Maddox - I hope SOPA passes
maddox.xmission.com
maddox.xmission.com
My personal perspective, having lived in the DC area most of my life and moving to MA shortly after (or was it just before? I don't remember), is that yeah, I was a little worried about how to explain it to my young kids. Turned out not to matter. I personally don't think the government should give a rat's ass who you love.
I was half-kidding with my above remark, but thinking about it; I could not live in a country where that would be the case. I would think that even if big parts of a country work like that, in 'well educated' parts of the country, your kids would've seen some amount (edited) of gay people together already which means there is nothing to explain (it being already natural). If that would not be the case, it means there is some kind of suppressing force at hand which I would not be able to live with (I'm not gay, but i'm very much against the ignorance which disallows / restricts people while there is no solid or even non-shaky argument against it).
Also, it is not known what population of a country is in fact gay. I read somewhere between 2 and 15% depending on a lot of factors. The issue is ofcourse that in most countries most gays did not (and maybe will never) come out, so it's hard to analyze anything based on that. But if 2%, it's still 2 out of 100, so in your neighborhood there will be always a few around and they ofcourse find partners from all over.
I'm not totally sure how a conversation like that means - as some same-sex marriage opponents seem to think - that one has to start describing the intricacies of sex, anal or otherwise.
I do think it's utterly disappointing that the primary reason people seem to think that denying same-sex partners from getting married is because they are too much of a pussy to explain to their kids that gay people exist and can love one another.
Because some same-sex marriage opponents are obsessed with the intricacies of anal sex (whereas the typical preadolescent child really doesn’t care about the intricacies of any kind of sex). Heck, some of them are probably more obsessed with this topic than the gay men who do it.
You should explain it to your kids, since one of your kids might be LGBT and it would be good for them to know that their parents will accept them.
For more detail read "I want to expose your children to homoseuxality" http://seldo.com/weblog/2011/08/11/i_want_to_expose_your_chi...
In fact, I may be the only male in the house that uses 'gay' as a reference to homosexuality. I think to the kids gay = wimp and FWIW fag = asshole. I think. It's hard to figure it out sometimes. I just caution them that there are plenty of people who find certain terms hurtful still and they should be mindful of who is within earshot.
But that's how I've always treated profanity.
So at least we should send a strong signal that we ALL want Internet Freedom.
I very much do NOT WANT this SOPA and any possible legislation after it to become a polarizing talking point in a speech. It’s a twisted bastardization of a real issue, which is how I feel the gay marriage dabate has become.
It more or less comes down to a numbers game. Not everyone will proactively go out of their way to take action (or will only do the very minimum, like changing their profile picture). To expect everyone to be proactive is unrealistic. The advantage that awareness gives is that it reaches out to the masses potentially hitting those who have the aptitude and attitude to take firm action. You reach enough of those people and over time influence starts to propagate upward throughout the entire structure -- but again, that takes time. People and the structures they live within are not changed over night.
The LGBT rights movement was hardly slacktivist 'awareness raising'. It was real struggle with real costs which is generating real results.
Politicians are paid by lobbyists or have their own monetary interests to pass SOPA, and massive businesses support such a bill.
On the other hand, no one* in Washington really cares about "gay marriage". They just pretend to because there is opposition to it by their voters.
So, they can give you "gay marriage" rights, because it doesn't affect any economic or power interest. In the large scheme of things, gay marriage is an insignificant novelty, while SOPA is part of Washington's and corporate America's vision of the future.
[*] Well, some conservative republican politicians might care, but those are in the minority, many more are just putting on an act (like those that are all about christian family values, and then they are busted with some prostitute.
The Occupy Wall Street protests and the “Internet strike” were both successful because they changed the terms of the debate. In the former case, the mass media, which had spent months obsessing over deficit deficit deficit, suddenly took notice of income inequality, and Romney’s Republican primary opponents started attacking him over his vulture-capitalist history. In the latter case, the fact that there was opposition to SOPA/PIPA, and that these opponents are not just “pirates”, finally became mainstream front-page news.
These are not legislative victories in and of themselves, but they are significant. The proper reaction is not “in the big scheme of things this is a small victory, so don’t feel smug about it” but “in the big scheme of things this is a small victory, so let’s build on it to go on to bigger victories”. Rome wasn’t sacked in a day.
I love this post and I'll tell you why...
I understand that my age puts me in the minority here at Hacker News, but anyone who has ever followed anything I've said here knows that I really believe that's just a detail, not a real issue...I don't care as much about who you are as what you do and how you treat others.
I grew up in the U.S. in the 1960's and it was a very different time for all kinds of reasons. The biggest difference of all had little to do with money, technology, or superficial lifestyle; it had to do with state of mind. Like all young generations, we were confused and didn't understand why things were the way they were. So, with lots of energy and spare time, we took action...
We protested, we marched, we did whatever we thought it took to affect change. We took the side of the oppressed: blacks, women, gays, the poor and homeless, the environment, and most of all, we protested an illegal and immoral war. We ended the war and we changed the world.
It's great to see that some things haven't changed: young people still find a way to channel their resources to try to make things better, but here's the problem: All I see with this worldwide Occupy movement is people complaining, "Where's mine?" It seems like it's all about "me", not "us".
That's why these SOPA protests are so refreshing to me. It's the first thing I've noticed in years that reminds me of my youth, not so much in action, but in spirit. People have taken a few minutes to stop worrying about themselves to do something about the greater good for all of us.
But the spirit of modern times prevents us from doing enough. We will take action so long as it doesn't cost us too much. Where is the sacrifice? Where is the "put your money where your mouth is"? I love the way OP points this out.
I'm proud of Wikipedia. Craigslist came close, forcing its users to work to get to their local pages. But too many, like Google, just wimped out. All their black banner said was, "We care, but not that much."
Listen to OP! For just a few minutes, fuck the "stake holders", the "money managers", the "players", the "metrics", the "ROI", and the "bottom line". Can't we just once pretend that it's 1968, and stop giving a shit about ourselves long enough to realize that a couple of extra bucks today will soon be worthless in a world going to shit if we don't do something about it? Only when we demonstrate the passion that comes from true sacrifice will the "normals" really take notice.
</BabyBoomerRant, TimeForMaalox>
Same outcome - a bunch of public money goes towards restoring confidence in the system - but with significantly less significant social costs/moral hazards.
Also, if you're against corruption, massive and increasing wealth disparity is not a good thing. Put all the financial power in the hands of a few and every single time they'll wind up with all the political power as well. If you want an example of correlation between money and political power, you could look at SOPA.
I'm sure we'll see a round two, and it'll have a clear message and better organization.
The political process can only be corrupt as long as people aren't paying attention - I think the occupy movement did a great service in focusing attention on the inequalities inherent in the current system and provided a model for what democracy is supposed to be. People talking, debating and voting on the actual issues that affect them - when contrasted with the BS that is the congressional sausage factory and the media circus that surrounds it I know which I'd prefer to be the basis for a redefined version of democracy.
EDIT: typo
With no strong detailed message, it makes it really hard for politicians/media to argue against, but it makes it really easy for politicians/media to mock.
2. It was always about wealth disparity. The little something to aspire to never existed. Everyone aspire large wealth disparity, or they are too busy making ends meet. It was always like that. See any previous human society or moment in history. Heck even the alpha male usually has most of the females
I hear things like this a lot about human nature, and I try really hard to believe them, but at the end of the day I have to admit that I don't personally know a single person who thinks this way. Everyone I know would very much like to pay off their debt, have easy access to shelter, food, and entertainment for themselves and their loved ones, and not have to work but be able to do whatever they love doing as much as they want to do it. It is possible that there is not enough aggregate wealth in the world for everyone to be prosperous enough to achieve these things, so desiring them is equivalent to the desire for wealth disparity, but it is not the disparity itself. I am not suggesting that there are no people who desire disparity itself, only that I have trouble convincing myself that it is "everyone", since I don't know any.
trust me on this one. it may seems far fetched that in all your friends circle, or mine, we don't know any rich person. but it is so.
We are all Class C, by the original definition that classify modern social classes by their aspirations and goals. not that non-sense sensus stuff. The successful guys in this forum, that made millions with their hard work, are class B. we have not even indirect connection to class A.
tl;dr do not base society on your personal knowledge.
I would be very interested to see the data you are basing your knowledge of society on, since it must be outside your personal experience.
Also I'm not familiar with the modern social class definition system that you speak of, where can I read about that?
the original paper that mentioned A, B, C class outlined them by: C class, aims for sustenance. B class, takes sustenance as granted, aim for goods. C class, takes sustenance and goods for granted, aim for status.
But it is wrong to say that you "ended the war and changed the world".
The "war" ended in 1975, long after all the protesting has slowed to a crawl. And the ending of the war mainly had to do with an exhaustion of resources amidst an economic and oil crisis, and, well, actually losing the damn thing. There is such a thing as a lost war.
Furthermore, people mainly protested not because the war was "illegal and immoral", but primarily because of the draft and how it affected them (or people they knew). Lesson learned: the government used only pro soldiers for their wars from them on, and no protests of that scale and that extend occurred again.
The baby-boomer, sixties "rebellion" was in all, a failure. It didn't "stop the war", and it didn't "change the world". It ended itself in the conformism and consumerism of the seventies and in a drug and "self-discovery" haze.
If the world has indeed changed since the 60s, it's for the worst, in the political sense, concerning society, freedom, public and international policy (technology and science have of course improved, but those two always do, since the dawn of time, and exponentially since around 1600).
Now, how about the societal change regarding the treatment of blacks? Well, that was due to their organized protests and political action (from the action around Rosa Parks to the Alabama march). And, to return to the point of Maddox, this is what the other sixties movements lacked (since SDS dissolved into irrelevance), and what we lack today.
If baby-boomers' sixties was a self-absorbed failure, there was indeed a time when Americans fought and won very significant rights. It was when they were actually organized, agitated, and fought (often to death), to gain their labour rights, regarding working conditions, eight hour day, etc. Here's an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre
Without political action and determination, you cannot have change. Blacking out a webpage is idiotic. "But it spreads awareness". So? What is the viewer of your webpage supposed to do with this new found awareness? Until you can answer that, it's all in vain. And writing to your congressman is idiotic. What makes him "your" congressman? Even a boycott is silly, if it's just about individuals making a choice, instead of being the co-ordinated action of some group with a minimum program and coherency.
Most of the websites I saw participating in the blackout urged people to contact local congresspeople. Wikipedia, for example, featured a form that would show contact information given a zip code.
While not at the level of mass protests, it's certainly doing something.
Further, awareness does matter. In my local paper, the blackouts made the front page. That exposes the issue to a wide range of people that would never have been aware anything was happening.
Are there other actions people could have taken to protest SOPA/PIPA? Sure, and some are probably more optimal than the blackout. Even so, I would disagree that the blackout was ineffective, much less "idiotic".
If you don't like the laws, do run for office, or at least, run to ensure that someone who shares your dislike for the laws, get's into office and gets the job done.
Without that, all the blackening of blogs, symbolic ribbons etc don't change a thing.
In fact, the very meaning of a republic is that of the handling of things/issues that belong to all and affect all ("res publica", public things, in latin).
Politics weren't supposed to be some specialized profession, for professional politicians, but the duty of the citizen of a democracy.
Same for ancient Athens, who invented all that democracy thing. Public officials there were chosen at random, as to better represent the majority (this incidentally solves the funding problem). So you could end up a congressman (or something equivalent for the day), like you could be chosen for jury duty today.
(Incidentally, Athens and Rome declined when their citizens stopped caring about the "public things", and demagogues and dictators seized the power).
Sure, I'm not willing to die for Reddit. So, I guess you got me there.
It's not about them not understanding some obscure technical details of how the internet works. It's about what the intent and spirit of the law is, and that they understand all too well.
"You're not willing to die for Reddit", you say. Irony aside, is that what internet freedom and SOPA amount to you, the closing (or not) of Reddit?
The "war" ended in 1975, long after all the protesting has slowed to a crawl.
The war "officially" ended in 1975, but it really ended with de-escalation and the ending of the draft years earlier by our activism. Make no mistake about it, LBJ, one of the most powerful presidents ever, was brought to his knees, not by his political opponents, but by us. March 31, 1968 was the beginning of the end of that war.
Furthermore, people mainly protested not because the war was "illegal and immoral", but primarily because of the draft and how it affected them (or people they knew).
One of many counter-examples: the My Lai Massacre. Do you remember how aghast the American public was that things like this were happening on television almost every night "for no apparent reason"? People have always really known right from wrong. The difference is when they decide to do something about it.
Now, how about the societal change regarding the treatment of blacks? Well, that was due to their organized protests and political action (from the action around Rosa Parks to the Alabama march)
I imagine there are quite a few who would disagree with that, from the urban infernos of the late 1960's even up to today.
It was when they were actually organized, agitated, and fought (often to death)...
I think we need to sacrifice more, but I don't suggest sacrificing our lives. Ironically, mine was a generation that did sacrifice the lives of our martyrs. To this day, I often wonder how different the world would be if the opponents of change hadn't murdered JFK, MLK, RFK, or Malcom X, or crushed the lives of countless others on college campuses (Kent State, 1970), Stonewall, or in the streets of Newark, Detroit, Watts, and a hundred other places.
...to gain their labour rights...
Kinda ironic that one of the worst cripplers of today's economy are the entitlements won by the overextension of organized labor (see auto industry or almost any local government).
I'd stay and debate more, but a client just called and I'm already 27% behind quota this week. (Oh how times have changed.)
* They ensured Ronald Reagan's landslide victory in the race for governor of California, whose campaign promise was to shitcan UC president Clark Kerr and "clean up the mess at Berkeley," which I believe he fulfilled his first day in office.
* They ensured that Lyndon B. Johnson, arguably the most liberal president in US history and most powerful proponent of the 196[48] Civil Rights Acts, would not even attempt to seek reelection.
* They incited a riot at the 1968 Democratic Nation Convention, ensuring a landslide victory for somebody as unpopular as Richard Nixon.
In short, they empowered the opposition. Being a loud vocal minority only ruffles the feathers of the majority and calls them into action, which is why no political leaders are going to touch the "occupy movement" with a ten-foot pole.
The anti-SOPA movement on the other hand is a different because at the end of the day, it threatens a multi-billion dollar industry. Whether Wikipedia and Reddit can rally your "awareness" about it or not, the Googles of the world will still fight it tooth and nail to protect their own investments, and their money speaks just as loud as the entertainment industry's. For that reason, I never really believed SOPA or PIPA stood a chance.
I've run into more jaded baby boomers than anything else. And they justify it by "well, now I have a job" or "I'm too old now" or "The Internet is over my head." Their pie is the 401(k), come what may.
This one is rather important I think. More so than other generations, the baby boomers seem to embrace ignorance of all things new as a virtue.
My grandparents used to go out of their way to not admit they were confused by technology. My parents and their friends? They embrace the notion.
In Britain, liberalism was architected primarily by people who were part of our very old establishment. The decriminalisation of homosexuality was achieved largely by the work of Lord Wolfenden, Lord Pakenham and Arthur Gore (8th Earl of Arran). The same goes for most of the political changes we associate with modernity and progress - with the notable exception of Bevan and his peers, the people turning the wheels were mainly minor aristocrats in dusty tweed. A great many of the most significant changes were made contrary to public opinion, the most obvious being the abolition of the death penalty - a policy which most Britons still oppose.
The boomers credit themselves with having changed the world when they were young, broke and essentially powerless, but deny any credit to the generation that constituted the establishment at the time. Conversely, now that they control the majority of capital, make up the biggest electoral demographic and holds most of the elected offices, they deny responsibility.
The most destructive act of the baby boomers was creating a culture in which the individual is seen as having supremacy over the institution. The consequences are obvious and stark - a political system with single-digit approval ratings, where nobody feels represented and nobody feels responsible. A political culture defined not by fundamental ideological allegiance and difference, but by special pleading. There's no such thing as a socialist anymore, no such thing as a conservative or a trade unionist, just people with opinions. America always pretended to be classless but Britain has gone the same way, preferring the egoistic fantasy of an egalitarian society over the reality of one where power and wealth and privilege are still very much in force.
We're trapped in a solipsistic nightmare, where conspiracy theories have replaced an understanding of social power. Until the people who are in charge actually admit that they are in charge, we're fucked.
1. There's no longer any military conscription, which in the 60s forced even the most temperamentally apolitical under-26-year-olds to pay attention at least somewhat, since it was (legally) impossible to just ignore the war and go about one's life.
2. While many black youth are still disaffected, there's no longer any de jure segregation, so what remains is a more amorphous disaffection lacking the sort of clear spark/goal that the civil rights movement had. Overall material conditions are also somewhat better, for at least some proportion.
I think the xers and yers will remain conflicted generations.
Conflicted with each other? Or internal conflict?
The problem I have with the invocation of post-materialism specifically to support this argument is that if post-materialism were manifest in the youngest generations, we'd have a lot of empowered voting and office-running youth overthrowing the boomer establishment. Post-materialists value freedom of speech and people collectively having power in political decisions more than they value material goods and even national order. Post-materialists would be fighting tooth and nail and leveraging every advantage they have against a corrupt, centralized material-obsessed authority.
A powerful post-materialist youth would leverage technology to empower their voices directly through the voting system and the lawmaking process. They would enable an open-source voting system with access to vote online and with publicly published by-vote data that associates votes to a generated unique key. When you voted, you would be given that key and then your association to that key would be destroyed. Thus, you'd be able to verify your vote was cast correctly and we could all verify voting data validity. The open-source voting system would ensure that there were no holes in this process.
A powerful post-materialist youth would reform lawmaking such that all bills had a single specific agenda with no riders (i.e., hidden pieces covering separate topics not covered in the abstract). They would ensure that every person could easily search for all the bills in consideration that covered topics they cared about and that the government actively marketed this data to the public.
A powerful post-materialist youth would have a crowd-sourced information platform for politics that tightly integrated with the searchable, taggable data. Think Reddit+Wikipedia for politics. With this there could be a wiki page for every issue and bill in discussion and a "subreddit" for every party and political action group to organize through.
A powerful post-materialist youth would develop these solutions and steamroll them into the status quo long before the boomers retired.
Maddox is highlighting that youth have not been exerting strong post-materialist influence in politics and joining a growing quorum of people saying, "Do more, care more, and you can actually shift ideologies and power structures to better align with your ideals."
The missing element to making this mainstream is a technology-focused social approach to reforming the voting system such that it is possible for the average working and school-going youth to develop and grow their understanding of the issues affecting all those that they care about by connecting them to those same people.
I think mainstream culture is a bigger impediment to the changes you describe than voting system reform. But I certainly would like to see the kind of changes you describe.
In the U.S. at least, I don't think anything would have changed with regards to civil rights for a while if it had been left to the establishment. Without the protests, boycotts, and other direct action of the Civil Rights Movement, I doubt that the white Northern establishment would've gotten the guts to move against the white Southern establishment: the fact that the white Southern establishment reacted so violently and lawlessly to the civil-rights protests was one of the factors that forced the timid establishment to act, lest they allow in effect another open southern rebellion. Up until the moment they were forced to act, the establishment generally thought the protestors were hotheads who should've stopped rocking the boat so dangerously. (The presence of even more "dangerous" hotheads was also useful for that; e.g. the existence of Malcolm X made it easier for MLK to position himself as a moderate partner offering a way out, whereas his demands were themselves initially seen as extreme.)
There was some spread in generations in the civil rights movement, especially among black southerners; famously Rosa Parks was born in 1913. But among whites, the participants in the protests were almost exclusively under 40.
I do agree that they've mostly grown up to be a disappointing establishment, though.
To punish me for my contempt of authority, Fate has made me an authority myself.
I don't think this is entirely accurate. If by "most Britons" you mean "most Daily Mail readers" then maybe...
If by "we" you mean some of the baby boom generation, then you are right. But let's not pretend that a huge group of people like the baby boomers have a unified approach to injustice and oppression. After all, many of the baby boom generation and have and continue to support oppression in their communities and as official state policy, but that doesn't mean that every baby boomer supports those things.
Also, the struggle against oppression in the US has a much longer and deeper history than prior to the late 60s, so don't pretend that the baby boomers were the saving grace to these movements as that erases the hard work and suffering that many people had to go through.
Regarding the self-interest of the young, it's a rational thing. If young people today weren't saying "where's mine" then they'd be stupid. During the baby boom there were decent jobs because globalization hadn't happened yet and corporations still had to rely on domestic labor. Reliance on domestic labor also means the elite values having decent public institutions, which strengthen the labor force. Now not only do we have globalization but also systematic looting. Young people get to look forward to having it significantly worse economic prospects than their parents.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyPzGUsYyKM
It's just fantastic and very eye opening. Thanks for reminding me of it.
Popular protest against the Vietnam War didn't take off until the war had been grinding for several years.
I was responding to the OP's contention that the Boomer generation was more committed to protesting in support of social justice than people are these days.
You really don't see the connection between the baby boomers's rebellions and the fact that their grandkids have this attitude?
A lot of the anger stems from being denied opportunities that were afforded to the boomers. The American Dream was available to you in ways that our generation will never know.
We've been sold on this notion of security and prosperity that no longer exists. Yet, we're still supposed to support the preceding generation as they retire and draw benefits that won't exist for us.
"In my day, our protest marches were up hill, both ways!"
- Samuel Adams
"Even if you, your neighbors, and everyone you've ever met recycled everything and reduced your waste output to zero, it wouldn't even make an observable impact on overall waste production in the world. Household waste and garden residue account for less than 3% of all waste produced in the US. That's less than the average statistical margin of error, and most people don't even come close to producing zero waste."
I've always suspected that this is correct, but I'd like to be able to back that up with some evidence.
The same page mentions a higher bound of 20%, but in any case it seems reasonably well established that the vast majority of the waste produced (at least in the US) comes from the manufacturing/industrial process itself, not from households.
A book that goes into quite a bit of detail about this is "Gone tomorrow" by Heather Rogers.
I'm surprised that the construction waste is that high. Apart from that, it seems that manufacturing and construction waste is less dominant over here than it is in the US. Odd! Maybe I'm reading the numbers wrong or they're counting really differently. FWIW, Wikipedia says that the per capita waste amount is about 500 kg, referring to just the category of private households/offices I assume.
Ref: http://www.bmu.de/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/pdf/abfal... (German)
I think these statistics are somewhat misleading.
Waste from building tends to be rubble and dirt. Some of this can be re-used (eg filler for roads), but also the environmental impact of disposing of dirt is not much.
More importantly, the stats on the link above give waste measured by weight. A skip full of rubble (densely-packed stone) weighs far more than a skip full of general trash (loose-packed plastic bottles). A comparison by volume would be more informative[1].
That doesn't go for all building waste, and I don't know what comprises most industrial waste. All in all, I suspect cutting everyone's household waste to zero would make a significant impact on reducing the volume of waste produced nationwide; I don't know though whether it would make as much as a 50% impact.
[1] Obviously there are difficulties comparing by volume since household waste can be compacted to a great degree - my point is that comparison by weight skews heavily to the side of building waste.
"We estimated residential waste (including waste from apartment houses) to be 55 to 65 percent of total MSW generation. Waste from commercial and institutional locations, such as schools, hospitals, and businesses, amounted to 35 to 45 percent."
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw2009-fs...
See also what screwt writes: the rubble, for example, is not the kind of waste that has an environmental impact of the household waste (e.g. batteries with toxic materials etc). The important thing is environmental impact, not the absolute weight of the waste. I agree however that EPA seems to be too silent about the waste produced by factories.
Of all the daily garbage we seperate out: paper carton organic stuff (compost) batteries cans Plastic bottle glas
Edit: Most buissnesses do this too.
If we're talking about waste produced in the US? Probably not a ton. There is a lot of high-tech manufacturing in the US but it's generally industrial components (airplanes, solar cells) that companies keep around until they no longer work. There's not much in the way of consumer electronics manufactured in the US.
Now if you want to talk worldwide...
What I hate about recycling is that it's so much less effective than the other r's: reducing and reusing. I wish the focus was much more on those two; think of the impact possible if consumers just demanded less packaging, for example.
The important question is whether the impact of recycling the waste you create is a net gain or loss, after you take into account all the work needed to do the recycling. From an energy perspective, most recycling is a massive saver of energy [1], but that doesn't mean it's economical. England, for example, imports a lot of glass, but does very little glass manufacturing. Recycling glass there is probably not a valuable service, but that says nothing about its value where you live (unless you happen to live in England).
Waste stream sorting technology is still developing; I wouldn't be surprised if that reduces costs in the future such that sorting waste in your house isn't worth it-- you'll just dump everything in the bin and let robots pick out the valuable stuff later.
[1]: http://www.economist.com/node/9249262 (Money quote: "Recycling aluminium, for example, can reduce energy consumption by as much as 95%. Savings for other materials are lower but still substantial: about 70% for plastics, 60% for steel, 40% for paper and 30% for glass.")
In tech, we call it premature optimisation.
This is why unbiased figures are important. It's all relative. Why should everybody in my country have multiple bins picked up at different dates and have to separate garbage manually only to have a second group of people sort through it, if the overall effect is so tiny?
Suppose recycling used more energy than it saved (which is the case for some materials e.g. low grade plastic waste in places with little plastic manufacturing). Then, even if that waste were most of the waste stream, getting people to recycle would not be essential-- it would actually create more waste, something to avoid.
My claim is that as long as recycling is a net gain, after you count all the costs, it doesn't matter what percentage of the total waste stream it is.
Note that I'm not saying that industry shouldn't also recycle. I suspect that the potential gains there are even larger, but that's not an argument against household recycling, given that the tasks are executed by different people in parallel.
Then you are ignoring the very existence of opportunity cost.
sort of broad strokes, but jon a global scale, human created by-products are bad. Reducing consumption, re-using, re-cycling, in the true sense are all great things to do - but OPs point, as i read it, is more abou the last part than the rant at the beginning. If we dont want people going after our internet in the long run, we need to make the people who tried to screw it up change their perspective. corporations will not support political support if it obviosly costs them painfully, much worse than whatever money they spent lobbying plus what they thought they were protecting against. politicians can be ousted.
money makes the world go around, and while lobbyits throw. money at politicians for their election campaigns, in the end its the people who elect them who really matter. that money is used to convince people to elect them...... so if enough people start telling their local reps, very clearly, that they are DONE in office unless they change stance on an issue, and also that they will gain a vote if they DO change their stance, money means a lot less. If the majority of your constituents love you, and you are sure of it, you dont need nearly as much capital to stay in office.
the clear message should be "hands off the internet. totally. let it grow. its revolutionary for the human race and in its infancy, and it only works because people agreed to follow a set of standards that allowed it to come into being, it was not planned. it is a collection of networks, and it can, and will, let its users find a way around any censorship. i dont condone piracy, but the internet, and the ease of moving data around are only going to get better and better. hollywood and industries who IP laws to protect them are not inherently bad, they just have a big change in how things work in frint of them. I am sure hollywood can figure out how to continue making movies even though they can be copied globally in seconds.... because people still want new movies. there is still a market. music industry, book industry, same deal.
know when you get tempted to pirate a book? when there is no kindle edition, at the author or publishers choice. i want a digital version. i want instant delivery, and i am willing to pay for that..... its real ly simple.
It's not wrong. There are two different answers: what's best for the individual and what's best for society/collective/etc are not the same thing. This is why legislation and reduction of barriers (like single stream recycling) are necessary.
This argument alone is enough to justify residential recycling programs, they do help the local environment (the environment most would regard as most important to themselves) and waste reduction comes close to paying for itself in saved municipal costs (which would be reflected in local taxes). In places where energy costs are high and land very valuable recycling makes economic sense without any concern for the environment.
For instance, in this particular article, Maddox claims that we need a "spark to light the lazy tinder". There is here an implicated false dichotomy where either some draconian legislation passes, e.g. SOPA, and everyone "wakes up" or no other efforts will prove progressive. I don't buy it. In fact, I don't buy any argument that makes the claim that due to the current state of political economy we are unable to see the kinds of changes we want without total and complete revolution. I feel it's absurd to dismiss efforts such as yesterday's which net results that include some 13 new senators opposing the bills.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/2pv/intellectual_hipsters_and_metaco...
BTW. The same could be said about DMCA, when it was passing. It just made everyone used to even more abuse.
Bingo.
Stopping legislation before it gets passed is the way to go. It's extremely difficult to get laws rescinded or overridden.
And what would make anyone think a few websites getting taken down by the Feds would cause some sort of massive street protest? Our government has done some awful things in the last ten years involving war, torture and civil liberties and most people couldn't care less. Even when there were massive protests over Iraq, they were ignored.
Tongue in cheek, I think there is another alternative: the tech industry could simply buy the movie companies. Some of them are certainly sitting on enough cash.
If by contributing more money to a congressman you can affect the outcome of legislation/laws made in a country, doesnt that mean there is something wrong with the system that resulted in such a situation ? Shouldn't that be addressed and solved first?
Why don't http://rootstrikers.org/ and Laurence Lessig get brought up in these discussions more?
As much of an asshole as he is, I've always respected the guy for his shocking lack of hypocrisy.
If movie producers had the decency to make this kind of public stand, things might be different.
The word "piracy" is unfortunate, mixing up Hollywood's complaints about bit-for-bit originals being available, and, for example, Chanel's complaint about fake Chanel being manufactured and sold "mail-order" online through offshore commerce sites.
Chanel and the like do need (but already have) protection by the law against counterfeit sales. They don't have a right to be protected for legacy distribution models. For example, Chanel shouldn't have a right to a law that says since existing Chanel stores only ship UPS Ground, any store shipping FedEx Overnight should be taken offline.
A bill for "Stop Counterfeiting" would be better focused on the actual problem, instead of stigmatizing the medium or channel ("online").
I totally agree with him. It's like the bugs get fixed, shitty lasts forever. Most of the time fixing a bug means getting tot the root of the problem.
But, yes, Americans, you desperately need to fix your money-in-politics problem. That's the underlying issue for all this shit.
Although today's current communication means help spread the word to some extent but unfortunately most are filtering the real issues. Although internet gave a bit of hope that these filters could be subverted but legislations like SOPA, which I believe many look a likes will follow, unfortunately will smother free speech (take the most broader possible definition) eventually. Countries under dictatorships easily squash it but in "free" world it is censored by ignoring it. Why and how? Concentration of wealth to a few. I don't blame them because it is nature of things, they seek perpetuating their rule.
You can argue on some fact stated in the article, however it is irrelevant. The gist of this article is that the lack of inaction, conformism, and individualism cost societies a lot. 5K+ US soldiers, 1M+ iraqi citizens died for a bomb that did not exist (that is how they sold the war to you and then they mocked about it). How could this have happened in a "free" and "democratic" society. Anyone care to explain? How could a moron like George Bush could be elected in the first place in a country like US anyway?
I am sorry but he is right, as long as we are who we are SOPA, PIPA and other legislations with alphabet soup names will follow and tire you.
Anything else will do pretty much nothing. In two years get someone else unelected.
Diane Feinstein would be a perfect target, she represents the valley, has been in the Senate forever, and won the last election by a HUGE margin. If you could get her unelected you would put everyone else on notice.
The reality of the situation is that this won't happen. There is no permanent solution because everything is triangulated and marketed so well that it's virtually impossible to change it. People pass this legislation because no one cares and whatever negative ads get run during the 30 days before the election matter far more than anything else and quite frankly most people will be more upset about THEIR pet issue than YOUR pet issue.
If you could get Google or Wikipedia, etc to focus solely on getting ONE person unelected then it would show clout. But they won't because it would cause such a shitstorm of unimaginable proportions because 1/3 of their user base votes for her party no matter what they do, and 1/3 dislikes both parties and something about keeping politics free from corporate influence, which is something both parties agree on unless that influence comes in the form of campaign contributions, PACs, lobbyists, etc.
You've got a political system in which no one cares about habeas corpus. If they don't care about that then they aren't going to give a shit about dismantling the internet. Bread and circuses my friend.
Perhaps a better and more sustainable solution would to galvanize this energy around SOPA into a culture of activism. After calling our senators and representatives, we should move on to talking the media and call them out when they broadcast misleading statements from the MPAA/RIAA (like the oft-cited $770 billion(!) lost to piracy every year). This would help us build a base.
Also, this fatalist attitude of things doing nothing is a) wrong and b) just gives you an excuse to give up.
For example, remember the anti-war protests during 2003? Those were the LARGEST PROTESTS IN HISTORY. Yet they did not to stop the war. Luckily, everyone did not adopt the attitude of "protests do nothing, we need to do X". And those who did adopt the "protests do nothing, we need to do X" attitude were proved wrong yesterday.
We did something yesterday. While it did not go as far a some people hoped, we did do something. And that is a victory we can build on.
Wikipedia could be non-partisan and not endorse a particular candidate and still do a whole tonne of damage to Diane Feinstein's run for the Senate.
Opposing her election would have nothing to do with which party she's affiliated with and everything to do with her support for SOPA which you already oppose. You wouldn't even have to endorse a candidate just run a huge banner ad repeating a statement damaging to Diane Feinstein's candidacy.
Maybe something like a big picture of a burning american flag a picture of Feinstein and the words "Diane Feinstein hates free speech." Turn it into a speech issue and get the ACLU to make a BFD out of it via Streisand effect as she tries to sue wikipedia for violation of CFR rules. Then the next week run an image saying "Diane Feinstein thinks wikipedia should be shut down". Then go edit her page and put all the horrible factual things she's doing to wikipedia via the lawsuit.
Maybe election season could be the new donate to wikipedia season.
I'm not saying that it's particularly good idea for wikipedia as an org. just that if there was the desire to send a message to politicians that it could be done.
But it won't because of the aforementioned shitstorm it would cause. If people took on a little more of a scorched earth policy they could get a lot more done.
Preferably, though, a more complete restructuring of the legislative system that more tightly constricts what an individual bill can do (so nothing can be "tacked on" to anything else), requires that bills expire and must be re-evaluated after some period, and perhaps enables something equivalent to the "double-jeapordy" condition of the judicial system, where once a bill has been rejected for containing particular offensive clauses, no bill may then be introduced from then on if it contains those clauses or anything which would be equivalent in effect to them.
When SOPA came up in discussion recently amongst a few folks I was talking to, as soon as they heard the full spoken name of the bill - 'Stop Online Piracy Act' - they began to put their support behind it. That's how quickly and easily opinions can be formed - it took some calm and open discussion before they began to even consider it as a potential gray area.
"You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird. So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing — that's what counts. I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something." — Richard Feynman
I guess the effect you're describing could've been multiplied if SOPA had been a backronym too. "USA PATRIOT Act? How could that be bad! Just look at its name!"
The real solution is to tackle the lobbying and campaign finance issues, and all of these other issues will improve.
So—following instead on the judicial branch's nice example of bottom-up democratic decision making—why not just take 12 random folks, put them in a room, introduce the bill, bring out those in favour to make their points, and then—this is important—bring out a true devil's advocate to make the strongest possible case against the bill—and then have the jury vote on whether to pass it on? The worst thing that could happen is that the legal process would bog down greatly, because of all the bills suddenly not getting passed.
(Also, I don't think there's a real way to stop lobbying in spirit. Perhaps in whatever its current form is, yes, but there will always be new ways for corporations to make someone's life happier and more comfortable in exchange for undue political consideration. Unless we can remove the incentive corporations have to do this—by restructuring the legislative system itself—they will continue to apply all their ingenuity to the "problem" of making law that most greatly benefits them. And they will keep getting away with it, because the devices built into humans that we use to punish one-another for these sorts of social norm violations—shaming, group-exile, and the like—don't apply to corporate entities, which can split, merge, rename, dissolve and recreate at will, without a single actual employee having to move office. "Blackwater" is a shunned name, now, but hardly anyone has an opinion about "XE"... but oh, wait, it's called "Academi" now—I hadn't even heard!)
Think about it, throughout history when a sufficiently powerful or profitable medium of information exchange has arisen (think radio, television, phones, mail), the govt. at the behest of rich corporations has legislated it. Every single time!
Laws are first passed to "curb criminal elements", which is what we are seeing now, then a few years down the road laws will be passed to allow the activity with prescribed limits...imagine Internet permits. Then, finally, tax money will subsidize the actual sell of the medium to large corporations to dole out in prescribed amounts to the public...for a fee.
This is how it is and how it will be.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1AK56FtVc
However, the article suggests that if some terrible legislation passed it would ignite people into real action. That clearly failed to happen when the Patriot Act was passed. I'm sure there are many more examples. If the discourse surrounding legislation convinces enough people not to care (or fails to make it into wider public awareness), then there doesn't seem to be much standing in its way.
Its nothing but building protectionist markets, the same ones most western nations have been fighting for the last hundred years because they entrap people, prevent competition, cause monopolies, and abuse customers. Its against the free markets, which (problems of market abuse aside) is getting money into developing economies and helping people. Its a great step backwards world economics and trade.
So hit them where it hurts, they are obviously scared of the new markets enough to try and outlaw them. Take 30 minutes out of your day to write a letter to a company and explain to them you are disgusted, they have lost a customer, and you will from now on buy counterfeit goods instead of theirs.
I will be doing my part by downloading all the mp3s I want, I'll go see the shows in person to make sure the artists get there dues, and I'll wait to see these middle men slowly fade... but I'm sure we are only about to see fireworks start, theres going to be some big noise as some of these guys go down.
So the behaviour is expected, the real problem is the political system and the legalised corrupt behaviour.
Maddox is correct, things are going to have to get worse. You need massive public anger to change what is essentially a few tiny aspects of how politicians deal with lobbyist, they are just gaming the system, they don't care if laws pass or don't as they get money either way, tonnes of it. The more ridiculous the law, the more money the get to push it. Tackle that issue and you'll liberate the whole country.
So you need to get people mad, how you do that is up to you guys as I don't live in America, I just watch from the side lines shaking my head.
It would be to slow to do everything in Congress (that's why they have the subcommittees), but they could prepare the legislation in a much more transparent member. The members wouldn't like it, but that's their problem.
You could also require that bills are only valid if they are well described by their titles. So, you couldn't call stuff "Stop Online Piracy Act" unless you were willing to have in knocked down in the Supreme Court for having a silly name.
Sounds difficult? Maybe. I did this, I stopped watching TV in 1999, going to the movies in 2001 and listening to music in 2006. The content I would have wanted wasn't (and still isn't) available at a price and terms that I could accept, so I don't want it. Not that I paid for the media I consumed, I pirated most of the stuff. But I don't want to be a part of the piracy statistics to give excuses for killing the internet.
I still enjoy music, though. Maybe even more now that I'm not constantly listening to it so the rare occasion when I do hear music, it sounds better. I do allow myself exceptions every now and then but most of the time I don't consume MAFIAA products or feel like I'm missing anything.
So the big question is: what have you done on both fronts? Yes, anti-SOPA blackouts for the day are not effective, at least not as a standalone thing. But have you donated to the EFF? If you work for a computer/internet company, have you urged them to set up a PAC to try to influence legislation in Washington in the correct direction? And then have you donated to that PAC? I've personally donated to both the EFF and Google NetPAC. If you haven't done these things yet, today, the day after the anti-SOPA protests, is a great day to start.
By the way, if you think fighting SOPA is hard, just do a bit of research how much money big pharma could pour into defending the patent system as it exists today. If we all aren't pushing to make sure there are lobbyists working just as hard to influence legislators in the other direction, patent reform doesn't have a prayer.
Boycott lists, like averages without variance figures, are borderline useless. You need the other part (alternative) to make the boycott list actionable.
What about an app entirely dedicated to organizing boycotts? Users would suggest and vote on issues and companies to boycott. The end result would be detailed guides on which products/service to avoid along with alternatives. The site would only highlight one issue at a time to maximize the effect.
I've been toying with the idea for a while (there are plenty of sites/apps built around single issues, but I've only found one site that does what I've described... though poorly implemented: http://www.boycottowl.com/ ).
I hate to break it to Maddox, but the current situation is nothing new. I think our founding fathers would smile to see what is happening around SOPA, because it's exactly what they designed our system of government for. We have to remain ever vigilant to protect our freedoms from whoever wants to take them. Because if we don't, our freedoms will be taken away.
I can't remember the list off the top of my head and I do want to make an effort not to buy anything from them ever again. I suspect many other people are the same, which reduces the effectiveness of the boycott.
Dennis A. Ross (R-FL) Lee Terry (R-NE)
http://www.petzl.com/us/outdoor/news-2/2011/12/22/petzl-amer...
256,026,015 people think stopping SOPA will change anything.
It's an arbitrary number he put up to make a point.
Are we supposed to believe he has had 256,056,823 (current value) visitors to his one-day-up SOPA page?
Or is it the aggregate for total visits to his site, ever?
Of course, he could just randomly increment the value using a script, but Maddox has been around a long time (I've been reading his site on and off for around 10 years) so I doubt he has need to.
It's not productive to discriminate against someone simply because he is known to publish controversial stuff.
ps: I submitted this and I'm not a reddit user ;)
Here's an old classic where he's judge art work done by other kids on the internet; http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=irule
Random hate mail; http://maddox.xmission.com/hatemail.cgi?p=1
He first explains how protests are meaningless, because not enough people do them, and then proposes.... protest, by boycotting almost everything.
He's talking about protests like "changing my profile picture".
> because not enough people do them
I don't remember him saying that.
> boycotting almost everything.
He proposes boycotting a few companies, and gives a list of possibilities.
He's right.
1) Americans want to "protest" by doing things that don't cost them their comfort.
2) We are (successfully) protesting SOPA/PIPA, but the real problem is not the legislation. The problem is how the legislation got created (companies lobbying Congress, and Congressmen acting solely in those companies best interest).
3) In light of 1) and 2), we should use what power we do have as consumers and voters to prevent such legislation from being created again.
While we can debate the merits and effectiveness of boycotts, or voting, let's try not to strawman the article.