Merry Christmas, Slashdotters. The people here- especially those of you on my friends list- are what makes Slashdot worth visiting.

Stanford just put up a bunch of faculty lectures, discussions, interviews, and student-created music up on iTunes. There's supposedly some video up too, though I haven't found that yet. Free as in beer. Content to expand in the coming months.

http://itunes.stanford.edu/

Although select lectures will be restricted to tuition-paying students, I think this is really cool. It's nice to see land-grant universities such as Stanford actively and boldly contributing to the public good.

I'm currently listening to "Stress and Coping: What Baboons Can Teach Us" by Robert Sapolsky. I can't say that I agree with all of it, but it's interesting.

Today the justice system sent a strong message to citizens: promote something by encouraging people to break the law with it, and you're going to get burned. This was in the context of a movie company suing a peer-to-peer company for distributing software that people could use to download movies (illegally)- the court ruled that, insofar as grokster (the p2p company) promoted their software as a tool that could be used for copyright infringement, they were liable for their users' actions. It now goes to a lower court for a ruling on whether grokster actually promoted it as a tool for breaking the law.

That's fine, but given the specific case, I'm a little disappointed. The unfortunate part about this is that the chilling effect of this ruling, and more importantly, the misinterpretations of this ruling, will probably cast a pall over innovation for years and years to come. As many have said, by this standard, Apple would have never dared to make the iPod (you're marketing it as a device that can hold 5,000 songs? Of course you're encouraging people to download music illegally to fill it). It's a shame the court didn't have a different set of priorities. And that they had Souter, the one justice that still refuses to use a computer, write the opinion-- presumably to send some kind of a message. I'm pretty discouraged about it.

I'd like to invite anybody that wants to work off some steam to help revise Lessig's "Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace". You can find the wiki, with more information, here. It's a cool way to run a project to begin with, and maybe some future chief justice will read the book that you helped revise.

Information about the community revision of Code, lifted from the linked webpage:

"Lawrence Lessig first published Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace in 1999. After five years in print and five years of changes in law, technology, and the context in which they reside, Code needs an update. But rather than do this alone, Professor Lessig is using this wiki to open the editing process to all, to draw upon the creativity and knowledge of the community. This is an online, collaborative book update; a first of its kind.

Once the project nears completion, Professor Lessig will take the contents of this wiki and ready it for publication. The resulting book, Code v.2, will be published in late 2005 by Basic Books. All royalties, including the book advance, will be donated to Creative Commons."

My first reaction to this major supreme court ruling was that the bad guys won. I think, though the court had a point when it said local officials are in a better position to decide when eminent domain should and should not be used, Sandra Day O'Conner said it best with,

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

It's naive to think that said local officials will not tend to unduly ignore the 'little guy' in favor of well-connected development interests with the ability to oil the various bureaucratic wheels of government. I'm not sure I trust my local official more than some remote judge to impartially and effectively decide when eminent domain should be employed, and to compensate fairly those impacted.
---------------------------------------
My considered reaction is that perhaps, just perhaps, this precedent is much larger than anyone is imagining.

There's nothing necessarily limiting this ruling to land property, or even physical property. What happens when some organization with nominal jurisdiction claims eminent domain over some intellectual property? Could a city council reassign music copyrights from local record labels back to local artists? Could some governmental body grab a patent from one entity and sell it to another?

Could Brazil use this SCOTUS decision to reassign the brazillian patents for various AIDS drugs from U.S. companies to the brazillian public domain, in the name of the public good, without the hassles of nationalization?

Here's what I'll say: this thing is bigger than it appears, and I don't know what's going to happen.

I invite you to leave your comment.

I stumbled across a perfectly wonderful homepage the other day- it has not only the hands-down best introduction to string theory I've ever read (various levels available- learn how your universe works!) but a lot of other content and a lot of 'good feeling'.

At the bottom of the homepage he writes in hindi(?) and english, "May everyone be happy". Indeed.

http://theory.tifr.res.in/~mukhi/index.html

I'd just like to leave you with an excerpt of George Washington's farewell speech. It's a portion that seems rather applicable to present-day politics.

"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy....

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose; and there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those intrusted with its administration to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism.... If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield."

-- George Washington, September 17, 1796

Excerpted from http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm

Even though a canidate's position on a single issue, copyright/patent law, will definitely sway me to vote for or against him/her, I don't think I'm a single issue voter because I feel their approach towards this issue highlights a pervasive, systemic attitude toward issues in general. If they are against my opinion in this realm, even if I agree with them almost everywhere else, it strongly implies that there's some deep flaw with that politician that is brought to light in this issue.

And... if I actually took this position I'd almost certainly be wrong- people can have differences in opinion on an isolated issue but still share a philosophy on most other issues.

Most single issue voters don't think they're single issue voters because they're mislead by this illusion, and vote worse because of it.

In any lawsuit, both sides should be required to keep track of their legal costs and once a verdict is reached, the losing side should be required (in addition to the judge's verdict) to remit an amount equal to their total legal expenses to the winning side.

Hypothetical situation: Boeing bought land near my house and started pumping out manufacturing pollutants and I sued them over it. I hired a moderately-price lawyer, and they hired 20 high-price lawyers. If they win, I'd fork over an amount of money equal to the money I've payed my lawyer. If they win, they'd fork over an amount of money equal to the money they've payed their 20 lawyers (in addition to carrying out the court's verdict).

This would considerably reduce frivolous lawsuits (as if a plaintif lost there would be consequences), encourage people to follow through with lawsuits in cases where they believe they are in the right, and create a more even legal playing field between those with resources and those without.

You heard it here first.

Edit: Perhaps let's limit this to civil cases. It'd be absolutely perfect in tort cases, for instance.

I think one could easily ask for this in a settlement, even if it's not made law (though only if you're the plaintiff in a case): some people include recouping their legal fees in requested settlements; I think folks could deem this "Reverse Legal Fees" and ask for this in addition to the court's verdict, instead of asking for regular legal fees.

Whether this will get back to CT I don't know- but I'd like to give a big thanks to CmdrTaco for his recent journal entry thoughts.

In the journal entry before last I expressed some concerns about Slashdot, and how I didn't think I was alone in them- this update makes me think that these concerns are know about and, eventually, will be dealt with.

After thinking about it, I'd also like to apologize for my potshot at the editor michael.

Ok. Before this journal turns into a lovefest, I'm out to play some frisbee.

RD

EDIT:

I decided to take this list down for certain reasons.

Mike

I just came back from coffee with a friend, and we came up with an interesting theory/analogy about what a theory's 'logical elegance' means.

By 'Logical Elegance' I mean two things:
- Simplicity
- Scope of application (which I will be focusing on)

The context is that I'm revising a philosophy paper for (ideally) future professional publication. The paper presents various Models of Philosophy to explain the purpose and place of analytic philosophy in the intellectual community. (If anyone would like a current copy of the paper for review, I'd love to send it- and love even more to get comments back. Email me with the subject 'Models of Philosophy' if so.)

In a recent conversation it came to my attention that these five models of analytic philosophy could elegantly be applied to existential philosophy with only a minor twist.

What I *want* to conclude is that my five models of philosophy are stronger for this.

Can I? Well, over coffee this analogy came up:

A woman has five dresses. She has a dress for every occasion and no unneeded dresses. Her aesthetic sense is 'elegant'. Her aesthetic sense is better than it would be if she didn't have such a set of dresses.

Now, suppose she goes to a different country, having a different culture-- and she still has a dress for every occasion and no unneeded dresses. Wouldn't her aesthetic sense be more 'elegant' and hence better than if her dresses only worked in one culture?

Now, models are not so much correct/incorrect as applicable/inapplicable and elegant/inelegant. Thus, the worth of the woman's aesthetic sense and the worth of a set of models is linked- the valuations seem almost identical.

An aethetic sense which functions in multiple cultures would be better than one which only functions in one; likewise, a set of models which are applicable in multiple contexts is better than a set only applicable in one.

I think it works.

I think micropayments are a good idea- not that I want to pay for everything I access online, but if it enables new and quality services (from small-ish companies, hopefully) I'm all for it.

However, what about a system of micropayments that can go the other way as well, to the average/intelligent Joe?

Say I read a well-written, insightful article about X. I give the author a micropayment to read said article. Now, say I write an email back to the author bringing up a number of good points- should I get a micropayment back?

Assuming easy, transparent micropayments to those providing some sort of service / insight is a good idea, are easy, transparent micropayments paid to "consumers" a solution in search of a problem? An enabling step to certain good social/economic structures?

Who knows. Certainly not me.

RD

In the U.S. we have numberous places to donate physical goods which are no longer needed; Goodwill, The Salvation Army, and so forth. These places then either
1. Donate the items to folks who aren't well off and can benefit from such, or
2. Sell the donated items and use the money for charity.

It's a well-functioning system that does a lot of good for society through providing an outlet for the donation of unneeded property and the charitable redistribution of that property or the property's value.

Now, the same doesn't exist in the so-called 'Intellectual Property' realm, even though 'IP' is even easier to transport and hence donate than physical property.

I think it should; I'd happily donate the Windows and MS Office licenses I got from Dell on the computer I installed Linux on to charity, as I would donate licenses for movies I've gotten bored with (destroying or including the media a license was on would be part of the donation). It'd be great; schools, for instance, would get costly licenses of Windows, I get a tax writeoff, and I do something good for the world.

Of course this is only part of the issue, and one side of it at that (is every donation a lost sale? I don't think so but an argument could be made- as is made with copyright infringement). But I think there's a place for this. Perhaps the charity angle could convince governments that licenses should be easily transferrable. Everything else is, why not licenses?

Right now the 'Intellectual Property' market is bloated in places. Let's let donation / resale make it more efficient.

I spent an hour or so (weird connection due to Comcast, so I'm not sure how meaningful 'an hour or so' is) moderating- my first mod points. Exciting.

This made me think about those posters who, in their .sigs, state that they will meta-moderate all downmods as unfair, to promote upmods. This is frustrating.

Rant:
I would meta-meta-moderate those who catagorically meta-moderate all negative mods down. Doing so
  1. Is an abuse of the system (catagorically penalizing certain users) through a loophole (no infinite-regress moderation).
  2. Hurts the success (S/N ratio) of the moderation system.

Yes, sometimes moderators are swayed by grandstanding, keywords, rehashing, or spurious 'facts' the poster made up. These posts are noise- noise much more harmful to the S/N ratio than AC trolls- and should be dealt with through peer moderation. As was intended.
End Rant.

Random Thoughts:
That said, I wish we of the community could also rate .sigs- just today, I saw someone post with

'I am a citizen, not a consumer.' and
'I am a human being, not a revenue source.'

Very cool.

I also wish we could footnote things; a completely flat mode of presentation, as slashdot-text is, is limiting to certain aspects of communication. Yes, we can probably do the same things in a flat-text communication than a footnotecapable-text, and it might even promote better writing style through the challenge (see Apple's rationale for one-button mice) but I'd still like to have it available.
End Random Thoughts.

---------- UPDATE ----------

After having it pointed out to me, I've really noticed that many people rate down comments as 'overrated' if they don't like the comment but don't want to get caught by M2. Evidentally 'Overrated' can't be M2'd. Sneaky and low; I pledge not to mod things as overrated until this gaping hole in the mod system is fixed.

Please fix it, eds.

At this juncture I'm not sure if this is plausible or not, but here goes:

Premise 1: The constitution deals with timeless ideals- which are then realized in various and diverse ways in different stages of our society.

Clarification: Much as biblical interpretation necessitates that we look beyond particular historical context-dependent words and phrases to see the spirit of the bible, so must we look beyond the particular way an ideal is expressed in the constitution to find the ideal itself- and then examine our current society to find a good current application of that ideal.

Premise 2: The second ammendment, 'The Right to Bear Arms', is an application in late 18th century America of the timeless ideal of giving the populance significant and real power to act positively in a society *outside of the rules of that society*, potentially in a manner contrary to how those in political power would like.

Premise 3: The most meaningful application of this ideal to our current society is not 'The Right to Own Guns'; with the power and organization of the police and the stigma raised against fringe militants such as Ted Kazinski, the right to own guns is a pointless right in that one cannot effect meaningful positive change using guns nor successfully defend oneself against the authorities with guns, rightfully or not.

Premise 4: The most meaningful application of this ideal from Premise 2 is found in the so-called digital realm, in projects such as FreeNet, Gnutella, DeCSS, and so forth.

In Summary,
Battles are not waged with guns anymore, and oppression no longer takes the form of the enemy marching through our towns and taking our womenfolk. FreeNet, Gnutella, and DeCSS are the 'arms' of the 21st century, and the Second Ammendment gives us the right to bear them.

Work In Progress-
Feedback in commands would be *very* appreciated!