think for themselves. They learn to do the doctor's jobs better than the doctors, and are about to replace them entirely when an angry mob of surgeons breaks into the hospital, smashes the robots optical receptors in with the blunt end of a bedpan and dismembers the helpeless helpful machines with operating room saws, and everything goes back to how God intended it to be.
But hey, what do you expect for a gigantic, faceless corporation?
You seem to be complaining that they're treating people like individuals.
Alright, the notion of deliberatly making someone wait for customer service is nasty, and if it's above a certain amount of time should expose corporations to liability. i.e. if there is a mistake and you make someone stay on hold for 15 minutes to get their money back.
But otherwise, speed of service is speed of service. If you don't like what you get for what you pay, go somewhere else.
Does anyone else think that the 'booom booom' doc ock is coming sound seems like it was stolen from the T Rex in Jurrasic park and doesn't fit Doc Ock at all?
1. Some of the films I mentioned in my post are actually books. Should be obvious, but I was unclear when I wrote the comment.
2. In Spider Man, Peter Parker was also a scientist and a geek. He built his web spinners in the lab. i.e. he used science to adapt himself to his new nature. I was a little ticked that they took this out of the movie.
There have been movies about scientists fighting management for advancement. I'm sure Asimov had a good number. Bicentennial man is one possibility. But pro-technology works of this kind don't seem to resonate as much with the public. The one big exception that I can think of is "And the Band Played On." That seems to fit your desired description pretty well. So does Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring." Medicine Man and The Day After Tomorrow also have scientists as heros. But the theme in all of these is that scientists are in-tune with the natural order and "management/society" is not. In these films, scientific understanding is lauded while technology may be good bad or neutral.
Sagan's "Contact" definitly comes to mind as a book (also an inferior movie ) that shows scientist-protagonists fighting management for the purpose of advancement and discovery but the fruit is the discovery of E.T. life and not an original human creation at all. Discovery of E.T. life could fit with the notion that scientists are there to improve our relationship with the natural order.
It seems that the only people who write the books that you describe are scientist-authors themselves, and such people are precious few.
Alternatly, it seems that the most effective way to prevent science in a way that resonates with people is to have scientists be like preists that help us understand our relationship to the natural order and the problems that we've created in it.
Or to put it another way, people don't want technology for its own sake. They just want to be happy and to fufill their own human needs. Even at it's best, if Science or Technology fail to take into account what it means to be human, then they are useless and counterproductive.
In English, the ajective typically preceeds the noun. Thus, Clinton was an American President, not a President American, even though he was president for only 8 years and an American his whole life.
I have a red car, even though only the paint is red and the entire thing is a car.
Parker is a man. Spider is a modifier like 'typical', 'super', or 'bat.'
Perhaps in South America they would be interested in your suggestion.
Wars. Concentration camps. Threats to invade foreign countries. Undermining of law and basic rights. A foreign policy based entirely on power relations. A nation with aspirations of being a world leader and a superpower...
But good thing we don't live in Germany 60 years ago. The Brits seemed a damn bit tougher than the Iraqis.
Granted I've almost done no drugs, including alcohol. I'm not the type to use chemicals as a regular social activity.
There's somthing about breaking a thing that teaches you how it works.
Do you remember what it was like when you were young to look at English and not be able to read it? You just can't do that today. Try looking at this sentene and NOT reading it. Perception isn't somthing that 'you do' but somthing that is done to you, mostly out of your conscious control. And most people take it for granted or associate with it.
Given, a lot of people take drugs as a form of escape. But there's so much that our brain does recognizing objects, discerning patterns, etc. and it does so effortlessly that we forget it's happening. By changing our perceptions, by temporarily dissasociating us from our biases, it's possible to perceive them.
Alpha Centauri is between 4 and 5 light years away. Now given that at near-ligth speeds space becomes abrasive, it's still theoretically possible to make it there and back in one lifetime.
There's no reason to believe we'll never encounter some 'travelers' and there are a few other star systems that are within the 20 light year range of 'communication within a generation'
I know that Vega is one, but that's a pretty big star. If Earth is the model for life, that won't match. And A centauri is either a binary or three star system. I know there were two stars. I don't know if they found a third...
Anyways, it's like a relationship in Junior High. You might be able to talk, but you're probably not going to get to touch.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, on the same note just because you didn't get cancer doesn't mean you weren't harmed. If I drink pesticide I may or may not get a disease, but I'm probably going to get very sick anyways.
This isn't 'machine learning' but you know what would be nice? The ability to toggle a page fullscreen with no navbar, buttons, toolbars, etc. Just a scrollbar and an unobtrusive button to toggle things back to normal. Screen landscape is valuable to me.
no text
The article was put out by the Business Software Alliance, a political lobbying group for the software industry which has been responsible getting through the government things like remote disabling of software and legal right of software companies to disclaim all damages in excess of the software purchase price using the shrink wrap liscense.
They claim 'losses' of 29 billion. This assumes that if piracy didn't occur, they would have made an extra 29 billion dollars. But this isn't true. The article notes that most of this figure comes from countries like China, the Ukraine, and Vietnam, areas where most people would have trouble purchasing software at the regular purchase price.
Also, this article blames P2P networks. Given, P2P networks are used for piracy. But they're not the reason for piracy in countries like China, where you can buy software CDs on the street for under $1. Kill the P2P networks, you'll still have piracy in these countries. The incentive to sell CDs on the cheap is too high and China doesn't really want to eliminate software piracy. What incentive does it have?
Of course, those who do purchase their software might have a stake in eliminating piracy. After all, everyone wants the operating costs of their competitors to be higher.
Even if folks here were artists or authors, I don't think that would have a huge effect on their stance. There is some small consolation that piracy hurts large industries. Small programs aren't pirated as much and they're harder to find. If you do find them, it's less likely you can find a crack for them. Same with small musicians.
Of course, this isn't an excuse for piracy, but lets be clear about exactly who it hurts; the largest corporations in the music and software industries.
And there is piracy going on on the other side of the fence. I bought windows XP, microsoft frontpage and MS Office. I've had each of these programs remotely disabled, despite the fact that I PAID for them. This is piracy every bit as much as IP infringement. When the US government allows the patenting of naturally occuring genes, this is theft from the public domain. Nobody has a right to own these things that they're claiming to possess. Same with copyright extension. It was intended originally to remunirate creatives for their work. Now it's been extended so that what should be public domain is held in private hands indefinitly.
And with the passage of UCITA, software vendors are now able to disclaim all liability for their products that extend beyond the purchase price and enforce shrinkwrap liscenses that you didn't get to read before purchase.
They are also able to prevent you from reselling your 'liscense.' A similar thing happened at the beginning of the century, when the publishing industry tried to prevent used book sales. The sales were eventually allowed to proceed.
You're right that people are greedy. Some of these people, unfortunatly, are well connected and funding very powerful organizations. They've used their own dirty tricks to get and keep their power. Why do you think certain songs are played repetitivly on the radio? (I'd provide a link, but I'm lazy right now). MS got out of a government antitrust trial with a punishment that was actually a reward; donating software to schools, so the kids would know how to use/buy MS products. There are dozens more examples. I'm sure you can think of a few.
Frankly, I'm tired of seeing a quality decried when average people possess it, but lauded when businesspeople use it to make money. If breaking the rules, abusing distrobution methods for illicit personal benefit and taking whatever you can get are to be decried in the American public, they should also be decried in the businesses that practice these same tactics, and who use their influence to avoid competing on a level playing field.
lol. :) someone got it.
The article is actually a link to pictures of clippy.
1. Disney may lobby, but if others take advantage of an unfair law they passed that hurts me just as much. So yes, content providers who enforce old copyrights are in the same boat as Disney.
0 winner.html
h tm l
l
You keep repeating that infringing on the copyright of new movies results in loss of revenue. This is central to your point, but you've done nothing at all to back it up except repeat it. You can take it as an article of faith if you like, but considering that IP infringement requires a calculation of damages, the claim that downloading a movie correlates with loss of revenue could use some proof to back it up.
After all, watching a movie in the theatres doesn't mean you won't buy the DVD. Lots of my friends do this. VCRs didn't destroy the movie industry as was predicted.
2. Of course the industry cares that they lost me as a customer. That's why they're against piracy in the first place. They think it makes them lose customers and dilutes the value of their IP. If they didn't think this, they wouldn't be against piracy because they don't lose anything materially (except possibly in terms of brand dilution) when someone pirates IP. Or perhaps they're worried about people getting used to downloading video over the net and getting their entertainment that way.
3. MPAA is not a person. It's an organization that supports the interests of people. It's not unfair to say which people. If you want to 'be technical' because 'you don't like me' fine. It's unpersuasive.
Besides, the notion that IP infringement is theft has no legal basis. IP infringement is IP infringement. It is no more theft than performing an acrobatic act without a license is stealing from the government.
4.
Viacom and Blockbuster
http://www.forbes.com/2001/03/30/033
Paramount and Blockbuster have the same parent company. Blockbuster made close to 5 billion last year. The first distribution channel I could find.
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/1998/April/182.htm.
If you want actual studios, Cineplex Odeon and Sony have merged. Cineplex brought in 500 million in 1996.
That's just a small slice of the industry. A merger is about as locked in as you can get.
5.As far as criticisms of M. Moore, there was an article just a day ago on Slashdot on the topic. I figured you'd seen it. Maybe not. The response: Jack Valenti, the outgoing president of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), said: "We are proud that American films continue to enjoy immense popularity around the world but the need for copyright protection in the digital age is crucial to the preservation of our most prized trade asset.
"Piracy is having a dramatic impact on the creators and copyright owners of this nation, and its defeat depends largely on the commit ment and resolve of the entire industry.
Article seem to flip flop on the Studio's official stance. One has them enraged, the next tacitly ascenting. I'll wait till things cool down a bit to find out where they stand. It seems clear they don't want people messing with their opening numbers, though.
6.http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mora
from websters.
Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
Of course, I should thank you since you're really making my point for me here.
If copyright infringement is theft, it becomes a moral issue. If it isn't (i.e. it's simply behavior that is punished because it violates conventions for a profession) then it's an ethical violation.
7. Previously, there seemed to be indications that Lions Gate was going along with what Mr. Moore says. I don't know if they lack the means to prosecute or what their formal position is. It was shitty for Michael Moore to do if he didn't ask them. Some earlier articles seemed to imply that he had their tacit compliance, but it seems that might not be the case.
Actually, he was pointing out a flaw in your analogy. Intellecutal property is not real property and copying it is not 'theft.' It is intellectual property infringement, which is treated differently under the law for very valid reasons.
Your meaning, of course, was that just because a store can 'afford' to be stolen from, stealing from it is still not justified. His point was that, unlike real theft, intellectual property infringement can sometimes be of monetary benefit to the 'injured' party, a crucial point since damages for intellectual property infringement are based largely on harm done due to the infringement.
You never really addressed his point that some forms of IP infringement can be helpful to the injured party. Calling an argument 'outdated' doesn't really carry any force unless you can give some point to explain why the argument is 'outdated.' In the cases of small bands and niche markets, free publicity is crucial and these folks aren't too strict about enforcing their IP rights, out of self interest. Of course, with major bands and large movies it's less important since these folks can buy their publicity wholesale and don't want alternate means of distribution that could compete with their theaters and video stores, whom they have a snuggly relationship with.
I'll give you one example (among many). I make Anime Music Videos. I do this by ripping material from DVDs and turning them into music videos. Because of this hobby of mine, I've spent about $150 on obscure DVDs in the past few years. I've gotten hooked on a series or two (try Wolf's Rain) from watching pirated dvds online.
you wouldn't really do that because disagreeing with the fact that breaking intellectual property laws is healthy for commerce would require you to be illogical and therefore irrelavent.
5 negatives in one sentance. All I have to say is Wow! (Or maybe 'huh?')
I work manufacturing, but I read about other absoultely non-manufacturing related industries to know more, hence my reading /.
You want a fucking cookie? I guess that's why you have such a wonderful vocabulary and charming personality, eh? Your post deserves to be modded down as flamebait, but I'll take that bait.
I don't care how money is distributed or how rich or poor theatres are as long as laws stay the same. When folks start lobbying to increase the length of copyright, effectivly stealing from the public domain, I get upset. Companies have a right to profit from their work, but copyright never was real property.
And companies can keep doing what they do, but people are going to complain. Some people are even going to stop watching. Me, I don't even watch TV anymore (threw the damn thing out) because almost all the shows worth watching were off the air. I don't miss it.
Stuidos can try and argue that filesharing hurts their profits and shouldn't be done by anyone. But people are going to call them on their bullshit and some are going to develop alternate business models and new distrobution channels.
And if you've sunk billions into hooking yourself up with theatres around the country and deals with video rental stores, change is threatening.
You can go into a book store and read the magazines. People still buy them. Studios exercising their rights are one thing. But criticizing Michael Moore for encouraging downloading of his movie is just asinine. What right do these people have to tell others what they can do with their products. That's where their true hippocracy is outed. Suddenly, it's immoral not to make as much money as you can? Suddenly it's immoral to share your work or release it into the public domain. It isn't. But the notion of getting even legal movies via the internet is threatening to people who own video stores and theatres. Otherwise, studios would take a 'live and let live' approach to this kind of distrobution.
Criticizing people who encourage downloading of their product which they own is idiotic. The success of such products, in spite of downloading, is informative. The notion deserves the ridicule it attracts.
No sexual harassment lawsuits
No labor strikes
No complaints from handling things that smell bad
No danger from needlesticks or infections
Less possibility of contamination from outside sources or recontamination from things like cell phones
Easier to sterilize than live personel
More privacy
Unfortunatly, robots have been known to beat up old people and steal their medicine. And once they have you, you can't get away because robots are very strong. Fortunatly, they're coming out with insurance for people who are worried that they might become the victim of robots.
... a minor flaw that allows the robots to think for themselves. They learn to do the doctor's jobs better than the doctors, and are about to replace them entirely when an angry mob of surgeons breaks into the hospital, smashes the robots optical receptors in with the blunt end of a bedpan and dismembers the helpeless helpful machines with operating room saws, and everything goes back to how God intended it to be.
The end.
Sounds good. Where do I sign up?
But hey, what do you expect for a gigantic, faceless corporation?
You seem to be complaining that they're treating people like individuals.
Alright, the notion of deliberatly making someone wait for customer service is nasty, and if it's above a certain amount of time should expose corporations to liability. i.e. if there is a mistake and you make someone stay on hold for 15 minutes to get their money back.
But otherwise, speed of service is speed of service. If you don't like what you get for what you pay, go somewhere else.
Does anyone else think that the 'booom booom' doc ock is coming sound seems like it was stolen from the T Rex in Jurrasic park and doesn't fit Doc Ock at all?
Two things
1. Some of the films I mentioned in my post are actually books. Should be obvious, but I was unclear when I wrote the comment.
2. In Spider Man, Peter Parker was also a scientist and a geek. He built his web spinners in the lab. i.e. he used science to adapt himself to his new nature. I was a little ticked that they took this out of the movie.
There have been movies about scientists fighting management for advancement. I'm sure Asimov had a good number. Bicentennial man is one possibility. But pro-technology works of this kind don't seem to resonate as much with the public. The one big exception that I can think of is "And the Band Played On." That seems to fit your desired description pretty well. So does Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring."
Medicine Man and The Day After Tomorrow also have scientists as heros. But the theme in all of these is that scientists are in-tune with the natural order and "management/society" is not. In these films, scientific understanding is lauded while technology may be good bad or neutral.
Sagan's "Contact" definitly comes to mind as a book (also an inferior movie ) that shows scientist-protagonists fighting management for the purpose of advancement and discovery but the fruit is the discovery of E.T. life and not an original human creation at all. Discovery of E.T. life could fit with the notion that scientists are there to improve our relationship with the natural order.
It seems that the only people who write the books that you describe are scientist-authors themselves, and such people are precious few.
Alternatly, it seems that the most effective way to prevent science in a way that resonates with people is to have scientists be like preists that help us understand our relationship to the natural order and the problems that we've created in it.
Or to put it another way, people don't want technology for its own sake. They just want to be happy and to fufill their own human needs. Even at it's best, if Science or Technology fail to take into account what it means to be human, then they are useless and counterproductive.
In English, the ajective typically preceeds the noun. Thus, Clinton was an American President, not a President American, even though he was president for only 8 years and an American his whole life.
I have a red car, even though only the paint is red and the entire thing is a car.
Parker is a man. Spider is a modifier like 'typical', 'super', or 'bat.'
Perhaps in South America they would be interested in your suggestion.
Maybe they attached it to Oxygen or Silicon or somthing? Or maybe that little dodec thing was a container?
I think the 'tritium' shown might have been some kind of container.
That was my point. Drugs are destructive. They break perception. That breaking can be informative.
Wars. Concentration camps. Threats to invade foreign countries. Undermining of law and basic rights. A foreign policy based entirely on power relations. A nation with aspirations of being a world leader and a superpower...
But good thing we don't live in Germany 60 years ago. The Brits seemed a damn bit tougher than the Iraqis.
Yeah, but donate a million and he'll do it for the next four years.
Granted I've almost done no drugs, including alcohol. I'm not the type to use chemicals as a regular social activity.
There's somthing about breaking a thing that teaches you how it works.
Do you remember what it was like when you were young to look at English and not be able to read it? You just can't do that today. Try looking at this sentene and NOT reading it. Perception isn't somthing that 'you do' but somthing that is done to you, mostly out of your conscious control. And most people take it for granted or associate with it.
Given, a lot of people take drugs as a form of escape. But there's so much that our brain does recognizing objects, discerning patterns, etc. and it does so effortlessly that we forget it's happening. By changing our perceptions, by temporarily dissasociating us from our biases, it's possible to perceive them.
Alpha Centauri is between 4 and 5 light years away. Now given that at near-ligth speeds space becomes abrasive, it's still theoretically possible to make it there and back in one lifetime.
There's no reason to believe we'll never encounter some 'travelers' and there are a few other star systems that are within the 20 light year range of 'communication within a generation'
I know that Vega is one, but that's a pretty big star. If Earth is the model for life, that won't match. And A centauri is either a binary or three star system. I know there were two stars. I don't know if they found a third...
Anyways, it's like a relationship in Junior High. You might be able to talk, but you're probably not going to get to touch.