Cox and Forkum on a recent arrest of 230 Iranian youths attending a private concert. Apparently, the arrest is part of an effort to crackdown on the sort of "immoral" behavior defined during the original Islamic Revolution.
With Imajihadi (or whatever his name is) as lunatic President and with Islamic totalitarianism on the rise, nah, there's no reason for the US to be concerned about Iran.
Monday, August 06, 2007
Digg Report
Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at 5929 Diggs, is a link to a picture of Kevin Mitnick's business cards. For those who don't see hacking as a criminal activity, I suppose this is sort of like hero-worship. To others, well, it's not.
Ron Paul's Appeal is to the Internet's Youngsters
I agree that this is fascinating: Ron Paul barely registers in the mainstream of the 2008 Presidental campaign, but on the Internet, he's #1 over both Dems and Republicans. CNET suggests that perhaps it's an age thing, that Paul's positions resonate with the Internet's younger demographics.
I'll buy that. I think it also relegates the Internet to relative unimportance in contemporary politics.
I'll buy that. I think it also relegates the Internet to relative unimportance in contemporary politics.
Google/YouTube Sued for Copyright Infringement
And therein lies the rub: yes, Google/YouTube might remove copyrighted material whenever requested, but by that time, the cat's already out of the bag. With tools for downloading video from YouTube, by the time it's removed thousands or even millions of copies might already have been made.
These services must devise methods to prohibit the infringement in the first place. How they do so is up to them, but until they do, they're providing a platform for committing crimes. At the very least, such civil actions as that discussed in the linked CNET story should succeed.
These services must devise methods to prohibit the infringement in the first place. How they do so is up to them, but until they do, they're providing a platform for committing crimes. At the very least, such civil actions as that discussed in the linked CNET story should succeed.
Boing Boing Interviews Sudhir Vankatesh About Street Gangs
Boing Boing posts about an upcoming book by Sudhir Venkatesh (author of Freakonomics) on street gangs. To be titled Gang Leader for a Day, the author had this to say in an interview at Columbia University:
Q: How do gang members see themselves as fitting in with society at large? Do gang members have a real comprehension that the things they do — dealing drugs, engaging in violence, destroying property, scaring people — are widely perceived as not only illegal but also morally wrong?
A: Many gang members who attain leadership status are deeply conscious of their perception by wider society. They tend to make two arguments when discussing their behavior: first, that whites also work in the underground economy but are not prosecuted (or stigmatized) to the same degree (just look at the differential rates of punishment for powder cocaine and crack cocaine — the former is distributed by whites to a far greater degree); and second, that corporations also engage in criminal activity, but are rarely viewed as outlaws — not just Enron, but oil and other companies that have established histories of supporting anti-democratic regimes in developing counties to secure their own profits.
What fascinates me the most about the gang leader's answer is this part: "that corporations also engage in criminal activity, but are rarely viewed as outlaws." If the book is supposed to show that gang leaders are actually in touch with what's really going on, then it's already failed. American corporations and businesspeople are perhaps the single most persecuted group in American society, being blamed for everything from pure greed to outright evil. If the only example this gang leader can think of is Enron, than he's not very well read.
Q: How do gang members see themselves as fitting in with society at large? Do gang members have a real comprehension that the things they do — dealing drugs, engaging in violence, destroying property, scaring people — are widely perceived as not only illegal but also morally wrong?
A: Many gang members who attain leadership status are deeply conscious of their perception by wider society. They tend to make two arguments when discussing their behavior: first, that whites also work in the underground economy but are not prosecuted (or stigmatized) to the same degree (just look at the differential rates of punishment for powder cocaine and crack cocaine — the former is distributed by whites to a far greater degree); and second, that corporations also engage in criminal activity, but are rarely viewed as outlaws — not just Enron, but oil and other companies that have established histories of supporting anti-democratic regimes in developing counties to secure their own profits.
What fascinates me the most about the gang leader's answer is this part: "that corporations also engage in criminal activity, but are rarely viewed as outlaws." If the book is supposed to show that gang leaders are actually in touch with what's really going on, then it's already failed. American corporations and businesspeople are perhaps the single most persecuted group in American society, being blamed for everything from pure greed to outright evil. If the only example this gang leader can think of is Enron, than he's not very well read.
Iran and Saudi Arabia: Allies?
Once again, a very dubious source, but imagine if this post is true. The money quote:
Iran's President and the king of Saudi Arabia stressed on boosting unity and brotherhood among Muslims in a phone conversation.
If this conversation actually took place, and has any real meaning, then we just promised $20 billion to an Arab that hopes to be allied with Iran.
Somehow I doubt it really means anything (and the $20 billion to Saudi Arabia can't really be made any worse), but it's just creepy.
Iran's President and the king of Saudi Arabia stressed on boosting unity and brotherhood among Muslims in a phone conversation.
If this conversation actually took place, and has any real meaning, then we just promised $20 billion to an Arab that hopes to be allied with Iran.
Somehow I doubt it really means anything (and the $20 billion to Saudi Arabia can't really be made any worse), but it's just creepy.
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Digg Report
Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at 2869 Diggs, is a link to what the poster calls the most "intense" tattoo you'll ever see. I say, it's the most grotesque.
Ahmadinejad Says Israel Should "go find somewhere else" To Live
I wonder a bit about this source, but if true, then Iranian President Imajihadi (or whatever his name is) has put his foot into it again. Here's a quote:
Iran's outspoken President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called on Israel to "go find somewhere else" for its state and leave its territory for the creation of a Palestinian state, according to an interview published Saturday. "Our support (for the Palestinian people) is unconditional.
I'm sure that, as usual, this will be downplayed by the Left as merely mistranslation, as with the hundreds of other such statements he's made. If this source is valid, it's just another piece in a long line of evidence that Iran is led by a madman.
Iran's outspoken President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called on Israel to "go find somewhere else" for its state and leave its territory for the creation of a Palestinian state, according to an interview published Saturday. "Our support (for the Palestinian people) is unconditional.
I'm sure that, as usual, this will be downplayed by the Left as merely mistranslation, as with the hundreds of other such statements he's made. If this source is valid, it's just another piece in a long line of evidence that Iran is led by a madman.
China Publishes Anti-Corruption Game
The Chinese government is taking corruption seriously: it created a game where the object is to kill all corrupt officials on the way to a corruption-free paradise. This is, I suppose, to prepare future Chinese leaders to avoid corruption.
There's an irony there. Leave a comment if you've noticed it.
There's an irony there. Leave a comment if you've noticed it.
Some More on "Sicko"
Here's a nice short essay on "Sicko," by our favorite Leftist, Michael Moore. Some quotes:
One of "Sicko's" recommended models, the so-called free medical system in Sweden, requires a 13.9 percent gross income tax with no exemptions on total personal income, plus employer and general fund contributions to pay for it. This, when coupled with a co-pay system that collects from patients $13 to $30 for each doctor visit, prescription, and specialist consultations at clinics, by definition makes the Swedish medical system not a free lunch.
...
In fact, it can be argued some welfare state healthcare systems such the U.K.'s are evolving into two systems based upon who pays. Those who have means to pay have access to spa-like personal service, and those who don't want to, or those who do not have the means, join waiting lists and in many cases receive treatment in a Spartan-like environment.
It's a short piece, and barely scratches the surface, but worth a quick read nonetheless.
One of "Sicko's" recommended models, the so-called free medical system in Sweden, requires a 13.9 percent gross income tax with no exemptions on total personal income, plus employer and general fund contributions to pay for it. This, when coupled with a co-pay system that collects from patients $13 to $30 for each doctor visit, prescription, and specialist consultations at clinics, by definition makes the Swedish medical system not a free lunch.
...
In fact, it can be argued some welfare state healthcare systems such the U.K.'s are evolving into two systems based upon who pays. Those who have means to pay have access to spa-like personal service, and those who don't want to, or those who do not have the means, join waiting lists and in many cases receive treatment in a Spartan-like environment.
It's a short piece, and barely scratches the surface, but worth a quick read nonetheless.
Saturday, August 04, 2007
Celebrity Report: Elton John's a Luddite
Celebrity Report: I like Elton John's music, but this CNET stories shows him to be just a bit bonkers when it comes to technology. Then again, he was around in the '60's.
Intel Owes AMD $60 Billion?
Here's a fascinating looking into the seamier side of antitrust law (if antitrust could possibly have a seamier side). Basically, this CNET article alleges (or just states, one can't quite tell) that AMD has hired a consultant to show how much money Intel has essentially "stolen" from AMD through anti-competitive practices.
This is, of course, essentially the same as the Microsoft case, without the dubious economics. You have a competitor in AMD (among others) who simply haven't made the best product and marketing decisions, while Intel has done pretty well. In fact, there was a recent period of time when Intel was doing everything wrong, and AMD simply failed to capitalize on it.
Antitrust law is just a way for disgruntled competitors to stop successful companies. I refer you to this article at the Ayn Rand Institute for more.
This is, of course, essentially the same as the Microsoft case, without the dubious economics. You have a competitor in AMD (among others) who simply haven't made the best product and marketing decisions, while Intel has done pretty well. In fact, there was a recent period of time when Intel was doing everything wrong, and AMD simply failed to capitalize on it.
Antitrust law is just a way for disgruntled competitors to stop successful companies. I refer you to this article at the Ayn Rand Institute for more.
2008 BMW 535i Is a Beauty
I have a bad tendency to lust after things I can't have. The 2008 BMW 535i is a good example.
CNET reviews it, and it sounds like heaven on wheels.
CNET reviews it, and it sounds like heaven on wheels.
Digg Report
Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at 4345 Diggs, is a rather plaintive request for Digg to do something about a group that games Digg to, I guess, drive traffic to their site. I suppose that's a real issue, and also seems an inherent issue of Digg itself (because, of course, special interest groups can do this as well, for, say, political purposes).
Mob rule. Gotta love it.
Mob rule. Gotta love it.
Boing Boing Misinterprets Freedom of Speech
In this Boing Boing post, they go postal on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's (CBC's) decision to require employees to get permission to blog if they identify themselves on their blogs as CBC employees. To Boing Boing, this is the epitome of infringement on free speech.
To anyone who understands free speech, however, this is basically saying, "If you want to remain an employee of CBC, then you'll either blog without mentioning that you're a CBC employee (thus avoiding any chance that your opinions will be taken as ours), or you'll get permission first."
Every CBC employee has a right to blog. They just don't have a right to a job at the CBC. The CBC can't stop someone from blogging, the most they can do is stop someone from working at the CBC. Only government could actually, physically stop someone from blogging, and that's what freedom of speech is all about.
To anyone who understands free speech, however, this is basically saying, "If you want to remain an employee of CBC, then you'll either blog without mentioning that you're a CBC employee (thus avoiding any chance that your opinions will be taken as ours), or you'll get permission first."
Every CBC employee has a right to blog. They just don't have a right to a job at the CBC. The CBC can't stop someone from blogging, the most they can do is stop someone from working at the CBC. Only government could actually, physically stop someone from blogging, and that's what freedom of speech is all about.
Boing Boing Advocates News be Created by Special Interest Groups
From what I can tell, this Boing Boing post proposes that "citizen journalism" will be better than "real" journalism. But, what they describe sounds to me a bit like the creation of a sort of partisan journalism, turning all of the "news" into opinion pieces.
Imagine if the only news we received was essentially editorials created by special interest groups. It's really quite chilling.
Imagine if the only news we received was essentially editorials created by special interest groups. It's really quite chilling.
Secure You're Wireless Network (Will be Obvious to Some)
Just a quick public service announcement: if you're wireless network isn't secure or you spend time on unsecured public networks, and if you're not using encrypted connections to your email provider, you're juts asking for trouble.
It's trivial for someone to get all the information they need to make your life a living hell. I once had someone hack into my PayPal account (because I was an idiot and used a weak password for both my Yahoo! email account and for PayPal), change the information on my bank and credit card accounts, and in general hijack my identity. I acted quickly enough--or should I say, PayPal acted quickly enough by calling me about a suspicious transaction--that nothing really bad happened, but I spent the next few weeks closing and opening all sorts of accounts.
So, get that security thing going, eh? My apologies if I sound preachy.
It's trivial for someone to get all the information they need to make your life a living hell. I once had someone hack into my PayPal account (because I was an idiot and used a weak password for both my Yahoo! email account and for PayPal), change the information on my bank and credit card accounts, and in general hijack my identity. I acted quickly enough--or should I say, PayPal acted quickly enough by calling me about a suspicious transaction--that nothing really bad happened, but I spent the next few weeks closing and opening all sorts of accounts.
So, get that security thing going, eh? My apologies if I sound preachy.
Congress Introduces Bill to Allow Governments to Compete in the Broadband Market
This would be bad news: via Ars Technica, it appears that Congress has introduced a bill that would overrule state laws that prohibit munipal broadband. Essentially, it would allow cities and towns to build their own broadband networks in competition with private providers.
Now, government has no special intelligence when it comes to providing such services. In fact, it really knows very little about it, as evidenced by the millions of dollars wasted every year by incompetent government IT departments.
It also has no money to spend on such ventures, other than the taxpayer money that it expropriates from its citizens. This means that government would necessarily be taking money from some group of citizens who either already have their own broadband connections or could care less about it, to provide broadband services to those who, for whatever reason, don't have it. And, of course, there's also the issue of those who current pay for broadband services with private companies to cancel and take advantage of the government-subsidized service.
Finally, government is by definition that entity that possesses a monopoly on the legal use of force; in one sense, government is force, because all of its legitimate functions (police, courts, military, etc.) are aimed at retaliating against those who initiate the use of force. Introducing force into the market does not create "competition," it creates coercion, no matter how the bill might be written. Government corruption stems from its ability to influence lives and business; we don't need more opportunities for it.
In other words, there's no good reason for municipalities to setup broadband services, and plenty of bad reasons. And I haven't even touched upon the economic impact that forcing broadband connectivity with current technologies will have on the development of new technology.
I hope to hell that this bill doesn't pass. Incidentally, it's the Community Broadband Act of 2007, if you feel inclined to contact your Congressperson.
Now, government has no special intelligence when it comes to providing such services. In fact, it really knows very little about it, as evidenced by the millions of dollars wasted every year by incompetent government IT departments.
It also has no money to spend on such ventures, other than the taxpayer money that it expropriates from its citizens. This means that government would necessarily be taking money from some group of citizens who either already have their own broadband connections or could care less about it, to provide broadband services to those who, for whatever reason, don't have it. And, of course, there's also the issue of those who current pay for broadband services with private companies to cancel and take advantage of the government-subsidized service.
Finally, government is by definition that entity that possesses a monopoly on the legal use of force; in one sense, government is force, because all of its legitimate functions (police, courts, military, etc.) are aimed at retaliating against those who initiate the use of force. Introducing force into the market does not create "competition," it creates coercion, no matter how the bill might be written. Government corruption stems from its ability to influence lives and business; we don't need more opportunities for it.
In other words, there's no good reason for municipalities to setup broadband services, and plenty of bad reasons. And I haven't even touched upon the economic impact that forcing broadband connectivity with current technologies will have on the development of new technology.
I hope to hell that this bill doesn't pass. Incidentally, it's the Community Broadband Act of 2007, if you feel inclined to contact your Congressperson.
Ahmadinejad States the Obvious
Iranian President Imajihadi (or whatever his name is) spells out American foreign policy in this story in The International News (sorry, link is to a print-ready page). It's remarkable how precisely he defines it, given how obvious it is. I say, the fact that he brings it up at all means it bugs him, but I doubt that it bugs him all that much, since he's insane.
I link to the story, but really, it's not worth the time.
I link to the story, but really, it's not worth the time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
