Quote Details: Oscar Levant:
"The only difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Democrats allow the poor to be corrupt, too. Oscar Levant (1906 - 1972)"
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Sunday, December 2, 2007
PC World - Business Center: Are the Government's PCs Antiques?
PC World - Business Center: Are the Government's PCs Antiques?:
"Young IT workers in the U.S. government believe technology is obsolete by the time it is rolled out and are concerned that they can't get the experience they need because some functions are outsourced, according to a focus-group report released Monday.
A group of technology interns at the U.S. Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) also said cost-cutting in the U.S. government limits their ability to innovate, and they raised concerns that the more veteran IT workforce isn't oriented toward information sharing, according to the report, released by Telework Exchange, an Alexandria, Virginia, group that promotes telecommuting among government workers.
"Thursday, November 15, 2007
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Grad student suspended after pro gun rights e-mail | The Iconoclast - politics, law, and technology - CNET News.com
Grad student suspended after pro gun rights e-mail | The Iconoclast - politics, law, and technology - CNET News.com:
"A Minnesota university has suspended one of its graduate students who sent two e-mail messages to school officials supporting gun rights.
Liberals pay a weird lip-service to the rights of individuals, and then trample them freely. Do they not recognize the disconnect between their ideology and their actions? Are they really that stupid? (Don't answer that.)
"A Minnesota university has suspended one of its graduate students who sent two e-mail messages to school officials supporting gun rights.
Hamline University also said that master's student Troy Scheffler, who owns a firearm, would be barred from campus and must receive a mandatory "mental health evaluation" after he sent an e-mail message arguing that law-abiding students should be able to carry firearms on campus for self-defense."
Here's one of the things that makes me crazy: the suspension of the US Constitution on US College campuses. For those who don't know, I spent more than 10 years working in universities as both staff and faculty, and saw a complete abolition of due process where it came to the rights of students and staff with conservative views.In one case, my boss was sent to sensitivity training because it was alleged that he said "menacing" things to female students (one of these supposedly happened in my presence, but my characterization of the events differ). He asked if anyone cared whether or not the allegations were true, and the response from an Associate Dean was, "It's enough that there are complaints."
Liberals pay a weird lip-service to the rights of individuals, and then trample them freely. Do they not recognize the disconnect between their ideology and their actions? Are they really that stupid? (Don't answer that.)
Friday, October 5, 2007
Fallout from the RIAA's $220K windfall
Democratic congressman: RIAA's $222,000 win is 'excessive' | Tech news blog - CNET News.com:
"The recording industry's victory Thursday in a trial involving a Minnesota woman accused of illegal file-sharing is already turning at least a few heads on Capitol Hill."
Minnesota woman who owes RIAA $220,000 calls sum 'ridiculous' | Tech news blog - CNET News.com:
"'It says in the constitution that there should be no undue fines,' Thomas said in an interview with CNET News.com. 'I was just fined (9,000 percent more) than the value of these songs.'"
"The recording industry's victory Thursday in a trial involving a Minnesota woman accused of illegal file-sharing is already turning at least a few heads on Capitol Hill."
Minnesota woman who owes RIAA $220,000 calls sum 'ridiculous' | Tech news blog - CNET News.com:
"'It says in the constitution that there should be no undue fines,' Thomas said in an interview with CNET News.com. 'I was just fined (9,000 percent more) than the value of these songs.'"
Four reasons why the RIAA won a jury verdict of $220,000 today | The Iconoclast - politics, law, and technology - CNET News.com
Four reasons why the RIAA won a jury verdict of $220,000 today | The Iconoclast - politics, law, and technology - CNET News.com
Poor Jammie Thomas. She ran afoul of the RIAA over copyright, got herself sued, and a jury of her so-called peers awarded the stinking-rich RIAA 222,000 US large. At issue was Thomas' making available 24 songs.
In reading some of the details of the case, it seems that Thomas probably didn't know that she was making the files available. However, for the RIAA to use such a big club, and for the courts and, - for God's sake, the jury - to punish her so badly is appalling. The problem lies in the nature and wording of the law, and the RIAA's policy to defend it's property ruthlessly.
The questions that need to be asked are: Who was damaged? How much were they damaged? How intentional was the infringement? Can the fact that the material was actually distributed be proven? Beyond damages, what is a reasonable fine?
Interestingly, none of these questions need be answered, because of the way the law is worded. Pretty much, all one needs to do is make something available for distribution, and that's that. And that's what Thomas did, intentionally or not.
This is bad. Bad law, and bad policy. Not so much because I think artists shouldn't be paid, but because I think it's not fair. I think Thomas should be punished - if not for electronic distribution of intellectual property, then for being stupid enough to make it easy for the RIAA to catch her.
I especially think it's bad because I keep thinking of human waste like the Britney Spears and [INSERT HIP-HOP ARTIST NAME HERE] who do nothing but pollute our culture and reap huge awards from it, through groups like the RIAA. And it seems they now have another $222,000 to play with. New grilles all around!
Should Thomas be punished? Yes. How much? The RIAA should have to prove how many of the 24 songs were actually downloaded, how many times, and then charge her the market rate for them - about a dollar apiece. The downside is that this might have turned out to be more than her actual fine, but at least the penalty would have some basis in proof, reality and reason. As it stands, the outcome is simply arbitrary.
It ain't fair, and it would be nice if lawmakers would recognize this.
Poor Jammie Thomas. She ran afoul of the RIAA over copyright, got herself sued, and a jury of her so-called peers awarded the stinking-rich RIAA 222,000 US large. At issue was Thomas' making available 24 songs.
In reading some of the details of the case, it seems that Thomas probably didn't know that she was making the files available. However, for the RIAA to use such a big club, and for the courts and, - for God's sake, the jury - to punish her so badly is appalling. The problem lies in the nature and wording of the law, and the RIAA's policy to defend it's property ruthlessly.
The questions that need to be asked are: Who was damaged? How much were they damaged? How intentional was the infringement? Can the fact that the material was actually distributed be proven? Beyond damages, what is a reasonable fine?
Interestingly, none of these questions need be answered, because of the way the law is worded. Pretty much, all one needs to do is make something available for distribution, and that's that. And that's what Thomas did, intentionally or not.
This is bad. Bad law, and bad policy. Not so much because I think artists shouldn't be paid, but because I think it's not fair. I think Thomas should be punished - if not for electronic distribution of intellectual property, then for being stupid enough to make it easy for the RIAA to catch her.
I especially think it's bad because I keep thinking of human waste like the Britney Spears and [INSERT HIP-HOP ARTIST NAME HERE] who do nothing but pollute our culture and reap huge awards from it, through groups like the RIAA. And it seems they now have another $222,000 to play with. New grilles all around!
Should Thomas be punished? Yes. How much? The RIAA should have to prove how many of the 24 songs were actually downloaded, how many times, and then charge her the market rate for them - about a dollar apiece. The downside is that this might have turned out to be more than her actual fine, but at least the penalty would have some basis in proof, reality and reason. As it stands, the outcome is simply arbitrary.
It ain't fair, and it would be nice if lawmakers would recognize this.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Heavyweights Duke It Out Over Wireless Broadband
PC World - Heavyweights Duke It Out Over Wireless Broadband:
"'I give you the example of China exactly to make the point that even in a Communist country, consumers have more choice than they do in the cellular industry in the United States,' Hundt replied. 'This is a really weird system, and it doesn't exist because the consumers chose it, and it doesn't exist because of competition; it exists because of the bottleneck power of a couple of companies.'"
"'I give you the example of China exactly to make the point that even in a Communist country, consumers have more choice than they do in the cellular industry in the United States,' Hundt replied. 'This is a really weird system, and it doesn't exist because the consumers chose it, and it doesn't exist because of competition; it exists because of the bottleneck power of a couple of companies.'"
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Harry On Immigration: An Immediate Solution!
Harry On Immigration: An Immediate Solution!: "I was thinking about what to do about the steady influx of people crossing the American borders illegally. The government won't stop them, but when considering the breadth of the news, I think this might be a viable solution:"
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Beyond Wind and Solar, a New Generation of Clean Energy - washingtonpost.com
Beyond Wind and Solar, a New Generation of Clean Energy - washingtonpost.com:
"As policymakers promote alternative energy sources to reduce the United States' emissions of greenhouse gases and its dependence on foreign oil, entrepreneurs are becoming increasingly inventive about finding novel ways to power the economy.
Beyond solar power and wind, which is America's most developed renewable-energy sector, a host of companies are exploring a variety of more obscure technologies. Researchers are trying to come up with ways to turn algae into diesel fuel. In landfills, startups are attempting to wring energy out of waste such as leaves, tires and 'car fluff' from junked automobiles."
"As policymakers promote alternative energy sources to reduce the United States' emissions of greenhouse gases and its dependence on foreign oil, entrepreneurs are becoming increasingly inventive about finding novel ways to power the economy.
Beyond solar power and wind, which is America's most developed renewable-energy sector, a host of companies are exploring a variety of more obscure technologies. Researchers are trying to come up with ways to turn algae into diesel fuel. In landfills, startups are attempting to wring energy out of waste such as leaves, tires and 'car fluff' from junked automobiles."
Friday, August 24, 2007
Where do they go when the industry collapses?
If you think China is the only culprit manufacturing hazardous and recalled goods, think again. The notable thing is that almost all recalled goods are not made in the USA.
Have a look at the Consumer Product Safety Commission's website for proof. http://www.cpsc.gov/
The point is, when will our economic policies begin to favor American-made goods, and therefore American workers, and therefore the American economy?
Recent news is proof that our economy is fragile. For example, while sustainable hard goods are almost exclusively made overseas, much of what we produce here in the US are intangibles - such as loans and other money-related business. The problem is that when the markets turn downward - as they always do, and are now doing - people lose their jobs with nowhere to go. Take the loan market. As of this writing, more than 88,000 people have lost their jobs, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. As more mortgage companies go under as a result of bad loans generated in the housing-boom greed in the early 2000s, more and more people will lose their jobs. Note that these are largely unskilled jobs, to boot - loan officers are much like real estate agents; they come in off the street and are trained by the companies to perform these specific jobs. The skills aren't really portable unless one stays in the industry.
But what if that industry collapses? Where do these people go when the entire industry is in shambles? In the 70s through the 90s, it happened to our large manufacturing industries. Now it's the loan and real estate industry, a perfect case.
The government doesn't have an answer, that's for sure, other than to properly regulate international commerce.
Maybe if they took a history lesson, might that help?
Have a look at the Consumer Product Safety Commission's website for proof. http://www.cpsc.gov/
The point is, when will our economic policies begin to favor American-made goods, and therefore American workers, and therefore the American economy?
Recent news is proof that our economy is fragile. For example, while sustainable hard goods are almost exclusively made overseas, much of what we produce here in the US are intangibles - such as loans and other money-related business. The problem is that when the markets turn downward - as they always do, and are now doing - people lose their jobs with nowhere to go. Take the loan market. As of this writing, more than 88,000 people have lost their jobs, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. As more mortgage companies go under as a result of bad loans generated in the housing-boom greed in the early 2000s, more and more people will lose their jobs. Note that these are largely unskilled jobs, to boot - loan officers are much like real estate agents; they come in off the street and are trained by the companies to perform these specific jobs. The skills aren't really portable unless one stays in the industry.
But what if that industry collapses? Where do these people go when the entire industry is in shambles? In the 70s through the 90s, it happened to our large manufacturing industries. Now it's the loan and real estate industry, a perfect case.
The government doesn't have an answer, that's for sure, other than to properly regulate international commerce.
Maybe if they took a history lesson, might that help?
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
The Being of Culture and Society
What is the nature of culture and society in the human landscape? Are "culture" and "society" entities unto themselves, deserving of protections, or are they abstractions simply bandied about in discourse?
Do these protections rate on a level with individual rights, or should the rights of the individual human supersede anything afforded culture and society?
How important are culture and society?
If culture is comprised of individuals with rights, and is defined as the collective manner of a people, do they have the collective right to change and /or defend their own culture as they see fit?
So when does the right of the individual supersede the right of a culture? Does it ever?
As such, I believe culture and society are worthy of protection, if for no other reason than they took so long to develop - and usually for good reason. This is not to say that cultures and societies are not dynamic and will change over time; of course they will, like all living things.
However, the idea that a single individual right always trumps those of culture and society is not just ludicrous, it's harmful.
Just as free speech will not allow someone to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, so must we, at some point, recognize that some things that are done - either legally, through the judicial system or otherwise - that are just plain harmful to culture and society. One of these is not requiring assimilation.
Take illegal immigration. It's a very sad situation for people to have to uproot themselves with only the clothes on their backs to seek a better life. However, this goes back to the basic question: should the newcomers overtake the rights of those that are in the culture and society which they hope to enter? Should the culture bend to suit the newcomers?
And what about the culture that the illegals will enter, and can't help but alter; don't the existing members of that culture have something to say about how their way of life is made different?
Do we have the discipline to follow our own logic that created the culture that we love in the first place? Or are we so displease with our society that we feel it should be changed substantially through at-will immigration, and non-assimilation? Should we require fluency in multiple languages?
If culture and society are entities that we recognoze and hold dear, then don't they deserve protection, too?
Do these protections rate on a level with individual rights, or should the rights of the individual human supersede anything afforded culture and society?
How important are culture and society?
If culture is comprised of individuals with rights, and is defined as the collective manner of a people, do they have the collective right to change and /or defend their own culture as they see fit?
So when does the right of the individual supersede the right of a culture? Does it ever?
As such, I believe culture and society are worthy of protection, if for no other reason than they took so long to develop - and usually for good reason. This is not to say that cultures and societies are not dynamic and will change over time; of course they will, like all living things.
However, the idea that a single individual right always trumps those of culture and society is not just ludicrous, it's harmful.
Just as free speech will not allow someone to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, so must we, at some point, recognize that some things that are done - either legally, through the judicial system or otherwise - that are just plain harmful to culture and society. One of these is not requiring assimilation.
Take illegal immigration. It's a very sad situation for people to have to uproot themselves with only the clothes on their backs to seek a better life. However, this goes back to the basic question: should the newcomers overtake the rights of those that are in the culture and society which they hope to enter? Should the culture bend to suit the newcomers?
And what about the culture that the illegals will enter, and can't help but alter; don't the existing members of that culture have something to say about how their way of life is made different?
Do we have the discipline to follow our own logic that created the culture that we love in the first place? Or are we so displease with our society that we feel it should be changed substantially through at-will immigration, and non-assimilation? Should we require fluency in multiple languages?
If culture and society are entities that we recognoze and hold dear, then don't they deserve protection, too?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)