I haven't listened this podcast, but I find something either simply wrong or just sensationalist about the question "whether it's really possible to make money without doing evil." That's so fraught with straw men and bad philosophy that I don't have the stomach to delve into it. All I'll say for the moment is that millions of people do so every day, and so if one doesn't find it self-evident, one simply isn't looking.

Cox and Forkum's, er, unusual take on Father's Day. It's good stuff, though.

And, to all the fathers (including myself): Happy Father's Day!

This would be cool, if I could stomach DirecTV. Which I can't, and so I won't.

Here we have three major American companies--Microsoft, Yahoo!, and Google-- engaging in precisely the same sorts of competively-driven acquisitions, and the FTC decides to investigate all of them.

How can anyone maintain the illusion that this has anything to do with competition?

I agree that it's a bit over the top to say that intellectual property theft is worse than "real" property theft. At the same time, I hardly think it's any better. The lack of violence may seem worth noting, but in reality there would likely be plenty of violence were one to try to break up the larger and more powerful Asian counterfeit rings. And, there are plenty of "real" property thefts that involve no violence at all.

The one thing that does make intellectual property very different, though, is the ease of it. It's trivial today to steal thousands of pieces of intellectual property, all without leaving the comfort of one's home, and just as trivial to distribute it to thousands--or millions--of other people. It's also relatively easy to do so anonymously; if one is careful, the chances of getting caught approach zero.

One can't say the same about "real" property.

An interesting discussion on atheism and Ayn Rand. I agree: she's the only one who's ever gotten it right. Rational atheism isn't against religion, it's for reason and man's life on Earth.

An interesting debate on the healthcare system. Notice the two different approaches to the argument (any reader of this blog should be able to recognize which argument I support). The comments are also illustrative, at least in part because they demonstrate a lack of knowledge of how government regulation has dictated private insurance policies. The private payor system hasn't developed in a vacuum.

Can anyone wonder what kind of nation China is, that it maintains such tight control over how people name their children?

What this really means is that such decisions should be made by free people via free markets, not by government fiat via political calculations. Had our government acted as it should have when Middle Eastern oil fields were first nationalized, and American investments confiscated, we wouldn't have nearly these concerns.

Here's the money quote in just about all modern discussions of intellectual property:

"For better or for worse, real property should not be confused with intellectual property, which is not subject to the same rules of scarcity."

I'm not sure where this idea of "scarcity" regarding intelletual property, or the lack thereof, orginated. I'll have to do some research, because it's such a ridiculous notion. The only reason that intellectual property isn't scarce nowadays, as opposed to when it was pressed on vinyl, tapes, and CD's, and when books were properly bound, and video provided on tapes and DVDs (let alone simple film at theatres), is precisely because technology has made its copying in virtually infinite numbers entirely trivial.

It's the fact that intellectual property can now be so easily copied that makes it seem like some sort of "non-scarce" resource. Of course, the artists themselves are plenty scarce, which seems to escape those who make this inane argument. The latter use the seemingly infinite nature of digital intellectual property, which is really just intellectual property like any other, only in a digital form, the crux of their argument--thus evading the fact that property requires not just possession, but also control.

They like to argue that the creator doesn't actually lose any thing when his intellectual property is taken, but that's not the point. He loses control over it, which is entirely the point. It would be no different if someone were to let me keep my house, but determined who could live in it with me. Even if they added on space so that I wasn't inconvenienced, the point would remain the same.

Anyways, no time to delve into this at the moment, but delving will be done at some point.

The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away. And by the Lord, of course, I mean "government."

Michael Moore's "Sicko" has hit the Internet. I'm sure Moore won't mind, since he's all against things like property and the like. He should be happy, since I'm sure his only intent in producing his sensationalist, journalistically sloppy, exploitative "documentaries" is to enlighten his fellow man, and not to make any money.

Making money is evil, see, in Moore's world. Therefore, he should feel right at home. I think I'll download a copy, clean it up, burn it to DVD, and hand it out to ALL my friends. Not for them to watch, mind you--rather, to burn. To my enemies who already believe Moore's shit, I'll just give free copies to watch to their hearts' content.

Maybe Castro will make up the difference for all the good publicity, courtesy of Moore.

If this is true about Bush deciding not to destroy Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons, it's vastly disappointing. It's also ironically more destabilizing for the Middle East--it leaves Israel almost no choice but to go it alone. One can only imaging the maelstrom that will occur should Israel attack Iran.

Or, maybe it would just be a tempest in a teapot, centered around the Arab "street" and with most of the West at least silently commending Israel for its actions. Part of me believes in this particular outcome, and so I'm rooting for Israel to do what it must.

This looks like fun. I'm not sure it's worthy of a Ph.D. thesis, though.

And so, who wins here? I'd say, Iran and Syria. Who loses? Israel and the US, because our "leadership" won't let either deal with the obvious repercussions.

As I've always thought, things are bound to get much worse before they get much better.

I really have to wonder at how gullible people must be to fall for such obvious attempts to do nothing but foment sectarian violence. It must be obvious to everyone by now that these attacks are meant specifically to push Iraq toward civil war, and for no other purpose. It's almost as if these people believe that a self-fulfilling prophecy, even fully identified, can't be altered.

Computer problems, and so light blogging today. Maybe some posts tonight if I can get everything resolved.

I'm not sure what Boing Boing means here by the title "Yahoo! blocks anti-censor, pro-human rghts move by sharehoders." It looks like the shareholders themselves simply voted against the measure. And, indeed, who is "Yahoo!" besides the shareholders?

I agree, although I feel this way about all social networking sites. Ultimately, I think they take too much time to maintain, and so unless one makes a career out of them, their attractiveness quickly pales the more of a time-suck that they become. I used LinkedIn, but primarily only to maintain contact with past coworkers--and, not even active contact, but just to know when they've switched jobs.

When I first saw the recent demos of the upcoming OS X upgrade from Apple, Leopard, I thought the same thing. Much of it just seems to be Vista with a little bit more development, and I'm sure that we'll see much of the same in future Vista updates. The Apple stuff is good, but it's not so far advanced over Vista that it offers a compelling reason to switch.

Of course, the fact that a Mac can run Windows (including Vista) has changed things considerably. My next PC will be a Mac, but I'll likely run OS X only as a novelty.

I've kept up with the healthcare industry for almost 20 years, since getting a job straight out of college where researching healthcare payment systems was a primary function. I noted then, and still believe, that government intervention is singularly responsible for the ever-increasing costs, and I remain amazed that our system continues to produce such quality care.

It started with the creation of Blue Cross/Blue Shield back in the 1930's, then continued with government-granted tax benefits for indemnity group health plans (which caused the disconnect we have today between the care that a person receives and how much he pays for it). Medicare has probably singled-handedly held back preventive medicine in this country, by spending hundreds of billions on highly interventionist care in the last few weeks of life, and the National Institutes of Health spends as much on basic research--without the cost-benefit justication that profits require--as the pharmaceutical industry. All of these governmental interventions, among others, have shaped the American healthcare system into the mess that it is today.

This essay by Dr. Onkar Gate of the Ayn Rand Institute just confirms my own beliefs. It's worth a read.

I'd probably do the same, if I had the money. Of course, I wouldn't have chosen an Airbus.

I've always found my Tablet PC to be a great tool, for a number of important functions. I've changed jobs recently, and so haven't had as many occasions to take handwritten notes, but that's the most obvious Tablet benefit. Other than that, there are times when even surfing the Web can be more comfortable on a Tablet in portrait mode.

Here's a story about a novelist who uses a Tablet PC in just about every meaningful way, it appears. If you have any interest whatsoever in the Tablet platform, this might tip you over the edge.

Notice the comments in this story about the WTC. The nutjobs are out in force.

If you'd like to weigh into the intellectual property debate, go here. My answers were the opposite of what I'm sure IPac is looking for, and the system crashed when I submitted them.

I'm sure it was a coincidence. Maybe you'll have better luck.

Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at a moderate 5568, is a rather inane bit of Anti-Americanism. Really, it's pretty crude. Judging from the comments, though, the Diggsters appear to like it.

I'm not sure I understand Mark Cuban's position in this post:

I recognize that it puts Google in a tough position. In fact, it could also be considered hypocritical on my part because I feel more comfortable with a user off the street buying and owning a DRM free copy of any or all of our movies or shows than I feel with Google holding DRM free copies of my content in order to protect it from pirated uploads. I dont have a good reason, but I don't trust Google with a copy of the worlds content any more than I would trust MicroSoft , IBM of the 1980s or any corporate SuperPower.

Whether or not a "user off the street" has any particular moral compunctions against sharing a file en masse is of course a crap shoot. The "corporate SuperPower"'s have very specific legal interests in recognizing and protecting copyright. They're the ones with the deepest pockets, and are far more likely to be (meaningfully) sued.

Cuban sometimes arrives at some odd positions...

To those Lefists who hold out some love for Communism... Idiotic comments aside.

I'm currently developing a new Web site, www.paperfreesmb.com that will provide on-going infomation, news, and support for small and medium business either looking to implementat a document management solution or expand an existing one.

If anyone can recommend a free content management system (Mamba, Drupal, etc.?) to use in building the site, I'd much appreciate any input. I'm not exactly sure where to start, but I want to develop a site similar to www.gottabemobile.com, www.tabletpcbuzz.com, and/or www.notebookreviews.com.

Thanks!

P.S. Don't go to www.paperfreesmb.com. There's nothing there yet!

Uh-oh! The Council for Foreign Relations has added a secret weapon in its quest for global domination. If you weren't scared before, you should be now.

Harry Binswanger presents an important argument for Objectivists who dislike libertarianism. It's specific to libertarian anarchy, but I believe libertarianism leads to anarchy inevitably and so it's a good refutation of libertarianism in general.

The gist? Libertarianism is a non-philosophical movement, and as such is prone to intrincism, mysticism, and a laundry list of unsupported and often contradictory positions.

Well, the last time I checked, the American economy's at about $13 Trillion GDP, the Russian economy not quite topping $1 billion. To me, that means Russia's still a pretty minor player in things economic, Putin's assertions otherwise notwithstanding.

More nyah nyah nyah from China.

Celebrity Report: A list of (alleged, until verified, I suppose) celebrity Republicans. It's not terribly important, since being Republican is no guarantee of rationality.

I have to say: I use a DVR in the bedroom, and a PVR (Snapstream Beyond TV, to be specific, and I highly recommend it) in the office. I rarely watch a show live, and I always skip through the commercials, and so I can understand CBS's position on ads and timeshiftng. In fact, this raises an interesting question: are some shows inherently more appealing to people who are more likely to timeshift, and if so, then are those shows necessarily harder to sell to advertisers? I wonder.

The bottom line, though, is that the networks need to develop different ways to monetize their broadcasts.

Hee hee. More Cox and Forkum.

Actually, I found the ending to the final episode of The Sopranos to be quite fitting. It was, after all, a show primarily about how "normal" people (read, neurotic, cynical, greedy) can find themselves conducting or condoning evil acts. The show ended by showing the Soprano family at their favorite diner, eating onion rings and fighting with such mundane aspects of existence as parallel parking.

There was no need to kill Tony off, or take him to jail. That was never the show's point.

And, one can then understand why Galloway was so against going into Iraq.

I've always liked this aspect of Lieberman.

Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at a brisk 4690 Diggs, is a link to a cutesy picture of Pluto and the other planets.

Bizarre.

Words don't mean much anymore, it would appear:

"Fighting between rival Palestinian militant groups, meanwhile, spread in the southern Gaza Strip, further weakening a shaky truce forged in the face of punishing Israeli air assaults."

I've always thought the word "truce" was synonymous with "no fighting."

This should get the Ron Paulies in an uproar. But beware: these are MORMONS!!!

Very nice.

If you care about global warming policies, this will be helpful come 2008.

Today's "duh!" moment.

A chapter that was removed from H.G. Wells' The Time Machine. As depressing as that novel is, this is even worse.

My wife just reminded me of a fortune cookie we received at lunch during our trip last year to find a place to live in California. We were moving from Chicago in about two weeks.

The fortune read: "You are heading for a land of sunshine."

And that's the definition of "coincidence."

The Diggsters show their compassion. Read the comments.

Funny, the underaged, hormone-driven dweebs that populate Digg were probably the first to download Paris Hilton's sex video. Now that she's in prison, however, they can't pile on enough.

Scrappleface on Paris Hilton. "What's bad for Paris Hilton is good for America."

It might seem like I'm picking on Techdirt, but I'm not, really. There's just a surplus of posts in my RSS reader, and I'm just now cleaning out my Techdirt folder. Nevertheless...

This post says "While we're generally suspicoius of vendor-funded surveys..." I wonder why. Are they equally suspicious of government-funded surveys, or NGO-sponsored surveys, or tech group-sponsored surveys? Most surveys are funded by some entitity with an agenda, whether it's obvious or not. It shows Techdirt's anti-business bias that they only mention vendors in this context.

The word "free" in "free trade" just throws some people, Techdirt among them. They simply can't understand that free markets require government protection of things like contracts, agreements and, yes, intellectual property. It would be fascinating to hear how trade could go on between nations without the protection of such things.

I suppose the Techdirt types imagine everyone will just play nicely, and share.

It's an open question as to whether our embassies should be promoting American culture. I don't really think that's a legitimate government responsibility. But the anti-American bile apparent in this Techdirt post is of more interest.

Techdirt often says it's not "political." Maybe, but it's certainly philosophical. And I used to think the site was about technology.

A particularly effective Cox and Forkum cartoon, courtesy of Little Green Footballs.

Update: The above LGF links might not work at the moment. They're apparently having some database problems.

Here's Boing Boing breaking trust with a film producer who's made their film available on YouTube. Boing Boing is recommending the use of the "Democracy Player" to pull the video off of YouTube for easier playing.

Perhaps the producer would have no problem with this, but it changes the game a bit. Rather than playing the film in the somewhat unwieldy and limited YouTube player, one can now play in a much more convenient player. Thus, one might be just that much less inclined to buy the "super high quality" formats available on the producer's site.

The film is an indy production called "Four Eyed Monsters," and I'm not a fan of indy films. But I am a fan of intellectual property and the creator's right to control it. Boing Boing, as usual, isn't.

This is pretty cool. Hum that unknown tune that's driving you crazy, and this site purports to tell you what song it's from.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. Not only does Google maintain extensive information on our individual Internet activities, but it also has a tendency to be cavalier with intellectual property in general. The problem for the IT Left is that Google has long been their darling, acting as a foil against the company they really consider evil, Microsoft.

Will they accept privacy concerns with Google that they would accept from no other company? It remains to be seen which will take precedence, their hatred of Microsoft or their inherent dislike of business in general. I have no illusions, of course, that they'll be at all concerned about intellectual property.

Note that I'm not convinced that there are general "privacy" concerns in what Google is doing. Once my activities leave my computer, I'm not sure that they're any longer under my control. What happens on my computer should remain private, but that has as much to do with how I use my computer and what software I run.

If Google is going to dominate the world through sheer mastery of technology, then why does it need to engage in antitrust allegations against Microsoft?

I must admit, I do miss Chicago.

This is good advice. We have probably about 75% of our important documents scanned and saved in a variety of places, including on DVD in a fireproof safe. I like the idea of saving to online storage--not so much for the redundancy, but to make it readily available from any Internet-connected computer. Although I always dream of grabbing one of my notebooks in case of a fire or other disaster, it probably wouldn't happen.

I think I'd grab my kids first.

Some thoughts on terror and the Koran...

I love this: "pitting dog and cat lovers against animal rights activists."

Huh?

We used to call it "playing doctor." Seriously. Violence is one thing. Messing around is something we all did, or wanted to do, and is another thing completely. I think we're criminalizing what we once saw as mere curiosity.

This lays things on the line: vote Democrat to end the war. It'll be interesting to see how that theme plays out.

Wanna know which movie critics to trust? Go here.

Skull and Bones! Illuminati! Bilderbergers! Freemasons! Trilateral Commission! Priory of Sion! Reptilian Humanoids! Elders of Zion! Shadow Government! Council on Foreign Relations! New World Order! Military-Industrial Complex! The World Bank! Big Pharma! Big Oil! Big Banking!

It's amazing that anything gets done with so many competing interests.

A snowball in Hell? I'm not sure I remember a prominent UN figure, other than the US Ambassador, expressing support of Israel...

This is fascinating, if maybe a little depressingly predictable: a game called Bioshock that seems to incorporate Ayn Rand's philosophy in its background story. I'm guessing that it's hardly correct, although I'll reserve judgement given this review's use of such libels as the alleged "dog-eat-dog" aspect of Objectivism. I'm hoping that the game publisher knows Objectivism a little better than the reviewer, although I'm not that hopeful.

I'll likely buy and play the game, just to see what it's all about. Read the linked story if you have any interest in Ayn Rand and Objectivism.

Update: More here.

Is Putin crazy like a fox, or just plain crazy? I think the verdict's still out.

Nyah nyah nyah.

Very, very cool. With a name like "scramjet," it must be powerful.

If nuking Iran were on the Republican agenda, it would raise their stock quite a bit with me. Of course, Ron Paul is the only one who wouldn't.

Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at a 3929 Diggs, is about the world's biggest digger. It's a nice picture of a feat of mechanical engineering that I bet most Diggers can't really appreciate. Because, you know, it's like, physical.

Well, they should know...

Taking a former KGB agent at his word requires a bit of a leap of faith, or something like it. If true, though, this certainly wouldn't surprise me.

This should be required viewing for anyone who gives presentations.

I can't agree that the G8 Summit is just another "sales meeting." It's more so an opportunity for mixed-economy leaders to get together an figure out new ways to inject force into what should be free transactions between individuals, and to confiscate wealth for political purposes.

I'm a big fan of treaty organizations like NATO the provide for common defense among free nations (or, semi-free, of course, but that's beside the point). But I find the G8 to highlight the dangers of the mixed economy.

The reason we have safeguards against things like illegal search and seizure is because government is the greater threat against our freedoms, not individual criminals. By making such tactics in pursuing even legitimate convictions fruitless, in other words by throwing out cases where such tactics are used, government is less likely to use them for illegitimate purposes. Thus, we are safer from government intrusion.

That's why this kind of thing gets such scrutiny. I don't find it inappropriate, necessarily, but I do see how it stretches the bounds of acceptability.

From this MEMRI account, it appears that our journalistic openness provides great intelligence to the enemy. That might be one of the inherent weaknesses of a free society, or maybe it's just bad decision-making on the part of our mainstream media. Either way, it hurts us terribly in our efforts to enhance our security.

If one believes that Google's book-scanning project constitutes copyright infringement, then this guy was making a valid point. Boing Boing, of course, makes a whole host of assumptions, such as that the guy "misunderstands copyright," which is in the title but never supported in the story, and that Google's project is necessarily "laudable."

I hardly think it's a foregone conclusion that scanning books and placing their contents online is not copyright infringement. Personally, I wonder. And, such a project would require extreme methods of digital rights management (DRM) to avoid infringing, even if it's possible, while Boing Boing has historically been anti-DRM of any kind.

Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at 5418 Diggs, is about Paris Hilton's return to jail. The comments in this one are pretty harsh. I don't like her either, but then again, I don't really care.

I have some experience with this sort of thing at my son's after school program. The problem with the issue of porn and school computers is terribly exacerbated by misspelled Web sites, where a kid accidentally connects to a site that downloads all sorts of nasty stuff. I'm really not sure how any teacher could be prosecuted for this stuff.

All that this points out is that removing state sponsors of groups like al Qaida is the only way to make a meaningful impact on their activities.

A more rational treatment of intellectual property issues, which does tend to point out their complexity. This is from Edward Cline posting at the Rule of Reason blog.

Space-based energy? I like it. It does, though, walk that fine line as to what's legitimate for government. The Pentagon has to do things to maintain our military advantages, and so this might just be a necessary evil.

As much as I dislike Apple politically (or, maybe just Apple devotees), they do make some interesting stuff.

More from Boing Boing on stealing intellectual propert.

What exactly does it mean that Putin has agreed to put missile defense technology in Azerbaijan? Or, I should say, to suggest doing so, since I believe Azerbaijan is a sovereign nation. I haven't kept up on the whole former Soviet bloc nation thing, to know what the actual political relationship might be.

Some information on the Creation Museum, linked without comment.

Celebrity Report: I'm not surprised that Will Smith and Bruce Willis are friends, nor that Smith has doled out some good advice.

Here's Kasparov on Putin and Russia. As Ayn Rand said, evil requires the sanction of the good to prosper, and nowhere is that more clear than with Russia and the West.

A one-minute case against environmentalism.

Bill Gates has always been poor philosophically, but this is pretty disappointing even for him.

Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at a brisk 8203 Diggs, is a story about Paris Hilton's sudden release from prison. If the story is true, it would appear that the five days she spent behind bars (not three as indicated in the Digg headline) is typical for the crime. So, just the typical misleading Digg hyperbole.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

Those wacky ancient Peruvians!!!

I thought deja vu was caused by transitory timing glitches between each eye. I guess I was wrong, and this explanation makes more sense anyways. It's also sort of freaky.

While I'm a fierce proponent of intellectual property protections, both patents and copyrights, I do believe that advances in technology might require additional reform of the patent system. Amazon.com's "one-click" patent and, apparently, its cousin, seems to support this notion.

I'm not a patent law expert, though, and so I would rather err on the side of protecting intellectual property. The sooner such things get resolved, though, the better, I think.

Here's another chapter in the US government's on-going war against the evil corporation. In an age of increasing global competition, what we really need is for our government to do everything in its power to make the American economy less competitive.

The money sentence in this story: "There doesn't seem to be an easy way for the RIAA to monetize their problems." "Monetize" their "problems"? Is this a euphamism for "get paid for their products"?

Read the whole thing for the context.

This isn't such a new concept. I remember getting Atari fever back in the day, and Commodore 64osis, which was always quite painful.

While we were playing Space Invaders and Joust, our collectivist enemies were playing strangly nondescript games like "pass." Yes, that would be a driving game, which apparently was the most common video game of the Soviet Empire. Obviously, the proletariat was jonesing for the automobile, big time.

Update: Here's more information. Apparently, the Soviets were way ahead of us in the self-esteem movement--no high scores.