Sunday, May 20, 2007
The Fujitsu FMV-U8240 UMPC looks nice. This does away with one of my concerns with the UMPC, which is the typicall smallish or non-existent physical keyboard. I'm sure I could type on this one. Now, I'm only left with the sure-to-blind-me screen--1024X600 on a 5.6" LCD would likely give me migraines. Still, it would be nice for taking written (and perhaps voice) memos while on the run.
And here's a story that show's Russia's predilection toward dictatorship and mayhem won't necessarily end with the deaths of the last Soviet-era leadership. An entirely new generation of oppression is being created right under our very noses, and I fear it won't end well.
I continue to believe that Russia is the greater threat to long-term American security, and this story about Russian spies makes me feel no better.
The oil economy won't last forever. Dubai should remember this. I mean, these are some crazy cool skyscrapers, but how will they pay for such things when the oil money runs out?
More Starcraft II info, specifically some nifty-looking in-game videos. I can't wait for this thing. Of course, I probably don't have a system that will play it like this (my fastest system is an Acer 8204 with an ATI X1600 Mobility GPU, which I'm sure will be inadequate), and so I better start saving up.
Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at 4118 Diggs, is anti-Bush. My own anecdotal information would show that the #1 Digg isn't often of a political nature, at least not recently (or since I started this blog). And so, I can't make that particular claim.
This one's pretty bad, though. The story linked is an opinion piece that doesn't make sense in the context of the presidential directive it references. The piece even quotes the directive, as follows:
"Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;
And also:
The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government.
I'm no constitutional scholar, but I highly doubt that offering up the Executive Branch as the "leader" of the government (during catastrophies or otherwise) would be considered unconstitutional. In fact, I'm pretty sure that this is the definition of the Executive Branch (i.e., the branch that executes the law). In fact, if this directive is guilty of anything, it would appear to be redundancy.
My question is: did the 4118 Digg readers who Dugg this story actually read it and think about it? Or was their Digg just a knee-jerk reaction to an inflammatory anti-Bush headline?
This one's pretty bad, though. The story linked is an opinion piece that doesn't make sense in the context of the presidential directive it references. The piece even quotes the directive, as follows:
"Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;
And also:
The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government.
I'm no constitutional scholar, but I highly doubt that offering up the Executive Branch as the "leader" of the government (during catastrophies or otherwise) would be considered unconstitutional. In fact, I'm pretty sure that this is the definition of the Executive Branch (i.e., the branch that executes the law). In fact, if this directive is guilty of anything, it would appear to be redundancy.
My question is: did the 4118 Digg readers who Dugg this story actually read it and think about it? Or was their Digg just a knee-jerk reaction to an inflammatory anti-Bush headline?
When Israel defends herself, sometimes innocent people are killed. This is unavoidable in war, and if Israel should be faulted for anything it's for being too careful. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict would probably be over by now, with both sides living in peace, had Israel been allowed to simply win the war and get it over with.
When Hamas sends rockets into Israel, however, it is indiscriminate, and the killing of civilians vs. military is the rule rather than the exception. Here's a report on what it feels like to be on the other end of a Hamas Kassam rocket.
When Hamas sends rockets into Israel, however, it is indiscriminate, and the killing of civilians vs. military is the rule rather than the exception. Here's a report on what it feels like to be on the other end of a Hamas Kassam rocket.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, China is in trouble. If this sort of thing continues, to cost of doing business with China will become unbearable. It's a net loss for everyone, but I imagine that the Chinese people will suffer most.
A fascinating story on the domestic oil industry, in the New York Times. What I find most interesting is that oil exploration seems to be down. If so, then how can anyone predict a decrease in available reserves (and by"available," I don't mean just known reserves)?
Saturday, May 19, 2007
I recognize that I seem to post most often about intellectual property, and my Google ads attest to this fact. They are as of this posting, for example, both ads placed by IP lawyers. Nothing wrong with that, unless I have aspirations to make a little money from this blog.
Nevertheless, this is an interesting op ed by Mark Helprin. In it, he argues that copyright law should be extended, not limited. He's a writer, and so he doesn't touch at all on the issue of "digital rights." Unless a book has been specifically digitized into an eBook format, it's not very likely to suffer from the widespread infringement "enjoyed" by music and video.
I don't agree with Mr. Helprin, of course. Again, he's not arguing for copyright, per se, but rather assumes that copyright is valid (a legitimate assumption) and argues instead that it should last forever--or, something close to it. As Ayn Rand wrote, however:
Material property represents a static amount of wealth already produced. It can be left to heirs, but it cannot remain in their effortless possession in perpetuity: the heirs can consume it or must earn its continued possession by their own productive work. The greater the value of the property, the greater the effort demanded of the heir. In a free, competitive society, no one could long retain the ownership of a factory or of a tract of land without exercising a commensurate effort.
But intellectual property cannot be consumed. If it were held in perpetuity, it would lead to the opposite of the very principle on which it is based: it would lead, not to the earned reward of achievement, but to the unearned support of parasitism. It would become a cumulative lien on the production of unborn generations, which would ultimately paralyze them. Consider what would happen if, in producing an automobile, we had to pay royalties to the descendants of all the inventors involved, starting with the inventor of the wheel and on up. Apart from the impossibility of keeping such records, consider the accidental status of such descendants and the unreality of their unearned claims. - Capitalism: The Unknown Idea, Ayn Rand, 1966.
The power of her argument here is how it highlights the vital importance of the individual in creating intellectual property. Mr. Helprin focuses on the long-term economic value of the property itself without recognizing its connection to the individual who created it. Those who argue against intellectual property in general, who like to say that "ideas want to be free," are making the same essential mistake.
Nevertheless, this is an interesting op ed by Mark Helprin. In it, he argues that copyright law should be extended, not limited. He's a writer, and so he doesn't touch at all on the issue of "digital rights." Unless a book has been specifically digitized into an eBook format, it's not very likely to suffer from the widespread infringement "enjoyed" by music and video.
I don't agree with Mr. Helprin, of course. Again, he's not arguing for copyright, per se, but rather assumes that copyright is valid (a legitimate assumption) and argues instead that it should last forever--or, something close to it. As Ayn Rand wrote, however:
Material property represents a static amount of wealth already produced. It can be left to heirs, but it cannot remain in their effortless possession in perpetuity: the heirs can consume it or must earn its continued possession by their own productive work. The greater the value of the property, the greater the effort demanded of the heir. In a free, competitive society, no one could long retain the ownership of a factory or of a tract of land without exercising a commensurate effort.
But intellectual property cannot be consumed. If it were held in perpetuity, it would lead to the opposite of the very principle on which it is based: it would lead, not to the earned reward of achievement, but to the unearned support of parasitism. It would become a cumulative lien on the production of unborn generations, which would ultimately paralyze them. Consider what would happen if, in producing an automobile, we had to pay royalties to the descendants of all the inventors involved, starting with the inventor of the wheel and on up. Apart from the impossibility of keeping such records, consider the accidental status of such descendants and the unreality of their unearned claims. - Capitalism: The Unknown Idea, Ayn Rand, 1966.
The power of her argument here is how it highlights the vital importance of the individual in creating intellectual property. Mr. Helprin focuses on the long-term economic value of the property itself without recognizing its connection to the individual who created it. Those who argue against intellectual property in general, who like to say that "ideas want to be free," are making the same essential mistake.
"Carter: Bush’s foreign policy is ‘worst in history’": wow, what a headline. It's surreal, even. The subhead is even better: "39th president says 43rd has done severe damage to U.S. reputation abroad." This, from Jimmy Carter, whose principle contribution to America's "reputation" is to have shown our great nation as morose, emasculated, and ineffective. His most recent escapades have been just as disconcerting.
For a President who nearly destroyed the United States through sheer micromanaging incompetence, Carter has some nerve attacking Bush. Of course, Bush makes for an easy target.
For a President who nearly destroyed the United States through sheer micromanaging incompetence, Carter has some nerve attacking Bush. Of course, Bush makes for an easy target.
Producers can say anything, and often do. Michael Moore is a manipulative, disgusting, vile specimen, and hardly deserves comment. But, I'll believe that the US government is planning to "seize" his movie when I see it.
I'm not sure I like the looks of the 2008 Audi R8, but I certainly like the specs. At $134K fully loaded, it's even more "affordable" than some.
Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at 6189 Diggs (including mine), is about the upcoming release of Blizzard's Starcraft II, the sequel to immensely popular and quite fun Starcraft. I'm looking forward to it, even if the trailer does depict a criminal released from prison as a "Marine."
I think that telecommuting is a great idea, and of course I'm not surprised at its growing popularity. Personally, I enjoy working at home. In my previous job, I drove 25 miles each way through the admittedly beautiful Malibu Canyon Road and Pacific Coast Highway. But, it took me an hour each way, and with gas prices the way they are, close to $75/week in gas expense alone. I'm happy to have both back.
I just don't understand why Congress sees a need to get involved. If telecommuting makes sense for a particular company and employee, then they'll do it. If not, then they won't. As with all things economic, injecting government force into the equation 1) is fundamentally wrong and 2) creates the sort of artificial incentives that will ruin the concept.
Really, though, I was being facetious: I do understand why Congress will get involved. They can't help it. But that's a discussion for another post.
I just don't understand why Congress sees a need to get involved. If telecommuting makes sense for a particular company and employee, then they'll do it. If not, then they won't. As with all things economic, injecting government force into the equation 1) is fundamentally wrong and 2) creates the sort of artificial incentives that will ruin the concept.
Really, though, I was being facetious: I do understand why Congress will get involved. They can't help it. But that's a discussion for another post.
And, once our military commanders in Iraq are sure enough that these are the men who abducted three American soldiers, they should be summarily executed unless they are willing to provide demonstrably credible information on the "insurgency."
Should their information lead to Iran, all the better.
Should their information lead to Iran, all the better.
The issue of immigration is so complicated that I haven't yet spent the time to fully digest all of it. Perhaps the new immigration bill is good, maybe it's bad. But, I don't think that American immigration policy should give a rat's a** whether Mexicans are "wary of" it.
I welcome anyone who comes here peacefully and is willing to pay for their own existence. For a free society, infusions of productive, law-abiding people can't be a bad thing.
But, the idea that Mexicans (or anyone else) are somehow entitled to come here and work is erroneous and offensive. The fact that they can make more here than in Mexico doesn't create on their part a claim on America. Ultimately, they should be happy with whatever they get.
I welcome anyone who comes here peacefully and is willing to pay for their own existence. For a free society, infusions of productive, law-abiding people can't be a bad thing.
But, the idea that Mexicans (or anyone else) are somehow entitled to come here and work is erroneous and offensive. The fact that they can make more here than in Mexico doesn't create on their part a claim on America. Ultimately, they should be happy with whatever they get.
I'm all for modern medicine's ability to cure disease and improve our health, but this can't be healthy. I'm not a woman, but the women I know aren't really in a huge hurry to stop their periods. I'm not sure exactly what this is trying to accomplish.
I've been remiss in not yet saying to all of our military men and women around the world:
Happy Armed Forces Day!
I only wish I could do more to honor your efforts in upholding your values.
Happy Armed Forces Day!
I only wish I could do more to honor your efforts in upholding your values.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)