Re: Re: An Experiment in Finding The Needle in a Haystack
Correct. There is also the political question of whether we really want to find him or not.
Assuming that we do really want to find him and given the fact that we have not found him we need to reassess our "finding algorithm". Clearly time for Plan B.
Of course, there is nothing obvious as pointing to a "search for Bin Laden". There could well be another reason for this social experiment.
Based on some other comments that I read at "Freedom to Tinker", this could have been a human behavior experiment for designing a method of finding something that is well hidden. Some of those commenting made references to the search for Bin Laden. I especially like the comment by Anyonmous concerning what may be an incorrect "reward" incentive on our part for finding Bin Laden that: "Chances are, had they offered a couple goats or a camel for good info they would have gotten a lot farther."
AC wrote "If what the customer wants is to get something for nothing, then I think that he is right - this isn't a workable business model, and there sure isn't any reason to support it."
First there is the issue of due process. Seems that our corporate leadership is assuming that they have a so-called "right" to deny due process for the sake of making a profit.
Second, if the capitalistic business model is unsustainable to bad. You go out of business. There is no justification under Capitalism for using the power of the State to prop-up your profits.
It amazes me how many people who profess to be Capitalists, really belong to the welfare entitlement society.
When you buy a product you acquire the ownership (property rights) to that product. We need to end the fiction by the content industry that they are only "loaning" you the use of the product at their sufferance.
If you can customize your car, you should be able to customize your game console.
It's simple, if you don't want government interference point the finger of blame at the corporations and demand that they clean-up their disingenuous business practices. They have the free will to act ethically. If they don't regulate.
"Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required."
The Times also had an article We May Be Born With an Urge to Help. What does the Time's article on open software have to do with this urge to help article?
Despite our supposed altruism, there seems to be a community that finds it repugnant that people will work collaboratively on projects such as MySQL, Wikipedia, and Linux. Contrary to the urge to help article, the open source article implies that those who wish to work collaboratively are, in politically correct speech, "misguided".
Additionally the Time's open source article goes on to say "Many of the top open-source developers are anything but volunteers tinkering in their spare time." to imply that the open source community is hypocritical. There is nothing wrong with getting paid to build something that all people can use as they see fit.
In a simplistic sense, we have Ayn Rand's "Objectivism" running amok. That is that everything one does must be monetized and must be self-serving. Regretfully, "Objectivism", as the collapse of our financial market has demonstrated, is a bankrupt philosophy.
The New York Times has it's own ridiculous article that information should not be "free". The Price of Free. The article concludes with: "... If the changes in our viewing habits stanch the flow of money back to studios, producing those kinds of programs may no longer be possible. In their place, we’ll get more junk: dopey reality shows, cookie-cutter police dramas, inane gab fests. The vast wasteland will become even vaster."
While Nicholas Carr may be correct; that we will get more junk, he seems to miss the fundamental economic principle of the free-market: if you can't make money, too bad.
As TechDirt consistently points out, if the current business model will not generate a profit; it's time to change your business model so that you can make money.
I might as well toss in the conspiracy theory allusion. Two known articles on "FREE" being bad? Are there others? Hmmm, something to think about.
Publiclly Funded Research Belongs in the Public Domain
Relative to federally funded research being publicly available on-line; I might as well point out another privatization travesty, the Bayh-Dole Act. This act allows researchers to patent results that were funded by the public. Any research accomplished through public (tax) support should not be patentable. It belongs in the public domain and should be freely available on-line.
Here's a tid-bit that seems to have been overlooked in patent arguments.
"MR. JAKES: It's very much related to our current economy and state of technology, with computers and the Internet and the free flow of information. But that's what --
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: But a patent limits the free flow of information. It requires licensing fees and other steps, legal steps. So you can't argue that your definition is improving the free flow of information."
So Jakes claims patents are useful to society, because patents makes the technology "visible". The only problem, society is not able to freely use the technology. So how does that constitute progress?
=============================
also Posted on Against Monopoly
This is exactly what some pundit recently said on TV. To bad I can't remember the product, the who, what, when, or where. What I do remember was being stunned by the phrase "low customer acceptance". Clearly, if customers are not accepting your product - drop it or revise your business model. Don't put the blame on the customer for not buying!
I get a kick out of the so-called capitalists who whine about "free" products, community forums such as Wikipedia, and government providing certain services like cable. Competition is competition, if you can't compete too bad.
Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with the taxpayers authorizing the government to provide services such as cable to its citizens.
An often overlooked aspect of this whole debate is that the government is still buying equipment from private companies (such as Cisco) and is employing people. So what is the difference, in terms of the economy, if the cable staff works for you local municipality or Time-Warner. None really.
The topic appeared a while back on the Technology Liberation Front. What really astounded me was how the term "social good" was relativistically thrown around.
When it came to the issue of the government subsidizing cable to rural areas for the "social good", it was something to be stamped out as a vile imposition of government control. Furthermore, the free market argument was made that if the service could not pay for itself, then it should not be provided.
Magically, when a cable company restricts consumer choice thorough fixed packages that include some services that may be considered uneconomic; all of a sudden those not previously concerned with the "social good" have developed a moral conscious and now are lovey dovey with the concept of the "social good"??????? Total hypocrisy.
The Beatles, as a band, stop producing content 30 years ago. When I see the CDs in the store, they are still being sold for a premium price. Were these songs a normal asset they would have been depreciated to $0 by now. (Of course that doesn't mean that you might have to a couple of $ since there are material costs, distribution costs, etc.)
Since the Beatles are no longer producing, how is the cost of these CDs and Rock Band through copyright justified????
This post reiterates that those who claim to somehow "own" content (whether the claim is legitimate or not) will simply whip out their shotgun of legalize verbiage to intimidate the public into compliance.
Michael writes: "The copyright lobby is deeply concerned that this change will block attempts to track possible infringement through electronic means." I am continuously dumbfounded that neither the public nor our lawmakers seem to fan the flames of outrage when private companies propose to monitor you However, if a law enforcement appears to be "profiling", everyone jumps on the accusatory bandwagon whining about how they are being maliciously harmed. Private industry does not have a right to spy on you and our lawmakers need to put an end to this onerous practice.
Those who appeal to your sense of morality are themselves usually unwilling to act morally. The content industry doesn't want you to "steal" and attempt to lay a guilt trip on you. However, they themselves feel no obligation to act morally. Want to return that awful CD, to bad. Oh, by the way - all that music you thought you "bought", we just turned off the server. Sorry about that. To make up for that, here's a new $$offer$$.
I had to leave before I was able to complete reviewing my points. Basically, how do you evaluate "balance" if the "opposition" is never satisfied? The length, breadth, and scope of copyright has been expanding. And the pro-copyright continues the fiction that every stronger laws are needed to protect their interests, while neglecting to point out that they are figuratively "stealing" from you.
If the other party to an agreement is always questioning the validity of the agreement, what is the point of achieving "balance"? You will always be negotiating from a new "center" that is favorable to the "other side" and from an increasingly weak position since you blinked first.
Balance implies analyzing something from a "fixed" reference point. The concern with analyzing "balance" in copyright is that it is evolving, we do not have a level playing field upon which to make a decision based on "balance". (Of course one can say that if we take a snap-shot of the current situation that that is a "fixed" reference point.)
So basically, when a new technology comes along, such as the ability to record MP3 music onto a variety of platforms the copyright holders assert that any copying must be authorized by licensing. Whereas the file owner would assert that they have an entitlement to use the content as they wish. I, of course would advocate that "balancing" would deprive the file owner of rights that they are entitled too.
The concept of "entitlement" is no longer restricted to those receiving welfare. Capitalism has morphed from being a competitive game base on serving the customer into the customer being viewed as a revenue unit for. Sellers now believe they entitled to a profit, they no longer have to earn it.
On the post: Lessons Learned From DARPA Balloon Challenge
Re: Re: An Experiment in Finding The Needle in a Haystack
Assuming that we do really want to find him and given the fact that we have not found him we need to reassess our "finding algorithm". Clearly time for Plan B.
Of course, there is nothing obvious as pointing to a "search for Bin Laden". There could well be another reason for this social experiment.
On the post: Lessons Learned From DARPA Balloon Challenge
An Experiment in Finding The Needle in a Haystack
On the post: Disney CEO: I Can't Figure Out Ways To Adapt My Business, So I Need Government Protection
Due Process and Capitalism
First there is the issue of due process. Seems that our corporate leadership is assuming that they have a so-called "right" to deny due process for the sake of making a profit.
Second, if the capitalistic business model is unsustainable to bad. You go out of business. There is no justification under Capitalism for using the power of the State to prop-up your profits.
It amazes me how many people who profess to be Capitalists, really belong to the welfare entitlement society.
On the post: France Agrees With Spain In Saying Modding Nintendo DS Is Not Illegal
You Bought it You Own It
If you can customize your car, you should be able to customize your game console.
On the post: Bill Introduced To Limit Early Termination Fees
Corporations Have a Choice - They Coose Poorly
On the post: Science Fiction Movie Accused Of Patent Infringement
"A subscription to PACER is required" - Humbug
Seems to me that we should be able to look-up the lawsuites and filings without having to pay or register.
GLOBAL FINDABILITY, INC. v. SUMMIT ENTERTAINMENT, LLC et al.
"Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required."
Any alternatives for accessing the lawsuit?
On the post: If You're Looking For The Open Source Business Model, You're Looking For The Wrong Thing
But Humans are Altruistic, wink wink!!!!
Despite our supposed altruism, there seems to be a community that finds it repugnant that people will work collaboratively on projects such as MySQL, Wikipedia, and Linux. Contrary to the urge to help article, the open source article implies that those who wish to work collaboratively are, in politically correct speech, "misguided".
Additionally the Time's open source article goes on to say "Many of the top open-source developers are anything but volunteers tinkering in their spare time." to imply that the open source community is hypocritical. There is nothing wrong with getting paid to build something that all people can use as they see fit.
In a simplistic sense, we have Ayn Rand's "Objectivism" running amok. That is that everything one does must be monetized and must be self-serving. Regretfully, "Objectivism", as the collapse of our financial market has demonstrated, is a bankrupt philosophy.
On the post: Information Should Not Be Free... Says InfoWorld Columnist That You Can Read For Free
Guess What - "The Price of Free'
While Nicholas Carr may be correct; that we will get more junk, he seems to miss the fundamental economic principle of the free-market: if you can't make money, too bad.
As TechDirt consistently points out, if the current business model will not generate a profit; it's time to change your business model so that you can make money.
I might as well toss in the conspiracy theory allusion. Two known articles on "FREE" being bad? Are there others? Hmmm, something to think about.
On the post: Nobel Prize Winning Scientists Say Federally Funded Research Should Be Available Free Online
Publiclly Funded Research Belongs in the Public Domain
On the post: Justices Show Supreme Skepticism About Broad Business Model Patents
Patents promote progress but not for you.
"MR. JAKES: It's very much related to our current economy and state of technology, with computers and the Internet and the free flow of information. But that's what --
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: But a patent limits the free flow of information. It requires licensing fees and other steps, legal steps. So you can't argue that your definition is improving the free flow of information."
----------------------------------------------------------
So Jakes claims patents are useful to society, because patents makes the technology "visible". The only problem, society is not able to freely use the technology. So how does that constitute progress?
=============================
also Posted on Against Monopoly
On the post: Comcast Exec: We Need To Change Customer Behavior, Not Our Business Model
Blame the Customer
On the post: But Wait, Wasn't Muni-Fiber Supposed To Take Away Incentive For Private Fiber?
Government is Part of the Competative Landscape
Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with the taxpayers authorizing the government to provide services such as cable to its citizens.
An often overlooked aspect of this whole debate is that the government is still buying equipment from private companies (such as Cisco) and is employing people. So what is the difference, in terms of the economy, if the cable staff works for you local municipality or Time-Warner. None really.
On the post: Lawsuit Against Cable Companies For Not Offering A La Carte Channels Dismissed
Social Good Relativism
When it came to the issue of the government subsidizing cable to rural areas for the "social good", it was something to be stamped out as a vile imposition of government control. Furthermore, the free market argument was made that if the service could not pay for itself, then it should not be provided.
Magically, when a cable company restricts consumer choice thorough fixed packages that include some services that may be considered uneconomic; all of a sudden those not previously concerned with the "social good" have developed a moral conscious and now are lovey dovey with the concept of the "social good"??????? Total hypocrisy.
On the post: Less Than Expected Sales Of Beatles Rockband Shows It's Not Just About The Music
Overpriced
Since the Beatles are no longer producing, how is the cost of these CDs and Rock Band through copyright justified????
On the post: Nanda's Alarm Clock Not Only Runs Away From You, It Runs Away From eBay Too
The Legal Shotgun
On the post: Why Would The Copyright Lobby Be Concerned About An Anti-Spam Bill?
Due Process Anyone
On the post: Is Morality Even A Question In Copyright?
Morality for you BUT not for me
On the post: Is Balance The Right Standard For Judging Copyright Law?
Re: The Shifitng Balance
If the other party to an agreement is always questioning the validity of the agreement, what is the point of achieving "balance"? You will always be negotiating from a new "center" that is favorable to the "other side" and from an increasingly weak position since you blinked first.
On the post: Is Balance The Right Standard For Judging Copyright Law?
The Shifitng Balance
So basically, when a new technology comes along, such as the ability to record MP3 music onto a variety of platforms the copyright holders assert that any copying must be authorized by licensing. Whereas the file owner would assert that they have an entitlement to use the content as they wish. I, of course would advocate that "balancing" would deprive the file owner of rights that they are entitled too.
On the post: Once Again, Blocking Ads And Automating Clicks Isn't 'Stealing'
Entitlement Society
Next >>