"The government has a lot of information on everyone who gets on a plane… so let’s integrate that intelligence into the checkpoint," he said. "Today the checkpoint is just looking for bad objects – like tweezers and shampoo, but the agent doesn’t know anything about the traveler."
With a quick background check, Lott said, agents could better assess the risk associated with each traveler, then use things like scanners and pat-downs to further analyze those deemed high risk.
Seriously, that's how these guys think. And the way things are going, they'll probably get that too.
"It's really quite unfortunate that these 19 US Senators are the first American politicians to publicly vote in favor of censoring speech in America."
Hmmm ... so no one that voted for the DMCA (or any other laws now abused for widespread censorship like that) counts as "voting in favor of censoring speech"?
Look, I totally agree with the content of your message (especially in this case), but you're making the argument against this look bad by making emotionally extreme statements like that. It might even be technically true by the definition you set up in the preceding sentence, but you're inciting an emotional argument that doesn't even need to exist.
Seriously, what are they putting in the Washington air? Al Franken still on his website today, at the top of the dang page in a huge font - "stop corporate takeover of the media". So, pushing for a bill to increase corporate control of the new media (the internet) is the obvious first step to improving the situation. Duh.
I don't disagree with anything you've said there. You're right, I didn't check up what's currently possible with 3d printers and was just going off what makerbot and the ilk list for their hobbyist kits dimensions and what they're capable of.
I'll probably still stand by the larger point I was trying to make that there's at least multiple aspects of this "3d printing" situation that are distinct from the "music" and "video" situations that provide some room for optimism and things going at least a little bit differently.
I think my largest open question is, who will lead the assault against 3d printers first?
I really meant the more general windfall of "those democrats really fucked up, let's replace them with republicans" which exactly 2 years ago was "those republicans really fucked up, let's replace them with democrats". And the resulting large swaths of "democrats" or "republicans" that get elected due to that mentality.
But yes, absolutely you're right, there were several exceptions and those should be talked about and celebrated.
For example of item 3) mainstream attitude, check out this article penned two years ago by an action figure aficionado who's well aware of both the impending 3d printer apocalypse and the previous riaa/mpaa skirmish.
However, the genie is about to be released from its bottle, and once it’s out, toy manufacturers will have to offer better products at better prices that really match what action figure collectors want. If they are smart, they will spearhead the 3D printing industry themselves, offering limited edition toys to collectors and limiting peg warming action figures.
Realizing that the distribution/infringement/whatever will happen, and the only recourse for the legacy industry is to adapt.
I've found my optimism for the next battle in the things that are different this time around. I'm framing "this time around" versus "last time around" the same as the white paper, considering right now our "pre 3d printing equivalent of DMCA" opportunity.
1) The internet is beyond just mainstream, it's a fact of life that's changed how and what we know. Which means every aspect of the debate and the progress of the technology will be accelerated a greater rate than any previous instance of this phenomena.
2) 3D Printing will be limited at first, limited in it's usage (right now it's just solid plastic objects under 4 cubic inches). I think this will limit the scope of the industries that will fight it at first, and give more opportunity for support to swell around the technology before the really big incumbents realize they are threatened by this thing.
3) The music industry's failures to stop piracy are present in this generation's mind right now. There is already low respect for intellectual property laws, in principle even, so the starting level of the "resistance to DMCA era laws" will be higher than in previous go'rounds and the tipping point will be reached sooner.
I disagree. There's clearly more power in some frameworks than others, if only because those frameworks encompass more aspects of the person's life and belief structure than others. Connecting with someone on the type of music they like will provide some opportunities to RtB if you can find a good RtB. Connecting with someone on their religion provides about 8 others, and has the added benefit of that persons "training" in donating cash on a regular basis to their cause, with the only minimal RtB provided as "spread the word".
Some connections are stronger than others. Some strong connections are easier to make than others if that person already has a strong set of beliefs surrounding it and you tap into those existing beliefs.
"However, it's yet another example of how really committed and engaged fans can make things happen where the old gatekeepers stood in the way."
I'd wager that we'll see the largest "donation" oriented activities being successful in more situations like this where a bit of religious fervor is involved, regardless of it being a traditional or a modern religion such as this one. Not to discount the merits of this of course. I'm only suggesting that due to the history/upbringing of these individuals there's already a solid connection between "what I believe in" and "donate money towards that". And Mr. Miller is clearly connecting at a deep level with what they believe in.
Then again, we can see the exact same phenomena in activities like the previous "Ron Paul Moneybombs". Perhaps a different sort of religion, but fervor and connecting on a deep level with beliefs nonetheless.
These sorts of bad patents really don't bother you at all? I would think even as someone who staunchly defends the need for a patent system you'd be concerned about these sorts of patents. Could we not talk about the need for a patent system and not talk about the need to deal with the effects (civil lawsuits) and just focus on this patent for 2 seconds? There's clearly plenty of people willing to discuss whatever question you throw out, but don't you think you'll win more support with a rational discussion of the topic at hand instead of derailing the conversation? You get more attention with derailing, which I guess maybe is your goal? But I genuinely think you'll be more effective and get closer to your goals if you consider rational discourse some of the time.
I bet you'd sell more books and/or get more responses to your query if you were peddling the "sexy" (as Mike put it) concept of cyberwar threats and not the unsexy concept of typical boring collusion and profiteering.
I don't think his emphasis on particular words is intentional (nor sinister). I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he just emphasizes words at random and actually has zero understanding of the script he's reading. Why else would he emphasize words in every sentence like "youth" and "new media"?
"there are plenty of things that Twitter has done that I'm sure the USPTO would approve"
If I were a betting man, I'd bet any of the following would be patents (or claims within a patent) approved by the USPTO:
i) A method for distributing messages from users to subscribers of that user
ii) A method for forwarding ("retweeting" if you will) messages with references to the original message from a user to their subscribers
And the worst part is that those are gross oversimplifications that don't even begin to highlight where the true innovation "behind the scenes" is occurring.
"Afifi, the son of an Islamic-American community leader who died a year ago in Egypt"
- Wired Article (emphasis mine)
Not saying it's justified by any stretch of the imagination, I would argue just the opposite in fact. Just saying we live in a day in age where if you're related to one person who's a community leader and have another friend who posts a random comment and happen to be of any of a variety of races, then you get profiled. Not just the random comment.
WoW does do free as part of the business model, no? They just insert it at a different point. You pay to play more than 10 days, instead of pay to play with more in game stuff.
I don't think their small monthly fee is a barrier to entry that prevents people from playing their game. The time to download and install, the system requirements, the learning curve, the time commitment, those are larger barriers that I would think they'd want to focus on first.