Disqus - Latest Comments for eee_eff

Re: Mystery deepens over killer illness striking Houston: Doctors wonder if it's a new super flu

eee_eff — Tue, 14 Jan 2014 21:52:33 -0000

Sounds similar to MERS.

Re: The rise of the sharing economy

eee_eff — Sat, 13 Oct 2012 13:18:21 -0000

A good start with the requested yardstick for the new way the measure the economy has been made by the new economy foundation which has produced the Happy Planet Index.

Re: Is Barack Obama a Murderous Sociopath?

eee_eff — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 23:32:30 -0000

Thanks, Glenn for keeping the debate reality-based.

Re: Transparency: The Inside and Outside Camps

eee_eff — Tue, 10 May 2011 21:31:01 -0000

“open innovation or the idea that working in a transparent,
participatory, and collaborative fashion helps improve performance,
inform decisionmaking, encourage entrepreneurship, and solve problems
more effectively. By working together as team [sic] with government in
productive fashion, the public can then help to foster accountability.”

Sounds like the organization that is most aligned with this set of beliefs is...wikileaks!

Oh, I forget that wikileaks are terrorists, better just shot them.

Re: Apple Files Patent Suit Against Samsung Over Galaxy Line of Phones and Tablets

eee_eff — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 23:44:16 -0000

@ Bob:

Apple clearly could sue Google for inducing others to violate their "IP" Samsung will defeat Apple by invalidating their Patents, which are way over-broad, and by find Samsung Patents that Apple violates.

Apple knows they could not win against Google (besides, Bill Gates has given Oracle the job of Suing Google) so they go for Samsung.

Re: Apple Files Patent Suit Against Samsung Over Galaxy Line of Phones and Tablets

eee_eff — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 23:39:14 -0000

Because there's a ton of prior art their; there is nothing unique about the iPhone's form, it is just straight forward good ergonomic design, and entirely unworthy of patent protection. I hope innovation and freedom win, and Apple loses.

Re: Apple Files Patent Suit Against Samsung Over Galaxy Line of Phones and Tablets

eee_eff — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 23:36:22 -0000

Not years, and many of the patents obtained are invalid; everyone knows the quality of the patents have dropped. Apple is just a sore loser; now that Android OUTSELLS iPhone they give up competing in the marketplace, and try a SCO-like strategy.

Re: The Precautionary Principle in Information Technology Debates

eee_eff — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 22:11:38 -0000

Adam you don't indicate that you even understand the Precautionary Principle. You should be able to do that before you critique it.

I keep on seeing these critiques of the Precautionary Principle in which those who critique put up some straw man version of it, and then proceed to demolish it.

Re: http://tjmahr.com/post/3408170420

eee_eff — Sun, 20 Feb 2011 21:33:36 -0000

There is a word for this: Solidarity. In America, usually when someone has a right, those in power point out that group has special rights and thereby tries to play groups of of each other. That has worked for a long time. No More.

Re: Ponzi Socialism: Why Europe's Malaise Could Come Here

eee_eff — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 14:59:49 -0000

Except for the facts, my friend. Many European countries have lower unemployment rates than US does.

Unemployment↑ 2005-03↓ 2006-03↓ 2007-03↓ 2008-03↓ 2009-03↓ 2010-03[11]↓
Austria 5.1 5.1 4.5 4.1 4.5 4.9
Belgium 8.4 8.2 7.7 6.9 7.3 8.1
Bulgaria 7.5 6.1 5.9 8.7
Cyprus 5.1 5.2 4.1 3.7 4.9 6.7
Czech Republic 8.0 7.7 5.6 4.4 5.5 7.9
Denmark 5.4 4.3 4.1 3.0 5.7 7.6
Estonia 8.8 5.3 4.9 4.0 11.1 15.5
European Union 8.9 8.4 7.3 6.7 8.3 9.6
Finland 8.5 7.9 7.0 6.3 7.4 9.0
France 9.7 9.1 8.6 7.6 8.8 10.1
Germany 9.8 8.7 8.6 7.4 7.6 7.3
Greece 9.9 9.6 8.6 7.8 7.8 10.2
Hungary 6.8 7.4 7.3 7.6 9.2 11.0
Ireland 4.5 4.2 4.6 5.6 10.6 13.2
Italy 7.8 7.7 6.1 6.6 6.9 8.8
Japan 4.5 4.1 4.0 3.9 4.4 4.8
Latvia 9.1 7.6 6.4 6.1 16.1 22.3
Lithuania 9.2 6.4 4.6 4.3 15.1 15.8
Luxembourg 4.3 4.8 4.9 4.4 6.1 5.6
Malta 7.2 8.1 6.6 5.8 6.7 6.9
Netherlands 4.9 4.0 3.4 2.8 2.8 4.1
Poland 18.0 16.8 10.3 7.4 7.7 9.1
Portugal 7.4 7.6 8.2 7.6 8.5 10.5
Romania 6.6 6.2 5.8 7.6
Slovakia 16.7 15.7 11.3 9.9 10.5 14.1
Slovenia 6.4 6.2 5.2 4.5 5.0 6.2
Spain 9.9 8.7 8.1 9.5 17.4 19.1
Sweden 6.3 7.2 6.6 5.8 8.0 8.7
United Kingdom 4.6 5.0 5.5 5.2 6.6 8.7
United States 5.1 4.7 4.4 5.1 8.5 9.7

Re: Some thoughts on Cablegate

eee_eff — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 00:07:32 -0000

I would rather use the word "especially" rather than "even with respect to Fox News, but it seems to me the administration has inherited so many wars that you list above. It is time they remembered the basis of the 2008 campaign was to stop some of these wars...

The blog 'Green is the New Red' contains several examples of third parties being tried criminally for things they did not do, but allegedly 'encouraged' under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. That law has established, essentially, thoughtcrime.

Re: Some thoughts on Cablegate

eee_eff — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 00:00:18 -0000

"Amazon acted after a call from Sen. Lieberman’s office. The threats implicit in political pressure has no place in a free society." I can finally say I really, really like a TLF post!

"Despite the foregoing discussion of the legalities of leaks and third-party publication, the practical effect is that it is nearly impossible to completely eliminating any particular bit of information from the Internet. Peer-to-peer distribution, mass-mirroring, and even the possible forking of the DNS root stand in the way of censorship. That is a reality that transcends any normative questions about the WikiLeaks case." Yes and no. Since it is impossible to erase something from the internet, it strongly suggests one should not try. In that sense this reality, should at least partially inform the Administrations reaction to cable gate.

One issue that is not touched on here, but seems to be implicit in any discussion regarding wikileaks/cablecate in other forums is the issue of extraterritoriality. In other words, regarding the leaking of official secrets we should not press for precedents that would allow US law to operate in say Switzerland because, among the community of nations who nominally abide by the rule of law, we could eventually find ourselves extraditing to Libya someone who was investigating the Lockerbie bombing. Of course that is an extreme example, but for obvious reason extraterritoriality can't work for official secrets laws.

Transparency will always improve government by exposing wrongdoing. The process is not always linear and direct, but the forces are always there, and they where there in 1776, 1848, and 1968, and will gain be found to operate in 2010 and 2011.

I have supported wikileaks since it's inception, and although I am having a hard time doing so now will continue to do so.

The readership on my blog is clicking the several donate to wikileaks links quite often. I suppose that may make me a criminal in someone's perverted fantasy of American jurisprudence...however considering the risks that Bradley Manning and Julian Assange have taken, I cannot sit on the sidelines; it is time to take a side.

Re: WikiLeaks Will Release Encrypted 'Doomsday File' if Site Blocked

eee_eff — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 22:33:11 -0000

Support wikileaks now. Only the corrupt and the criminal crave secrecy, and would dare to suggest Julian be killed because of his peaceful leadership of wikileaks.

Wikileaks has exposed corruption and criminality, and that is how transparency will make the world a better place for you and your children.

Re: Private Ownership of Public Law

eee_eff — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 22:15:57 -0000

As an Architect, I have long thought the capture of Building Codes by a private entities copyright to be very unfortunate, and I applaud Carl Malamud's actions. But I am surprised how many (other Architects) still don't believe me when I tell them that the Building Code can be downloaded for free.

The operative decision is Veeck vs. SBCCI

http://bulk.resource.org/co...

I like that in their holding they go right to the Constitution:

"Third, to enhance the market value of its model codes, SBCCI could easily publish them as do the compilers of statutes and judicial opinions, with "value-added" in the form of commentary, questions and answers, lists of adopting jurisdictions and other information valuable to a reader. The organization could also charge fees for the massive amount of interpretive information about the codes that it doles out. In short, we are unpersuaded that the removal of copyright protection from model codes only when and to the extent they are enacted into law disserves "the Progress of Science and useful Arts." U.S. Const. art. I. § 8, cl. 8."

Re: What Privacy Conservatives & Moral Conservatives Share in Common

eee_eff — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 22:10:32 -0000

"most privacy advocates are First Amendment supporters as it pertains to content regulation, they abandon their free speech values and corresponding constitutional tests when it comes to privacy regulation"

I don't think they are abandoning anything. Most of them don't believe corporations have any free speech rights, but natural born people do have privacy rights. Corporations should have very sharply circumscribed rights, and never at the expense of real people. If that is your outlook, there is no contradiction at all...

Re: Two Schools of Internet Pessimism

eee_eff — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 00:15:23 -0000

Well, Adam since you've taken to deleting my posts again when you are unable to respond, I think that's about all the critique you deserve.

Re: Don’t Miss the Concurring Opinions Symposium about Zittrain’s Future of the Internet

eee_eff — Sun, 12 Sep 2010 20:28:45 -0000

Adam:

I don't understand your fetish for categorizing people into internet optimists or pessimists. It does not seem to me that this brings much value to the discussion.

Also, 'open' and 'closed' can have many different meanings/aspects--for example, Windows was open in the sense that it plugged into a standard (that of the PC platform, as opposed to the Apple OS was was more closed, at that time) but Windows always has been closed source in terms of its code base. Furthermore their has been a relentless and inexorable move from closed to open systems. The methods that those advocates of closed systems will attempt to use to stop open systems have sometimes become increasing drastic (clipper chip, palladium, DMCA for example) and the fact that 2 out of three of these have failed is not good enough.

So Jonathan Zittrain warns of closed systems we should heed that warning, the danger is real. And if he warns us of a potential danger, who is to say if that warning is alarmist or not? Perhaps where our freedoms are concerned, we should be a little concerned.

Re: You Might Do Not Have to Use Files

eee_eff — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 22:41:44 -0000

Silly Adam, there already is such an entity...it is called Pirate Bay...

Re: It’s Not the Crime, It’s the Cover-Up

eee_eff — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 00:38:01 -0000

Thanks for (finally) covering this important issue. Although the text has finally been made public, the damage has already been done, as the ACTA is so tilted towards those who have been given access to the process that the whole process has to be restarted.

Michal Geist has been doing an excellent job of covering this to, and he basically agrees with James Love.

You say "But the negotiations haven’t been public, and access to key documents has only been provided to people willing to sign a non-disclosure agreement." however, you make no mention of the role of wikileaks in distributing several leaks of the ACTA text. Wikileaks was instrumental in flushing out the text of the ACTA.

I have given the money I would normally give to Democratic Party to Knowledge Ecology and wikileaks, BTW.

Re: Eric Goldman on New Threats to Sec. 230

eee_eff — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 13:30:46 -0000

A really glaring omission here is file sharing or "pirating" . The ACTA, in certain of the leaked drafts, would require ISP's from implementing '3 strikes your out' policies that would not be subject to judicial review.

Although this omission is glaring, given the so called 'libertarian' bend of this blog, it is also predictable, as this blog is actually underwritten by those allied with content providers, and therefore there exists here no criticism of the ACTA.

Re: House Procedure—and Transparency in Collapse

eee_eff — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 10:01:15 -0000

I share your observation that the Obama administration has fallen far short of their promises regarding transparency. The best example of this is their handling of the ACTA, especially their insistence that the negotiations should remain secret on national security grounds.

Does TLF plan to have any coverage of the ACTA, or are you guys part of the corporate plot to keep it secret?

Re: “Special 301 Watchlist” Threatens Open-Source Software

eee_eff — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:10:29 -0000

Tsydnor:

Do you find it ironic that you are criticizing others for not being "libertarians" when you are defending the US governments intervention in markets, by using the 301 watch list?

Re: “Special 301 Watchlist” Threatens Open-Source Software

eee_eff — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:07:38 -0000

Tsydnor:

You owe Tim Lee an apology. I have had many exchanges with Tim, and we agree on some things disagree on others. But the quote "we-know-best governments that you and Tim Lee idolize" does NOT represent Tim Lee's views in any respect.

Secondly, if a government, as a purchaser of software, wants to have a preference that is perfectly fine, as long as that preference is consistent with that governmental unit's goals, and is cost effective.

But what we are talking about here is the US government being urged to equate use of certain software with "theft" That is not right, and that is not consistent with the actual purpose of the Section 301 list. (see: http://www.ustr.gov/sites/d...

The “Special 301” Report is an annual review of the global state of intellectual property rights (IPR) protection and enforcement, conducted by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) pursuant to Special 301 provisions of the Trade Act of 1974 (Trade Act). The 2008 Special 301 review process examined IPR protection and enforcement in 78 countries. Following extensive research and analysis, USTR designates 46 countries in this year’s Special 301 Report in the categories of Priority Watch List, Watch List, and/or Section 306 Monitoring status.

Re: “Special 301 Watchlist” Threatens Open-Source Software

eee_eff — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 15:55:16 -0000

Steve:
Exactly right. Property begins and ends with the law, and has no separate existence outside the law. What exactly that law is, and what the extent of the protection that should be offered is a matter of debate, a social negotiation. Branding those who disagree about the social utility of certain laws as "thieves" or "Pirates" is ploy by those advocate certain ideas of coloring the debate by using false metaphors. This is William Patry's central thesis in his book "Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars"

Re: “Special 301 Watchlist” Threatens Open-Source Software

eee_eff — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 15:48:57 -0000

"Patents are ways of protecting the incentives to create. No one claims the system is perfect. But the fundamental idea still holds true. That balance is being worked out in Congress, the PTO, the EPO, etc. The question remains - how do you promote people to create very complex things, with very complex ideas, at great cost? IPR."

Yes, Wendy, Patents are ONE way to protect creations. Copyright is another. Trademark is another. It is not automatic how certain classes of creations should be protected. As an Architect, my experience has been that nearly all of what I design should be protected by copyright, occasionally, and very rarely, Patents are appropriate.

What is appropriate for software? Some believe copyright, other Patents. Branding those who come to one conclusion as "criminals" is simply not correct, and unnecessarily polarizes the debate about this important issue.