Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

SOPA, PIPA, and a Disapproving Rabbit

You know it's serious, when a rabbit gets involved:

"We Disapprove of SOPA/PIPA"
Disapproving Rabbits (January 18, 2012)

"Hey all,

"We normally keep politics out of Disapproving Rabbits, but as people who create and sell things on the internet (and have had our work stolen), both Sharon and I feel we should join the protest against the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect-IP Act (PIPA), which as you can probably tell by the names, are designed to fight Internet Piracy.

"We feel that the legislation goes too far, gives the government and media companies too much power, and is poorly written. You can learn more about them here, but I urge you to investigate on your own...."

Disapproving Rabbits had planned to take the site down for 24 hours, but that would have been a whole lot of work: since they use Blogger, just like the Lemming. Instead, they turned the background color to black.

Turning this blog's background to black would be trickier, since it's a bit complicated - and uses an antique Blogger template. Excuses, excuses.

SOPA may be a well-intentioned, incompetently-planned, overly-powerful bit of legislation. On the other hand, a free Internet is a serious threat to the power of old-school information gatekeepers. Maybe SOPA isn't as daft as it seems: and represents an attempt to regain control of what Americans are allowed to see and read.

I've posted about information gatekeepers before:Other related posts:
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , ,

SOPA and PIPA Google Petition: I Signed

Google has an online petition today, for folks who think SOPA and PIPA are bad ideas.

I signed it.

No pressure, but if you think freedom of speech is a good idea, and live in the United States, you might consider doing the same:
If you click on Google's picture, you'll get a *.pdf (Acrobat) format mini-poster that prints out on an ordinary 8 1/2 x 11 inch sheet of paper.

Related posts:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Lemming Tracks: SOPA, PIPA, and 'Rules are for the Little People?'

SOPA is still working its way through Congress, sort of like a badly-cooked triple-cheese pizza.

If SOPA had been written by someone who understood information technology, and gave a rip about freedom of speech, the Lemming wouldn't be all that upset about one more piece of legislation. As it is, it looks like SOPA is - at best - a well-intentioned disaster waiting to happen.

That's the bad news.

The good news is that we do have pesky things like the First Amendment and blogs, and folks who aren't sufficiently submissive to what our betters in Washington think is good for us.

We've also got tech giants like Google, whose leadership is savvy enough to realize that giving some government official the power to shut down bothersome domains is a bad idea.

There's "Smart, Targeted;" And there's Congress

"Google will protest SOPA using popular home page"
Declan McCullagh and Greg Sandoval, CNET News (January 17, 2012)

"The tech sector is pulling out the big guns.

"Google, the Web's top search company and one of technology's most influential powers in Washington, will post a link on its home page tomorrow to notify users of Google's opposition to controversial antipiracy bills being debated in Congress.

"The company confirmed in a statement that it will join Wikipedia, Reddit, and other influential tech firms in staging protests of varying kinds against the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA), which are backed by big entertainment and media interests. (Read a roundup of our SOPA and PIPA coverage here.)

" 'Like many businesses, entrepreneurs, and Web users, we oppose these bills because there are smart, targeted ways to shut down foreign rogue Web sites without asking American companies to censor the Internet,' a Google representative said. 'So tomorrow we will be joining many other tech companies to highlight this issue on our U.S. home page.'..."

Let's cut the folks in Congress some slack here: many of them have devoted decades of their lives to spending our money and getting entertained by Hollywood. Unlike many of the rest of us, they may not have had time to learn about stuff like "computers" and "Internet." Besides, mere drudgery like typing and reading are what secretaries and interns are for, right?

Wikipedia Goes Away: For a Day

"Wikipedia joins web blackout in Sopa protest"
BBC News (January 17, 2012)

"Wikipedia plans to take its English-language site offline on Wednesday as part of protests against proposed anti-piracy laws in the US.

"The user-generated news site Reddit and the blog Boing Boing have also said they will take part in the 'blackout'.

"The sites' webmasters are opposed to the Stop Online Piracy Act (Sopa) and Protect Intellectual Property Act (Pipa) being debated by Congress.

"However, Twitter has declined to take part in the shutdown.

"Wikipedia's founder, Jimmy Wales, told the BBC: 'Proponents of Sopa have characterised the opposition as being people who want to enable piracy or defend piracy.

" 'But that's not really the point. The point is the bill is so over broad and so badly written that it's going to impact all kinds of things that, you know, don't have anything to do with stopping piracy.'..."

In the Lemming's opinion
  • Freedom of speech is not piracy
  • Protest is not terrorism
  • Disagreement is not treason
The Lemming's been over this sort of thing in another blog:

'Rules are for the Little People?'

"More on SOPA/PIPA"
Caitlin Williams, WTOL.com News (January 15, 2012; updated January 17, 2012)

"SOPA creator caught in own web

"The author of the controversial SOPA bill which seeks to introduce stricter penalties for companies and individuals caught violating copyright laws online, has been caught in his own web.

"An archived screen shot of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith's, R-TX, website depicts a beautiful lush forest used as a background.

"According to an article by Vice.com, this stock image traced back to photographer DJ Schulte.

"The photographer protects his image under the Creative Commons license, which allows anyone to use an image so long as they attribute the image to the photographer and do not use it for commercial purposes.

"The only problem is that attribution for the image does not appear on the site. If Smith's proposed bill were to pass, action could be taken against his own website.

"Lamar's website no longer utilizes stock images, save for one banner strip across the top, but this incident exposes the faults and vagueness that critics point out in the bill...."

In fairness, anybody can make a mistake. Maybe whatever underling Lamar Smith told to do the website simply forgot to include the Creative Commons license attribution.

On the other hand, that's embarrassing. And an example of what could get someone's website kicked off the Internet, under SOPA provisions.

Not that Smith would be affected. He's important. As long as he was part of the Washington set, it's unlikely that some trifling little peccadillo like using DJ Schulte's picture without attribution would result in SOPA enforcement.

The story might be different, if whoever committed such an act of 'piracy' was one of those 'troublemakers' who don't agree with our great leaders in Washington. And that's almost another topic.

Related posts:
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, January 16, 2012

Lemming Tracks: Toxic Light Bulbs For a Brighter Future

There's good news, and there's bad news. First, the good news.

Rejoice! Energy-Efficient Light Bulbs!!

"Old light bulbs fading, but what will replace them? "
Dave Gathman. The Courier-News (January 10, 2012)

"There's one trend we usually can count on in electrical equipment, from TV sets and radios to music players and telephones: As the years pass, it will become cheaper and cheaper, and more and more disposable.

"But as a five-year-old federal law takes effect this month, Americans may have to get used to just the opposite when it comes to the light bulb.

"The bulbs of the future will cost much more than the cheap, disposable incandescent bulbs we have been using since Thomas Edison figured out how to make one way back in 1879. But they also will last much longer - maybe even to the point of becoming built-in pieces of each lamp that last as long as the lamp does. And they will reduce our electric bills.

"On New Year's Day, the light-bulb business felt the first impact of the Energy Independence and Security Act, which had been passed by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2007. The law was backed by an alliance of congressmen who wanted to reduce foreign energy imports and cut greenhouse gas emissions from making electricity...."

What joys! Thanks to the miracles of modern technology, and the Federal government, we'll soon pay a few cents less each month for electricity!! Oh, if only this glorious moment had come in warmer weather, so there could be dancing in the street!!!

Oh, wait: there was something in the third paragraph. "...The bulbs of the future will cost much more...."

That's the bad news.

What's Money to Congress?

"Government Phasing Out Incandescent Light Bulbs"
ktbs.com (January 2, 2012)

"Get ready to say goodbye to the incandescent light bulb and hello to a future lit only by energy efficient bulbs, like compact fluorescent light bulbs or CFLs.

"The new federal light bulb efficiency standards, sought by the Department of Energy, went into effect yesterday. The standards passed Congress with bipartisan approval and was signed by President Bush. These new standards mean the end of incandescent light bulbs.

"According to Energy Star, CFLs approved by them will use about 75% less energy than incandescent bulbs and last 6 times longer, which should equal to energy savings for you and a cleaner environment. Home Depot employee Isham Smith, who goes by Smitty, said that CFLs can last 9 years or more.

"Home Depot will continue selling incandescent light bulbs, but only for as long as suppliers have them...."

"...The general cost of energy efficient bulbs can be frightening. Some of the bulbs at Home Depot can be nearly 50 dollars each. Smitty tells us that prices should go down as the bulbs become more popular and when manufacturers produce more of the bulbs...."

Okay: That's "...some...nearly 50 dollars each...." And Smitty's probably right. Today those fancy, toxic, expensive, high-tech lights are a sort of novelty item. With the government making everybody use them, economies of scale should kick in for the manufacturing process.

Which means that each fancy new light will cost less to make. Maybe enough different companies will be making them, so that competition will let prices get down to where folks can afford to have electric lights in their homes.

That would be nice.

On the other hand, the Lemming could claim that the ban on incandescent lights is some sort of conspiracy - and SOPA is an effort by Congress to silence folks who don't agree.

That would be silly. The Lemming thinks SOPA is a bad idea: but part of some conspiracy? Maybe involving space aliens and Elvis? Unlikely in the extreme.

Still - it sounds like Americans will be paying quite a bit more for lighting equipment. Because Congress wants us to.

Of course, it's for a good cause. As anyone who has seen "Captain Planet" knows, Mother Earth is threatened by evil forces. Like greedy developers and light bulbs.

Or, rather, the power plants that generate electricity that the light bulbs use.

Sense, Nonsense, and Congress

In the Lemming's opinion:
  • Is using less electrical power per unit of lighting a good idea?
    • Yes
  • Are new lighting gadgets more efficient?
    • Yes
  • Will we benefit from using more energy-efficient lighting?
    • Eventually, yes
  • Are Americans going to be paying more for light?
    • Yes
      • For quite a long time
    • Eventually, no
  • Will this Congressional stunt have unintended consequences?
    • Yes

Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs and Mercury: Oops

Acronyms are wonderful things, if you know what the mean. A CFL is a Compact Fluorescent Light bulb.

"...These efficient bulbs are not without problems. CFLs contain small amounts of mercury, but that can still be a hazard to the human body. All CFLs should be recycled to prevent mercury from reaching the environment. You can recycle the bulbs at your local Home Depot. Broken CFLs can be recycled, as well. You must handle and clean up after broken CFLS with extreme care...."
(ktbs.com)

Fear not, citizen! You, too, can clean up toxic waste!! ktbs.com helpfully supplied a link to an EPA page that tells folks how to clean up after a fluorescent lighting unit breaks. The ktbs.com link doesn't work, due to a little coding error, but this one does: "Cleaning Up a Broken CFL." (epa.gov/cfl/cflcleanup.html)

The good news is that we won't need to buy hazmat suits when we pay for those fancy new bulbs. The bad news is that breaking one of the government's new gizmos creates a health hazard.

Then there's this item from that EPA instruction page: "...Air out the room for 5-10 minutes by opening a window or door to the outdoor environment...."

Open a room for five or ten minutes? What's the big deal? This time of year, in central Minnesota, it's a tad chilly outside. Lowering a room's temperature to below freezing is better than breathing toxic fumes: but it's inconvenient at best.

Toxic Light Bulbs, Technology, and Getting a Grip

At this point, the Lemming could rant about
  • The evils of
    • Technology and capitalistic greed
    • Big brother government
  • Power plants that
    • Explode
    • Kill millions of people
    • All the time
  • The wonders of
    • Technology
    • Congress
      • The wise
      • The benevolent
      • The far-seeing
Or, the Lemming could note that
  • Saving energy seems to make sense
  • The new gadgets are pricey
  • Other lighting technologies may be safer
    • And available
      • Eventually
Meanwhile, the Lemming may have to replace a desk lamp that uses a slightly non-standard incandescent light bulb. And that's going to cost money, too.

Somewhat-related posts:
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

SOPA, Censorship, the Twits in Washington, and a Ranting Lemming

Will you sleep more soundly tonight, knowing that the American Congress is protecting you from big, bad pirates? And those dastardly delinquents who wantonly post photos of kittens online?

The Lemming won't.

Beware: Congress is in Session

"No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session."
(Gideon J. Tucker in Final Accounting in the Estate of A. B. (1866))

Particularly with a presidential election coming up in 2012, quite a few incumbents are wondering if this is the year when their constituents get fed up: or whether their party will hang onto whatever they grabbed in the last election.

With everyone from the top chair-warmers to the least-senior member of the House hellbent on either getting their own butts replanted in Congress, or helping their party reelect someone else - there's likely to be some weird legislation proposed, to show how hard the folks in Congress are working.

Like SOPA. The Stop Online Piracy Act. Beloved by record labels, movie studios and TV networks.

SOPA, Censorship, and Congress

It's not that the Lemming doesn't like Congress. For what it's worth, the Lemming is fairly confident that quite a few members of Congress stay sober for days at a time, and really believe that they're doing something constructive with other people's money.

SOPA is (probably) intended to protect the intellectual property rights of MGM, Warner Music Group, and CBS.

So far, that's not a problem for the Lemming. Who knows? Content providers at the other end of the influence spectrum might benefit: at least as a side effect.

Copyright, and other intellectual property rights, are important to the Lemming. But so is freedom of speech.

Let's look at what our betters in Washington are up to:

From Talkies to File Sharing Sites

Back in the 'Good Old Days,' someone wanting to see a motion picture had to go to a theater and pay for a ticket. The theater owner, distribution company, and movie studio brass all got a piece of the action. Truck drivers, concession clerks, and yes-men got a few cents on the dollar, too, in their paychecks. Then big, bad television came along.

As movie moguls adjusted to broadcast television: cable came along, and once again 'civilization was threatened' by something new. Somehow, we survived.

Then the Internet descended on entrenched corporate bigwigs.

Information Age technology and social structures have made it possible for folks to share enormous amounts of information: quickly; efficiently; inexpensively; and without the permission of America's traditional information gatekeepers. (See "What is an Information Gatekeeper?," Another War-on-Terror Blog (August 14, 2009))

The Lemming likes the Information Age: particularly since the Lemming isn't quite on the same page, ideologically or otherwise, with America's 'better sort.' And that's almost another topic.

Protecting Hollywood From Movie Lovers

The dark side of Information Age technology is that almost anyone can, with very little specialized equipment or training, copy anything that's 'digitized:'
  • Books
  • Movies
  • Software
  • Photographs
  • Music
  • The inside of a bubble gum wrapper
  • Anything
Some of that information is, or should be, protected by copyright, trademark, or other existing intellectual property rights laws.

As a result, folks who once paid for a ticket to see a movie, or sat through a minute of commercials for every two minutes of programming, can now - legally or not - download pretty much the same movie for next to no cost.

Here's how SOPA is supposed to work, to protect MGM and other copyright holders:
  1. Force ISPs to block access to Domain Name System servers to infringing foreign sites
  2. Force search providers to make such sites that have been flagged as infringing undiscoverable
  3. Force payments processors to shut down the ability for infringing sites to make money
  4. Force Internet advertisers to cease doing business with an infringing site
  5. Prevent its service from providing advertisements to or relating to the foreign infringing site that is subject to the order or a portion of such site specified in the order
    (Source: ReadWriteWeb)
Okay: SOPA will give us a Federal bureaucracy with the power to stamp out file-sharing sites, keep Google from showing us websites that the folks in Washington don't think we should know about, and keep money flowing into a few corporate offices?

Who could possibly find a problem with that?

Protected From the Wicked, Wicked Web?

It's been quite a few years, since the Christian Coalition and the Feminist Majority joined forced to 'save the children' from the wicked, wicked Web. The Lemming isn't making that up, by the way. (Another War-on-Terror Blog (March 9, 2008))

The point of that reminiscence is that, when old-school folks see something new coming: quite a few try to get 'the government' to protect them from folks who have kept up with the times. It's understandable, maybe: but that doesn't make it right.

Intellectual Property Rights, Censorship, and the Lemming

About once a month, the Lemming has a guest post on another blog: but apart from that, what the Lemming posts or publishes is either a sort of micro-review, like most of this blog, or original content with the occasional cited quotation.

The Lemming is a 'content provider,' so intellectual property rights are important to the Lemming. Some effort goes into writing a post, or making a picture: and the Lemming thinks it's reasonable that whoever created the organized information should be rewarded. Or at least acknowledged. That's why the Lemming puts links to wherever the text or pictures in micro-reviews came from.

Then there's the 'I stole it fair and square' school of thought, whose adherents seem peeved when someone objects to publication-without-credit. Or payment.

Maybe the Lemming's old-fashioned after all: but it seems that acknowledging authorship or other creative credit isn't unreasonable.

What seems to be worrying folks about SOPA is censorship.

That's not, the Lemming hopes, what SOPA's supporters want.

But the Lemming remembers the 'good old days' when 'dirty' movies and shows were "banned in Boston." And there were odd views in 'nice' television, about pregnancy, and double beds.

A few decades later, and we had 'thought police' on campus, and legal sanctions against "hate speech."1 All of which isn't censorship: just ask the folks doing the censoring, and they'll re-educate you.

The End of Civilization?

Even if SOPA passes, and America gets 'protected' from photos of kittens and bunny rabbits, and pirated movies: life will go on. The Lemming thinks that, given the value Americans and others put on showing photos of their rabbits, sounding off on Congressional shenanigans, and passing jokes along - after a few more election cycles, and maybe the equivalent of the Army-McCarthy Hearings, a new set of Congressional twits will undo some of the damage.

The Lemming also thinks that we'd all be better off - with the possible exception of a few old-school studios and networks - if SOPA doesn't pass.

A few quotes from news and views, the usual links to related posts, and the Lemming's done.

GoDaddy, Boycott, and SOPA

"Reddit Users to Target Supporters of SOPA in Congress After Successful Boycott of GoDaddy"
Tech, Forbes, (December 28, 2011)

"When GoDaddy.com revealed that it was a supporter of the internet censorship legislation bills SOPA/PIPA, Reddit users and a few big names in the internet business including Wikipedia decided to boycott the web-hosting company.

"They threatened to pull their domains, stop using GoDaddy, and get their friends and associates to do the same.

"Within a couple days, GoDaddy had reversed its position despite the fact that it had helped write SOPA and was exempt from its rules and regulations. The boycott had been a wild success, forcing the company's hand much quicker than anyone had anticipated...."

Somehow, the GoDaddy connection with SOPA has captured old-school journalists' attention. Understandably, perhaps, considering the GoDaddy's sexy commercials. Imagine! Using attractive women to market something!

The Lemming uses some of GoDaddy's online services: but not because of their commercials. The Lemming went through the usual 'due diligence' process, and found that GoDaddy had a very favorable benefit/risk/cost ratio.

Moving on.

Beware the Foreign Pirates?

"Online piracy a hot issue for Congress in January"
Mike Snider, USA TODAY (December 28, 2011)

"A hot issue awaits Congress when it returns in January: online piracy.

"Both houses have bills to combat copyright infringement of movies, music and other intellectual property on rogue, non-U.S.-based websites.

"Powerful interests are facing off over the proposals: Content creators, led by Hollywood and the music industry, are pushing for the most stringent measures. Opposing them are tech and electronics giants.

"Sixteen tech companies, including Google, PayPal and Twitter, took out newspaper ads this month charging that the bills would 'give the U.S. government the power to censor the Web using techniques similar to those used by China.'..."

Okay, the Lemming acknowledges that USA Today cites some of SOPA's downside. But - "online piracy;" "rogue, non-U.S.-based websites;" "Content creators, led by Hollywood and the music industry;" "tech and electronics giants?"

Sorry, but the last that the Lemming heard, the real "content creators" still don't get paid all that much when a studio condescends to use what they've created. Yes, George Lucas and Steven Spielberg have done pretty well. But most screenwriters, musicians, actors, and all the rest of the folks who actually create what the studio's marketing department sells?

Intellectual property rights are important: but so, in the Lemming's opinion, is the notion of rewarding the flunky with the ideas: not just the guy in the corner office.

SOPA: There's More than GoDaddy Going On Here

"On Eve of Net Boycott, Dump GoDaddy Exodus Begins"
Perry Chiaramonte, FoxNews.com (December 28, 2011)

"It's a boycott of viral proportions.

GoDaddy.com, one of the largest domain registrars on the Internet, stands to potentially lose thousands of customers on Thursday, Dec. 29, after the company gave and then repealed its support for a controversial bill before Congress that many fear could heavily restrict the web.

"On the eve of what has been dubbed 'Dump Go Daddy Day,' imgur.com -- pronounced "imager," it's one of the largest image hosting sites in the world, responsible for an astonishing 28 terabytes of bandwidth and nearly 200 million page views today alone -- has already changed its registry entries, foreshadowing the potential negative effect of a boycott set to begin Thursday morning.

"GoDaddy.com originally supported the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) -- which opponents say will hinder free speech and infringe on first amendment rights -- but quickly recanted its position when the call of a boycott circulated.

" 'The outcry kind of forced our hand,' imgur founder and owner Alan Schaaf told FoxNews.com. 'I'm against the SOPA act and imgur as a company is against it. We just feel it is terrible that GoDaddy.com would support this legislation.'

"SOPA would make websites responsible for illegal copyright content uploaded by any user, making it difficult if not impossible for companies like Imgur, YouTube, and Facebook to operate...."

Taking a deep breath and counting to 10: the Lemming repeats what was previously reported. GoDaddy originally supported SOPA. Then, as the online equivalent of an angry mob with pitchforks and torches approached the gates, decided to be sensible.

That's one of the things the Lemming likes about the Internet today: even if all three broadcast networks and The New York Times decide that The Masses shouldn't know about something: Americans can still find out.

We're not limited to what a relatively small number of people, mostly in the New England states, think we should know.

With something like SOPA 'protecting' us? Maybe not.

Related posts:
News and views:
1 Laws against slander and libel were already on the books. What "hate speech" regulation did was allow criticism of the dominant culture's beliefs to be defined as 'hateful.' As a marketing ploy, labeling criticism as "hate" was an effective way to mask censorship.
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, June 20, 2011

Ray Guns, Electric Cannons, and the Mind of the Lemming

Once in a while, the Lemming feels a need to explain just what's so "apathetic" about this blog. This is one of those times.

"...Apathy, of course, was anathema to the anguished campus activists of the sixties and seventies. The cultural pressure to care - deeply, passionately, hysterically - led to the slogan 'Apathy is Rampant, But Who Cares?' I still treasure the sight of those words, emblazoned on a bumper sticker. Or maybe it was in a magazine...."

"...Apathy can be defined as not caring about what is supposed to be important. What is considered important, and what's not, in America seems to be determined in the coastal cultures. Since my priorities don't even come close to the stereotype Starbucks-frequenting, Armani-wearing, New York Times reader, I must be 'apathetic.'..."

That page was written before the Lemming started writing quite so many posts in the third person: and that's another topic.

More about the Lemming, on a page called (what else?):
Now, here's why the Lemming thought it was time to say just what sort of "apathy" you're likely to see in this post.

"Sci-Fi Weapons," Budget Concerns, and Living in 'the Future'

"Railgun, Laser Weapon Lose Senate Funding, Face Uncertain Future"
FoxNews.com (June 20, 2011)

"The Navy's most futuristic weapons will remain more fi than sci.

"The Senate Armed Services Committee on Friday voted to eliminate funding for two of the Navy’s still-in-development guns: the free electron laser, essentially a super-powered death ray, and the railgun, which shoots bullets powered not by explosions, but by energy.

"The Navy had planned to incorporate these sci-fi weapons in a revamped fleet of the future, and asked for $60 million to continue research and development. Those plans may have to change, following the tersely worded cuts -- unveiled on Page 21 of a lengthy press release outlining the Senate's completion of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012...."

Don't misunderstand - the Lemming likes science fiction. The Lemming even enjoyed watching Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004).

On the other hand, the Lemming will be 60 years old this year: and has been living in "the future" for quite a while. It's not quite 'as advertised:' no flying cars or floating cities. Actually, we've had quite a few flying cars, but they never took off in the commercial sense.

Phrases like "sci-fi weapons" and "fleet of the future" remind the Lemming of the sort of "World of Tomorrow" future that folks may have taken seriously when Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon first appeared on the silver screen. Now that "silver screen" is used when someone wants to evoke nostalgia, a different sort of future seems to be in fashion. And that's almost another topic.

The point is that, although the Lemming enjoys alliteration, "fleet of the future" is emphatically not how the Lemming would describe something that was supposed to be taken seriously.

Electric cannons and ray guns? The Lemming's pretty sure that you'll find practical, level-headed folks who are convinced that those staples of (occasionally atrocious) science fiction stories are as much "science fiction" as spaceports. Of which America has about a half-dozen so far - and it's not just this country. Which is yet another topic.

Great Scott! These Things Work! QUICK!! CUT FUNDING!!! DO IT NOW!!!!

Back to that article:

"...'[The Act] directs the Navy to develop a broader affordable strategy on laser systems and terminates the Navy's free electron laser due to concerns over operational technical challenges. In addition, [it] terminates the Navy's high-risk Electromagnetic Rail Gun,' the release reads.

"Neither the Navy's Office of Naval Research, which has been actively developing the two technologies for several years, nor senior Navy officials were willing to comment on the news, pending the release of the full bill later this week.

"The cuts come on the heels of major successes by both weapons: In February the free-electron laser set a new power record, bringing it closer to the goal of megawatt-class power. In December, the railgun produced a walloping 33-megajoule blast, three times the power previously achieved...."
(FoxNews.com)

The American federal government, along with quite a few others around the world, seems to have discovered that spending more money than you take in has consequences. Not-nice ones, eventually. The Lemming thinks America's politicos are to be congratulated for noticing this awkward little point.

What's even more remarkable, in the Lemming's view, is that Congress is putting on a pretty good show of wanting to discuss doing something besides taking more of somebody else's money to pay for their pet projects. The Lemming's discussed this before, in connection with the NASA budget.

If you're expecting a rant about the absolute necessity of more and more military spending, no matter what: That's not gonna happen.

The Lemming also isn't going to do the conventional hand-wringing (paw-wringing?) about the Evils of War and how Yankee imperialism and CIA plots cause tooth decay - or whatever.

Maybe - just maybe - the Senate's decision to (apparently) scuttle these particular weapons development programs is based on something practical. That's possible: at least in principle. There are, probably, comparatively sober members of Congress who do something besides keep chairs warm and/or send naughty photos of themselves to coeds.

On the other hand, the Lemming remembers the 'good old days' when being anti-war, anti-military, and anti-fuzz was groovy. Pulling the plug on weapons systems when they seem to be working seems like politics-as-usual from folks whose hearts may be in the right place.

The Mind of the Lemming

The Lemming thinks that there's a difference between having idealistic goals, and trying to attain them - and deciding to live in a fantasy world. Not that everybody who disagrees with the Lemming is delusional, stupid, and probably wants to destroy the planet. This is not, as the Lemming has said before, a political blog.

The Lemming thinks that scrapping weapons development programs when they're starting to show practical results - - - might not be a good idea.

This could be seen as proof that the Lemming
  • Is a red-white-and-blue-blooded 100%-American Patriot
  • Is a heartless dupe of imperialistic capitalistic aggressors
  • Wants to destroy the planet
Or, maybe something else is going on. Here's an over-simplified, superficial, look at part of the mind of the Lemming:

Does the Lemming think that weapons are nice? No. On the other hand, does the Lemming think:
  • Weapons should be forever banned, right now?
    • No
  • It would be nice if everybody would agree to be nice?
    • So we wouldn't need any more
      • Police
      • Jails
      • Guns
      • Anything icky like that
    • Yes
  • It would be nice if bad things never happened?
    • So nobody ever
      • Got sick
      • Died
      • Felt bad
    • Yes
  • It would be nice if everybody was just simply perfect?
    • You know -
      • Smart
      • Good-looking
      • Athletic
      • Stuff like that
    • Yes.
Does the Lemming expect to see any of the above, in the foreseeable future? No.

That doesn't mean we should stop trying to fix what's wrong with society, support what works, and help folks who need help. And that's yet again another topic, for another blog.1

The Lemming recognizes that folks don't always play nice, even if they're asked nicely. That is, granted, an opinion: pretty much like it's the Lemming's opinion that water is wet. Except during Minnesota winters, when it's a mineral.

"Megajoule?" What's a Joule, and Why Call Them Mega?

Time to get technical: a megajoule is (what else?) 1,000,000 joules. A joule is a watt second, or "a unit of electrical energy equal to the work done when a current of one ampere passes through a resistance of one ohm for one second." (Priceton's WordNet) 33,000,000 joules is - quite a lot of energy.

Let's put it this way: an outlet in your house might have a 500 joule surge protector. The Lemming isn't sure what would happen if a burst of 33,000,000 joules hit something that was designed to protect against 500 joules of power: but you might notice the results.

A rail gun that pumps 33,000,000 joules of power into a solid projectile with modest efficiency? Again, you might notice the results. "...A single megajoule is roughly equivalent to a 1-ton car traveling at 100 mph. Multiple that by 33 and you get a picture of what would happen when such a weapon hits a target...."
(FoxNews.com)

Destruction equivalent to 33 one-ton cars going 100 miles an hour, all smashing into something at the same time? Is that nice?

And the Lemming's been over that before.

Somewhat-related posts:
1
The Lemming's take on 'relevant' issues, in another blog:
That's right: the Lemming's one of 'those' people. Yet again another topic.
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, November 19, 2010

COICA: A Federal Official Deciding Who Gets to Stay Online

"Web Censorship Bill Sails Through Senate Committee"
Sam Gustin, Epicenter, Wired (November 18, 2010)

"Who says Congress never gets anything done?

"On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved a bill that would give the Attorney General the right to shut down websites with a court order if copyright infringement is deemed 'central to the activity' of the site — regardless if the website has actually committed a crime. The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) is among the most draconian laws ever considered to combat digital piracy, and contains what some have called the 'nuclear option,' which would essentially allow the Attorney General to turn suspected websites 'off.'

"COICA is the latest effort by Hollywood, the recording industry and the big media companies to stem the tidal wave of internet file sharing that has upended those industries and, they claim, cost them tens of billions of dollars over the last decade...."

Okay: the Lemming isn't "political," and I do think that intellectual property rights need to be protected.

The Lemming also thinks that COICA has 'bad idea' written all over it.

Not the basic notion of making it harder to rip off someone's work and pass it off as your own - or get the profits that should have gone to the owner. That actually makes sense.

It's the Senate, right after an election - with another reality check a couple years away and some of them at the end of the line in Congress - putting a bill through that lets a Federal official decide who's allowed to be online.

Sure - it's not for 'honest citizens like me.' The only people who have to worry are those low-life pirates. Or folks who might be pirates. Or might become pirates.

'It can't happen here?' The Lemming sure hopes so.

Related posts:
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Lemming Tracks: China, Internet Traffic, and Why It Matters

"Update: Report sounds alarm on China's rerouting of U.S. Internet traffic"
Jaikumar Vijayan, Computerworld (November 18, 2010)

"A report submitted to Congress on Wednesday by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission expressed concerns over what the commission claims is China's growing ability to control and manipulate Internet traffic.

"The report points to two specific incidents earlier this year where actions taken inside China had a direct impact on Internet traffic in the U.S. and other regions of the world.

"In one of the incidents, traffic to and from about 15% of all Internet destinations was routed through servers belonging to China Telecom, a state-owned telecommunications company.

"In an e-mailed statement Wednesday, China Telecom rejected the claims, but offered no further comment.

"The rerouting happened on April 8 and lasted for about 18 minutes. The traffic hijacking affected U.S. government and military networks, including those belonging to the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps, as well as the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Department of Commerce, NASA and the U.S. Senate.

"Commercial sites, including those belonging to Microsoft, Dell and Yahoo, were also affected.

"It's unclear if Chinese telecommunications companies did anything with the hijacked data, the commission said in its report. But the kind of access that Chinese authorities had to the data could enable surveillance of specific users or sites, disrupt transactions, prevent a user from establishing connections to specific sites or divert them to other spoofed sites, the report noted.

" 'Incidents of this nature could have a number of serious implications,' the report said...."

Which in the Lemming's opinion, is a very low-key, understated way of putting it.

It's "incidents," by the way. Here's what Computerworld has to say about number two:

"...The second incident involved a more widely reported botched attempt by Chinese authorities to block users inside China from accessing sites such as Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook.

"Because of a network error, users in the U.S. and Chile also found themselves unable to access those sites, and were directed to incorrect servers -- just as they would have if they had been inside China.

"Today's report makes it clear that there is little evidence to show that either incident was planned or executed deliberately. Even so, the incidents show that China and other countries have the capability to do so, if they want to.

" 'Although China is by no means alone in this regard, persistent reports of that nation's use of malicious computer activities raise questions about whether China might seek intentionally to leverage these abilities to assert some level of control over the Internet, even for a brief period,' the report noted...."

So Internet Traffic Went Through Another Server: So What?

When this story broke, yesterday, the Lemming thought it might be like last week's San Diego contrail: interesting, even intriguing; but not all that significant. (November 10, 2010)

Turns out, there's a lot that could be done with all that rerouted Internet traffic. It's like Computerworld wrote: "...the kind of access that Chinese authorities had to the data could enable surveillance of specific users or sites, disrupt transactions, prevent a user from establishing connections to specific sites or divert them to other spoofed sites, the report noted....

Then there was the other incident (again, from Computerworld): the "...botched attempt by Chinese authorities to block users inside China from accessing sites such as Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook.

"Because of a network error, users in the U.S. and Chile also found themselves unable to access those sites, and were directed to incorrect servers -- just as they would have if they had been inside China....

Apathy, Lemming Style

The Lemming's discussed the name of this blog before. I'm "apathetic" only in the sense that I do not share the occasionally-hysterical (in my opinion) assumptions and phobias of America's dominant culture.

There are things that the Lemming cares about. Like being allowed to share and distribute information. Or to have information kept private: like access codes for my bank account, or how to shut down a country's coastal defenses.

Would it be nice if nobody had to have any secrets at all? Sure. It'd be nice if everybody looked like movie stars and had a mansion on the Côte d'Azur. Maybe. We don't live in a perfect world, though: and recent efforts to 'fix' things haven't met, in my opinion, with unqualified success.

Like the various workers' paradises.

No, this blog isn't "political," but China's leadership style is about as hard to ignore as an elephant in the parlor.

Internet Traffic, China, and Coincidences

China's a big country, both in area and population. It shouldn't be any surprise that some Internet glitches involve Chinese servers.

Coincidences happen.

But it's not always a good idea to assume that something 'just happened.'

Say, for example, that you live in a neighborhood where stuff disappears: a television set here; a computer there; a set of bedroom furniture somewhere else. After a few years, someone points out that these items generally show up in the house of this guy down the block who doesn't have a job, but has a house full of nice stuff. Including a television set, computer, and set of bedroom furniture identical to the missing items.

Coincidence?

Could be. Not very likely, though.

The Lemming has a great deal of respect for Chinese history and culture. The lot that's running the place now? Not so much. Although they seem to be learning that it's okay for their subjects to have wealth. (November 14, 2010) And that's another topic. Almost.

The sad fact is that China's leadership has - or wants to have - the sort of stranglehold on what people are allowed to see, hear, read, and - by extension - think; that has been the dream of crackpot religious leaders, red-white-and-blue 'real' Americans, and at least some college professors. Remember political correctness?

And no, this isn't a "political" blog. But, like the Lemming said: elephant in the parlor. Ignore the obvious, and a person's likely to get stepped on. Hard.

What does the Lemming think about the recent reroutings of Internet traffic through China? It could be a coincidence. But the situation looks a lot more like that hypothetical fellow with the house full of other people's stuff.

I think China's leaders are fiddling with the Internet - and don't want folks to notice.

Freedom: It Matters

Someone who has absolute trust in some government might be quite content to see what Dear Leader wants us to see, hear what we're supposed to hear, and read nothing but the 'proper' material.

The Lemming isn't one of those people. I think that freedom of expression - and the freedom to either attend to or ignore ideas expressed by others - is valuable. Also a safeguard against crackpot ideas from some agency. (Example: TSA "pat downs" might be the only alternative - but the Lemming thinks the idea should be discussed - openly - and elsewhere.)

China's leadership has a track record for not being comfortable with its subjects being exposed to unapproved ideas. The Lemming has been told that they've got good reason for wanting that sort of tight control. Given their recent history, I can sort of see why they don't want their subjects to find out too much about what's going on - and that's yet another topic.

Bottom line? I think that anybody who values freedom of expression and isn't comfortable with censorship should be very, very interested in all the 'coincidences' involving China and the Internet.

Related posts:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, November 7, 2010

Ben Franklin and Daylight Saving Time: Even Homer Nods

"Daylight-saving time? Ben Franklin's bright idea"
Dana Angello, The Huntsville Item, (November 7, 2010)

"This is the time of year when we become painfully aware of how many clocks are in our homes, a product of daylight-saving time and the process of adjusting our clocks to 'fall' back one hour.

"There's one on the microwave, oven, coffee maker, computers, televisions, and an alarm clock in each bedroom. The list seems to go on forever. And each year we ask ourselves, 'Who came up with this idea? Is this really necessary?'

"As it turns out, daylight-saving time was first introduced to the world by Benjamin Franklin. In his essay 'The Economic Project,' which he wrote during his time in Paris, he complained of being awoken by the early morning sun and decided he had a logical remedy. By simply moving the clocks one hour forward he would not only be permitted to sleep later, but he also calculated that the Parisians would save 'an immense sum' of candle wax by postponing sundown.

"Franklin's idea fell on deaf ears for more than a century, until British builder William Willett successfully proposed Daylight Saving Time to Parliament after coming to the disappointing realization that the British were 'wasting daylight' by not waking up until after the sun had risen. Parliament eventually passed a law requiring the British to “spring” their clocks forward in April and then 'fall back' in the winter.

"Americans adopted the idea in 1918, hoping to bask in the sunshine, while also embracing Franklin's practical concern of energy conservation. In fact, during World War II, a year-round daylight-saving plan, 'War Time,' was put into place in an effort to decrease fuel consumption...."

The Lemming thinks Benjamin Franklin had quite a few good ideas: from the Franklin stove to bifocals. Daylight Saving Time? Two centuries back, it might have saved a lot of candle wax. Today? Well, a few things have changed since the days of the powdered wig.

Ah! But think of all the electricity we'll save! The Energy Information Administration says that the United States uses about 13.4% of its electricity for lighting. That's not a negligible percentage: but it's not particularly huge, either.

Besides: Most offices I've worked in used electrical lighting during the day. They had to: there weren't that many work stations near a window. I suppose we could have used candles.

Dana Angello's article traces Daylight Saving time, American style, back to 1918, the year WW I ended. The Lemming's suspected that the American Congress wanted to 'do something' to justify its existence - but I won't insist on the idea.

Anyway, we're stuck with twice-yearly jet lag and the hassle of resetting clocks - all for the sake of saving some fraction of the small percentage of electrical power that's used for lighting.

Or maybe it's to conserve candle wax.

Related posts:
A serious look at energy statistics:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, October 31, 2010

The Horror! Monster Comics that Scared Congress

"Horror! Book Digs Up Lurid 'Pre-Code' Monster Comics"
Underwire, Wired (October 31, 2010)

"During the golden age of comic-book gore, ghoulish stories about zombies, werewolves, skeletons and gorgons arrived in drugstore magazine racks on a monthly basis. Honoring America's midcentury infatuation with all things macabre, new book The Horror! The Horror! surveys 'pre-Code' comic titles from the early 1950s that specialized in outlandishly violent supernatural fantasies.

"Written by Jim Trombetta (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine), the 305-page soft-cover chronicles the period's rich stew of graphic insanity. Often produced by uncredited illustrators, the comic books eventually attracted congressional attention.

"In 1954, Senate hearings concluded that pulp fiction posed a threat to the mental health of youthful readers...."

And so, for whatever reason, the American Congress leaned on the comics industry, which came up with the Comics Code Authority. From what I've read, the Code was an alternative to federal censorship. Under the circumstances, it was probably the best response by the comics publishers. That was the middle of the 1950s, after all.

Over a half-century later, the feds aren't likely to come up with quite the same reasons for grabbing control of what 'the masses' read. We've got a new set of phrases to rev up emotions, like "hate speech." The idea that Congress is throwing its weight around to 'save the children' hasn't changed all that much, though.

Looking at the nine covers featured in this Wired article, I'd say that "lurid," like the headline says, is a pretty accurate description.

For what it's worth, the Lemming isn't a huge fan of that sort of comic. On the other hand, I don't think very highly of our 'betters' in Congress deciding what we are and aren't allowed to see.

As for 'protecting the children?' Okay: so maybe those comics weren't particularly wholesome for small children and adults with personality disorders. Adults with screws loose - well, that's another topic. ("Original Sin, Free Will, ADD, and There Goes the Air Conditioner," A Catholic Citizen in America (October 15, 2010))

This may sound counter-cultural: but the Lemming figures that parents might be more interested - and motivated - in keeping tabs on their kids. And, in my opinion, in a better position to decide what's acceptable and what's not.

Related posts:The Lemming, on censorship: You could click on "censorship" in the
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, February 20, 2009

Analog to Digital Television: A Wired Look at the Transition

"How We Bungled the Digital Television Transition"
Wired (February 20, 2009)

"America's transition to over-the-air digital television signals, which netted the government $19 billion in a wireless spectrum auction, was doomed from the start, thanks to a flawed voucher program and a time frame that left the country stranded between administrations...."

I think this is a pretty good analysis of what happened, and what went wrong: and surprisingly free of finger-pointing.

There's also something that we didn't hear from Washington: " 'These findings from local stations, coupled with the FCC data, paint the picture that by and large TV households affected in those markets were ready," stated NAB digital television transition vice president Jonathan Collegio. "A relatively small percentage of viewers so far have needed assistance.' "

Oh, well, when June 12, 2009, rolls around, and someone in Blackduck, Pangultch, or Oxnard, still doesn't have a converter box: I suppose we'll go through the whole thing again.

Related posts:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Analog to Digital Television: Technology, Congress, and A Little Common Sense

"Some TV stations get ready to cut analog signals"
The Associated Press (February 17, 2009)

"NEW YORK (AP) — Some TV stations will cut their analog signals today and move to digital-only broadcasting. Others will take advantage of a grace period passed by Congress and wait until June 12...."

On a practical note, AP published this article:

"List of TV stations to end analog on Tuesday"
The Associated Press (February 16, 2009)

"More than 400 TV stations have said they intend to shut down analog TV broadcasts on or around Tuesday, rather than...."

The Delay Sort of Makes Sense

" 'This is not just about whether people can watch their favorite reality show,' said Acting FCC Chairman Michael Copps. 'It's about whether consumers have access to vital emergency alerts, weather, news and public affairs.' " (FCC press release (February 16, 2009))

Okay: That sounds sensible. Although I wonder if people who, for three years have done nothing to get ready for today, will act in the next four months.

And, when June 12, 2009, comes along, and someone in Blackduck, Minnesota hasn't gotten a converter box; a couple of people who do their shopping in Pangultch, Utah, are in the same situation; and a neighborhood association on Chicago's south side holds out for new television sets to go with the converters: Does Congress set a third deadline? 'We really mean it' this time?

Besides, how does Congress know that, once everybody has the converter boxes, they'll actually pay attention to "vital emergency alerts, weather, news and public affairs"?

Maybe Congress should consider making the states build big residence halls, where people will watch the right programming from big, wide-screen community television sets, and be told when to pay particularly close attention. It could be called "The Cabrini Plan."

No: That's silly.

Meanwhile, for the Rest of Us ---

The Digital TV Transition says that "Digital Television (DTV) is an advanced broadcasting technology that will transform your television viewing experience..." I've no doubt that the technology will be impressive - once the bugs are worked out. As far as content, though, my guess is that it'll be more 90210-style drama, sports, and reality shows. Or, whatever the fashion is next year.

Related posts:
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Analog-to-Digital Television Switch - Back to February 17

"House Kills Digital TV Delay; Still Set for Feb. 17"
Wired (January 28, 2009)

"The House, led by minority Republicans, killed a bill Tuesday that would have delayed the nation's switchover to digital television by four months. The legislative sideshow threatened to push back the rollout until June 12 (not really, but read on) which is now still on track to occur Feb. 17 -- ready or not.

"And while the bill actually would not have exactly solved the readiness issue it is a virtual certainty now that something in the neighborhood of 6 million U.S. homes will be seeing snow instead of their favorite programs on the family set in less than three weeks -- unless this inaction by Congress somehow spurs tremendous behavior modification by analog stragglers to do the things they haven't bothered to do for the past three years...."

I still think we could have held out for the right to free widescreen digital television sets, and a constitutional amendment that would require all TV news anchors to be beautiful women. But maybe Congress has more pressing matters to consider.

Related posts:
Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Digital Television Delay Vote Delayed

"Digital TV switch could be delayed by vote"
CNN (January 27, 2009)

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Congress postponed until Wednesday a vote on an emergency measure to delay until June next month's scheduled death of television as you've known it.

"Senators, worried about the static they'll see when the plug is pulled on analog television broadcasts in the United States, approved the bill by unanimous consent Monday...."

At this rate, it could be June before Congress actually votes.

While they're at it, maybe we should all ask for free digital television sets. Widescreen, of course.

Related posts:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Monday, January 26, 2009

John Adams, on What Constitutes a Congress

"In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress."
John Adams

Quotation #30219, from The Quotations Page

John Adams was a Harvard graduate, and a lawyer, as well one of the signers of the American Declaration of Independence: more at "John Adams" (ushistory.org, a website published by the Independence Hall Association)

There are days when I feel like these words should be engraved on the walls of the House and Senate, as a reminder: and an incentive, to not live down to this opinion.
(The Lemming doesn't write about Congress very much, despite three recent posts: "Congress May Delay Television Digital Switch - I am Not Making This Up" (January 26, 2009); "Analog-to-Digital Television Switch: Oh No! How Will I Ever Afford a New Television Set?!" (January 8, 2009); "Analog-to-Digital Television Switch Coming February 17 - Or Not" (January 8, 2009).)
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, July 5, 2008

Net Neutrality, Google, Washington, DC, and Choice

This, I'm not apathetic about.

About Net Neutrality, on the Net

There are two pieces of American legislation, one in the House, one in the Senate, that could affect how the Internet works in America.

I think these bills are important.

But, I'm not convinced that conventional wisdom is right: that the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008" will, if passed, protect us from 'Big Telephone' and maintain Net Neutrality.

Odds are that if you heard that dissenting view expressed, it was described negatively, by someone who wants Washington, DC, to protect you from 'Big Telephone.'

My impression of the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008" was very positive, until I noticed how many people and organizations were talking about it in glowing, and rather vague, terms.

That got me curious, so I did a little checking around:
  • "A Note to Google Users on Net Neutrality:"
    Google (2008)
    • "The Internet as we know it is facing a serious threat. There's a debate heating up in Washington, DC on something called 'net neutrality' – and it's a debate that's so important Google is asking you to get involved. We're asking you to take action to protect Internet freedom.
    • "In the next few days, the House of Representatives is going to vote on a bill that would fundamentally alter the Internet. That bill, and one that may come up for a key vote in the Senate in the next few weeks, would give the big phone and cable companies the power to pick and choose what you will be able to see and do on the Internet.
    • "Today the Internet is an information highway where anybody – no matter how large or small, how traditional or unconventional – has equal access. But the phone and cable monopolies, who control almost all Internet access, want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest. They want to build a two-tiered system and block the on-ramps for those who can't pay...."
  • " 'Net neutrality' war comes to fore"
    International Herald-Tribune (September 26, 2007)
    • "NEW YORK: Saying it had the right to block 'controversial or unsavory' text messages, Verizon Wireless last week rejected a request from Naral Pro-Choice America, the abortion rights group, to make Verizon's cellular network available for a text-message program.
    • "The other leading wireless carriers accepted the program, which allows people to ask to receive text messages from Naral by sending a message to a five-digit number known as a short code.
    • "Text messaging is a growing political force in the United States and a dominant one abroad, and such programs are used by many political candidates and advocacy groups to send updates to supporters...."
  • "Frequently Asked Questions"
    SaveTheInternet.com (undated)
    • "What is this about?
      "When we log onto the Internet, we take a lot for granted. We assume we'll be able to access any Web site we want, whenever we want, at the fastest speed, whether it's a corporate or mom-and-pop site. We assume that we can use any service we like -- watching online video, listening to podcasts, sending instant messages -- anytime we choose.
      "What makes all these assumptions possible is Network Neutrality.
    • "What is Network Neutrality?
      Network Neutrality -- or "Net Neutrality" for short -- is the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet.
      "Put simply, Net Neutrality means no discrimination. Net Neutrality prevents Internet providers from speeding up or slowing down Web content based on its source, ownership or destination.
      "Net Neutrality is the reason why the Internet has driven economic innovation, democratic participation, and free speech online. It protects the consumer's right to use any equipment, content, application or service on a non-discriminatory basis without interference from the network provider. With Net Neutrality, the network's only job is to move data -- not choose which data to privilege with higher quality service....
  • "H.R.5353
    Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008    "
    Open Congress
    • "To establish broadband policy and direct the Federal Communications Commission to conduct a proceeding and public broadband summits to assess competition, consumer protection, and consumer choice issues relating to broadband Internet access services, and for other purposes...."
  • "CCAGW Opposes Internet Freedom Preservation Act"
    IP Communications (May 7, 2008)
    • "The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) is reportedly opposing H.R. 5353, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008. The House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held hearings on this act yesterday.
      "CCAGW president Tom Schatz that anytime Congress attempts to protect anything, it usually means more regulation, less competition, less consumer choice, and higher costs.
    • "He said the market for high-speed Internet services should remain open to competition without government interference.
    • "H.R. 5353 inserts net neutrality principles into the 1934 Telecommunications Act and defines broadband policy. Although H.R. 5353 adds heavy-handed government regulation and oversight, it ignores the fact that consumers have more Internet choices than ever before. Today, cable, satellite and wireless broadband providers are competing head-to-head for customers. In a bid to beat competition they are providing better services at lower prices...."
I'm not urging you to call your representatives and support this bill, or saying that you should tell them to block it. I haven't made up my own mind about this.

But I'm dubious about this well-intentioned effort to save us from our Internet Service Providers.

For starters, one of the biggest proponents of the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008" is Google. I like Google, as a search engine, and I've heard that they provide excellent customer service.

However, Google's record on freedom of speech and censorship isn't all that unblemished. Remember Google's accommodation of the Chinese leaders' requirements, back in 2006?

I think that much of the decision, about whether or not to support the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008" will boil down to a matter of preference. Who do you want to have control of which Internet service provider you use, and what that provider can do for you:
  • You, and millions of other people like you, choosing which of an array of competing providers you use
  • The politicos and bureaucrats in Washington, deciding which provider will show you what information
When you've made up your mind, Here are some 'contact Congress' pages:

Names of the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008"

Official
To establish broadband policy and direct the Federal Communications Commission to conduct a proceeding and public broadband summits to assess competition, consumer protection, and consumer choice issues relating to broadband Internet access services, and for other purposes.
Short
Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008
Popular
Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008.
(From Open Congress)
Where the bills are in Congress:

House of Representatives



Senate

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, February 4, 2008

The Bobble Head Party: An Idea Whose Time has Come?

As an American citizen, I've got mixed feelings about the 2008 elections. Although I make an effort to stay informed, and vote regularly, I'm
  • Not always impressed by either of the major American political parties
  • Frequently underwhelmed by the shenanigans of our leaders on Capitol Hill
  • Firmly believe that if a hundred million people really believe in a stupid idea: It's still a stupid idea
Today, after a night punctuated by clean-up in one of the family's bedrooms, and with a cold coming on, I had a thought.

The following political party doesn't exist, but maybe it should.

The Bobble Head party: These people with a simple solution to ending malfeasance and tomfoolery in Washington.

They propose to replace all members of the American Congress, House and Senate, with bobble head dolls: and place a lava lamp on the desk of the Oval Office.

The Bobble Head party's main talking points are that the bobble heads couldn't possibly foul up as much as our leaders can, and would cost much less to maintain.

Under the Bobble Head plan, elections would determine which faces would go on each doll, and what color the lava lamp would be for the next four years.
The quantity, and quality, of nonsense during election years being what it is, this disclaimer may be necessary: This post is a joke.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Unique, innovative candles

Visit us online:
Spiral Light Candle  • Find a Retailer
• Spiral Light Candle online store

Pinterest: From the Man Behind the Lemming

Visit Brian H.'s profile on Pinterest.

Top 10 Most-Viewed Posts

Today's News! Some of it, anyway

Actually, some of yesterday's news may be here. Or maybe last week's.
The software and science stuff might still be interesting, though. Or not.
The Lemming thinks it's interesting: Your experience may vary.
("Following" list moved here, after Blogger changed formats)

Who Follows the Lemming?

WebSTAT

Family Blogs - Blog Catalog Blog Directory