There's no place like home

Look! A blog post!

This morning I posted a link to an anti-DRM comic on my Facebook feed.

There was a comment thread that I wanted to save, so I decided to put it into a blog post.

A friend posted the following comment (slightly edited):

A. I use that very same system to legally download audiobooks from Henn Cty Library and once you figure it out the first time it's fine.

B. I think that DRM is meant to protect the rights of the artist and isn't just something created by lawyers to bug us.

C. DRM wouldn't need to be so complicated if people were honest and just simply didn't desire to steal copyright content.

My response was as follows:

A. I'm glad it works for you. But why should I have to "figure it out" to listen to an audiobook? But what about the people who don't run Windows? Can I listen to these audio books on my Linux laptop? I doubt it. Also, any extra software you have to install adds more complexity to the computer. I already have at least three ways to play mp3s on my computer. Can you listen to these audiobooks on your non-iPod MP3 player? Can you burn them to a CD and listen to them in your car? These are all legal uses, but the DRM stops you from doing them. Additionally, DRM software quite often slows the whole system down, or worse, has rootkits or backdoors in it. Google for Sony rootkit sometime.

B. DRM is designed to prevent consumers from using content in legal ways, not protect the artists. When you buy a book, it's yours to do what you like with (within reasonable copyright limits). You can lend it do someone - try that with a DRM audiobook. You can sell it - try that with a DRM audio book. "But we are talking about a library book here" you say. Okay, when you check a book out of the library you can't sell it, but you can lend it to a friend. DRM is a product of the media corporations and is designed to cripple your rights as a consumer so they can make more money. The media giants scream about piracy, but there have been many studies that show its less prevalent then they say it is. As a matter of fact, studies have shown that many people who download music illegally go out and buy the albums. Other studies have shown that releasing content in non-DRM forms results in MORE sales, not fewer. There are many artists that have spoken out against DRM and there are even artists that would like to release their art in non-DRM formats but the media corporations will not let them.

C. See my comments in B. But also, why do you think it is acceptable to punish the legal consumers because other people do illegal things? DRM does not stop anyone from downloading the content illegally. I guarantee you that any audiobook you download in DRM format from the library is available in non-DRM format on the internet. How is the DRM protecting the content? It's not. All DRM can be and is broken. The only thing that DRM does is add hassle for the legal consumers. Why is this acceptable?

DRM and the media lobbyists also brought us the DMCA - one of the worst laws ever passed.

If you are truly interested in why so many people are anti-DRM you can start your research at these links:


http://www.wired.com/listening_post/2007/02/how_to_explain_/

http://www.eff.org/issues/drm

http://www.learnoutloud.com/content/blog/archives/2006/11/the_top_10_argu.html

And for information about the DMCA and why it's so bad, you can start here:

http://www.anti-dmca.org/whats-wrong.html

The DNC moves us another step towards the future envisioned by Robert Heinlein in "If This Goes On".

Who is going to play the role of Nehemiah Scudder?

I sent my last missive - Why Do I Care About Other's Religions - to my email list and got this thoughtful message in response:

Tim,
You raise many good points. In our age of better communication and open exchange of ideas, this list is a very good example of this, why or how does religion persist? I ask not to bait you into an argument, but am curious about your thoughts on why people still believe in the face some of the points you raised. And on a similar note I am happy to say I have an atheist friend, you. I think the wide range of opinions on this list gives us all a more balanced view on life.

This is a very interesting question: In this age of enlightenment why is religion still around?

I'll start off by suggesting that we are not currently in an age of enlightenment. I personally feel we are heading down the slope into another dark ages. The religious right has become very vocal again (remember the Moral Majority in the late 70s?)

Science is looked upon as something bad or evil (the stem cell research issues, global climate change nay-sayers, the movie Expelled - which is full of lies - and Ben Stein's subsequent statement that science leads to killing people.)

Republicans are practically required to kowtow to religious leaders and are proud that they are ignorant about science and knowledge.

In a hearing about Abstinence Only Education, Representative John Duncan (R-TN) said "It seems rather elitist to me for people who maybe have degrees in this field to feel that because they’ve studied it somehow they know better than the parents what is best for [their children].” (If this doesn't flabbergast you, you need your flabbergaster reset. And this man is a politician who is creating laws for our country.)

There are a few bright spots. The latest Pew Forum Religious Survey shows that the number of atheists and non-affiliated people is increasing. There are many very prominent and vocal atheist and scientific blogs on the internet. And I have a lot of friends that are either atheists or non-religious.

And yet religion still persists. Why?

I emailed a link to my previous blog posting about the Hello Kitty Jesus tattoo to a mailing list I am on. I got the following question in response.

Tim, with all due respect, I get not you not believing in religion - specifically Christianity, but I don't get why you seem to care so much about the belief system of those who do. (?)

This was my response:

I care because I feel the people who believe things "on faith" with no evidence do harm to all of us. Believing things because the are written in a book, with no supporting evidence, makes no sense. Denying rights to people based on what is written in the same book (e.g. gays and lesbians) is abhorrent. Basing your moral system on the same book, when if you read it at all you will discover the moral system in it is bloody, brutish and not the one currently in use, is insane.

I care because believing things "on faith" with no evidence is irrational. If you believe some things "on faith" and some things you know due to evidence you have a schism in your world view that causes problems.

I care because people who "believe" hassle those of us who don't. Both of my daughters have been hassled at camps and at school (public school) by children who have been brainwashed by their parents and religious leaders into believing they are superior to anyone who does not follow their "faith". And yes, I consider religious indoctrination of young children brainwashing.

I care because like it or not, and regardless of what the "Christians" believe, the USA was formed as a secular nation. Where belief in god is not a requirement to be a citizen. Where there is no state religion.

I care because all the right-wing religious "Christian" politicians are two-faced hypocrites and they are horrible role models for the youth of America. Shall I make a list of them for you?

I care because religions are supposed to get unquestioning respect, just because they are religions. Why should we not be able to question religious viewpoints? Why should we respect religious viewpoints that are clearly irrational?

I care because religion gets a free ride from the press, the police and the government. How many sex scandals have there been with Catholic priests and alter boys? So many that we make jokes about it while the church just quietly shuffles the priest off to another parish where he can molest more children. If I molested a 12 year old boy I'd be in prison faster than you can say "Pope Ratzi". But priests just get reassigned. How is this possible?

Man, you really opened the floodgates. Thanks for asking the question. Do I really need to go on? Yes, I do. Click the Continue Reading Link .

To another friend with a Mac:

> Yup, saw that. You're just jealous because you don't have one!

Um. No.

Please give me one compelling reason I should go spend thousands of dollars on a piece of hardware so I can run MacOS when I already have a perfectly good Windows PC that does everything I need it to.

What is the one thing that I need to do, but don't know about, that you can do on your Mac that I can't do on my PC? What is the Mac's "killer app" that would justify my buying one?

Video editing? I've already demonstrated that's not true. Sony Vegas was plenty easy for me to figure out and adding a firewire card was plug and play. And I hear Adobe Premier is pretty good too.

Photo editing? Photoshop runs on my PC just fine.

Page layout/DTP? Hell, I've run Quark on my PC for years.

CAD? Can you even run SolidWorks or AutoCAD on a Mac? Probably under Parallels, but then you are running Windows, aren't you?

GarageBand? Well, that's one that doesn't run on my PC. But there are others out there - see GarageBand for Windows - but I don't do music editing. Rosalyn wants to though. But that's not a compelling reason.

On the other hand there are lots of apps that I use that will not run on a Mac.

Sure, I could run Parallels, but then I'm running Windows on the Mac and what's the real advantage of that? Why not just run Windows on a PC?

And I don't want to hear "it's just easier." Or "hey, it's a Mac." Give me concrete examples that are worth thousands of dollars to me.

I'll accept that you like your Mac. But stop telling everyone they should throw away all their PC hardware and spend thousands of dollars on one.

It's very annoying.

This morning at work this article was passed around in email. It's about a hacking contest and tells how the MacBook Air was hacked in under two minutes with a browser exploit.

We have Macs and Windows PCs (and advocates and zealots) at work so this started a thread about Macs are better/no they are not.

After a bit of back and forth, John Stephenson wrote what I consider to be an excellent screed that can be summed up as "All software sucks, all hardware sucks, the only secure computer is one that's been melted down to slag."

You can read John's full commentary, and my "me too" response below the fold:

****Warning**** Adult content (swearing) in this post ****Warning****

There was a thread about impeachment today on one of the mailing lists I run and one of the comments really pushed my button. So I fired off this vitriol (and swear word) laced reply:

> Too bad you decided not to impeach him.

Hey, I didn't "decide not to impeach him" my motherfucking cocksucking spineless toadying representatives did.

I sent those motherfuckers emails and told them to impeach. I signed petitions telling those cocksuckers to impeach.

And did it do any goddamn good? Fuck no!

And can I, personally, start impeachment hearings? Fuck no!

Can you tell I'm pissed off? I sure hope I don't have to be pissed off all the time at the next president, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

And if McCain ends up the next president you can watch the news for me. I'm sure I'll have a stroke driving in my car and screaming at the goddamn cocksucking motherfuckers on the radio.

Fuck it, I'm moving to Mars.

One of the other list members (thanks Magwa!) thought it would be fun to replace all the swear words and this is what he came up with:

Hey, I didn't "decide not to impeach him" my maternal-procreating male chicken oral pressure-intake(ing) ( adv.) and expelling spineless toadying representatives did.

I sent those maternal fertilizers (adj.) emails and told them to impeach. I signed petitions telling those Foghorn Leghorn orifice pleasurers to impeach.

And did it do any dog-gone (adj.) good? Sexual Intercourse no!

And can I, personally, start impeachment hearings? Sexual Intercourse no!

Can you tell I'm urinated (adj. or v.) off? I sure hope I don't have to be catheterized (v.) all the time at the next president, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

And if McCain ends up the next president you can watch the news for me. I'm sure I'll have a stroke driving in my car and screaming at the dog-darn (adj.) Sanders-munching, implanters of seed into those whom have been previously pregnant (ed.) on the radio.

Impale it sexually and fervently, I'm moving to Mars.

I think I like the original better.

Preach it Brother Henry!



(h/t to PZ)

This is an awesome rant from The Portly Dyke over at Shakesville!

That's it. I've had it. For the past decade or so, I've been assaulted by the whims of homophobic, sexist, racist, xenophobic, ethnocentric right-wingers.

I've heard them say absolutely outrageous crap, I've read their deluded rants, I've watched their insane, unethical, and fabricated "news" stories, and I've waved them off with a "Yeah, those are some crazy fuckers".

No more.

I've lived long enough now to watch the political pendulum swing a few times, so I knew that sooner or later, the pendulum would swing back from this radical pull to the right -- at times, I even thought: "Fine. Go on. Get crazy with it!"-- knowing that for every action, there is an equal and opposite re-action.

I don't know exactly what happened today, but, for me, this is that time. Reaction day has arrived.

If fundamentalist Xtians (I use this term consciously because I do not believe that anyone who espouses hatred, judgment, killing, etc. is actually a Christian -- any "real" Christians out there? -- you can consider yourself not included in this rant) -- if fundy Xtians have the freedom to claim that LGBT people are "less than", or sinful, or destructive, or threatening -- if Republican sock-puppets can claim that the media is owned and controlled by the "radical Left", and justify torture, and unlawful imprisonment, and wars predicated on lies -- if xenophobic, racist right-wingers can claim that illegal immigrants are over-running our country and ruining it -- if no less an august body than the presidential administration of the USA can dodge and weave and flout the rule of law -- and all of these people can do this while claiming that they are "protecting" my country somehow -- then I can speak, too.

...

From this moment forward, every time I hear some crap like:

1. Homosexuals are dangerous and want to subvert your kids to their lifestyle, OR
2. Women are already equal to men (and even have privilege over men), OR
3. Racism doesn't exist any more and isn't really a problem, OR
4. The media is controlled by the Radical Left, OR
5. Water-boarding isn't torture, and even if it is, sometimes torture is necessary,
6. OR, OR, OR . . . . .

I'm going to say: "No. That is factually incorrect, and I believe that you know that it's factually incorrect."

The only thing I can add to this is "Right fucking on!"

I wish I could write like this:

But look now what we have lost. Now when a bad guy crosses our threshhold, America becomes a pants-piddling mess.

Iran's president speaks at a great American university. That university's president, in the act of introducing his lecture, whines like a baby bereft of his pacifier that his guest is a big meany poopy-head. City Council members, too, and a rabbi, make like ten-year-olds, giving their press conference in front of a sign with his face struck through and the legend "Go To Hell." Up in Albany, Democratic leader Sheldon Silver treat the students of this great university like ten years olds, threatening to defund Columbia University lest censors like himself prove unable to shut the poor children's ears to difficult speech. (What, was he worried they'd be convinced, join the jihad?) Then a Republican presidential candidate chimes in—bye, bye, federalism!—saying Washington should starve the school of funds, too. American diplomats used to have the gumption to spar face to face with dreaded foreign leaders. Now they go on cable TV and whine about what a "travesty" it would have been to visit a site which properly should belong to the world. Hundreds of foreign nationals died in the World Trade Center on 9/11 (maybe even some of the Iranian!). Yet we have to systematically repress that—as if our national ego would crack like fine crystal if we were forced to acknowledge the mingling of American blood with that of mere foreigners.

This is a wonderful article about what America was, and what it has become. And it makes me sad. There is more, go read it.

(h/t to Shakespear's Sister)