Learn from the mistakes of others

Back in 2005 ... this article

Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal
WONDER LAND
Can Justice Scalia Solve the Riddles Of the Internet?
Without profit even the digital world will break down.

BY DANIEL HENNINGER

Friday, April 1, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

As the berobed Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court sat pestering the suits who came before them days ago to contest Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer v. Grokster, a case nominally about the arcana of "peer-to-peer file sharing," it would have been entirely appropriate had a subversive in the gallery pulled out his wondrous iPod, shoved a teensy PodWave external speaker into the thing and filled the grand chamber with Bob Dylan's ancient, famously prophetic lyrics: "Something is happening here, but you don't know what it is, do you, Mister Jones?"

...

No matter what the Supreme Court decides about Grokster's 15 minutes of fame, this is a philosophical issue for the long run. The Web isn't just a technology; it's become an ideology. The Web's birth as a "free" medium and the downloading ethic have engendered the belief that culture--songs, movies, fiction, journalism, photography--should be clickable into the public domain,for "everyone."

What a weird ethic. Some who will spend hundreds of dollars for iPods and home theater systems won't pay one thin dime for a song or movie. So Steve Jobs and the Silicon Valley geeks get richer while the new-music artists sweating through three sets in dim clubs get to live on Red Bull. Where's the justice in that?

Led to this response ...

Rehashing the same stale file sharing argument

April 05, 2005 in Political

Over on Dangerousmeta I saw a link to this Op-Ed by Daniel Henninger from the Wall Street Journal, Can Justice Scalia Solve the Riddles Of the Internet? Without profit even the digital world will break down. Having recently read the excellent profile of Justice Scalia in The New Yorker (which frustratingly doesn't appear to be online), I was curious to read the article. I was disappointed to discover it rehashed the same old fallacious arguments about people "stealing" music online, and worse, that it got mired in questions of morals.

...

How hard is it to adapt and evolve one's business model to the changing time? I think that's what irks me the most about all this -- taking it to the courts to ensure that because something once was, it should (be legislated to) always be. All this "copyright" is just code for "profit."

P.S. What about a bumper sticker that says, "Your failed business model is not my problem"?

P.P.S. In retrospect, this is such a stupid article, I can't believe I wasted any time responding to it, when I could be enjoying the glories of Paris!

Which was taken up on t-shirts ... and so on ...

"your wish is my command"

Except insofar as certain organisations insist on trying to claw they eyes out of the inevitable.

Back in 2005 ... this article

Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal
WONDER LAND
Can Justice Scalia Solve the Riddles Of the Internet?
Without profit even the digital world will break down.

BY DANIEL HENNINGER

Friday, April 1, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

As the berobed Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court sat pestering the suits who came before them days ago to contest Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer v. Grokster, a case nominally about the arcana of "peer-to-peer file sharing," it would have been entirely appropriate had a subversive in the gallery pulled out his wondrous iPod, shoved a teensy PodWave external speaker into the thing and filled the grand chamber with Bob Dylan's ancient, famously prophetic lyrics: "Something is happening here, but you don't know what it is, do you, Mister Jones?"

...

No matter what the Supreme Court decides about Grokster's 15 minutes of fame, this is a philosophical issue for the long run. The Web isn't just a technology; it's become an ideology. The Web's birth as a "free" medium and the downloading ethic have engendered the belief that culture--songs, movies, fiction, journalism, photography--should be clickable into the public domain,for "everyone."

What a weird ethic. Some who will spend hundreds of dollars for iPods and home theater systems won't pay one thin dime for a song or movie. So Steve Jobs and the Silicon Valley geeks get richer while the new-music artists sweating through three sets in dim clubs get to live on Red Bull. Where's the justice in that?

Led to this response ...

Rehashing the same stale file sharing argument

April 05, 2005 in Political

Over on Dangerousmeta I saw a link to this Op-Ed by Daniel Henninger from the Wall Street Journal, Can Justice Scalia Solve the Riddles Of the Internet? Without profit even the digital world will break down. Having recently read the excellent profile of Justice Scalia in The New Yorker (which frustratingly doesn't appear to be online), I was curious to read the article. I was disappointed to discover it rehashed the same old fallacious arguments about people "stealing" music online, and worse, that it got mired in questions of morals.

...

How hard is it to adapt and evolve one's business model to the changing time? I think that's what irks me the most about all this -- taking it to the courts to ensure that because something once was, it should (be legislated to) always be. All this "copyright" is just code for "profit."

P.S. What about a bumper sticker that says, "Your failed business model is not my problem"?

P.P.S. In retrospect, this is such a stupid article, I can't believe I wasted any time responding to it, when I could be enjoying the glories of Paris!

Which was taken up on t-shirts ... and so on ...

"your wish is my command"

Except insofar as certain organisations insist on trying to claw they eyes out of the inevitable.

Particularly if you have control of (one of) the most powerful (technology) corporations ... you can wax lyrical about how excited you are about your own products and how they'll change our lives for the better.

It's hard to fault the logic that we'll continue to think new things, and talk about them, and so forth.

There are even nifty buzzwords like "consilience" to go with the excitement!

From Wikipedia:

Consilience, or the unity of knowledge (literally a "jumping together" of knowledge), has its roots in the ancient Greek concept of an intrinsic orderliness that governs our cosmos, inherently comprehensible by logical process, a vision at odds with mystical views in many cultures that surrounded the Hellenes. The rational view was recovered during the high Middle Ages, separated from theology during the Renaissance and found its apogee in the Age of Enlightenment. Then, with the rise of the modern sciences, the sense of unity gradually was lost in the increasing fragmentation and specialization of knowledge in the last two centuries. The converse of consilience is Reductionism.

In short, things make more sense in context.

Which is also the difference between information and knowledge. Something Mr Gates and I agree upon. However, I'm not so impressed with mere knowledge. To me, we ought to be aspiring to wisdom - knowledge is useless without a purpose. Something I'm all too familiar with.

Particularly if you have control of (one of) the most powerful (technology) corporations ... you can wax lyrical about how excited you are about your own products and how they'll change our lives for the better.

It's hard to fault the logic that we'll continue to think new things, and talk about them, and so forth.

There are even nifty buzzwords like "consilience" to go with the excitement!

From Wikipedia:

Consilience, or the unity of knowledge (literally a "jumping together" of knowledge), has its roots in the ancient Greek concept of an intrinsic orderliness that governs our cosmos, inherently comprehensible by logical process, a vision at odds with mystical views in many cultures that surrounded the Hellenes. The rational view was recovered during the high Middle Ages, separated from theology during the Renaissance and found its apogee in the Age of Enlightenment. Then, with the rise of the modern sciences, the sense of unity gradually was lost in the increasing fragmentation and specialization of knowledge in the last two centuries. The converse of consilience is Reductionism.

In short, things make more sense in context.

Which is also the difference between information and knowledge. Something Mr Gates and I agree upon. However, I'm not so impressed with mere knowledge. To me, we ought to be aspiring to wisdom - knowledge is useless without a purpose. Something I'm all too familiar with.

it is interesting to consider the way the people respond to technologies, particularly new technologies.

dna technologies - or more accurately, the way dna technologies are used - has been a focal point for a number of social dichotomies. a recent article on the newsweek website prompted me to think about some of them once more.

the article "dna testing: in our blood" examines the experiences of a number of people, and their families, who have explored their ancestry through dna analysis. a large project, co-sponsored by the national geographic and ibm, is attempting to build a large map of genotype branches for humanity, the genographic project. they are already working from dna data collected and collated concerning mitochondrial and y chromosomal fingerprints used to analyse ancestry and relatedness.

mitochondrial dna passes down female lines to their offspring, while y chromosomes are passed male to male. both are quite stable - other chromosomal dna is subject to significant rearranging between matching pairs. mitochondrial dna can therefore give us a good look back along matrilineal inheritances- where your mother's mother's etc dna came from. ditto for tracing the heritage of your father's father's etc. in combination, population geneticists are able to map out broad family groups and identify ancestries back tens of thousands of years.

they can't say exactly who your ancestor was, but rather where they came from. and that can be a real eye-opener.

it's also raising all manner of questions, ethical and otherwise. not all potential donors like the idea of anyone else having access to their dna. some distrust the purposes to which their dna might be used. plenty of indigenous populations have discovered they have no claim over the rewards derived from their cultural and biological heritage in the past -they are wary of losing this, their most intimate heritage.

stumbling across this, i'm reminded of ideas and interests i explored a decade or so ago. back when i was a biology student, learning the hard way that science is rational but scientists can be a different matter entirely.

population genetics, genomics, genethics, and other neato buzzwords were in their infancy back then. as was the internet. i was neck deep in all of it. somehow i got sidetracked into programming and desktop support. and the law.

i remember why i got into the law, more or less. perhaps i should have done philosophy instead? i was/am the bastard most likely to ask why ... why is this so? why is that the way things work?

in a way, even before autism and asperger's entered my regular vocabulary, i was aware of how much i didn't understand about people. in particular, why they said and did some of the things they did. these days i'm wondering if i'll ever be able to understand.

in the meantime, how do i best make use of my interests and my knowledge and my skills and my talents. because the intersection of those things, considered in light of the kind of environment i flourish in, ought to point me in the direction of what i could be doing with my life.

i am interested in the effects of technology, they way people use it - often in ways unlike that expected or intended by their creators/marketers, and where it's all going anyway.

this is why i like science fiction. who are we and where are we going are key questions in that genre. (that and the cool gadgets. do like my cool gadgets, when i can afford them :)

i think too much.

it is interesting to consider the way the people respond to technologies, particularly new technologies.

dna technologies - or more accurately, the way dna technologies are used - has been a focal point for a number of social dichotomies. a recent article on the newsweek website prompted me to think about some of them once more.

the article "dna testing: in our blood" examines the experiences of a number of people, and their families, who have explored their ancestry through dna analysis. a large project, co-sponsored by the national geographic and ibm, is attempting to build a large map of genotype branches for humanity, the genographic project. they are already working from dna data collected and collated concerning mitochondrial and y chromosomal fingerprints used to analyse ancestry and relatedness.

mitochondrial dna passes down female lines to their offspring, while y chromosomes are passed male to male. both are quite stable - other chromosomal dna is subject to significant rearranging between matching pairs. mitochondrial dna can therefore give us a good look back along matrilineal inheritances- where your mother's mother's etc dna came from. ditto for tracing the heritage of your father's father's etc. in combination, population geneticists are able to map out broad family groups and identify ancestries back tens of thousands of years.

they can't say exactly who your ancestor was, but rather where they came from. and that can be a real eye-opener.

it's also raising all manner of questions, ethical and otherwise. not all potential donors like the idea of anyone else having access to their dna. some distrust the purposes to which their dna might be used. plenty of indigenous populations have discovered they have no claim over the rewards derived from their cultural and biological heritage in the past -they are wary of losing this, their most intimate heritage.

stumbling across this, i'm reminded of ideas and interests i explored a decade or so ago. back when i was a biology student, learning the hard way that science is rational but scientists can be a different matter entirely.

population genetics, genomics, genethics, and other neato buzzwords were in their infancy back then. as was the internet. i was neck deep in all of it. somehow i got sidetracked into programming and desktop support. and the law.

i remember why i got into the law, more or less. perhaps i should have done philosophy instead? i was/am the bastard most likely to ask why ... why is this so? why is that the way things work?

in a way, even before autism and asperger's entered my regular vocabulary, i was aware of how much i didn't understand about people. in particular, why they said and did some of the things they did. these days i'm wondering if i'll ever be able to understand.

in the meantime, how do i best make use of my interests and my knowledge and my skills and my talents. because the intersection of those things, considered in light of the kind of environment i flourish in, ought to point me in the direction of what i could be doing with my life.

i am interested in the effects of technology, they way people use it - often in ways unlike that expected or intended by their creators/marketers, and where it's all going anyway.

this is why i like science fiction. who are we and where are we going are key questions in that genre. (that and the cool gadgets. do like my cool gadgets, when i can afford them :)

i think too much.

job hunting is a full time occupation that pays a pittance to grovel to the people who get to make arbitrary decisions about your fitness to participate in society.

i write around 3,000 word per week on average, in addition to text i cut and paste into applications and letters. i can spend 30-40 hours per week constructing applications - particularly if i want to have a hope of being offered an interview.

frankly, that's much more than i'd have to work as a damn lawyer. i know, i've done it. and i've seen others do it. and i'd get three to four times the take home income.

damn if i'm not feeling a tad pissed off, always having to apply for entry level positions. always being passed over for a younger, less experienced, candidate.

i'm so considering shaving my head and playing the "slightly odd" freak card ... and perhaps even fleshing my resume out with all the details ....

i can come second for any job i apply for, what does that say about the people not choosing me? i'm almost as good as everyone they already have in the office at everything everyone else is already doing ...

yes, i'm feeling sorry for myself. another of my former classmates made associate. i made a sandwich. and got another letter of demand for a whole fortnights 'pay' ... fuckknuckles ...

job hunting is a full time occupation that pays a pittance to grovel to the people who get to make arbitrary decisions about your fitness to participate in society.

i write around 3,000 word per week on average, in addition to text i cut and paste into applications and letters. i can spend 30-40 hours per week constructing applications - particularly if i want to have a hope of being offered an interview.

frankly, that's much more than i'd have to work as a damn lawyer. i know, i've done it. and i've seen others do it. and i'd get three to four times the take home income.

damn if i'm not feeling a tad pissed off, always having to apply for entry level positions. always being passed over for a younger, less experienced, candidate.

i'm so considering shaving my head and playing the "slightly odd" freak card ... and perhaps even fleshing my resume out with all the details ....

i can come second for any job i apply for, what does that say about the people not choosing me? i'm almost as good as everyone they already have in the office at everything everyone else is already doing ...

yes, i'm feeling sorry for myself. another of my former classmates made associate. i made a sandwich. and got another letter of demand for a whole fortnights 'pay' ... fuckknuckles ...

well, house floors are pretty now.

furniture being returned to living spaces. at least they are over this shitty, hot and wet weekend.

most of this week i've been down at my parents' place. helping them get ready to move to perth, western australia.

i'll be acquiring a large selection of their furniture for a cash payment. what doesn't fit here will probably have to go into storage somewhere.

i have started up my job applications thing again. one done and sent, two started - one of which is almost done. i bloody hope i get a job soon. working takes less effort, and is more satisfying, than endless job applications.

i've passed the 800 mark now. probably more, actually, since we're talking about 4 years here. about 200 of those have been the full deal, "response to person specification" blah de blah. i now have a large collection of previous responses to cut 'n' paste from - though sometimes it takes longer to find a prototype than to type things out form scratch.

if i do get the job i've just applied for, i'll be doing something i do well - have done lots of - and learning a few things as well. and the remuneration will help a lot. be able to pay of some really annoying debts, and begin to look to next year with some confidence instead of clawing my way from financial year to financial year.

i so want out of this endless subsistence existence.

well, house floors are pretty now.

furniture being returned to living spaces. at least they are over this shitty, hot and wet weekend.

most of this week i've been down at my parents' place. helping them get ready to move to perth, western australia.

i'll be acquiring a large selection of their furniture for a cash payment. what doesn't fit here will probably have to go into storage somewhere.

i have started up my job applications thing again. one done and sent, two started - one of which is almost done. i bloody hope i get a job soon. working takes less effort, and is more satisfying, than endless job applications.

i've passed the 800 mark now. probably more, actually, since we're talking about 4 years here. about 200 of those have been the full deal, "response to person specification" blah de blah. i now have a large collection of previous responses to cut 'n' paste from - though sometimes it takes longer to find a prototype than to type things out form scratch.

if i do get the job i've just applied for, i'll be doing something i do well - have done lots of - and learning a few things as well. and the remuneration will help a lot. be able to pay of some really annoying debts, and begin to look to next year with some confidence instead of clawing my way from financial year to financial year.

i so want out of this endless subsistence existence.