Viruses use bits, too
I just read a short post, titled “Dangerous Online Liaisons,” at Hands off the Internet. In it, the author makes an important, and funny, point that net neutrality advocates won’t address. The sentence highlighted below (emphasis mine) literally made me laugh-out-loud:
Second, this article illustrates yet again the need for packet management on the network. To be blunt, when DOS, spear phishing or polymorphic virus attacks are unleashed, a bit is definitely not a bit on the network – no matter how frequently or earnestly the net neutrality proponents make that argument.
Net neutrality advocates can talk all day about how “fair” to force ISPs to treat all bits “equally,” but what about the bits that we definitely want to stop? Is “discrimination” still bad if it is being used to blunt the effects of computer attacks? Not only will net neutrality prevent ISPs from managing their networks in a way that provide the best service for their customers, it will also prevent ISPs from taking steps that might help to prevent the effects of computer attacks.
Tags: [net neutrality]Vick
I read an interesting post from Myrhaf, titled “Free Michael Vick.” I agree with most of what he wrote. Dog-fighting is a cruel, horrible, despicable act that is worth totally shunning anybody who does it. However, it’s not an act that violates anybody’s rights, and as such it is not an act that the government should prosecute. He wrote:
It comes down to property rights. If a person owns an animal, then he should have the right to dispose of his property as he wishes. Property rights are absolute; a free and just state should go out of its way not to violate them in any way. It should go so far to protect property rights that it errs on the side of going too far, if such is possible.
Men do not have property rights if they do not have the right to be immoral, stupid, unfair, whimsical and disgusting with their property. A proper government exists only to protect and defend individual rights, not to make sure people are fair, moral and intelligent. This is hard for many to accept in our age when the government routinely violates property rights in countless ways. This absolute, laissez-faire conception of rights is currently theoretical and unconnected to the reality of our mixed economy. It is, as Ayn Rand called capitalism, the unknown ideal.
Often when issues like these that involve government action come up, I think that that a lot of people approach the issue backwards. If the question is whether the government should do something, like send Michael Vick to jail for dog-fighting, I think the first step should be to define the proper role of government and then apply that definition to the question. What could be more important in determining whether government action is proper than to identify what a government should do at all? Instead of doing this, people take it for granted that the government should stop things that are “bad” and then only debate just how bad the action is. This turns the question “What should the government do with dog-fighters?” into “How bad is dog-fighting?” And since dog-fighting is incredibly bad, it’s easy for most people to just declare that it should be illegal.
I think it’s easy to see this approach applied in other issues. For example, take smoking bans in private restaurants. Instead of debating whether people should be free to congregate and work with others on terms they set themselves or whether people should be free to decide what is done on their own property without government coercion, a lot of people twist the debate into “How bad is second-hand smoking?” Or take socialized health care. Instead of debating whether the government is acting within its proper bounds to tell doctors what they can do and what they can charge, to tell patients what doctors they may see and when, and to tell all taxpayers that they have to pay for everybody’s health care, a lot of people twist the debate into “How bad is it that some people don’t have health insurance?” I could go on and on with issues like public education, Social Security, farm subsidies, mortgage lending, drug patents, relief efforts for catastrophes like Katrina, or even the current internet royalty rate. The proper way to approach these issues is to define the proper role of government (which is to protect individual rights) and then apply it. When I apply that to Vick’s case, I cannot see how his actions - no matter how reprehensible they are - violated another individual’s rights.
Tags: [dog fighting, vick]Back online
As of 7:43 this morning, I finally have internet access turned on in the new house. I don’t have time to write much else, it’s time for work!
Tags: [No Tags]Still offline…
Like I feared, AT&T was not ready to hook up my internet on Monday like I had hoped. Now the big turn-on date is Thursday, but I still wouldn’t be surprised if it it moved back to next Monday. And no, it won’t be ready in time for tonight’s big fantasy football draft. I’ll have to start my defense of last year’s championship already facing some adversity! The name of this year’s team: Wyatt’s Torch.
The rest of the move into the house went pretty well. Here are some quick moving-in tips that I learned this past weekend.
1.) Wet paint looks different than dry paint. Before we moved in, Ashley and I decided to paint the bedroom a different color. I’ve never painted before and I was too impatient to get instructions, so I just bought the paint and the starter kit and went at it. I tried to paint one wall, but I could never get the wall to stay the same consistent color. In frustration, I gave up and moved to another wall. I made sure that I didn’t paint an extra stroke anywhere, but the wall still wouldn’t stay the same color. I was getting very frustrated, but when I turned around and saw the first wall I painted I felt ok. You’re supposed to let paint dry!
2.) Make sure your television fits in your entertainment center before you buy it. Do I need to tell the story?
I was able to make it fit, eventually. I just had to go back a few steps in the assembly process, put the television in, and then rebuild the entertainment center around the television. It is a very tight fit, but at least it’s secure.
Tags: [moving]Going offline…
After I click “Publish” on this post, I’m tearing down the computers and the cable modem and going offline. Tomorrow Ashley and I will take possession of our first house, and we’ll be busy all weekend getting moved in. We’re supposed to have the internet turned on Monday, but I won’t be surprised if it takes longer. Just so long as they get it hooked up in time for next week’s company fantasy football draft. 
Goodbye, Vitalist
For the past few weeks I’ve been telling everybody I know about the benefits of GTD and my favorite GTD application, Vitalist. I’ve seen a big improvement in my productivity and (most importantly) my stress levels. Now that I’ve organized much of my personal and professional life into todo’s in Vitalist projects, the “Ok, what am I forgetting to do right now” question doesn’t enter my mind. I owe thanks to David Allen for creating a method like GTD that makes it so easy to organize my life, and I owe a HUGE thanks to the people at Vitalist for creating what I think is the best GTD software application. To be honest, most of what I know is what I’ve learned from using Vitalist.
So, it is with sadness that I have to stop my Vitalist crusade. Today, it was announced on the Vitalist blog that the free service they offer would be downgraded. You can still use it for free, but you will be limited to 5 projects and 5 contexts. For $5 a month you can get that limit moved up to 25 projects contexts, and for $10 a month you can have unlimited projects.
Personally, with the way I use Vitalist I would have to get the $10 service. The projects are everything for me. I use projects to distinguish different goals I have. For example, I have a “Maintain my home” project with a “Handle finances” sub-project and a “Clean the house” sub-project. I have an overall “Work” project and many sub-projects to keep different clients separate. And I have a “New Home” project with sub-projects like “Purchase home,” “Furnish new home,” “Move in to house,” and “Close old lease.” I then assign all of the todos in my life to one of those projects. It’s so simple, but it has made living my life so much easier. And this is just the project aspect of GTD! I won’t get into contexts and how they allow me to organize everything even further.
If I have to start thinking about how many contexts and projects I have remaining in my account, I’ll lose some of the mind-clearing benefits the GTD is supposed to give me. I simply don’t want to waste brain-cycles thinking about such things.
Don’t get me wrong, I think the Vitalist software is great and they are perfectly within their rights to charge people for their services. However, I’d prefer to purchase a product like Vitalist instead of pay for it as a service. Ten dollars is not much a month, but over a year or two it adds up. Maybe I’m cheap, but I’d prefer to pay a one-time amount and not have to think about small drip coming out of my bank account. Once I find a better GTD service I’ll pack up my todo list and move.
But how am I going to find an online application that works as great as Vitalist when none exist? Well, I’ve decided that I’m going to create one. I know AJAX, DHTML effects, and Javascript, and I build websites for a living. Normally it is hard for me to find the motivation to give up my free time to code when I already code most of my day, but seeing how great GTD and Vitalist are is enough motivation to get me to do it. My program won’t have the services I don’t use, such as the RSS feed, files, etc., but it will have the basic services with the same Google-type of layout. And it will have some features that I want but don’t get with Vitalist, like sharing with other users.
Until I get my own application to replace Vitalist finished, I’ll probably pay the $10. That will give me even more motivation!
This won’t be something that competes with Vitalist, and I’ll probably just keep it to myself and only offer it to friends and family. Or maybe not, I don’t know. I tried writing a software-developer’s blog with a project I tried earlier this year but I lost interest in the project. I already know that this one project will be different. We’ll see.
Tags: [gtd, vitalist]Gmail lacking in storage space?
I just read an article that pointed out that out of the four big email providers, Google’s Gmail now offers the least amount of storage. This is interesting because just a few years ago when most providers were offering between only 2 MB to 10 MB, Gmail jumped on the scene by offering 1 GB of storage. That made the storage for other email services look pretty pathetic, so they had to step up their game. Now that Microsoft has announced that they’re bumping their storage up to 5 GBs, now Google is the one that’s behind everybody else.
This reminds me of one of longer-lasting benefits of great ideas and products under capitalism. Not only do you get the short-term benefits of that idea or product, but you’re also going to get the benefits of all of the competing products that will come about by those who are trying to compete. Google’s idea to offer such a vast amount of storage pushed everyone to offer the same within a few years. Now what’s going to happen when Google fights back? Whatever they do, we’re going to receive the benefits. Competition is good.
Tags: [capitalism, gmail, google]Pearl Jam and Censorship
Last week, Pearl Jam announced that AT&T had edited a portion of their Lollapalooza webcast. During the performance, the lead singer made some harmless statements against George Bush. AT&T admitted they did so, but it was a mistake. Many people don’t agree with them, and it renewed some calls for… net neutrality?
Net neutrality is the idea that the government should mandate that internet service providers must treat all data bits over their network equally. Email bits must be treated the same as video bits, the same as gaming bits, etc. Not only is this a poor way to administer a computer network (different data formats, like video, have heavier demands than others), it ignores the private property rights of the individuals who own the computer network. If you own computers or a computer network, you should have the right to control what is done with your property — even if you allow other people to use your property access the internet.
What is the relation between AT&T’s edits of Pearl Jam’s performance and the government regulation of ISPs? Well, net neutrality advocates are using this as an example of why we can’t trust big telecoms to administer their networks in a way that best serves the “public interest.” Big telecom companies like AT&T have a duty to provide individuals with free and open access, and when they edited Pearl Jam’s song lyrics they demonstrated the fact that they can and will edit content according to their own standards. That, according to net neutrality advocates, is censorship and a violation of their rights, especially their free speech rights. AT&T is not acting responsibly, so the government should step in and mandate how they run their business. And the first step should be to control how they handle network traffic.
The missing context in their complaint is the fact that the so-called “censorship” Pearl Jam faced was a private organization that did not want to play their lyrics
And, like any person or organization who exercises his or her own rights, AT&T will have suffer the consequences of their actions. The news release from Pearl Jam offered an appropriate quote from Edward Whitacre, former CEO of AT&T:
Any provider that blocks access to content is inviting customers to find another provider.
If you are a Lollapalooza organizer and you don’t like the fact that AT&T edited the performances of your bands, are you going to go with AT&T the next time you need a company to broadcast your event online? Not likely.
Anyone who wants to protect the right to free speech should be against net neutrality. Net neutrality attacks one of the essential requirements for free speech: private property. The right to free speech can’t stand up for long without the right to private property. If you want to write something, you have to be allowed to own pen and paper. If you want to write something on the internet, you have to be able to own a computer. And if you want to proclaim your views to the world, you need to be able to own a soapbox to stand on. Net neutrality attacks the concept of private property by demanding that the government strip telecom companies of their right to control their own computer networks. Yes, it will take more government regulation than net neutrality to affect our right to free speech over the internet, but net neutrality advocates have no problem with that. Net neutrality, by itself, won’t bring about the cheap, fast, and easily accessible internet that net neutrality advocates claim to want. Their recent calls for government action in relation to the spectrum that television companies is proof of that.
Finally, I have to respectfully disagree with the guys over at Hands off the Internet when they say that this situation has nothing to do with net neutrality. Net neutrality advocates want others to believe that government intervention is necessary for the internet to work, and cases like this one provide them with ammunition. Also, the best argument against what Pearl Jam and its supporters is the same argument that should be used against net neutrality: People should be free to own and control their own property.
Tags: [net neutrality, pearl jam]More OBloggers
I created an OBlogger blog list some time ago, but I never got around to adding the last few introductions made after I created my list. My apologizes to everybody I missed and the people I’m still missing. I just added the following to my blog list:
Kim’s Playplace
The Night Watchman
Software Nerd
Haight Speech
Erosophia
Mike’s Eyes
I don’t know if they are all members of the Hsieh’s OBlogger list, but they all seem to be rational people if not outright Objectivists. Add them to your RSS reader!
Tags: [oblogger]Cline on Clinton
I just read an outstanding article written by Edward Cline titled “Hillary Clinton’s Uncle Ellsworth. In his post, he shows the similarities in the relationship between Saul David Alinsky and Hillary clinton and the relationship between Ellsworth Toohey and Catherine Halsey in The Fountainhead. This post of his really is a must read.
Compare that with Hillary’s quest for the meaning of her life in her letters to Peavoy. One letter to him she signs “Me,” parenthetically adding “the world’s saddest word.” That one brief signature can stand to represent the self-deprecatory remarks in all her other letters discussed by the Times. I do not think Hillary suffered from a crisis of self-respect, as Catherine Halsey did; I do not think she ever had a self to respect. She would have agreed with everything Toohey told Catherine, without Toohey having to exert much effort to convince her or having to resort to vicious put-downs.
It takes a village, or a Toohey, or an Alinsky, to fill such a void. This is a candidate for the Presidency of the United States. Hillary has progressed from doubting the effectiveness of massive government programs to help the poor to seeing them as the only answer, in the name of “social justice.” Like Alinsky, like Toohey, she wishes to crush the individualist independence of Americans and replace it with dependence on the state – and she would be the state – chiefly because she has grown to fear and hate independence in anyone.
I love the first comment on this post, in which “Mike” responded “See, this is why I read this blog.” If you don’t have Rule of Reason on your blog reader, you must add it. Here is the current link to their RSS feed.
Tags: [clinton, fountainhead, rule of reason]