Disqus - Latest Comments for waynecrews

Re: Jerry Brito - I would not mess with this kid.

waynecrews — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 13:55:12 -0000

haha hope that's my cat.

Re: Can Humans Cope with Information Overload? Tyler Cowen & John Freeman Join the Debate

waynecrews — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 08:46:43 -0000

This was a great twitter post Adam. haha. Seriously enjoyed it. The blog over at Telegraph also agrees that---how else can we say it? The Technology Is Innocent. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/andrewk...

These are manufactured problems; it is truly a luxury and self-indulgence to pretend to "worry" over such things as how technology and digitization put all the world's knowledge within arm's reach--and even save one's life in an emergency. Just say it, it's a sign of progress and freedom! Life 500 years ago was vastly more complex in the proper sense of the term "life"; We got it easy. But meanwhile, they'll continue to tell us stories of the Laptop With No Off Button.

Re: Peter Griffin v. FCC

waynecrews — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 09:35:55 -0000

tha' freakin' fcc !! love this, gotta catch up on family guy.

Re: Sunstein’s “libertarian paternalism” is really just paternalism

waynecrews — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 12:09:58 -0000

Adam, thanks for this, clicked it while reading your Zittrig post, and you know how i feel about *that* worldview. In any event, the Senate hold on Sunstein's appointment to head OMB's OIRA has been lifted, so he's likely to be confirmed. Republicans think his favorable attitude toward cost-benefit analysis for regulation is a good thing; But as "nudging" implies, there's little regulators can cook up that they won't regard as net-beneficial, and worthy of imposing on others. The world is there for them to lord over; we are all people things are done to.

Re: Internet Security Concerns, Online Anonymity, and Splinternets

dm — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 11:13:56 -0000

"All property moves toward private, proprietary control" is too simple-minded a maxim. It may be true of exclusionary resources, but it's not true of things that can be duplicated freely or shared freely. Nor is it true where the transaction-costs of maintaining proprietary control weigh too heavily against the benefits gained from that proprietary control. Technology can decrease transaction costs (look at the notion of replacing toll-booths with stations that photograph one's license plate and send one a bill --- now every street has the potential of being a toll-road), but it can also decrease the utility of those charges --- the old bits-vs.-atoms argument that's dissolving intellectual-property monopolies, or DRM that does more harm than good, for examples.

Your gated-community notion is interesting, but I'm not convinced you aren't just re-inventing Compuserve and AOL. Those open technologies are widespread because they deliver benefits that closed technologies do not.

For that matter, I think you've been overtaken by your metaphors --- we don't have one "physical network" now. We have an amalgam of networks with gateways between them that pass data using various physical protocols, with IP sitting on top of them (and TCP and friends on top of that).

Re: Internet Security Concerns, Online Anonymity, and Splinternets

Wayne Crews — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 09:20:22 -0000

Adam thanks for this; when i first saw your email to me yesterday on the New York Times article I didn't realize you'd done this extensive post (cursed blackberry screen, plus nosepicker kids in the background).

Guess you've caused me to jump back into the "Splinternets and Cyberspaces" debate. Basically my point has always been that the "capital-I" Internet of today is not the same as not-yet-created multimedia networks that will exist in the future; those will have numerous dedicated purposes and will need to keep certain people off and would be crazy to blindly adopt an overly open architecture that is an artifact of the Internet's public origins. All property moves toward private, proprietary control; that will include future network technology. Networks may use "internet" technology, but need not all use the same physical network. This is especially feasible as societies generations hence become wealthier and network industries' various ventures create an assortment of dedicated networks. Metcalfe's Law is true, but so is my corollary; that if people are on your network deliberately devoted to destroying it or otherwise creating pandemonium or preventing you from making security and privacy guarantees to anyone, then the value of your network rises as you flick them off. Note that, in utter contrast to the net neutrality unicorn, this is a future of vastly greater and diverse network-and-infrastructure (and content) wealth than imaginable today.

Also, related privacy work i do makes a case that, even as we strive to protect political anonymity online, we may need/desire less commercial anonymity, which will drive the creation of such networks. More on that to come i suppose, since you drew me out on this, but there's a link to a policy study somewhere.

-wayne crews

Re: Jerry Brito - Holy crap! Marie is right! There is a resemblance.

Wayne Crews — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 17:44:11 -0000

I was just talking to Nick about his Capital-H Hair at the Reaon Happy Hour. I didn't get to keep any of mine; punishment for having a mullet as a kid.
--wayne crews, CEI

Re: Overprotective Parents and Lawsuits Cause Obesity and Death

clyde wayne — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:26:51 -0000

I just put a Digg on both this piece and Adam's.