Soapbox time.
The COICA, or Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeit Act, is effectively summarized as allowing the government to set up two black lists: One that is controlled by the courts, and every ISP is required to block (from Comcast to Google AdSense); the other black list is one that is only ruled by the Department of Justice's discretion, and any site that is on that list is "highly encouraged" to be blocked by ISPs.
This bill is poorly written. The only violation a site must have is being "dedicated to online infringement." Does this include Youtube? Does this include Wikileaks? The broad definitions are almost as scary as the blacklists themselves.
Those in support of this bill are: The MPAA (who has been telling their employees to call Congressman to tell them they favor the bill), the Screen Actor's Guild, Viacom (who tried to sue Youtube), and other acting-associated industries. The industries opposed are the Center for Democracy and Technology, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Distributed Computing Industry Association--in other words, people who actually know what they're talking about when it comes to technology and don't just view it as a tool to further their own interests.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-3804 The bill itself.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2010/09/internet_pioneers_protest_sena.html Computer engineers discussing the non-ethical implications of the bill.
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/open-letter the EFF letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-segal/stop-the-internet-blackli_b_739836.html Huffington Post's take on it.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/29/engineers-slam-internet-censorship-ahead-key-vote/ Even FOX NEWS has spoken against this. This could ruin tons of people's business interests, especially start-up companies. Imagine having your domain blacklisted because you failed to cite something or you hotlinked an image?
http://demandprogress.org/blacklist/?akid=20.114994.h-FhCj&rd=1&source=e-fwd&t=1 This is a petition you can sign that they send to Congresspersons. You can also blog/post on the government websites themselves, or at popvox, a fantastic site where citizens can post their views and have them read by representatives.
While some might claim that is fine, and piracy is a legal issue that is finally being resolved, or scamsites are a legal issue finally being resolved, I would throw this into the field:
1) Why is this not specifically against piracy or scamsites? Why the broad terms? There is no definitions in the bill to narrow down terminology. This is a witch-hunt.
2) While the Chamber of Commerce is in favor of this bill, the other lobbyists are all Movie-related organizations. The music industry found a way to embrace filesharing, the movie industry should learn to do the same.
3)The opponents are three really reliable and trustworthy coalitions of computer engineers. They should have ultimate say, some of these were vanguards of internet technology, and their word should be taken as sacrosanct as the Founding Fathers while they are still alive.
4) There are better ways to battle piracy than blacklisting. However, unlike other countries, the United States lacks any comprehensive technological lawset. Our courts are not prepared to have this thrust upon them, and the legislators passing in my opinion aren't competent enough to realize what the hell they are passing.
5) According to Techdirt.com, the Recording Industry and VCRs and other innovative technologies and mediums were once considered "infringing." This will hand big companies a legal noose to hang new small companies as infringers and ensure a monopoly or unfair position of power in their industry.
This helps the special interests of a few groups reign their law over American citizens.
Get involved. Feel free to debate.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Verbal Altercation Between American Soldiers Leads to Fatal Friendly-Fire in Iraq
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/09/29/iraq.soldiers.death/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn
This is another problem of poorly-executed sustained foreign military operations: sustaining psychological health and discipline in stressed, foreign, hostile environment. To add to the imbalance, many soldiers, while excellently trained, are not accustomed to the environment, or people, of another country. To add to it, only 70% of the Army's new recruits had high school degrees, according to a report in 2007, in which the army stated "that they have lowered their standards to meet high recruiting goals in the middle of two ongoing wars."[1]
When there are uneducated soldiers engaged in pseudo-diplomatic military operations, there are bound to be problems. Uneducated people haven't had the experience or mental training to know how to adapt to new environments or accept them, and are most likely not culturally in-tuned nor have a wide global perspective. Education is one of the few things that distinguishes humans from their primal nature. These long-term diplomacy and semi-combat operations rely on level-headedness and the ability to LEARN from your environment, surroundings, and to critically analyze situations, to put rational thought ahead of abrasive emotions—you know, that shit they taught you in high school (if you were paying attention. If you weren't, you learn it in college.) Uneducated people are less likely to have an appreciation of human life because they haven't studied it nor understand it to the extent an educated person does; thus, can more easily fall victim to an "Us vs Them" mindset—the type of mindset prevalent in the dialogue between the soldiers who shot report innocent Iraqi reporters from helicopters, afterwards proclaiming, "Look at them dead bastards" and "Good shootin'" in the infamous video leaked by Wikileaks.*
"Education is man's going forward from cocksure ignorance to thoughtful uncertainty." -Kenneth G. Johnson.
In order to have an effective and—above all—respectable military or any policing/peacekeeping force, it is a duty to insure the mental competency and character and psychological profile of every soldier. Requiring a high school degree or a GED for every soldier would be a great first step, but an even better one would be a substantial evaluation of every soldier to ensure his or her viability in not only the fields of combat, but in the new world he/she is to reside in, observe, take part of, and ultimately affect the environment and inhabitants of.
While it may be impossible to eliminate all physical or verbal conflict, it is a disgrace when soldiers shoot each other, demonstrating the Army's lack of immediate counseling, lack of conflict-resolution/conflict-management training, or low expectations and low barriers of entry to the recruitment of the Armed Forces and the issuance of a gun.
Sharp
P.S. I have a lot of family in the military. I do know good, respectable soldiers. Most have great heads on their shoulders, and it's important to note that it isn't MOST soldiers committing such atroticities. These statements were meant specifically to criticize the too-familiar flaws of management in the Army, and to postulate that education of a soldier might be fundamental to the mental stability of the soldier. I live in a country that I like enough to state discomfort towards in order to evoke reflection and reassessment of the systems at fault.
*This isn't just a problem with our military. It is with any American authoritative force with guns. As demonstrated by many cases of SWAT or PDs violently and single-mindedly shooting at protesters, later congratulating themselves with the same kind of chest-puffing gun-talk.
This is another problem of poorly-executed sustained foreign military operations: sustaining psychological health and discipline in stressed, foreign, hostile environment. To add to the imbalance, many soldiers, while excellently trained, are not accustomed to the environment, or people, of another country. To add to it, only 70% of the Army's new recruits had high school degrees, according to a report in 2007, in which the army stated "that they have lowered their standards to meet high recruiting goals in the middle of two ongoing wars."[1]
When there are uneducated soldiers engaged in pseudo-diplomatic military operations, there are bound to be problems. Uneducated people haven't had the experience or mental training to know how to adapt to new environments or accept them, and are most likely not culturally in-tuned nor have a wide global perspective. Education is one of the few things that distinguishes humans from their primal nature. These long-term diplomacy and semi-combat operations rely on level-headedness and the ability to LEARN from your environment, surroundings, and to critically analyze situations, to put rational thought ahead of abrasive emotions—you know, that shit they taught you in high school (if you were paying attention. If you weren't, you learn it in college.) Uneducated people are less likely to have an appreciation of human life because they haven't studied it nor understand it to the extent an educated person does; thus, can more easily fall victim to an "Us vs Them" mindset—the type of mindset prevalent in the dialogue between the soldiers who shot report innocent Iraqi reporters from helicopters, afterwards proclaiming, "Look at them dead bastards" and "Good shootin'" in the infamous video leaked by Wikileaks.*
"Education is man's going forward from cocksure ignorance to thoughtful uncertainty." -Kenneth G. Johnson.
In order to have an effective and—above all—respectable military or any policing/peacekeeping force, it is a duty to insure the mental competency and character and psychological profile of every soldier. Requiring a high school degree or a GED for every soldier would be a great first step, but an even better one would be a substantial evaluation of every soldier to ensure his or her viability in not only the fields of combat, but in the new world he/she is to reside in, observe, take part of, and ultimately affect the environment and inhabitants of.
While it may be impossible to eliminate all physical or verbal conflict, it is a disgrace when soldiers shoot each other, demonstrating the Army's lack of immediate counseling, lack of conflict-resolution/conflict-management training, or low expectations and low barriers of entry to the recruitment of the Armed Forces and the issuance of a gun.
Sharp
P.S. I have a lot of family in the military. I do know good, respectable soldiers. Most have great heads on their shoulders, and it's important to note that it isn't MOST soldiers committing such atroticities. These statements were meant specifically to criticize the too-familiar flaws of management in the Army, and to postulate that education of a soldier might be fundamental to the mental stability of the soldier. I live in a country that I like enough to state discomfort towards in order to evoke reflection and reassessment of the systems at fault.
*This isn't just a problem with our military. It is with any American authoritative force with guns. As demonstrated by many cases of SWAT or PDs violently and single-mindedly shooting at protesters, later congratulating themselves with the same kind of chest-puffing gun-talk.
Friday, September 10, 2010
America's Got Talent 2010
Alright, I haven't watched any previous seasons of this show, but I've watched this season since it's first audition. I told myself I wouldn't even use a blog for this type of thing, but I just can't contain myself.
I am excited about this competition.
My favorites of this whole competition have been: Anna and Patryk, Murray, and Prince Poppycock. Only the Prince made it in to the top 4. (Murray should've been in there, but man, that train trick was a bit boring compared to Grasso.)
And here I provide my analysis of the top four:
1) Michael Grimm: I really like his voice. He's a great singer. However, I do not think this is his show, but I am totally glad to see him up there in stead of Taylor Mathews. If he doesn't make it? He'll have a solid career anyway.
2) Fighting Gravity: Cool light tricks, cool stuff. Reminds me of Theatre Tech kids, but I dig their originality and showmanship. They haven't been my favorite act, but, even if they don't win, they'll take the Jabberwocky route and end up in Vegas anyway, or maybe tour around with the Blue Man Group.
3) Jackie Evancho: See, here's where I get a little frustrated. Great singer. PHENOMENAL. I get it. I honestly think AGT should have an age restriction of at least 15 years old. The thing about her great talent at such a young age is that she just stands there singing. She isn't an ACT. She isn't a SHOW. She's a little girl, and her character and personality haven't been extracted into any sort creative essence. She definitely deserves recognition, she definitely has a beautiful voice. But no one is going to pay to see her in Vegas or in a tour led by Jerry Springer- nor should anyone want a ten year old girl to be wrapped up in such things.
4) Prince Poppycock: The best act. I LOVE this guy. Sassy, talented—this guy is FUN. In addition to being a very talented vocalist, he brings his own flair and creativity and art to the stage. He deserves to win and deserves to be in Vegas. He is a SHOW and would ticket sales would be through the roof if he took a stage. Not to mention, he's been wanting this for a very, very long time.
There's my analysis of the top four. I'll be voting for Poppycock on Tuesday. Remember, you can potentially vote up to 30 times- 10 online, 10 via phone, and 10 via text if you're an AT&T subscriber.
Thanks for listening! I won't post anything this embarrassing ever again!
I am excited about this competition.
My favorites of this whole competition have been: Anna and Patryk, Murray, and Prince Poppycock. Only the Prince made it in to the top 4. (Murray should've been in there, but man, that train trick was a bit boring compared to Grasso.)
And here I provide my analysis of the top four:
1) Michael Grimm: I really like his voice. He's a great singer. However, I do not think this is his show, but I am totally glad to see him up there in stead of Taylor Mathews. If he doesn't make it? He'll have a solid career anyway.
2) Fighting Gravity: Cool light tricks, cool stuff. Reminds me of Theatre Tech kids, but I dig their originality and showmanship. They haven't been my favorite act, but, even if they don't win, they'll take the Jabberwocky route and end up in Vegas anyway, or maybe tour around with the Blue Man Group.
3) Jackie Evancho: See, here's where I get a little frustrated. Great singer. PHENOMENAL. I get it. I honestly think AGT should have an age restriction of at least 15 years old. The thing about her great talent at such a young age is that she just stands there singing. She isn't an ACT. She isn't a SHOW. She's a little girl, and her character and personality haven't been extracted into any sort creative essence. She definitely deserves recognition, she definitely has a beautiful voice. But no one is going to pay to see her in Vegas or in a tour led by Jerry Springer- nor should anyone want a ten year old girl to be wrapped up in such things.
4) Prince Poppycock: The best act. I LOVE this guy. Sassy, talented—this guy is FUN. In addition to being a very talented vocalist, he brings his own flair and creativity and art to the stage. He deserves to win and deserves to be in Vegas. He is a SHOW and would ticket sales would be through the roof if he took a stage. Not to mention, he's been wanting this for a very, very long time.
There's my analysis of the top four. I'll be voting for Poppycock on Tuesday. Remember, you can potentially vote up to 30 times- 10 online, 10 via phone, and 10 via text if you're an AT&T subscriber.
Thanks for listening! I won't post anything this embarrassing ever again!
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom
I just got back into reading lately, and I decided to catch up on some jewels from the years that I happened to miss. Starting off was the body of work by filesharing advocate, tech-savvy sci-fi guy Cory Doctorow. I started off with "0wnz0red" (fantastic!) and have been grabbing his books wherever I can find them in Atlanta. From his novels, I picked his first, Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom and I must say, it was a fantastic read.
I enjoy the language he uses in his writing. It's very natural, and very geeky. A lot of the situations he brings up strike chords with me—not necessarily because of the "geek" factor, but moreso the angle from which he approaches the love and friendship relationships in his writings.
The premise of the novel is that social networking rose to power as opposed to any government or military or economic entity or artificial intelligence. That initial concept breeds a more unique science fiction world in that it isn't conspiratorial or foreboding: it isn't a distopia (some might argue) or even a utopia (again), it's just a postulation of the future.
The Society that takes precedence is called the Bitchun Society (once again: modern writer, clever names). It is an ad-hocracy, and its economy is reputation-based, using "Whuffie" as currency. The reason that people have taken more value in reputation than resources is that it is a post-scarcity economy. When more people like you, you get more Whuffie. You can give Whuffie, too. Whuffie can also be relative to people you're around, the place you're at.
The way everyone views Whuffie—views anything!— is a brain implant that gives the user an instant invisible interface to access the Internet, and check anyone's "Whuffie" score, or beam any amount of information to them. Communication and social networking are fundamental to the society as a whole.
The biggest thing one can do with the interface is completely back up their brain. Then, when one dies, a doctor clones the body, and the person is "restored from backup." It's a really neat concept.
I don't want to reveal the plot or anything, but the world itself can bring hours of controversial and imaginative discussion with friends. It's a neat read, and it's given me a jolt of mental energy since I've finished it.
I enjoy the language he uses in his writing. It's very natural, and very geeky. A lot of the situations he brings up strike chords with me—not necessarily because of the "geek" factor, but moreso the angle from which he approaches the love and friendship relationships in his writings.
The premise of the novel is that social networking rose to power as opposed to any government or military or economic entity or artificial intelligence. That initial concept breeds a more unique science fiction world in that it isn't conspiratorial or foreboding: it isn't a distopia (some might argue) or even a utopia (again), it's just a postulation of the future.
The Society that takes precedence is called the Bitchun Society (once again: modern writer, clever names). It is an ad-hocracy, and its economy is reputation-based, using "Whuffie" as currency. The reason that people have taken more value in reputation than resources is that it is a post-scarcity economy. When more people like you, you get more Whuffie. You can give Whuffie, too. Whuffie can also be relative to people you're around, the place you're at.
The way everyone views Whuffie—views anything!— is a brain implant that gives the user an instant invisible interface to access the Internet, and check anyone's "Whuffie" score, or beam any amount of information to them. Communication and social networking are fundamental to the society as a whole.
The biggest thing one can do with the interface is completely back up their brain. Then, when one dies, a doctor clones the body, and the person is "restored from backup." It's a really neat concept.
I don't want to reveal the plot or anything, but the world itself can bring hours of controversial and imaginative discussion with friends. It's a neat read, and it's given me a jolt of mental energy since I've finished it.
A Handy Windows 7/Vista Trick
I thought this was particularly neat: http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-vista/enable-the-hidden-administrator-account-on-windows-vista/
Pretty useful when I was moving some files around the other day for a friend and was having some issues.
Remember to deactivate the administrator account when finished, potential security risks.
Pretty useful when I was moving some files around the other day for a friend and was having some issues.
Remember to deactivate the administrator account when finished, potential security risks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)