Friday, March 04, 2011
The testing of a hero
In those stories of great lives which are already written, when there comes a time of great peril, and our heroine is truly tested, we can feel a great anticipation of the justification that experience will grant them. When the story is your own, however, and you find yourself in that moment, the feeling is somewhat different. You see, you do not know whether this event will be the testing of a hero, or whether it will be the messenger of his demise. And in the end, whichever outcome you are confident in will find its way to the light. For there are heroes which come to unwholesome ends untarnished, and there are villains formed in the hubris of their own success. Be the hero, whatever the outcome. Let history write the rest.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Unexplaining it to myself
Is it possible to forgive someone for something that they didn't even do? We were two small ants caught in a storm. Curse my small mind for finding someone next to me in it and blaming them for what I couldn't understand! But I still need to let go of it. My soul and my mind nearly split, and I could not have borne it. I lashed out at someone who was innocent, and for this I feel wronged. The anxiety, the fear is a plague on the face of humanity--can you blame someone for having the flu? But I have. I was scared that if I didn't, the storm would be my fault; the virus would be inside me. And that was terrifying. What would I have done at Salem?
I'm sorry, and I forgive you. They're not so different. Two sides of the same paradox. Foolishness, and wisdom--not so far apart either it seems. No easy fixes. It's an odd thing how much growing up feels like being ripped in half. Every day.
I'm sorry, and I forgive you. They're not so different. Two sides of the same paradox. Foolishness, and wisdom--not so far apart either it seems. No easy fixes. It's an odd thing how much growing up feels like being ripped in half. Every day.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
inside out
down in the trenches
of the universe that is me
all the beautiful messy pieces
as far as the eye can see
it's a different sort of awe
from deep down under here
where the only truly terrible thing
would be land that's completely clear
of the universe that is me
all the beautiful messy pieces
as far as the eye can see
it's a different sort of awe
from deep down under here
where the only truly terrible thing
would be land that's completely clear
Friday, January 07, 2011
a hymn of sorrow
thank you
for hearts to feel sadness
and tell us it mattered
to carry its meaning
tenderly, deep-sorely inside
gravity, significance becoming integrated
shaping my soul
in delicate peels of the woodwhittler's blade
thank you for tears to purge the poison of shame
thank you for words without sounds in the night
and love without regret
for hearts to feel sadness
and tell us it mattered
to carry its meaning
tenderly, deep-sorely inside
gravity, significance becoming integrated
shaping my soul
in delicate peels of the woodwhittler's blade
thank you for tears to purge the poison of shame
thank you for words without sounds in the night
and love without regret
Sunday, March 14, 2010
The Invention of Advertising
Ever see the movie "The Invention of Lying"? I was always disappointed that the filmmakers never took the chance to show what internet ads would look like in that world. I can guess, though:
"You have won! This is not a joke--it is a lie.'
"IQ 106--Can you beat this score? (hint: your chances drop dramatically if you click on this ad)"
"Pictures of stock models have had your geoip location inserted below their pictures in order to make you think that you can talk to hot girls in your city now!"
"Shoot 5 iphones, win the opportunity to have something sold to you!"
"What do you see in this picture? Is it 1) a duck, 2) a bunny, or 3) an appeal to the delusion that seeing both makes me special and will make people finally love me?"
"Teeth whitening exposed! Don't be ripped off by the dentist--be ripped off by us! As advertised once in a late-night slot on CNN."
...and so on
Friday, March 12, 2010
Why I believe in a nonfoundationalist absolutism, and that everything is math
Basically I believe, like the logical positivists, that all truths break down into tautologies and empirical claims; strict structure and specific content. However, I consider it ridiculous that they did not continue on that basis to conclude that principles of ethics, aesthetics, theology, etc. could be expressed validly in those terms. In fact, I believe that every meaningful thing a person has ever uttered can be expressed, with precise correlation to how they understood it themselves, as a combination of tautological and empirical content, proving it to relate to their own mind in the way that they thought it did. I believe that everything is math. However, I would consider it ridiculous to take any vital, precious, human thing like love or suffering or consciousness or ecstasy, and refer to it as "just mathematics". That would be a heinous misinterpretation. No, I believe that the meaning, the essence, the power and depth and value of these things that such a phrase intends to split off from 'mere' mathematics are themselves founded in mathematical truth. That is, that the intuitive response of a person who balks at their deepest experiences being "just mathematics" is right, and the reason they are right is mathematics! I believe we can show the meaning and depth and value of such personal and emotional experiences to be provably real in a mathematical sense, and not just an illusion superfluously imposed on what we should understand to be "just mathematics". In short, I want to be the first rationalist mystic. I want to be the first mathematically rigorous spiritualist, with nary a compromise in precision and accuracy of thought. *Everything* is mathematics, and the fact that *everything* is mathematics shows us obviously and directly that dismissal of the breadth of human experience as per the logical positivists must itself stand up to mathematical rigour. I believe that the math for that situation shows the opposite--that such a distortion of priorities is arbitrary and poorly reasoned, and that in fact everything a human being cares to do has a legitimate cause on one level or another, if not several. So I do not believe that the human experience can be "reduced" to mathematics. How preposterous! If everything is mathematics, then the human experience as well as our every analysis of it has always been mathematics. We do not need to reduce our experience to mathematics, we need to raise it to mathematics: we need to complete the picture of just how complex and beautiful and detailed mathematics can be in an appropriate implementation. This is not something to rail against; this is something to aspire to--being able to understand how mathematics compells our very deepest experiences to be as they are. I eagerly await the beauty of the picture that will unfold as we begin to truly map the math of human experience, from our first and immediate realisation that the math itself shows how small our understanding will always be, to the awe and wonder at our discovery of deep and complex meaning in places we were ever so quick to dismiss.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Integrity
When you disagree with someone, can you listen, really listen to them? Can you seek, and find, the path by which they start at the evidence, at the circumstances which are not in question, and arrive at their present position? Can you hold it in your mind, without scorn or derision, and see it, really see it the way they do? Can you hold that path and your own in your mind, together, and wipe away the past? Can you see what the differences are between them, and what they aren't? And can you, based on that moment alone, based on those differences alone, weigh them against the evidence, and rejoice in a conclusion you did not enter with, a Learning, a Growth? Or admit in sheepish humility that you do not know the answer? If you can't, then you know Integrity. If you know that you can't, that is what it means to know Integrity. The next time you disagree with someone, remember it, and practice your growth.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Newton's third law applies to stupidity, too.
A strange game: the only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?
Thursday, April 09, 2009
I have just discovered the first last building block
the last age of materials is upon us--
from now on we only pay the price of friction
from now on we build using pure information
from now on our structures' value is in their potential energy
I have discovered the first last building block
and all the others will build themselves.
-eMansipater
from now on we only pay the price of friction
from now on we build using pure information
from now on our structures' value is in their potential energy
I have discovered the first last building block
and all the others will build themselves.
-eMansipater
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Why the Canadian DMCA doesn't matter
I'm sure anyone who knows me at all must have nearly fallen off their chair reading the title of this post, as I have been nothing if not the single most vocal critic in Canada of the new DMCA-like bill expected to be tabled tomorrow by Minister Jim Prentice. Why on earth would I suggest that this bill doesn't matter?
Well, fear not my friends. I have not changed my position on the matter of how so-called "intellectual property"has been poorly positioned in our society and how the current attempts of large media corporations and lobby groups to protect their outdated business models are threatening the very innovations that hold the path to survival, if not flourishment, in the digital age. The Canadian DMCA has been drafted at the beck and bidding of foreign corporate and political interests drastically at odds with the actual well-being of regular Canadians or indeed most anyone, and the restrictions it threatens to impose could hold real danger for many important uses of information, be it in schools and universities, cutting-edge software and business, or even for the use of music by music fans and thus the lifeblood of the Canadian artists they support. This law is bad. Period.
There is, however, a greater reality to be taken in here. From time to time recently, events have presented themselves which clarified and organised the nascent digital revolution that is forming on the web. One such event was the raid in Sweden on the Pirate Bay. Another was the battle on Digg over the attempted censoring of the "09 f9 11..." decryption code for hd-dvd's. In both and other cases, the mass response to circumstances made headlines, yes, but more than that they made budding intellectual property reformists aware of their power. In the case of the "09 f9 11" incident, for example, the code proved unstoppable despite DMCA takedown notices and what most consider to be its illegal status under U.S. law. The raw futility of trying to enforce the legislation against such things was an implicit victory for digital activists. It emboldened and empowered them rather than thwarting them the way it was intended to.
The Canadian DMCA is playing precisely the same role in Canada today. The reaction to the bill has become even more important than the bill itself. Opinions which lay scattered across the country, unspoken and isolated, are being coalesced into a greater and more powerful whole. What will happen to that growing whole if the Canadian DMCA is passed? If anything it will grow larger and bolder and even more active. The Canadian digerati have become aware of how large and powerful they are. Mere legislation cannot stop the tide that is forming, because that tide is backed by the unstoppable ocean of information itself, yearning to be free.
The Canadian DMCA is a dangerous and counterproductive piece of legislation, and we should do everything we can to stop it. But even if we cannot, it doesn't matter. In the true spirit of what we are fighting for, the information itself about who we are and what we can do has intrinsically freed us already.
Well, fear not my friends. I have not changed my position on the matter of how so-called "intellectual property"has been poorly positioned in our society and how the current attempts of large media corporations and lobby groups to protect their outdated business models are threatening the very innovations that hold the path to survival, if not flourishment, in the digital age. The Canadian DMCA has been drafted at the beck and bidding of foreign corporate and political interests drastically at odds with the actual well-being of regular Canadians or indeed most anyone, and the restrictions it threatens to impose could hold real danger for many important uses of information, be it in schools and universities, cutting-edge software and business, or even for the use of music by music fans and thus the lifeblood of the Canadian artists they support. This law is bad. Period.
There is, however, a greater reality to be taken in here. From time to time recently, events have presented themselves which clarified and organised the nascent digital revolution that is forming on the web. One such event was the raid in Sweden on the Pirate Bay. Another was the battle on Digg over the attempted censoring of the "09 f9 11..." decryption code for hd-dvd's. In both and other cases, the mass response to circumstances made headlines, yes, but more than that they made budding intellectual property reformists aware of their power. In the case of the "09 f9 11" incident, for example, the code proved unstoppable despite DMCA takedown notices and what most consider to be its illegal status under U.S. law. The raw futility of trying to enforce the legislation against such things was an implicit victory for digital activists. It emboldened and empowered them rather than thwarting them the way it was intended to.
The Canadian DMCA is playing precisely the same role in Canada today. The reaction to the bill has become even more important than the bill itself. Opinions which lay scattered across the country, unspoken and isolated, are being coalesced into a greater and more powerful whole. What will happen to that growing whole if the Canadian DMCA is passed? If anything it will grow larger and bolder and even more active. The Canadian digerati have become aware of how large and powerful they are. Mere legislation cannot stop the tide that is forming, because that tide is backed by the unstoppable ocean of information itself, yearning to be free.
The Canadian DMCA is a dangerous and counterproductive piece of legislation, and we should do everything we can to stop it. But even if we cannot, it doesn't matter. In the true spirit of what we are fighting for, the information itself about who we are and what we can do has intrinsically freed us already.
Sunday, May 06, 2007
The Webolution has begun!
Following is the full text from The Shirt:
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
By reading this shirt, you agree to be bound by the following terms and conditions:
IMPORTANT-READ CAREFULLY: These license terms are a legal agreement between you (either an individual or a single entity) and the wearer of this shirt for the shirt on which this text is printed, which includes the English language sentence above and may include associated numbers, punctuation, and legalese (“Shirt”). YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT BY READING, SEEING, COPYING, REMEMBERING, HEARING, HEARING OF, TRANSLATING, OR OTHERWISE UNDERSTANDING OR INTERPRETING THE SHIRT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO READ, SEE, COPY, REMEMBER, HEAR, HEAR OF, TRANSLATE, INTERPRET, OR UNDERSTAND THE SHIRT.
You immediately and irrevocably release all Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights, and other intellectual property of which you are the whole or partial owner or rights holder into the public domain. You agree to indemnify the wearer of the Shirt in any and all legal proceedings arising from and/or irrellevant to any legal action taken by you, your designates, or your wholly or partially owned or controlled business and non-business entities. You agree to enact policies, practices, and guidelines in any jurisdiction you hold, whether public, private, or interpersonal, to prevent
the further decline and abuse of digital law, as defined and interpreted by the wearer of the Shirt. You promise to be a better person, fight for world peace and the end of evil and tyranny, and to call your estranged mother to make things right.
This agreement (including any addendum or amendment to this agreement which is included with the Shirt) are the entire agreement between you and the wearer of the Shirt relating to the Shirt and they supersede all prior or contemporaneous oral or written communications, proposals and representations with respect to the Shirt or any other subject matter covered by this agreement. To the extent the terms of any other agreement conflict with the terms of this agreement, the terms of this agreement shall control. Long live the Shirt!
Remember, all profits from orders go to the EFF
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
By reading this shirt, you agree to be bound by the following terms and conditions:
IMPORTANT-READ CAREFULLY: These license terms are a legal agreement between you (either an individual or a single entity) and the wearer of this shirt for the shirt on which this text is printed, which includes the English language sentence above and may include associated numbers, punctuation, and legalese (“Shirt”). YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT BY READING, SEEING, COPYING, REMEMBERING, HEARING, HEARING OF, TRANSLATING, OR OTHERWISE UNDERSTANDING OR INTERPRETING THE SHIRT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO READ, SEE, COPY, REMEMBER, HEAR, HEAR OF, TRANSLATE, INTERPRET, OR UNDERSTAND THE SHIRT.
You immediately and irrevocably release all Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights, and other intellectual property of which you are the whole or partial owner or rights holder into the public domain. You agree to indemnify the wearer of the Shirt in any and all legal proceedings arising from and/or irrellevant to any legal action taken by you, your designates, or your wholly or partially owned or controlled business and non-business entities. You agree to enact policies, practices, and guidelines in any jurisdiction you hold, whether public, private, or interpersonal, to prevent
the further decline and abuse of digital law, as defined and interpreted by the wearer of the Shirt. You promise to be a better person, fight for world peace and the end of evil and tyranny, and to call your estranged mother to make things right.
This agreement (including any addendum or amendment to this agreement which is included with the Shirt) are the entire agreement between you and the wearer of the Shirt relating to the Shirt and they supersede all prior or contemporaneous oral or written communications, proposals and representations with respect to the Shirt or any other subject matter covered by this agreement. To the extent the terms of any other agreement conflict with the terms of this agreement, the terms of this agreement shall control. Long live the Shirt!
Remember, all profits from orders go to the EFF
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Not so sly
If there's anything that large corporations are, it's out of touch. Mind you, we owe a bit of that to supply and demand. It hasn't taken a lot to pull the wool over our eyes on most issues historically, so there really hasn't been any reason to actually go to the work of designing a really insidious scam. Slowly, however, the brutes in suits are catching on. In the PR war raging over net neutrality(more on this later) down in ye olde U. S. of A. the ISPs looking to block any net neutrality legislation, or, more likely, push through legislation that will cement new capabilities for ISP's that have up until now been illegal, have realised that traditional P.R. might be ineffective on this issue and have instead targetted the issue with flash animated web comics apparently designed to look like a grass-roots effort to support them.
I really did have to emphasize that word slowly though. Here are the details:
1)because such a stupid thing would never spread on its own, they had to spend money promoting the site(s) through advertising spots on websites such as slashdot.
2)despite attempting to make the animation look hand-drawn, it's the most overproduced one I've ever seen. Among other things, the voiceover sounds like it's done by the same velvet voiced fellow who does high-paid tv ads, from the sound-studio quality to the "I'm-pretending-you're-either-in-second-grade-or-just-really-slow" pacing of the words to the little soundbytes and corporate-style 'explanations' and diagrams.
3)despite naming one of their sites with the catchy "dontregulate.org" name, they missed the number one(and number two) things every grass-roots campaign on the net ever has had: a forum and a petition.
So here's what I did. First, since I pay to be able to download whatever bytes I want with my bandwidth, I clicked on their ad about 300 times. Since most of those ads are pay per click, I figure that's got to start to 'ad' up. Also, you'll note that every time I click I'm opening up their bloated flash file in a background window and adding to their hosting costs by eating their bandwidth like a homebaked pie. Actually, since all of those files start playing one after the other and they all start with a humming bit, it sounds not unlike some sort of bizarre barbershop intro. If for nothing other than this unique musical experience, you owe it to yourself to find one of these ads(easily recognisable by the cartoon image with '2007 the future of the internet' written on it) and try this for yourselves. Oh yeah, and enjoy it. These might be the last days anyone has to pick their bytes this freely ever again. That is unless we can save our 'One dumb pipe.'
Why am I so worried about Net Neutrality, one might ask. Well, for one thing, it's bad enough that ISP's can overstate their bandwidth while overcharging for it(I pay for something like 4 mbps but rarely see 1 even in a spike. Meanwhile, North America is powers of ten behind Asia in the level of bandwidth they claim to offer at all, not to begin to mention the ratios of charges between the two continents) already. The last thing we need is ISP's able to claim 'Hi Speed with 100 mbps service' when what they really mean is the same 1mbps core line with a superfast side pipe for pay per view video. All this not to mention the extortion and censorship style activities this would open us up to(charging competitors more to deliver their content, or delivering it with poorer quality of service, etc.) The fact is, our 'one dumb pipe' has served us pretty well, just the way it was specifically designed to. To find out more, go to www.savetheinternet.com
I really did have to emphasize that word slowly though. Here are the details:
1)because such a stupid thing would never spread on its own, they had to spend money promoting the site(s) through advertising spots on websites such as slashdot.
2)despite attempting to make the animation look hand-drawn, it's the most overproduced one I've ever seen. Among other things, the voiceover sounds like it's done by the same velvet voiced fellow who does high-paid tv ads, from the sound-studio quality to the "I'm-pretending-you're-either-in-second-grade-or-just-really-slow" pacing of the words to the little soundbytes and corporate-style 'explanations' and diagrams.
3)despite naming one of their sites with the catchy "dontregulate.org" name, they missed the number one(and number two) things every grass-roots campaign on the net ever has had: a forum and a petition.
So here's what I did. First, since I pay to be able to download whatever bytes I want with my bandwidth, I clicked on their ad about 300 times. Since most of those ads are pay per click, I figure that's got to start to 'ad' up. Also, you'll note that every time I click I'm opening up their bloated flash file in a background window and adding to their hosting costs by eating their bandwidth like a homebaked pie. Actually, since all of those files start playing one after the other and they all start with a humming bit, it sounds not unlike some sort of bizarre barbershop intro. If for nothing other than this unique musical experience, you owe it to yourself to find one of these ads(easily recognisable by the cartoon image with '2007 the future of the internet' written on it) and try this for yourselves. Oh yeah, and enjoy it. These might be the last days anyone has to pick their bytes this freely ever again. That is unless we can save our 'One dumb pipe.'
Why am I so worried about Net Neutrality, one might ask. Well, for one thing, it's bad enough that ISP's can overstate their bandwidth while overcharging for it(I pay for something like 4 mbps but rarely see 1 even in a spike. Meanwhile, North America is powers of ten behind Asia in the level of bandwidth they claim to offer at all, not to begin to mention the ratios of charges between the two continents) already. The last thing we need is ISP's able to claim 'Hi Speed with 100 mbps service' when what they really mean is the same 1mbps core line with a superfast side pipe for pay per view video. All this not to mention the extortion and censorship style activities this would open us up to(charging competitors more to deliver their content, or delivering it with poorer quality of service, etc.) The fact is, our 'one dumb pipe' has served us pretty well, just the way it was specifically designed to. To find out more, go to www.savetheinternet.com
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
canadian website sued for publishing anonymous viewer comments
The website p2pnet.net is being sued for libel by a company called Sharman Networks for an article which contains quotes from this AP article and also some comments by an anonymous user of the site. The suit charges that by 'publishing' these comments p2pnet.net is defaming the characters of Sharman Networks and their CEO. The anonymous posters are also named as John and Jane Does in the suit.
The way the comment(s) were 'published' was that it was clearly stated they were anonymous posts to p2pnet.net, as reading the google cache will clearly show.
[update: google cache now gone, but yahoo cache still intact for now.]
The comments in question appear to be an insider releasing some tasty tidbits on CEO Nikki Hemming, claiming that she is a 'dupe' merely in place to distract attention or something like that(not the kind of thing someone would take seriously if it were false, so......?). I'm tempted to post the entire thing in question here, but I won't have to decide on that until the yahoo cache goes down.
The reason it is essential that this lawsuit fails is that if a precedent is set that internet sites are responsible for anonymous postings they 'publish' the entire online world is in trouble. For a few more details on what lawsuits of this type are generally intended to accomplish, check out this article.
The way the comment(s) were 'published' was that it was clearly stated they were anonymous posts to p2pnet.net, as reading the google cache will clearly show.
[update: google cache now gone, but yahoo cache still intact for now.]
The comments in question appear to be an insider releasing some tasty tidbits on CEO Nikki Hemming, claiming that she is a 'dupe' merely in place to distract attention or something like that(not the kind of thing someone would take seriously if it were false, so......?). I'm tempted to post the entire thing in question here, but I won't have to decide on that until the yahoo cache goes down.
The reason it is essential that this lawsuit fails is that if a precedent is set that internet sites are responsible for anonymous postings they 'publish' the entire online world is in trouble. For a few more details on what lawsuits of this type are generally intended to accomplish, check out this article.
Sunday, May 14, 2006
Why real music fans fileshare
I just thought I'd post something here briefly on something many of you have heard me discuss in person. Many of those who question my position on filesharing have asked me how artists are supposed to get paid if we don't pay per copy of their song we obtain. My answer is this:
If we were genuinely concerned about musicians and their support, real fans would download the album and send the $20 directly to the artist. If anyone anywhere has a response to that (other than that they actually don't care about the artist, they're more worried about supporting the labels that own them), I would like to hear it.
If we were genuinely concerned about musicians and their support, real fans would download the album and send the $20 directly to the artist. If anyone anywhere has a response to that (other than that they actually don't care about the artist, they're more worried about supporting the labels that own them), I would like to hear it.
One step at a time...
Old news, I know, but I just can't believe that with all the research I've done on the topic I've never found these guys before: Among all the other great things at this site dedicated to destroying outdated views on intellectual property is this list of all the "nobody's"(a reference to my little debate with Jack Marshall over peer-to-peer ethics) who hold similar views to my own on the economic incentive program we misleadingly call intellectual 'property.'
As more and more people examine this issue critically, movements like this are certain to grow. Even if the only purpose they serve is to nudge people into doing their homework on the topic, that service is incredibly valued. On that note, take a look at this article (via p2punite.org) on the HD video format. Anyone considering making this 'upgrade' needs to look long and hard at what it actually encompasses and decide if they really 'need' a device in their home that is at the beck and call of our major corporations.
As more and more people examine this issue critically, movements like this are certain to grow. Even if the only purpose they serve is to nudge people into doing their homework on the topic, that service is incredibly valued. On that note, take a look at this article (via p2punite.org) on the HD video format. Anyone considering making this 'upgrade' needs to look long and hard at what it actually encompasses and decide if they really 'need' a device in their home that is at the beck and call of our major corporations.
Saturday, April 29, 2006
Illegal immigration
I recently stumbled across this blog, which is penned by someone who is well-educated (PhD) and has an interest in things philosophical. So naturally, I thought I'd take issue with something he said.
Many of the posts on this blog (in fact, probably most) have to do with the topic of illegal immigration. Here are some excerpts(although I would encourage those who have the time to go over there and read the posts in full):
(samples quoted from here)
Let me first start by noting that there are a lot of 'easy comebacks' to this man's position which could be offered by those who disagree with him (for example, one might note that in whatever form the previous indigenous inhabitants of North America had a legal system, it would be hard to construe that it provided for large groups of people to attack and kill them and take over their land). However, what is possibly a little more intricate(and also much more valuable) would be to point out the fundamental mistakes that this man is making in his implicit and explicit assumptions.
To begin with I would question this blogger's assertion that "There are certain actions, such as crossing the border without permission, that reasonable people deem unacceptable." In its unclarified form, this statement is entirely untenable. If the blogger himself were to awake one day and find that his home had been neatly cordoned off and made a separate country so that a border existed around it, and that he was not to be permitted under any circumstances to cross it, I am certain that he would question the validity of this assertion in an amount of time less than or equal to the time that his groceries would last.
It is clear, then, that there are some borders which one ought to be able to cross without permission(such as the boundaries of one's home). Thus, this blogger must be inferring that some sort of non-arbitrary reason is in force for certain particular borders as regards his assertion. It would be improper of me to assume outright that I know what that reason is, but a clue might be given in his repeated use of the phrase 'a sovereign nation' throughout his blog. I think it would be fair to suggest that this blogger believes 'sovereign nations' have a degree of validity with regards to enforcement of their borders that arbitrary institutions or authorities do not have, such as if I personally were to define a border around this man's house.
So what is a sovereign nation? Dictionary.com defines sovereign as adj. Self-governing; independent: a sovereign state. So, is the implicit assumption of this blogger that having a community which is self-governing and independent gives it validity in asserting the requirement of permission over its borders? Again, we need only to turn to the possibility of being contained within one's own house to note the untenability of such an assertion. The simple fact of his neighbours organising themselves in a self-governing fashion would surely not be sufficient to allow them to doom this man to a slow death, would it? Perhaps a mere organisation of neighbours has not met the requirements for 'nation'? Let us then extend our little thought-experiment to the case in which this man's state were to organise and implement such a border. Would this then become a situation that the man (who, we assume, is a 'reasonable person') would deem acceptable? Perhaps neither of these situations suffice for our requirement of 'independent'? Then let us make the last and predictable step of extending our hypothetical to the situation in which this man's entire country cordons him off. It seems clear there is no change in our result.
It may be, however(and I think it is likely), that we have incorrectly determined the source of authority intended by the blogger for the establishment and traversal control of a border. I now venture a little further into the ether, but I would suggest there is a subtle implication in some of the bloggers comments that citizenship in his country is sort of like membership in a very special club which citizens have earned, and therefore it is unethical for others who have not earned that membership to take by their own means the benefits offered to those members. This blogger might say that the reason his own country would be unreasonable in cordoning him off from it is that he is a citizen of that country, and thus entitled not to be cut off from it. Lest this become a discussion of the concept of citizenship, let us suppose for the moment that this basis for enforcement of a border holds, since we are near to the definition of a citizen itself.
Finally, we can ask the question that is most pertinent to this discussion: is it fair? By which I mean, is it fair for there to be such a club which allows or denies membership and then enforces that membership strictly? Obviously, there is nothing inherently unfair in the existence of such an institution. However, the manner in which membership is determined may be executed in an unfair manner, i.e. under the influence of prejudice. Also, the actions of the club as an organisation may be unethical, although that is a different order altogether. So, how can we determine if prejudice is a relevant problem in our scenario? Well, a far greater wedge of 'reasonable people' than our good friend presented earlier might be inclined to agree with the assertion that such an institution is fair if any person who satisfies the requirements for membership is allowed to be a member, and if all are given equal opportunity to satisfy those requirements. It is at this point that we come to the essential point at which I personally would deny the 'fairness' of the institution in question: it is not in fact the case with this man's country that all are given equal opportunity to satisfy the requirements of membership. In most cases, what the citizens of this man's country have done to gain membership is simply to have been born into membership. Immediately and without any further forbearance, these people have been accepted for membership, whereas no matter what any person does who was born in another country, they are incapable of 'going back' and changing their selection of which country to be born in. Just as a human being is unable to select his or her skin colour, these people have no opportunity to fulfill the most common requirement of this man's country for citizenship: place of birth. If there were indeed legitimate requirements fairly levied against all would-be citizens of this man's country, including those born within it, such as personal contribution or something similar, which if not met would result in the refussal of acceptance equally in all cases, then we could say that this situation is fair. However, a situation which discriminates between people based on something they cannot choose or control, especially a situation having significant relevance for their health, well-being, and livelihood, cannot be called fair.
Many of the posts on this blog (in fact, probably most) have to do with the topic of illegal immigration. Here are some excerpts(although I would encourage those who have the time to go over there and read the posts in full):
...we are told of the "basic human rights" of the illegal immigrant.
But what rights are these? Do they include the right to invade a sovereign nation and violate its laws? There is no right to be granted citizenship; it is privilege foreign-born persons must apply for. It is true that we are a nation of immigrants. But it is false that we are a nation of illegal immigrants.
There are certain actions, such as crossing the border without permission, that reasonable people deem unacceptable. So these actions are made illegal. These laws are reasonable and just and every country has them. So what do the good bishops propose? They would change the laws so that these very same unacceptable actions are no longer accounted illegal.
(samples quoted from here)
Let me first start by noting that there are a lot of 'easy comebacks' to this man's position which could be offered by those who disagree with him (for example, one might note that in whatever form the previous indigenous inhabitants of North America had a legal system, it would be hard to construe that it provided for large groups of people to attack and kill them and take over their land). However, what is possibly a little more intricate(and also much more valuable) would be to point out the fundamental mistakes that this man is making in his implicit and explicit assumptions.
To begin with I would question this blogger's assertion that "There are certain actions, such as crossing the border without permission, that reasonable people deem unacceptable." In its unclarified form, this statement is entirely untenable. If the blogger himself were to awake one day and find that his home had been neatly cordoned off and made a separate country so that a border existed around it, and that he was not to be permitted under any circumstances to cross it, I am certain that he would question the validity of this assertion in an amount of time less than or equal to the time that his groceries would last.
It is clear, then, that there are some borders which one ought to be able to cross without permission(such as the boundaries of one's home). Thus, this blogger must be inferring that some sort of non-arbitrary reason is in force for certain particular borders as regards his assertion. It would be improper of me to assume outright that I know what that reason is, but a clue might be given in his repeated use of the phrase 'a sovereign nation' throughout his blog. I think it would be fair to suggest that this blogger believes 'sovereign nations' have a degree of validity with regards to enforcement of their borders that arbitrary institutions or authorities do not have, such as if I personally were to define a border around this man's house.
So what is a sovereign nation? Dictionary.com defines sovereign as adj. Self-governing; independent: a sovereign state. So, is the implicit assumption of this blogger that having a community which is self-governing and independent gives it validity in asserting the requirement of permission over its borders? Again, we need only to turn to the possibility of being contained within one's own house to note the untenability of such an assertion. The simple fact of his neighbours organising themselves in a self-governing fashion would surely not be sufficient to allow them to doom this man to a slow death, would it? Perhaps a mere organisation of neighbours has not met the requirements for 'nation'? Let us then extend our little thought-experiment to the case in which this man's state were to organise and implement such a border. Would this then become a situation that the man (who, we assume, is a 'reasonable person') would deem acceptable? Perhaps neither of these situations suffice for our requirement of 'independent'? Then let us make the last and predictable step of extending our hypothetical to the situation in which this man's entire country cordons him off. It seems clear there is no change in our result.
It may be, however(and I think it is likely), that we have incorrectly determined the source of authority intended by the blogger for the establishment and traversal control of a border. I now venture a little further into the ether, but I would suggest there is a subtle implication in some of the bloggers comments that citizenship in his country is sort of like membership in a very special club which citizens have earned, and therefore it is unethical for others who have not earned that membership to take by their own means the benefits offered to those members. This blogger might say that the reason his own country would be unreasonable in cordoning him off from it is that he is a citizen of that country, and thus entitled not to be cut off from it. Lest this become a discussion of the concept of citizenship, let us suppose for the moment that this basis for enforcement of a border holds, since we are near to the definition of a citizen itself.
Finally, we can ask the question that is most pertinent to this discussion: is it fair? By which I mean, is it fair for there to be such a club which allows or denies membership and then enforces that membership strictly? Obviously, there is nothing inherently unfair in the existence of such an institution. However, the manner in which membership is determined may be executed in an unfair manner, i.e. under the influence of prejudice. Also, the actions of the club as an organisation may be unethical, although that is a different order altogether. So, how can we determine if prejudice is a relevant problem in our scenario? Well, a far greater wedge of 'reasonable people' than our good friend presented earlier might be inclined to agree with the assertion that such an institution is fair if any person who satisfies the requirements for membership is allowed to be a member, and if all are given equal opportunity to satisfy those requirements. It is at this point that we come to the essential point at which I personally would deny the 'fairness' of the institution in question: it is not in fact the case with this man's country that all are given equal opportunity to satisfy the requirements of membership. In most cases, what the citizens of this man's country have done to gain membership is simply to have been born into membership. Immediately and without any further forbearance, these people have been accepted for membership, whereas no matter what any person does who was born in another country, they are incapable of 'going back' and changing their selection of which country to be born in. Just as a human being is unable to select his or her skin colour, these people have no opportunity to fulfill the most common requirement of this man's country for citizenship: place of birth. If there were indeed legitimate requirements fairly levied against all would-be citizens of this man's country, including those born within it, such as personal contribution or something similar, which if not met would result in the refussal of acceptance equally in all cases, then we could say that this situation is fair. However, a situation which discriminates between people based on something they cannot choose or control, especially a situation having significant relevance for their health, well-being, and livelihood, cannot be called fair.
Phishing the murky depths
I've received a fair number of phishing attempts in my time, but this one beats them all on several accounts(read on to find out why I didn't even report it to Google!)
First of all, this little sucker actually managed to slip through Gmail's filter. That's a pretty incredible feat. In the entire time I've had my gmail account, I've had maybe 10 spams/phishers get through, and most of those by totally obfuscating their own message. Impressive!
Second of all, note that this phisher is inviting you to defraud a UNDP development project for farmers in legitimate need!! Can you believe this!
Third, note the incredible candor of someone(albeit a character in the scam) who is risking their job and their name to rip off the aid organisation they work for: "It is my entire plan to have this done so that I can benefit from this opportunity." Wow, no mincing words here.
Fourth, note that this character suggests actually convincing real farmers to allow the money to go overseas and then sticking it to them and running off!
My conclusion(and the reason I didn't report it)? Anyone evil enough to be drawn in by this scam absolutely one hundred percent deserves to lose as much money as they are willing to put up!!! If phishing switches over to this kind of mode in general I have to say we might not want to get rid of it!
I have a new email address!
You can now email me at: [removed so you won't]
Dear Sir/madam,
US$250 million Dollar Agricultural Grant For Farmers and Ranchers
We offer Agricultural Grant of US$250 million dollar for Farmers and Ranchers from National Department of Agriculture (NDA) This Grant is for Experienced farmers and ranchers who are unable to obtain financing from commercial credit sources.
Loan amounts range from $ $2,000,000.00 to $100,000,000.00 and $100,000,000.00 to $250,000,000.00 (amount varies based on Applicant capability).
United Nation Development Project (UNDP) in Africa is the sponsor of this facility.
REASON FOR CONTACTING YOU:
My name is Dr. Thomas Quam and I am the Director of Farm Operations in the National Department of Agriculture (NDA). I need your assistance to hold on my behalf the sum of $4.5Million, which has been allocated to unexisting Farmer. It is my entire plan to have this done so that I can benefit from this opportunity.
YOU ROLE:
I will present you as foreign representatives to some of the farmers and Ranchers in charge of procuring imported farm equipments. so as to obtain clearance from the UNDP fund clearance office here. As soon as the clearance is obtained then the sum of $4.5Million will be transferred to you and all the records will be destroyed leaving no trace of the transaction.
YOUR GAIN:
You will be compensated with the sum of $1Million for your role in this transaction. If you are interested, please send your Names, Phone and fax number, your physical address, On receipt of this information I will call you immediately to clarify areas you are in doubt.
Expecting your response.
Yours faithfully,
Dr. Thomas Quam
Director, Operations
NDA.
- Thomas Quam
First of all, this little sucker actually managed to slip through Gmail's filter. That's a pretty incredible feat. In the entire time I've had my gmail account, I've had maybe 10 spams/phishers get through, and most of those by totally obfuscating their own message. Impressive!
Second of all, note that this phisher is inviting you to defraud a UNDP development project for farmers in legitimate need!! Can you believe this!
Third, note the incredible candor of someone(albeit a character in the scam) who is risking their job and their name to rip off the aid organisation they work for: "It is my entire plan to have this done so that I can benefit from this opportunity." Wow, no mincing words here.
Fourth, note that this character suggests actually convincing real farmers to allow the money to go overseas and then sticking it to them and running off!
My conclusion(and the reason I didn't report it)? Anyone evil enough to be drawn in by this scam absolutely one hundred percent deserves to lose as much money as they are willing to put up!!! If phishing switches over to this kind of mode in general I have to say we might not want to get rid of it!
Monday, April 24, 2006
the end is now
For along time, a standard component of my war on the current intellectual property system has been to point out how incredibly absurd our current laws will appear when computers can, with very little direction, churn out patentable and copyrightable material. That day is now. Popular Science has an article on a man(John Koza) who is using what is, at its heart, an incredibly simple machine(if composed of about 1000 cpu's) to brute-force new ideas until an 'innovative' one is found. One such idea has actually been successfully patented, one of the first ever patents granted to a machine designer(in reality, of course, the patent was granted to the human who uses the machine).
What if(as is likely within a short period of time) your average Joe has a computer of this power factor in his home and is able to run a similar program on it? Who gets the intellectual 'property' that is 'produced' by it? Does credit go to the program's designer, or to the man who typed in "find a good engine design, please, mr. computer."???? The natural progression of technology in this area will quickly blow our existing intellectual property system to shreds. Don't believe me? Take note of this: before designing the optical lense that was ultimately patented, Koza's beowulf cluster duplicated scores of already patented designs by starting from simple parameters with a simple goal(at no time was any portion of these designs in any way inputted). It seems patent offices everywhere are going to be scrambling to do the one thing I've been pointing out they are unable to do: define what exactly 'obvious' actually is.
Patent laws require patentable ideas to be 'non-obvious.' What that actually means nobody has the foggiest clue. Is a design obvious if a simple computer program can generate it automatically given a basic understanding of the target context? How about a complex program? How about a complex program run on a complex machine? How about a complex program run on a complex machine that is in everybody's offices and homes? The reality is that without the ability to pick and choose individually who will receive the incredible economic incentive that our intellectual 'property' laws actually are(and in most cases what we need here is a good weeding) our current patent and copyright laws are fundamentally meaningless. Unless we can redefine the transfer of intellectual 'property' as the service it actually is, our entire system of intellectual 'property' law is likely to end up in the biggest mess we've ever seen.
What if(as is likely within a short period of time) your average Joe has a computer of this power factor in his home and is able to run a similar program on it? Who gets the intellectual 'property' that is 'produced' by it? Does credit go to the program's designer, or to the man who typed in "find a good engine design, please, mr. computer."???? The natural progression of technology in this area will quickly blow our existing intellectual property system to shreds. Don't believe me? Take note of this: before designing the optical lense that was ultimately patented, Koza's beowulf cluster duplicated scores of already patented designs by starting from simple parameters with a simple goal(at no time was any portion of these designs in any way inputted). It seems patent offices everywhere are going to be scrambling to do the one thing I've been pointing out they are unable to do: define what exactly 'obvious' actually is.
Patent laws require patentable ideas to be 'non-obvious.' What that actually means nobody has the foggiest clue. Is a design obvious if a simple computer program can generate it automatically given a basic understanding of the target context? How about a complex program? How about a complex program run on a complex machine? How about a complex program run on a complex machine that is in everybody's offices and homes? The reality is that without the ability to pick and choose individually who will receive the incredible economic incentive that our intellectual 'property' laws actually are(and in most cases what we need here is a good weeding) our current patent and copyright laws are fundamentally meaningless. Unless we can redefine the transfer of intellectual 'property' as the service it actually is, our entire system of intellectual 'property' law is likely to end up in the biggest mess we've ever seen.
Saturday, April 22, 2006
everything you need to know
I had this idea the other day to search for a common phrase that people use for lots of different topics on google and see what kind of results I would get, as a kind of cross section of the web. I selected the phrase 'everything you need to know' and my results were fabulous! In order, here were the first few topics the results had 'everything you need to know' about:
vampires
the giant panda
caffeine
babies
Lupus
travel
investing
space
job-seeking
Tiger OS for Mac
solid foods
spreadsheets
elk hunting
charity
item 15 was an episode from discovery channel entitled simply 'everything you need to know.' Nothing could top the very next entry, however, which stated in unequivocal terms:
No Episode with that information
vampires
the giant panda
caffeine
babies
Lupus
travel
investing
space
job-seeking
Tiger OS for Mac
solid foods
spreadsheets
elk hunting
charity
item 15 was an episode from discovery channel entitled simply 'everything you need to know.' Nothing could top the very next entry, however, which stated in unequivocal terms:
No Episode with that information
Friday, April 14, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)