In the midst of China's drive to become an economic power, Google's plight has quickly become a black mark on the business climate the Chinese government has been cultivating. While Google is an internet-based company, the internet has become critical to modern business operations. By threatening to pull operations from China, Google isn't threatening the government; they are calling into question that country's ability to maintain and safeguard EVERY company's business operations. They are leveraging their business clout against Chinese economic interest and changing the context in which foreign companies do business in China, potentially setting themselves up for a hefty competitive advantage in a growing market.
Google knows that even if the Chinese government is not directly involved in those network attacks, Chinese authorities will feel pressured to step in deal with those responsible. If the government fails to do this, they will appear weak and ineffective, two things this government in particular will bend over backwards to avoid. If China can't make Google happy, Google may very well become a symbol that will retard the economic growth China currently enjoys.
It is a mistake to paint this incident as a political issue. Far more important to the players directly involved in this story, this is a purely economic issue. As for whether or not the Chinese government is directly responsible for Google’s network attacks, the true answer is irrelevant in the face of what Google stands to achieve by publicizing this issue.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Friday, October 23, 2009
Intellectual Property and Fair Compensation
The author of a recent ARS Technica article entitled "Content Owners Need To Calm Down," some anonymous writer calling themselves "Free Audio Books" argues that content developers (writers, etc.) shouldn't get so worked up over others using their work without permission. To underscore their opinion, the author quoted copyright expert William Patry's concluding statement from a book onthe subject of intellectual property rights: “I cannot think of a single significant innovation in either the creation or distribution of works of authorship that owes its origins to the copyright industries.”
Unfortunately for this person's argument, the copyright debate isn't about the creative process that produces original works; it is about fair compensation for the creation of a product. No one disputes the right for a farmer, for example, to be paid for the food they produce. If hordes of people simply drove up and grabbed as much corn or strawberries as they could carry and drove off to use them or sell them for a profit, they could be arrested (and rightly so) for theft. No one would sympathize with the thief; after all, they were trying to use the fruit of someone else's labor for their own purposes.
How does this differ from the unauthorized use of a writer's work? A product is a product, whether it is tangible or not. At the very least, laws governing ownership and commerce should be applied equally to all labor. Just because an idea doesn't take material form doesn't mean that it should receive lesser protections.
Unfortunately for this person's argument, the copyright debate isn't about the creative process that produces original works; it is about fair compensation for the creation of a product. No one disputes the right for a farmer, for example, to be paid for the food they produce. If hordes of people simply drove up and grabbed as much corn or strawberries as they could carry and drove off to use them or sell them for a profit, they could be arrested (and rightly so) for theft. No one would sympathize with the thief; after all, they were trying to use the fruit of someone else's labor for their own purposes.
How does this differ from the unauthorized use of a writer's work? A product is a product, whether it is tangible or not. At the very least, laws governing ownership and commerce should be applied equally to all labor. Just because an idea doesn't take material form doesn't mean that it should receive lesser protections.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
"But what can I do?"
Why do people continue to insist on lamenting how horrible the world has become? Were things really that much better 10, 100, or 1,000 years ago? Take it from an American of African descent, "the past" does not equal "a better time".
And on the subject horrible things in the world, I'm also pretty tired of the question "but what can we do about it?" Why do people even ask that question? Is it meant to be rhetorical? People ask this all the time, as if it's a mantra meant to absolve them of any guilt for having sat on their asses and never making any attempt to do something about the horror in the world. People, don't worry about how grand your actions are, just DO SOMETHING. No one said we have to be omnipotent in order to affect change. Do you really think you have to be able to throw lightening bolts or walk on water to have the power to affect someone's life? Do you really think it requires extraordinary circumstances in order to have an opportunity to make a difference?
Let me put it this way. Have you ever seen a skyscraper? Who in their right mind would believe one person could build something like that. Now think about how things like that actually get built. Welders, cement workers, electricians, and a multitude of other professionals show up and simply do the one thing they're good at. They contribute their unique skills, at a specific point in time, in specific areas. Over time, with each of them doing their part, a vacant patch of land becomes home to an immense structure.
Put another way, this is how all change in our history has come about. Everyone points to historical figures as "great men" with the ability to shape the world. These people are simply architects who applied established standards in unique ways. It was the small actions of the average person that constitute the change those "great men" are credited with.
Anyone who has ever had an idea as to what can be done to eliminate horrors such as those I posted from happening could be the next Martin Luther King or Mohandas Gandhi or Mother Theresa. The difference between them and the average person? The number of people willing to actually DO what needs to be done, versus the number of people who simply throw up their hands, overwhelmed at the prospect of doing more than simply talking about how horrible the world can be.
And on the subject horrible things in the world, I'm also pretty tired of the question "but what can we do about it?" Why do people even ask that question? Is it meant to be rhetorical? People ask this all the time, as if it's a mantra meant to absolve them of any guilt for having sat on their asses and never making any attempt to do something about the horror in the world. People, don't worry about how grand your actions are, just DO SOMETHING. No one said we have to be omnipotent in order to affect change. Do you really think you have to be able to throw lightening bolts or walk on water to have the power to affect someone's life? Do you really think it requires extraordinary circumstances in order to have an opportunity to make a difference?
Let me put it this way. Have you ever seen a skyscraper? Who in their right mind would believe one person could build something like that. Now think about how things like that actually get built. Welders, cement workers, electricians, and a multitude of other professionals show up and simply do the one thing they're good at. They contribute their unique skills, at a specific point in time, in specific areas. Over time, with each of them doing their part, a vacant patch of land becomes home to an immense structure.
Put another way, this is how all change in our history has come about. Everyone points to historical figures as "great men" with the ability to shape the world. These people are simply architects who applied established standards in unique ways. It was the small actions of the average person that constitute the change those "great men" are credited with.
Anyone who has ever had an idea as to what can be done to eliminate horrors such as those I posted from happening could be the next Martin Luther King or Mohandas Gandhi or Mother Theresa. The difference between them and the average person? The number of people willing to actually DO what needs to be done, versus the number of people who simply throw up their hands, overwhelmed at the prospect of doing more than simply talking about how horrible the world can be.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
High tech, low brow
I've recently watched as people have discussed the relative merits of video games that place their emphasis on shooting things or blowing them up. These games, commonly referred to as "shooters" are touted or panned, depending upon how original they are, with their proponents forever looking to avoid games that become "formulaic," copying the successful elements of past games.
With apologies to fans of this genre of video game, ALL shooters are formulaic. Enemy. Weapons. Terrain. All with a vaguely story-like framework to hold it together. Once you've played one, you've played them ALL. And no, I do not differentiate between, say HALO and Call of Duty. In the context of the broad potential games have in this era of technology, that would simply be splitting hairs, not comparing separate experiences.
But this is not what disappoints me about video games.
One source of irritation for me is the fact that video games are one of the last bastions of misogyny, gleefully flashing the same tired, juvenile, knuckle-dragging mentality that causes every comic book heroine to look like they just stepped out of the Playboy Mansion.
Game designers remind me of fashion designers: all women are essentially the representation of the early-developing girls these guys pined over when they first hit puberty: leggy, skinny, busty, with no hips. Either that, or they simply enjoy imagining 14-year-old boys with long hair and boobs. These are not realistic representations of women; they are simply a remnant of the pre-adolescent longings of geeks and horndogs.
In my life, I've seen one...ONE...game in which a woman was prominently featured and became a fully fleshed-out character rather than the product of a wet dream. For anyone with access to an X-Box, get the game Beyond Good & Evil. It was left in the dust because Splinter Cell and Prince of Persia were released at around the same time, but it remains every bit the equal of these games.
I mention this because, among other things, I am continually disgusted by the stereotypes I see constantly in video games. Like the Academy Awards, where the surest path to a nomination is to play a whore or an adulteress, women can't seem to appear in video games without being victims in need of rescue, ass-kicking men in the bodies of hot busty babes, side-kicks that serve as a moral compass for the player-hero, or some combination/permutation of those same, tired stereotypes.
This is one reason why even my extreme love for this entertainment genre hasn't sustained a fanatical interest in playing these games: the wondrous achievements in technology we all rave about and admire have yet to be equaled by comparable achievements in writing and characterization. Why do we get James Cameron-level technology to look at, but are still forced to suffer through Nickelodeon-level plots?
As of last year, the American video game industry surpassed the American movie industry in terms of revenue. Unfortunately, while motion pictures consistently manage to rise to the level of art, video games are still mired in the muck. I am not the only adult waiting for video games designed to push the boundaries of what is possible with story and interaction. If designers would only look beyond boobs, blood, and body counts, I might actually consider spending more money on games rather than cable, movies, or DVDs.
In the mean time, on the eve of the release of yet more sequels to such gore fests as God of War, Grand Theft Auto, Resident Evil, and other mind-numbingly repetitive games, I'll take a pass and keep on walking. At least Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen ends the pain after $8 and two hours of your time. Who needs to spend $300 on a game system and $50 on a title just to suffer through 20-30 hours of story even more shallow than that?
With apologies to fans of this genre of video game, ALL shooters are formulaic. Enemy. Weapons. Terrain. All with a vaguely story-like framework to hold it together. Once you've played one, you've played them ALL. And no, I do not differentiate between, say HALO and Call of Duty. In the context of the broad potential games have in this era of technology, that would simply be splitting hairs, not comparing separate experiences.
But this is not what disappoints me about video games.
One source of irritation for me is the fact that video games are one of the last bastions of misogyny, gleefully flashing the same tired, juvenile, knuckle-dragging mentality that causes every comic book heroine to look like they just stepped out of the Playboy Mansion.
Game designers remind me of fashion designers: all women are essentially the representation of the early-developing girls these guys pined over when they first hit puberty: leggy, skinny, busty, with no hips. Either that, or they simply enjoy imagining 14-year-old boys with long hair and boobs. These are not realistic representations of women; they are simply a remnant of the pre-adolescent longings of geeks and horndogs.
In my life, I've seen one...ONE...game in which a woman was prominently featured and became a fully fleshed-out character rather than the product of a wet dream. For anyone with access to an X-Box, get the game Beyond Good & Evil. It was left in the dust because Splinter Cell and Prince of Persia were released at around the same time, but it remains every bit the equal of these games.
I mention this because, among other things, I am continually disgusted by the stereotypes I see constantly in video games. Like the Academy Awards, where the surest path to a nomination is to play a whore or an adulteress, women can't seem to appear in video games without being victims in need of rescue, ass-kicking men in the bodies of hot busty babes, side-kicks that serve as a moral compass for the player-hero, or some combination/permutation of those same, tired stereotypes.
This is one reason why even my extreme love for this entertainment genre hasn't sustained a fanatical interest in playing these games: the wondrous achievements in technology we all rave about and admire have yet to be equaled by comparable achievements in writing and characterization. Why do we get James Cameron-level technology to look at, but are still forced to suffer through Nickelodeon-level plots?
As of last year, the American video game industry surpassed the American movie industry in terms of revenue. Unfortunately, while motion pictures consistently manage to rise to the level of art, video games are still mired in the muck. I am not the only adult waiting for video games designed to push the boundaries of what is possible with story and interaction. If designers would only look beyond boobs, blood, and body counts, I might actually consider spending more money on games rather than cable, movies, or DVDs.
In the mean time, on the eve of the release of yet more sequels to such gore fests as God of War, Grand Theft Auto, Resident Evil, and other mind-numbingly repetitive games, I'll take a pass and keep on walking. At least Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen ends the pain after $8 and two hours of your time. Who needs to spend $300 on a game system and $50 on a title just to suffer through 20-30 hours of story even more shallow than that?
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
California courts uphold gay marriage ban
While this was an unexpected turn of events in many circles, this is exactly what I expected to see, but only because it was the logical conclusion to be reached based on the pertinent laws.
The California state constitution is written in a way that allows voter majority to create the kinds of idiosyncrasies that resulted in Proposition 8. The only thing a judge for their state court system can do is rule as to whether or not a law or statute adheres to the state constitution. Prop 8 was an amendment to California's state constitution, which means that the moment it went into effect, it became it's own exception to rules governing discrimination in that state.
Of course, the important words in that statement are in that state. The U.S. constitution includes a Bill of Rights, as well as several amendments that have upheld the full rights of citizenship and insured that they apply to everyone, no matter their circumstances. Discrimination against any one identifiable group made up of American citizens is unconstitutional on many, many levels.
Which brings us back to the California court ruling. An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court will almost certainly result in Proposition 8 being struck down as unconstitutional (Federal law trumps state law). This means that we are looking at the end of this little trickle of state legislatures here and there legalizing gay marriage. By striking down Proposition 8, the Supreme Court will make gay marriage legal in EVERY state. The Social Conservatives and the Mormons in California who fought to get Proposition 8 passed will be remembered as the people who finally made legal acceptance of gay marriage across the U.S. possible.
And good luck trying to amend the U.S. constitution. We're not talking about a simply public majority vote here; amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not work the same way. Not only would it take a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of Congress t pull this off, it would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states. Current polls only show a 50-50 split on this issue, not even close to what social conservatives would need to make their dogma the law of the land.
So let them enjoy today's little victory; it was only a skirmish. They're essentially cheering the lighting of a match that will last just long enough to allow them to see that their ship is sinking.
The California state constitution is written in a way that allows voter majority to create the kinds of idiosyncrasies that resulted in Proposition 8. The only thing a judge for their state court system can do is rule as to whether or not a law or statute adheres to the state constitution. Prop 8 was an amendment to California's state constitution, which means that the moment it went into effect, it became it's own exception to rules governing discrimination in that state.
Of course, the important words in that statement are in that state. The U.S. constitution includes a Bill of Rights, as well as several amendments that have upheld the full rights of citizenship and insured that they apply to everyone, no matter their circumstances. Discrimination against any one identifiable group made up of American citizens is unconstitutional on many, many levels.
Which brings us back to the California court ruling. An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court will almost certainly result in Proposition 8 being struck down as unconstitutional (Federal law trumps state law). This means that we are looking at the end of this little trickle of state legislatures here and there legalizing gay marriage. By striking down Proposition 8, the Supreme Court will make gay marriage legal in EVERY state. The Social Conservatives and the Mormons in California who fought to get Proposition 8 passed will be remembered as the people who finally made legal acceptance of gay marriage across the U.S. possible.
And good luck trying to amend the U.S. constitution. We're not talking about a simply public majority vote here; amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not work the same way. Not only would it take a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of Congress t pull this off, it would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states. Current polls only show a 50-50 split on this issue, not even close to what social conservatives would need to make their dogma the law of the land.
So let them enjoy today's little victory; it was only a skirmish. They're essentially cheering the lighting of a match that will last just long enough to allow them to see that their ship is sinking.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Inalienable rights and our social fabric
"...some rights, such as trial by jury, are social rights, arising neither from natural law nor from positive law but from the social contract from which a government derives its authority."
- James Madison, 4th. U.S. President
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have recently read several articles that seem to posit that there is no such thing as "inalienable rights", that people do not, by virtue of our society, gain any special protections other than those written into law. Based on this line of reasoning, there is no such thing as basic human rights.
The idea of inalienable rights, the basic rights all people are assumed to have by most rational people, is a construct designed to help maintain the fabric of our society. To say that they do not exist is to say that human beings are nothing more than animals. Yes, people can behave as animals do, living by the credo "might makes right", but they are also reasoned, artistic, philosophical beings capable of rational thought. As such, there is more at work in human society than base Darwinism. Humans can affect their own destinies; they are not slaves to chance.
And so it follows that human society is greater than the sum of its parts, not simply a herd comprised of a large group of animals. The inalienable rights implied by our social structure is simply, to use a Matrix reference: "the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation", a logical byproduct of that structure. To argue against this is to deny that any such structure exists, and to deny that society exists is a rank refusal to accept our own reality.
- James Madison, 4th. U.S. President
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have recently read several articles that seem to posit that there is no such thing as "inalienable rights", that people do not, by virtue of our society, gain any special protections other than those written into law. Based on this line of reasoning, there is no such thing as basic human rights.
The idea of inalienable rights, the basic rights all people are assumed to have by most rational people, is a construct designed to help maintain the fabric of our society. To say that they do not exist is to say that human beings are nothing more than animals. Yes, people can behave as animals do, living by the credo "might makes right", but they are also reasoned, artistic, philosophical beings capable of rational thought. As such, there is more at work in human society than base Darwinism. Humans can affect their own destinies; they are not slaves to chance.
And so it follows that human society is greater than the sum of its parts, not simply a herd comprised of a large group of animals. The inalienable rights implied by our social structure is simply, to use a Matrix reference: "the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation", a logical byproduct of that structure. To argue against this is to deny that any such structure exists, and to deny that society exists is a rank refusal to accept our own reality.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Higher Ground: the President drags the discussion on abortion out of the mud
Abortion continues to be a hot-button issue, especially these days with Social Conservatism on the decline (for now) and a big fight shaping up over the coming appointment of a new Supreme Court Associate Justice. It is against this backdrop that President Obama spoke at the graduation ceremony at one of the most prominent Catholic Universities in the United States.
As some of you may have heard, the President's visit to Notre Dame became a rallying point for the "pro-life" (read: "anti-choice") movement in recent months. Catholics in particular have denounced the visit, citing the President's support for the pro-choice (read: "don't tell me what to do") movement. Many had called for the University to withdraw its invitation to the president to speak, while others (such as Bishop John D'Arcy of the regional diocese) staged a variety of protest, such as round-the-clock prayer vigils, protests, letter-writing campaigns, and marches. The speech itself was interrupted by hecklers shouting at the President.
After all of that, you might be wondering where public discussion of this issue now stands in the US. After the President's speech, I would say that we may be looking at a more enlightened viewpoint and civil tone of discussion than has been the case in recent years. With his respectful tone and call for reconciliation among the various viewpoints, rather than separation from and the demonization of opposing opinions, the President met this issue head-on and managed to move our ability to address it forward.
As some of you may have heard, the President's visit to Notre Dame became a rallying point for the "pro-life" (read: "anti-choice") movement in recent months. Catholics in particular have denounced the visit, citing the President's support for the pro-choice (read: "don't tell me what to do") movement. Many had called for the University to withdraw its invitation to the president to speak, while others (such as Bishop John D'Arcy of the regional diocese) staged a variety of protest, such as round-the-clock prayer vigils, protests, letter-writing campaigns, and marches. The speech itself was interrupted by hecklers shouting at the President.
After all of that, you might be wondering where public discussion of this issue now stands in the US. After the President's speech, I would say that we may be looking at a more enlightened viewpoint and civil tone of discussion than has been the case in recent years. With his respectful tone and call for reconciliation among the various viewpoints, rather than separation from and the demonization of opposing opinions, the President met this issue head-on and managed to move our ability to address it forward.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
