] The copyright office is currently considering whether to
] recommend changes to copyright law that will make it
] easier and cheaper for you to use "orphaned works" --
] works that remain under copyright but whose "owner" can't
] be found. As many of you have written me, this is a real
] problem that affects thousands of innovative people every
] year. But the copyright office still needs some
] convincing.
]
] To convince them, we need your help. If you have a
] relevant story, or a perspective that might help the
] Copyright Office evaluate this issue, I would be grateful
] if you took just a few minutes to write an email telling
] them your story. The most valuable submissions will make
] clear the practical burden the existing system creates.
] (One of my favorite stories is about a copy-shop's
] refusal to enlarge a 60 year old photo from an elementary
] school year book for a eulogy because the copyright owner
] couldn't be found.) Describe instances where you wanted
] to use a work, but couldn't find the owner to ask
] permission. Explain how that impacted your ability to
] create. Or pass this email on to someone who you know
] might have a useful story to add.

Save Orphan Works

] A federal appeals court on Tuesday sharply questioned
] whether the Federal Communications Commission has the
] authority to ban certain types of digital TV receivers,
] including peripheral cards, starting in July.

There is hope!!

Court questions FCC's broadcast flag rules | CNET News.com

The interesting thing about the statement "There is no such thing as absolute truth" is that if you could prove it, it wouldn't be true. In that sense it defines itself and explains itself. You can't even agree with it, because if you do, you'll have to admit that you must be wrong. You can try to disprove it, but you'll keep butting your head against it over and over and over again and it will sit there, mocking you. Finally, you must accept it, and once you've accepted it 1000 realizations flow from it, and you can see everything in the world as it really is.

(This is extremely long. PLEASE do not rerecommend the full text. Thanks.)

First Email:

On Tue, 2005-02-22 at 16:07 -0600, Tom Cross wrote:
] Jonathan S. Shapiro writes:
] Suppose the creationists had come to the school system(s) and said
] "Evolution is a theory. Creationism (or whatever the name) is also a
] theory. Neither theory has conclusively been shown, and therefore we
] feel strongly that the creationist theory deserves equal attention in
] the curriculum."
]
] Scientists would surely have gnashed their teeth at this position for
] quite some time, but after a certain amount of useless resistance they
] would have been forced to accept it. It is a proposition articulated
] using the values of science, and it would ultimately be hypocritical for
] science to reject this proposition framed in this form.

This proposition is certainly not articulated using the values of science. It is
a perfect example of the semantic slight of hand that is being performed by the
Intelligent Design crowd.

Evolution is a theory. Creationism is not a theory. Creationism is a hypothesis.
There is a significant difference between these two things.

Theories have reproducible experimental evidence. Widely accepted theories have
a large body of such evidence that has been peer reviewed and withstood serious
criticism. A hypothesis is simply viable idea that has little or no experimental
evidence. Creationism is a hypothesis.

In everyday speech the word theory is used to refer to both theories and
hypotheses, and so to the uneducated reader it is easy to confuse the two
concepts and decide that Evolution and Intelligent Design are on equal footing
conceptually. They are not. However, the ID community is taking advantage of
this confusion to promote their adgenda in political circles, where it doesn't
really matter if people know what they are talking about so long as they agree
with you.

] So what we have is one side with an open (or at least potentially and
] reluctantly openable) view and another side that is determined to
] destroy that view.

This is exactly the arguement that the creationists are now making, through
intelligent design; that they simply want their point of view accepted along
side evolution but the scientific community views them as heretics and whats to
destroy them.

What is at stake is, in fact, the ability to teach critical thinking. If we put
Intelligent Design on equal footing in science class with Evolution, what we
are saying is that a hypothesis matures into a theory when it has a large body
of reproducible experimental evidence that has undergone significant peer
review, or when the idea is sufficiently politically popular that it must be
accepted even if there is no evidence to support it. This is exactly t... [ Read More (0.9k in body) ]

peekay wrote:
] Excerpt: "It’s ironic that some of the same people who
] deride the narrow moralism of the “values voters”—Jane Smiley
] in her now-infamous rant in Slate, for instance—also deplore
] the “greed” driving Bush’s re-election. Greed is to the
] moralists of the left what sex is to the moralists of the
] right."

Hrm. Some thoughts:

1. Everyone has some kind of morality. The fact that there are moralistic jerks on the left does not excuse the moralistic jerks on the right.

2. The core thrust of this article is obviously wrong. It is not a myth that traditionalists are concerned with controlling other people's behavior. The fact that they are also concerned about controls to their behavior isn't a counter point to that. What part of prison terms and $100,000 fines for people who say fuck on the internet involves protecting religious expression?

3. This essay seems to be an example of libertarians trying to come to terms with the fact that they voted for Bush. Its OK, they tell themselves, the Conservative Christians aren't that bad... Its in the interest of the Republicans to play both sides. Mind you, lately I've been less and less impressed that many so called libertarians are really libertarians. If you would never vote for a "liberal" then you're not a libertarian. Real libertarians sometimes sacrifice their fiscal conservatism for the benefit of social liberty.

Reason website looks a little questionable in this regard right now. Pissed off that there is a SeaWolf class submarine named after Jimmy Carter? Then you're not a libertarian. You're a hard liner.

4. The most interesting and insiteful thing in this article in my opinion is the quotation below. Also not a very libertarian observation, but I think a very practical one worthy of deep consideration. Do absolute rights create intractible contradictions that would be better servered by a more flexible system? How do you protect important freedoms without absolute rights? I think both sides of this question have problems, which means there is another answer in here that no one has found yet.

The American rights-based approach is obviously more respectful of individual choices, but it is also more likely to generate intense social and political conflict by pitting two sets of absolute rights against each other.

RE: The “Values” Panic

Wow, someone finally commercialized body pan technology!

Now, here is the issue. If my bluetooth system had the same cryptographic properties would I need this. I could still use touch as a user interface in most device applications. You could have a doorknob detect when it was touched. And an RF transceiver is going to be more comfortable then something which must make good physical contact with the skin.

The only applications for which this would not work would be person to person handshake data sharing...

RedTacton

You see, every time I play GTA San Andreas I find something new thats cool. Its a world that I can explore. I get to choose my path through it and there are all these interesting, entertaining things that I can play with along the way. I'll be done with this game when there is nothing more for me to do. When I've experienced all of it.

] I've said it before, all you need to get through this life is a
] little patience - and a speedball.

Today I discovered that Tommy "The Nightmare" Smith, the burnt out rocker who DJs the oldies station, is played by Axl Rose. Now, how fucking cool is that?

Sometimes you get so sunk into the pattern of daily life that you forget what makes life interesting. Its that feeling of new experience that I like. Playing this game has actually made me think about things in the world that I want to experience that I haven't bothered to yet. Places I need to go while I'm here. Things I still need to do. Thats pretty amazing for a video game.

What I want these games to start doing is letting me explore the real world through the game. There is something important about creating an environment and letting me decide how I'm going to consume it, instead of spoon feeding it to me in a predetermined way. But if it was a place I'd never been before, and it was accurately built, and the things that I could play with where related to the real place and its history. Well it would be all the more compelling. It would be tourism without getting up. And I think it would change the way people think about the world. When you went there for real, you'd know where you were.

We're still learning to tell stories this way. When we really get good at it, its going to make everything that came before it pale in comparison.

KDST

] "This is R Peed Robbert, McNicoll and Don Mills
] bus-shelter."
]
] "That's nice. This is Detective Icaza de Arana-Goldberg,
] three blocks east of you on Picola. Proceed to my
] location at once, priority urgent, no sirens."
]
] "Acknowledged. It is my pleasure to do you a service,
] Detective."
]
] "Shut up," he said, and hung up the phone. The R Peed
] - Robot, Police Department - robots were the
] worst, programmed to be friendly to a fault, even as they
] surveilled and snitched out every person who walked past
] their eternally vigilant, ever-remembering electrical
] eyes and brains.
]
] The R Peeds could outrun a police car on open ground on
] highway. He'd barely had time to untwist his clenched
] hands from the steering wheel when R Peed Robbert was at
] his window, politely rapping on the smoked glass. He
] didn't want to roll down the window. Didn't want to smell
] the dry, machine-oil smell of a robot. He phoned it
] instead.

Finally bothered to read this. Its fun.

Cory Doctorow | I, Robot

] At the conclusion of this review, NTIA directed NeuStar
] to phase out the offering of such services by Registrars
] or by any of its partners or resellers and to ensure that
] complete and accurate WHOIS data is provided for any
] existing registrations in .us."

NTIA Nixes Privacy Protection in Whois

] ttoned up Harold and laidback Kumar are stoners who want
] to get food at a White Castle Burgers joint, which
] becomes a perilous journey full of strange obstacles.

This movie was mentioned in the previous story about MPAA ratings. I saw it recently. I had ignored it when it came out because it seemed like a big advertizement. Its definately a college oriented stoner movie, so if you don't like that sort of thing you should avoid it, but I enjoyed it much more then I expected I would.

Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle (2004)