[Host: Mike, what do you mean when you say that that the PA is making itself seem obsolete and out of touch to the younger generation?]
Well, Richard Mollett was just talking about book publishing in the 18th century, so imagine you're a young man in the late 18th century and you've bought a book by John Locke. You're likely to think that you are naturally free to do certain things with the book, like carry it around, read it as many times as you like, whenever you like, or lend it to a friend. Now suppose the publisher says "no, you must not read it on a Sunday, transport it by canal, read it aloud or lend it to your friend. This is, after all, John Locke's work, his creation, the sweat of his brow, and he has the right to tell you how it may be used, even though he's been dead for fifty years and we're telling you on his behalf and for our profit." Would you feel morally bound to respect the publisher's wishes? Or would you think that the publisher was a nuisance and a half-wit, mistletoe to Locke's oak, and that the sooner he got out of the way the better for everyone? That is how young people today feel about agencies like the PA.
I quit listening when Mollet's constant interruptions became too infuriating to bear (which was pretty early) but I noticed that he used the word "slandered" quite freely to describe anyone contradicting him.
How telling that when the chief executive of the UK Publisher's Association hears expression contrary to his worldview his first impulse is to respond with a legal threat.
"About a year ago, my company WebiMax was attacked by a person who stole our logo..."
I'm reminded of the Goon Show, "Shifting sands", 1957:
Grytpype-Thynne: Lieutenant Seagoon, we have it on good authority from our milkman that the besieged garrison at Fort Thud on the frontier of Waziristan has lost its union jack.
Seagoon: You mean... our troops don't know what side they're on?
C.O: They know which side they're on... but they can't prove it.
If the purpose of this were really to prevent young people from committing online indiscretions that they would later regret, the best way to do it would be by allowing anonymity and pseudonymity. Put an end to laws requiring identification, data retention and traceability. (Some online services would still require these things, but some wouldn't, and users who wanted privacy could find it.)
But of course this would clash with the other thing that all lawyers and lawmakers want: the ability to trace other people and find out what they've been up to.
Re: Knowing how to code helps lawyers in many ways
Oh, I have mixed feelings about this...
I'm all in favor of crushing a bad argument with an irrefutable demonstration. I'm all in favor of educating judges. And I'm glad you won. But the judge seems to have missed the two real lessons:
1) A non-technical judge should not accept an argument about a technical discipline without evidence, and
2) there's really no limit to how fast a tech-savvy coder can generate lines of code. (Extra credit if the judge realizes that there's no upper limit to how many lines of code can be used to perform a given task.)
I agree. Brill interrupts constantly, even when he has nothing to say, and doesn't address the points where he's proven wrong. A person who works that hard to disrupt the debate usually doesn't have a leg to stand on.
(And I love the part at 31:30 when he boasts that his seminar is "hard to get into".)
Once again, I can't tell whether someone on the internet is being satirical or not.
Either you're making a subtle point about security theatre, and how it can be done at basically no cost once all the visible (and audible) cues have been removed and the security is entirely faith-based, OR you've been watching a lot of bad science fiction (including all the "CSI" balderdash) and have a 1970's grasp of what modern computers can and cannot do.
"...More power to the FBI for nailing these guys now, rather than after they actually did blow something up."
Arresting them after they'd actually blown something up was never an option. There was never any plan to blow up anything other than with the "C4" which the FBI offered.
"Let's arrest murderers before they commit murder" (with its equivalents) is almost my least favorite popular political catchphrase, coming in a close second after "if you have nothing to hide...".
It wouldn't be quite that easy. As soon as the publishers got wind of such a conspiracy (or at the latest, when one publisher was cornered this way) they would all start requiring contracts with the initial submissions, before the review and selection. So instead of 30 of the 40 authors of accepted papers cooperating, it would take 240 of the 250 authors submitting papers.
And why are CS researchers of all people so slow to route around such bottlenecks? Haven't they heard of the internet? Physicists and biologists are way ahead of them.
If only we could get people scared of alien invasion...
Nah. Scientists are plenty smart, but darn it, they just love the truth too much to tell the public that we a new state-of-the-art orbital telescope every year to keep us safe from imaginary monsters.
"If a terrorist chose not to attack the US on US territory because an attack from a US airport was no longer easy, they may have stopped many attacks."
Are you sure it wasn't the magic pebble I've been carrying since October 2001?
Any terrorist with the backing, intelligence and dedication of the 9/11 terrorists could commit an act of mass murder on U.S. soil without boarding an airplane. Granted, killing thousands in a single attack (or two) would be difficult, and the drama of 9/11 would be almost impossible to beat, but people like that wouldn't be stopped by current airport security measures even if current airport security measures worked as intended, which they don't.
So can we please stop this "look, no attacks since we banned nail clippers" routine?
"When the IT expert arrived at the police station, he found the server completely disassembled, and authorities said they could not reassemble it or give him any footage."
What possible excuse could they have for disassembling the server? Were they afraid it might have a concealed weapon?
Could someone please explain this to me? To prevent massive inflation from the sudden minting of trillions of dollars, the plan is to do the following:
"[I]f the Fed doesn’t want... to create looser money, all they need to do is reflect on the fact that two rounds of quantitative easing have left them owning over $2 trillion worth of securities of various kinds. If they sell $2 trillion worth of securities to investors, then $2 trillion will be sucked out of the economy to replicate the $2 trillion worth of platinum coins the mint cooked up."
Wait... If they sell $2 trillion worth of securities, then they'll have $2 trillion dollars to play with, which is what they wanted. So why also create $2 trillion out of nothing? Are they planning to burn the $2 trillion they get from the sale before they strike the coins?
Honestly, it's as if these people didn't play with the same blocks I did in kindergarten.
The people who push for laws like this aren't interested in building anything, and their primary goal isn't to avoid seeing what offends them. Offered a treasure house of art, literature and information, they'll spend their time delving through it to bring up the filthiest smut they can find, and then scream about it. They are following an old tribal imperative to spread their own cultural values (especially the censorious ones) and impose them on others. If they ever succeed in redacting all nudity from world culture, they'll probably feel a strange mixture of satisfaction and sadness.
They could promote their creative cultural values, but that would involve more work and satisfy an entirely different urge.
On the post: Labatt Threatens To Sue Newspaper For Showing Photo of Suspected Killer Holding Its Beer
Re:
On the post: Labatt Threatens To Sue Newspaper For Showing Photo of Suspected Killer Holding Its Beer
Re: I can see the next ad campaing for the brand.
On the post: In Which I Debate The UK Publisher's Association Boss Who Attacked The British Library
What I wish Mike had said first:
Well, Richard Mollett was just talking about book publishing in the 18th century, so imagine you're a young man in the late 18th century and you've bought a book by John Locke. You're likely to think that you are naturally free to do certain things with the book, like carry it around, read it as many times as you like, whenever you like, or lend it to a friend. Now suppose the publisher says "no, you must not read it on a Sunday, transport it by canal, read it aloud or lend it to your friend. This is, after all, John Locke's work, his creation, the sweat of his brow, and he has the right to tell you how it may be used, even though he's been dead for fifty years and we're telling you on his behalf and for our profit." Would you feel morally bound to respect the publisher's wishes? Or would you think that the publisher was a nuisance and a half-wit, mistletoe to Locke's oak, and that the sooner he got out of the way the better for everyone? That is how young people today feel about agencies like the PA.
On the post: In Which I Debate The UK Publisher's Association Boss Who Attacked The British Library
Re: Re: British accent
On the post: In Which I Debate The UK Publisher's Association Boss Who Attacked The British Library
guess a man's profession by his tools
How telling that when the chief executive of the UK Publisher's Association hears expression contrary to his worldview his first impulse is to respond with a legal threat.
On the post: CEO Says SOPA & CISPA Are Needed Because A Disgruntled Customer Once Set Up A Parody Site To Mock Him
I'm reminded of the Goon Show, "Shifting sands", 1957:
Grytpype-Thynne: Lieutenant Seagoon, we have it on good authority from our milkman that the besieged garrison at Fort Thud on the frontier of Waziristan has lost its union jack.
Seagoon: You mean... our troops don't know what side they're on?
C.O: They know which side they're on... but they can't prove it.
On the post: Chelsea Clinton: We Must Protect The Children On The Internet
the desire to have something and yet to forbid it
But of course this would clash with the other thing that all lawyers and lawmakers want: the ability to trace other people and find out what they've been up to.
On the post: Should People Learn To Code? Yes – If They Are Judges Ruling On Cases Involving Software
Re: Knowing how to code helps lawyers in many ways
I'm all in favor of crushing a bad argument with an irrefutable demonstration. I'm all in favor of educating judges. And I'm glad you won. But the judge seems to have missed the two real lessons:
1) A non-technical judge should not accept an argument about a technical discipline without evidence, and
2) there's really no limit to how fast a tech-savvy coder can generate lines of code. (Extra credit if the judge realizes that there's no upper limit to how many lines of code can be used to perform a given task.)
On the post: In Which I Debate A Media Mogul Who Insists It's Crazy To Give Content Away For Free
Re:
(And I love the part at 31:30 when he boasts that his seminar is "hard to get into".)
On the post: Congress: The TSA Is Wasting Hundreds Of Millions In Taxpayer Dollars
Re: Re:
Either you're making a subtle point about security theatre, and how it can be done at basically no cost once all the visible (and audible) cues have been removed and the security is entirely faith-based, OR you've been watching a lot of bad science fiction (including all the "CSI" balderdash) and have a 1970's grasp of what modern computers can and cannot do.
On the post: Do You Owe Your Crappy Shave To Patents?
Re: Shave Secret
On the post: FBI Stops Yet Another (Yes Another) Of Its Own Terrorist Plots; This Time: Anarchists!
Re: Re: Re: C'mon people... really?
Arresting them after they'd actually blown something up was never an option. There was never any plan to blow up anything other than with the "C4" which the FBI offered.
"Let's arrest murderers before they commit murder" (with its equivalents) is almost my least favorite popular political catchphrase, coming in a close second after "if you have nothing to hide...".
On the post: French Tweeters Get Around Ban On Tweeting Election Results Using WWII-Era Codes
Re: Mmmm
On the post: Open Access And The Art Of Contract Hacking
Prisoner's Dilemma
And why are CS researchers of all people so slow to route around such bottlenecks? Haven't they heard of the internet? Physicists and biologists are way ahead of them.
On the post: TSA Security Theater Described In One Simple Infographic
Re: Re: So...
Nah. Scientists are plenty smart, but darn it, they just love the truth too much to tell the public that we a new state-of-the-art orbital telescope every year to keep us safe from imaginary monsters.
On the post: TSA Security Theater Described In One Simple Infographic
Re: Re: Re:
Are you sure it wasn't the magic pebble I've been carrying since October 2001?
Any terrorist with the backing, intelligence and dedication of the 9/11 terrorists could commit an act of mass murder on U.S. soil without boarding an airplane. Granted, killing thousands in a single attack (or two) would be difficult, and the drama of 9/11 would be almost impossible to beat, but people like that wouldn't be stopped by current airport security measures even if current airport security measures worked as intended, which they don't.
So can we please stop this "look, no attacks since we banned nail clippers" routine?
On the post: Unhappy With Even Minimal Scrutiny, US Removes Last Pretense Of TPP Transparency
can't take my eyes off it
On the post: More Mistakes In The Megaupload Prosecution: Videotape Of The Mansion Raid Has Gone Missing
we saw a mouse run in there
What possible excuse could they have for disassembling the server? Were they afraid it might have a concealed weapon?
On the post: DailyDirt: Spare Some Change?
I'm just a simple rocket scientist...
"[I]f the Fed doesn’t want... to create looser money, all they need to do is reflect on the fact that two rounds of quantitative easing have left them owning over $2 trillion worth of securities of various kinds. If they sell $2 trillion worth of securities to investors, then $2 trillion will be sucked out of the economy to replicate the $2 trillion worth of platinum coins the mint cooked up."
Wait... If they sell $2 trillion worth of securities, then they'll have $2 trillion dollars to play with, which is what they wanted. So why also create $2 trillion out of nothing? Are they planning to burn the $2 trillion they get from the sale before they strike the coins?
Honestly, it's as if these people didn't play with the same blocks I did in kindergarten.
And I can't believe nobody's mentioned the Mark Twain story yet.
On the post: Geotargeting And The Slippery Slope To Fragmenting The Internet With Localized Censorship
Re: Re: What's next, web page ratings?
They could promote their creative cultural values, but that would involve more work and satisfy an entirely different urge.
Next >>