(Note: Old article I had planned on posting 3/25, but I do not know why I did not get any further than saving it as a draft. Anyway, whatever I was planning on adding I may get around to at some later time.)
I greatly enjoyed reading your post to Alan Grayson's page on Citizen's United v. FEC. Having heard so much from different writers I am finally getting to reading the transcript. Your arguments had significantly greater depth than others that I have read. In particular, I was very disappointed by the reaction of Lawrence Lessig whom I expect you are familiar with.
So it seems that the general argument is that we don't want quid pro quo elections, and law has many restrictions. It seems to stand out from your post that you believe that corporations are inherently evil, but even aside from that the McCain Feingold Act was not only much more sweeping, but make special partisan exceptions.
The legal question to me seemed to be whether the government had been prudent in narrowly addressing a systemic problem, or just banged at it with a hammer until they felt better about the issue without really considering the possible adverse side affects.
Whether or not you may have been in the minority of people that may have been interested in this film this isn't even a question of what they said but at the heart of whether or not they had a right to say it. And as if Theador Oleson's request for an open mind to adverse side effects, such as his mention that 97% of corporations are "mom and pop stores", the argument that "well what we really mean are the big money corporations" is exactly the point he tries to make. Follow that up with Elena Kagan affirmation of the censorship of little American business people, but that the big foreign owned media corporations effectively do whatever they want. Kagan demonstrated that the law, if upheld, would give the government the power to censor any and all political speech not done on a soap box.
This case didn't come down to a proper application of a good rule but an attack against specific speech someone didn't like, never mind it was big money opposition. And as you point out, there is nothing the court can do not. Clinton still lost, but that does not address that a group of people (like them or not) intended to purposefully express themselves as a meaningful time and place and were not allowed to. The manner in which the individuals to that assembly carried far too much weight in a way that really wasn't appropriate.
Personally, I love this case because to me it is a reminder of the wisdom that a bad law is NOT better than the absence of a good law. I think it is the law that was so overreaching in an attempt to address a great fear that it missed completely. Blame Congress for that, not the supreme court.
Don't worry, I know I stand alone in this belief, but since you seem to be very well read on the issue, I would be interested in your opinion of those aspects.
Thanks in advance for taking the time to respond if you do. If you don't have time or what not, thanks again anyway for your article.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
A longer rant
@Esoteric0714 Sigh, I only have time to slap one libtard a day, so feel lucky. You say something, and someone else says "STFU", you are BOTH exercising freedom of speech. Also, I really recommend you not spending so much time getting your critical thinking skills from listening to Nancy Pelosi, one day stupid might hurt and you will be in trouble. The Constitutional Convention that created the Constitution NULLIFIED the Articles of Confederacy, and the reason for it was to throw out (nullify) the British national system the founders admired but recognized the need to be decentralize if once this republic was put into place were to not become what we had finally thrown off. The problem with the Articles of Confederation was its FAILURE to properly nullify British rule as seem when the British attacked New York.
Also, you talk about the founders of the confederacy vs. constitution as if they were different people from a different time. So for your own sake, please pick up a history book and read it.
Btw, I still don't understand how a person without education or any feeling for how the government is run with respect to their personal responsibility even bothers opening their mouth on the discussion of how that system might be transformed. Is it a principle of "the loudest hobo catches the most dole", or "The greater the kiss ass, the greater the mouth full"? Guess that is just one of life's mysteries. I guess Machiavelli's failure was just a fluke.
Also, you talk about the founders of the confederacy vs. constitution as if they were different people from a different time. So for your own sake, please pick up a history book and read it.
Btw, I still don't understand how a person without education or any feeling for how the government is run with respect to their personal responsibility even bothers opening their mouth on the discussion of how that system might be transformed. Is it a principle of "the loudest hobo catches the most dole", or "The greater the kiss ass, the greater the mouth full"? Guess that is just one of life's mysteries. I guess Machiavelli's failure was just a fluke.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
The Contract
I am not sure if this is going to be expanded into a short story, but I would like to think that it will. This started as a Slashdot reply, and turned into something a bit more. I might like to keep this a secret, but it seems posts to this blog are pretty much a secret anyway, so who cares. Btw, this was a response to a statement made about the preamble to the constitution and the statement about "general welfare."
---
Even the most basic understanding of contracts modern or historical gives simple clarity. If I make an agreement with my neighbors for the purpose of landscaping in order to create a more perfect neighborhood and the general welfare of the street, to reduce cost, time, and effort to that need, we would need to specify what that means. For example, within the contract we specify that ABC Landscaping will be the agent to the contract, and they have the right to determine how many times a month on which days our lawns will be mowed, so long as they are specified in advance; the amount of water and fertilizer necessary to promote healthy growth. If ABC Landscaping informs us that the best lawn is one mowed every other day, that was left to their discretion because it is specified in the contract. If we think this is excessive, it is not a contract violation per se, but a fault of the parties. In such a case you would probably want to notify that even if it is in the best interest of the lawn that you really didn't want the lawns mowed 15 times a month. On the other hand, if ABC Landscaping installed fences and lawn gnomes in every yard and converted one persons lawn to be a community pool, they have clearly violated the contract no matter how much they may argue that it contributes to the general welfare of the neighborhood as specified in the preamble.
The situation we have is to imagine a neighborhood of renters where the contract is made between the landlords, ABC Landscaping is still the agent but the cost of the landscaping is not included in the rent. Further, ABC Landscaping can sue you if you do not pay them. The problem we have is that ABC Landscaping has decided to convert all our yards into a giant admission free amusement park. And as if the Landlord we almost never see not caring wasn't enough, any complaints about this possibly having gone a bit too far are met with the kids throwing a fit over loosing their free amusement park and redouble that with the Union of Amusement Park Ride Operators crying that you are trying to kill jobs and put people out on the street.
This really isn't what you bargained for, but you are providing jobs, and the teenagers are reasonably well behaved. It is a bit on the expensive side, but hell, you even enjoy the rides every so often.
Now ABC Landscaping puts on their thinking caps. There really isn't any room for any more rides, but still they would like to make the amusement park better. So they get the brilliant idea of adding concession stands with free food for anyone visiting the amusement park! Everyone is thrilled, right? And anyone that complains must want people to starve to death or at very least just be miserable, right? "Buy your own damn food!" How cold is that? What possible reason could people really have for not wanting free food when everyone can get some?
To be continued...
---
Even the most basic understanding of contracts modern or historical gives simple clarity. If I make an agreement with my neighbors for the purpose of landscaping in order to create a more perfect neighborhood and the general welfare of the street, to reduce cost, time, and effort to that need, we would need to specify what that means. For example, within the contract we specify that ABC Landscaping will be the agent to the contract, and they have the right to determine how many times a month on which days our lawns will be mowed, so long as they are specified in advance; the amount of water and fertilizer necessary to promote healthy growth. If ABC Landscaping informs us that the best lawn is one mowed every other day, that was left to their discretion because it is specified in the contract. If we think this is excessive, it is not a contract violation per se, but a fault of the parties. In such a case you would probably want to notify that even if it is in the best interest of the lawn that you really didn't want the lawns mowed 15 times a month. On the other hand, if ABC Landscaping installed fences and lawn gnomes in every yard and converted one persons lawn to be a community pool, they have clearly violated the contract no matter how much they may argue that it contributes to the general welfare of the neighborhood as specified in the preamble.
The situation we have is to imagine a neighborhood of renters where the contract is made between the landlords, ABC Landscaping is still the agent but the cost of the landscaping is not included in the rent. Further, ABC Landscaping can sue you if you do not pay them. The problem we have is that ABC Landscaping has decided to convert all our yards into a giant admission free amusement park. And as if the Landlord we almost never see not caring wasn't enough, any complaints about this possibly having gone a bit too far are met with the kids throwing a fit over loosing their free amusement park and redouble that with the Union of Amusement Park Ride Operators crying that you are trying to kill jobs and put people out on the street.
This really isn't what you bargained for, but you are providing jobs, and the teenagers are reasonably well behaved. It is a bit on the expensive side, but hell, you even enjoy the rides every so often.
Now ABC Landscaping puts on their thinking caps. There really isn't any room for any more rides, but still they would like to make the amusement park better. So they get the brilliant idea of adding concession stands with free food for anyone visiting the amusement park! Everyone is thrilled, right? And anyone that complains must want people to starve to death or at very least just be miserable, right? "Buy your own damn food!" How cold is that? What possible reason could people really have for not wanting free food when everyone can get some?
To be continued...
Monday, March 22, 2010
The democracy of open source
My criticisms of democracy only go as far as to agree with what James Madison and H.L. Menkin said about democracy. To say that if you reject pure democracy then you must prefer an dictator and that all dictators are evil is just absurd. Some things just should not be a majority vote of anyone that has an opinion just as science does not become truth with consensus.
Open Source is a meritocracy where your voice is heard relative to your contribution and against the weight of the merit of your opposition. The best part is that nobody's basic necessities are dependent upon the success of the open source project but in very limited circumstances, and money is not the primary driving force behind decision making.
Open source community in general is good at keeping communication lines open and the pool of ideas is greatly valued. If democracy to you is where a lot of people are free to give input, fine, but I don't want to hear you complain when the idea board is flooded with "make it work better", and "this sucks, you should do it different."
In my humble opinion, "democracy" is a very poor word choices to describe the nature of the open source community, or even an individual project.
Microsoft listens and then does whatever people ask for. The Linux community listens to people, but then does it right. Maybe democracy is the best form of government / organization for many reasons, but that doesn't mean the shortcomings simply don't exist. What frequently impresses me the most about the open source community is the ability to gather such diverse input without blinding people from doing what they know is most practical in principle to the best of their knowledge. I see it as fundamentally more beautiful than democracy without loss of generality for its merits.
Open Source is a meritocracy where your voice is heard relative to your contribution and against the weight of the merit of your opposition. The best part is that nobody's basic necessities are dependent upon the success of the open source project but in very limited circumstances, and money is not the primary driving force behind decision making.
Open source community in general is good at keeping communication lines open and the pool of ideas is greatly valued. If democracy to you is where a lot of people are free to give input, fine, but I don't want to hear you complain when the idea board is flooded with "make it work better", and "this sucks, you should do it different."
In my humble opinion, "democracy" is a very poor word choices to describe the nature of the open source community, or even an individual project.
Microsoft listens and then does whatever people ask for. The Linux community listens to people, but then does it right. Maybe democracy is the best form of government / organization for many reasons, but that doesn't mean the shortcomings simply don't exist. What frequently impresses me the most about the open source community is the ability to gather such diverse input without blinding people from doing what they know is most practical in principle to the best of their knowledge. I see it as fundamentally more beautiful than democracy without loss of generality for its merits.
Freedom, to be discussed politely over coffee.
The US Supreme Court has never been one much for challenging congress. I am sure the supreme court will find some argument why this this is not unconstitutional rather than face the wrath of both branches of government. What needs to happen for the first time in history (and is well on its way) is an Article V Section 2 convention that 1) Does what Arizona did, bar government control over health care, collect taxes or spend money on health care, and imprison any individual entering the state for such purpose as treason. 2) Repeal the 17th amendment; the constitution is a contract BETWEEN the states, and the Federal government is an agent to that contract. The federal government has no sovereignty than what the states choose to give. The parties to that contract need to be responsible for maintaining it. 3) Clarify the due process clause of the 14th amendment; The bill of rights are a clarification of what the states wanted to make clear that the Federal government had no right to touch with the limited power it was given. Any and all "rights" of the bill of rights desired of the citizens of a state should demand that they be incorporated into their own constitution as that is the only place in which individual protections from all government or other private individuals is meant to be. Again, Bill of Rights as Obama puts it is a list of negative liberties for the Fed as they rightfully should be, as they were intended. 4) Clarify the interstate commerce clause. The interstate commerce clause does not mean that the federal government has as it pleases the power to regulate any and all things that might possibly have an impact on the economy but instead, as it was intended, to ensure that conflicting state laws do not hinder business across state lines, in other words, minimalistically remove barriers to interstate commerce.
Thank goodness for the wisdom of George Mason that insisted on the last minute addition of Article V Section II that allows states to reign in the Fed with NO "approval" of Congress, the Supreme Court, and certainly not the president.
This is the last resort to save this country. The people that still think freedom is worth fighting for must be the ones that take the power back. The idea that the Federal government is going to reign itself because of some morally guiding light suddenly sparking in the minds of the supreme court justices that freedom be necessarily inflicted upon the American people like Health Care "Reform" is laughable. Such action could only be scorned because those apathetic individuals that believe fighting for freedom is someone else's job only see freedom as responsibility someone else may free them from.
Today is a dark day, but there is hope today will be a call for apathetic people to wake up and ask what America once was and do what is necessary to take it back.
Thank goodness for the wisdom of George Mason that insisted on the last minute addition of Article V Section II that allows states to reign in the Fed with NO "approval" of Congress, the Supreme Court, and certainly not the president.
This is the last resort to save this country. The people that still think freedom is worth fighting for must be the ones that take the power back. The idea that the Federal government is going to reign itself because of some morally guiding light suddenly sparking in the minds of the supreme court justices that freedom be necessarily inflicted upon the American people like Health Care "Reform" is laughable. Such action could only be scorned because those apathetic individuals that believe fighting for freedom is someone else's job only see freedom as responsibility someone else may free them from.
Today is a dark day, but there is hope today will be a call for apathetic people to wake up and ask what America once was and do what is necessary to take it back.
Friday, March 19, 2010
48 hours of freedom
Other than government regulations (Mostly state regulations) that have sold non competition agreements, individuals have (for another 48 hours) the right to pick a difference health provider and different ways of ensuring their health including but not limited to a comprehensive HMO or limiting themselves to catastrophic illness insurance and paying cash for everything else.
This is "the right of the people", aka the mob, again bringing the right change for everybody by finally voting in the right person to lead, versus ensuring individuals the freedom to make informed decisions that meet their needs.
The counter argument is that people are too stupid, and those not too stupid are too greedy to be trusted with such responsibility. Personally, I find such notion offensive and that while that philosophy may have dominated for a long time I believe we over came such "negativity" with the enlightenment, and for those that were paying attention, what was once the Great American Experiment proved otherwise.
I see the temptation, and I entertained it myself when I was younger, that government and most of peoples lives could be better managed by panels of experts, helping us with difficult decisions and help mitigate some of the greatest risks that too many people unnecessarily loose their lives over, simply because they did not understand the risks of their endeavors (Not purchasing insurance, saving for retirement, heating healthy, exercising regularly, etc.) Common sense drives us to this conclusion with so many examples of pain that might have been avoided with a little intervention. It is likely why it is not a new idea. Particularly in the last 100 years we have seen example after example of great leaders making promises that in the near future life would be fair and that all we need is to cooperate and give a little bit more. Dissenters are always marked as heartless and uncaring, that they do not know as much as the experts, or just too stupid to understand the bigger picture.
Community is a great thing, but that does not mean that it can be forced upon someone then used as an example of its own greatness.
We'll miss you America.
This is "the right of the people", aka the mob, again bringing the right change for everybody by finally voting in the right person to lead, versus ensuring individuals the freedom to make informed decisions that meet their needs.
The counter argument is that people are too stupid, and those not too stupid are too greedy to be trusted with such responsibility. Personally, I find such notion offensive and that while that philosophy may have dominated for a long time I believe we over came such "negativity" with the enlightenment, and for those that were paying attention, what was once the Great American Experiment proved otherwise.
I see the temptation, and I entertained it myself when I was younger, that government and most of peoples lives could be better managed by panels of experts, helping us with difficult decisions and help mitigate some of the greatest risks that too many people unnecessarily loose their lives over, simply because they did not understand the risks of their endeavors (Not purchasing insurance, saving for retirement, heating healthy, exercising regularly, etc.) Common sense drives us to this conclusion with so many examples of pain that might have been avoided with a little intervention. It is likely why it is not a new idea. Particularly in the last 100 years we have seen example after example of great leaders making promises that in the near future life would be fair and that all we need is to cooperate and give a little bit more. Dissenters are always marked as heartless and uncaring, that they do not know as much as the experts, or just too stupid to understand the bigger picture.
Community is a great thing, but that does not mean that it can be forced upon someone then used as an example of its own greatness.
We'll miss you America.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
McCain v. Feingold
I can't help but agree with the majority opinion, not to mention in the case the Attorney General made a good case for why by the letter of the law made virtually all public political speech illegal. McCain Feingold Act is a great example of crony Republican big government control that Democrats vehemently opposed until the Union exemption was put in place. The law was BAD and so was the sell out.
A corporation is only a group of people, and as people should have the right to peacefully assemble. Numbers have power which is why the right to peacefully assemble is opposed by oppressive government, and why it is a protected right in our constitution.
The only time corporations become corrupt institutions is when they are empowered by government to do so. Big corporations have the money and resources to find legal ways around such laws, not to mention it gives congress power to play favorites which is exactly how this case played out. Of all the groups that would be charged with violating McCain Feingold, is it a coincidence that speech that put a powerful political parties front runner in a negative light would conveniently tie the speech up in court just long enough?
Getting government out of business is the best way to keep business interests out of government any further than to respect the interests of any individual regardless of who they associate with and how.
Transparency in this case, as mentioned in the majority opinion, is going to be the key to fair elections. Let people know when information is put out with a political interest, at least in the case of public elections, that people know where that money comes from, and for the sake of privacy, allow <$100 monthly contributions be anonymous, and any amount greater to be in the best interest of the people to be disclosed.
Don't punish people for working together. This case can be no better example without loss of generality that McCain Feingold, while possibly well intended, failed to serve and in this case corrosive to its own purpose.
A corporation is only a group of people, and as people should have the right to peacefully assemble. Numbers have power which is why the right to peacefully assemble is opposed by oppressive government, and why it is a protected right in our constitution.
The only time corporations become corrupt institutions is when they are empowered by government to do so. Big corporations have the money and resources to find legal ways around such laws, not to mention it gives congress power to play favorites which is exactly how this case played out. Of all the groups that would be charged with violating McCain Feingold, is it a coincidence that speech that put a powerful political parties front runner in a negative light would conveniently tie the speech up in court just long enough?
Getting government out of business is the best way to keep business interests out of government any further than to respect the interests of any individual regardless of who they associate with and how.
Transparency in this case, as mentioned in the majority opinion, is going to be the key to fair elections. Let people know when information is put out with a political interest, at least in the case of public elections, that people know where that money comes from, and for the sake of privacy, allow <$100 monthly contributions be anonymous, and any amount greater to be in the best interest of the people to be disclosed.
Don't punish people for working together. This case can be no better example without loss of generality that McCain Feingold, while possibly well intended, failed to serve and in this case corrosive to its own purpose.
Thursday, January 07, 2010
Pareto Optimum
Was listening to the radio and reading some stuff they were making reference to and got me to thinking about random stuff. this is mostly stream of consciousness and has not been edited yet and being posted for whatever type of review it gets and will be changed in the future. Initially got off to a bad start imo. Rather than deleting those parts to omit them they are just not displayed using CSS. See source if for some bizarre reason you want to look at it. Anyway...
On a scale for issues to be from black and white to complex, and for a society to scale from homogeneous to diverse, what is the probability field for Strong Pareto Optimality to be met an ideal centrally planned republic following ideal policy of the Median Voter (as according to Median Voter Theory)?
If issue complexity and societal diversity can not be measured objectively then a range for central planning to determine the ideal application of Median Voter policy must be defined. Assuming ideal individuals, just as we are assuming ideal government (each being rational and all knowing), people should be left as freely as possible to make decisions for themselves being the most appropriate candidate to meet their needs.
Considering the set of needs of each individual as a point in the same field of issue complexity and person diversity with the point at which each individual is with regard to how well those needs are being met, necessary changes should be made in parallel. Considering the set of point pairs as necessary changes to maintain a Strong Pareto Optimum, it is efficient to apply similar transitions to any similar subset as to reduce the work in total necessary change. However, Republics given leaders that are members of the society in which they apply these transitions for, leaving the job to be done in parallel by the individuals is the shortest path to needs being met.
In the end this leaves a narrow scope for the most ideal national government to improve the lives of its citizenry through central economic planning. The scope for central economic planning should be limited inversely proportional to the diversity of the population as demonstrated. However, we can look further than the individual and a national policy. If a diverse citizenry chooses to seek like minded individuals, or diversity is a result of diverse regional environments then in the range of differences a tier of sets of sub regions of communities could be defined, and knowing that the individual is best left to make decisions concerning their needs as based on that level of diversity, so should the power be divided between those tiers.
This becomes more parent as one of the most important elements is introduced; people and governments are not all knowing or perfectly rational. In what ways do specific imperfections influence the necessity for a centrally planned economy or individual liberty in order to maintain a Strong Pareto Optimum?
On a scale for issues to be from black and white to complex, and for a society to scale from homogeneous to diverse, what is the probability field for Strong Pareto Optimality to be met an ideal centrally planned republic following ideal policy of the Median Voter (as according to Median Voter Theory)?
If issue complexity and societal diversity can not be measured objectively then a range for central planning to determine the ideal application of Median Voter policy must be defined. Assuming ideal individuals, just as we are assuming ideal government (each being rational and all knowing), people should be left as freely as possible to make decisions for themselves being the most appropriate candidate to meet their needs.
Considering the set of needs of each individual as a point in the same field of issue complexity and person diversity with the point at which each individual is with regard to how well those needs are being met, necessary changes should be made in parallel. Considering the set of point pairs as necessary changes to maintain a Strong Pareto Optimum, it is efficient to apply similar transitions to any similar subset as to reduce the work in total necessary change. However, Republics given leaders that are members of the society in which they apply these transitions for, leaving the job to be done in parallel by the individuals is the shortest path to needs being met.
In the end this leaves a narrow scope for the most ideal national government to improve the lives of its citizenry through central economic planning. The scope for central economic planning should be limited inversely proportional to the diversity of the population as demonstrated. However, we can look further than the individual and a national policy. If a diverse citizenry chooses to seek like minded individuals, or diversity is a result of diverse regional environments then in the range of differences a tier of sets of sub regions of communities could be defined, and knowing that the individual is best left to make decisions concerning their needs as based on that level of diversity, so should the power be divided between those tiers.
This becomes more parent as one of the most important elements is introduced; people and governments are not all knowing or perfectly rational. In what ways do specific imperfections influence the necessity for a centrally planned economy or individual liberty in order to maintain a Strong Pareto Optimum?
Morgage means NOT owning your house
Equity is just a very expensive savings account. You could rent wherever you like, even a house, and put the different between a mortgage and the rent into a savings account and the only difference is liability. You can walk away from a rental and keep a savings. The house could crash in value and you keep your savings and possibly lower your rent increasing the contribution to your savings. The reverse is true if the home increases in value. Homes and land do have real value and can be used to create wealth, but for the most part they are a greater liability, and when home / land values fluctuate so much based on prospective (what people think they are going to be valued at, and what people think other people think they are going to be valued at) makes a mortgage a special type of gamble, and of what we have seen recently in the US, an investment "gamble" similar to junk bonds. Personally, there are much safer investments with higher return and liquidity without the liability. Buy LAND with cash when it constitutes a CAPITAL INVESTMENT :)
Friday, December 11, 2009
Lord Monckton
Love this guy and his many videos. The linked comment is far superior to the article he is responding to. The video is great and anyone that finds this to be damning evidence that he can't even debate a child clearly was unable to understand anything he was saying.
When I was in elementary school I was told by my teacher that if we didn't turn off the lights when we left the room that green house gases that reflected light away from the earth was going to cause the next ice age and everyone was going to freeze to death, but that it wasn't just us, we needed to tell everyone to turn off the lights and use less energy if we were to save the planet. It was scary, right up until I was told it was all still true, that the green house gases were making the planet hot, and we were all going to die because food would stop growing. The proof was that a glacier had broken somewhere and glaciers aren't supposed to break.
Why is it so "radical" or "extreme" to believe that we are all fine, the earth is fine, and people just need to calm the fuck down? Pollution is real and everyone can take responsibility for local pollution. But there is no global crisis that demands a world government to control the planets CO2 emissions. CO2? Really? There is more credibility to the Dihydrogen Monoxide crysis.
When I was in elementary school I was told by my teacher that if we didn't turn off the lights when we left the room that green house gases that reflected light away from the earth was going to cause the next ice age and everyone was going to freeze to death, but that it wasn't just us, we needed to tell everyone to turn off the lights and use less energy if we were to save the planet. It was scary, right up until I was told it was all still true, that the green house gases were making the planet hot, and we were all going to die because food would stop growing. The proof was that a glacier had broken somewhere and glaciers aren't supposed to break.
Why is it so "radical" or "extreme" to believe that we are all fine, the earth is fine, and people just need to calm the fuck down? Pollution is real and everyone can take responsibility for local pollution. But there is no global crisis that demands a world government to control the planets CO2 emissions. CO2? Really? There is more credibility to the Dihydrogen Monoxide crysis.
Pray for Obama
To me, the most terrifying thing Obama ever said was that the founding fathers / Constitution lacked the insight to empower the President / Federal Government to bring peace and equality to the American people. He doesn't just lack an understanding of the principles of limited government, but seems to measure the greatness of a country by the size of its bureaucracy. This also seems to be his practice. Not that I would set him too far aside from some past presidents, but he really brings attention to it like never before.
You say that he would never be a Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, or Mao, but for what we can look back upon as having been so terrible, they were not so greatly criticized while in power. Most of them achieved the level of power they did because they were beloved by their people, devoted to their ideology. To my understanding, the principle of conservative values is government should only be powerful enough to enable people to take responsibility for their own lives and collectively for each individual to protect their own private property. People can be rational when it comes to decisions that will affect their own lives because they alone bare the responsibility. When others are granted the power to make decisions for other people and their lives, it is only well intended without consequences for the decision maker. None of those "monsters" of history would be who they were if not for the idealists that empowered and enabled them. So I don't think it is a question of whether or not Obama is any of those people so much as whether or not he is being enabled and empowered by an ideology only all too similar of a history we were asked to "never forget".
(note: I will post a link to the video when I find it)
You say that he would never be a Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, or Mao, but for what we can look back upon as having been so terrible, they were not so greatly criticized while in power. Most of them achieved the level of power they did because they were beloved by their people, devoted to their ideology. To my understanding, the principle of conservative values is government should only be powerful enough to enable people to take responsibility for their own lives and collectively for each individual to protect their own private property. People can be rational when it comes to decisions that will affect their own lives because they alone bare the responsibility. When others are granted the power to make decisions for other people and their lives, it is only well intended without consequences for the decision maker. None of those "monsters" of history would be who they were if not for the idealists that empowered and enabled them. So I don't think it is a question of whether or not Obama is any of those people so much as whether or not he is being enabled and empowered by an ideology only all too similar of a history we were asked to "never forget".
(note: I will post a link to the video when I find it)
Monday, December 07, 2009
Stealing great titles: War is Peace (Too bad the author couldn't steal something else better)
I love crap like this about how our democracy is threatened by the free exercise of speech and the press. It is fun to compare pro censorship literature of the past 100 years to today and see how their tactics have improved, but always coming back to how people need to be protected from themselves, and from their own ignorance. The best part is that of course they are never talking about the reader; the reader is smart because they are reading their article. It is all those other people out there that don't read or can't understand the brilliance that is Lawrence M. Krauss that are the idiots out there we could help so much if they would just do what we say, and read what we write. After all, this is Scientific American.
My Health Care is fine. I like my doctor, and I don't think under any condition I will ever "like" hospitals (oh well). In my experience, government is just the biggest corporation around, and like many monopolies once powerful enough rarely needs to listen to the customer to keep conducting business as it pleases. Academia tells us that government is the voice of the people, but the reality of which person is being heard leaves a lot to be desired.
I think there is a lot that could be done to improve health care in the United States and the world for that matter. In my understanding of the bills as I have read them and listening to the range of opinions on specific issues, I do not like any of the proposals getting serious attention. I am very skeptical that this congress will be able to produce a decent bill. I would be more open minded if congress would at least begin by looking at some of the many social welfare programs and regulations concerning health care that have not been as effective as intended.
The fanaticism in this debate, as the author likes to put it, is the idea that something must hurriedly be passed, whatever it is. "Death Panel" is a buzz word no matter who says it that relates to actual fear (rational or otherwise) some can't easily dismiss, and controversies over how specific provisions of the various bill provisions will actually be interpreted and executed (no pun intended).
And if the scientific method as a whole is going to be brought into this debate, let us consider some principles of engineering. Great designs, in reality, are only as good as they can be explained. If a majority of people can not be more greatly persuaded by truth than by lies, maybe some of the burden lies on you to improve your documentation if not also the design itself. Blaming the reader, investor, or customer for simply not understanding your brilliance is a cop out. And if there really is an emergency, all the more reason for due diligence, not blind faith.
In response to some of the comments made by readers of the article:
"Where is the proof?"
I believe, at least, he is regurgitating quotes by right wing extremists have taken from Congressional Research Services Health Care Reform: An Introduction by Bob Lyke, April 2009 (http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40517_20090414.pdf), you know, the one and only AUTHORITY Congress uses to determine the cost and impact of bills. I would hope and am fairly certain that someone in congress uses other sources for information in the debate. But simply going by my understanding of the above article, if CRS says more people will be left without coverage, costs will go up, and there is no reason to believe quality will improve, should not we all just take them at their word? Despite the fact that I would agree with their position, I do not support centralization of information dispensation. It is worth pointing out, but no justification for censorship of less authoritative opposition.
My Health Care is fine. I like my doctor, and I don't think under any condition I will ever "like" hospitals (oh well). In my experience, government is just the biggest corporation around, and like many monopolies once powerful enough rarely needs to listen to the customer to keep conducting business as it pleases. Academia tells us that government is the voice of the people, but the reality of which person is being heard leaves a lot to be desired.
I think there is a lot that could be done to improve health care in the United States and the world for that matter. In my understanding of the bills as I have read them and listening to the range of opinions on specific issues, I do not like any of the proposals getting serious attention. I am very skeptical that this congress will be able to produce a decent bill. I would be more open minded if congress would at least begin by looking at some of the many social welfare programs and regulations concerning health care that have not been as effective as intended.
The fanaticism in this debate, as the author likes to put it, is the idea that something must hurriedly be passed, whatever it is. "Death Panel" is a buzz word no matter who says it that relates to actual fear (rational or otherwise) some can't easily dismiss, and controversies over how specific provisions of the various bill provisions will actually be interpreted and executed (no pun intended).
And if the scientific method as a whole is going to be brought into this debate, let us consider some principles of engineering. Great designs, in reality, are only as good as they can be explained. If a majority of people can not be more greatly persuaded by truth than by lies, maybe some of the burden lies on you to improve your documentation if not also the design itself. Blaming the reader, investor, or customer for simply not understanding your brilliance is a cop out. And if there really is an emergency, all the more reason for due diligence, not blind faith.
In response to some of the comments made by readers of the article:
"Where is the proof?"
I believe, at least, he is regurgitating quotes by right wing extremists have taken from Congressional Research Services Health Care Reform: An Introduction by Bob Lyke, April 2009 (http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40517_20090414.pdf), you know, the one and only AUTHORITY Congress uses to determine the cost and impact of bills. I would hope and am fairly certain that someone in congress uses other sources for information in the debate. But simply going by my understanding of the above article, if CRS says more people will be left without coverage, costs will go up, and there is no reason to believe quality will improve, should not we all just take them at their word? Despite the fact that I would agree with their position, I do not support centralization of information dispensation. It is worth pointing out, but no justification for censorship of less authoritative opposition.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Who to blame when you lose an argument you got to define?
In response to rocknog on 11/09/2009
I think marriage means too many different things to too many different people and that the only people that have much any understanding of what marriage means with regard to the "state definition" is divorce lawyers. I think there should be no such thing as marriage as defined by the state because it is a loaded word. I bet if they could only call it domestic partnership that more people would actually take the time to read the contract.
People tend to ignore conservative arguments against states hijacking things for their own purposes and are generally written off as paranoid wackos, but for once "gay marriage" turned a lot of heads. And as with all the other issues they try to get attention, things such as facts makes most peoples brains go numb such that the debate evolved into who could make the most emotionally compelling argument.
One side came forward with the beautiful and happy peace loving argument of "Hate is not a Family Value". Simple, and perfect... one might think, until one rebukes with "Your tax dollars are going to be spent to teach preschoolers about anal sex". Both have nothing to do with the law, but at the point that this hit, coming back with "Civil rights... something... I think" just couldn't work.
Once you pull a Godwin/Alinsky and you let it define the fight, you just can't ever go back to a rational argument, and further, you can't cry when your opponent ends up with the bigger, more impressive tower of bullshit.
So, three cheers for Big Government democracy? Where are all the gays thrilled that the system works? Hmm...
I don't understand why religion keeps being brought into the gay marriage debate. If marriage is a religious thing, then government shouldn't be involved in any marriage. I don't understand how opponents of gay marriage can get around that contradiction.Maybe they oppose States hijacking marriage and despite the fact that it won't change, they don't want the state further redefining marriage while in their trust. Remember, if you oppose federal control (support state rights / 10 amendment), you are a racist, and if you support individuality, personal responsibility, or anything theoretically covered by the 9th amendment (and I say theory because as far as I know, nothing has ever been supported on 9th amendment ground), then you must be a devil worshiping anarchist.
I think marriage means too many different things to too many different people and that the only people that have much any understanding of what marriage means with regard to the "state definition" is divorce lawyers. I think there should be no such thing as marriage as defined by the state because it is a loaded word. I bet if they could only call it domestic partnership that more people would actually take the time to read the contract.
People tend to ignore conservative arguments against states hijacking things for their own purposes and are generally written off as paranoid wackos, but for once "gay marriage" turned a lot of heads. And as with all the other issues they try to get attention, things such as facts makes most peoples brains go numb such that the debate evolved into who could make the most emotionally compelling argument.
One side came forward with the beautiful and happy peace loving argument of "Hate is not a Family Value". Simple, and perfect... one might think, until one rebukes with "Your tax dollars are going to be spent to teach preschoolers about anal sex". Both have nothing to do with the law, but at the point that this hit, coming back with "Civil rights... something... I think" just couldn't work.
Once you pull a Godwin/Alinsky and you let it define the fight, you just can't ever go back to a rational argument, and further, you can't cry when your opponent ends up with the bigger, more impressive tower of bullshit.
So, three cheers for Big Government democracy? Where are all the gays thrilled that the system works? Hmm...
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
FMOSS (Free market open source software)
With all the comments being fairly similar, going to present the other side as I see it.
Linux exists in a particular environment where INDIVIDUALS selfishly develop what THEY need for their own purposes. A person who needs a piece of software for their own purposes and successfully develops what they need has not only had their needs met, but also created intellectual wealth. The sharing of that wealth even by a single individual is positive.
The volume of wealth is so great, and the foundation so solid, that anyone with a computer and Internet access can take from the pool, ATTEMPT to improve on it, share their insight (whatever the form) and you get a positive sum of wealth.
This model, unlike any other, is INFINITELY scalable.
One problem may be approached by n people. The more people looking at the problem, the greater the chance of producing the ideal solution. Relatively no individual has the ability to STOP independent competitive solutions by any means than rationally demonstrating the superiority of their ideas.
There are "problems" with this model, but in my opinion, the nasty and poisonous perception of this model is that progress is zero-sum. I don't know if I could list in my lifetime how many ways anyone with that belief could be wrong, so let me make it very simple and clear.
WHAT I DO IN MY FREE TIME FOR MY OWN PURPOSE IS NONE OF YOUR F***ING BUSINESS any further than your freedom to do with and improve upon in your own way as you see fit what I choose to return to the community by either choice, or expected by the terms of the Gnu GPL.
You can not CONSCRIPT me into producing what YOU want, you can only enable me or discourage me to continue to contribute as I choose.
One of the articles criticisms, which seems to be a recurring themes of articles that like to tell people how they should be spending their time, is that of the number of distributions out there. Think about this: Why do people create distributions?
Is it because there are not enough of them? ... no
Is it because other distributions are going the wrong direction? ... maybe?
Is it because other distributions don't meet their needs? ... seems to be their perception at least
Is it because they feel like it?
BINGO!
Creating, maintaining, and promoting a particular distribution is a LOT of work (in my observation and from talking to people that have done it) But if you could make them not do what they want to do with their time, you really think they are going to magically do what you want instead?
What is amazing is that people left to their own devices (no pun intended) to do as they please, their minds begin to open to "what is possible in the spirit of playful cleverness".
Getting people to not do what you do not need doesn't make more for you. If you need more, there are three basic solutions: 1) wait and hope someone with with more initiative, motive, skill, etc 2) read a book and develop it yourself, or 3) Provide an incentive such as money to encourage someone with the skill to do it for you.
This is not an argument against team work, but just the same this article isn't an encouragement of team work either. Encouragement of teamwork involves 1) identifying a specific problem 2) defining the scope in which you wish to address that problem 3) outline a solution and develop a functional prototype that demonstrates why not only you have a good solution, but that your solution is better than other solutions (or non solutions) 4) Use your product from step 3 and actually demonstrate to people why they should expend their time and energy working on YOUR project, and technically 5) pick from those people you wish to bring onto the core of your team.
Final point: Teams and Communities do not exist for their own sake; they exist because it serves the voluntarily consenting members of them. If you want a centrally controlled, managed, and developed system that democratically considers the needs of everyone equally, such a project already exists. It is called Windows.
Cannonical / Mark Shuttlesworth provides something very specific: A platform and location for people to freely collaborate and exchange ideas while providing a face, in a sense, to a very distributed community. Thankfully, Mark has the wisdom to understand his role and learned the lessons of many other FlOSS projects come and gone and never abused his position of a role model to dictate how Linux should inspire anyone.
All projects stand on their merit alone, and as one hobby / amateur programmer, I hope I am not alone in hope that this state of anarchy never changes.
Linux exists in a particular environment where INDIVIDUALS selfishly develop what THEY need for their own purposes. A person who needs a piece of software for their own purposes and successfully develops what they need has not only had their needs met, but also created intellectual wealth. The sharing of that wealth even by a single individual is positive.
The volume of wealth is so great, and the foundation so solid, that anyone with a computer and Internet access can take from the pool, ATTEMPT to improve on it, share their insight (whatever the form) and you get a positive sum of wealth.
This model, unlike any other, is INFINITELY scalable.
One problem may be approached by n people. The more people looking at the problem, the greater the chance of producing the ideal solution. Relatively no individual has the ability to STOP independent competitive solutions by any means than rationally demonstrating the superiority of their ideas.
There are "problems" with this model, but in my opinion, the nasty and poisonous perception of this model is that progress is zero-sum. I don't know if I could list in my lifetime how many ways anyone with that belief could be wrong, so let me make it very simple and clear.
WHAT I DO IN MY FREE TIME FOR MY OWN PURPOSE IS NONE OF YOUR F***ING BUSINESS any further than your freedom to do with and improve upon in your own way as you see fit what I choose to return to the community by either choice, or expected by the terms of the Gnu GPL.
You can not CONSCRIPT me into producing what YOU want, you can only enable me or discourage me to continue to contribute as I choose.
One of the articles criticisms, which seems to be a recurring themes of articles that like to tell people how they should be spending their time, is that of the number of distributions out there. Think about this: Why do people create distributions?
Is it because there are not enough of them? ... no
Is it because other distributions are going the wrong direction? ... maybe?
Is it because other distributions don't meet their needs? ... seems to be their perception at least
Is it because they feel like it?
BINGO!
Creating, maintaining, and promoting a particular distribution is a LOT of work (in my observation and from talking to people that have done it) But if you could make them not do what they want to do with their time, you really think they are going to magically do what you want instead?
What is amazing is that people left to their own devices (no pun intended) to do as they please, their minds begin to open to "what is possible in the spirit of playful cleverness".
Getting people to not do what you do not need doesn't make more for you. If you need more, there are three basic solutions: 1) wait and hope someone with with more initiative, motive, skill, etc 2) read a book and develop it yourself, or 3) Provide an incentive such as money to encourage someone with the skill to do it for you.
This is not an argument against team work, but just the same this article isn't an encouragement of team work either. Encouragement of teamwork involves 1) identifying a specific problem 2) defining the scope in which you wish to address that problem 3) outline a solution and develop a functional prototype that demonstrates why not only you have a good solution, but that your solution is better than other solutions (or non solutions) 4) Use your product from step 3 and actually demonstrate to people why they should expend their time and energy working on YOUR project, and technically 5) pick from those people you wish to bring onto the core of your team.
Final point: Teams and Communities do not exist for their own sake; they exist because it serves the voluntarily consenting members of them. If you want a centrally controlled, managed, and developed system that democratically considers the needs of everyone equally, such a project already exists. It is called Windows.
Cannonical / Mark Shuttlesworth provides something very specific: A platform and location for people to freely collaborate and exchange ideas while providing a face, in a sense, to a very distributed community. Thankfully, Mark has the wisdom to understand his role and learned the lessons of many other FlOSS projects come and gone and never abused his position of a role model to dictate how Linux should inspire anyone.
All projects stand on their merit alone, and as one hobby / amateur programmer, I hope I am not alone in hope that this state of anarchy never changes.
Friday, October 23, 2009
More fun with CSS and Javascript
This one was just weird... whatever
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<script type="text/javascript">
function d2h(d){return d.toString(16);}
</script>
</head>
<body>
<script type="text/javascript">
var x=0;
var y=0;
var z=0;
var c=0;
for (z=0; z<=300; z++)
{
if ((Math.floor(Math.random()*2)) == 0)
{
x=Math.floor(Math.random()*100 + Math.floor(Math.random()*1100));
y=Math.floor(Math.random()*100 + Math.floor(Math.random()*2)*600);
}
else
{
x=Math.floor(Math.random()*100 + Math.floor(Math.random()*2)*1100);
y=Math.floor(Math.random()*100 + Math.floor(Math.random()*600));
}
c=d2h(Math.floor(Math.random()*16777215))
document.write("<p style=\"height:1; position:fixed; top:" + y + "px; left:" + x + "px; color:#" + c + "\">Happy Birthday!</p>");
document.write("<p style=\"float:left; height:0px\">" + Math.random() + "</p>");
document.write("<p style=\"float:right; height:0px\">" + Math.random() + "</p><br /><br />");
}
</script>
</body>
</html>
My first javascript
So evidently this is a bit too complicated for me to get into blogger in any kind of reasonable way. Layouts and all that stuff... blah! Anyway, if anyone wants to check it out, here it is:
granite.png
black.png
granite.pngblack.png
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<style type="text/css">
img
{
float:left;
height:20px;
width:20px;
margin:0px;
padding-top:0px;
padding-bottom:0px;
padding-right:0px;
padding-left:0px;
}
br
{
clear:both;
}
</style>
<script type="text/javascript">
var t=0;
function mouseOver(imgID)
{
t+=1
document.getElementById(imgID).src ="granite.png";
var r=setTimeout(function(){document.getElementById(imgID).src ='black.png';},t); // Thank you Rogi!
}
</script>
</head>
<body>
<script type="text/javascript">
var c=0;
for (c = 0; c <= 255; c++)
{
if (c % 16 == 0)
{
document.write("<br />");
}
document.write("<img src=\"black.png\" id=\"" + c + "\" onmouseOver=\"mouseOver(" + c + ")\">");
}
</script>
<br />
</body>
</html>
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Havn't we seen this before?
Proof that government needs to get their stinkin' noses out of business. 1) AIDS medications are VERY expensive, so it makes sense to discriminate against pre-existing conditions, otherwise it is a service plan, not an insurance policy. Affordable service plans should be affordable, but they are still totally different. 2) She wasn't looking for an insurance policy to protect her against AIDS, which sadly she is at abnormally higher risk, but a health insurance policy for her general health and well-being in the future. 3) I would speculate that while she may still be concerned about the AIDS herself that she would be willing to buy a policy that excluded treatment coverage of AIDS if she contracted the disease, and of course subsequent harm that may be caused by the disease. If she is still HIV free in 3 years, have them take a look at her health and keep to their word of coverage without the exemption. You could probably get a bit of a cheaper rate considering you are not buying insurance against it, and they are happier to let you pay a little more when you do want the insurance again.
Now the million dollar question here is why hasn't this been thought of before? TRICK QUESTION! It has been and while the insurance companies would love to tailor your policies to exactly your needs, it is illegal. ILLEGAL! Not big bad insurance companies stopping you, but the law! Who writes the law? The government, sticking their noses in where they don't belong.
Why did the government do this? Well it was to protect people against the big evil insurance companies that were making it too complicated for people to understand what they were buying. So they made all health insurance virtually identical so people wouldn't get confused. For example, some people wanted catastrophic illness insurance, but then complained that it didn't cover antibiotics for ear infections. The really sad stories were those that bought health service plans like checkups, medication discounts, broken arm insurance, but NOT catastrophic illness insurance, and then got very sick. I remember a story of a guy that had a health service plan he bought for his whole family. After having paid premiums for him, his wife, and 12 year old daughter every month for over 12 years, his daughter was sadly diagnosed with brain cancer. The father was devastated when he "discovered" that the plan he had been paying into his daughters entire life wasn't going to help her when she was sick because as the insurance company said that while they were sorry about his daughters illness, brain cancer wasn't covered by the policy.
This story and many others like it were important anecdotes to support health care reform in the 80's. Insurance companies were demonized for selling predatory policies, and the government made insurance policies "regular", in addition to other regulations.
So maybe, like last time, instead of outlawing "confusing" policies, give people the resources necessary to make informed decisions, because no matter what the law is, if you are paying hundreds of dollars a month to someone, government, business, friend, whatever, and you don't know what it is really for, you are going to be totally screwed. And nobody loves to keep bigger secrets about how they do business for you a secret than government.
This article proves to me that government can't do anything right and need to get out of places they don't belong like economics. Actually, there are a few things the federal government might be able to do reasonably well. I think someone wrote them down once in a blog or something. Here's the link if interested: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html
And just to note, making trade regular and regulating trade or planning the economy are NOT the same thing open to interpretation as one group of people see fit when it pleases them. If you don't like the constitution, repeal it... of wait, already being done. Never mind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40
Now the million dollar question here is why hasn't this been thought of before? TRICK QUESTION! It has been and while the insurance companies would love to tailor your policies to exactly your needs, it is illegal. ILLEGAL! Not big bad insurance companies stopping you, but the law! Who writes the law? The government, sticking their noses in where they don't belong.
Why did the government do this? Well it was to protect people against the big evil insurance companies that were making it too complicated for people to understand what they were buying. So they made all health insurance virtually identical so people wouldn't get confused. For example, some people wanted catastrophic illness insurance, but then complained that it didn't cover antibiotics for ear infections. The really sad stories were those that bought health service plans like checkups, medication discounts, broken arm insurance, but NOT catastrophic illness insurance, and then got very sick. I remember a story of a guy that had a health service plan he bought for his whole family. After having paid premiums for him, his wife, and 12 year old daughter every month for over 12 years, his daughter was sadly diagnosed with brain cancer. The father was devastated when he "discovered" that the plan he had been paying into his daughters entire life wasn't going to help her when she was sick because as the insurance company said that while they were sorry about his daughters illness, brain cancer wasn't covered by the policy.
This story and many others like it were important anecdotes to support health care reform in the 80's. Insurance companies were demonized for selling predatory policies, and the government made insurance policies "regular", in addition to other regulations.
So maybe, like last time, instead of outlawing "confusing" policies, give people the resources necessary to make informed decisions, because no matter what the law is, if you are paying hundreds of dollars a month to someone, government, business, friend, whatever, and you don't know what it is really for, you are going to be totally screwed. And nobody loves to keep bigger secrets about how they do business for you a secret than government.
This article proves to me that government can't do anything right and need to get out of places they don't belong like economics. Actually, there are a few things the federal government might be able to do reasonably well. I think someone wrote them down once in a blog or something. Here's the link if interested: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html
And just to note, making trade regular and regulating trade or planning the economy are NOT the same thing open to interpretation as one group of people see fit when it pleases them. If you don't like the constitution, repeal it... of wait, already being done. Never mind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40
Monday, October 19, 2009
CSS sure is strange
This is a test
This is a test
This is a test
This is a test
This is a test
This is a test
This is a test
This is a test
This is a test
This is a test
This is a test
This is a test
This is a test
This is a test
This is a test
This is a test
This is a test
This is a test
This is a test
This is a test
This is a test
This is a test
This is a test
This is a test
This is a test
So spending some time today checking out CSS, and evidently you can just add CSS styles to the header in the template if you edit the full template in html. Pretty cool. Wow, you sure can do some goofy stuff with CSS. :) However, the pages can not be previewed :(
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Questionable motives?
Found an awesome article I hope gets some attention. In the comments there is an argument that a better explanation for the boom in film production has been a reduction in cost (i'll assume due to digital editing and cheap high quality storage). Sent this letter and hope to hear back, but in the mean time if anyone else has some thoughts on the issue would love to hear them. Anyway... the letter:
You left a comment on the article "Harvard Study Finds Weaker Copyright Protection Has Benefited Society" that makes me more interested in where you were coming from. While I would agree that the cost of production has significantly dropped, I don't necessarily see where that means the author is incorrect. This article was a summary of a summary, and while I didn't look at the original article, let alone the data, I fel you are making quite a leap with your statement. Is there at least a reasonable argument that despite "massive piracy" that "harm" has NOT been inflicted considering that, as you state, growth in the film production market, even if not the film industry, has continued to grow as the cost of production has dropped? And considering the purpose of copyright law, and in particular the HUGE recent expansions to copyright law since WWII which imo were quite questionable in the first place, hasn't scientific progress and the digital age mostly advanced IN SPITE of many of those "protections" revealing that for the most part the law has been to revealed to have really caused more harm than "prevented"?
Despite the argument that the framers of the constitution couldn't have imagined a digital age, I DO think that they understood a thing about tyranny, censorship, and human progress if you look the history of human progress.
I would argue that it was book piracy, by way of the printing press was the most direct cause of the enlightenment. Why should bit torrent be any different?
Disney built its empire on piracy. Not to completely excuse that necessarily, but isn't hypocrisy just a tad ironic, if not at least questionable?
Anyway, you had an strong opinion, so I was curious about your thoughts on some other levels, if they are things you have thought about.
Hope to hear from you,
Keith
And responding to another comment...
@Misterbull.com
Your examples are "illegal" channels compared to traditional "all rights reserved" channels. If work is shared freely on those sites either hap-hazardly or more officially by affixing a Creative Commons licence to the work, then isn't that exactly a "weakening" of copyright law (at least in ways that big industry would have you believe) and piracy (again, as industry trys to convince us)?
Further, the great technologies, like the Internet itself, is dominatingly freely shared technology that was a collaborative effort where the creators knew that open access to information is the core of human progress, and that if what you are creating is what is most important, then sharing it freely is the best thing you can do for everybody; from tcp/ip to apache and Underwriter Laboratories and Open Group, these companies represent a core of all of the technology you argue are "other factors" that you attempt to use to explain away the contributions of a culture that rejects the ownership and monopolistic control of culture (pirates) when they are really one in the same. These big companies are more and more taking from the free culture pool, and because it has been allowed (particularly the way Berkeley has treated its patents), they have also become more successful.
And yet they still chant the same mantra that was rightfully rejected with the Statute of Anne. Current Copyright law was written by and for the purpose of supporting a particular type of distribution. Their past successes have granted them the kind of wealth that lets you buy the law that while being in conflict with the people and an abomination to the social contract means they have only bought themselves an extra decade or two as powerful lords have typically done.
The current copyright law is anti-artist, anti-consumer, and maybe worst of all, anti-culture. Anyone who SAYS otherwise either makes a lot of money through the exploitation of the current system, or really doesn't read much in the way of history after what is presented to them by The Ad Council.
You left a comment on the article "Harvard Study Finds Weaker Copyright Protection Has Benefited Society" that makes me more interested in where you were coming from. While I would agree that the cost of production has significantly dropped, I don't necessarily see where that means the author is incorrect. This article was a summary of a summary, and while I didn't look at the original article, let alone the data, I fel you are making quite a leap with your statement. Is there at least a reasonable argument that despite "massive piracy" that "harm" has NOT been inflicted considering that, as you state, growth in the film production market, even if not the film industry, has continued to grow as the cost of production has dropped? And considering the purpose of copyright law, and in particular the HUGE recent expansions to copyright law since WWII which imo were quite questionable in the first place, hasn't scientific progress and the digital age mostly advanced IN SPITE of many of those "protections" revealing that for the most part the law has been to revealed to have really caused more harm than "prevented"?
Despite the argument that the framers of the constitution couldn't have imagined a digital age, I DO think that they understood a thing about tyranny, censorship, and human progress if you look the history of human progress.
I would argue that it was book piracy, by way of the printing press was the most direct cause of the enlightenment. Why should bit torrent be any different?
Disney built its empire on piracy. Not to completely excuse that necessarily, but isn't hypocrisy just a tad ironic, if not at least questionable?
Anyway, you had an strong opinion, so I was curious about your thoughts on some other levels, if they are things you have thought about.
Hope to hear from you,
Keith
And responding to another comment...
@Misterbull.com
Your examples are "illegal" channels compared to traditional "all rights reserved" channels. If work is shared freely on those sites either hap-hazardly or more officially by affixing a Creative Commons licence to the work, then isn't that exactly a "weakening" of copyright law (at least in ways that big industry would have you believe) and piracy (again, as industry trys to convince us)?
Further, the great technologies, like the Internet itself, is dominatingly freely shared technology that was a collaborative effort where the creators knew that open access to information is the core of human progress, and that if what you are creating is what is most important, then sharing it freely is the best thing you can do for everybody; from tcp/ip to apache and Underwriter Laboratories and Open Group, these companies represent a core of all of the technology you argue are "other factors" that you attempt to use to explain away the contributions of a culture that rejects the ownership and monopolistic control of culture (pirates) when they are really one in the same. These big companies are more and more taking from the free culture pool, and because it has been allowed (particularly the way Berkeley has treated its patents), they have also become more successful.
And yet they still chant the same mantra that was rightfully rejected with the Statute of Anne. Current Copyright law was written by and for the purpose of supporting a particular type of distribution. Their past successes have granted them the kind of wealth that lets you buy the law that while being in conflict with the people and an abomination to the social contract means they have only bought themselves an extra decade or two as powerful lords have typically done.
The current copyright law is anti-artist, anti-consumer, and maybe worst of all, anti-culture. Anyone who SAYS otherwise either makes a lot of money through the exploitation of the current system, or really doesn't read much in the way of history after what is presented to them by The Ad Council.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
On Polyamory
Ok, a third thing: When you meet somebody, they had a life before you. Hopefully if you have fallen in love with someone it is because of who they have been and all their experiences they have gathered in their lifetime before their life became intertwined with yours. While my wife and I would each say that we could not imagine our lives having not met, we still embrace that we are independently great people and love watching the other continue to grow and love right up until the time that we met. If all of that made us who we are today, perfect for each other, how could one try and say "stop being who you are, I like who you are right now"? I consider that such a discredit to our experience. I believe all my past relationships, good and bad, helped me become who I am today, and continuing that search for all the love the world has to offer can only teach me how to be a better partner for my wife, and anyone else who chooses to be a part of that. :)
Adding this cause I am sure some would find it controversial, and I am very curious what others may think. This was (as above) a comment left on a youtube video.
Relationships are a challenge, no matter what the philosophy. In the western world, there is an indoctrination leaning towards mono as much as there is towards being hetero.
What you end up with is not only an unhealthy conflict between personal philosophies regarding love, which can fail a relationship, but worse, an incompatibility in ability to communicate through it. Not to be elitist, but imho, gay and poly think more about why they are who they are for reasons 'normals' can't understand.
Adding this cause I am sure some would find it controversial, and I am very curious what others may think. This was (as above) a comment left on a youtube video.
Relationships are a challenge, no matter what the philosophy. In the western world, there is an indoctrination leaning towards mono as much as there is towards being hetero.
What you end up with is not only an unhealthy conflict between personal philosophies regarding love, which can fail a relationship, but worse, an incompatibility in ability to communicate through it. Not to be elitist, but imho, gay and poly think more about why they are who they are for reasons 'normals' can't understand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Life is difficult enough with its natural challenges; unnatural barriers make it unnaturally more difficult. There are two very important things I get in my marriage that I could not get if we were monogamous. The first, the ability to trust another as you would trust yourself; I put this as a kind of 'rejection' of the golden rule. This is the real test of trust that requires complete honesty and no "fake" tests of faith, if you know what I mean.
The second is an ability to see myself more objectively in a relationship; only in multiple relationships can I see the difference between me and the relationship with another.