Has anyone else noticed that the amount of ear wax they produce has dramatically increased with their age? Sometimes I produce so much it actual falls out of my ears in large clumps.
If only there was something I could do with it, I could be rich...
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Thursday, March 29, 2007
How Digital Rights Management (DRM) is destroying our rights
The digital copyright laws of the new era have failed to address the consumer's rights. Companies and organizations, such as the RIAA, have been fighting tooth-and-nail to 'protect' their rights in this digital age of easy copying. Their arguments are one-sided and poor attempts at 'real world' metaphors.
To begin with, they argue that 'pirating' music, movies, etc. is equivalent to stealing a television. Wrong. These days even a five-year old likely knows there is something wrong with that argument, even if they don't know what. What pirating is really like is photocopying the blueprints of TV and using them to make and exact replica for your self. The only difference is that, in the digital world, it is cheaper and far easier. Now, laws do exist to guard against corporate espionage, for example, and thus considering piracy as illegal is justified IMO. However, this leads to their next fallacy.
By claiming piracy as illegal as is the 'giving' of the pirated content to someone else, they are basically claiming their rights over every copy of a given content in the world. That is, every copy of your favourite song. All we do is to buy the rights to listen to that song. And here's where the crux of the problem comes.
Presumably and historically, we buy the rights to listen to that song in perpetuity. It's not stated but, I believe, it's understood. For example, in general it has always been legal for a personal to make a copy of said content for their own use. Hence you were allowed to copy onto the same media or new media as you wanted. I think you agree that 'in perpetuity' is implied in this agreement. So what's happened recently.
Well, with the new DRM (digital rights management) technology and groups like the RIAA cracking down on users, we are losing that right. We are now forced only to be able to play what we pay for on technology that they approve. This is the case with such tech as certain HD movies and download sites such as ITunes. The companies no longer accept our right to listen / to watch the media when and where we chose and they no longer accept our right to purchase said viewing/listening rights in perpetuity.
If they wish to claim such broad, sweeping rights, then they should at least recognize our rights as consumers. We should be able to freely trade in old copies of CDs, cassettes, DVDs for the same content on new media when it is available (or for no more than the cost of the new media itself).
It will never happen, for many, obvious reasons and therein lies the real injustice.
EH Rydberg
To begin with, they argue that 'pirating' music, movies, etc. is equivalent to stealing a television. Wrong. These days even a five-year old likely knows there is something wrong with that argument, even if they don't know what. What pirating is really like is photocopying the blueprints of TV and using them to make and exact replica for your self. The only difference is that, in the digital world, it is cheaper and far easier. Now, laws do exist to guard against corporate espionage, for example, and thus considering piracy as illegal is justified IMO. However, this leads to their next fallacy.
By claiming piracy as illegal as is the 'giving' of the pirated content to someone else, they are basically claiming their rights over every copy of a given content in the world. That is, every copy of your favourite song. All we do is to buy the rights to listen to that song. And here's where the crux of the problem comes.
Presumably and historically, we buy the rights to listen to that song in perpetuity. It's not stated but, I believe, it's understood. For example, in general it has always been legal for a personal to make a copy of said content for their own use. Hence you were allowed to copy onto the same media or new media as you wanted. I think you agree that 'in perpetuity' is implied in this agreement. So what's happened recently.
Well, with the new DRM (digital rights management) technology and groups like the RIAA cracking down on users, we are losing that right. We are now forced only to be able to play what we pay for on technology that they approve. This is the case with such tech as certain HD movies and download sites such as ITunes. The companies no longer accept our right to listen / to watch the media when and where we chose and they no longer accept our right to purchase said viewing/listening rights in perpetuity.
If they wish to claim such broad, sweeping rights, then they should at least recognize our rights as consumers. We should be able to freely trade in old copies of CDs, cassettes, DVDs for the same content on new media when it is available (or for no more than the cost of the new media itself).
It will never happen, for many, obvious reasons and therein lies the real injustice.
EH Rydberg
Thoughts on Longevity, mind transplants and uploads.
Here is an interesting question: What happens when you die?
Okay, that's a bit unfair of me since, obviously, no one knows. Many people have many thoughts on the subject but there are no hard answers (note that I'm intentionally ignoring suppositions derived from conjectures proposed in ancient texts---strange how we don't seem to believe that anyone wrote fiction thousands of years ago...). Anyway, the answer to this question may change in the coming centuries, with several possibilities that are not presently available to us.
The future possibilities, discussed by science fiction writers and other futurists, include such ideas as: transferring your neural pattern into a cloned body (with appropriate neural growth supplements), uploading an algorithm representing your mind (derived from your neural pattern) into a virtual reality or a robot body--it's been estimated that this would require five petabytes (10^15 bytes) of storage space and thus should become theoretically possible within a few decades. Other, even more futuristic thoughts involve 'mapping' our minds directly onto space and living as beings of thought and energy.
These all present one (for the purposes of this blog) interesting problem, however. What is the true nature of the upload?
Problems could arise if an 'upload' is created prior to the biological death of the individual (imagine: not just identity theft, but personality piracy). But I'm interested in the idea of what exactly happens to YOU the person.
From a third person POV, you would continue on, the same as you ever were (baring limitations of the technology) and there is really no question of identity. However, from a first person POV, it is my opinion that you would still die the biological death. The person you are, and you experience, the mind that looks out to the world through your eyes, would be no more. Another being with the same memories and thoughts would then be born in the other 'matrix'. You, however, as you define yourself right now, would cease to exist.
That's my gut reaction, thinking of the situation as one of copying the individual. The original is still lost (at least to itself), regardless of how good the copy is. However, another possibility complicates things. You could maintain 'your' persona and gain longevity by replacing your body with one that doesn't die. I think there is no question that that would still be 'you'.
Now, what if you began replacing parts of your brain. Piece by piece you convert your brain to a cybernetic and then completely inorganic 'organ'. Now, what used to house your mind, your being, no longer exists. But is this similar to an upload? At first glance it doesn't seem so and yet, the ultimate fate appears essentially the same. So where does this leave us with regards to the state of your identity? Very confused, I think.
EH Rydberg
Okay, that's a bit unfair of me since, obviously, no one knows. Many people have many thoughts on the subject but there are no hard answers (note that I'm intentionally ignoring suppositions derived from conjectures proposed in ancient texts---strange how we don't seem to believe that anyone wrote fiction thousands of years ago...). Anyway, the answer to this question may change in the coming centuries, with several possibilities that are not presently available to us.
The future possibilities, discussed by science fiction writers and other futurists, include such ideas as: transferring your neural pattern into a cloned body (with appropriate neural growth supplements), uploading an algorithm representing your mind (derived from your neural pattern) into a virtual reality or a robot body--it's been estimated that this would require five petabytes (10^15 bytes) of storage space and thus should become theoretically possible within a few decades. Other, even more futuristic thoughts involve 'mapping' our minds directly onto space and living as beings of thought and energy.
These all present one (for the purposes of this blog) interesting problem, however. What is the true nature of the upload?
Problems could arise if an 'upload' is created prior to the biological death of the individual (imagine: not just identity theft, but personality piracy). But I'm interested in the idea of what exactly happens to YOU the person.
From a third person POV, you would continue on, the same as you ever were (baring limitations of the technology) and there is really no question of identity. However, from a first person POV, it is my opinion that you would still die the biological death. The person you are, and you experience, the mind that looks out to the world through your eyes, would be no more. Another being with the same memories and thoughts would then be born in the other 'matrix'. You, however, as you define yourself right now, would cease to exist.
That's my gut reaction, thinking of the situation as one of copying the individual. The original is still lost (at least to itself), regardless of how good the copy is. However, another possibility complicates things. You could maintain 'your' persona and gain longevity by replacing your body with one that doesn't die. I think there is no question that that would still be 'you'.
Now, what if you began replacing parts of your brain. Piece by piece you convert your brain to a cybernetic and then completely inorganic 'organ'. Now, what used to house your mind, your being, no longer exists. But is this similar to an upload? At first glance it doesn't seem so and yet, the ultimate fate appears essentially the same. So where does this leave us with regards to the state of your identity? Very confused, I think.
EH Rydberg
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Update on my cellphone survey
For posterity, and because I expect the results to change as time and technological progress marches on, I have decided to post the cellphone survey results as of today with a brief comment.
Therefore, as it stands now, having 112 respondents, the results are:
Calling only 38 34%
Calling and SMS 38 34%
Don't use or don't like 11 10%
Love the pictures 9 8%
Love those games 6 5%
Everything! 6 5%
MP3 player 2 2%
Internet on phone 2 2%
Cellphone TV 0 0%
What's most interesting to me is that, despite the advertising and despite the companies trying to convince us that we need all the gadgets, 78% of people answering this survey either don't use a cellphone or only use it for communication (calling/sms). From several personal reviews I've received, there are a significant number of people who only use their cells for emergency calls or to one or two people (I, myself, am included in this category).
It will be interesting to see how the poll results change in the future years, and whether the companies will supply technology that most people will use. Also, I expect this survey is heavily biased toward Americans (due to the population of the site) and it would be interesting to get results from other countries and to compare how ideas are different in each country.
My personal thoughts are that the cell phone is still evolving. It will get smaller and have greater functionality until, eventually, it becomes incorporated directly into either our clothes or our bodies. One could easily envisage a watch or a ring or even a shirt button or pin. The video could be output to glasses or even to contact lenses. I don't believe these are all that advanced and we could see them within a few decades.
EH Rydberg
Therefore, as it stands now, having 112 respondents, the results are:
Calling only 38 34%
Calling and SMS 38 34%
Don't use or don't like 11 10%
Love the pictures 9 8%
Love those games 6 5%
Everything! 6 5%
MP3 player 2 2%
Internet on phone 2 2%
Cellphone TV 0 0%
What's most interesting to me is that, despite the advertising and despite the companies trying to convince us that we need all the gadgets, 78% of people answering this survey either don't use a cellphone or only use it for communication (calling/sms). From several personal reviews I've received, there are a significant number of people who only use their cells for emergency calls or to one or two people (I, myself, am included in this category).
It will be interesting to see how the poll results change in the future years, and whether the companies will supply technology that most people will use. Also, I expect this survey is heavily biased toward Americans (due to the population of the site) and it would be interesting to get results from other countries and to compare how ideas are different in each country.
My personal thoughts are that the cell phone is still evolving. It will get smaller and have greater functionality until, eventually, it becomes incorporated directly into either our clothes or our bodies. One could easily envisage a watch or a ring or even a shirt button or pin. The video could be output to glasses or even to contact lenses. I don't believe these are all that advanced and we could see them within a few decades.
EH Rydberg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)