An article in New Scientist Tech on recent patents reveals Philips's plan to subvert the intent of laws to protect copyright through technical means in order to apply anti-piracy laws to those who wish to watch DVDs from other regions.

According to the article, the effect of this is that in some countries, "watching a movie in the wrong country could land you in jail for 10 years or paying a $1 million fine". The technology is intended for Blu-ray and HD-DVD players, and works by integrating region-protection in with the disk's anti-copying encryption.

Could this backfire? It certainly gives an excuse for those who wish to break the encryption to do so. One that surely has a reasonable chance of standing up in court. Could the effect of this technology be to subvert the tougher anti-piracy law, for the sake of allowing simple arbitration of goods?

There has been a lot of discussion about wasted votes, the importance of voting, etcetera. I would like to ask people to vote for a "minor" party.

Here's why:

• You communicate the most information with a "minority" choice.
• You are actively voting for diversity of representation.
• Your intent will affect the mood of the local population proportionately*, and could therefore win more support for your cause.
• Your vote will give strength to would-be third party voters in future elections.
• Whoever gets elected, they will want to win the next election, and you have given them some indication how to win your vote. You could find yourself better represented than many voters for that candidate.

*I did some canvassing for a centrist, socially liberal party in Britain a few years ago. One strategy was to go after the vote of the less-supported "main" party, which resulted in an equal number of votes falling from the other party, now that their provisional supporters felt less threatened. Voters do sense the intentions of their immediate community when making their own judgements on how to vote.

Further proof of the instict to regulate unnecessarily.

I was going to call this JE "Freedom Brings Responsibility", but the politicians' catchphrase, "explaining" why because you have some freedom left, they should be able to deny you freedoms of their choosing, seemed somehow appropriate.

The take on the following article that I wish to emphasise is that security theatre is harming security.
__________________________________________________

Is this the end of the road for traffic lights?

By David Millward

Most traffic lights should be torn up as they make roads less safe, one of Europe's leading road engineers said yesterday.

Hans Monderman, a traffic planner involved in a Brussels-backed project known as Shared Space, said that taking lights away helped motorists, cyclists and pedestrians to co-exist more happily and safely.

Residents of the northern Dutch town of Drachten have already been used as guinea-pigs in an experiment which has seen nearly all the traffic lights stripped from their streets.

Only three of the 15 sets in the town of 50,000 remain and they will be gone within a couple of years.

The project is the brainchild of Mr Monderman, and the town has seen some remarkable results. There used to be a road death every three years but there have been none since the traffic light removal started seven years ago.

There have been a few small collisions, but these are almost to be encouraged, Mr Monderman explained. "We want small accidents, in order to prevent serious ones in which people get hurt," he said yesterday.

"It works well because it is dangerous, which is exactly what we want. But it shifts the emphasis away from the Government taking the risk, to the driver being responsible for his or her own risk.

"We only want traffic lights where they are useful and I haven't found anywhere where they are useful yet."

Mr Monderman, 61, compared his philosophy of motoring to an ice rink. "Skaters work out things for themselves and it works wonderfully well. I am not an anarchist, but I don't like rules which are ineffective and street furniture tells people how to behave."

In short, if motorists are made more wary about how they drive, they behave more carefully, he said.

The main junction in Drachten handles about 22,000 cars a day. Where once there were traffic lights, there is a roundabout, an extended cycle path and pedestrian area.

In the days of traffic lights, progress across the junction was slow as cars stopped and started. Now tailbacks are almost unheard of -- and almost nobody toots a horn.

However, it is not the cars which seem to be involved in the greatest conflict, it is the cyclists and pedestrians who seem to jostle for space. Driving around Drachten, vehicles approach roundabouts with considerable caution - traffic approaches from the left, but cyclists come from either side.

Cyclists, almost none of whom bother with helmets, signal clearly at junctions making sure motorists are aware of them.

Thus far, Drachten's drivers and pedestrians have voted the experiment a success.

"I am used to it now," said Helena Spaanstra, 24. "You drive more slowly and carefully, but somehow you seem to get around town quicker."

Tony Ooostward, 70, was equally enthusiastic. "Everybody is learning. I am a walker and now you are the boss at the crossroads, everyone waits for you. But at the same time pedestrians wait until there are a number wanting to cross at the same time."

Kanaan Jamal, 39, like many people in Drachten, uses a bike to get around. "It is very smooth -- a lot better than other towns," he said. The consensus is that the creation of uncertainty by taking away the lights and even in some places the road markings has worked

"Anybody who is new here doesn't know what to do. They don't know who has priority, the car, bike or pedestrian. It's all confusing, but because of that everybody takes care," Mr Jamal said.

For the record, so was I; I believed that the anti-DRM provision was opposed to all DRM, rather than just DRM that specifically preventing modified versions of the code from running "turning freedom number one into a sham", in Stallman's words.

For those who missed it, there was an article on the front page Linus Speaks Out On GPLv3, but I went to Groklaw directly, since Slashdot sucks for insightful commentary.

Linus is making some of the same philosophical errors that I took him to task for a few months ago, but has added to that a certain naivety about the legal process, and labelling the goal of maximising freedom as "extreme".

Maximising freedom may well be an intellectually extreme position, in that it isn't a blend of several positions, but it is not a politically extreme position, in that it is what a large number of political activists attempt to do, although the trade-offs are not always agreed (this is not true of politicians, who also seek power for themselves and to favour their benefactors). The idealism of the French flag reflects exactly this position: liberty, equality (the basis for trade-offs), fraternity (sharing the fruits of the work done). I suspect that Tolvald's opposition to the FSF's "crusading" is in fact in opposition to a highly American view of freedom, but the freedom promoted by the GNU GPL is more of the anarchist's view of freedom than the capitalist's, when taken to extremes. Naturally, it isn't in fact anarchistic, for it uses law to maximise freedom.

What about his naivety? It is two-fold. First, he is applying an engineering fix to a political problem, thus the bug (in the DMCA etc) is legislative, and therefore the fix is legislative. This stance is reasonable given legislators that actually listen to their constituents, and wish to deliver the best set of laws that balance their interests, and if they are out of balance, they will attempt to restore that balance in future legislation. If you think that this is what legislators do, then the GPL version 2 is the right one for you, for you will always have the right to reverse-engineer, and the protection of intellectual property will only go as far as is necessary to provide a sufficient incentive to create, without being overly onerous upon further innovation.

Secondly, legislators are not the only ones who shape law. Take the recent action of France's Supreme Court to savage fair use rights. Crusty old judges, I'm afraid, are exactly the types who are most likely to miss the difference between theft and copyright infringement, ignore the economics (since the issue is couched in moral and legal terms), and overcompensate for imagined loss by handing out fines proportional to the infringement. (For the record, I favour proportional fines and|or sentences for making money from piracy, for then it is diverting spending that would have otherwise have been spent upon original work, and therefore is theft), but that is not the issue that I wish to raise today. Fines for copyright infringers are one thing, but what we see is a wholesale attack upon the entire concept of fair use, the right to reverse engineer, and more. The "proportional" response has included an "acceptable" degree of collateral damage, but economic competence would have led to the conclusion that the response was in fact disproportionate.

Given legislation from the bench, legislation through contract is entirely appropriate. I do not wish leave it to my government to defend my freedoms; I also wish to defend it through my own actions, and the rights that I give to people to make use of my work. This is not an extreme position; it is a position that I accept the social contract as decided at such times as the birth of nations, and wish to do my own part to revitalise and uphold my side of that contract.

Footnote: Tom Hudson has said plenty in support of Linus's stance. I think that the best, and simplest response was given by WNight.

Not a thesis, but an example. From New Scientist:

How people with autism miss the big picture

"A PICTURE is worth a thousand words" may sum up how people with autism see the world.

Brains scans of people with the condition show that they place excessive reliance on the parietal cortex, which analyses images, even when interpreting sentences free of any imagery. In other people, the image centre appears to be active only when the sentences contain imagery.

The results agree with anecdotal reports that people with autism are fixated on imagery but struggle to interpret words and language. They frequently excel at recording visual detail, but overlook the bigger picture and the context that comes with it.

Researchers led by Marcel Just of Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, scanned volunteers' brains while they were deciding if certain statements were true or false. Some of the statements relied on analysis of language alone, while others could only be understood by considering the imagery they conjured up. "The number 8, when rotated 90 degrees, looks like a pair of spectacles", for instance, needs both arithmetic interpretation and visualisation of the rotated number.

Just says that the observed over-reliance on the parietal cortex might have arisen to compensate for poor brain connections to the prefrontal cortex, which interprets language (Brain, DOI: 10.1093/brain/awll64). "That makes it difficult to understand complex language and to understand the intentions of other people," he says.

My response:

With regards to your article on autism "How people with autism miss the
big picture", it appears to me to be biased and one-sided.

The title, for a start, is ironic: autistic people will frequently
infer too larger a context, a bigger picture than that which is narrowed
by socially conditioned readings of intent. I have Asperger's Syndrome,
so I have some insight into this. Those same readings make it
impossible to discuss (for example) the science of evolution with some
people; the theory of the selfish gene is taken as scaffolding for
economic atomism with selfish individuals, for example, whereas the
wider picture is that many forms of co-operation and the theory of memes
restores the analysis.

I've seen the reading of intent blind people to a larger concept really
quite often.

Back to the title: I do not think that it helps the different to be
portrayed as inferior, although they may have difficulties. Not readily
narrowing your perception and interpretation to fit cultural norms does
result in miscommunication. Those on the autistic spectrum therefore
suffer for being in a minority, but it is misleading to say that they
have the smaller picture.

Was meant to be funny.

My last JE has been submitted as an article.

If you're wondering, my interest in the story is that I've done a small amount of chip design myself, for a small startup, Advanced Rendering Technology, which made boxes that perform ray-tracing in hardware. The modern incarnation of ART is to be found here. For a short synopsis of the company and its history, here is a comment by my old boss.

I'll probably be fit enough to work next year, so I'm hoping to get hold of one of these things... :o)

Note: Original JE deleted as I posted a reply that read a little like sour grapes, due to this article, currently in The Mysterious Future. I hadn't mentioned the word "Opteron". Duh!

It becomes hard to take the American administration seriously when they are deliberatly ignoring evidence, as appears to have happenned here (NYT sign-in/bugmenot required):

Susan Bro, an agency spokeswoman, said Thursday's statement resulted from a past combined review by federal drug enforcement, regulatory and research agencies that concluded "smoked marijuana has no currently accepted or proven medical use in the United States and is not an approved medical treatment."

. . .

The Food and Drug Administration statement directly contradicts a 1999 review by the Institute of Medicine, a part of the National Academy of Sciences, the nation's most prestigious scientific advisory agency. That review found marijuana to be "moderately well suited for particular conditions, such as chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and AIDS wasting.

Let me say here that my youth experience of marijuana is that it is an extremely boring drug, and although I find it ridiculous that the drug is illegal, I think that there are many considerably more important things to get het up about.

My question is that if this administration engage in such outright lying, can you really trust them on anything? To me, this is worse as Clinton getting a blow-job and lying about it, as it involves a conspiracy of liars.

Torvalds reveals how technical competence does not imply philosophical depth.

Here is the devastating evidence: a letter to The Register.

Now, I know that The Register isn't exactly the most highbrow publication on the planet, but let us analyse Linus's reply to The Register's earlier article:

Since you seem to be following the kernel mailing list, you could have picked a better email to comment on.

Okay, The Register was seeking to put Linus in a bad light; they could have been fairer to him.

Anyway, look for the one that talks about "reciprocity" to get an idea for why I like the GPLv2, and not the GPLv3 (I don't know how you read the mailing list, but you can search for it at least on lkml.org).

Reciprocity optimises a two-entity system; writing software, however, is a manifold system. The virtue of the GPL is that it spills onwards, and requires that others who want to use its bounty have to reciprocate with the GPL's conception of freedom; not with a particular individual, or collection of individuals. The future developer or user is protected by the GPL. The GPL creates a freedom akin to the free market, and as such protects future transferability, and future trade.

In a manifold system, "reciprocity" is often cartelisation. Higher values turn one against the immediate group for the sake of the larger group. I imagine that Linus is thinking that since he'd like hardware manufactorers to respect programmers' freedoms, so he should act to protect theirs.

It's not about "freedom". It's about "fairness".

Which, btw, is a lot more fundamental concept. "Do unto others.." and all that, you know.

And here Linus betrays where he's really coming from. This is pure Scandinavia. And here he also reveals a lack of philosophical depth.

I know from hard experience that "freedom" is often seen as being synonymous with greed, but it doesn't take long to see why this is mistaken: freedom is essentially the flipside of trust, but trust is a complex beast when one is dealing with something as complex as society. We (by and large) accept laws in order to allow trust to develop. Is other words, we selectively distrust in order to raise the overall level of trust. The GPL functions much in the same way as law does. The BSD licence is more trusting, mostly because programmers who write under BSD licences want it that way. The GPL, however, creates trust further down the line, and trust from those who might wish to contribute to the body of the GPLed work. The GPL is deliberately unfair to the closed shop, for much the same reason that green taxes are deliberately unfair to polluting entities; in both cases, they are seeking to change behaviour. The GPL aims to maximise freedom, and green taxes aim to maximise the difference between the value of 'goods' and 'bads'.

Fairness is just about the worst-defined concept in common use. The golden rule fails as soon as you realise that people want different things (or else there wouldn't be trade), and just about everyone defines fairness as the perfection of their chosen strain of politics (equal opportunity, equal outcome, equal consideration, trade without compulsion, ...), so that to use the word is essentially to have said nothing over and above "it doesn't suit my politics". When you go about defining exactly what should be made fair, then you have something to talk about.

It is my opinion that any definition of fair which justifies the GPL version 2 cannot help but justify version 3, and even prefer it. I understand that the GPL version 2 may be a good compromise for many individuals and entities, but that is exactly what it is: a compromise.

Note to RingDev: I'm sorry, I was (mostly) away from the computer for a few days, so I lost the chance to follow up on your reply, so I posted a delayed response in my last JE.

This JE grows out of this post of mine.

We are facing the steady erosion of the free use of our property both through legal, and through technical means. I reproduce my post (in response to this post) below, although I have cleared up a few typos on the way:

The brief answer to your point is that Capitalism isn't what you claim it is. Maximum property is not the rule in capitalism, rather, law has evolved in order to recognise that property is not absolute, for example that one, or a collection of people, can attain ownership over land through use, and lack of enforcement. This recognises that the principle of capitalism is a codification of natural behaviour, rather than being an abstract system based upon the absolute value of property.

Look closer, and you find that the deeper principle of capitalism as codified by common law (that is the natural evolution of law according to the rule of precedent, rather than industry lobbies), is far closer to a principle of maximum freedom, than the application of an axiomatic set of rules.

Additional to this, it is worth noting why "fair use" rights exist in law: real value, and freedom is won, in particular by creating derivative works. The restriction of rights that is property can create an incentive, but also creates restrictions, that impede the creation of derivative works in particular. The creation of "intellectual property" clearly has costs and gains to freedom, and in particular to the creative freedom that is the root of the creation of wealth, with is a far vaster concept than money (in truth, the real wealth will be more than the money wealth, for that "imbalance" is what causes the trade to be made in the first place). Investment selects ideas to build on; it is our creativity that causes them to be. To undermine creativity so as to provide "an incentive" is to get things back-to-front.

Personal use is just the tip of the iceberg. Furthermore, you don't get that companies simply don't want to provide fair use. It gets in the way of the greater plan to deny the user as much property as possible, so as to extract more of the value that would otherwise accrue to the customer by eg. having the file in several formats, or playable after a licence runs out. If fair use can be undermined by DRM "so much the better!"

I agree that we already have limited rights of ownership, but the principle that underlies law and practise should still be that of maximum freedom, that is: allowing the right degree of property and enforcement, so that positive freedom (incentive) and negative freedom (lack of obstruction) are in balance. As long as there remains profit in production, negative freedom is worth having. What's more, it's not worth trading freedom so as to ensure the security of the creation of wealth beyond a certain point. Besides, as you must be well aware, the connection between the abuse of freedom through copyright infringement, and the loss of income of artists is tenuous. It might affect the income flowing to music companies, though, but there are evolving far more efficient distribution mechanisms, that can give the artists more 'cake' in absolute terms, even though the whole cake is smaller. Think of the savings in eliminating wasteful administration!

No. The real issue is that of maintaining old business methods and practises. One that will keep certain sectors of industry in business, rather than protecting the creative output that is the economic purpose of these companies. The entire argument about "capitalism" and "communism" is a smokescreen for a far more old-fashioned and tradition argument: the special pleading of outdated industries against forces that threaten to displace then, which require convenient restrictions of freedom.

I know that it took me a few days to reply. I just didn't see the point. But this argument needs to be won again and again, for our conception of property is changing, in part because of the deliberate and systematic misuse of language by those who wish to keep more power to themselves, and their allies. Some of their allies are in government: quite apart from unholy alliances, there is the simple fact that governments, by their very structure, think like large companies, or rather, one set of bureaucrats is much like another, and so their natural instincts will be to protect what they deem to be "stability". Ie. restrictions of freedoms that appear to threaten the relevant establishments attempting to do what they see to be their job. They almost never think of the same outcome being brought about by other means.

My real interest in all this is in the matter of patents, rather than that of copyright. But both are important, and copyright has a wider interest, and (with the GPL version 3 specifically addressing DRM) appears to be very much an issue of the moment.

Footnote: Above, I should really be referring to the free market, rather than to capital; Capitalism is by definition the doctorine of property. Free-marketry is the general rule of freedom in the marketplace. I reverted the article heading, as I'd used "Capitalism" throughout, in the sense that a libertarian would use it, and the post of mine that I quoted cannot be edited.

Ps. DRM and the Death of Culture.

Actually, I've just stopped grumbling.

Since I exchanged emails with CmdrTaco a while ago, re: posting with TOR, I've not had the ability to moderate.

But suddenly today, halfway through meta-modding, I was hit by a wave a relief: I'm not being held accountable! So: no more timid second-guessing, a neutral which should have been an anti, or up-modding ever-so-slightly funny comments. I can mod as I think!

And about time too. I've not punished conservatives, for example, but I've not hitherto rewarded them proportionally or properly punished their down-modders. I shall stop being such a wimp!

Please note: I resolve to continue in the same vein, even if I find my ability to moderate mysteriously returns. I will be accurate, not moderate.

And now, let us all watch the monkeys dance!

After watching The Power of Nightmares, which refers to Leo Strauss's "compelling myths" (of nation and religion), I have been moved to take on Straussian thinking as I find it.

But I have to admit that I am fascinated by the concept of the Straussian text (para. six). Quoting the article:

"The key Straussian concept is the Straussian text, which is a piece of philosophical writing that is deliberately written so that the average reader will understand it as saying one ("exoteric") thing but the special few for whom it is intended will grasp its real ("esoteric") meaning. The reason for this is that philosophy is dangerous. Philosophy calls into question the conventional morality upon which civil order in society depends; it also reveals ugly truths that weaken men's attachment to their societies..."

To bring to mind two personal influences, I see the I Ching as a canonical example of this, and Nietzsche as the exact opposite. Or rather the same, but with a different end in mind.

First the I Ching: to many westerners, the I Ching is hocus-pocus. A book to consult as one would an astrological chart, or the tarot, and the source of many trendy concepts of harmony and resonance. But the I Ching is a Chinese text, and is a conservative work that appears to strongly endorce social norms and values. This is the exoteric meaning: harmony from conformity. But there is a deeper, more liberal strain within it: reading the text carefully, you see that this conformity is in fact how one gets ahead, and in positions of power, one is expected to be magnaminous and lenient. This is still a conservative order of society, though. As one traces things back to their sources, one finds that there is embedded a Nietzschian subtext: The Creative comes first, represented by the Dragon, a symbol of the power of genius. Throughout the texts are references to the forming of moral laws, and changing the laws and the standards... The sage is a creator of values; knowing how values regulate society, he actively designs them so as to regulate the masses, and that includes the Ruler's conduct...

Nietzsche superficially attacks the basis of morality within western society. He attacks Christianity using arguments that closely parallel libertarian attacks upon Socialism. He wishes to restore the individual, characterising a healthy society as one that can tolerate those superficially harmful to it, in fact developing a hardiness from such tolerance. He encourages self-expression, and the overturning of moral norms, that able minds should be creators of values, form and extend their own standards of good and evil. He does this because he believes that our values are in fact ones that are created by our rulers for their convenience. Christianity gets it in the neck for its encouragement of sheepish conformity. To Nietzsche, the genius should be regulated only by competition; monopoly power being the only excuse for tearing one down. The exoteric meaning of his text, then, is that of what, in popular parlence would be called "anarchy".

Esoterically, his philosophy goes far deeper, and converges with the I Ching. Nietzsche's "Overman" is a kind of sage; like the Taoist sage, he rises above arbitary value-systems, and even the desire to create particular systems. He reaches a point "beyond good and evil"; a kind of "objectivity". The Overman as an ideal induces creators of values as the second tier. Nietzsche writes for the teachers' teachers. He wants to restore the noble values that he feels that Christianity's collectivism has undermined, and indeed his work is well-read, and poorly understood. Perhaps this was the intention: Nietzsche is rejected by most as a rabble-rouser; a sign of teenage rebellion to be outgrown. Thus camouflaged, he coaches the next generation of intellectuals.

My own personal judgement is that Nietzsche failed: although he wrote forcefully and continuously against collectivism, his philosophy is written to induce a high, and appeals to (emotional) collectivists because of this. Dishonestly formed bastard children are the result of this: individualism is then suppressed as those not filled with revolutionary fervour are taken to be neo-capitalist spokesmen for received ideas. "If you disagree with me, you're not thinking for yourself". Nietzsche attempts to be beyond left and right. Sadly, to most, he only serves to deepen prejudice, since people convince themselves that their received views are their own, and it is their right as 'Nietzschians' to enforce them.

Maybe Leo Strauss has a point. You need to be careful of both the exoteric, and the esoteric content of what you write, and (presumably) say. I can certainly tell you that I wish I had, a few years ago!

In response to a .sig that I felt was simply wrong:

Real evolutionists get their morals from their biology textbooks.

I felt the need to respond:

Quick question: how do you deduce anything about morality from a physical mechanism?

Knowledge of underlying mechansims can help us to solve problems, but it doesn't affect the moral standards by which we judge our solutions, surely?

Besides, bringing up a moral dimension of evolutionary teaching is like saying that free markets cannot work because they rely upon people pursuing their perceived interests, which is morally wrong, so that they must not be believed to work.

Now I know that is isn't quite that simple, but penguinoid raised a different point: that evolution undermines religion. I should probably have pointed out that the Europeans don't view it that way, and in particular the Catholic Church, but instead I pointed out how atheists get to grow up to have meaningful values, as well as responding this:

First, your parallel is a bit off. The purpose of the free market is to use people's greed for the benefit of everyone, and I'm sure you will find that noone believes that people are all saints. What the free market does do is encourage such greedy behavior, by making it socially acceptable and outcompeting those that are not looking out for #1. This is indeed a moral issue with the free market, which should be taken into account when deciding if it is superior to the other alternatives. However, I am sure the alternatives have issues as well.

Well, briefly, the free market has no purpose. What could be a better illustration of the ID supporter's slides of thought?

All of this, I'm afraid, is another reminder of the increasingly prevalent view that language is reality.

Footnote: I was a bit hard on penguinoid (re: markets), as my language wasn't as precise as it could have been.

Nonetheless, more generally, the search for a first cause does have a tendency to infer meaning and intent from emergent "purpose".

In response to the front page story Search Engine Results Relatively Fair, I wrote this post, and, although it's far from my best post made on Slashdot, I think that the point that it makes illuminates the nature of the continuum between democratic "equality", through capitalism, to outright hierachy.

From my post:

...It's more like capital flow.

Here's how: the wealthy get to decide who receives their spending, and those people in turn decide how strongly to weight their suppliers' votes in the allocation of resources. This perpetuates through in a cycle that reaches a very rough, shifting equilibrium that very much resembles Google's "pagerank", IMO.

Compared with outright hierarchy, this kind of inequality is still going to appear relatively fair, but it doesn't measure up to equally weighted votes. That is, it isn't democratically fair. However, this, or at least some inequality appears to be essential to making useful discrimination, if you're going to use the "intelligence" of the web itself to do it. Ideally, the results would be based upon the quality of the content itself, no matter how obscure, but the artificial intelligence required to do that would be mind-boggling...

This need for extreme artificial intelligence is of course the reason why socialism has failed. But this is no reason to make this "intelligence" still more perfect. Every advance in such artificial intelligence would bring with it a corresponding reduction of freedom. And we would accept it: authority and convenience are seductive to mankind, as they avoid the need for us to do any real work, apply any judgement, in the course of our lives. Also, in attempting to bring artificial intelligence to the problem, we would be creating hierachy in any case, so the more "perfect" allocation of resources would be at the cost of what those resources are for: doing what we want in our lives.

Back to Google. Borrowed from BlackHat's old bio, a Google search that was wholly semantic should cause serious pause for thought.

Dear Sir or Madam,

With regard to the article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4376470.stm

I know that this will appear to be a frivolous complaint by a "film
pirate", but it is not: I am concerned about consistent distortion of
the facts in favour of encouraging correct behaviour. This is simple
social engineering, and to lie by consistently interviewing people with
a particular interpretation of the facts which panders to their fears
and desire for control, however supported by reasonable moral feeling,
is not the business of a news site such as the BBC.

The research on the effect of file-sharing upon sales is in fact very
mixed: Look, for example at some of the results of this google search:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=file+sharing+sales

The article that you wrote a few months ago reporting research that
"Music piracy 'does hit CD sales'", reporting on a report on the effect
of music piracy by (relatively younger and poorer) students:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3995885.stm

Is countered by the observation at the conclusion of the below paper
that "the impact of file sharing on CD sales is negative for young
people, but positive for old people", continuing "My results strongly
suggest that file sharing does not have a negative aggregate effect on
CD sales, and certainly not a large enough effect to explain the current
decline in record sales". See part VI of this paper:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:xRCZWBwil5EJ:www.princeton.edu/~eboorsti/thesis/Music%2520Sales%2520in%2520the%2520Age%2520of%2520File%2520Sharing.pdf+file+sharing+sales
Original PDF:
http://www.princeton.edu/~eboorsti/thesis/Music%20Sales%20in%20the%20Age%20of%20File%20Sharing.pdf

Further, whilst the article quoted a previous report, that original
report by F. Oberholzer and K.S. Strumpf was never reported by you
in the first place. Incidentally, there is no contradiction as you
originally reported, since the difference in conclusion is easily
accounted for in the selection bias of only analysing the effect of
file-sharing upon the purchasing habits of the young (students).

I know that the BBC is concerned about its own copyrights, but this is
surely not an excuse for consistent selection bias of this nature. If
anything, awareness of one's own interests calls for extra vigilance
upon your own part.

I have forwarded the text of this complaint to a friend of mine who
monitors the BBC for political bias, and also to my MP, David Howarth
(Lib Dem, Cambridge).

Yours Faithfully,

__________________________________________________

Footnote: My above-mentioned friend sent me a copy of this report
on systematic bias in the BBC's reporting on Europe.